South Dakota Politics

MSNBC & Obama

When Bill Maher finds a problem, you know it's a problem.

UPDATE:  Here's the laughable coverage from MSNBC:

Palinmania: McCain Campaign Raises $7 Million After VP Announcement

The Trail blog:

Sen. John McCain has taken in $7 million in contributions since announcing Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, a top campaign aide said today.

The money bounce may owe to Palin’s appeal with conservative donors, many of whom said privately they had planned on sitting out the campaign this year. The money comes in just under the wire — after McCain accepts the GOP nomination Thursday, he will accept public funds and no longer be permitted to raise private money for the campaign…

Shortly before Palin’s announcement, one senior RNC official said McCain’s pick “better like doing fundraising.”

Like almost everything else she does, hosting these events will be something of a new experience for Palin. When running for governor of Alaska in 2006, Palin raised a total of just $468,400.

Tom Daschle's Speech at the Convention

I've been remiss in pointing out that Tom Daschle gave a speech at the Democratic Convention this past week.  The text of the speech is reproduced below the jump:

Political Maps

For the map nerds like me out there, check out "Voting America: United States Politics, 1840-2008."  University of Richmond President Edward Ayers helped produce the project, whose "Valley of the Shadow" at the University of Virginia (along with one of my professors, Dr. William Thomas) became the pioneering effort in digital history.

Go Big Red!

Now on to the important things.  The Huskers kick off the season in Lincoln today against Western Michigan.  This will be the first post-Callahan game the team has played, so we'll see how things go.  I believe (and the more dedicated sports analysts out there can correct me if I'm wrong) Western Michigan is a decently competitive team, so it'll be a good test for new head coach Bo Pelini and the team.  Game time is at 6 pm.  For those unable to see it, like myself, you can pick up the streaming broadcast of Husker's radio.

 

McCain Camp Pushes Back on Experience

McCain campaign:

It is pretty audacious for the Obama campaign to say that Governor Palin is not qualified to be Vice President. She has a record of accomplishment that Senator Obama simply cannot match. Governor Palin has spent her time in office shaking up government in Alaska and actually achieving results — whether it’s taking on corruption, passing ethics reform or stopping wasteful spending and the ‘bridge to nowhere.’ Senator Obama has spent his time in office running for president.

UPDATE:  More on experience and accomplishments.

Desperation on the Left

Ed Morrissey picks apart the anti-Palin arguments arising from the Democrats and notes, "Irony runs through a number of these arguments, as most of them apply more to their own ticket than to the Republicans, and one in particular is just so despicable as to drop the jaw to the ground"

The Palin Pick

I will respectfully disagree with my colleague Professor Schaff on McCain's choice of Sarah Palin for vice president.  In terms of the "experience" argument that's coming forward, it might be better of we define what we all mean by experience.  Simply spending time in public service doesn't necessarily qualify one to serve in higher office; accomplishments while working as a public servant, however, is another thing entirely.  The conservative critique of Obama wasn't that he's only been in the Senate since 2004 and thus disqualified for high office, but rather throughout his entire career in public office he hasn't accumulated a remarkable record.

The opposite is true with Palin.  She has achieved an impressive record as an executive, thus complementing McCain's experience in foreign policy (indeed, Palin has more executive experience than the Democratic ticket).  The Democratic ticket, however, is lopsided; the man with the most experience is on the bottom.  In terms of the accomplishments that Palin carries, she beats the Democratic ticket -- and one governor among three senators stands out.  The "experience" criticism of the McCain camp might be weakened, but there's no doubt that Palin has a record as an impressive administrator.  She's also a better pick than Biden: not only did Obama have to go on the defensive over his VP pick, but Biden did nothing to add to Obama's strengths or shore up weaknesses.  Additionally, this election isn't about Obama and Palin, it's about Obama and McCain.

