Johnny Camacho’s Blog

I attended the Warner vs. Gilmore debate at The Homestead yesterday, and, I’ll be honest, it was predictable and a bit dry. Before I go into full detail, I’ll touch on some of the major elements of each candidate’s debate performance:

Warner: Gov. Warner emphasized his bipartisan record as Governor, and mentioned by name (on more than one occasion) some of his high-profile Republican supporters. He talked of the need for a coalition of “radical centrists” in the Senate. He talked about the growth of Virginia under his leadership, and its decline under the leadership of Gov. Gilmore. Warner referenced and admonished the vitriolic tone of Gilmore’s campaign so far, and accused him of “name calling.”

Gilmore: Gov. Gilmore did a lot of talking about trust. He kept stressing that Virginians will have a choice this fall between a candidate who does what he says he’s going to do (I assume Gov. Gilmore was talking about himself), and a candidate who said he wasn’t going to raise taxes when he ran for governor and then did it anyway. He also tried his best to make the majority of the debate about energy policy, with emphasis placed on offshore and ANWR drilling. Gilmore accused Gov. Warner of intentional mischaracterizations several times throughout the debate, and kept calling him a typical Washington politician.

As I just mentioned, the big issue of the day was ANWR and offshore drilling. Health care was touched on only briefly, and I can recall no discussion at all on educational policy or social security. Even the Iraq War, which is normally an attention magnet in debates, took a back seat to drilling. This was to be expected, of course. Gov. Gilmore’s campaign believes quite firmly that they can use the issue of domestic oil drilling to their own advantage. If they can frame the issue just right, they’re hoping that they will seem considerate of Americans being robbed at the pump while making Gov. Warner seem like an out-of-touch tree hugger.

Here’s the essence of the oil drilling arguments presented yesterday:

Gilmore: I support a comprehensive energy plan that includes wind, solar, biofuels, coal, and nuclear. But, I also support off-shore drilling and ANWR drilling, because those are the two things that will offer the most immediate benefit to Virginians in distress. Oil prices will go down if it’s clear that there’s more on the way! Mark Warner doesn’t want to drill!

Warner: I also support a comprehensive energy plan, but, unlike Jim Gilmore, I don’t think that drilling is the primary solution. I agree with John McCain’s plan to lift the federal moratorium on offshore drilling and leave that decision up to the states. ANWR should remain protected and off-limits from the impact of oil drilling. We need sensible energy policies that emphasize fuel efficiency and renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and biofuels (but not corn-based ethanol).

Gilmore: That’s a mischaracterization! I don’t believe that ANWR and offshore drilling is the primary solution, but it has to be part of the mix, and will yield the most immediate benefit. Mark Warner agrees with radical Democrats on ANWR and has changed his position on offshore drilling!

Warner: Have not. I have the same position on offshore drilling that I’ve always had! The states should decide!

Gilmore: Have, too! You can’t be trusted! *sticks out tongue*

While I may have exaggerated the above discourse a little bit, most of it is pretty true to what was actually said. I didn’t think that either candidate emerged from debate on the issue of drilling as the winner. It was more like a long and bloody dagger fight with no coup de grâce. This was one of those times during the debate when both candidates were unimpressive simultaneously.

Obviously, Jim Gilmore failed to impress on the issue because he actually believes that drilling for more oil at the expense of the environment is good policy if we want to… um… move away from using oil and save the environment.

Mark Warner failed to impress because he didn’t speak strongly enough about how truly ridiculous Gilmore’s drilling plans are. Instead, he gave a pretty vague answer as to why he doesn’t support ANWR drilling and then he made clear to everyone in the room that he agrees with John McCain’s plan: we should lift the federal moratorium on offshore drilling and then let any states that want to drill do so. It was a very mild answer on a subject that I, for one, feel passionately about. I’m sure most readers of this blog feel the same way.

That said, I’d like to take a moment to run through the highs and lows of the debate as a whole.

