PBS Frontline - The Choice 2008

This is a post I've been chewing on, thinking about how to address, for quite some time. On 14 October, our local PBS station aired the Frontline documentary, The Choice 2008. I mentioned back in early October, when the show was first advertised, that I eagerly anticipated watching the documentary. My wife and I caught the last Frontline documentary in 2004, and it really helped us to make up our minds for whom to vote on the night before the election. Strange, perhaps, but true. Being undecided this year about whom to vote meant we wanted to see the documentary to see if the same would be true this year as well.

Unfortunately, that was not the case. We are both still undecided, and with election day just around the corner, I'm not entirely sure what will sway us at this late date. The problem certainly was not with the Frontline documentary crews, who created an excellent two-hour piece that was as informative as we expected it to be. If you haven't yet seen the documentary, I highly encourage everyone to watch it. The link above allows you to watch the video of the show, either in snippets or in its entirety. The quality of the production certainly was not the issue.

To me, the real problem comes down to simple dissatisfaction with the two candidates. Let me talk about John McCain first, since McCain was the one politician I really wanted to vote for in 2000. Eight years ago, McCain was younger, more energetic, more willing to take on the entrenched special interests on the far right, and more of a campaign finance reform maverick. The Choice captured all of that, and then showed how that version of McCain was destroyed in the 2000 South Carolina primary by Karl Rove and the Bush campaign.

Sadly, that defeat in South Carolina transformed McCain into something of a shadow of his former self, something that the Candorville daily comic strip has captured over the past few weeks. The Choice detailed the concessions McCain had to make to become palatable, and thereby electable, to the right-wing base of the Republican party. McCain still wants to be the maverick who castigates members of his own party, and who effectively reaches across the aisle to work on and pass legislation that is important to the future of this country, but the sad fact is that McCain had to bow on bended knee to the right-wing evangelicals who supported George W. Bush if he ever wanted to reach the Presidency. It's sad, sad, sad. I still like McCain as a war veteran and as a person I would trust to do the right thing for the sake of America, but he is no longer the politician he was in 2000.

Which brings me to Obama. The Choice had plenty to say about Obama's background and how he burst onto the national scene by delivering the keynote address at the 2004 DNC, which was the first time most Americans (myself included) heard his name. Living in Illinois since 2005, I've personally seen Obama's influence on local and state politics, and he certainly is an incredibly smart and effective politician. There can be no doubt about that. As much as Obama preaches the mantra of creating a unified political landscape (and his 2004 DNC speech was nothing more than his regular election stump speech, Frontline said), he is cagey, crafty, and not averse to doing whatever it takes to get himself elected. He is a fighter, and if people don't recognize that in him, it is only because his personality and charisma are so overpowering.

What I found most interesting about Obama's history, and The Choice primarily focused on his adult life post-graduation from Columbia University, is that he is primarily driven by the pursuit of power. That's the only conclusion I could draw from everything I've seen. When Obama decided to run for the office of President of the Harvard Law Review, it was not because he wanted to pursue an agenda to improve the study of law, or even to alleviate the strife between the conservatives and liberals that engulfed Harvard during his time there. Apparently, it was enough just to be the first African-American to hold the office.

When Obama decided to first run for the Illinois Senate in 1996, it was simply to gain the office of Illinois state Senator. The Choice did indicate just one reason for why Obama entered politics: he felt that he could not influence enough people working as a community organizer, the job he held before entering politics. He wants to have his hands on the levers of power. Why does Obama want to have as much influence as possible? The office of POTUS certainly would have the most influence, wouldn't it? Frontline seemed to indicate that Obama wants to help lift poor African-Americans out of poverty, and if you've ever been to the south side of Chicago, that is a laudable goal.

My next question, then, was what really is the best method of reaching people and helping them get out of poverty? Is it the New Deal version of helping people who had been tossed about by market forces beyond their control during the Great Depression? Is it the Great Society of entitlement programs and government-sponsored handouts propagated by LBJ Democrats? Or is the trickle-down economic ideal of Reagonomics the best way of helping people create value in their own communities and take ownership of their lives?

