skip to main |
skip to sidebar
As with the Tuesday DNC, I taped Wednesday night’s proceedings and watched them this morning. I started taping about 4:30pm EDT so I caught a little of the pre-game hoopla. Jonathan Alter of Newsweek was interviewed. He told us that watching CSPAN was great because it let us see the speeches in their entirety without chatter (including his chatter he pointed out) telling us what we were seeing and hearing. He then proceeded to tell us what to look for in the Biden and Bill Clinton speeches. Sigh.
Alter also - apropos of no question I heard - began talking about the McCain people complaining Newsweek was giving Obama too much coverage and the Obama people complaining Newsweek was giving McCain a free ride. Before even considering his further remarks, I’m not crazy about the equivalency he’s setting up here. The Obama campaign may well have complained that Newsweek is giving McCain a free ride; I haven’t seen anyone else complaining about that. On the other hand, I have seen quite a few complaints from a variety of sources that Newsweek is in the tank for Obama.
As for Alter’s take on this, I’m not entirely sure what it was, but what I got out of it was that when a candidate is hot, the press talks about him a lot. Alter’s explanation (if I understood it correctly) seems rather disingenuous. Surely one could just as plausibly argue that a candidate is likely to be hot if the press talks about him a lot. On the bright side, thought, I found it a positive sign that elements of the media are beginning to feel they have to address the nature of their coverage.
When asked about Sean Wilentz’ Newsweek essay comparing Barack Obama to Jimmy Carter, Alter pointed out that Wilentz was a Clinton supporter and had been, Alter believed, recently in Africa with Bill Clinton. Further, Alter felt the comparison was unfair. Oh, please. The essay was in Alter’s own magazine; his failure to let it stand or fall on its own merits doesn’t do much to support Alter’s claim that Newsweek is not favoring Obama. (After listening to Alter, I read Wilentz’ essay. I thought he had some interesting ideas and facts but he did not link them together into a coherent argument leading to a clear point.)
Perhaps because I watched from before the convention was actually gaveled to order, I found myself paying attention to the music which seemed to date from the 60s, 70s, 80s. I thought it was an odd choice given Obama’s reliance on young voters but when I paid attention to the actual delegates they seemed to be largely in their 40s or older which explains the music. Plus if you’re trying to convince Middle American to vote for you, rap is probably not the way to go.
I also noticed that as each speaker is introduced, a snippet of song is played. Do you suppose the speakers get to choose their own signature tune like baseball players do?
The invocation was given by Archbishop Demetrios, Greek Orthodox Archbishop of the United States. I thought he looked very impressive and, more important, did an excellent job, expressing gratitude for being part of the United States and appreciation for all who sacrificed to give us what America has to offer; referring to the United States as a model for the world; and asking for wisdom for those who were to be nominated.
After the prayer I went back to fast-forwarding through the speeches, giving each speaker about 60 seconds to catch my interest. Hillary Clinton had one nominating speech and two seconds; Barack Obama had one nominating speech and three seconds. I wonder how long it took to work that out.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz did an excellent job seconding Obama - at least until she started talking about her kids. (Someday I want to listen to a female American politician who doesn’t feel the need to reference her children to make her point.) Since she had worked for Hillary Clinton, I liked that she addressed that issue head-on and reminded everyone that - in the immortal words of BtVS - “that was then, this is now”.
Senator Ken Salazar annoyed me for two reasons. First, he wore his hat indoors. Second, talking about the American dream, he said:
Just 500 miles southeast of here, in El Dorado, Kansas, another mother instilled that same dream in her son, Barack Obama.
I’ve run across this before so perhaps it’s becoming an official version of Obama’s life. Nonetheless, while Obama’s mother’s was born in Kansas, Obama did not live there. Implying Obama is suited to be President because he’s from Kansas is only going to backfire when voters - who are not as dumb as some people think - figure out he’s from elsewhere.
