Can Obama Close the Deal?

Barack Obama’s trip overseas last month was designed to bolster his commander-in-chief bona fides and show American voters how well regarded he was by our international allies. An argument can be made however, that the trip was a mistake, and that in fact, it marked a turning point in the campaign at which McCain began to gain momentum for the first time. Have the last few weeks simply been bumps in the road for the usually brilliant Obama Campaign, or do they portend the beginning of a McCain resurgence?

Obamamania reached fever pitch in July as Obama traveled overseas, first to Afghanistan and Iraq, then to Israel and Jordan, and lastly to Berlin, Paris and London. The Illinois Senator was on a roll as he prepared to hop the pond, generally enjoying leads in the polls of anywhere from 6 to 10 points. As a Republican, I was admittedly nervous about the photo-ops that might result from the trip: Obama with smiling troops; Obama charming the leaders of Israel and Jordan; Obama received with open arms by European allies; Obama cheered by tens of thousands of Berliners gathered to hear him speak. The whole trip had a very presidential feel to it – certainly by design – and while I was apprehensive about the Obama Campaign’s ability to help the voters envision a President Obama, it now appears they may have overplayed their hand. The bottom line is that the trip was over-the-top. No presidential candidate has ever attempted such a bold maneuver during the campaign. There were meetings with foreign heads of state, one-on-one sit-downs with all three of the major network news anchors, and there were even two separate occasions where the media caught Obama Campaign staffers in Freudian slips and had to remind them that their boss was not yet, in fact, the president. Then, of course, there was the speech at the Victory Column in Berlin, a second-choice venue after the campaigns request to use the Brandenburg Gate – site of JFK’s and Ronald Reagan’s famous presidential speeches – was denied. Tens of thousands did indeed turn out to hear Obama’s speech, one in which he proclaimed himself a “citizen of the world” and that included lines such as “People of Berlin – people of the world – this is our moment. This is our time.” This line epitomized the hubristic nature of the entire trip, and ultimately, I believe many Americans were put-off by the presumptuousness of a candidate taking what the McCain Campaign smartly called “a premature victory lap.” I think the Obama Campaign recognized this too, evidenced by the fact that I have yet to see a single Obama ad featuring photos or videos from his travels.

Upon his return to the States, the poll numbers soon reflected Obama’s miscalculation. Initially expecting to receive a “bump” in the polls from the foreign tour, the campaign was surely disappointed to instead see the gap between Obama and McCain narrow. Here, too, began some real signs of life from John McCain and his campaign. First there was the now well-known “Celeb” ad released by McCain, comparing Obama and his fame to that of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. While many in the media echoed the Obama Campaign’s response that the ad was silly or juvenile, McCain surrogate and friend, Senator Lindsay Graham pinpointed the ad’s purpose, and likely the reason for its subsequent effectiveness. When asked about it, Graham said the primary theme of the ad was, "fame without portfolio. [There is this] hysteria around a personality that's attractive, but when you look under the hood there's not a whole lot there. So fame without portfolio is sort of fashionable. But leadership without experience is dangerous." This ad represented one of the deftest moves to date by McCain and his campaign. By using Hilton and Spears in the ad, attention was guaranteed, but more importantly, they used that attention to shrewdly call attention to a key argument of theirs that Obama is the proverbial “empty suit”. The ad was effective, and was followed up by another tongue-in-cheek McCain ad entitled “The One”, poking fun at the hero worship of Obama in some quarters that sometimes seems to border on fervor of religious proportions.