OK, so those three choices are incredibly simplified and each one carries its own baggage with political thinkers from either side of the aisle. What I really thought about was Earvin "Magic" Johnson. Yes, the brilliant basketball player who announced he was HIV-positive way back in 1991. Since his retirement from the NBA, Magic Johnson invested his own personal wealth, time and energy to create self-sustainable businesses in poverty-stricken predominately African-American communities across America. He took his social obligation to his fellow man, and instead of simply lending his name and likeness to a not-for-profit foundation, Magic understood the way of creating substantial change in these communities was to provide jobs, careers, paychecks, educational opportunities, and sustainable businesses. Investing in peoples' lives in this manner really creates the change that so much of America needs these days. He wrote a commentary along these lines for USA Today back in May, and it's well-worth the read.

Coming back to Obama, I know that he did not have the personal wealth of Magic Johnson when he decided to run for Illinois state Senator. I tend to think he's doing pretty well for himself these days, however. For as much grief as McCain has taken for marrying the daughter of a very successful beer distributor in Arizona, and for all the various real estate holdings of the McCain family, Barack and Michelle Obama also own numerous houses or condos. Not as many as the McCains, to be sure, but more than the average American family.

Ah, so who to vote for in two days? As I said before, I still trust McCain would do right for the country, no matter how unpopular a particular decision might be. If that meant touching the "third rail of politics" and creating fundamental change on Social Security and Medicare, I think McCain would find a way to work across the aisle and get it done. With Obama, I can understand why he wants to win the office of POTUS. I know lots of people who are driven to succeed, but their only goal is to be successful. Naked ambition and a desire for power is nothing new in America.

On the other hand, being the first African-American to hold the office would be pretty darn incredible. Obama has been that kind of trailblazer in the past, and he is comfortable in that role. But WHY does he really want to hold the office? Is it so he can engineer a massive redistribution of wealth, as the Republicans charge? Is it just so he can have the most influence possible, so he can drive the national discourse on the issues of race, poverty, and social entitlement programs? Is it just so he can bring U.S. troops home from Iraq?

For all the campaigning, I don't think I can answer that question about Obama. Neither McCain's campaign nor the MSM are helping to clarify these things, either. The MSM isn't really asking the questions of either candidate that would expose their underlying philosophies and explain to the American public why each wants the office of POTUS so badly. It's almost just understood that these two men want the office, and that we don't need to understand why. I'm a person who always wants to know why.

One last addendum, which is slightly off-topic: Living in the state of Illinois, I hate that we live in a very safe state for Obama. I would much rather live in a battleground state, even though that would mean being forced to see all the attack ads on TV ad nauseum. Why? My sister, mother, and brother all had the opportunity to see Obama live, in person, at various political rallies for the candidate. My sister even saw Bruce Springsteen play live on stage, before Obama took the stage. I've never seen the Boss once, and I'd love to see him play live! I'd love to meet McCain and his family, especially Meghan McCain, who has an absolutely wonderful blog that provides an unequalled behind-the-scenes look at the campaign. I would absolutely love to meet them in person! There is something to be said for being able to look a man in the eye, shake his hand, and hear him speak in person. In this election, I never got that chance.

Early Voting SNAFUs?!

As Election Day in America draws near, I'm really starting to hope that my previous prediction about Obama winning this election by a relatively large margin is correct. In just the past week, however, the polls show a tightening race in key battleground states, which makes me worry that we won't have a clear, decisive winner. I've told friends of mine that I see three potential outcomes in this Presidential election:

1) Obama could win in a Reagan-style electoral college landslide, not crushing McCain in the popular vote, but winning each state by just enough votes to turn the majority of the map Blue on Tuesday.
2) McCain could pull off a shocker on the magnitude of Dewey Defeats Truman (pictured below), and don't you believe for a second that the MSM won't be shouting from the rooftops that Obama won the election by 8 pm EST, long before all the results are in.

