The Presidential Candidates Take Their Opening Shots
Another big week in presidential politics, as both Barack Obama and John McCain are advertising now in battleground states, the two will continue battling over energy policy, Obama will campaign with Hillary Clinton for the first time and integrate much of her fundraising machine into his, and McCain makes some adjustments to his campaign in the wake of some concern from Republican political pros. We’ll also see what, if any, effect there is from yesterday’s unprecedented summit in Saudi Arabia of oil producers and consumers.
First to how what Obama and Clinton will do this week, as the two work to heal the breach in the Democratic Party caused by their long, if foreordained, primary battle. Clinton has been on vacation since losing the nomination fight to Obama, and will return to the Senate at the beginning of the week. At the end of the week, she and Obama will campaign together publicly, and will meet with many of her top fundraisers to integrate them into the Obama campaign. That process is already underway. In fact, there will be a big unity fundraising event — with heavy assistance from top Clinton fundraisers — for Obama and the Democratic National Committee Tuesday night at the LA Music Center. It looks like around $5 million will be raised.
Meanwhile, a number of political pros in the Republican Party are concerned about the direction of the McCain campaign. The campaign has been suffering from conceptual incoherency, and many Republican insiders are deeply concerned. One of the top Republican consultants in the country put it this way in a conversation with me: “They’re stuck like flypaper to the president. Every time they start to move away, McCain turns around and gets closer to Bush.” McCain senior advisor Steve Schmidt, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s re-election campaign manager, is leaving the candidate’s side to take on a bigger operational role at McCain campaign headquarters.
As this was brewing, a politician McCain has been wooing decided last week to defend Obama from some of the most sensational charges against him. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the former Republican-turned-independent, a billionaire media mogul who is perhaps the leading Jewish-American politician, denounced what he calls a “whisper campaign” in some elements of the Jewish community linking Barack Obama to Islam. Speaking Friday in Florida at the breakfast meeting of the Jewish Federation of South Palm Beach County, Bloomberg called the effort “wedge politics at its worst, and we have to reject it loudly, clearly and unequivocally. Let’s call those rumors what they are: Lies.”
Bloomberg, a close friend and ally of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, said the whisper campaign is “cloaked in concern for Israel, but the real concern is about partisan politics. Israel is just being used as a pawn, which is not that surprising, since some people are willing to stoop to any level to win an election.”
The TV ad wars are fully engaged between the two candidates, with Barack Obama’s first general election ad up now in 18 states, nearly twice as many as the 10 John McCain is up in.
What is Obama doing? Three very big things, explained by various metaphors.
Obama is calming the waters with regard to his unusual background, identifying himself and his life story with core American values. He is spreading the field, to borrow a term from sports parlance, advertising in many states never contested by a Democratic presidential candidate, forcing McCain to respond if he can. And he is flooding the zone, as the new ad comes immediately upon the heels of Obama’s Thursday announcement that he will eschew public financing for the general election, relying instead on his massive Internet-based small donor fundraising machine and integrating elements of the Clinton fundraising machine. (Yes, Obama has reneged by opting out of public financing. His campaign never thought it could break all the primary fundraising records. He’ll brandish his unprecedented success with small donors on the Internet as a sort of pseudo-public financing, to blunt criticism.)
While McCain will make do with $84 million in public funding, along with whatever his Republican allies raise for other operations on his behalf, Obama will have most of the ancillary stuff PLUS at likely a three to one edge in spending by their respective official campaign organizations. In other words, Obama will likely be able to spend more in each state he decides to contest, including McCain’s must-win battleground states such as the big two of the last election, Ohio and Florida. And he can go into some Republican states and put them into play, forcing McCain to spend his much scarcer resources to defend what should be his own electoral base. In fact, he’s doing this now in Georgia, where a new poll shows him only one point behind. He also, for example, has slight edges in recent polls in such usually Republican states as Colorado and Virginia.
As Obama makes these moves, McCain’s advertising strategy has a certain conceptual incoherence, with McCain having run two very different ads in the same markets in the past two weeks, striving to show independence from George W. Bush while actually changing key policy positions to those of the president.
Obama’s ad is 60 seconds long. John McCain’s ad is 30 seconds long. Obama is playing in 18 states: Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia.
McCain is playing in 10 states: Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Missouri.
With oil prices near record highs, and gasoline prices at record highs, the two campaigns will continue fighting this week about energy policy. Frankly, neither candidate has a particularly compelling policy.
Obama has been talking about a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. But that won’t bring down the price of oil, which is set on globalized markets. Nor will it bring down the price of gasoline. It might actually increase it. Obama could rebate the proceeds of the tax to consumers, but that won’t solve the problem.
McCain has been talking about a federal gas tax holiday. Now he wants to open up more offshore oil drilling, a sharp reversal in his thinking, and has hinted about the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.
But the gas tax holiday would make on the slightest dent in the price at the pump, and could easily be swamped by future price increases. Meanwhile, the highways get a little worse due to the lack of funds.
