Mitarack Obamney

“I’m Mitarack Obamney, and I approve of this message.” But what message is being approved of?  A closer examination reveals that both candidates are much more alike than different.  Both nominees are pragmatists and moderate candidates from the left and the right.  President Obama, despite right-wing pundits labeling him as a Marxist-socialist – has taken a moderate stance on the issue of free trade, opting to take a page from the Clinton playbook by signing trade agreements with countries like South Korea, Columbia, and Panama.  The president has also taken a stronger approach to national security, hunting and killing Osama Bin Laden, affiliates of al-Qaeda, and is even willing to target American citizens through drone strikes if suspected of collaborating with enemies of the state.  This has forced the staunchest Republicans to applaud his efforts.  Mitt Romney, on the other hand, was the most moderate candidate who ran in this year’s entertaining Republican primary and managed to beat (or outspend) his more conservative challengers. While he played to the Republican base as a true conservative, Romney’s moderate stances on economic and social issues, not to mention being the governor of ‘blue-state’ Massachusetts, also explained why conservative voters pegged him as the second most palatable flavor throughout the primary election opting towards more conservative candidates like Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, and Santorum until the lack of funds and poor organization forced these candidates out of the race. 

Since both men are essentially middle-of-the-road candidates, this general election campaign will focus more on independent voters than with energizing an unenthusiastic base albeit both candidates will still attempt to appeal to them.  Obama’s recent coming out in support of marriage equality may or may not have been driven by conviction (we will never know) but did score him tremendous political points by infusing millions of dollars into his campaign coffers from an under-tapped LGBT community and powerful Hollywood allies, i.e. George Clooney and friends.  Romney’s appeal as being a genuine conservative backfired when onetime campaign advisor Eric Fehrnstrom made the infamous “Etch A Skecth” gaffe that argued that Romney is able to re-invent himself and change his positions on key issues as they entered into the general elections.  This author believes that both candidates will not be able to muster strong support from their bases.  Obama will have difficulty to recapture the same excitement and momentum from 2008 because he is forced to defend his record and Romney will be challenged to rally his conservative base, those who view him as not conservative enough and those evangelical Christians who may view him negatively because of his Mormon faith.   Regardless of whether or not both bases become energized this campaign season, the reality is that the war will be won in who can cater to independent voters particularly in battleground states like Colorado, Ohio, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Florida.

Every election for the second term is always a referendum on the incumbent president’s first term.  Thus, independents, when deciding who to vote for should not just consider President Obama’s record but to also ask the question, “What would Romney have done in that situation?”  This author believes that Romney would have taken similar action to the major policy decisions Obama made from the past four years.

The Great Recession

Would Romney have passed economic stimulus in 2009 when the country was experiencing an economic freefall losing an average of six-hundred thousand jobs per month?  Of course, he would.  No sitting president would stand idly by as the economy falls into shambles.  A policy of doing nothing isn’t policy at all and could be seen as a sign of weak leadership.  If President George W. Bush’s economic policies in his lame duck years were to give an indication of what Romney would have done, it would have been towards preventing the banks from collapsing while injecting economic stimulus.  Why?  Recall that the financial crisis occurred due to market failure (a bubble created from a bloated housing market) because of laisez faire policies and deregulation.  To cure the financial contagion would not have been to lessen regulation and allow the market to fix itself, as Republicans would have preferred, but to do the opposite, to increase government intervention to reign in Wall Street.  I’m sorry, but private equity firms like Romney’s Bain Capital, if given the choice, would not suggest that Wall Street simply restructure itself and fail, understanding full-well the economic repercussion: the entire U.S. and global economy’s demise.  Don’t believe me?  Just ask former Secretary of the Treasurer and former Goldman Sachs executive, Henry Paulson the next best option.