And the hits kept coming. Not long after that, Obama was speaking to supporters in Missouri and opined as to the strategy he felt McCain and the GOP would use against him. “What they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me,” he said. “You know: ‘He’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.’” The McCain Campaign reacted immediately, and with intensity, accusing Obama of “play[ing] the race card,” which it seems obvious was the case. In a slow pre-Olympics news cycle, this was the primary story for several days, eventually forcing Obama’s spokesman, Robert Gibbs, to respond. When he did so, his explanation of the Senator’s comments was laughable. “What [Obama] was talking about was that he didn’t get here after spending decades in Washington,” Gibbs claimed, though most saw through this feeble defense and recognized Obama’s comments for what they were. Obama had used a similar line before, but the irony was that neither McCain nor the RNC, (or anyone else affiliated with either) have ever made comments or claims like those Obama referenced. Doing so, they realize, would be extremely unwise politically, and so the McCain campaign was very wise to promptly call Obama out on his ploy, as doing so was the best way to prevent him from trying a similar, racially-tinged maneuver later in the campaign.

Obama’s late summer of discontent was still not over yet, though. Towards the end of July and first part of August, stories began to surface about Democratic “nervousness” about Obama’s apparent inability to “close the deal” against McCain. Generic polls show the American public decisively favoring Democrats this election year, yet the party’s nominee was finding himself in essentially a statistical tie with McCain in the polls. There was chatter about the party having “buyer’s remorse” in selecting Obama over Hillary Clinton. Exacerbating this was Obama’s curious decision last week not only to give both Hillary and Bill Clinton separate primetime speaking slots at next week’s Democratic Convention, but also to allow Hillary’s name to be officially placed in nomination. While the joint statement released by Obama and Clinton touted this as a way to help unify the Democratic Party behind Obama, the argument can be made that it will do just the opposite by only perpetuating the divisions in the party, and perhaps more damaging, sustaining the discontent of hardcore Hillary supporters such as the so-called P.U.M.A. ("Party Unity My Ass") group who still are extremely reluctant to embrace Obama. This should be his convention and his alone, but instead he’ll now be largely sharing it with not only the woman he defeated in the primaries, but her vitriolic and increasingly unpredictable husband too. It’s inconceivable that this subplot and the almost certain drama that will follow won’t distract from the Democratic Party’s “official” introduction of Obama to the nation. Further, Obama’s acquiescence to the Clinton’s demands prolongs some of the doubts many Democrats may have about him, and calls into question his willingness or ability to take a stand for himself.

Barack’s bumpy ride culminated this past weekend during a joint appearance with McCain at Saddleback Church in California. Both candidates appeared there for the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, moderated by Pastor Rick Warren, author of the very popular book, The Purpose Driven Life. The candidates sat down with “Pastor Rick” one-on-one, for an hour each. Obama went first, and the consensus from both left and right was that he did not fare well. He equivocated, he evaded, and he arguably gave poor and alarmingly shallow answers to some important and significant questions, such as the one he offered on the issue of abortion. He was asked by Warren, “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” Obama responded, telling Pastor Rick “Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering this question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade”. Regardless of one’s views on abortion, the issue is one on which a presidential candidate is expected to have an informed opinion, and in the federal government, there is no “pay grade” above the president’s. McCain, by contrast, had his best performance of the campaign thus far. He was energetic and likeable, and he was as forceful, warm and resolute in his answers as Obama was weak, aloof and wavering. On issue after issue, McCain gave answers that seemed to have far greater depth than those of his relatively inexperienced opponent. As a Republican heretofore more opposed to Obama than for McCain, this was the first time I actively felt enthusiastic about John McCain, Republican Nominee. I believe this was a crucial moment in this campaign because Obama’s dearth of experience – both political experience and life experience – was impossible to miss. The Obama Campaign’s subsequent unsubstantiated (and since proven invalid) claims that McCain effectively cheated by possibly knowing the questions beforehand clearly show their recognition of the fact that their man was damaged by the drubbing he took at Saddleback. Of the many issues Obama has reversed himself on in the last several months – none of which the media have held him accountable for, incidentally – perhaps there is at least one flip-flop for which Democrats should breathe a sigh of relief. In May, Obama somewhat cockily expressed his willingness to debate McCain “anywhere, anytime.” The teleprompter more and more appears to be Obama’s oratorical pacifier, and had he kept his pledge and agreed to McCain’s June offer of 10 one-on-one town hall meetings, I suspect Obama would be in serious trouble by now.

