a dose of skepticism regarding an Obama presidency

There’s no such thing as miracles in politics.

And the warping effects of power should never be underestimated. Hence, this rule of thumb:

People who want power should not be trusted with power.

So as much as Obama really does embody an irrepressible optimism and hunger for something better, there are details of his campaign that indicate that for all the inspiration, Obama is an establishment candidate. Fundraising, for example.

Estimates for the cost of this election campaign from the Center for Responsive Politics defy imagination:

…more than $5.3 billion will go toward financing the federal contests upcoming on Nov. 4.

The presidential race alone will cost nearly $2.4 billion, the Center predicts. Already the candidates alone have raised more than $1.5 billion since the election cycle's start in January 2007. This is the first time that candidates for the White House have raised and spent more than $1 billion, and this year's total is on track to nearly double candidate fundraising in 2004 and triple 2000.

Weeks before Election Day, the 2008 cycle has already surpassed $4.5 billion, $300 million more than the $4.2 billion that had been raised by the conclusion of the 2004 cycle. The overall estimated cost of the 2008 election would represent a 27 percent increase over the 2004 cycle.

5 point 3. Billion. Dollars. In other words: that’s a lot of bloody zeros. For an election.

If ever there was proof that American democracy is elitist and plutocratic, there it is. As the Center for Responsive Politics Sheila Krumholz says, "You can't win a seat in Congress without being personally wealthy or knowing a lot of wealthy people who are willing to back you with their money."

The winners of all of this are, of course, the Powers That Be (and the Powers That Wannabe) and, Amy Goodman points out, the corporate media:

The $2-billion presidential race also guarantees vast profits for the broadcasters, the national networks and the local television stations. Hundreds of television stations are using the public airwaves, imposing themselves between the candidates and the public.

McCain’s complaint that Obama reneged on his agreement to use public financing doesn’t seem quite so crotchety. Catch-22: Obama has the ability to draw in large donations, thereby eliminating Republicans’ past financial advantage and win the spin wars. But the principle of inclusive, accessible elections not beholden to big-time contributors gets lost in the process. (Goodman points out how “A Washington Post analysis of Federal Election Commission data shows, though, that only a quarter of this [Obama’s] vast number of donors fall into the "small" category (under $200), which is a smaller percentage than that achieved by George Bush in his 2004 run.) The choice is: win by compromise or lose with integrity.

So no, there is no such thing as miracles in politics. Not unless there are fundamental philosophical and structural changes to “the system.” Obama is transformational in the sense of changing the nature of the national conversation, of bringing empathy, intelligence, and cooperation to the political stage. But I remain skeptical that the substantive, deep-down-in-the-sould transformation the US – the world, in fact – needs is something he can accomplish. It’s one thing to temper idealism with pragmatism, but there’s an undercurrent of realpolitiks in Obama’s campaign. Don’t get me wrong; Obama is, hands down, a better choice than Bush III, but unconditional faith in our “leaders” is what got this country into a mess in the first place.

what john cleese thinks about sarah palin

presidental debate the second...a few thoughts

It didn’t take a degree in political science to figure out that last night’s debate wouldn’t be a bloodbath; voters will accept a boxing match, but won’t go for mud wrestling. And of course, as the pundit parade has already discussed ad nauseam, Obama was very cool and calm – presidential – while McCain, with his “that one” comment, endless “my friends,” and painfully lame attempts at humour, was the angry old curmudgeon mired in the quicksand of a campaign falling apart from all the cognitive dissonance. Both spouted the same old, same old – Obama just was more engaging and consistent. Does this mean Obama won? Sure. If winning actually means anything. But it wasn’t a real debate, it wasn’t a discussion, and I didn’t ultimately see the point of this whole “town hall” format fakery.

There was a surprise, however, and it didn’t come from the candidates. Rather, it came from my reaction to Obama: the Senator from Illinois felt like a politician to me, more so than he has in the past. Smart, likeable, accessible, yes, but still he had that politician’s quality, that combination of sales pitch and rhetoric that feels like it’s been carefully crafted to appeal to all people at all times. Granted, he said the right thing when he called healthcare a right – unlike McCain’s weasily “responsibility” answer. But that’s the thing. He said the right thing, just like he hedged his bets when talking about foreign policy in a way that would make him seems as tough as the neocon warmongers, but cuddlier thanks to increased diplomatic efforts. I've always viewed Obama as an establishment candidate, but last night just drove the point home.

So:

Obama proved yet again that he is not the great liberal hope, but is indeed a centrist. This begs the question: how much is political rhetoric necessary in order to wage a successful campaign, and how much is actual policy? To put this in perspective, Obama is running as the candidate of change, but isn’t above negative campaigning – yet with McCain drudging the gutter, political realities dictate aggressive campaigning. The issue: how much talk is talk, and how much talk is walk?

Make no mistake, I still believe Obama is a vastly better choice than McCain, hands down. But maybe I should say that Obama is the vastly lesser evil of the two. That unnerving sucking sound you hear? That’s real hope exhaling its dying breath. It’s the difference between springing to life after a long illness, and merely hanging on for a few more moments of life support. The biggest question of this whole isn’t whether Obama will prevent a further slide into the pit dug by Bush, with McCain eagerly reaching for the shovel. It’s whether Obama can guide a reversal of Bush’s policies.

predictions for tonight's debate

I didn't think the VP debate would be a bloodbath. Of course, I never wrote it down so it's easy to say, "yeah, yeah, smart guy, you say that NOW, in hindsight..."

So this time, I'll put my predictions down and we'll see what happens.

1. It will not be a bloodbath.
2. McCain will indeed resort to character assassination, as his campaign promises.
3. Obama will counter-attack with Keating - all the while staying focused on the economy, which is, obviously, McCain's biggest weakness.
   

McCain is in a defensive position brought on by his turn to negative campaigning. If he goes beyond casting doubts voters accept as fair to launching attacks seen as baseless, he will come across as desperate and bitter.

All Obama needs to do is stay cool, talk about the economy, and focus on connecting with voters. Biden was good at mixing in some personal talk with the policy talk; it defused Palin's single-minded focus of trying to bond with voters via the small town folksiness. If Obama can pepper his focus on the issues with more personal stories, more anecdotes from everyday folk, he'll connect really well. Bonus points: subtly needling McCain in a way that doesn't scream "bait" but will provoke McCain into overreacting.

a few observations on the VP debate

1. It was not a bloodbath.
2. It was a battle of familiar talking points that could have been phoned in.
3. Talking points simplify issues to the point of meaningless.
4. Sarah Palin pronounces it "nukular."
5. Biden broke hearts by being for civil unions but against gay marriage - like Palin.
6. Biden debated well; personable, knowledgeable, sane.
   
7. Palin held her own - style-wise. But how anybody can take seriously someone who calls for stricter economic oversight while later complaining that "government is the problem" is a mystery to me.
   
8. Sarah Palin is of the Dick Cheney school of the Vice Presidency. Can I have more power, sir? Please, sir? More power?
   
9. Joe Biden pronounces it "nuclear."
10. As usual, the pundits win.

inspirational quote of the day

"At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt.”
-John McCain to wife Cindy, 1992