It's Getting Tough to be Religious and a Democrat

 The Democratic Convention organizing committee apparently refused gift baskets for delegates solely because they were donated by churches. Mainstream Protestant churches.

Does Obama Want to be President?

Most commentators seem to think Obama’s acceptance speech was underwhelming. This is surprising, and interesting, because Obama’s reputation is built above all on his skills as an orator.

Which makes me wonder: does Obama still want to be president?

It almost goes without saying that at some level he does not; otherwise he could have generated more enthusiasm, more of his special skills, for this speech. It is in the end the only possible hypothesis here.

This is not surprising, given the stresses of the presidency. And it has happened before. Just last cycle, a lot of people complained of John McCain that he was not ready to do what it took to get elected. Others made the same complaint, in the primaries, about Fred Thompson. The same has been said in the past of Ted Kennedy, running against Jimmy Carter; Bob Dole, running against Bill Clinton; Bill Bradley, running against Al Gore. Candidates and politicians can lack enthusiasm for the job, just like anyone else.

Obama does not really have the personality to enjoy politics over the long term. You need to be the perfect extravert, always ready to chat up a stranger. You have to enjoy schmoozing, and cutting deals. Obama is not that type at all, as confirmed by many rumours around Washington, and now by Bob Woodward’s new book, The Price of Politics. He is not a natural negotiator, and he needs a lot of time to himself. His choice of Joe Biden, the ultimate ward pol (and not the more obvious choice, Hilary Clinton), as running mate may reflect his own awareness of his weakness in this regard.

Of course, given the chance to be America’s first black president, he was able to muster the enthusiasm he needed. But for a second term? The emotional payoff may no longer be sufficient. He has even stated, publicly, that he would not mind being a one-term president, if he got the right things done. If he loses now, his legacy is secure: he will always be the first black president. He will always be the one who gave the US universal health care, something presidents have been trying to do, and failing to do, since Nixon. He will always be the president who got Osama Bin Laden, and the president who ended the war in Iraq. In a second term, he probably faces a Republican-dominated congress, a bad economy, and an intractable debt problem, a “fiscal cliff”; frustrations are likely to multiply and accomplishments will not be so easy to come by.

Those around him, and the party, will of course have been pressuring him heavily all along to stay on; it is the done thing. Incumbency is not something to give up lightly. Now—at the moment of accepting the nomination—it is really too late to change his mind. Although it was really too late at least a year ago; he needed to give any successor proper notice to gear up a campaign.

An awareness that Obama’s heart is not really in it may explain the odd sense of panic that seems to be emanating from the Democratic campaign, which does not make sense based on either the polls or the electoral college vote. They may be worried, not only about Obama’s performance in speeches like this, but in the upcoming candidate debates. They have been trying to make the campaign about Romney and Ryan. This does not make much sense in a re-election campaign, but it may make some instinctive sense if you want to move the spotlight off your candidate. They may also fear Obama going off-script and his frustrations showing through.

The decision to move the acceptance speech from Panther/Bank of America stadium to a smaller venue suggests the organizers themselves feared the speech would not be very strong (although, of course, there are other possible reasons). The foul-up over the platform suggests again that Obama was, in the first place, not engaged, and in the second, not entirely prepared to be a team player. He had not taken an active interest in the platform to begin with, and, once a problem was suggested, he demanded changes overruling both the platform committee and the convention.

The happy golfer.

He was looking for excuses, perhaps, not to try.

All pure speculation, of course. God knows what chaos might be going on behind the scenes in the Obama campaign. I don’t.

Obama's Age Problem?

A blogger has pointed out that the average speaker at the Democratic convention has been over ten years older than the average speaker at the Republican convention.

This could just mean that Democrats are more electorally successful--that they have more senior office holders. But that is not the case in fact, and the political rank of the Dems speaking does not seem to be on the whole higher than the political rank of the Republicans last week.

Clinton Aces It

Bill Clinton is a political natural, and he showed us all how to do a speech in this Internet age. You don't talk down to your audience, you don't insult their intelligence. You talk to them as equals. Clinton did that, brilliantly, getting into details of policy. As politicians are told by their PR guys to avoid doing. I think that advice is now wrong, and Clinton knows it.

He probably did the Obama re-election campaign a big favour. But there is also a certain risk here, always inherent in convention speeches, but especially in this case. People will automatically be comparing Clinton to Obama, present nominee and past president. If he sounds too strong, he may make Obama look weak by comparison.

Liberal Responses to Cardinal Dolan's Closing Prayer

It isn't pretty.

Kind of gives background to the booing of the platform change a few days ago.

The Democratic Convention Goes Off-Script

The Democratic party's attempt to re-insert God and Jerusalem into their platform on the fly was disturbing for many reasons.

First, the need to do it suggests a lack of planning. The Republicans are controlling the debate, and the Dems are just reacting. This puts them on the defensive, and being on the defensive is the losing position. It also suggests a lack of executive ability, and this is all about choosing a chief executive.

It has been said that governments are never voted out for appearing evil. They are voted out for appearing incompetent. This did not boost the image of the Dems or the Obama campaign or their leader as competent.

Then, awkwardly, the delegates themselves would not go along. The amendment required a two-thirds majority, and on the voice vote, it clearly did not have it. So the Democrats presented the public spectacle of internal dissent, a rebellion of the party against its leadership. Worse, Obama put his own reputation on the line here. The chairman of the platform committee, Governor Strickland, used Obama's name as authority for the amendment. Making it clearly appear that the delegates were not prepared to follow Obama specifically. Hmmmm—even the Democrats are not big on their leadership...and prepared to say so publicly.

At the same time, the vote presented a public spectacle of something like half the party vocally objecting to either God or support for Israel, or both. It can, of course, be interpreted by their opponents either way, as seems more convenient. If read the latter way, it becomes a strong inducement for Zionist Jews to vote Republican; they have traditionally been a Democratic constituency. If read the former way, it alienates all theists. That's 70-80% of the American population, and at the same time this presumably kills any hope of gaining among Muslims any support they've lost among Jews. The loud public boos cancel out any good the platform amendment might have done to the Dems' reputation as either anti-Israel or anti-religion. But it leaves the harm of changing the platform on the fly.

Then the way the chair handled this revolt ... After repeating the vote, making it clear that he, too, did not hear the two-thirds necessary, and making it clearer to all that the party was in revolt against the amendment, Villaraigosa hesitated, seemed confused, and consulted with someone else on the podium. More evidence of executive incompetence, and arrogance. Those in charge had not even foreseen the possibility that the amendment would not pass on voice vote. They didn't know what to do. There was no plan. 

Then, after calling for the vote a third time, Villaraigosa obviously, and publicly lied that he now heard the two-thirds majority, and declared the motion passed. This announced to the nation that the Democratic party leadership had no compunction about breaking the rules or ignoring due process, were liars, and did not respect the popular will. That they were not, in fact, democrats, and not to be trusted.

Then the crowd booed. On top of everything else, the leadership seems to have clearly managed with this to annoy a large part of the party base. How hard are they going to work for the ticket now?

Could hardly have been less well done. Could be a historic moment. Could be the wheels coming off the bus.

Video.

Losing the War on Women

This New York Post columnist may speak for many women. She seems to take the very attitude to the "War on Women" I theorized accounted for the recent drop in Obama's standing among women in the ABC/WP poll--that the Dems are insulting women and being patronizing.