ike | Finders Keepers Losers Veepers

By far the coolest vice president in history is Spiro Agnew. He actually took bribes while in office. He was also most likely more corrupt than his boss, though not as smart, and certainly lacked a certain element of tolerance.

Usually, vice presidents don't have much to do. And no, I will not use this venue to indulge in any "Dick Cheney shot a man in the face jokes" because I don't think it's fair to mock a man who has approval ratings lower than Yasser Arafat's T-cell count. Too soon? My bad.

The media spends a lot of time worrying about a position that is by definition in the background. But the truth is, nobody much cares. In 2000, Joe Lieberman nearly fellated our current second in command and no one even thought to film it.

That being said, a vice presidential nominee can have a big role in electoral politics. But Democrats have royally screwed up their choices in the last two presidential elections by trying to neutralize core strengths of their opponent and not focusing on the electoral college.

In 2000, George W. Bush ran to bring "morality" back to the Oval Office. Of course, this was a deft and thinly-veiled reference to the smokin' good times that occurred there. Bush's argument had great appeal; many, probably most, Americans were sickened by Clinton's actions and believed that a less indulgent man deserved our nation's highest office. Instead of running on eight years of mostly peace and prosperity, Al Gore decided to try to hit his opponent where he was the strongest. So the Democratic Party was treated to Joe Lieberman, who needlessly tried to kill music before he succeeded in needlessly killing Americans. But back in 2000, when life was but a dream, Lieberman represented a strong religious backbone, morality and pro-family ethics. It was the perfect antidote to one of W's fundamental appeals. But it failed.

Flash forward to four years ago when John Kerry, never a favorite in a tea leaf reading contest, selected outgoing North Carolina Senator John Edwards, outgoing due more to his inability to win his home state again than his presidential aspirations. Edwards would provide a beautiful antitode to Bush's down-home folksiness. He could peel off rural white voters from W and allow Kerry to defeat the incumbent. We all know what happened.

Picking a vice president because he or she combats a certain ideological strength of your opponent is stupid. The person nominated by his party for the highest office in the land is surely better at reflecting that ideology; that's why he's the nominee. Plus, nobody votes for the vice president. UNLESS...

Veeps can carry states. More specifically, a vice presidential candidate can carry his or her home state--especially if that candidate is a popularly elected governor. So if you were a presidential nominee, why wouldn't you run on your strengths and then select as your running mate a person who could actually deliver a state you couldn't have won otherwise? Seems obvious, right?

With that out of the way, here are my Veep picks.

Barack Obama: Tim Kaine.

The Democratic Party is flush with popular governors elected in presidentially red states. Kansas, Montana, Wyoming, Ohio, Arkansas. The list goes on and on. Obama has a very real shot to win Virginia even without Kaine on the ticket. The state has had two consecutive popular Democratic governors, and come January, it will have two Democratic senators. But Tim Kaine probably puts Obama over the top. And picking up a southern state is a big deal. But Kaine also does something else: he complements a strength of Obama. Obama has a real chance to peel off a chunk of evangelical voters. Karl Rove has generally credited registering and turning out 3 million new religious voters with Bush's 2004 re-election. Kaine and Obama both speak freely, passionately and articulately about their faith. And John McCain doesn't. Obama knows about the importance of this issue in states like Colorado, Iowa and Nevada. Evangelicals and latinos represent Obama's best opportunity to make in-roads among populations that voted overwhelmingly for W.

John McCain: Mitt Romney.

Money is a big problem for John McCain. Some have speculated Obama could raise $100 million in single months of this campaign. Mitt Romney, through his business and religious connections, would help the McCain ticket in a place it is in great need: the wallet. There is a dearth of popular, Republican statewide officeholders in blue states. And while Romney would never carry Massachusetts on a McCain ticket, he could help in New Hampshire. Not to mention the fact that Romney's greatest strength, his success in the private sector, knowledge of the business world and CEO experience, all serve to quell the fears of an electorate for which the growing financial crisis is the greatest concern.

TDB | Obama & Lincoln

Pointing out similarities between current politicians and historical figures can quickly become a silly and pointless exercise. But the search for historical precedents is instructive - it's especially useful for exposing fallacies in current thinking. That's half of what I'm aiming at here; I also want to use history to add perspective to probable future events.