Health Care

Would Romney have aggressively pushed healthcare like Obama in 2009-10 - probably not, but would Romney have supported it if he sat in Oval Office?  Yes, he would if his Massachusetts’ health care plan was an indication.  In fact, Obamacare’s national provisions are far more moderate than the one Romney signed into law in Massachusetts.  Despite Mitt’s attempts to distance himself from Obamacare – asserting federalism as a justification stating that he would have never proposed the same model on the national level is disingenuous – and calling for its repeal to satisfy the Tea Party is no doubt political.

The Auto Bail-Out

Would Romney have bailed out the auto industry?  While Romney wrote an op-ed that argued that he wouldn’t have bailed out General Motors in The Detroit News, in hindsight this was a political tactic to differentiate him from the president and to show that he would have done things differently.  However, if he were sitting in the Oval Office presented with the same proposition, I suspect he would have done what Obama did since it would have affected his home state of Michigan.  If faced to make a decision to save thousands of US jobs, Romney would no doubt follow in the same footsteps.  To let GM fail would be political poison. 

While the campaigns will do everything to differentiate the candidates, define the other as more different or not in touch with the American people, remember that both candidates are likely to take the same policy positions on the major issues, despite the common philosophical-ideological-political differences both candidates hold.  In the end, America’s choice this November is really not one of apples and oranges but really just two different types of apples.  

The Political Genius of Barack Obama

In a bold move of political maneuvering, the Obama Administration decisively convinced a few Republicans that politics needed to be set aside in order to get things done, which called for political expediency.

By the end of 111^th Congress’ impressive lame-duck session, an array of vital legislation moved swiftly through the often protracted legislative process that included extending the Bush tax cuts, the ratification of the START Treaty, the repeal of “Don't Ask, Don't Tell”, $4.2 billion bill to provide health care for 9/11 first responders, a sweeping food safety bill, 19 federal judges confirmed to the bench and enough money to fund the federal government through March.

One wonders if the White House had this game plan all along, resorting to “Plan B” after the “shellacking” the Democrats suffered during the midterm elections or was it an impromptu maneuver of an entrenched president.  This author credits the lame-duck victory to the president himself.  In an audacious and unexpected move, the president ventured on his own accord and conspired with Republicans to broker the extension of the Bush tax-cuts as a trade-off to extend unemployment insurance.  This, of course (what’s past is now prologue) infuriated Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats in an interesting twist when the majority party openly defies their own party leader.  But some way, somehow, the White House brilliantly orchestrated behind the scenes political-arm twisting that would make former presidents Truman and LBJ proud.  Recall that after the deal involving tax cuts was brokered, headlines battered the president’s lack of leadership: “Obama can’t lead”, “Concessions swindled by the Republicans”, “capitulated”, unable to muster “the power of the bully-pulpit”, Obama as “a one-term president”.

How did the administration in the course of two-and-half weeks managed to turn it around?  Was it the political calculus of moving towards the middle?  Was it convincing his party, particularly defeated Democrats, of the necessity of statesmanship over politics—the politics of nothing to lose?  Was it also the convincing of moderate Republicans like Sen. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown of the negative implications to political posturing?  Whatever President Obama did to persuade members of Congress from both sides of the aisle and allow them to see eye-to-eye clearly worked.  This week’s events were testaments of his political genius.  Mr. Obama was able to not only persuade both parties of the need to work together but to also convince himself of the necessity to do what the American people expected and demanded for him to do.  Mr. Obama clearly understands the situation, "If there's any lesson to draw from these past few weeks, it's that we are not doomed to endless gridlock," the president said. "We've shown, in the wake of the November elections, that we have the capacity not only to make progress, but to make progress together."

Not since Clinton did an American president heed former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli’s words of wisdom, “There are no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interests.” Obama chose to compromise risking alienating his own party.  He traded-off tax cuts for the wealthy to extend unemployment insurance.  As a result, Obama was hammered from the left and right and by the press for giving in, but in the end, opened the dialogue necessary that allowed him to push other pieces of legislation he considered of importance.  The strategy of attempting to take the high road provided the edge he needed over the Republicans and it paid off dividends.

