dcpolitico's Blog

    A Gallup daily tracking poll finds Barack Obama and John McCain in a statistical dead heat.  I know it’s only July, but how is that possible?
    Let’s look at the media portrayals of Democratic and Republican voters. Democrats are charged up and enthusiastic about their candidate and his promises of change. The conservative bloc of the GOP is not enthused with John McCain; some even consider the election a yawner as a whole. Independents have still not made up their minds, once again garnering a great deal of attention for their inability to commit to a candidate.
    Much attention has been focused on the 28 percent approval rating of President Bush.  During his news conference this week, he sought to assure wary Americans that the country’s financial system is basically sound. A calming presence he is not. Meanwhile, the stock market continued to tumble, although a rally late this week showed some signs of an upward trend thanks, in part, to falling crude oil prices.     
    The Democratic-controlled Congress is enjoying an even lower approval rating than the President. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has attempted to deflect attention for leadership failures by launching personal attacks against the President.
    There appears to be a crisis of confidence in this nation. The economy is in a tailspin, and no one is in the mood to compromise for the greater good in a heated election year. John McCain should be the candidate who is hurt the greatest by this scenario because his party occupies the White House. But Barack Obama’s party is not exactly a beacon of hope either.
    It should be no wonder that no one candidate has the advantage.

Tom DiBacco

    Since when did politicians become so sensitive? I’m referring to the uproar surrounding the cover of New Yorker magazine featuring a caricature of Barack and Michelle Obama as fist-bumping radicals.
    No one can argue the portrayal is outrageous, but that is just the point. It’s a cartoon. Have we now reached a point in political correctness where cartoonists need to worry about offending people? What’s next? Will John Stewart and Stephen Colbert have to tone down their acts on television?
    The Obama campaign called the cartoon “tasteless and offensive.” In the words of John McCain, it was “totally inappropriate.”
    Calm down people. Some political cartoons may be open to interpretation, but I think the New Yorker cover proves a point. I may not be a Rhodes Scholar but I believe the cover depicts some of the more outrageous yet unproven attacks on  Barack Obama. His campaign is obviously extremely sensitive and aggressive in denouncing such wild accusations. I would think the candidate would view this cover as pointing out the absurdity of these claims.
    The New Yorker has a long history of journalistic excellence. The magazine has often used satire "to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd.” Obviously, the current cover follows in that tradition.
    It is unwise to judge a candidate based solely on his party affiliation, just as it is unwise to judge a magazine without reading between the lines.

Tom DiBacco

   Mark Twain once said, "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
   Jesse Jackson and Phil Gramm obviously did not heed such advice this week.
   For Jackson, it has been a somewhat sad journey. Twenty years ago, he was arguably at the peak of his political and social influence. His 1984 and 1988 campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination were groundbreaking, but his ego prevented him from delivering votes in the general election to the nominee. In the ensuing years, Jackson has seen his influence decline amidst a string of questionable causes and candidates, as well as the oratorical stumbles that we witnessed this week.
    Barack Obama will not be damaged by Jackson’s crude comments that he wasn’t speaking on issues important to the black community. In a sign of Jackson’s shrinking political presence, Obama can actually benefit from the episode by distancing himself from Jackson and appealing to the mainstream voter.   
    Phil Gramm is not exactly on John McCain’s holiday card list after the former Texas Senator  characterized the current economic climate as a “mental recession,” saying we have sort of become “a nation of whiners.” Not exactly sympathetic words to those affected by mortgage foreclosures, a slumping stock market and rising unemployment.  Gramm has strong ties to conservatives, a group McCain desperately needs to turn out in force in the general election.  McCain quickly disavowed Gramm’s comments, though, saying the former Senator “does not speak for me.”
    Needless to say, McCain and Obama will be wary of any more assistance from such friends in the future.     

