August 29, 2008
To say that John McCain has thrown the dice by picking an untested unknown is an understatement. Which raises the question: Even if Sarah Palin does well, does this cause some voters to consider him a bit of a loose cannon? There can be a fine line between being a maverick and being a bit of a nut and with this choice, McCain runs a risk of coming very close to the line.
This isn't to say she might not prove to be a masterful pick. But there's a way in which right now, Barack Obama looks like the more conventional, reassuring figure. That's not what McCain wants voters to think -- not now and especially not in November.
August 29, 2008
Good news for the Obama campaign: Last night's speech attracted an audience of 38 million -- more than 50% higher than the number who watched John Kerry four years ago. As we noted earlier, it wasn't his best speech of the campaign and it wasn't even the best speech of the convention. But it was decent enough that it had to impress some of those new viewers. Let's see how the convention bounce plays out over the next few days -- especially as a GOP convention bound to attract fewer viewers gets going.
August 29, 2008
The early stories are indicating that John McCain may have selected Sarah Palin, the first-term governor of Alaska, to be his running mate. If true, McCain has made a very bold choice -- with both high upsides and downsides. As a woman with terrific appeal to working class voters, she adds excitement and transformative appeal to the McCain candidacy. The party and convention will love her. She will appeal to the Hillary Democrats. And, she should have electoral appeal in some key swing western states such as Nevada.
The downside is that she is completely untested and new -- though not really that much more so, really, than Barack Obama himself. Is she ready to be president? It's not apparent she is at first glance.
All in all, if true -- and if the choice works out in the weeks ahead (a big "if") -- it's a potential stunning game-changer. And it's just what McCain needed (as we wrote earlier) to get his week rolling.
August 29, 2008
The introductory movie was great. The speech? Wonderful setting, it turned out, like a terrific rock concert. But was it too workmanlike? Obama tried to tie his life to the lives of ordinary Americans but the speech surprisingly lacked poetry, great lines, or a compelling narrative. There was no "New Frontier," "Rendezvous with Destiny," or even "I Still Believe in A Place Called Hope." There were no memorable images along the lines of Deval Patrick's wonderful story of the three people in his poor household alternating nightly between a bunk bed and the floor. The speech it was most reminiscent of was Jimmy Carter's 1976 acceptance speech, which began with a wonderful film but never reached those heights again.
So the question is whether it will last. In retrospect, the best speech of the convention was Bill Clinton's; the second-best was probably Hillary's. Obama continues to remain a work in progress --- and a candidate still in need of a better speechwriter.
August 28, 2008
Other than the glitch noted below, the Dems have done a very good job of setting the table for Barack Obama's speech tonight. Wednesday night worked particularly well -- with Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and Joe Biden making the case for the Democrats.
Now Obama in his speech has to show that he's up to the job and understands the country. It will be one of the campaign's defining moments.
August 28, 2008
This has been a convention successfully choreographed down to the last second. That includes the music: When Michelle Obama had finished Monday night the band played "Isn't She Lovely." Last night, at the end, it was "We are Family."
So, how high up in the Obama campaign did the order come to play "Addicted to Love" at the end of Bill Clinton's speech last night? It looked at first glance Wednesday as if the Clintons and Obama were headed to a useful truce. This may set things back a bit.
[Song begins just after 5:00 mark below]
August 26, 2008
Regular readers of this blog know that we welcome "guest hosts" to offer their thoughts. Please feel free to submit to the host (me!) at any time.
Here are Matthew Sawh's thoughts on the first night of the convention:
The First Night: What Pundits Missed
Convention analysts all over the television and internet have been quick to criticize the relatively tame proceedings of the first night. Such coverage misses a crucial distinction: Barack Obama generally wins 80% of self-identified Democrats, John McCain has recently brought his GOP numbers to about 86% of self-identified Republicans. In other words, this is a convention targeted at Democrats, NOT Independents. The media has (again) followed the 2000 and 2004 playbook wherein Gore and Kerry had to win over independent voters and structured their conventions accordingly with Gore's appeals to moral clarity and Kerry's invocation of his service.
Now, it is more than possible that the undecided voter of 2000 or, 2004 has, in 2008, accepted the nominal ‘Democrat’ label but has not yet accepted Obama as their own. This is a valid possibility and meshes with the polling which shows a ten-point generic Democratic congressional lead.