The roll call vote was a mistake. If the roll call had accurately reflected the results of the primaries the roll call would have worked - we would have gotten to New Mexico with Clinton making a close showing. That would have validated Clinton’s claim to have been a contender and would have made her call for an acclamation of Obama a powerful gesture. Unfortunately, that’s not how it happened. Votes Clinton had won went to Obama: New Jersey, for example, cast all its votes for Obama even though Clinton won 59 of those votes and Obama 48. If the point was to give Clinton her due and make her supporters feel respected, watching the States give Obama delegates he did not win is unlikely to have accomplished that.
I did enjoy watching and listening to Alice Travis Germond, Secretary of the DNC, run the roll call. She reminds me of all the women I knew growing up who ran so much, always on a volunteer basis. I noticed that once things got interesting - once Hillary Clinton moved to nominate Obama by acclamation - Nancy Pelosi took over again. Perhaps that was to insure that the “any discussion” question was followed so closely by the “all in favor” question that there was no time for discussion. And, similarly, that the “all opposed” question was stepped on by the “passed” proclamation. I understand the desire to keep things under control but a little less haste would have been more seemly. Especially since everyone knows some people would have liked to discuss the matter and some people would have voted “Nay”.
That’s as far as I’ve gotten in reviewing Wednesday night. (I’m afraid I lingered too long with Alter and the Archbishop.) At this rate, I’ll be writing about Obama’s acceptance speech while McCain is making his.
Updated: The Jackals won. Bases loaded, bottom of the 13th, a wild pitch let in a run. Final score: Sussex Skyhawks 6, New Jersey Jackals 7.
I've changed the post title from "DNC Tuesday" to "2008 DNC Tuesday" just in case I want to write about the 2012 DNC. I've also added a comma between "getting" and "had" in the sentence that begins "I imagine her long narrative". And I've fixed my mental typo by changing "self-composed" to "self-possessed" in the antepenultimate sentence.
Finally, I thought Hillary Clinton's orange pantsuit looked fine.
I was at a New Jersey Jackals baseball game (still tied when I left after 11 innings) last night, so I taped the CSPAN coverage of the Democratic National Convention from about 6:15pm EDT on. (I did tape Monday’s coverage but haven’t yet watched any of it. I plan to watch Michelle Obama’s speech at least.)
I watched the Tuesday night coverage this morning by giving each speaker roughly 60 seconds to catch my attention before fast forwarding to the next. Kathleen Sebelius held me for about 2 minutes but after that I didn’t find anything new in her message and wasn’t swept up by her rhetoric.
The speaker who did hold me for all of his speech was Deval Patrick, the Governor of Massachusetts. His personal story was compelling, he gave it an “only in America” nod, and he tied it into what we could hope for from the Democrats and an Obama Presidency. Furthermore, his delivery was excellent.
Montana’s Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer followed Patrick. I found him difficult to watch - too fidgety on stage - but I made it through his description of how he selected a Republican as his Lieutenant Governor because he believed he could achieve more working with the Republicans than against them. After listening to what they’d accomplished during his time as governor - lowered taxes, more energy production, more money for schools - I was wondering if I could just vote for him for President.
As for Hillary Rodham Clinton, it is impossible for me to imagine any way in which she could have done a better job convincing her supporters to vote for Barack Obama. I imagine her long narrative of what she believed in, why she ran, and the people she met along the way who deserved better than they were getting, had all her supporters on the verge of storming the stage to demand she be the nominee (and had the Obama people biting their nails). Then she asked her supporters: were you in this campaign for me or were you in this campaign for the people who need us, for the ideals we both believe in? If it was for the people and the ideals, then you have to vote for Barack Obama. Brilliant and unanswerable.
She also did an excellent job - rhetorically and substantively - outlining why McCain was unacceptable. Her reference to Michelle Obama as a great first lady was beyond classy and her praise of Joe Biden and his wife was fabulous. Her invocation of the long, long struggle of the suffragettes was perfect and her working back around to the story of Harriet Tubman urging those fleeing to freedom to never give up was inspired. This part of her speech was classic get out the vote, fire up the troops tub-thumping oratory.