And maybe he is. In a bit of shocker, a Reuters/Zogby poll released today shows McCain with a 5-point lead over Obama -- a 12-point shift in the Arizona Senator's favor from July, when Obama led by as many as 7 points. In reality, the polls fluctuate frequently, but it's obvious that this race is very close – probably tied or with Obama leading very slightly. So perhaps Democrats should be nervous, and maybe there is just cause for buyer’s remorse. After all, as the stakes increasingly rise and the spotlight progressively brightens, it seems as though Obama and his campaign are more frequently failing to rise to the occasion. But as much as Obama has only himself to blame for a tumultuous few weeks and a statistically insignificant lead, McCain and his campaign deserve some credit, too. McCain seems to have awakened and has shown flashes of competent campaigning. Likewise, his campaign appears to have finally found a rudder, and to have developed a better understanding of how to best utilize the skills he does have, while avoiding situations not conducive to his strengths. Unquestionably, McCain has managed to gain control of the national “conversation” over the last few weeks, and he and his campaign have taken full advantage of the increased attention. The Obama Campaign realizes this, and the primary reason the Obama campaign leaked news of an impending vice presidential selection yesterday was almost certainly to place the focus back on their candidate, on a new story, and to return to some of the excitement and energy surrounding Obama that they have used to such great effect throughout this election year. Obama’s advantages remain numerous and daunting, and despite the last few weeks, the election is still his to lose. With that said, the stakes are about to reach the highest level yet, and the spotlight will never be brighter. Can Obama and his campaign begin to again rise to the occasion? Can he close the deal?

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

Not the Hillary We Thought We Knew?

Despite being a Republican, I will readily admit that I gained newfound respect for Hillary Clinton during the course of her campaign, particularly the tenacity with which she continued to battle Barack Obama until the very end. I was frequently impressed by her command of facts and the ease with which she could articulate her positions. She debated well, and showed flashes of humor and charm that I had not previously seen. I had decided a few months ago that if there had to be a Democrat in the White House, I hoped it would be Hillary. I felt she was more qualified than Obama, and from the standpoint of national security and foreign policy, I felt that she’d be less likely to “go wobbly” on us, to quote the great Margaret Thatcher.

With that said, in reading Joshua Green’s much-discussed article this month in The Atlantic, I feel as though a Hillary Clinton presidency might have been far worse than I had begun to think. Green’s article is a must-read for political junkies (particularly the juicy memos and emails that Green obtained and provides), but for Clinton supporters – especially those who contributed to or raised money for her campaign – I recommend a stiff drink prior to, during and probably after reading it.

The article exposes a campaign riddled with paranoid infighting, hurt by damaging leaks, weakened by inept financial management, crippled by an absence of contingency planning and, most of all, fundamentally flawed by shockingly poor leadership from the top – from Hillary, herself. Green paints a picture of a candidate who, despite starting her campaign with a seemingly insurmountable set of advantages, still managed to make mistakes often enough and significant enough to squander everything. A Hillary Clinton is revealed in the article far different from the one we saw on the campaign trail, often exuding confidence and strength. Instead, the reader meets a Hillary who is unwilling and/or unable to make the tough decisions, incapable of maintaining cohesion among her senior staff, and alarmingly unskilled at quickly adapting her strategy, message and resources on the fly – an imperative in a national campaign.

For those who supported Hillary, I suspect reading this will be unsettling and almost incomprehensible. After all, presumably so much of what attracted them to her in the first place seems to be completely lacking. For those who contributed to the Clinton Campaign, the mismanagement of campaign resources chronicled in the article is staggering, and sure to prompt stomach-turning regret about where that check could have been spent instead. For me, someone who had started to reconcile himself to the real possibility of a President Hillary Clinton, there is great relief. If a President Hillary had exhibited the indecisiveness and ineptitude of Candidate Hillary, the country would have paid the price. Speaking of paying the price, if a Hillary Clinton Administration had mismanaged taxpayer money as woefully as they did campaign funds, the consequences would have been tremendous.