Tom DiBacco   

    As a journalist for almost 20 years in the nation’s capital, I always looked forward to the dog days of summer. Congress would be approaching their summer recess and I could devote my undivided attention to my Baltimore Orioles, even though at this point they would be mathematically eliminated from the postseason.
    For political junkies, the weeks leading up to the national conventions are often devoid of news, save for the speculation of the choice for running mate. Oh, there’s a litany of charges back and forth between the candidates, but the heated rhetoric and hand–to-hand combat kick off at the conventions.
    The Democrats are first on the schedule, and the news that Barack Obama will deliver his acceptance at a 75,000 seat outdoor stadium instead of the smaller indoor Pepsi Center in Denver is the first shot across the bow. The Illinois Senator is clearly intending to not only upstage John McCain, but create a striking visual image on television. Obama will be the first nominee to deliver his acceptance speech outside the convention hall since John Kennedy in 1960.
    There are risks. Obviously, weather could be an issue. The strategy also plays into the GOP criticism that Obama is favoring style over substance. The media will also bear significant costs as they scramble to change plans that have been in the making for over a year. But they will obviously jump through hoops in the hope that Americans will tune into the speech in record numbers.
    The Republicans cannot compete on this level, nor should they attempt to match the Dems in such an endeavor. They have the last word when it comes to the convention schedule and that is a far greater advantage than a stadium rally.

Tom DiBacco

    Every four years, presidential candidates vow to campaign on the “issues” and refrain from negative attacks on the opposition. And every four years, these vows fare about as well as a New Year’s resolution to lose weight.
    Of course, the candidates like to stay above the fray. Their bidding is done by subordinates. Case in point:  retired General Wesley Clark, a supporter of Barack Obama, said he didn’t think that John McCain’s record as a fighter pilot and prisoner of war was relevant to the job of President of the United States. The point is somewhat ludicrous in that Wesley Clark ran for President four years ago and I’m quite certain he highlighted his military service during his unsuccessful run.
    Far left bloggers have also taken aim at McCain’s military service, accusing him  of "disloyalty" while a captive in Vietnam for his forced participation in propaganda interviews following repeated torture and beatings.
    While Obama will clearly distance himself from such attacks, and there is no evidence, of course, that his campaign is tied to such absurd accusations, it remains a disturbing trend.  The Obama campaign knows it cannot compete with John McCain on the patriotism issue. They will seek to minimize the issue in the general election. But in doing so, they risk alienating a substantial voting bloc: those who have served in the military and their families.
    The Swift Boat campaign in the 2004 election demonstrated that nothing is beyond scrutiny in presidential politics. But John Kerry was not subject to the unspeakable horrors that John McCain endured during his service to our country. The Obama campaign should clearly stay away from this political minefield.

Tom DiBacco

    A recent Associated Press poll finds a strong majority of Americans believe John McCain is better suited to handle the Iraq war than Barack Obama.
    Such findings play into Democratic fears that national security issues will be Obama’s weak points in the general election. If the “experience” issue comes back to doom the Democrats in the fall, they have no one to blame but themselves.
    Barack Obama predicated his entire campaign on withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. The party’s powerbrokers soon followed lock, stock and barrel. No one paused to ask, “is this the type of candidate to carry this banner?” National security issues have never been Democratic strong suits,  but trusting that issue to one with little to no experience in foreign affairs is extremely shortsighted.
    Obviously, the economy will play a pivotal role in this campaign. Neither candidate has impeccable credentials in this arena. But George W. Bush is not running again. The Dems can criticize the failed policies of the past until they are blue in the face, but with the exception of the Bush tax cuts, John McCain  is on even footing with Barack Obama on this issue.
    “Change” has proven to be an effective campaign mantra in the primaries. But now is the time for specifics. It’s beginning to look like a level playing field for the November election.

