Winning The Post-Debate

Senator Obama may have won the debate by some arguable margin, but won the post-debate by an unarguable landslide. Two things happened after the debate that, if they get any media traction, can move undecided voters to Obama.
The (Perceived) Snub: Liberal blogs are all upset over John McCain refusing to shake hands with Barack Obama while they were working the crowd together. I think there's a lot more smoke than fire on this one. They shook hands right after the debate, while Tom Brokaw complained that they were blocking the view of his closing lines on the teleprompter. In the snub video, McCain clearly approached Obama so that Barack and Cindy could exchange pleasantries (Which is odd, given Cindy McCain's claims earlier in the day.) McCain simply didn't expect Obama to extend his hand, and so had an awkward moment. We've all had them... well, at least I have. So, while it's no secret that McCain isn't fond of Obama, I don't see a snub here. Still, if it gains traction in the media, it could hurt McCain.
A Man of the People: Far more telling was what happened next. John and Cindy McCain worked the crowd, walking around the room right to the exit and out the door. Barack and Michelle Obama worked the crowd and stayed. And stayed. And stayed. For at least 20 minutes, while the talking heads were dissecting the debate, the backdrop video showed Barack and Michelle simply spending time with the people. Talking, and smiling, and having pictures taken. The impression was that John McCain came for the debate, while Barack Obama came for the people. It doesn't matter if those interpretations are accurate, the impression is there. America got a great big dose of unscripted Barack and Michelle, mingling with the Joe Sixpack's the McCain campaign is appealing to...and enjoying it. For an undecided voter asking "Who understands the needs of everyday people?" it would be hard to pick the absent McCain over the engaged Obama.
The Moose Goose Gazette gives the post-debate to Obama as a clear winner.

Tea Leaves?

Probably every one of us knows what it's like to watch an interview of our favorite political villain and ask "How can you not ask about ?" Sometimes it can get pretty bad and your spouse has to remind you that the people on TV can't really hear you. And so you ask your spouse "But... how could they not ask about it?" This phenomena happens most often during election season when the politicians are taking their usual liberties with reality and the news people look the other way.
Something new has been happening lately during this election cycle. I noticed it shortly after Senator McCain picked Governor Palin as his running mate. The major media markets have been calling his and her bluffs. Not just the markets you would expect, either. Normally bland news outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and ABC are fact-checking the McCain-Palin claims.
I think it started with Governor Palin. Her "No thanks" claim for the Bridge to Nowhere has been challenged repeatedly and pretty well run to ground. Her trooper-gate claims are being challenged by ABC. And when Charles Gibson was hand-picked to give the first interview to Governor Palin, he did not give her the softball interview and "deference" the McCain campaign demanded. Now the NY Times is reminding us that while the McCain-Palin campaign has criticized Barack Obama for receiving donations from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, McCain's own campaign manager earned $2 million as president of an advocacy group set up by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations. We've seen the Today Show question why John McCain rails against CEO's who are given golden parachutes while their employees are being laid off while one of his top advisors, former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, received a $45 million golden parachute bailout while 20,000 Hewlett-Packard employees were laid off. And the low road approach of the McCain-Palin campaign has been criticized by numerous newspapers, including the International Herald Tribune, Newsweek, and even Karl Rove on FOX (though to be fair, Karl Rove also said that the Obama campaign has gone too far).
I take this as a sign that the media outlets are betting on an Obama win. There are some out there who believe that the liberal media are simply trying to ensure that Obama wins, but that doesn't take into account past behavior of letting similar claims slide. Nor does it take into account that major media outlets want to be on good terms with the victor, no matter who it is. That's just good business. There was a real change in the pre-Palin and post-Palin actions of the press. I suspect that the major media players were underwhelmed with the choice and believe that the Obama campaign can overcome her positive aspects to win.

Drill, Maybe, Drill!

There's a lot of talk about offshore drilling, but not very much analysis about the benefits and costs. The McCain/Palin campaign says "Drill, baby, drill!" From a political perspective it's a great thing to do, because McCain can pound on the podium and say "Drill here, pay less at the pump" and it gets people all wound up and brings out the vote. But getting out the vote and doing something useful are not always the same thing. Similarly, the Democrats in Congress claimed recently that the oil and gas companies already hold the leases to huge, productive tracts that they simply have not yet developed. This too is a great political claim, but it's hard to find real data to see if the claim is valid. It may be true, but the lack of hard data regarding estimated reserves makes it difficult to assess. Usually reality falls somewhere in between the extremes of broad politically based claims.

We need a real discussion on offshore drilling, not a war of slogans and knee-jerk reactions. The discussion typically takes the form of weighing the environmental costs against the economic benefits of lifting the offshore oil ban.

Conservation: The typical one-liner says that oil exploration and environmental groups can never get along. That makes offshore drilling a show stopper for many. It turns out not to be an absolute truth. In Santa Barbara, CA, an environmentalist group called Goo! negotiated with the Plains Exploration and Production Company to re-open offshore oil fields previously closed down. This does not mean that the entire community is on board with the project, as this Newsweek article points out.