In many presidential campaigns, an important test of the candidates is often overlooked, particularly for those candidates who lack “executive experience”, such as Clinton, Obama and McCain this year. In actuality, running a campaign – now nearly a billion dollar enterprise with thousands of employees, incredibly high stakes and stratospheric stress levels – is perhaps one of the best indicators of a candidate’s executive ability and skills. There are few governors (even few CEO’s) who have had to deal with an operation as complex as a presidential campaign. If Green’s article is accurate, Hillary failed this test spectacularly. On the other hand, to Barack Obama’s credit – and as much as I might worry about his lack of experience – his campaign has been run to near perfection thus far. Should he go on to win in November, I’ll be able to take some comfort in that knowledge.

---

As an aside, I was recently asked by amNewYork -- an excellent and growing publication here in NYC -- to contribute to their political blog, Politirazzi (http://weblogs.amny.com/news/politics/newyork/blog/). My first post -- the same content you just read -- was published there today. I'd encourage you to check out Politirazzi frequently, as there are 11 other individuals blogging there as well, and the commentary is intelligent and thought-provoking. In addition to my new work with Politirazzi -- and those of you who have been reading BraggingWrites for awhile probably know this already -- I have also been contributing a weekly column to a fantastic website called SpliceToday (http://splicetoday.com/) for a few months now. My column -- called "Far Corner, Right Side" -- is political in nature every other week, and about basically anything else in between. I would also encourage you to check out SpliceToday as often as you can for an eclectic mix of content and commentary. This happened to be a non-political week for me at Splice, and so if you're a football fan, you might enjoy this week's column about Brett Favre's move to the New York Jets. As always, thanks for reading, thanks for commenting, and thanks for the support!

Should the GOP Just Mail It In This Year?

It’s a tough time for the Republican Party. GOP purists would argue that the party has lost its way, no longer adhering to the central tenets of “The Reagan Revolution”, particularly with regard to spending. Republicans had simultaneous control of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House from 2002 until 2006, and yet most would agree that the party emerged from that opportunity with very little to show for it. Voters took notice, it seems, and the 2006 Midterm Elections served as something of a comeuppance for Republicans, with Democrats taking control of both the House and Senate.

Going into the 2008 Elections, it’s not looking good. As things stand now, it appears the Republican minorities in both the House and Senate are going to widen. Topping the GOP Ticket this year is John McCain, a nominee for whom enthusiasm is lukewarm at best, and whose chances are not helped by facing Barack Obama, one of the most eloquent, charismatic and well-funded candidates in history. With such a bleak outlook, a controversial school of thought has emerged in certain Republican circles, proponents of which make the case that the GOP should essentially concede this election cycle to the Democrats, allowing them to assume simultaneous control of the executive and legislative branches of government. Then, the theory holds, the country could watch the Democrats make a fine mess of things, paving the way for a triumphant Republican resurgence in 2010 or 2012. It’s a romantic idea, and one whose merits I can understand and even appreciate to a certain extent, but in the end, mark me down as one Republican vehemently opposed to this strategy.

Currently in the House of Representatives, Democrats hold a 236 to 199 seat majority. To make matters worse, all signs point to Democrats increasing their majority in November. The latest generic Congressional poll conducted by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal gives Democrats an edge over Republicans of 48.7% to 37.3% (despite Congressional approval ratings at only 15%, even lower than President Bush who sits at 30%). Republicans are only hurting their prospects more with a near-record number of retirements on the horizon. At least 26 House Members have announced their intentions to call it quits this year, ceding the huge advantage of incumbency to the Democrats by creating open seats in a year in which voters do not hold the GOP in high regard.