I also feel Obama's speech last night wasn't very effective.  He came off as highly partisan, certainly not the best of his speeches I've seen.  He might unify the Democrats, but I think the political center remains ambivalent about the Democratic candidate.  His shots at McCain and foreign policy are ill advised -- is this really a debate he wants to have with McCain of all people?  There was nothing new in this speech, nothing transcending the "politics as usual."  It was a very old speech, the sort you would've heard from the likes of progressives Woodrow Wilson or Herbert Croly. 

In any event, the McCain campaign made a brilliant choice to wait until today to announce -- as of 10 A.M., the headlines have focused entirely on McCain rather than Obama's convention speech.

I'll add the same warning as Prof. Schaff: I certainly don't have the market cornered on good political sense, so take my speculation for what it's worth.

UPDATE:  An additional thought: for all of Obama's talk of "new politics," he picked the establishment Biden.  As for McCain, it's hard to pick somebody more outside Washington that Palin.

It's Palin

You heard it here first.  McCain will live to regret this decision. 

I have long agreed with the conventional wisdom that this was Obama's race to lose.  McCain needed to draw lucky on an inside straight in order to win this race.  But it was looking for a while like the cards were coming his way.  Obama was too arrogant.  With the Russian invasion of Georgia foreign policy suddenly became key.  The McCain camp was effective in painting Obama as out of touch and unprepared.  Obama's stumbling on abortion and Bill Ayers wasn't helping. 

I did not see Obama's speech last night, but I have read it and read much of the commentary.  I think he made a smart move, albeit a cynical one.  "We are the one's we've been waiting for," "The One," and all the high minded talk about change and new politics is gone.  If last night is any indication Obama will run as your garden variety partisan Democrat, engaging in the interest group liberalism that has been the standard Democratic tactic since Lyndon Johnson.  Given the fact that Democrats are far more popular than Republicans, this should work (and is why Hillary Clinton would have made a much better candidate). 

Palin has the inexperience of Obama without some of his baggage, for example she is actually a sincere reformer as opposed to a phony one like Obama.  McCain has been arguing that Obama is not "ready to lead."  Well, is McCain's own Vice-Presidential pick?  On paper, she is not. 

This decision coupled with Obama's smartly cynical manuevering may have settled this election.  In the last 24 hours Obama won the race while McCain gave it away. 

Note to readers.  Given my lack of success in predicting elections, don't get too excited about my skills at the old crystal ball. 

It's Palin?

News reports are saying that Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty will be at the Minnesota State Fair, not Dayton, Ohio, where John McCain is expected to announce his pick for veep. 

Meanwhile, reports are starting to circulate that Sarah Palin flew to Dayton last night.  Mitt Romney is also reportedly in Dayton.  Stay tuned.

Pawlenty for VP?

Rumors are going around that John McCain has chosen Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty to ride shotgun with him.  The speculation started when Pawlenty canceled several public appearances. 

This could, however, mean nothing (think of the Obama - Bayh bumper stickers).  Unless the information is leaked tonight, we'll find out tomorrow if the speculation is accurate.

45 Years Ago Today: "I Have a Dream"

Obamaniacs On The Move

You owe it to yourself to take the time to listen to Stanley Kurtz on Milt Rosenberg's WGN show out of Chicago that aired last night.  The audio is here.  As readers of this site know from Jason's consistent reporting, Kurtz and others have been investigating Barack Obama's connection to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and education group that distributed tens of millions of dollars in the 1990s.  Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers was part of this operation.  Kurtz's point seems to be that the record indicates that Obama was far closer to Ayers than Obama has been willing to admit, certainly more than "just a guy in the neighborhood" that Obama happen to know. 

What makes this show interesting? Milt Rosenberg is something of an institution in Chicago.  A man of great learning, he has run a program of high minded debate for years on WGN.  Listen to the program and hear the anger in the voices of Obama supporters and what's more the rote reliance on Obama campaign talking points.  The callers really have no idea what Kurtz has done that's so bad other than he makes Obama look bad and therefore must be silenced.  This is marvelous political theater. 