Oil and gas drilling technology is clearly improving. With public and regulatory support, that technology can be used to provide cleaner recovery and transport. A case can be made that in the course of normal operations, oil recovery is quite clean. For example, this 1995 NASA study claims that offshore drilling adds 15 million gallons of oil to the oceans every year, but this is a much smaller source than from natural seepage (62 million), routine ship maintenance (137 million), and poor usage by us landlubbers (363 million). What about abnormal events? Some claim there was no oil rig damage and no oil spillage due to Katrina, but don't believe them! Some 7-9 million gallons from onshore sources and an additional 741,000 gallons from offshore sources were spilled. The numbers for Gustav and Ike are not in yet. Clearly, oil rigs were lost (at least 49 for Ike). Assuming production is shut down prior to the storm, the loss of rigs is an economic issue for the oil/gas companies, but does not have to be a strong environmental issue. I'm not convinced that offshore drilling is environmentally safe in general, but it seems sensible to allow the discussion on a case by case basis.

Effects of Increased Production: It's hard to find numbers estimating how much additional oil and gas could be extracted via offshore drilling. The US Energy Information Administration claimed in 2007 that lifting the offshore drilling ban would increase overall production by about 200,000 barrels per day. That's a trivial amount. It's about 10% of US production, but only about 0.25% of world production. Consider that Saudi Arabia alone promised to increase oil production by 500,000 barrels per day earlier this year, and the global oil market didn't move an inch. Some people put forward a "Every little bit helps!" argument, but it's a non-argument. If I paid you a dollar for a day's hard labor and rationalized it by saying "Hey, every little bit helps!" you still wouldn't take the job. You would use your time and energy in more productive areas. Similarly, this may be a case where utilizing the time and energy that is needed to explore and develop new offshore oil fields may be better used in more productive areas, such as studying alternative energy sources.

I think we can identify a few things we can agree on. One is that environmental effects of drilling are better addressed on a case-by-case basis, rather than blanket statements about certain doom or certain success. Another is that there is no strong case for completely lifting the ban, based on production estimates. New information or new technology could change both of the previous statements and we should be open to that. Lastly, reality-based analysis will have no impact on the political argument. Those that believe they will achieve political advantage by advocating or opposing offshore drilling will advocate or oppose regardless of real world results. And because of this last, it is incumbent on us to be informed so that we can allow reality to shape that political advantage.

Defending the Constitution

I was thinking about the ongoing discussions as to whether Sarah Palin is qualified to be the President of the US should the need arise and re-read the Presidential Oath of Office as a reminder of what the job entails. The Oath reads as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Judging by what I see and hear, the vast majority of people interpret the "protect and defend" clause in its most obvious sense, whereby we are threatened by a foreign military power. Clearly, this is a highly unlikely scenario. We are still the only remaining superpower. Our military budget equals the rest of the world's nations military budgets combined.
Loss of Constitutional power through other actions, however, is always a possibility. Internal power grabs or slow erosion may occur. Preserving the Constitution in this sense requires a deep knowledge of the Constitution itself, as well as a familiarity with Constitutional interpretation and the historical court cases developing that interpretation. In this sense, Barack Obama certainly has the most credentials. He has a JD from Harvard and taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years. Next would be Joe Biden, who earned a JD at the Syracuse University College of Law and has a long career in the Senate. Senator Biden currently chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. Next is John McCain. His academic career at the Naval Academy was not directly related to law, but his long service in the House and Senate has clearly given him direct experience with the checks, balances, powers, and limitations laid out in the Constitution. Sarah Palin has none of this. She holds a Bachelor of Science in Communications-Journalism, two terms as the mayor of Wasilla, and is in her first term as the governor of Alaska. There is nothing in her resume indicating a sense of Constitutional Law, or issues that may arise. This unfamiliarity leaves her vulnerable to attack, and by extension, We The People are vulnerable if she is in office.
Sarah Palin has some good qualities. She's confident, articulate, intelligent, and aggressive. But, she doesn't have the training or experience to work within a Constitutional framework. Will she be able to protect Executive powers from a greedy Congress? Will she push back if her advisors attempt to push her further toward the Unitary Executive that George Bush's administration envisioned? I doubt she could gain that kind of insight in such a short time. Regardless of our political leanings, we should be able to agree that putting a Constitutional amateur in the White House is not the most likely way to ensure that the President can fulfill the Oath of Office.

Reform Who?

The Republican campaigners have chosen to focus a lot of attention on reform. By definition, reform refers to dismantling a long-standing political system or process. So who are they reforming? George Bush has been President for the past eight years. Republicans have been in the Oval Office for twenty of the past twenty-eight years. Republicans held both the House and Senate for twelve years prior to the Democratic party gaining a slight majority in 2006. The long-standing power structures are Republican. John McCain himself has been in the Senate for the past twenty years and was implicated in the Keating 5 scandal in the 1980s.

Sarah Palin herself is already under investigation for abuse of power of the Governor's office, has ties to Senator Stevens, the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere", and the Alaskan Independence Party. These issues may be resolved in her favor, but it's hardly the environment in which to run a reform ticket.

Political campaigns thrive on powerful, emotional words. You will hear both parties using them to motivate voters to get out to the polls, preferably without stopping to think. In both cases, though, it is our responsibility to stop. Think. This choice of themes seems misguided. If enough people stop to think and ask "Who are we reforming?" it could be bad for the McCain-Palin ticket.