Instantly offer up a pundit-worthy analysis of the next debate: Plug in any candidate’s name, pick your phrase from the multiple selections, and pretend like you know what you're talking about.


As this historic campaign comes down to the final stretch, the upcoming debate will have to address some key concerns: Can the candidate look presidential enough? Will he use the right body language? Will he wink?

Going into this head-to-head showdown, the candidate’s opposition has been making an enormous deal out of his latest gaffe. Will this one turn out to be: a game changer / just another atmospheric / a 3 a.m. moment? Perhaps so. The most interesting thing to see will be what effect it has on the candidate’s “problem” voters. Lately, he’s been doing a little better with that demographic, or a little worse, depending on which poll you look at. But overall, the needle is moving. This debate is his chance to talk directly to those folks, many of whom are still undecided.

So what does he have to do, and more importantly, will he do it? Can he: check all the boxes / connect the dots / show them he gets it? Clearly, this isn’t the time to be dog-whistling to the faithful or throwing red meat to the base. In terms of tactics, I don’t expect to see any sea change here. But given the Sturm and Drang of recent weeks, to try and have the same conversation in a different news cycle is simply a non-starter. If he’s tone-deaf enough to do that, his opponent is going to: drink his milkshake / eat his lunch / pick all the low-hanging fruit.

Meanwhile, the candidate’s base will be looking to see if he responds strongly enough to the negative ads coming out of the so-called 527s, those well-funded astroturf organizations known for both under-the-radar whispering campaigns and over-the-top attack ads. Publicly, the candidate’s people claim that the 527s are nothing more than echo chambers for his opponent’s campaign, and the desperate nature of their smears indicates that the opposition has finally: crossed the Rubicon / jumped the shark / cratered. They say that the wheels have come off their opponent’s campaign; there’s just no there there, and the voters aren’t about to drink that Kool-aid. But privately, senior staffers worry that these persistent attacks are starting to: re-frame the debate / damage the candidate’s brand / suck up all the oxygen in the room.

Still, I think the candidate’s supporters will be disappointed if they expect him to address the attack ads head-on. We’re more likely to see some triangulation and pivoting, and a little inside baseball, as he tries to get his opponent to grab that third rail. So we’ll see how that plays out. Look for him to leave it to his surrogates to play the whole: scorched earth / kitchen sink / pick your metaphor thing.

The bottom line is, we’ve seen this campaign move from old-fashioned retail politics to simmering scandals, wild attacks, and non-stop gaffes. Now both campaigns are accusing the other of: flip flopping / appealing to the lowest common denominator / talking in code. In this debate, the candidate will want to come across as a bipartisan moderate who can get things done. How well he can pull that off remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: If the instant polling shows that he did poorly, then clearly the campaign didn’t set expectations low enough.

And that’s the narrative here on the ground.



Author tags: pundits debate analysis satire

It’s clear now that Barack Obama is not going to pick Hillary Clinton to be his vice president. Yes...it's true. But a recent Los Angeles Times editorial suggested that he could still help Clinton’s future chances by selecting a running mate who has no intention of seeking the presidency in eight years. Leave 2016 open for Hillary--or someone--by choosing a respected elder statesman who would be qualified to assume the presidency if needed, but too old to seek the nomination at the end of Obama‘s term.

It’s an interesting idea. But there’s another path that Obama could take, one that would help him win both independent voters and Hillary supporters, while reassuring his base that he’s still a progressive leader. He could embrace the concept of a voluntary one-term vice president.

The one-term VP is not an especially radical idea, but it does take a little getting used to. Here‘s how it works: Obama starts with a list of potential running mates who balance the ticket in traditional ways. It includes the obvious choices: the retired Admiral now a Pennsylvania Congressman, the white Southern governor, the decorated general, the seasoned foreign policy expert, and so on. But then, in a surprise move, Obama picks someone on the list who wishes to serve only one term as vice president. This candidate doesn’t see the vice presidency as merely a stepping stone to the presidency. Like Obama, he believes in a new kind of politics, and wants to spend the next four years actually serving the nation, rather than grooming himself to be president. To that end, he and Obama agree that under the new administration, the vice president will have a specific--and crucial--area of responsibility. For example, one-term Vice President Al Gore would take charge of fighting global warming and promoting alternative energy. Other candidates would have their own strengths. The bottom line is that four years is the limit. Come reelection time, Obama would have to tap someone else to be his VP.

This tack allows Obama to pick whoever he needs to help him win in 2008, while leaving open the real possibility of a female vice president in his second term.

The Republicans would fuss and fume, but Hillary supporters would have reason to be optimistic again, while Obama’s progressive base would no doubt appreciate an unconventional move from their increasingly conventional candidate. Certainly, the political pundits would be ecstatic at the prospect of having four more years to speculate about Obama’s next VP.

On the down side, incensed feminists would demand to know what’s wrong with having a female running mate right now, instead of four years from now. But the answer is simple: in 2012, a woman stands a much better chance of being elected. By then, Obama will have established his presidential experience and Commander-in-Chief credentials, and it will be far less risky for him to take on a female running mate. As for the woman, it’s a historical fact that the best way to get elected vice president is to run under an incumbent president. Then, assuming Obama is reelected, we have the actual prospect of a female vice president running for president of the United States in less than a decade.

Can it happen? If Obama is way ahead of McCain at convention time, his campaign will be disinclined to think outside the box, preferring instead to take a more traditional approach. If not, then anything is possible, especially if McCain picks Elizabeth Dole to be his VP.

Jefferson and Lincoln both had different vice presidents in their first and second terms. Franklin Roosevelt had three. Nowadays, it shouldn’t be impossible to conceive of a voluntary one-term VP. It simply means redefining the office of the vice president, at least temporarily, in order to effect political and social progress. If it works, the Democratic candidate will have helped himself win by, in effect, changing the rules of the game. And if there’s anyone who can do that, it’s Barack Hussein Obama.