Most of all, I liked her reference to the fact that we Democrats know how to do this because look how well we did with President Clinton and the Democrats. That was very powerful stuff given the feeling in some quarters that the Clinton Presidency hadn’t been given its due by the Obama campaign. And her looking forward to we Democrats doing just as well under President Obama and the Democrats was a generous gift.
I cried, Bill cried, Michelle clapped, Biden was the most enthusiastic applauder in the hall. This speech was a stem-winder in the original sense of being first-rate, powerful, persuasive, effective, and impassioned. All in all, as I said, I can’t imagine how she - or anyone - could have done a better job.
Will it work to convince her supporters to back Obama? I think it will. I was not a Clinton supporter and I’ve never understood why anyone would vote for Obama but even I found myself thinking that maybe he wouldn’t be such a bad choice after all. Pretty powerful stuff.
On a less political note, I’m simply going to have to admit that I don’t understand the Clintons’ marriage. It was crystal clear during the speech that Bill was unbelievably proud of Hillary and at one point when the cameras focused on him he was whispering, “I love you” over and over again. It’s not a marriage that would work for me but it works for them. And based on what I’ve seen of Chelsea Clinton, they’ve managed to raise quite an intelligent, self-composed daughter. They must be doing something right.
I can’t wait for Bill’s speech tomorrow.
Cokie Roberts has taken a lot of grief for her comments about Obama’s Hawaii vacation:
[Obama] has certainly come nowhere near closing the deal. As we've talked about before, in this year that should be such a Democratic year, given all the other indices, he is tied in the polls in—stateside, in the polls—and going off this week to vacation in Hawaii does not make any sense whatsoever. I know his grandmother lives in Hawaii. And I know Hawaii is a state, but it has the look of him going off to some sort of foreign exotic place. He should be in Myrtle Beach and—you know, if he's going to take a vacation at this time. And I just think that this is not the time to do that.
Maybe her comments really were foolish. But I think it's worth pointing out that it was Roberts who said, way back in February (emphasis mine):
The only group she still really has is white women. And I do think that there's some possibility that you will see a sort of reaction among white women. I had the opportunity to interview Billie Jean King this week, and she said, you know, "I feel like everything I've worked for all of my life is going out the window." And there is that sense. I mean, here is this woman who's worked hard, she's done it all the way you're supposed to do it, and then this cute young man comes in and says a bunch of sweet, you know, nothings, and pushes you out of the way. And a lot of women are looking at that and saying, "There goes my life."
Tonight Hillary Clinton is the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention. Tomorrow her name will be placed in nomination and a traditional roll call for her will take place.
[The title of this post comes from Stephen Decatur’s toast: "Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!"]
Barack Obama has an unusual background. I might even go so far as to call it - if you’ll pardon the expression - exotic.
Barack Obama’s biological father was not an American citizen. Using Wikipedia, I checked United States Presidents back to Teddy Roosevelt and as far as I can tell none of them had a biological parent who was not a United States citizen. Only one of them - Woodrow Wilson - had a biological parent who was not born in the United States: Wilson’s mother was born in Carlisle to Scottish parents. By the time she met and married Wilson’s father she had emigrated to the United States and was a permanent resident and presumably a citizen.
Barack Obama’s mother’s second husband (Obama’s courtesy stepfather) was not an American citizen. Again, as far as I can tell no President in the 20th or 21st century has had a stepparent - legal or courtesy - who was not an American citizen.
Obama lived in a foreign country from the time he was 5 or 6 until he was 10. I would imagine more than a few United States Presidents spent time out of the country when they were young. Certainly if their parents were ambassadors or in the military they would have done so. In those cases, however, they were living in those countries as Americans: both parents were United States citizens; their families were there on United States business; and a return to the United States was foreordained. In other words, they were just visiting. In Obama’s case, he was living in a foreign country as if he was a citizen of that country: one of his “parents” was a citizen of that country; neither of his parents were there on United States business; and an eventual return to the United States was not certain.
Personally, I find Obama’s nonstandard background interesting but irrelevant to his candidacy. Some people though see it as either as asset or a liability. I don’t think either of these views - asset or liability - is more wrong or more right. They simply reflect an ongoing tension between different beliefs about how the United States should interact with the rest of the world.
