What's Good for the Country Is What's Good for the Candidates...Both of Them

Andrew Sullivan, who I still like a lot despite the fact that he tends toward hyperbole - while meaning to be completely serious - which really kind of annoys me, has links to a couple of post debating the merits of the proposed McCain-Obama summer debate series. On the con side he proffers this piece by Noam Scheiber:

McCain has several big disadvantages vis-a-vis Obama. He faces a massive enthusiasm gap and will have trouble attracting large crowds. He's in all likelihood going to be massively outraised and outspent, making it hard to get his message out. And, possibly as a result of the previous problem, he'll be cast as a right-winger determined to continue George Bush's policies.

The unmoderated debates would help him overcome all three problems. They'll draw big crowds and generate lots of buzz. They'll help him get his message out for free. And, just by virtue of appearing frequently at Obama's side and having a civil debate, they'll make him look much more moderate than the Obama campaign wants him to look.

I don't see the upside for Obama.

On the pro side, there is this argument from Hendrik Hertzberg:

Another reason, tactically speaking, for Obama to say yes to McCain’s proposal is the dampening effect a series of buddy-movie faceoffs could have on the campaign of character assassination that is sure to be conducted by Republican surrogates and 527s. McCain and Obama both speak of their desire to have a civil conversation. Both say they want to reach across ideological and party lines. Both say they don’t regard their opponents as enemies. A series of face-to-face discussions would make it a little harder for the partisans of either candidate (I’m talking about you, Republicans) to run a parallel campaign of lies and slanders, and would ratchet up the pressure on the intended beneficiary of such a campaign to put the kibosh on it.

Obama’s right. It’s a great idea.

All of that is well and good. And I guess each side has to look at it from the perspective of how it would benefit them.

But really, at the end of the day, I'd feel much more comfortable if the real concern were not whether it was good for Obama but whether it was good for the country. Surely, it's good for the voters to have this kind of open and honest exchange of ideas from the two major party candidates, one of whom will ultimately be the next President of the United States. And since both the candidates seem to want that kind of a dialogue, and most of politics is one big gamble anyway, why not just do it. It seems really cynical for all of these commentators, who in reality are the ones supposed to keep the politicians in check and keep them honest and be looking out for the interests of the public instead of the bottom line, to be so focused on what's good for Obama rather than what's good for the country.

It's almost as if they've decided that Obama is what's good for the country and since we, the public, are too stupid to come to that conclusion on our own through a series of civil and unmoderated debates, they've got to take matters into their own hands and declare that Obama should do it only if it "helps" him...and never mind whether it's the right thing to do.

Obama's instincts are right on this one, and his supporters should support that, rather than falling brazenly at the altar of political expediency.

Beatty Gets It

It's a sad state of affairs when the person who makes the most sense when it comes to John McCain is none other than Warren Beatty:

I’ve known John McCain for a long time. He always said he was a conservative. He was a conservative. He is a conservative. It seems that people should take John McCain for what he says he is."

I wonder why the so-called conservatives can't grasp this.

Link via Jeff Ellis.

The Assassin Vote

This is just plain wrong. Still, it's funny as hell.

Something about McCain

Slate offers a repeat of a McCain anecdote that originally appeared in the New York Times Magazine in a profile by Michael Lewis. It's a pretty good story.

All the Veep Nonsense I Can Stand for One Week

In the midst of all the bigger news stories out there this week, I happened to hear mention that Mitt Romney, a man I really hoped would just gently and graciously slip out of the picture for now and always, has publicly stated his willingness to accept the VP slot on the Republican ticket should McCain offer it.

What it is with the hubris and vanity of these guys and gals when it comes to being Veep? First, Hillary says that she and Obama would make a dream ticket, presumably with her in the top spot, even though she's still trailing in the delegate count and most people say her chances of actually securing the nomination are incredibly slim. Even the conservatives who are pushing for their acolytes to run out and vote for Hillary in the primaries (you know who I mean - interestingly, the Google search I did to get that link turned up this article as well, with its truly cringe-worthy premise) don't seem to think she actually has a chance of securing the nomination, even though that's clearly the outcome they'd like. Instead, they seem to just want to keep the Democrats fighting each other as long as possible so that they look bad and will be kept off message, thus lending McCain an advantage. I could be wrong, but the assumption seems to be that Obama, at the end of the day, is still going to walk away with the nomination.