Or,

3) We could have another 50-50 split in the popular vote along the lines of the 2000 and 2004 elections, where each state becomes a battleground and perhaps the winner of the electoral college does not win the popular vote.




I'm really hoping that version number three does NOT come to pass on Tuesday, and here's why:

During the last two Presidential elections, when the popular vote was as close as it was (and with W. actually losing the popular vote in 2000 to Gore), the tightness of the vote caused people to charge the elections were stolen. There were the hanging chads in Florida in 2000 and charges of voter disenfranchisement, followed by legal challenges galore, which meant the election formally wasn't decided until the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in. I'm sure everyone remembers that result, and no one wants a return to 2000. Certainly, the Democrats will never let go of the idea that the 2000 election was stolen, which instantly reduced the legitimacy and authority of the Bush 43 Presidency by 50%.

Here's another reason why I don't want to see a very close vote: In my home state of Ohio, the Democrats have been very aggressive in getting people to vote early (if not often!) using the early voting procedures in that key battleground state. Ohio almost always plays a key role in determining the outcome in the electoral college, and this year should be no different. Here's the key problem with voting early in Ohio, however: As far as I can tell (no, I'm not going to read the Ohio voting regulations line by line to verify this, but numerous sources on the Internet seem to support this conclusion), early voting in Ohio is legally considered another version of absentee voting. In years past, Ohio required those voters wanting to cast early ballots to submit a reason why they could not vote on election day itself, like any other absentee voter must do. That law was changed in 2005, so now anyone can vote early, even without justification. But, the early vote cast STILL COUNTS AS AN ABSENTEE BALLOT!

Why is that so important, you ask? In most cases, absentee ballots are simply not counted after an election. I can't possibly provide statistics on this, but here's an illustrative example: If one candidate wins by 250,000 votes, and only 225,000 absentee ballots were cast, then there is no reason why election workers would open each absentee ballot and count them. They couldn't possibly change the result, even if each absentee ballot were cast for the losing candidate. Again, in most elections, absentee ballots are discarded after the regular ballots are counted. People still had the chance to vote, but their votes never get counted.

What I worry about with this election is that we will, once again, have a very tight electoral college race between Obama and McCain. If it really comes down to which candidate wins in Ohio and Florida (again!), then the status of those absentee ballots in Ohio could be very significant. I seem to remember absentee ballots in Florida submitted by U.S. military service members serving overseas being discarded after 2000 without ever being counted, according to the scenario I posed in the paragraph above. If a similar thing happens again this year, and all those Democrats who voted early in Ohio feel like their votes are not being counted, Hoo Boy! Watch Out!!!

You'll see cries of voter disenfranchisement, legal challenges, and people claiming the election is being stolen in Ohio that are orders of magnitude far greater than in 2000 and 2004!!!

The ironic part would be that the Democrats did it to themselves this year, actively encouraging thousands upon thousands of Obama supporters to vote early. My sister voted early and encouraged so many other Obama supporters to do likewise. If -- IF! -- the status of those absentee ballots turns out to be a key determinant in who wins the overall election, I don't think I want to hear the outcry.

Maybe I'll move to Canada.

Get the Popcorn Ready!

I mentioned this before: the one debate I'm eagerly anticipating is this Thursday's Vice Presidential candidate debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. If I can figure out how to include a countdown clock widget in this post, I'll put it here:



If you saw the first Presidential debate aired last Friday, 26 Sept, you'll know that neither candidate seemed to move the needle much. After the debate was over, Obama apparently picked up some additional support among independents, but by and large (a term I think most people forgot about before this summer's Pixar movie, Wall-E), the people who already support McCain still support McCain, and the people supporting Obama still support Obama. The debate itself was curious on several levels, though.

I thought it interesting that Obama and McCain actually mimicked each other's policy stances on a wide variety of questions, from the inclusion of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO to failing to clearly state where they would cut back on future spending. Neither candidate wanted to play with the hot potato of the $700B bailout package, and yesterday's NO vote showed why. Both candidates want to shake up the cozy Washington Insider environment between lobbyists and lawmakers. Both candidates even tried sliming the other with comparisons to W, at which point Obama laughed out loud when McCain tried to make the case.