Barack Obama often invokes Lincoln's memory; and there's been much discussion of parallels between the two men. Last week even saw Obama's face superimposed on Lincoln's head and shoulders in a very skillfully painted mural. And even though much of this is done rather excitedly and without concern for historical accuracy, there are good reasons to compare Obama to Lincoln, as the two men have a remarkable amount in common.

There's been a lot of understandable concern about Barack Obama's lack of experience. But Lincoln - who, whatever your personal opinion of him, saw our nation ably through one of its most trying moments - became president with only two years of Washington experience - and this much earlier in his career. He was, even then, only a member of the House. Obama will have four years of Washington experience by the time he takes office - and as a Senator. Both Obama and Lincoln made early marks largely by opposing a popular war - the Iraq War in Obama's case, the Mexican War in Lincoln's. Both men gained national prominence not through years legislative toil (a la Richard Lugar or Joe Biden) but rather through speaking events that led to 'overnight' fame - Lincoln through his debates with Stephen Douglas, and Obama through his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. Moreover, both men will have been about the same age when elected - Obama 48, Lincoln 51; both were lawyers by profession; amd both were considered political opportunists by contemporaries, especially those in their own party.

Finally, both Lincoln and Obama have proved something of a question-mark regarding their personal religion. They have repeatedly professed themselves Christians; but few who choose to make an issue of it have been convinced by their claims. The truth in Lincoln's case - and I suspect something similar for Obama - is that he had a deeply religious sense of life, of fate, &c; but this sense, combined with a natural skepticism, didn't fit comfortably within 'Christianity'.

A lack of 'Christianness,' as it were, is, however, actually for the best - historically speaking. The only two presidents of the last 50 years who made a point of incorporating their Christianity into their politics were the two greatest failures: Bush II and Carter. Moreover, most of the Founders - especially those who later became president - were not terribly Christian men. They were, rather, men of the Enlightenment - deists with a Christian flavor.

So much for concerns about Obama's inexperience. There's one more point to be made, though. Obama has been criticized for his move to support the FISA bill; he should be forgiven this move - and any future moves that expand executive power and threaten our civil liberties. The unfortunate truth is that our civil liberties will at times be curtailed, for the safety of Americans and the continuation of our government. But such curtailment can and must be temporary; sunset provisions are essential.

Extraordinary times call for extraordinary powers - Lincoln is the perfect example of this. Securing Maryland for the Union was essential to the continuation of government and for the perpetuation of union; but in securing this border state, Lincoln violated the civil liberties of countless citizens. And it was not the only time he did so. But the important point is that his curtailments did not mean permanent changes in the basic rights of Americans. Lincoln had constitutional scruples and violated the letter of our most central document with great reluctance. Obama may very well have to do the same. As Hobbes pointed out, it's silly to worry exclusively about rights when the government maintaining those rights is threatened existentially. We should keep in mind in such cases that the truly important issue - and the mark of a truly great president - is a noticeable reluctance, not a complete unwillingness, to do the unsavory.

TDB | Reply to 'Cover Art'

I have to disagree with my friend. For a few reasons. I think a) that the New Yorker cover art was both damaging to Obama and fairly tasteless; and b) that McCain has a very good chance of winning the election. Before I give my reasons, let me say that I support Obama - but I come from a long line of Republicans and, having been a Republican most of my life (I still consider myself a conservative) I know how a lot of them think.

In the latest Newsweek poll, the most recent iteration of the same poll that gave Obama a huge lead over McCain, his lead is back within the margin of error. More importantly, 12% think Obama is currently a Muslim, 12% think he was sworn in on a Koran, 26% believe he was raised a Muslim, and a whopping 39% think he attended an Islamic school as a child. This country may finally be ready to elect a black man president; but it is not ready to elect a Muslim (or a man with an Islamic background). Obama is not a Muslim; it might be unfair to call his background Islamic; but he is the only major party candidate in American history to have Islam in his background. Obama's father was a Muslim - whether lapsed or not - and that is simply too much for most Americans. This fact will not go away before November. It will eat away at the confidence of a great many Obama supporters. And the New Yorker cover will ultimately prove an aid in this deterioration of confidence. People will see it and - whether they think of it ironically, as it was intended - it will reinforce any subtle concerns they've had about Obama, his religion, his patriotism - whatever.

Sure, there are plenty of people who will understand the irony of the picture - but sadly the great majority of Americans don't understand irony. If the New Yorker supports Obama and wants to see him elected - and it's fairly clear they do - they have done a disservice to the cause. The Obama campaign, I think, understands this - and they are upset, as they should be.

