Obama goes to Gettysburg?

As Obama prepares to face McCain, foreign policy will be near the top of the agenda--for both. McCain will try to paint Obama as a neophyte; Obama will tie McCain to President Bush and emphasize differences on Iraq.

To the latter end, Richard Parker, a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, suggests that Obama should stake out territory that holds a sacred place in American history. Parker thinks that Obama should make a major speech on the war from Gettysburg, among the
tens of thousands of dead from north and south. The speech could emphasize withdrawal from Iraq; the need for sound diplomacy in its place; American unity; and other key themes.

Polprint is trying to get Parker's memo to the Obama campaign; if she succeeds, readers will be alerted. Interestingly, Parker says that he was initially a Clinton supporter, but was brought around to Obama by the enthusiasm of his students, unheard of since the Kennedy years.

Question hour for McCain

A reader sent in this gem, from Slate: McCain has pledged to hold a regular Q&A with Congress, similar to the tumultuous "Question Hour" in the British Parliament. Not to mention weekly press conferences, a revolutionary concept for the current administration. Hear, hear!

Forgotten Congressional campaigns

Coverage of Obama and Clinton and (sometimes) McCain dominates the front pages. For a political junkie like Polprint, that should mean that the cup runneth over. But Polprint confesses to being a bit frustrated. Aren't there other campaigns happening, too? For inconsequential posts like Senator or Congressman?

Polprint has yet to see a front-page analysis on vulnerable Senate or Congressional seats (not to mention governorships)--how many, what states, and so forth. Case in point: the New York Times story today on how this week's Mississippi special election, won by a Democrat in a conservative district, is a warning shot to Republicans everywhere. But what are the six vulnerable Senate seats that the article mentioned? Readers, are you up on this?

Can someone please define "landslide"?

Call Polprint a cynical, hope-busting pundit. But she has read one too many articles about Obama's "landslide" victory over Clinton in North Carolina last week. The latest culprit was a Week in Review piece in today's New York Times, about how Democrats can win back the South (highly unpersuasive on the presidential front, incidentally).

Is 56-42 really a landslide? Polprint has vivid memories of her first encounter with political landslide: Ronald Reagan's trouncing of Walter Mondale in 1984. OK, so Reagan won the popular vote 59-41, by just four points more than Obama did in North Carolina. But he swept 49 of 50 states, so "landslide" may be more apt for his electoral-college victory.

Clinton actually seems to be the one gearing up for a landslide: she's ahead 66-23 in West Virginia, according to the latest poll. We'll see how the press describes her victory. (Polprint has a sneaking suspicion that "landslide" is chiefly a term of coronation, and mostly applies when expectations are exceeded.)

Fashion advice for Obama

Have readers seen the photo of Obama in jeans? Polprint is ashamed of herself for raising such silly issues. But it's interesting! Obama--who never looks his age in the best (worst?) of times--actually looks like a schoolkid, especially because he is carrying his own bag. Polprint advises him to grow a paunch, or at least not carry his own bag, to give himself a bit more gravitas. Oh wait, maybe not wearing jeans would do the trick too.

Clintonian conspiracies

A friend of Polprint's just relayed a delightful conspiracy theory: Clinton is staying in the race in order to weaken Obama, so that he will lose this election and she can run against McCain in 2012.


Polprint discounts most conspiracy theories, and this one is no exception. But why not indulge, once in awhile?

The Chelsea factor

Polprint heartily recommends "Too Solemn For Her Generation", an article about Chelsea Clinton's campaign style by a Washington Post reporter. The piece observes that Chelsea rarely uses the obvious tools of 20-somethings--humor and sarcasm--to answer or deflect questions.

Instead, her stump speech is earnest, dull and repetive. When she is not wonking out (to use a verb that is not in Polprint's dusty copy of Webster's), she says things like: "I'm so proud of my mom. I hope that your daughter is as proud of you or your children are as proud of you as I'm proud of my mom."

What 28-year-old still refers to their mother as "my mom", anyway?