It could be that the crowd control rules in place there in Oxford, MS (the audience did a very good job of not rooting for their man, not clapping, applauding, or even laughing at the jokes) prevented the sound bites from delivering a bigger impact on the stage. Both candidates certainly tried hitting their notes, but without a laugh track to confirm a witty rejoinder, it must have seemed like a stand-up comedian in a morgue. Can you imagine Ronny Reagan delivering his "Well, there you go again..." line to Mondale in 1984 to complete silence? I didn't think so.

One of the biggest problems with that debate (and with any future debate between Obama and McCain, for that matter) is that each man can be tarred and feathered with his past votes in the Senate. This is the problem of having all your government service experience in a legislative body instead of in the executive branch. The way legislation is crafted these days, there are typically so many riders and amendments attached to any given bill, there are very strong reasons why a Congressperson would vote against it. In order to vote for any bill, I'm sure they have to hold their noses and accept the bad with the good. So, McCain can claim Obama voted down financial support for the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama can claim McCain supported the Bush tax cuts. The bigger picture, that there are many good reasons why each man voted the way he did at the time, gets lost in the debate.

The reverse case in point: Ron Paul always used this quirk of the legislative process to his own advantage. He faithfully received earmark requests from his home district, made sure those earmarks were included in whatever omnibus spending bill was going to be voted on, and then always voted against the bill to keep from sullying his anti-earmark message. He literally had his cake and ate it, too. He could rightfully claim he always voted against wasteful government spending, knowing full well that enough other votes would still pass the bill, directly benefiting his own district.

At any rate, even those filling executive level positions have their own limitations. Ask W about that this week! Our system of checks and balances makes it impossible to pass legislation or to govern independently, which is as it should be. If Congress wants to play political football with the entire country's financial system, so be it. When Warren Buffett says he's worried about the future of our economy without some form of bank bailout package being passed, I think it's time we all sit up and take notice.

And it could be that no past or future debate affects how people plan to vote in November quite as much as the bank crisis last week and this week's failed bank bailout package. The NewsHour on PBS last night interviewed some swing voters in one key battleground state, Florida. Those voters expressed dismay over the economy (an Obama strength, for some reason) and flat-out said they didn't want four more years of the same failed policies (an indictment of W, to be sure, but which also includes McCain). So at this point, the die may be cast in favor of Obama to reach the White House, even if national polls don't confirm that yet.

I always thought that McCain's pick of Palin was the equivalent of a Republican Hail Mary play, on par with Doug Flutie's Boston College upset of Miami in 1984. (Wow, two references to 1984 in the same post! Who would have figured that?!) McCain needed something big, some huge WOW! factor to jazz up the right-wing base of the party, and Palin certainly did that. She grabbed the headlines, made everyone talk about McCain's campaign for weeks on end, and diverted the media attention (for good or bad) from Obama at a critical stage of the race.

However, she still needs to show she can hold her own against a Washington Insider like Biden. Some conservative pundits within the past week apparently are saying she should step down from the ticket and let McCain pick someone better. Obviously, they aren't going to do that. That would clearly be political suicide at this point, with about five weeks to go until the polls open. I partly wonder if, maybe, just maybe, the Republican political machinery isn't working to lower peoples' expectations for Palin in advance of this, her most important event of the campaign.

In politics as in sports, it's always easier to play to win when all the pressure is on the other guy, the front-runner. If Biden does well and "wins" the debate, he can't really win because he was supposed to do well. As the favorite, there's very little upside and a whole lot of downside. If he cracks or lets the pressure of the situation get to him even the tiniest little bit, it could be momentous. The underdog, on the other hand, can go in loose and without fear, since there's really nothing to lose. If Palin can merely come out even in the debate, she wins. No one expects her to out point Biden or show where he's weak on foreign policy. She has a lot more personality, though. If the crowd is not muted this time, watch out for fireworks!

I'm getting my popcorn ready, that's for sure!