Is this a sign of what to expect in the 112^th Congress?  If it is, Mr. Obama has to continue this political strategy as he moves towards the center. In fact, Mr. Obama needs to be more politically savvy considering newly-elected Tea Party members like Tennessee Sen. Rand Paul and Florida’s Sen. Marco Rubio are poised to make it difficult to move his legislative agenda along the process.  On the other hand, this may play positively to the president’s re-election bid in 2012.  Mr. Obama can, in fact, scapegoat Republicans if they play the role of obstructionists.  Nothing infuriates the American electorate more than gridlock and if the Republicans don’t help the president in moving legislation deemed important by the people, we may see a repeat of the Clinton playbook that helped propel him to a second term in 1996.  This is the political consequence of shared-government.

The question is who will out-maneuver who?  When does Obama push, when do Republicans dig their heels, when do both relent and compromise?  One thing is for sure as we begin a new Congress, bipartisanship will always find the undercurrent of partisan politics lurking below.  The question is who will have the political winds behind them as they approach 2012? 

Obama’s Foreign Policy: New World Cooperation

Barack Obama is the first American president to boldly venture out of the US in an attempt to assume the role of a global leader. His recent overseas trip gave a glimpse of how he intends to conduct US foreign policy in the future.

Unlike the prior administration’s inept engagement in political dialogue, he clearly understands that the key to building relationships comes through constructing strong coalitions by forging mutual agreements. In order to advance US interests abroad, the president needs buy-in for his agenda. That means being able to persuade not only the leaders of states but their constituencies as well.

This is the reason why Mr. Obama’s use of international town hall meetings is unprecedented. Only John F. Kennedy in his “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech and Ronald Reagan’s speech to Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall comes close to advancing US foreign policy. The difference is that by using this town hall approach, Mr. Obama was able to engage the people in ways past presidents have never done before. His celebrity status with coverage from real-time news media gave the president the ability to draw the world’s attention by opening a new dialogue with a global audience.

Mr. Obama’s new foreign policy signaled a fundamental shift from that of the Bush administration years. Instead of asserting unilateralism and waving an American big stick, Mr. Obama demonstrated in his first international venture that the US now seeks shared dialogue from its allies to form multilateral policies in support of a reasonable world order. It is essentially what Mr. Obama did in the Strasbourg town hall meeting when he - after being unable to secure additional combat troops for Afghanistan from NATO - proceeded to highlight the threat of Al-Qaeda to Europe. Mr. Obama’s message to the people of France was that America couldn’t win the war against Al-Qaeda alone and that it needed France’s help.

Another interesting dynamic to this new foreign policy approach is the president’s potential ability to deal with rogue nations. His innate gift to strike accord with the people could potentially open dialogue with countries that the US has had minimal success in the past. Iran serves as a good example. Scholars who understand Iran know that the Iranian people are far more moderate than the hard-line Khomeini/Ahemedinejad government. If Mr. Obama is able to articulate persuasively to the Iranian people the dangers of nuclear proliferation and the incentives of a nuclear-free Iran, perhaps diplomatic ties with Tehran could potentially thaw and face-to-face talks could be reopened.

Mr. Obama’s goals are to find mutual agreement and build consensus among nations. As such, a foreign policy that attempts to do this can serve as the staging point to exert international pressure on rogue nations. This was illustrated when North Korea recently test launched an ICBM missile in the Pacific. While in Prague, Mr. Obama was swift to condemn the act. The president assumed the world-stage to not only speak on behalf of the US but to also speak on behalf of a unified international community that demands North Korea’s disarmament.

President Obama’s foreign policy of new world cooperation can be exemplified in the Istanbul, Turkey town hall meeting. Mr. Obama needed to win over the people of Turkey in order to build future relationships that would have far reaching implications in the region. On one level, Mr. Obama had to convince the people of Turkey - which are predominantly Muslim albeit secular - that “America was never at war with Islam.” By building on this theme of trust, the administration hopes, on a governmental level, to forge strong ties with Turkey to further advance US interests in the region. In fact, Mr. Obama was successful in negotiating an agreement with the Turkish government to use the country as an exit point for US troops in Iraq. A good rapport with Turkey could potentially strengthen relationships with countries in the Middle East, including Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, and pave a way for negotiations towards Middle East peace.