Tom DiBacco

    The lure of record-shattering private donations has caused Barack Obama to make one of the first flip flops of the 2008 general election.
    The Illinois Senator had originally agreed to accept taxpayer funds from the public financing system, along with spending limits, if the GOP nominee made the same choice. John McCain has indicated he will go with along with public funding. Obama reversed course and can now raise an unlimited amount of money with no spending limits.
    While the Republicans will surely make as much hay as possible about this reversal, I don’t believe the issue will resonate with voters. Campaign finance may be a large issue in the halls of Congress, but it’s not exactly dinner table conversation in homes across America.
    Obama has been a fundraising machine. The large sums of money he will continue to raise in the general election will provide his party with such an enormous financial advantage over the Republicans that any criticism of his switch will be drowned out by a plethora of TV ads.
    What troubles me is Obama’s insistence that he thought long and hard about this decision, saying that he would rely only on private donations because "the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken. " It seems quite disingenuous. This was a no-brainer. The opportunity to bury your opponent with a bulging campaign war chest is the clear motive. It may strike some as the ultimate in hypocrisy, but it’s just politics as usual.

Tom DiBacco

    If anyone needs any more proof that Hillary Clinton will not be Barack Obama’s vice-presidential choice, one need look no further than the Obama campaign’s hiring of Patti Solis Doyle. 
    In politics, there are numerous second acts. Solis Doyle served as Clinton’s campaign manager until she resigned in February. Many blame her for the Clinton’s poor performance in the early stages, saying she grossly mismanaged the campaign. It was only a matter of time when the finger pointing started in the Clinton camp. It may be unfortunate, but it’s typical politics.
    In her defense, the Senator from New York did not exactly set the world on fire after Solis Doyle departed.
    She will serve as the chief of staff for Obama’s future vice presidential pick. This was not an olive branch from the Obama campaign. This was the hiring of a shrewd political operative for their own means. 
    When a top political aide leaves in the middle of a campaign, there is seldom a tearful going away party. No one should expect undying loyalty when a top official is forced out.
    The Clinton team released a statement praising the hire, but insiders anonymously expressed anger and frustration over the move.
    For Solis Doyle, revenge is sweet.

Tom DiBacco

    OK, I know that this is the season for political surveys, but the Pew Research Center is really testing my patience. 
    Some of the polls during the Democratic primary campaign were extremely insightful, revealing the apparent divide between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s supporters. But why do I care about a survey of 18 nations around the globe on their view of the U.S.? And here’s a shocker: a greater number believe Obama will handle world affairs better than John McCain. Does this think tank believe the views of the French and Germans will sway my vote in the November election?
    There was also a general consensus that the U.S. economy was having a negative impact on their own country’s economy, including our allies in Germany, Britain, Australia, France and Japan. When the economy of a global economic power slows, there are international ramifications. This is not advanced macroeconomics.
    Here’s another revealing little nugget: Obama has a clear advantage among those polled in Tanzania.
    This is information overload.
    I care about what issues are important to voters, the tracking polls of battleground states, and trends. I care as little about the views of the Tanzanians about our presidential candidates as they rightfully care about my view of their political system.

Tom DiBacco

    Hillary Clinton has withdrawn from the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, so the focus is now on the John McCain-Barack Obama showdown in November. The speculation has already begun over fundraising, strategy and the electoral battlegrounds.
    It’s time for the media to break out the blue and red maps. Many predict that McCain will win if he can hold onto the 31 states won by President Bush in 2004. Obama must hold the blue states won by John Kerry and try to grab one or more of the states that were in the GOP column four years ago.
    Among the states Dems will target:  Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and Virginia
    McCain will attempt to grab such states as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New Hampshire from the blue column.
    But the same battleground states that were key in 2004 will once again be at the center of the drama.
    The Hillary Clinton factor will be in play in these states: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The Democrats have already kissed off Florida with their heavy- handed treatment of the state delegation. In some ways, it will all boil down to Ohio and Pennsylvania. Working class voters, the backbone of Clinton’s support, will determine the winner. There’s no guarantee they will stay in the Democratic camp.