Also, see this new ad from the McCain camp:

UIC Releases Annenberg Files

Chicago Tribune:  "The University of Illinois at Chicago on Tuesday released more than 1,000 files detailing the activities of an education reform group in which both Barack Obama and former 1960s radical William Ayers played key roles."  I have yet to hear a reasonable explaination why UIC refused to release public records to begin with.  Of course, as Glenn Reynolds noted, "I suspect that anything damaging has vanished by now anyway. It's Chicago, after all."

Meanwhile, here's who the Weathermen really were:

During the April 16 debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, moderator George Stephanopoulos brought up “a gentleman named William Ayers,” who “was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that.” Stephanopoulos then asked Obama to explain his relationship with Ayers. Obama’s answer: “The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.” Obama was indeed only eight in early 1970. I was only nine then, the year Ayers’s Weathermen tried to murder me.

Check out the whole thing.

"Dangerously unprepared to be President"

I'll add this one to the mix as well:

New Ads

I must say, these pro-McCain ads are pretty good.

District 3 Polling

I got polled recently.  Some of the questions were obvious, namely who do I like in the Obama-McCain match-up and in the Johnson-Dykstra race.  Interestingly, I was asked who I supported in the Al Hoerth vs. Al Novstrup Senate race here in District Three.  I was also asked my impressions of the candidates and how good a job I thought they were doing.  So somebody is paying to poll the District 3 race. 

Shouldn’t It Be Hillary?

I forgot exactly how many voices it takes to make a trend (Mickey Kaus is the expert on that sort of thing), but I think it's three.  If so, I've almost captured one.  Dick Morris and David Harsanyi of the Denver Post say that Obama should have picked Hillary Clinton for his running mate.  The Wall Street Journal almost says as much, and then sensibly pulls back from the brink.  So far as I know, none of them said this before the Biden announcement, which raises interesting questions on other fronts.

This is Harsanyi:

The loquacious Biden entertained the press corps for a handful of primary debates before dropping out; Hillary persuaded 18 million primary voters to support her.  So then why not Clinton? If you erode your theme of "change" by choosing a longtime Washington insider, why not pick the one who can unite your party?

This is the WSJ:

Hillary had a stronger case for being put on the ticket than any loser since Ronald Reagan in 1976. Her supporters in Denver this week are making no effort to bury their bitterness that she isn't making the fall run. Yet Mr. Obama knew that making her his running mate would have undermined his ability to govern if he wins. Americans don't want a three-person Presidency.

The WSJ is surely right that having Hill & Bill in the White House is a very disconcerting proposition.  VP's are supposed to be firmly under the command of the President, but how could President Obama press his authority?  Hillary would have a strong and independent base of support; she would enjoy the presumption of being the next nominee on much more reliable terms than last time; and the Constitution would not allow him to fire her.  Or at least he couldn't fire her until four years later, meaning that the civil war would be put off until Obama was about to run for reelection.  Maybe the Clintons can behave themselves for one, but Bill for four years?  Surely Obama could not have put her on the ticket. 

On the other hand there is that old saying about choosing a VP.  You should consider only three things: 1) will this choice help you win? 2) Will this choice help you win? And 3) will this choice help you win?  Harsanyi's point is that Hillary would have created a unified ticket.  Now I argued earlier in the year that a Clinton/Obama ticket would be the real dream team, and I still think so.  That ticket would have been much more comfortable for all concerned.  Hillary gets her crack at the White House, while the young upstart gets in line for the next opening.  Obama's supporters would have been disappointed, but I think they would surely have followed him to the polls in November.  Obama would have carried none of the baggage that Hillary carried, and his career so far suggests that he has no trouble going along to get along.  That would have been well possible if Obama had received, say 40% of the delegates/popular vote.

