Tom Murphy, February 22, 2008
Remember when debating involved a difference of opinion? Democrats have redefined the word this year. It now means about the same as love fest, because the two remaining candidates for the Democratic nomination have to be really careful not to say anything bad about the one who will win. That was especially true for Hillary Clinton as she gushed repeatedly about how “honored†she was to be sharing the stage with Barack Obama. One would think that losing her lead to Obama might make Clinton get up on her hind legs and snarl a bit. Instead she seemed to be on the verge of endorsing him. They have slightly different healthcare plans, and different groundrules for talking with Raul Castro. Otherwise…yawn…zzzz. This is strange behavior for Clinton, who’d been begging for more debates with Obama, and it may be a sign that Hillary’s ready to admit she can’t beat him. We’ll know after March 4, when voters in Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island weigh in. Then we can start hoping that debates with John McCain will be a bit more, well, like debates.
Tom Murphy, February 19, 2008
Sometimes, even presidential candidates have to be careful about what they ask for. Given the RedwoodAge commitment to critical thinking and sharing of ideas, we applaud Hillary Clinton’s request for a quick, open debate with Barack Obama. It’s clear Clinton wants the debate because she’s lost momentum to Obama in recent weeks, and this might help rebalance the scale. But it’s a risky gambit, too. It’s generally agreed Obama is a better orator and has more charisma – even Clinton has admitted this. To go on national TV and invite a side-by-side comparison may end up hurting the former first lady. But Clinton’s command of details in government, especially in foreign affairs, may help make this a fair fight. And the conversation can only help Americans make a more informed choice.
John McGowan, February 12, 2008
I keep looking for something decisive. Even though Obama has an edge, it’s only by the slightest of margins. My gut tells me that the more it sees of Obama, the more the nation will recognize him as the way to shake off its current bad mood, as the way to make a decisive break with the past 20 years of two Bushes and a Clinton, none of whom has given us much to celebrate. The numbers don’t agree with my gut, however, and my record as a political prognosticator would bankrupt me if I were a betting man. Maybe it’s because I was sitting on the fence until three weeks ago. I figured I could sit this one out because I live in North Carolina and our primary is in May. But the recent Clinton attacks and innuendos showed me how tired I am of politics as usual. I caught Obama fever late, and am all the more zealous for that. Let’s try it another way. Maybe we can cure the nation’s current depression, its current inability to believe that a good – not to mention the best – America is possible.
John McGowan, February 6, 2008
Funny that a dust-up involving John McCain and Robert Dole should hit the news. The McCain-Dole similarities are striking. Both are war heroes known for their sardonic wit and prickly temperaments. Both come from the Senate, where they had mixed records on the issues most dear to conservatives. Neither is an inspirational speaker and their low energy at the podium draws attention to younger rivals. If the Democrats nominate Obama, the contrast between the old and the new will be stark – and it’s hard to believe that the old can win that battle. No wonder the Republicans are rooting hard for Clinton. They figure they have a decent chance to win the election of 1996 the second time around.
John McGowan, February 4, 2008
The best thing about Romney conceding the Northeast to McCain is that, barring a miracle, Mitt will soon quit the race. I admit I was among the pundits who lamented that, with 21 states voting on Super Tuesday, this year’s nominating process was going to be drastically shortened. My reaction to this same fact today: it’s not ending a moment too soon. I only hope the Democratic nomination will be decided this week as well. Enough already. We know everything we need to know. Let’s hope the anointed candidate for each party recognizes what a bonus it would be for all involved if the presidential politicking went back stage for six months. While I’m at it, I might as well wish for a stimulus package that would actually head off a recession.