Obama himself cites his ties to other countries as an advantage, saying that “having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa” lets him know the people of the world. He has said he is both “a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world”.
Similarly, for some - perhaps most - Obama supporters, his background is an asset, is desirable. They believe that Obama’s background gives him “a global perspective”. They say that his history provides an effective weapon “against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology”.
For others, Obama’s background is a liability for the very reasons Obama and his supporters view that background as an asset. It’s not that they question Obama’s patriotism; that is, they do not believe Obama will fail to pursue the best interests of the United States. It’s simply that they worry Obama’s close ties to other countries and global perspective mean his view of those best interests will not be the same as their own.
The difference between those who view Obama’s background as an asset and those who view it as a liability is perhaps the difference between those who prefer an arbitrator and those who prefer an advocate to resolve disputes. An arbitrator sees interconnections and prefers to resolve issues to everyone’s satisfaction; an advocate sees only the interests of his clients and wants the best deal for that client, period.
This issue is not unique to Obama. Recent Democratic Presidential candidates seem to struggle with the label of being too “internationalist”. What makes Obama unique is that his background provides an additional hook on which to hang this label. There has been a tendency to claim this extra hook has to do with race and religion, that “exotic” is a code word for “black” or “possibly Muslim”, and that people who view his background as a liability are simply racists or religious bigots. I don’t believe that.
Let’s imagine that Obama’s story is exactly the same except his biological father was French; his name is Francois Valery de Villepin (apologies to a couple of French politicians); his mother’s second husband was from Germany and that is where Francois lived between the ages of 5 and 10; and Francois has close relatives in both France and Germany. I think the same concerns about his background would arise.
Alternatively, let’s imagine that Obama’s story is exactly the same except his biological father was Russian; his name is Andrey Il’ych Narmonov (apologies to Tom Clancy); his mother’s second husband was from the Ukraine and that is where Andrey lived between the ages of 5 and 10; and Andrey has close relatives in both Russia and the Ukraine. Imagine how strong the concerns about Obama’s background would be in that case.
(Oddly enough, the Obama campaign does not seem to have emphasized a part of his story that could go some way toward reassuring those who find his background a liability: Obama’s return to the United States when he was 10. Not too long ago, I read something about his mother which referred to her being strong enough to let her son go back to Hawaii when he said that was what he wanted. If accurate, then perhaps that aspect of Obama’s history - that he himself wanted to return to the United States, to return home - needs to be a more prominently featured part of his narrative.)
I believe it is valid to consider Obama’s exotic background - whether positively or negatively - when deciding whether to vote for him. However, I also believe it is excessive concern about Obama’s background that has given rise to the repeated, undying, irrational claims that he is not qualified to run for President under Article Two, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution. Rather than simply saying, “I’d be more comfortable with a President who doesn’t have any ties to other countries. I want an advocate who doesn’t know from nuanced”, some Obama detractors feel compelled to prove that Obama is literally not American enough to be President.
Given that Obama is a United States citizen, born in the United States to a mother who was a United States citizen, I find these attempts to disqualify him unseemly at best. An exotic background should not prevent someone from running for President. It is for each voter to decide for him or herself whether they find Obama’s history an asset, a liability, or an irrelevance.
According to Yahoo News:
John McCain and Barack Obama have agreed to hold three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate this fall, the campaigns said in a joint statement Thursday that outlined formats, dates and locations.
The Commission on Presidential Debates will sponsor the events.
Technically true, I suppose, but awfully misleading. Those debates have actually been scheduled since at least November 19, 2007:
Paul G. Kirk, Jr. and Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr., co-chairmen of the non-partisan, non-profit Commission on Presidential Debates ("CPD" or "the Commission") today announced dates, sites and formats of three presidential and one vice presidential debates for the 2008 general election. The dates and sites are:
First presidential debate:
Friday, September 26
University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS
Vice presidential debate:
Thursday, October 2
Washington University in St. Louis, MO
Second presidential debate:
Tuesday, October 7
Belmont University, Nashville, TN
Third presidential debate:
Wednesday, October 15
Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY
I’m uncomfortable with the way Yahoo presented this because it makes it sound like McCain and Obama sat down, put their heads together, and came up with this wonderful schedule to help us all choose wisely. In fact, they simply agreed to debates that have been scheduled for nine months. That’s not news - or at least not the news Yahoo is reporting.