Here is where it gets interesting though: Are these new Democrats cut from the cloth of independents? OR, Are they (as Team Obama projects) new, first-time registered voters of key Democratic leaning-constituencies? Naturally, a little bit of both (with more than a dash of Clintonites).
In that context, the choice to have a tribute to Teddy and, to do some retooling of Michelle Obama's image makes very good sense.
Teddy:
No great public policy issue has been untouched by Teddy. If Obama's goal is to rev-up turnout and, it operates on the assumption that they are largely benefiting from first-time voters, who better than Teddy? Rasmussen Reports has him listed as being seen as a liberal by 70% of the nation. Meanwhile, a recent Annenberg Survey notes that 34% of 18-29 year olds called themselves 'liberal or very liberal' as compared to only 25% of those aged 45-64.
Kennedy as the remaining brother of Camelot bridges the divide between those two gaps for several reasons. First, his ties to the first Catholic president. Second, he reminds the Hillary voters of their youth and, in so doing, softens them up and makes them more receptive to Obama's key message of change by undercutting the most salient criticism leveled about him by Clinton: his inexperience. Third, younger Americans who support Obama remember Teddy as the man who bucked the Clintons and, in so doing, garnered much respect.
The Problem:
Here's what Obama hasn't understood about the Clinton voters: Obama has worked hard and faced adversity, but, he never has shown any cracks in his armor. He's never shown any doubt or momentary lapse that things would be okay.
The Change Argument is a two-sided coin: Heads is showing that we need to change and, he has done a spectacular job of winning that argument. The tougher, tails side is that these Clinton voters, many of them have known pain and disappointment in their lives. The issue isn't believing in the change Obama offers; it is about affording the change.
Obama has used a narrative of American exceptionalism as a weapon against charges of exoticness. Ironically, in defusing his exotic-ness, he emphasizes his exclusivity to these elusive Clinton voters. In the destruction of one 'other' he persists in crafting another, much like a Russian Matryoshka.
The more that we hear about the only in America exceptionalism of a Harvard Lawyer going to the South Side of Chicago, the more unknowable he becomes to these voters who want to vote for him and, often like him personally.
Hillary was a trailblazer because she was a woman, but, also because she had shown us her cracks. Whitewater, Monica, Health Care you name it, she bore battles and when the chips were down she never gave in and never held her head too high. Just like many of her wavering voters.
Obama referred to Biden as the 'scrappy kid from Scranton'. We need to see the humble, grounded scrapper from Chicago. (THAT is why the Celebrity Ads worked; Celebrities lose the spotlight when faced with a crisis) This suggests that he really doesn't understand what these voters are looking for. Or, that he understands all too well and, he has calculated that such exposure would sound like whining (or is too high a price to pay).
Into that breech stepped Michelle Obama, who understands a little better than he does, what these voters are looking for: Their Scars. Although, after the response to her 'for the first time I'm proud' comments suggests it to be an extremely dicey proposition for them in part due to race.
Michelle Obama had a net +21 rating (compared to +27 for Barack) in a recent poll (51-30) with 19% having no opinion. This compares to a +8 for Hillary Clinton and +27 for Cindy McCain. Yet, by comparison, Hillary even after her 1992 'stayed home and baked cookies' and Tammy Wynette comments was found to have a net +31 rating in a Washington Post poll. Yet, according to Rasmussen, Michelle Obama was seen as a liberal by 64% of the nation (to the left of Nancy Pelosi),
Michelle did a wonderful job of humanizing Barack and the Obama family. First ladies have occasionally been pivotal. Dick Morris claimed that Liddy Dole's 1996 Introduction for Bob recounting his WW2 service and overcoming his disability could have teed up the election for him. Had he responded with a moderate, uplifting message, Morris thinks the election could have turned. This is probably not that kind of a moment.
STILL, Michelle probably gained a few points on the evening (and one or two for Barack). She may well be seen as a more moderate figure than she was in that poll which is important. Let us remember the Clinton health plan was defeated more than anything else by Whitewater.
Barack needs a Clinton. Not Hillary, but, Bubba. Not his speech but, learning to speak his language. Barack knows himself too well. His certainty has served as emotional rigidity. At the other extreme, Bill did not know himself well enough and, we were often shown a chameleon.
Can Barack and Bill share the faith of their wives? Or, will they invite the Faith of Our Fathers?