John McGowan, January 28, 2008
The conventional wisdom is that presidential candidates must run to the center because swing voters hold the key. Just how many swing voters actually exist is debatable. Everyone agrees that, no matter who the candidate is, he or she will receive 40 percent of the vote from the die-hard advocates of the party. But just how many swing voters are there? Some says our very partisan atmosphere has reduced such voters to only 7 or 8 percent of the total, not 20 percent. Those who hold this view (Karl Rove most notably) say that the key to winning elections today is to motivate your base. It’s all about voter turnout; the party that gets more of its faithful adherents to the polls will win. These kinds of calculations lead to two observations about the current primary season. The first is that the Democratic base is currently much more engaged and energized than the Republican base. South Carolina is a reliably Republican state, yet 600,000 Democrats voted versus 400,000 Republicans. Hilary Clinton got only 7,000 less votes than John McCain. The second observation is that Obama appears able both to energize the base and to attract independents. No other candidate on either side has shown that ability.
Tom Murphy, January 25, 2008
Watching the campaigns, you can tell the candidates – other than Kucinich, Edwards and Paul – don’t really want to talk about issues like Social Security, Medicare, healthcare, women’s rights, education, the wars, or, god forbid, the economy. We’ve watched with gross disinterest as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama fought like angry cats in recent days, savaging each other’s credibility as a leader. But the latest proof comes in the person of Rocky Balboa (aka Sylvester Stallone) who has thrown his support to John McCain, thereby neutralizing Chuck Norris’ endorsement of Mike Huckabee. Really now, who cares what two aging macho action figures think? Apparently the mainstream media does, especially when it means a personal appearance by Stallone – who has a new Rambo movie coming out – on Fox News. Maybe Kucinich, Edwards, Paul – and Bloomberg – should stage their own debate so voters can hear some ideas.
Tom Murphy, January 23, 2008
Truth be told, we don’t know that much about politics. But we know a lot about journalism. Like all good news organizations, RedwoodAge is committed to providing accurate information so that our readers can make up their own minds. It is with considerable horror that we now report that a study by two reputable, nonprofit journalism organizations determined that the president. the vice president and other top administration officials misled the public 935 times in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, galvanizing opinion behind a war that has killed tens of thousands of people, left hundreds of thousands seriously injured, destroyed much of Iraq’s infrastructure, further destabilized the gulf region and led to a virtual civil war in the country we set out to "liberate." Indeed, much of the current economic crisis in the US and abroad can be traced to the massive deficits created to finance the war. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to 9/11 and no way to pay for the invasion through oil revenue. The new study confirms what most Americans have known in their hearts for a while now: we have no place in Iraq and we should leave as quickly as possible.
John McGowan, January 21, 2008
Yes, I know that it’s an election year. (Nothing is going to let us forget that.) So no politician of any stripe wants to be blamed for a recession. But the various plans for "economic stimulus†packages floating around are ridiculous. As Tom Murphy pointed out in Money Matters, there seems a willful refusal to address any of the long-term and structural weaknesses of the American economy. I only want to add that there also seems a new unwillingness to tolerate even the slightest downturn, which translates into protecting even the shadiest and wildest of speculators from the consequences of their own actions. If the government is going to bail you out every time the market finally catches up to you, there’s no reason at all to act responsibly or ethically. The Supreme Court has once again protected businesses from irate stockholders who want redress for fraud. And now the government is going to let the banks and other financial institutions walk away—not scot-free, but relatively intact—from the subprime mess of their own making. I don’t like it, and I’m usually a bleeding heart liberal.
Tom Murphy, January 13, 2008
We’ve been hearing a lot lately – mostly from Republicans like John McCain – that the troop surge worked in Iraq. Did it? When Bush first proposed the surge, he said it was needed to give the Iraqi troops time to train so they could take over the fight, and to give the government time to make needed political reforms. Now Bush says he may not draw down the 130,000 US troops in Iraq even after the surge ends, apparently because the Iraqis still aren’t ready to take over the fight. And the Iraqi government has yet to resolve the major political issues dividing the country. Did the surge work? In a word: No. Instead, the notion of sending another 30,000 troops to Iraq led to the bloodiest year yet for US troops there. If we really want to reduce US casualties in Iraq, the only sure way to do it is to end the war. We may also find that Iraq will solve its own problems quicker if the US isn’t there to interfere.
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.