As for this Romney thing, all I can do is sigh and roll my eyes. First of all, duh. Of course Romney would be willing to accept the spot if it's offered. What the hell else is he going to do? He'd fall all over himself trying to accept it before McCain changed his mind. I love how he frames it, though, almost as if he'd be willing to go out of his way and do McCain a favor. How sickeningly presumptuous of him to even suggest that he should be under consideration.

Second of all, and most importantly, I really hope McCain doesn't choose this route. So, John McCain, if you're reading this, do not, under any circumstances, even think about making Mitt Romney your running mate. No one likes him, and it would only hurt you in the end. I know you may feel like you need to do something to reach out to the base, but trust me, there are better ways than elevating some two-bit hack who never should have been in the running in the first place. There's a reason he didn't get the nomination. He should have won it easily and handily, and he didn't, and that's because he, quite frankly, sucks.

Some Morning After Thoughts...and a Quiz

I don't really have much to say about the primaries yesterday. I will say that what I expected to happen pretty much happened, in a general sense, with the exception of Huckabee emerging as an alternative to McCain and Romney in the south - and that's something I probably could have seen coming if I'd given Huckabee any thought at all. This is a welcome development, as it would set up Huckabee as a more appealing running mate for McCain than Romney, should McCain get the nomination and decide to choose from among his rivals for the Veep slot. It's really become something of a passion of mine to keep Romney out of the White House.

If you're interested in some more developed thoughts, check out Jeff Ellis' early post from last night. He doesn't cover California, but it's still definitely worth a read.

(As an aside, Jeff also blogged yesterday about the West Virginia convention voting, and he pretty much said the same thing as me - only more expanded and more informative - which makes me feel a little more justified.

Anyway, I was talking to a friend of mine yesterday about all of this, and she sent me this link to a short quiz that's supposed to tell you which candidate is most compatible with you. For fun, even though the test is only 10 questions and thereby doesn't capture the complexity of picking a candidate at all, I took it.

My results were quite surprising. The candidate I am leaning toward voting for was toward the bottom of my list, with only Ron Paul coming in lower. And two of the candidates I'd never ever consider voting for were right there at the top of my list, tied for first. At least it was a three-way tie, and the third person was indeed someone I could see myself voting for, though I'm not leaning in that direction at this time. (This test includes all six candidates who are still in the race, Democrats and Republicans both.)

I'm curious how other people's results break down for this test. Maybe I just don't have my own best interests at heart, and need to become better at picking a candidate to support. I still think the fault lies with the test, and not with me.

Reason # 47 not to like Mitt Romney

I've been mildly interested to follow the super Tuesday vote this year, even though I don't live in one of the states voting and therefore have to wait until March to vote in a primary. (Not that this is a bad thing, since I currently don't have a candidate to cast my vote for.)

Anyway, I couldn't help but be intrigued by the news out of West Virginia, that Huckabee won the delegates at stake there, partially because of some political maneuvering of McCain's supporters in that state to deny a Romney victory. This kind of thing strikes me as being the very essence of politics.

Not so for the Romney camp, apparently:

Romney's campaign was furious over the "Washington backroom deal."

"Unfortunately, this is what Sen. McCain's inside Washington ways look like: He cut a backroom deal with the tax-and-spend candidate he thought could best stop Gov. Romney's campaign of conservative change," read a statement from Romney campaign manager Beth Myers.

**insert eye roll and derisive snort here**

Huckabee actually had a pretty good response:

Huckabee chuckled at the remark.

"I thought he was saying yesterday, 'No whining.' So is it no whining or whining? He can't even keep a straight answer on the 'whining or no whining' question," Huckabee said.

"There was no backroom deal," he added. "There wasn't even a front room deal. There was no deal."

Of course, the dig from Romney wasn't meant toward Huckabee, because he isn't a threat, but toward McCain.

And don't get me started on the phrase "conservative change." I might have to start rolling my eyes and snorting derisively again.

I would live blog the results tonight, as I haven't done that in a great long while and it's so much fun, but unfortunately, I have a Chemistry test to study for. Perhaps I'll pop on now and again to offer my thoughts.