Strategically, Mr. Obama is essentially laying the foundation on which he believes the future will reap not only multiple successful objectives in US favor but to also implement policies with other countries to benefit the region. The innovative difference in Mr. Obama’s approach is to directly engage the people in the political process. Like James Madison, Mr. Obama - an astute student of history himself - understands that a well-informed citizenry is essential to push through well-intentioned policies. Mr. Obama’s new approach seeks to advance a culture of shared authority based on shared dialogue and enlightened mutual respect – something US foreign policy lacked for eight years. Mr. Obama’s fresh approach towards diplomacy may magnify US presidential power in an unprecedented ways; however, at this stage, it is too early to determine how much clout the president likely managed to sow during his recent visit to Europe.

As the reality of this recent trip illustrated, Mr. Obama did not get everything he wanted. When he arrived in London for the G20 Summit in the beginning stages of the trip, Mr. Obama set forth a plan that requested a commitment from other member nations to infuse more economic stimulus and to construct a uniform policy that would regulate the international banking system to address the economic crisis. While America sought enhanced economic stimulus spending, Mr. Obama embraced European concerns in support of regulated capitalism to facilitate recovery of a shared global market system. Albeit Mr. Obama failed to get the fiscal stimulus, he found the middle ground and received a $1 trillion infusion from the IMF to stabilize the economic crisis and help poorer countries. Mr. Obama also received partially what he wanted in Afghanistan. Seeking for more combat troops, NATO only promised to send an additional five-thousand troops for training purposes. Diplomacy as well as politics, is the art of compromise and is not a zero-sum game. Political scientists and perhaps Mr. Obama himself grasps that the process itself is incremental. Here, Mr. Obama may have not received everything he wanted but was able to get some of the provisions he asked for. That is a good start, although some media pundits might disagree.

This is only the beginning for the administration as it attempts to lay the foundation of international consensus and coalition. If it does so successfully, the US will be able to find renewed strength, respect, and leadership in the eyes of world as it seeks to address the great global challenges of the future including the War on Terror and global climate change. Mr. Obama’s first overseas venture, with its positive and negative outcomes, may prove to have laid the groundwork for a new world order of cooperation. Only time will tell if Europe yields and provides additional troops to Afghanistan. Only time will tell if the global economic crisis subsides and improves. Only time will tell if Mr. Obama’s popularity remains high with the world. If so, we may be looking at our first international global leader.

The Importance of Community Organizing

Perhaps some of you took offense to Sarah Palin's remarks ridiculing the importance of community organizing. I can tell you, I did.

I can tell you, from my own experience with the Obama campaign (19 months and still counting), that this movement for change would not have been possible without the time and commitment from people who believe that they could make a difference. It was founded on the tenets of community organizing.

Though the thrust of Palin's comment may have been directed only at Barack Obama alone, what she didn't realize was that it was taken as an insult by every single volunteer who have and continue to support this historic campaign. The following video summarizes my feelings.

Palin, on the record, is not what Republicans claim her to be

While Republican Vice Presidential hopeful, Sarah Palin, delivered a rousing speech tonight at the RNC attacking Barack Obama’s lack of experience and denouncing Democratic values, it’s only fair game to also look at her record.