Jim Gilmore’s high points were:

1. Channeling the debate and post-debate coverage onto the infernal issue of oil drilling, which is what he had wanted to do all along.
2. Remaining on the offensive for a larger portion of the debate than Gov. Warner.
3. Avoiding any huge gaffes (In other words, not saying anything more crazy than usual).

Gilmore’s low points were:

1. Making a group of applauding spectators feel stupid when he didn’t enter the room until about 15 minutes after his introduction.
2. A less-than-convincing argument in favor of oil drilling: Common sense says that If you’re going to frame an entire debate around your opponent’s opposition to domestic oil drilling, you’d better be able to effectively sell your own position in favor of it. Someone forgot to tell that to Jim Gilmore.
3. Repetition: Gilmore sounded a bit like a broken record. He accused Mark Warner of mischaracterizations more times than I could count, he tried on multiple occasions to paint Mark Warner as the typical politician in the race, and he kept talking about “trust.” His debate performance was just not dynamic.
4. He may have alienated some moderate Republicans by harshly dismissing Warner’s crossover appeal, and suggesting that Gov. Warner’s Republican supporters were all “big-spending” politicians who supported Warner’s “big-spending” programs.
5. His decision to speak in favorable terms about President George W. Bush.

Warner’s high points were:

1. The “more successful Governor” debate: Gov. Warner did a very good job contrasting his own governorship with Gilmore’s. His message was that both men running for Senate have been elected Governor by the people of Virginia. One proved himself to be an incompetent leader in that capacity; the other made Virginia the “best-managed state in the nation.” He conveyed this message pretty well.
2. The children’s health insurance debate: Warner asked Gilmore at one point during the debate why his administration dropped the ball on SCHIP, which coaxed Gilmore into a diatribe against SCHIP and the irresponsible Liberal welfare mentality that it represents. The result was that Gov. Warner looked caring, while Gov. Gilmore looked like a total creep.
3. Successfully tying Gilmore to Bush: Warner was presented with an opportunity to do this when Gov. Gilmore was asked about his view of President Bush’s policies. Warner seized the opportunity, which resulted in what may have been the hardest hit from either candidate in yesterday’s debate.
4. Consistently parrying Gilmore’s attacks well enough to avoid any hard hits or lasting damages.

Warner’s low points were:

1. A tenuous attempt at rebuking Gilmore’s loopy energy policy.
2. Making some Liberal Democrats in the audience feel a little bit alienated by openly agreeing with John McCain on domestic drilling, appearing to distance himself from the Obama health care plan, and flatly rejecting Al Gore’s latest environmental challenge.

Overall, I’d say Warner had the better day, but nobody in the room was blown away by him. Gilmore did nothing at the debate that was of any real benefit to his campaign, but, as I said, he also didn’t shoot himself in the foot (although, look for the bit about George W. Bush to end up in a pro-Warner ad later this year).

The debate won’t be remembered as a key point in this campaign, but, then again, if the debate were meant to be high-stakes in the first place, it wouldn’t have been held in Bath County, and it would have been televised. It was intended primarily to cap off the Virginia Bar Association’s annual summer meeting, with its secondary intent being to provide political junkies with something neat to do on a Saturday morning. I’d say it did both.

On a personal note: After the debate, I was walking through the halls of The Homestead on my way out, and I suddenly realized that David Broder was walking right behind me. I’ve watched Meet The Press every Sunday since I was 14 years old, so I’m quite familiar with his work, as well as his prestige as a journalist. As you can probably imagine, spotting him in my home town of Hot Springs was surreal.

Here is actual video of Jim Gilmore’s speech at the Shad Planking back in April. I didn’t think it would actually make it onto the internet, given how poorly-received it was in person, but I just found it and decided it was worth posting:

It’s important to point out that, even though the speech has been edited down significantly by the Gilmore campaign (The original was about 10 minutes long), the angry and delusional essence of it has remained perfectly in tact.