The situation is really no better in the Senate, either. While the Democratic majority in the Senate is much narrower (50 seats to 49 seats with 1 Independent), the implications of an increased majority in the Senate are much more significant. Should the Democrats manage to increase their majority to 60 seats – the so-called “Magic 60” – the consequences for the GOP are enormous because the Democrats’ edge would be “filibuster proof”. A filibuster-proof majority gives the Democrats an enormous amount of power, and would be particularly important in several key areas. First and foremost, the agenda of a President Obama would essentially be fast-tracked without the threat of any real Republican challenge or ability to stop it. Secondly, with no threat of a filibuster, Democrats would be able to quickly and easily push through any and all judicial nominations – including, of course, nominations for the Supreme Court. Lastly, assuming an increased majority in the House to boot, the Democrats would quite literally be running the country, with Republicans marginalized to little more than spectators.

For some Republicans and conservatives, this scenario has appeal, providing Democrats, they would contend, just enough rope to hang themselves. And this strategy, it should be noted, has some high profile backers. Among those making this argument over the past few months are Rush Limbaugh, and various writers and editors at The National Review, the preeminent conservative publication in the country. With the Democrats in complete control, Limbaugh has said, “the country would go to hell in a hand basket”. Once that happens, claim those who subscribe to this theory, Americans would be forced to recognize the misguided, erroneous and foolish nature of the Democrats’ policies. The GOP, hitting a cathartic bottom, would have no choice but to return to its best conservative traditions and roots, emerging from its political wilderness as a stronger, more united, and more philosophically pure Republican Party, ready to again earn the Americans’ confidence and return to political superiority.

Not so fast, says this Republican, however. To be sure, like many, I too am disappointed by President Bush and by the Republican Party in general, and by their missteps and the missed opportunities of the last 6 to 8 years. I further agree that the GOP has lost sight of many of its foundational principles – many of which were what attracted me to the party in the first place. I also concur that the party needs a wake-up call, but here is where I begin to diverge from Rush Limbaugh and others. I would argue that the sad state of the Republican Party today should be sufficient in giving the party the slap across the face it clearly needs. And while I also believe that the Democrats would make a mess of things if given unfettered control of the federal government, I am not prepared to simply concede this election and let them wreak havoc purely for long-term political gains. The stakes are simply too high – not only for the country as a whole, but for me personally.

There are three major areas of concern that preclude my signing on to the concession theory. First and foremost, a President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid are going to raise taxes through the roof. At the very least, the top tax rate will go from 35% to 40%, the lowest tax rate from 10% to 15%, the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 20%, and the tax on dividends from 15% to 40%. The so-called “marriage penalty”, now non-existent for couples making less than $150,000 a year, would under Obama’s plan, be in full effect from the first dollar earned. Under the current law, parents receive a child tax credit of $1000 per child. Obama, Pelosi and Reid would reduce this to $500 per child. For those who have been exposed to the archaic Alternative Minimum Tax in recent years, under Democratic control the AMT will continue to exact its disproportionate toll on taxpayers’ wallets. At a time when the economy is unquestionably hurting, the country cannot afford the massive tax increases that Democratic control would bring. From a personal standpoint, as my wife and I try to save money, work to purchase a home, and hopefully prepare for the financial aspects of raising children, we truly can’t afford to let Obama, Pelosi and Reid have their way when it comes to raising taxes. My financial stability is too important to passively watch the Democrats enjoy an unencumbered taxing and spending spree.