Republicans claim that Palin is a progressive reformer, but in fact turns out to be a major supporter of eamarks and porkbarrel spending. For example, Palin is a director of a Ted Stevens’ (the Alaska GOP senator recently indicted on public-corruption charges) 527 group raising corporate money. Palin takes credit for signing a major ethics law, but the impetus for the law came from legislators, especially Democrats. Palin claims to be a champion for small town Americans when she has supported increasing the regressive sales tax, even for items like food. She also supported the so-called “Bridge to Nowhere,” a $223 million tax payer earmark and then denies to ever have supported it. Though the bridge was never built, this porkbarrel money was still allocated to Alaska for infrastructure. In September 2006 Palin spoke in Ketchikan, saying the bridge was essential to the town. Palin also hired Washington lobbyists to secure taxpayer money for her hometown, securing more than $27 million, including $1.9 million for a transportation hub. The largest earmark was $15 million for a rail link between Wasilla and the ski resort community of Girdwood, home town of Senator Ted Stevens.

Republicans claim that Palin is in touch with people when in fact her views are extreme and out of the mainstream. Her values and positions on every issue is the extreme opposite of Hillary Clinton. She opposes abortion even for rape and incest victims, and has suggested adding requiring parental consent for abortions to Alaskan constitution. Palin has strongly promoted oil and natural gas resource development in Alaska, including opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling. She does not believe global warming is caused by humans. She is opposed to listing polar bears as an endangered species. She has supported expanding wolf hunting. The pastor of Palin’s Pentecostal Church says critics of George W. Bush will go to hell. In June 2008, Palin spoke before this Church and claimed the Iraq War is a “task from God.”

The real question for undecided voters to ask: Is Palin prepared to be Commander in Chief? The McCain-Palin ticket’s argument is to attack Obama on his lack of experience. However, Palin’s own political experience is limited. She has served as Governor of Alaska for 20 months. Prior to this she has served as mayor of a small town. She has no foreign policy or national political experience. Republican charge on Palin having more “executive experience” than Obama and Biden combined is empty rhetoric. By this logic she more experience than John McCain as well. Biden has spent 36 years in the U.S. Senate, and has been Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. By contrast, Palin received her first passport in 2007.

Even fellow Republicans in Alaska question Palin’s readiness. "She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Lyda Green, the president of the Alaskan State Senate, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?" Another top Alaskan Republican, John Harris, the speaker of the House, when asked about her qualifications for Vice Presidency, replied with this: "She's old enough. She's a U.S. citizen."

Palin’s own mother-in-law, Faye Palin, says: “I’m not sure what she brings to the ticket, other than she’s a woman and a conservative.” In an interview with Larry Kudlow on CNBC, Palin stated: “As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what it is exactly that the VP does every day?”

When asked in an interview about her thoughts about the Iraq War Surge, she said: “I’ve been so focused on state government; I haven’t really focused much on the war in Iraq.” McCain’s choice of Palin as his running mate with little vetting demonstrates McCain’s tendency to make reckless decisions. Picking Palin reflects a trend of Republicans choosing unqualified candidates (Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney General, Michael Brown as director of FEMA, etc.)

It’s pretty obvious from the above that Palin, on the record, is not what Republicans claim her to be.

Biden’s a Smart Choice for Obama

Sen. Joseph Biden from Delaware brings much to the Democratic ticket, particularly in the areas of unifying the Democratic base and bolstering Obama’s foreign policy credentials, but the choice still leaves much doubt whether this ticket can pull through in November. The Republicans will now have a week to vet and strategically devise their own countermeasure when McCain also announces his running mate.

Let’s look at the advantages Biden brings to the table. The senator from Delaware has the ability to connect with blue collar voters and will secure the Democratic base, particularly voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio, which are key battleground states. This will bring Clinton’s staunch supporters of blue-collar workers and women—a key demographic Obama had difficulty in convincing during the primary—into the fold. Clearly, the Obama campaign had this question in mind: ‘How do you pacify Clinton supporters without Hillary being in the picture?’ The fear that some hardcore Clinton supporters would switch allegiance to the McCain camp probably played a major factor to Obama’s VP selection committee in choosing Biden. Recall that the past two presidential elections were decided by key independents that swung the votes in Bush’s favor. Every vote counts in these key battleground states because of the winner-take-all nature of the Electoral College and the Democrats know that they can’t afford to make the same mistake in 2008. Choosing Biden to unite the Democratic base was their answer.