Below, you will find an assortment of photos from the 2008 Virginia Democratic Convention. Most of these were captured directly from my video footage of the event. Enjoy!

My name can now be added to the list of Virginians heading to Denver this August for the 2008 Democratic National Convention. Many people whom I’ve had the honor of getting to know through my Democratic Party and “netroots” involvement will be going as delegates, and my friend, Kenton Ngo, will be going as an official Virginia delegation page. So, for what reason will I be making the jaunt to Denver?

Well, for more than a year now, I have been a contributor for a website called Think Youth, which is a news and opinion website providing content geared toward Progressive young people. In that time, the website has grown by leaps and bounds under the leadership of its talented creator and editor-in-chief, Dan Solis. Earlier this year, Think Youth applied to the DNCC for blog credentials to cover the convention as a “niche blog.”

Having never expected anything to come of our application, we were all shocked when the DNCC contacted us with the news that Think Youth had actually been awarded a blog credential to cover the convention. So, to make a long story short, I will be going to Denver to contribute to Think Youth’s coverage of what promises to be a memorable and historic event. I look forward to taking full advantage of the rare opportunity that I’ve been given as a blogger, and I look forward seeing some of my fellow Virginians in Denver!

I recorded about an hour of video this past weekend at the the 2008 Virginia Democratic Convention. I’ve uploaded two speeches to YouTube so far, and they can be viewed below the fold. Both speeches took place at the Virginia Young Democrats breakfast event on Saturday morning.

The first was delivered by Sam Rasoul, the Democratic candidate for Congress in the Sixth District (and the youngest congressional candidate in the nation). The second speech was delivered by Glenn Nye, the Democrat challenging Republican incumbent, Thelma Drake, in the Second Congressional District. Both speeches were very good. Sam brought his A-game, as usual, and Glenn Nye, whom I’d never heard speak in person before, was very impressive.

Read the rest of this entry »

Since we learned that Senator Barack Obama was the presumptive Democratic nominee for President of the United States, I’ve been racking my brain trying to settle on the perfect running mate for him this fall. The fact is that I nearly drove myself absolutely mad trying to do this, undoubtedly because there exists a seemingly bottomless well of honorable and capable Democrats (and some Republicans/Independents) from which Barack Obama can fill the VP slot on his ticket.

I batted around between 10-15 names, with each successive name sounding every bit as appealing as the previous one (albeit, often for different reasons). However, no potential Obama running mate seemed more perfect for the ticket to me than my favorite Senator and original pick for the Democratic presidential nomination, Joe Biden. His name was the first to be batted around, but I considered advocating his inclusion on the ticket to be pointless since he has already made it clear that he’s not interested. I realized, though, that his apparent disinterest in being on the ticket doesn’t make him any less of a brilliant choice for VP.

If it’s political experience that you think Obama’s running mate should have, take into consideration that Biden has about 35 years worth of experience in the US Senate. If you’d like Obama’s VP to have Foreign Policy expertise, Biden has that, too. He’s the current chairman of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. During the debates, no other candidate displayed a greater wealth of knowledge on every important issue facing America (and the world) today than Joe Biden. He has a career that should be applauded, and has cultivated an image as a straight-talker and, for lack of a better term, a “tough guy.” How many other elected officials could tell a story like this?

Biden had been calling for sanctions and NATO air strikes against the Serbs and lifting a weapons ban on the Bosnians. All that would happen later, but at the time he was getting nowhere. Milosevic was paying attention, though. He invited Biden to his palace for a private chat.

As Biden tells the story in his memoir “Promises to Keep,” the Serbian leader argued that the Serbs weren’t persecutors but victims. Biden responded with accusations of Serbian atrocities. Milosevic denied them.

Finally, Biden recalled, “Milosevic could tell I had just about had it with his lies, and at one point he looked up from the maps and said, without any emotion, ‘What do you think of me?’ “

“I think you’re a damn war criminal, and you should be tried as one.”