Second, I am not comfortable with the national security or foreign policy ramifications of the potential Democratic trifecta. Obama’s lack of experience is a major source of concern for me, and his stated willingness to meet with Iran and other rogue regimes as president with no preconditions raises concerns for me about his judgment in this area. Does he understand the nature and gravity of the terrorist threat to our country? I am not convinced he does. His continued refusal to acknowledge the success of the so-called “Surge” in Iraq (and his unwillingness to indicate he would have supported it had he known the benefits it would ultimately have) leads me to question his readiness to be the Commander-in-Chief. Pelosi ushered the Democrats into the majority in 2006 with all sorts of reckless promises with regard to Iraq. While thankfully she hasn’t delivered on them – much to the chagrin of the moveon.org wing of her party – with the willing pen of a President Obama in the Oval Office and a compliant partner with an increased majority of his own in Harry Reid, it’s not unrealistic to think she would return to her dangerously dovish plans. Finally – and again from a personal perspective – as a resident of Manhattan incalculably grateful for the job that President Bush, Homeland Security, and the NYC authorities have done in keeping us safe since September 11^th, I am not convinced that Democrats in full control will be willing to make the touch choices required to maintain our national security. I would never put political gains ahead of the safety of my family and me, and so I cannot concede an election with the possible consequences so serious.

Lastly, there is the issue of the Judiciary. With four Supreme Court Justices over the age of 70, the next President will almost certainly have the opportunity to appoint at least two people to the Supreme Court, and likely more. While the Supreme Court currently consists of more Justices appointed by Republican Presidents than by Democratic Presidents, the ideological makeup of the Court is, in reality, rather balanced. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are considered reliably conservative; Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer are thought to be reliably liberal; and Justice Kennedy is considered to be the swing vote. With the possibility of several imminent retirements (or, morbidly, deaths), the next President could have a significant impact on the political leanings of the Court. If Republicans concede this year and allow President Obama to appoint judicial nominees of all levels without a realistic check on that power by the Republican minority in the Senate, the long-term consequences could be dire. Democrats in the Senate did an extremely effective job of reining in President Bush’s judicial nominees through the use of (or threat of) the filibuster. If the Democrats reach the “Magic 60”, the GOP will have no ability to influence the makeup of the Judicial Branch. While the ability to appoint nominees of his or her choosing is a right and privilege afforded to the president – and therefore a right and privilege Obama would rightfully have earned should he be elected – the vital system of checks and balances instituted by our Founding Fathers requires that the opposition party have some parliamentary powers at their disposal to provide that check. The far-reaching and wide-ranging powers of the Judiciary are far too consequential for the GOP to wave the white flag in November. Looking at it personally, the coming judicial nominees and their rulings are likely to affect me for the rest of my life, and I’m not willing to relinquish that advantage to the Democrats by taking a pass this year.

In many respects, frankly, the GOP deserves to be in the position in which we now find ourselves, and I have no doubt that Democrats delight in the current Republican dilemma. (I can’t say that I wouldn’t enjoy it were the tables turned)! I also can’t tell you with sincerity that I am really enthusiastic about John McCain, or about Congressional Republicans in general. It may well be that when I go to the voting booth in November and pull the lever for McCain and other GOP candidates, I’ll be doing so more to voice my opposition to unrestrained Democratic control than to express my wholehearted support for my party’s presidential or congressional candidates. But whatever my motivation ends up being, I can assure you that I will indeed be pulling that lever for McCain, and I encourage my fellow Republicans to do the same. There are different theories on how to extricate the Republican Party from its current predicament, but conceding an election to the Democrats and thereby handing them the keys to the entire federal government, is not the answer. The stakes are too high for the country, and the stakes are too high for me personally.

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

Veep Watch

In the last two weeks there has been a great deal of speculation that either Barack Obama, John McCain -- or both -- may be on the verge of naming their running mates very soon. Given all of the chatter, I thought I'd offer a little guidance for you on what to expect (or not to expect) in the coming days and weeks.

First and foremost, let's keep a few dates and events in mind:
1) August 8th - August 24th: The Summer Olympics in Beijing;
3) August 25th - August 28th: The Democratic National Convention in Denver;
4) August 29th - September 1st: Labor Day Weekend;
4) September 1st - September 4th: The Republican National Convention in Minneapolis-Saint Paul.

