One of my old buddies from RMO, Paul C, writes:

I guess I'm not following the news closely enough because I hadn't heard of Biden's comment. I'm pretty sure my answer to the question is that the two are equally bad — which is to say, hardly bad at all — given that I always thought the "potato" criticism of Quayle was a trivial matter stupidly blown out of proportion. (But it at least had the advantage of not being flat-out false, as was the story about how, on a visit to Latin America, Quayle wished he had studied Latin so he could talk to the people there.)

It's funny how some absurd gaffes stick and some don't. In his memoirs, Quayle mentions a speech by Al Gore in which Gore said something about a leopard changing its stripes, complaining that if he (Quayle) had said such a thing "there would have been a week of Quayle jokes on the late-night shows and three dozen editorial cartoons set inside zoos." I think that's probably true. On the other hand, I don't think Quayle would have ever been tagged with claiming to have invented the Internet, another completely bogus charge, which was successfully pinned on Gore.

This reminds me that I have fallen far behind in my mission to defend candidates of both parties from popular but stupid and undeserved criticisms. (See previous installments here and here.) I'm sure there are dozens more piled up by now. Here are three that come to mind, two old and one new.

A while back John McCain was ridiculed because when a reporter asked him how many houses he owns, he didn't know the answer. Supposedly this goes to show how clueless, out of touch, and super rich he is.

If you want to criticize McCain for being rich, OK. I'm not sure how being rich makes one a better or worse president, but that's your prerogative if you think so. Know, though, that with very few exceptions anyone who rises to the level of presidential (or even senatorial) politics is going to be rich. It's just a question of how rich. They might be rich, or they might be very rich, or they might be very very very rich, but they won't be poor. And that's true no matter what party they're in.

In the current race, it so happens that all three of the other candidates in the race this year are less rich than usual, but even so all of them are millionaires. Palin's net worth seems to be somewhere between $1 million and $2 million. A few years ago, Obama's was about the same, but he's collected at least $2 million more on his books (whose sales were helped enormously by the campaign) including a huge advance for three more books he hasn't written yet. Biden is one of the poorest members of the senate by the traditional measure, which shows him with only about $200,000, but that doesn't include his home, which is valued at around $3 million. McCain has somewhere around $30 million, most of which comes from his wife.

But supposing you do think it a bad thing to be rich. How does it make it worse if you don't know how much you have? If anything I think that shows that a guy is less materialistic, in that he doesn't care enough to keep count. People with a wealthy background tend to have extra houses around the country. The extra houses owned by the McCains come from Cindy. I don't find it at all surprising that John can't keep track of them. If he married her for the money just so he could get his hands on the houses, then he'd know, but he doesn't.

I thought this one was long dead, but I heard it again recently. Critics of Obama like to make fun of him for voting "present" in the state legislature, as if that shows he's too (take your pick) lazy, timid, wishy-washy or devious to register an opinion on anything controversial. This one makes me mad, because I think voting "present" as Obama did is a good thing, and I wish we could see a similar practice at the federal level.

There was an interesting moment in one of the primary debates where John Edwards confronted Obama on exactly this issue, asking him point blank why on more than 100 occasions he chose to vote "present" rather than yes or no. Obama's initial response is to answer the question, and he starts to explain to Edward how voting works in the Illinois Legislature and what it means to vote "present". But then after about 15 seconds of wonkiness it's as if Obama suddenly realizes he has become completely boring to 99% of the audience, so he abandons his explanation and goes off instead on some hollow blather about showing strong leadership.

What Obama never finished explaining is that in Illinois (and Texas, and a couple of other states) there is a tradition whereby the vote of "present" is used as a way to say "I am in favor of the basic intent of this legislation but not as it is currently written." This serves as a signal that the legislator's support is available if certain problems are worked out, and it is often a constructive strategy toward future consensus.

In the larger scale of things, Obama didn't actually vote "present" all that much. It's something less than 1% of his votes. But when he does vote present it's for a good reason, and that reason often includes an attempt to reach common ground rather than just squaring off against one's opponents. I like that.

This is the latest in the endless series on snide jokes at Palin's expense. We're supposed to be upset because the campaign has already spent $150,000 on clothing for her. ZOMG, she's such a diva! This is a lot like the flap about John Edwards' expensive haircut, where the two key elements were the subtle insinuation that he's too feminine to be a real leader and a complete obliviousness to the ordinary expenses of being a performer.

As anyone who ever shops for women's clothes know, women's clothes cost a lot more than men's clothes. And the difference is even greater for expensive clothes. On top of that, there is much more attention paid to what women wear and much less tolerance for repetition. If Joe Biden wears the same suit at three different public events over two weeks, no one is going to care. Probably no one will even notice. If Sarah Palin starts repeating outfits, people will notice, and they'll think less of her for it. Therefore, the campaign sees to it that she is fabulously dressed at every stop, and every outfit is worn once and then shipped off to be donated or resold or whatever.

As intellectuals we like to imagine that appearance has nothing to do with a candidate's appeal, but that's just fantasy. Of course it does. It's theater. No, appearances aren't everything, but they matter a great deal. Making sure that Sarah Palin is well dressed is an important part of the Republican ticket's campaign, and they'd be stupid not to give it the attention it deserves.

The other key factor in this phony non-scandal is innumeracy. It reminds me of those people who say we're going to balance the federal budget by cutting foreign aid and funding for the arts. They just have no clue about the numbers. McCain's campaign spending so far is somewhere around $300 million. Do the math. That means Sarah Palin's wardrobe is 0.05% of the campaign. It's a drop in the bucket. OK, so maybe whoever is in charge of providing Palin's wardrobe got careless and overspent a little. Big deal. Even if you cut the entire clothing allowance and she just wore her own clothes every day, it still doesn't even make a ripple in the total campaign budget.

What exactly is the criticism here? It's just hot air, and the only reason it's a scandal at all is because people love ridiculing Sarah Palin.

9:36:44 PM  [permalink]  comment []