And offshore drilling? In addition to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, one of McCain’s biggest backers, every coastal state governor but one opposes McCain’s move to open up more offshore oil drilling. While the idea of offshore oil drilling may sound, at first blush, like a common sense solution to the present crisis to many voters, it isn’t. It would take many years to even start that drilling. And in any event, there’s not enough supply there to make much of a dent in the price of oil. Remember, it’s a global market.
McCain does call for more use of nuclear power. Countries like France and Japan swear by it, and with new tech have had no problems. But that has nothing to do with the oil and gasoline crises.
Now the two candidates are starting to talk about the rule of speculation in driving up the price of oil.
Barack Obama is going to start getting at one of the likely causes of the record run-up in oil and gasoline prices: speculation in unregulated markets. Yesterday, his campaign rolled out an initiative to end the so-called “Enron loophole” (inserted into federal law through the efforts of McCain advisors Phil and Wendy Gramm).
The move is led by New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, a former Wall Street tycoon. This is hardly the only cause, but it looks like one of them.
McCain’s campaign says that Obama is only following his lead in denouncing speculation in the oil futures markets. But those denunciations were mostly in the past, and he hasn’t championed recent legislative moves.
What the candidates intend to do about other causes of the price run-up, such as the record low of the dollar against the euro and the geopolitical risk premium, remains to be seen.






Wow! where’s the coverage on this?
“Toyota has a policy of contributing $50 to Barack Obama’s presidential bid for every hybrid Toyota it sells. For every hybrid Lexus, it contributes $100.”
http://tinyurl.com/3w47cz
It would take many years to even start that drilling.
Ugh. What a lame cliche that needs to be put to death. It’s like a teenager who whines about having to clean his room. “It’s going to take so long and it’ll just get dirty again anyway.” The only way to get results sooner is to start working on it now. If Clinton didn’t veto ANWR drilling for the same lame reason you state, we’d have that oil by now.
The problem with our youth as they don’t ever look back. It was going to take ’10 years to drill and get results’, back in 1970. It was ’10 years to drill and get results’, back in 1980. It was ’10 years to drill and get results’, back in 1990. and the argument was, surprisingly, that it would take ’10 years to drill and get results’, back in in 2000. And guess who keeps blocking this now.
Not to mention the MSM uses 1970′s figures on how much oil we actually have. Modern scientists think we have many times what Saudi Arabia does within our borders. Not to mention coal-to-oil, with estimates of over 2 trillion barrels combined from our own resources(SA est supply is 282B).
The argument for coal-to-oil(which is a long-proven technology, since WWII when Germany got all of its fuel from coal) has been that it was not cost effective. Using source heat from nuclear power plants makes this extremely efficient(not having to burn more coal to heat coal). The long running argument was that oil would have to reach the exuberant price of $28 a barrel to make coal-to-oil cost effective.
Here’s a basic 101 on coal-to-oil
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/8229
Wow! where’s the coverage on this?
“Toyota has a policy of contributing $50 to Barack Obama’s presidential bid for every hybrid Toyota it sells. For every hybrid Lexus, it contributes $100.”
Wow, thats a week’s salary for most of the workers building them!
That’s nonsense.
>SDS:
Wow! where’s the coverage on this?
“Toyota has a policy of contributing $50 to Barack Obama’s presidential bid for every hybrid Toyota it sells. For every hybrid Lexus, it contributes $100.”
http://tinyurl.com/3w47cz
Jun 23, 2008 – 11:23 am
You may want to think it’s a lame cliche, but it is true.
Here is something else that is true, since the piece is about a lot of other things than seizing on a wishful thinking energy policy.
The oil companies already have plenty of unused offshore leases.
And, incidentally, ANWR would have no impact on the oil price crisis. There’s simply not enough there.
Now, where there is a whole passel of oil is under the Arctic ice cap.
>mishu:
It would take many years to even start that drilling.
Ugh. What a lame cliche that needs to be put to death. It’s like a teenager who whines about having to clean his room. “It’s going to take so long and it’ll just get dirty again anyway.” The only way to get results sooner is to start working on it now. If Clinton didn’t veto ANWR drilling for the same lame reason you state, we’d have that oil by now.
Jun 23, 2008 – 11:32 am
Yep, these dumb kids today.
>Kay:
The problem with our youth as they don’t ever look back. It was going to take ‘10 years to drill and get results’, back in 1970. It was ‘10 years to drill and get results’, back in 1980. It was ‘10 years to drill and get results’, back in 1990. and the argument was, surprisingly, that it would take ‘10 years to drill and get results’, back in in 2000. And guess who keeps blocking this now.
Not to mention the MSM uses 1970’s figures on how much oil we actually have. Modern scientists think we have many times what Saudi Arabia does within our borders.
Well, there isn’t any coverage because it isn’t true.
>Kay:
Wow! where’s the coverage on this?