August 26, 2008
A hallmark of American coverage of the Olympics is the way it takes the viewer "up close and personal" -- involving the audience in the personal lives and struggles of the athletes. In its portrayal of the Obamas, the first night of the Democratic convention took a similar approach -- fitting in seamlessly with what audiences had been watching on NBC for the last two weeks. The warm personal vignettes, the family scene at the end, and the stories of relatives were all designed to run up the score on what Slate has called the "sap-o-meter." And, given what TV audiences covet, it probably worked well.
But close personal portraits only work if the athlete in question wins the event. Tune in Thursday to see how that goes. The next two days belong to the runner-ups.
August 23, 2008
Now that Barack Obama has made a conventional choice for vice president, it leaves the door open for John McCain to do something more exciting. If he were, say, to pick a woman -- it would have the potential to blow the election open, especially given the fact that Obama is already showing weakness appealing to women according to the latest Fox News poll.
But who? Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman are intriguing choices but would make it much harder for McCain to make the case against Obama's "inexperience." Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison -- pushed by pundit Dick Morris -- isn't really all that impressive and Biden would probably run circles around her in a debate.
That leaves Condi Rice. Yes, she makes it easier for Obama to argue that McCain would simply be a continuation of the Bush years. And, she has described herself as "mildly pro-choice" -- whatever that means. But selecting her would be a bold, exciting move -- energizing the McCain campaign and ultimately the electorate.
If the right-wing would accept Rice with her abortion views -- a big "if" -- she could well be worth the short-term risk for McCain. The guess here is that it might prove to be a terrific pick.
August 23, 2008
For once, the conventional wisdom got it right: Barack Obama did select Joe Biden, widely presumed to be the front-runner in the veepstakes. His strengths have been well-documented: He's experienced -- especially in foreign policy -- and he's a Catholic who may help the Democrats in the industrial states that will decide the election. He's a fiery speaker too.
But he comes with some downsides. With this pick, Obama hasn't helped himself in any states (he was already going to carry Delaware with all of its 3 electoral votes) and he hasn't expanded the map. Carrying Virginia, for example, seems farther away than ever. Biden is also prone to verbal gaffes and in a presidential campaign, they can derail the whole express.
He's also on record as saying that he admires McCain and that Obama isn't ready to be president. In the old days, it was easier to get around such things but in the You Tube age, expect to hear and see these quotes again -- even in commercials. And, to this observer at least, Biden has always come across as a bit angry and "lecture-y" -- it's hard to see how this will help with women.
In the end, if the experience path was the way Obama wanted to go, the feeling here was always that he should pick Dick Gephardt or Bill Bradley. But it could have been worse. The problem for Obama is that expectations for him have always been so high among some of his core supporters that anyone he picked would be a disappointment.
A NOTE AN HOUR LATER: As predicted, McCain is already up with an ad repeating Biden's comments criticizing Obama and praising McCain. No one said this was going to be easy.
July 31, 2008
With the arrival of August, the campaign will soon be emerging from its
slumber. We won't be filing much until the conventions but should a
vice-presidential selection or something else significant emerge in the
meantime, we'll be on it.
June 21, 2008
We are now in what was known in another context as "the phony war" -- the time of the campaign season in between the primary campaign and the general election campaign. Sure,there will be some occurrences worth noting in this period, but not many. Thus, expect this blog to resume shortly before the party conventions in late August.
Until then, there are still the weekly Tote Board columns and odds in the paper.
May 28, 2008
This week's Tote Board column looks at how the press may be misanalyzing the way the voting public looks at issues and candidates in presidential politics.
April 01, 2008
The most important decision task in front of Hillary is that she needs to strike the right balance between winning and governing (if she wins). Even sixteen years after the two-for-one deal signed by Bill Clinton, they remain a potent political package. One of the reasons Bill fell for Hillary was that they had complementary skill sets. He also once said that he was born at age sixteen and that Hillary was born at age forty. The main fault lines of the Clintons have been pored over by many. Suffice it to say that she was (and remains) a lot more focused (Maggie Williams success in crafting campaign narratives), disciplined (top-down) and confrontational (SNL is the latest embodiment).