But at this point an Obama/Clinton ticket wouldn't unify the party at all.  Way too many Clinton voters now feel cheated.  Putting Hillary on the ticket would only have confirmed their suspicions, just as giving the Clintons two days on the convention floor is now doing.  Obama should have been firm: give the Clintons their moment, on the same night, and then get them out of the way.  He needs to assert his authority now.  He needs to say to Hillary's supporters: I am the nominee.  If you want to beat the Republicans, I am the only way that is going to happen.  Maybe Hillary voters would swallow their pride and get behind him, and maybe not.  But either they do or they don't; and whoever does will be solidly behind him, while whoever refuses won't be purchased by niceness. 

Obama isn't playing strong ball just now.  He is playing like he only has to run out the clock.  Maybe that is in fact true; but with no bounce from the Biden announcement, and McCain pulling ahead today in the Gallop tracking poll, the signs of it aren't obvious. 

Clintons Undercutting Obama?

From the Capitol newspaper The Hill:

Bill Clinton appeared to undermine Sen. Barack Obama again Tuesday. 

The former president, speaking in Denver, posed a hypothetical question in which he seemed to suggest that that the Democratic Party was making a mistake in choosing Obama as its presidential nominee.

He said: "Suppose you're a voter, and you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?"

Then, perhaps mindful of how his off-the-cuff remarks might be taken, Clinton added after a pause: "This has nothing to do with what's going on now."

The comments are unlikely to be taken as an innocent mistake by those Democrats who continue to be angry with the former president for, they say, not supporting the Illinois senator wholeheartedly, if not implicitly undercutting him.

The controversial comments came just hours before Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the former first lady and principal rival to Obama, was due to speak from the convention podium.

Democrats against Teachers’ Unions?

Isn't this one of the seven signs of the apocalypse?  In connection with Professor Schaff's critic of mandatory pre-school, see Mickey Kaus's report from the Convention.  See Slate:

Things We Thought We'd Never See: Democrats Rally Against the Teachers' Unions! I went to the Ed Challenge for Change event mainly to schmooze. I almost didn't stay for the panels, being in no mood for what I expected would, even among these reformers, be an hour of vague EdBlob talk about "change" and "accountability" and "resources" that would tactfully ignore the elephant in the room, namely the teachers' unions. I was so wrong. One panelist—I think it was Peter Groff, president of the Colorado State Senate, got the ball rolling by complaining that when the children's agenda meets the adult agenda, the "adult agenda wins too often." Then Cory Booker of Newark attacked teachers unions specifically—and there was applause. In a room of 500 people at the Democratic convention! "The politics are so vicious," Booker complained, remembering how he'd been told his political career would be over if he kept pushing school choice, how early on he'd gotten help from Republicans rather than from Democrats. The party would "have to admit as Democrats we have been wrong on education." Loud applause! Mayor Adrian Fenty of D.C. joined in, describing the AFT's attempt to block the proposed pathbreaking D.C. teacher contract. Booker denounced "insane work rules," and Groff talked about doing the bidding of "those folks who are giving money [for campaigns], and you know who I'm talking about." Yes, they did!

As Jon Alter, moderating the next panel, noted, it was hard to imagine this event happening at the previous Democratic conventions. (If it had there would have been maybe 15 people in the room, not 500.) Alter called it a "landmark" future historians should note. Maybe he was right.

P.S.: My favorite moment didn't concern the unions. It came when NYC schools chief Joel Klein called for a single national testing standard. Groff, a crowd favorite, made the conventional local elected officials' objection that you need lexibility, one size doesn't fit all, "what works" in County X might not work in County Y. And he was booed! Loudly. By Democratic education wonks. Wow. (The "one size" argument cropped up in the welfare reform debate too—and I assume it's just as bogus in the education debate. We're a national economy with cities that look more or less alike. What works in County X is almost certainly also going to work in County Y.)