Tom DiBacco
   

    As Hillary Clinton prepares to officially drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination for President, there is rampant media speculation of an Obama-Clinton “dream ticket.” While politics makes strange bedfellows, there is no longtime political rule that the runner-up be offered a carrot stick.
    Could such a ticket materialize? Yes, but let’s look at the facts. There is lingering bitterness between the campaigns after a bruising, negative battle. A recent Vanity Fair article on Bill Clinton’s role in his wife’s campaign gives many in the Obama camp pause as to what role, if any, he would play in the general election. Although Hillary Clinton has earned the right to take her time before she announces her withdrawal, even some of her supporters, including Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, are questioning the timing that has led to added intrigue.
   Some of Clinton’s supporters have publicly thrown out the idea of a dream ticket with her “apparent” blessing. But the behind-the-scenes maneuvering is probably far different. Clinton cannot be seen as resistant to the idea of being number two because it would be political suicide. So appearing warm to the idea is one thing, but making a full-court press for the slot is another.
    An Obama-Clinton ticket would provide the GOP with great fodder. They have already targeted Obama using some of Clinton’s criticisms during the campaign. As long as she is in the picture, the criticism will not go away.
    Clinton will throw her support behind Obama, but how much of an asset she will be remains to be seen.  She wants help in retiring her campaign debt, and a prime speaking spot at the convention, at the very least. Her core supporters are key to Obama in the general election. She holds many more cards than the Obama campaign would like you to believe.

Tom DiBacco 

    The firestorm of publicity surrounding the memoirs of former Bush spokesman Scott McClellan has drawn the ire of the administration, and provided further ammunition for critics of the President.
    Members of the media have acted as if this is a new phenomenon. I must admit the title, “"What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception,” is quite the attention-grabber. The media is portraying McClellan as courageous and a seeker of the truth, but the objective here is to sell books. What I can tell from the initial media blitz, the author and publishers must be very happy.
    I think everyone needs a dose of reality. The headlines claiming that this is such a slap in the face of a White House built on loyalty are quite humorous. The wheels came off the bus of this administration some time ago. Donald Rumsfeld was the first casualty after the 2006 midterm elections.
    There are probably as many White House memoirs in the bookstores as diet books. In the quest to make a buck after the long hours and limited financial rewards, penning a book is often at the top of the list when former government official return to the private sector. This is nothing new. It’s been going on for decades.
    In order to compete in our entertainment-driven society, one must have some behind-the-scences details to move copies of their book. Scott McClellan has accomplished this quite well. It’s a nice return on his investment in government service.

Tom DiBacco 

    Polls show that a majority of Americans oppose the war in Iraq. But the issue becomes far more complicated when it centers on a plan for the withdrawal of American troops.
    While Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have debated endlessly on various timetables for the return of U.S. troops, John McCain has clearly set himself apart from the Democrats with his support for a continued U.S. presence in Iraq. On the surface, according to the polls, this is a politically risky move. But it poses far fewer risks than a “cut and run” policy that could have disastrous regional and global implications.
    On Memorial Day, McCain told the AP that Obama “really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq and he has wanted to surrender for a long time.”  The Arizona Senator said Obama has not visited Iraq since 2006 when he declared the “war lost.” Tough talk, but McCain has such an enormous advantage over Obama in the foreign policy arena that the only response from the Democratic frontrunner was through a spokesman that failed to address the subject: “Senator Obama thinks Memorial Day is a day to honor our nation's veterans, not a day for political posturing."
    This is just another example that when Obama tries to test the political winds of foreign policy, he is blown off-course. The Illinois Senator recently said he was willing to meet with the leaders of countries that are U.S. adversaries such as Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela without preconditions. When McCain pounced on such a ludicrous statement, the Obama campaign said that did not necessarily mean a meeting with the warm and fuzzy Iranian President Ahmadinejad. He’s the gentleman who referred to Israel as a “stinking corpse.”
    It is far easier to be a diplomat on the campaign trail than in the White House.  Americans may have grown weary of the war in Iraq, but they are far less willing to permit “on the job training” in the White House. 

Tom DiBacco