Now let's look at a few other factors to keep in mind:
1) It's unlikely that either candidate will announce his running mate on a Saturday, Sunday, Monday or Friday -- those are not ideal days in terms of being able to capture the attention of voters. (Wednesday or Thursday, I would argue, would be the best days of the week to announce in order to have the greatest impact on the news cycle -- an important consideration).
2) If neither candidate announces prior to the start of the Olympics on August 8th, there is almost no chance that the announcements will come during the Olympics. (In other words, if we don't hear from either Obama or McCain before August 8th, we almost certainly won't be hearing until after the end of the Olympics on August 24th. Neither campaign wants to compete for media or voter attention with the Olympics).
3) Obama absolutely has to name his running mate by August 27th, the third night of the Democratic Convention when the vice presidential candidate is officially nominated by the delegates to the convention.
4) McCain absolutely has to name his running mate by September 3rd, the third night of the Republican Convention when the vice presidential candidate is officially nominated by the delegates to the convention.
5) McCain will almost certainly not announce his choice right before Labor Day Weekend on August 29th as the news would be lost amidst most Americans enjoying their long holiday weekends.

So what can we deduce from all of this information? I think we can assume that one or both candidates may indeed be close to announcing his choice. Certainly in the case of Obama, if he does not announce before the Olympics begin on August 8th, he is boxing himself in given that his convention begins the day after the Olympics end. McCain, with the later convention, has more flexibility, though the Labor Day Weekend holiday complicates things for him too.

Are you with me so far? I hope so, because here come the predictions...

I suspect Barack Obama will name his running mate on one of the following days, with my guess for the most likely day in bold:
1) Thursday, July 31st (tomorrow);
2) Tuesday, August 5th;
3) Wednesday, August 6th;
4) Thursday, August 7th;
5) Monday, August 25th.

I suspect John McCain will name his running mate on one of the following days -- though his timing is likely subject to whether Obama names his prior to the Olympics -- with my guess for the most likely day in bold:
1) Thursday, July 31st (tomorrow);
2) Tuesday, August 5th;
3) Wednesday, August 6th;
4) Tuesday, September 2nd;
5) Wednesday, September 3rd.

If you're wondering why I think Obama will go on August 6th and McCain on September 3rd, here's why...

In the case of Obama, the Olympics complicate things greatly. He basically has to announce before they start or after they finish, and if he goes after they finish, he's already looking at Day 1 of the Democratic Convention. I suspect Obama would prefer to go after the Olympics, but if he does so, he would likely be announcing his choice on the Monday that his convention starts, not an ideal day of the week to garner the most attention. Further, if Obama waits until the start of his convention to name his pick, he risks the distraction of further speculation and debate over whether Hillary Clinton may be his running mate choice. Since -- in my opinion -- she won't be, he may actually need the weeks between the Olympics and the start of the convention to mend a few fences with Hillary supporters, and to give them time to reconcile themselves to the fact that their woman will likely have no place in a potential Obama Administration. Therefore I believe he needs to make his move pre-Beijing, and by announcing next Wednesday, he's guaranteed two or three days of wall-to-wall coverage before the Olympics capture the majority of Americans' attention.

As for McCain, I can see no real reason for him to beat Obama to the punch on this. In fact, I suspect McCain could easily be poised to alter his selection criteria or decision-making process in reaction to whomever Obama selects. For example, should Obama choose a white male, I would think the chances of McCain selecting a female running mate would increase -- if for nothing else to possibly win over any of those disenchanted former Hillary supporters so bitter that Obama did not pick Clinton as his #2 that they might consider supporting McCain. Like the Olympics for Obama, Labor Day Weekend is an inconvenience for McCain, and it would be unwise for him to announce his pick the day after Obama's big convention speech -- August 29th -- also the first day of Labor Day Weekend. So I think McCain waits, takes advantage of the political lull provided by the Olympics, and strategizes with his team about who best adds a jolt to his ticket, and who best trumps or at least offsets the person that Obama has chosen. Given the obvious public fascination with Obama, he should have no trouble in attracting voters to tune in to the coverage of his convention. The same cannot be said for McCain and the GOP Convention, however, and so if he waits until the last possible day to make his choice (the day that his running mate would be nominated at the convention), he would create a suspense and a buzz around the Republican Convention that otherwise wouldn't be there, intriguing voters and, not insignificantly, the media as well.