I'm a huge fan of David Remnick and the New Yorker, but from an editorial point of view, running this cover was one of the dumbest things i can remember - surely Obama will keep the magazine at a greater distance when he is president than he would have 0therwise. Moreover, Remnick did a terrible job defending his decision on NPR, proving in the process just how cut off the editors of the New Yorker can be from America at large. I find it hard to believe that someone as intelligent as David Remnick could claim he simply didn't accept the argument that most people don't understand satire (without instructions); it's a sad fact that most Americans probably don't even know what satire is.

The lingering questions that many Americans have about Obama's religion exemplify the lingering questions that many have about an Obama presidency - especially in the Midwest swing states, which will determine the race. This will keep the race close, no matter how far Obama pulls ahead in the polls. Moreover, McCain is actually winning the contest for independent voters 41% to 34%, as the Newsweek poll shows. This is a significant lead by McCain - and it's among the very people who will decide this election. If McCain continues to lead by a significant margin among Independents and white males, the race will stay very close no matter what the main poll says.

ike | Cover Art

By now you've heard about the cover. Provocative? Satirical? Incendiary? All of the above, perhaps.

The Obama campaign even issued a statement on it, calling it "tasteless and offensive." A McCain spokesman agreed.

There's a lot going in the picture: Michelle O sporting a Panther-esque afro, a very large gun and combat gear; the American flag burning in the fireplace; Obama clad in muslim garb; and a portrait of Uncle Osama hanging on the wall. And of course, the whole scene takes place in the Oval Office.

It's the whisper campaign personified, validated even, if only for a second, in a caricature of what the first couple of the United States would look like if (GASP) the rumors were all true.

It's funny. And it's timely.

Late last week, the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki said his government was "looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty." Sunday's New York Times had a report on how the Bush administration is contemplating a drawdown of troops in Iraq starting this fall. While one presidential candidate has talked about a responsible but complete exit accomplished as soon as possible, the other has a brave new vision of a future Iraq, complete with permanent bases and all the fun stuff that comes with them.

It appears we are heading towards a place where on an issue he needs to win, John McCain is ostracized and on an island in believing our nation need maintain a permanent and robust military presence in Iraq.

If American voters overwhelmingly believe every citizen should have health care (and they do), that we need to end the Iraq War (and they do) and that Republican leadership has failed to accomplish much save bringing on the post profound period of malaise and fear in recent memory (yep, they believe that too), how can a Republican win a presidential election?

Yup.

And that's why this magazine cover is so important: it displays not only the absurdity of the attacks leveled against Obama, (here's my favorite terrorist fist bump btw) but how "mainstream" they've had to become at a time when a generally transcendent political figure is running against a man who can't even use a computer--a time when a man who will accept his party's nomination for president in a football stadium is running against a man who struggles to read off of a teleprompter.

TDB | 2005 In American History

I have to say I agree very much with my friend. Katrina was a pivotal moment in American history - the final way point of 'conservative' rule. Visions of the third-world - which Americans had learned to numb their hearts and minds against after years of starving Somali faces and ravaged Balkan villages - now showed American faces, a ravaged American city. Our hearts and minds were shocked out of a long sleep and our sense of justice was shocked into looking for answers - which proved easy to find.

The regime in power and the system it created had become deplorable in almost every sense imaginable - belligerent, callous, myopic, dishonest, greedy, self-absorbed, negligent, mean, unethical and not a little bit profligate. It had been all of these things for a long time; but the indicator lights pulsed weakly, visible only to the unimportant. Widespread discontent was masked - mistaken for disparate irritations.

But in 2005, with Katrina and its aftermath, things became clear - and Americans demanded a change. The 2006 elections repudiated the party in power - 2008 will prove a repudiation of an entire way of American life. We no longer want to be apathetic gilded-age citizens of a nation obsessed with itself, hated by the world - we want to be progressive citizens of a nation long looked to for inspiration and leadership. Because of 2005 - one of America's worst ever years - we have, in 2008, refilled our depleted stores of inspiration. After November we'll rebuild our icon of leadership.