P.P.S.: John Wilson, head of the NEA itself, was also there. Afterwards, he seemed a bit stunned. He argued pols should work with unions, in pursuit of a "shared vision," not bash them. But isn't this a power struggle where you have to bash the other side to get leverage, I asked. "Then you have losers," he answered.

P.P.P.S.: Mickey's Assignment Desk: Has someone done the trend piece on all these smart, young, powerful bald,** black state and local elected officials—e.g., Fenty, Booker, Groff, Nutter—who are taking on their unions? You'd need a name. Hair Club for Men is already taken. Domeboys? …

**--Nutter has a bit of hair on the sides. Maybe Groff too. Close enough for a trend. 5:12 P.M. link  

It is remarkable that a considerable number of Democrats are willing to say out loud what everyone knows: that the teachers' unions are a major obstacle to education reform.  Whether the party will follow that lead or not, we will see. 

Marxists on the March in Denver

Some more video from the DNC protests.  And pictures!

Ward Churchill

Universal Pre-school

Some have found the specter of mandatory pre-school behind efforts in South Dakota to create state standards for pre-school.  Whether that is the real agenda behind standards creation or not, a recent article in the Wall Street Journal indicates that universal pre-school is largely a waste of money.  As they say, read the whole thing.  Here is a snippet:

A 2006 analysis by Education Week found that Oklahoma and Georgia [which have universal pre-school] were among the 10 states that had made the least progress on NAEP. Oklahoma, in fact, lost ground after it embraced universal preschool: In 1992 its fourth and eighth graders tested one point above the national average in math. Now they are several points below. Ditto for reading. Georgia's universal preschool program has made virtually no difference to its fourth-grade reading scores. And a study of Tennessee's preschool program released just this week by the nonpartisan Strategic Research Group found no statistical difference in the performance of preschool versus nonpreschool kids on any subject after the first grade.

What about Head Start, the 40-year-old, federal preschool program for low-income kids? Studies by the Department of Health and Human Services have repeatedly found that although Head Start kids post initial gains on IQ and other cognitive measures, in later years they become indistinguishable from non-Head Start kids. (snip)

If anything, preschool may do lasting damage to many children. A 2005 analysis by researchers at Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley, found that kindergartners with 15 or more hours of preschool every week were less motivated and more aggressive in class. Likewise, Canada's C.D. Howe Institute found a higher incidence of anxiety, hyperactivity and poor social skills among kids in Quebec after universal preschool.

The only preschool programs that seem to do more good than harm are very intense interventions targeted toward severely disadvantaged kids. A 1960s program in Ypsilanti, Mich., a 1970s program in Chapel Hill, N.C., and a 1980s program in Chicago, Ill., all report a net positive effect on adult crime, earnings, wealth and welfare dependence for participants. But the kids in the Michigan program had low IQs and all came from very poor families, often with parents who were drug addicts and neglectful.

New CNN Poll Puts McCain/Obama in Dead Heat

A new CNN/Research Corp. poll taken yesterday and today shows Barack Obama and John McCain tied at 47% each, confirming an earlier poll indicating Obama wouldn't receive a bump in his polling numbers by choosing Joe Biden.  The narrow advantage that Obama held last month has vanished.  The CNN story credits Hillary Clinton supporters for the drop, of whom only sixty-six percent will back Obama while twenty-sevent percent of Clinton supporters will support John McCain.  The drop in support for Obama indicates their disdain with Biden's selection over Clinton.

The raw numbers:

Registered Voters' Choice for President
Obama 47%
McCain 47%
Sampling error: +/-3.5% pts

Choice for President Among Registered Democrats Who Want Clinton as Nominee
Obama 66%
McCain27%
Sampling error: +/-8% pts

The Continuing Myster of Annenberg / Obama / Ayers

Steve Diamond:  Obama/Ayers Update: Annenberg Mystery Tour Continues

Protesters at the Democratic Convention

Denver Post excerpt:

More than a thousand protesters marched to the gates of the Pepsi Center today, temporarily closing down access to the site of the Democratic National Convention. Protesters from the Recreate 68 anti-war rally and march briefly sat down, but dispersed peacefully when police asked them to disband. There were no arrests.