It makes me wonder whether - if one of the candidates had opted out of the scheduled debates - we would ever had heard about that or if we would simply have heard that the candidates had been unable to come to an agreement on debate dates or formats.
There is one bit of actual new news in the Yahoo article. For the September 26 debate, the candidates will stand at podiums rather being seated at a table with the moderator as the CPD planned. I’d love to know which candidate insisted on that change.
Updated: I've added a couple of clarifications. They appear in blue in the text.
Updated, August 19, 2008, at noon: Thanks to a comment by Jrs Dad I actually looked up The Master Nationality Rule of Article 4 of the Hague Convention of 1930. Article 4 says in its entirety:
A State may not afford diplomatic protection to one of its nationals against a State whose nationality such person also possesses.
You can read the entire "Convention on Certain Questions relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws" here.
You'd think I'd learn. Always go to the source. Sigh.
(I also corrected a couple of typos.)
It looks like the issue of Obama’s citizenship is percolating again. I actually have a theory about why this keeps coming up and I’ll try to get a post up on that in the next few days. In the meantime, however, I want to address the claims that are now being offered up.
I became aware of the latest Obama citizenship go-round because TigerHawk has up a post about Obama’s supposed dual US-Kenyan citizenship asking whether this is true and whether he should care. On the question of whether he should care, here’s my comment:
I care about this only because it highlights how short a time Obama has been under scrutiny on the national level and how many gaps there thus are in my knowledge of him.
As for dual citizenship itself, it’s not all that rare and often happens without the holder wanting it. I remember a guy I knew years ago. His parents - both US citizens - were living in Brazil (I think it was) because of work when the guy was born. Brazil considered him a citizen and always would. I remember his parents talking about how he might never be able to even visit Brazil as a tourist for fear he’d be drafted. Weird.
Based on what I’ve read so far, I don’t see any reason to care in the Constitutional sense. That is, I don’t see anything in this that means Obama is not a US citizen and it looks like if he ever did hold dual citizenship, he no longer does.
Barack Obama was born August 4, 1961. The circumstances of his birth mean that he was a United States citizen at birth. So the question is whether he was also a Kenyan citizen.
I found what claims to be the Kenyan Constitution and read some of what it says about citizenship. I believe the first article that applies is:
Article 87-2 which would mean Kenya considered Obama a citizen since he was born prior to independence (December 12, 1963) and his father was/became a Kenyan citizen on December 12, 1963. I’m assuming Obama’s father met the criteria in Article 87-1. I'm also assuming Obama himself was considered a British-protected person since I assume his father would have been such prior to Kenyan independence.
Since Kenya would apparently consider Obama to hold dual citizenship beginning on December 12, 1963, I believe the following article would also apply:
Article 97-2 which means Obama would have ceased to be a Kenyan citizen on his 21st birthday unless he “renounced his citizenship of that other country [the US], taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya. made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.”
I don’t imagine Obama did any of those things.
One of the commenters at TigerHawk provides a link to a post up at Gateway Pundit on the same issue. The comments there raise a couple of other issues.
One of the commenters at Gateway Pundit is talking about The Master Nationality Rule of Article 4 of the Hague Convention of 1930. I don’t have the energy to go look that up, but the commenter himself says the Hague Rule only applies if Kenya doesn’t recognize dual citizenship. Since Kenya apparently does recognize dual citizenship and provides for automatic loss of Kenyan citizenship if the holder of dual citizenship does not actively retain his Kenyan citizenship after turning 21, I don’t think the Hague Rule is relevant.
One of the commenters at Gateway Pundit is also talking about Obama possibly holding Indonesian citizenship. The theory here is that Obama’s mother gave up her US citizenship and Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather and thereby magically became an Indonesian citizen.
