Political Wisdom: Feminism Will Survive Hillary
WSJ.COM
In Political Perceptions
Here's a summary of the smartest new political analysis on the Web:
by Sara Murray and Gerald F. Seib
The cause of feminism will survive the demise of Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign just fine, argues Slate's Melinda Henneberger. Ultimately, Clinton's gender helped rather than hurt her, Hennegerger writes: "All of the trash talk by pundits and those nitwits hollering 'Iron my shirts!'' inadvertently helped her, but they could take her only so far. Her sense of 'female crucifixion'' won her a fervent following, but by definition, martyrs never win. (Not here on earth, anyway.)"
Though the media "supposedly hate Hillary," they "presented her as the natural standard-bearer for women in general." Still, Clinton had "only a nine-point advantage with female voters across all states with exit polls," showing women made their choices on a range of criteria. Henneberger concludes: "Sure, all things being equal, I would rather have voted for a woman. But all things never are equal, are they? Right now, I have to say I'm pretty happy with the choices we have. And feminism won't have to 'rally,'' because this campaign did nothing to undermine our ability to ignore repeated instructions to do as we're told.
Gas prices are rising fast as a political issue, to the disadvantage of Sen. John McCain, writes David Paul Kuhn of Politico. "More Americans now view energy as a serious concern than at the low point of the 1979 energy crisis, according to a Politico analysis of historical Gallup Polls," he says. "Distress over gas prices could hardly come at a worse time for Republicans. Voters usually blame a poor economy on the party that controls the presidency, and there are few more potent reminders of hard economic times than the high cost of fuel at the pump."
So far, he adds, it's McCain who has suffered most. "On an issue that three in four registered voters believe will be 'very important' in making their 'decision about who to vote for this fall' — a greater portion of voters than those who cite terrorism, moral values or the war in Iraq — Pew shows Republicans lagging Democrats by 15 percentage points on who will give 'greater priority' to energy. While McCain's bid for the presidency is likely dependent on his ability to outperform the unpopular Republican brand, the same poll shows him trailing the GOP on the issue. He trails Obama by an even larger margin, 18 percentage points, among voters asked which candidate would better 'deal' with the energy issue."
On the upside for McCain, his campaign manager Rick Davis came up with a PowerPoint detailing how McCain is going to pull off a win in November, writes ABC News' Jake Tapper. His argument is a popular one this year: proposing how he candidate would redraw the electoral map. The slideshow lists states like California, Connecticut and New Jersey as places where McCain could have an edge. "And they would," Tapper notes. "Except they're likely prohibitively expensive. California costs $3-4 million a week just to run TV advertising. And to compete in Connecticut and New Jersey, you need to run TV ads in New York City. Is the McCain campaign going to have that kind of money? They haven't show the ability to raise it so far."
An essential candidate for Sen. Barack Obama's veep list should be Sen. Joe Biden to help beef up Obama's foreign affairs stance, writes The Washington Post's E. J. Dionne. "Why Biden?" Dionne writes. "In part because of where he took our discussion: Few Democrats know more about foreign policy, and few would so relish the fight against McCain on international affairs. Few are better placed to argue that withdrawal from Iraq will strengthen rather than weaken the United States." Plus, Biden's originally from Pennsylvania, he's Catholic, and he comes from a blue-collar background, all of which would benefit Obama. "But the central reason to pick Biden is the message the choice would send about Obama's readiness to contest national security issues and his understanding that fixing American foreign policy must be one of the next president's highest priorities…Whether or not Obama picks Biden, he should listen to what Biden is saying. Obama can't sidestep the foreign policy debate. He has to win it."
**************************************************
Israel Offers Diplomacy Lesson
In Gerald F. Seib
Now that the general election is (at last) upon us, Barack Obama has some explaining to do. Specifically, he will be pressed to explain anew when he would meet with the leaders of rogue states and unfriendly nations, a topic that has caused him some heartburn already.
As he ponders how to respond, Sen. Obama might take some tips from the way Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert approached Syria over the past year to open a line of communication. The Olmert overture is a classic case study in how to reach out to an unfriendly leader — as well as when not to do so.
Sen. Obama, of course, walked into controversy on this front when he was asked at a debate last July whether he would meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea "without precondition."
He quickly said yes — and now, presumably, wishes he hadn't spoken quite so fast. While his answer gave voice to a widespread feeling that the Bush administration has undervalued diplomacy, it also has opened him up to regular criticism from his general election foe, Sen. John McCain, who uses the answer to paint Sen. Obama as both inexperienced and naïve about the rough world out there.
Somewhere between an open invitation to talk and an obstinate refusal to do so there is a wise answer to that debate question. Israel's Mr. Olmert has shown roughly where it lies. Here's how he found it:
Israel faces continuing and multiple threats, but the most grave ones come from Iran, whose leaders talk openly of wiping Israel off the map, and neighboring Syria, whose leaders have made an alliance of convenience with Iran. blogs.wsj.com |