Another thing that you may not immediately consider about Joe Biden is that he’s virtually immune to “elitist” attacks from Republicans (especially when one considers the personal wealth of John McCain and his wife). Why? Take a look at this:

Biden has taught law on Saturday mornings at Widener University since 1991. His income is his $165,200 Senate salary and $20,500 from teaching. In a 2005 ranking of the 100 senators for wealth, he was 99th. In other words, unlike most other presidential contenders, he isn’t a millionaire.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing to have an individual in one of the nation’s highest offices who can actually relate to people who don’t have Picasso paintings and gold-plated toilets in their house? I, for one, think it would. At the end of the day, though, perhaps the greatest benefit of having Joe Biden as a national candidate is that people genuinely like him when they’re given the chance to know him. He’s charismatic, funny, down-to-earth, and compassionate. For those reasons, he may be the perfect Democrat to win over voters in Appalachia and the Rust Belt who are uneasy about voting for Obama for President.

I won’t pretend that my long-standing admiration for Senator Biden had no impact on my decision to write this post, because it did. However, it’s not just me talking up an Obama/Biden ticket. In fact, all it takes is a quick glance around the internet to see that there is a genuine consensus forming at the netroots level around the idea that Senator Biden would be an extraordinary choice for VP.

As selfish as it may sound, I hope that Senator Obama ignores Senator Biden’s public disinterest in the VP slot and offers it to him anyway. Knowing Senator Biden, his sense of duty would far outweigh any reservations he may have about taking the position. The result would be an unbeatable Democratic ticket, a firmly-united Democratic Party, and a stronger America.

Author and Historian David McCullough was Boston College’s commencement speaker recently, and he had some outstanding advice for the graduates:

“Please, please do what you can to cure the verbal virus that seems increasingly rampant among your generation,” McCullough implored Boston College’s class of 2008 at commencement ceremonies Monday.

He said he’s particularly troubled by the “relentless, wearisome use of words” such as like, awesome and actually.

“Just imagine if in his inaugural address John F. Kennedy had said, ‘Ask not what your country can, you know, do for you, but what you can, like, do for your country actually,” he said.

Amen.

So far, today has been an absolutely extraordinary day for Senator Obama’s campaign, and, by extension, his supporters. As one of the Kool-Aid drinkers myself, I couldn’t be happier. I don’t know where to begin, but perhaps this news story is a good place to start:

I am pleased to announce that today, NARAL Pro-Choice America’s political action committee endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president. I know that most of you are probably thinking, “Why did you decide to endorse Obama, and why are you doing it now?”

Sen. Obama has been a strong advocate for a woman’s right to choose throughout his career in public service. Since joining the Senate in 2005, he has worked to unite Americans on both sides of this debate behind commonsense, common-ground ways to prevent unintended pregnancy. He supports legislation to provide our teens with comprehensive sex education, prevent pharmacies from denying women access to their legal birth-control prescriptions, and increase access for family-planning services.

Whether you love them or hate them, to deny NARAL’s importance on the political scene is just silly. Because they are at the forefront of the pro-choice movement, they, obviously, carry quite a bit of weight with a substantial number of women voters. Name for me a political scientist of any repute who thinks that the Democratic Party has a prayer of winning anything without the support of women. This is a huge endorsement for Senator Obama. Speaking of huge endorsements, I’m sure you’ve all heard about this one:

The Obama campaign confirms Edwards will endorse Obama at a campaign rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan Wednesday. The event was originally scheduled to start at 7pmET, but was moved up to 6:20pmET, presumably to have the announcement make the evening news.

Edwards, who ran for president on a platform of eradicating poverty, plans to appear alongside Obama for the announcement. The event comes one day after Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton defeated Obama by 41 points in the West Virginia primary, and Edwards’ endorsement will give Obama a key establishment stamp of approval as he attempts to close out the nominating process.