It’s a little harder to find info on this but I found a Q&A page
cached by Google with this line:
A foreign child aged below 21 and unmarried, who is adopted by an Indonesian, will be eligible for Indonesian citizenship if the process does not cause dual citizenship.
Since Obama was a citizen of the US (and probably of Kenya) his acquiring Indonesian citizenship would have caused dual (actually triple) citizenship so it seems unlikely he became an Indonesian citizen. Furthermore, I have seen no evidence that Obama's mother gave up her US citizenship or that Obama was adopted by his mother's Indonesian husband.
(Yes, I know there are now stories out there about a new birth certificate being issued when he was adopted and him traveling to Pakistan in 1981 on an Indonesian passport. If the new birth certificate is true, I don’t think that matters as far as his US or his Indonesian citizenship is concerned. If the Indonesian passport is true, I’m still not convinced it would mean Obama is not a US citizen. Someone would have to look at US law to decide if Obama’s mother or stepfather could renounce his US citizenship for him. I’m thinking they could not. Note, also, that Obama was under 21 in 1981. Plus, isn’t NoQuarter the place that said they had tape of Michelle Obama saying ugly things? Which tape I, at least, have never seen.)
I have to believe that if there was anything solid to the whole Obama citizenship issue in any of its many permutations, it would have come out by now. Let’s look at the possible players who could have something solid on this:
If - as some people who give Clinton either way too much or way too little credit think - the Clinton camp has definitive information, they would have released it before this. If Clinton had the info and waited to make it a Denver surprise, she’d be destroyed politically.
If mainstream Republicans have this, I believe they’d release it now, too. This is too nationally damaging an issue to hold onto for political advantage. And even if you find it unlikely they would act nobly in this matter, they would run the risk of being badly damaged politically if it became known they had this information and sat on it.
As for fringe groups, I don’t see the advantage for them in sitting on this either:
If they’re Clinton supporters and they release the information in Denver, Clinton will be destroyed politically just as surely as if she’d released it herself. If they release it after Denver, things will go even more badly for Clinton especially if it’s discovered they had the information before Denver.
If they’re McCain supporters, I suppose they might see an advantage to not releasing the information until after the Democratic convention confirms Obama as the official nominee - just as a baseball manager won’t change his pitcher until after a hitter is announced. However, I still think it would hurt McCain. There’s no advantage to a McCain supporter holding it until after the elections: if McCain wins, it’s irrelevant. If Obama wins, we’re not going take a mulligan on the election.
I suppose if one wanted to be truly devious, one could argue that Clinton or a Clinton supporter has solid evidence that Obama is disqualified for the office of President on citizenship grounds. If Clinton becomes Obama’s vice-presidential pick and Obama wins, then the information could be announced after the inauguration and Clinton would presumably move up to be President. I have to think, though, that Clinton’s reputation would be so badly damaged by precipitating a Constitutional crisis that she’d probably immediately be impeached. So it seems to me that the only person who benefits from having solid information and sitting on it it Nancy Pelosi.
I just saw two stories on the same Yahoo cover page:
Iraq demands 'clear timeline' for US withdrawal
Iraq to revive oil deal with China
So the United States has spent how much money (let’s not even get into blood) on Iraq and now Iraq wants us to leave so they can sell their oil to China? I’m very much afraid that if I were the President, I’d pick up the phone, call General Petraeus, and tell him to start loading up the troops and sending them home. And I’d tell him I expect everybody out by Labor Day.
The truly maddening thing is that this outcome was so clearly foreshadowed. Within just a few months of our defeat of Saddam Hussein, there were Iraqis protesting against the United States in Iraq. My question then was, “What part of conquered nation do you not understand?”
But, of course, we never told Iraq it was a conquered nation. We told Iraq - and the rest of the world - that we were there to liberate the people of Iraq and set them on the path to self-determination. It sounded good and it was a noble idea. But the next time the United States decides to spend thousands of lives and God knows how much money liberating somone, I’d like more emphasis on our national interest and less emphasis on getting them back to dealing oil to the Chinese.
Posts