Biden also complements Obama with his foreign policy experience having served as chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and also as the chair of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Biden’s credentials in this area will give Obama the help he needs to set a new direction and tone in combating the War on Terror. Needless to say, the challenges are immense in the foreign policy arena. Recent polls have shown that voters feel McCain is stronger in the issue of foreign policy than Obama. Biden’s selection should close that gap.

As for his character and demeanor, there is no question that Biden will speak his mind, but there is no doubt too that the last word will be Obama’s. Obama stated that he wanted “somebody who will tell me when they disagree with me.” Biden, a pragmatist and realist, will be outspoken, particularly in the area of foreign policy. It’s fair to say that we will not see a repeat of the power Dick Cheney wielded in the current administration.

Geographically, Biden was an interesting choice by the Obama campaign. While it united the Democratic base, it did not gamble in winning a key battleground, competitive, southern state, if Obama had chosen, for example, Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia. Clearly, the Obama campaign believes that unifying the party’s base is more important than trying to infiltrate and win traditional red states.

Another interesting observation is that the two men vying for the ticket are both senators. While both men have law making experience, both do not have executive experience. Historically, this has been an obstacle the past few presidential elections. It didn’t work for Sen. Kerry and Edwards in 2004, former Sen. Gore and Lieberman in 2000, and Sen. Dole and Kemp in 1996. Voters oftentimes consider governors as better suited for the presidency than senators. Our current president and former president Bill Clinton were both governors. While Bush Sr. was VP Ronald Reagan too served as the governor of California. We’ll just have to wait and see if this becomes a factor.

Overall, Biden is a solid pick for the Democrats. He complements Obama in many ways. The role of the vice presidential candidate is to lead attacks against the opposition. Biden's history of talking tough to his opponents makes him well suited for the post. He has also been critical of Bush's approach to Iraq from the beginning while being touted by his Republican colleagues such as Senators Richard Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. A strong, outspoken, yet respected VP is what Obama needed, and Biden offers him those strengths.

Technorati Tags:

John McCain

Barack Obama

Hillary co-opts Obama’s message of change; but will it work in New Hampshire?

Last Tuesday in Iowa, the message of change trumped experience. So what does the Clinton campaign do to mitigate the third-place finish in Iowa as it prepares for round-two in New Hampshire? Change the campaign’s message to change. In other words, if you can’t beat Obama’s message, co-opt his strategy and make it your own. But the question is: will it work in Hillary’s favor?

At a high school event in Penacook on Saturday, Sen. Clinton based her experience as “35 years of change” against Obama’s “fine-sounding” and high-minded “promise of change”. However, the problem strategically with Clinton’s new message of change is rather than looking forward, it inherently looks backward by ironically relying on the nostalgia of the past—particularly on her husband’s legacy—and not the hope for the future. What distinguishes Obama from Clinton is that he possesses the forward looking message of hope—one that Clinton can never co-opt.

Strategically, in the past two months, the Obama campaign has been successful in taking his message of hope and change to deflect his weaknesses as an inexperienced junior senator from Illinois. Capitalizing on the Bush Administration’s mishandling of the War in Iraq, coupled by the Jack Abramoff scandal that has tainted old-boy Washington politics, Obama’s claim as a new face in Washington, untainted by its corruption and politics, is consistent with the message of change and a new direction for the country.

The reason why Obama won in Iowa—and will yet again win in New Hampshire—is that he was able to unite voters from across the board. From different age groups and ethnicities to Independents and disgruntled Republicans alike, Iowans caucused for Obama because many believe in the change he is offering. Unfortunately, for the Clinton campaign, many voters view her as part of the old establishment and also part of the problem.

Will this new message of change work in Hillary’s favor? While it’s an interesting claim, voters will realize it’s too far-fetched. In Tuesday’s election, New Hampshire voters will not buy it.

Technorati Tags:
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
New Hampshire Primary