And for all those who don't believe that History repeats itself, or that America moves cyclically - in mind and in politics - consider the following description of the watershed year that spelled doom for our first gilded-age, heralding in progressivism:

The year 1894 was the darkest that Americans had known in thirty years and finally changed the way people looked at things. What had seemed irritating now became pressing. Increasingly people saw American society as unfair. While the government promoted and subsidized the efforts of the economically ambitious, the demands of labor and the farmers went unmet. A new plutocracy of predatory capitalists, no less powerful than the planter aristocracy of the Old South, was growing rich beyond anyone's imagination. Yet they maintained a callous indifference to the welfare and safety of workers. There was no such thing as public relief, and the unemployed worker was cast adrift. The cities were becoming a polluted sprawl of human misery ... Monopolies [ ] roamed the American terrain, stifling competition, shortchanging the consumer, corrupting the political process, and giving selfish men the power to direct and dispose of the wealth of an entire society. A sense of anger spread through the land, and in the mid term elections the people sent a message.

ike | McCain Can't Win

If "Why John McCain Can't Win the Presidency of the United States in 2008" were a book, Chapter 1 would be called "Katrina." While I hesitate to take the Bush-like (Bush-ian sounds weird, doesn't it?) long-view of history, they'll write books about the fallout from the hurricane. It was, and I apologize for the pun in advance, the perfect storm. First off, the country got to see the fundamental and profound incompetence of the Bush administration. But the implications run much deeper; it killed the Republican brand for the foreseeable future. There before us, on national television and on repeat, we saw how the other half lived. I was working on a campaign at the time. "Oh my god," a co-worker of mine said. "It looks like a third-world country." And there it was--the flip side of the last twenty five years of economic policy and the unconscionable income disparity and cuts in domestic programs that came with trickle down economics: tax cuts for the wealthy; ballooning deficits; and a baby boomer culture that put a priority on amassing personal wealth and material possessions above all else. With whom was this resonating? I'm very glad you asked. Mostly the kids of that unfortunate and aforementioned generation, a group of new or soon to be voters who grew up more interconnected, more plugged in, than any generation in the history of the world. A generation that witnessed first-hand the priorities of their parents and asked, like Tony Montana in Scarface, "is this it?" This is a group that supports stem cell research, doesn't care if gays marry and understands that rounding up millions of people living in the United States and deporting them is impossible. So it disagrees with the GOP on the three seminal domestic issues of the past five years and then got to watch its administration perform what probably was the greatest act of domestic governmental incompetence in the history of our nation. Abraham Lincoln would have a hard time winning a national election if a big "R" appeared next to his name. And John McCain is no Abraham Lincoln.

Understanding with Iran Could Save Bush Foreign Policy (In History's Eyes, At Least)

Who knows how things will play out with Iran? It's probably not productive to make guesses; but one thing worth thinking about is how history will end up scoring President Bush on Iranian relations and his success in promoting American interests. If nothing significant happens with/in Iran between now and Bush's departure in January, Iraq will most likely overshadow its neighbor almost entirely in assessments of Bush - at least until something dreadful (or unexpectedly fortuitous) happens to/in Iran and everyone sets out to find root causes.

But there are good signs from Iran this week. There are two messages coming out of the government - one of which is significantly more positive than the other (though both are doubtless positive responses, compared to former results).

So what if Iran and the US reach some kind of deal before Bush leaves and relations between the two countries start to normalize - with symbolic gestures such as the proposed creation of direct flight between New York and Tehran put in the works? That would be something, indeed. It's beyond unlikely - of course. But let's indulge the prospect for a moment to see what the upshot for Bush's foreign policy legacy would be.

It would change things a great deal, I think.

Present logic holds that Bush made a mess of already messy Iranian relations by going into Iraq. It certainly seems that this is the case. But it is only because of the Iraq war and the new unltra-close proximity of US and Iranian interests that the Ayatollah decided in 2006 to remove a long standing ban on any diplomatic dealings with the US. If those dealings turn out to be the seads of a (I repeat: very unlikely) imminent mending of relations between the US and Iran, George W. Bush will have to be seen in a somewhat more positive light as he steps down; and he will doubtless be much more highly considered in history's assessment of his Foreign policy, the results of which will be, without a great stretch of the imagination if Iranian relations are improved, a Middle East with large US allay (Iraq) a diffused relatively major enemy (Iran) and a (sad but somewhat helpful) sidetrack focus on Shia-Sunni sectarian fights for Muslims who long for action and ultimately bloodshed. That is a much better Middle East than President Bush started with - at least it will seem this way to history.