“Toyota has a policy of contributing $50 to Barack Obama’s presidential bid for every hybrid Toyota it sells. For every hybrid Lexus, it contributes $100.”
Wow, thats a week’s salary for most of the workers building them!
Jun 23, 2008 – 3:53 pm
Why isn’t the White House pushing this idea?
>Kay:
Here’s a basic 101 on coal-to-oil
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/8229
Jun 23, 2008 – 3:51 pm
Probably because there’s not enough money going to politicians to BE interested in it. Bush, to his credit, has mentioned coal-to-oil several times over the years, but it simply falls on deaf ears. I’ve heard it in speeches where the normal talking heads will take a chance to point out a funny-looking snicker rather then what was said anyway. All the people that pull the strings live in sound-byte land, nobody ever really looks into anything until the subsidies start to roll in, or the voting constituency cries loudly enough. Irregardless of the popularity polls between Obama and McCain, the drill/no drill polls are now roughly at 70% favorable, regardless of political party.
To be truly progressive, a good model may look something like this:
-Immediately approve new drilling and new nuclear power plants. Configure new plants to also be capable of being used for coal-to-oil production. Nuclear power plants can also be used as the most effective and efficient way to create hydrogen. Ironically, the green-dream of hydrogen would most likely rely on more nuclear power to make it even remotely feesable as an energy source.
-Immediately fund increasing refining capability, this is paramount NOW. And in typical fashion, ‘greenies’ are trying to block refinery expansion, even if the NEW plant with 3 times the capability reduces overall pollution 80%…
-stay with ethanol, but dump wasteful and dangerous subsidies for corn ethanol and focus on the truly productive yields of sugar cane(and some other new crops currently in the works).
Oil prices are driven by speculation. If new refining capability is approved and gets underway, and drilling is allowed, this WILL make an immediate difference. Other tactics like releasing half the reserves will also drive the price down. Don’t believe the bullshit-there is PLENTY of oil in this world to be had. The obsession we have with putting ourselves at the mercy of third-world countries however, is a mystery to me.
I have nothing against ‘alternative energy’, but it is something that will really only flourish off of the back of fossil fuels. And without stability in the supply of fuel, there will never be stability in progress. The technology nor capability are ready to wean us off of any oil, nor is there any reason to dump billions of tax dollars into it to rush inefficient variations into use. Right now its mostly politics, tax-payer subsidies, and get-rich-quick schemes. Becoming self-sufficient is paramount to this nation, not to mention holding the key to funding such massive undertakings of true alternative energy and our own nations infrastructure(i.e. the nation’s dams and levys, waterways, and roads.)
The main basis of coal-to-oil is a progressive idea.
The best way to manufacture it is to use a nuclear power plant’s CLEAN energy to do it efficiently and CLEANLY(virtually 0 pollution to create).
Replacing a coal-fired power plant(if not several at a time) with a much more efficient nuclear plant reduces pollution.
The infrastructure to SUPPLY the coal to the power plants is in place already. Switch it to clean oil production, while dumping the coal power plants. The remaining coal plants can be considered to converted to clean-coal facilities. Again, the cost-effective basis for coal production was based on oil hitting $40 a barrel. Instead of the the profit going directly to Arab sheiks, it can actually go to this country. And maybe ideas such as investing tax dollars into alternative-energy, or even national health-care insurance would make an iota of sense. Liberals calling the credit card company to increase the limit again just isn’t going to turn us into a solar/wind/battery nation, ever.
Until we eliminate the destructive forces of greed, we are never going to be independent of big oil as the other successful “green” countries have managed to become. It takes a good government to accomplish such status and, since greed runs rampant through parts of our governing bodies, we can’t achieve the wonderful status the other countries enjoy. Also, we would have to unseat that rich guy pulling all the strings from his lofty perch.
They say he is really running this country.
I forget his name, I believe it is like Oros,
or something like that. Anyway, they say he is running this country, the campaign, etc. the way he wants it. Maybe all that money Obama pulls in is channeled down from him through
layers so as not to be obvious or unlawful.
Maybe this is why Obama opted out of public funding. He is assured of all the funds he needs. What upsets me is the thought that the
highest office in our land is up for grabs to the highest bidder. It is sad we have come to this.
Er, no. George Soros is not funding the Obama campaign through secret mechanisms on the Internet and thousands of puppet contributors.
“we are never going to be independent of big oil as the other successful “green” countries have managed to become.”
I’m sorry, but which countries are these?
Beats me. Who are you talking to?
As long as Democrats defend the sleaze of the Clinton years, and that “Vote early, vote often” describes Chicago
politics – is it any surprise to see what kind of political animal
Barak Hussein Obama is?
As for oil from Canada being vilified by the Kyoto Koolaid Klan on the basis of being
“dirty” , but oil from Venezuela isn’t (when it
is “Dirty”) – expecting
the new KKK to be consistent is too much to expect.
I’m not following your points.
Nothing in reply to the obvious point?