Police officers, some on mountain bikes, some on horses, escorted the marchers from the steps of the Capitol down Colfax Avenue and Speer Boulevard to the Pepsi Center.

"No cops, no KKK, no fascist USA," some marchers chanted as they walked in the bright, noonday sun.

Organizers reconsidered at the last moment not to march across Civic Center, which had filled with conventioneers, marketers and opportunists with booths and tents. Instead, they marched under police escort down Colfax Avenue to Speer Boulevard, then turned left on Auraria Parkway to 9th Street, where the march ended.

Recreate 68 and other protest groups said months ago they would occupy Civic Center park in violation of the host-committee permit. Recreate 68's Larry Hales says early threats to take Civic Center were meant to start a dialogue.

Officials estimate up to 1,500 protesters took part. Despite taunts and threats made to police, no one was arrested and the marchers disbanded 30 minutes after arriving on Auraria Parkway.

Our South Dakota blogosphere colleague Todd Epp is liveblogging from the convention in Denver, and notes that the leftist ex-professor Ward Churchill and anti-war protestor Cindy Sheehan are also in attendance.  Also, don't miss some video from the streets.

UPDATE:  Doh!  Todd emails that's he's safe and sound in the Sioux Empire and that he has two people sending him reports from Denver, Barry Foster and Joe Prostrollo.  My apologies for the confusion.  Be sure to check out the liveblogging thoughout the week.

UPDATE:  Free speech, Denver style.

Biden Time 2

Joe Biden has spent a long time waiting for his ship to come in.  I began my teaching career at California State University San Bernardino where, in 1987 as I recall, I lectured on the demise of the Biden for president campaign.  It was discovered that one of Biden's speeches "plagiarized" a speech by Neil Kinnock, the leader of the British Labor Party.  I told my students that the charge was bogus, and I still think so.  Speeches are, of course, often written up in advance; but they are essentially oral presentations and as such cannot be held to the same standards as published writings.  It is a little embarrassing if one's eloquent words are revealed to have been borrowed from someone else's speech, or from the theme song for The Jeffersons, but it isn't a crime or a sin.  Then it was revealed that Biden had plagiarized a law review article in a paper he wrote in law school.  That was a sin, at least, and it brought down Biden's 1988 chances.  If I remember this right, Biden required brain surgery around this time.  One of my students said: "maybe they are removing another embarrassing story!"  I thought that was in poor taste.  I also laughed like a hyena. 

So is Biden a good pick?  My colleague, Professor Schaff, has a simple rule for VP picks: "do no harm."  It's hard to argue with that.  If you don't believe Schaff, ask Bush 41 about Dan Quayle.  It is quite true, and everyone seems to be saying it now, that people don't vote for VP.  But it can give some juice to the ticket.  I think Reagan's choice of George the elder helped reassure people that Reagan was reasonable, as did Bill Clinton's choice of Al Gore.  That, I suppose, is why Obama chose Biden.  Biden brings experience and at least a little gravitas to the ticket.  It also means that McCain has to choose a VP who can match Biden in debate.  But that's about all.

There's another consideration: home state advantage.  It's true that a VP cannot deliver his state (see Lloyd Bentsen and Texas); but he might if the contest is close.  Tim Kaine or Mark Warner might have tipped Virginia in a very close race.  Biden gets Obama Delaware.  If he has to fight for Delaware, the game is over.  And consider that the choice of an older, establishment politician flies in the face of Obama's case for office: with Joe Biden, you aren't getting change. 

The choice of Biden means that the Obama organization is in panic mode just now.  Obama's failure to pull away from McCain, and his apparent weakness just before the convention, has convinced him that there is a hole in his swing.  Maybe Biden will plug it.  I have my doubts.