I was surprised by that news, since both of the Edwardses have, thus far, appeared completely disinterested in involving themselves with the Democratic nomination battle by way of making an endorsement. While it’s unlikely that Edwards’ endorsement will send all remaining uncommitted superdelegates scrambling to Obama en masse, it will undoubtedly shift the media’s focus in a way that is favorable to Senator Obama. Mudcat Saunders explains:

David “Mudcat” Saunders, a chief adviser for Edwards on rural affairs during his presidential campaign, said the timing of the endorsement couldn’t be better given Obama’s resounding loss in West Virginia on Tuesday.

“For Barack Obama, I think he ought to kiss Johnny Edwards on the lips to kill this 41-point loss,” he added. “The story is not going to be the 41-point loss. It’s going to be Edwards’ endorsement.”

Lastly, the number of uncommitted superdelegates is, literally, shrinking by the day. Today is no different. Senator Obama’s campaign blog lists six superdelegate endorsements that have been picked up since this morning, and the Obama campaign’s official delegate headcount places Senator Obama short of the nomination by a mere 133.5 delegates. To quote Sen. Claire McCaskill quoting James Brown, “I feel good.”

I’m currently watching CNN as the results from Indiana and North Carolina come in. Speaking of CNN, Wolf Blitzer still can’t say the word “project” properly, incorrectly pronouncing it “preject,” instead. But, I digress. As I’m writing this, Sen. Obama has been projected the winner in North Carolina and is expected to end up winning there by a sizable margin. Indiana, while heavily favoring Sen. Clinton early on, hasn’t yet been called.

Update (9:25 P.M.): Barack Obama is giving an absolutely fantastic speech right now; one of the best of his campaign, in fact. I will post the video as soon as it hits YouTube, which should be pretty soon.

Update (11:48 P.M.): The first of the much-awaited Lake County, IN numbers just came in, and they appear to be extremely favorable to Senator Obama so far. Senator Clinton now leads by a margin of 51% to 49%.

Update (12:32 A.M.): 95% of precincts are in, and Obama seems to be closing the gap between himself and Senator Clinton with each new wave of numbers. Some are preparing for the possibility that Obama will make a last-minute surge, picking up enough votes to narrowly edge out Senator Clinton in a shocking victory. While an Obama win still seems unlikely to me, one thing’s for sure: Senator Clinton’s already-small vote advantage will only shrink further as the handful remaining precincts report

Update (1:15 A.M.): CNN has finally called Indiana for Senator Clinton. 99% of precincts have now reported, and Hillary Clinton managed to expand her rapidly-narrowing lead by about 6,000 votes in the final stretch, giving herself a little bit of breathing room, and ensuring a Clinton victory in Indiana. The vote currently stands at 51% for Clinton; 49% for Obama, and it is not expected to change. I congratulate Senator Clinton on her win in Indiana, and I congratulate Senator Obama on his win in North Carolina.

I just read a very interesting article written by Joe Trippi, a senior adviser for John Edwards’ Presidential campaign. At one point, Trippi has this to say:

I didn’t tell him what I should have told him: That I had this feeling that if he stayed in the race he would win 300 or so delegates by Super Tuesday and have maybe a one-in-five chance of forcing a brokered convention.That there was a path ahead that would be extremely painful, but could very well put him and his causes at the top of the Democratic agenda. And that in politics anything can happen-even the possibility that in an open convention with multiple ballots an embattled and exhausted party would turn to him as their nominee. I should have closed my eyes to the pain I saw around me on the campaign bus, including my own. I should have told him emphatically that he should stay in. My regret that I did not do so - that I let John Edwards down - grows with every day that the fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continues.

Is Trippi right to regret not urging the continuation of Edwards’ campaign? What if Edwards had stayed in the race? Would he now be winning the electability argument? Would he be a voice of reason in the midst of the Clinton/Obama cage match, or would we simply be witnessing an equally nasty Edwards/Clinton/Obama cage match? The fact that I’m giving so much thought to these questions should serve as a pretty good indication of how fatigued I am by the entire Democratic nominating contest as it currently stands.