I hope you're staying with me. Now to the all-important question: Who will each select?

If you recall, I made my predictions on this question here last month, expressing my belief that Obama should select former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn, and that McCain should pick Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Nunn remains in the running for Obama, but Jindal appears unlikely to be named the #2 for McCain, having seemingly removed himself from consideration last week, (though there is some debate as to whether or not he may still be in the running). So while I've still got a chance for my initial picks to be correct, I wouldn't put Nunn or Jindal at the top of my prediction lists anymore.

There's been a lot of buzz lately about a few candidates in both parties. For Obama and the Democrats, there was a bit of a media frenzy on Monday when word allegedly leaked that Virginia Governor Tim Kaine was at or near the top of Obama's short list. For McCain, meanwhile, the recent speculation has centered largely around former Massachusetts Governor (and former GOP presidential candidate) Mitt Romney, and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. We should perhaps take all of this buzz with a grain of salt though, as it seems to me that the people about whom we hear the most in the run-up to the selections are rarely the ones who actually end up being chosen. Could this year be different? I think possibly so.

With that said, here are my categorized short lists...

Obama's Likely Choices:
1) Indiana Senator Evan Bayh
2) Delaware Senator Joe Biden
3) Virginia Governor Tim Kaine
4) Former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn
5) New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson
6) Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius

McCain's Likely Choices:
1) Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty
2) Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney
3) Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina
4) Former Ohio Congressman Rob Portman
5) Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal
6) South Dakota Senator John Thune

Obama's Long-Shot Choices:
1) Former Maine Senator George Mitchell
2) Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel (a Republican)
3) New York Senator Hillary Clinton
4) Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill
5) Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano
6) New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (a Republican)

McCain's Long-Shot Choices:
1) Former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge
2) Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell
3) Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn
4) Alaska Governor Sarah Palin
5) Former Ohio Congressman John Kasich
6) Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison

So there you have it, folks. These are the men and women who I believe stand the best chance of being chosen by Obama and McCain as their running mates, and Wednesday, August 6th and Wednesday, September 3rd are the days, respectively, when I predict the picks will be announced.

But what do you think? I'd appreciate any thoughts or feedback you have, any reasons why you think these predictions will or will not pan out, and/or any questions or comments in general. Simply click on the comments section below to weigh in if you'd like.

In the meantime, stay tuned, and thanks for reading!

Randy Pausch: 1960-2008

Randy Pausch, the now famous author of The Last Lecture (and the subject and, in many ways, inspiration of my first blog entry here) died this morning after a long but valiant fight against cancer.

Dr. Pausch first gained prominence after delivering a speech that became known as "The Last Lecture" in September of last year. The speech became a YouTube/internet phenomenon, and before long, Pausch was appearing on The Oprah Winfrey Show, Good Morning America, Primetime Live, and elsewhere. The incredible attention and appreciation that were given to his speech led him to write the book, which quickly became a best-seller.

This brief video from The Wall Street Journal tells the story well. (Journal reporter Jeff Zaslow co-wrote The Last Lecture with Pausch):


Randy Pausch is survived by his wife, Jai, and three children: Dylan, Logan, and Chloe -- all, sadly, below the age of 7. Fortunately for them, their father's legacy and life lessons will live on for a long time to come, not only for them, but for the many others that Pausch inspired.

Lastly, I'll leave you with Randy Pausch in his own words. Here, in its entirety, is his remarkable "Last Lecture":