As Hillary ponders her veep-list she needs to look first and foremost in the mirror. She should look at the failures of her and her husband: in Bill’s 1980 gubernatorial defeat (trying to do too much too quickly); in mishandling the early Clinton administration through nominations like Zoe Baird (bad planning plus too ideological); and, in the Health Care debacle (secrecy and stubbornness) to say nothing of Whitewater (cutting corners), Cattle Futures and Monica (ethical lapses). Whoever she picks for the VP slot should have a complementary skill set for BOTH Bill and Hillary Clinton. This consideration really limits the list of ideal candidates. Ideally, she should pick somebody who has a big-picture mindset. The ‘vision thing’ as Bush Senior called it. This issue goes way back for Hillary to her college thesis where she lamented that the subject of her thesis quickly learned that ‘one of the hardest jobs of the leader is an imaginative one as he struggles to develop a rationale for spontaneous action’
The overriding tragedy of the Clinton campaign has been that they have been wonderful tacticians at everything from goading the media into more favorable coverage, to casting attacks on them as a referendum on their attackers and in crafting campaign narratives. In short, they have proven adept at setting the campaign agenda. Unfortunately, the promissory notes of her tactics have looming expiration dates.
1. For example, in casting attacks against her as ‘gendered’ she has maintained (and at crucial moments like N.H.) strengthened her position with women. Fairly or unfairly, the trouble with doing so is that it is a massive turn-off for men. According to a recent Rasmussen Reports tracking poll, Hillary has a 32-point deficit with men relative to Obama. A subsequent report of theirs claimed that two-thirds of Hillary supporters are women.
2. Mark Penn and Harold Wolfson’s dismissal of states won by Barack Obama like Mississippi as irrelevant almost begs for an advertisement to be run by John McCain in the general election. Her main surrogates have said something derisive about many ‘red’ and ‘purple’ states.
3. Hillary likely did have rougher press treatment than did Mr. Obama. Yet, one could be provocative and argue the heightened scrutiny served to create a stature gap between the two candidates. As Hillary herself claimed to Josh Green ‘'nobody gets the scrutiny that she gets and as a result I have no margin for error” (See: “Hillary Take Two”). But, she also had a bad relationship with the press going back to when she closed a wing of the White House off to the press and, her secret task force and, her belief that the press had gotten out of control after Watergate.
4. The fundamental contradiction of the Clinton campaign is Bill’s status. On the one hand, he is a major reason why she is still in this race. A December 9th CBS Poll showed that a decisive portion of her support in the primary was derived from being a ‘Clinton’. Yet having Bill on the campaign trail in such prime fashion as he was in South Carolina is simply toxic for her in the general because it revives more general fears of a co-presidency. Please note: It is in the poll and, it is not sexist to say so.
5. In considering a veep-list for Hillary one should remember that according to Bob Woodward’s ‘A Woman in Charge’ Hillary declared that nobody who had been in Carter’s inner-sanctum would serve at the highest levels of the 1992 Clinton Administration in response to Carter letting the Clintons down over Fort Chafee which contributed to Bill’s 1980 governor loss. If the past is prologue, don’t expect anybody who has left the Clinton reservation too far to be chosen unless practical Hillary emerges out of the wings and sees the necessity.
6. The biggest part of this puzzle is Barack Obama. In many ways, he is the perfect anti-Clintons: younger, his sobriety a good counterpoint to Bill’s excesses, idealistic as Hillary Rodham once was at Wellesley and secure in who he is unlike both Clintons. The loyalty idea noted above finds some support in how Hillary has created an Obama discourse. She has tried to nudge and wink at voters saying that maybe they would run together. It would be the best thing for her both in terms of temperament and, political terms. Yet, I think she set that trial balloon out with the intention of deflating it. This could be a re-play of 1964 all-over again with Hillary as Lyndon Johnson and Obama being Bobby Kennedy. LBJ and Kennedy described each other in terms strikingly familiar to the current discourse. As Jeff Shesol wrote: ‘Kennedy said Johnson was a mean, bitter, vicious animal in many ways while Johnson considered Kennedy a grandstanding little runt”. Still, political historians note that Kennedy needed Johnson to win his Senate seat in 1964 – there is a lesson there for the current feud.
7. Hillary must be careful to avoid being painted with the ‘establishment’ tag by John McCain. This necessitates that she be extremely wary of picking a female congressperson – the potential to be held liable for Speaker Pelosi’s performance should be a serious red flag.
With these considerations in mind, let’s move on to the list. It reflects the policy interests of Hillary Clinton. In particular, it is shaped by her attention to issues of children’s policy, healthcare and gender issues. Further, this list has two Pennsylvanians on it and, I would add Ed Rendell to consideration as well. I do not profile him because so many others have elsewhere.
It also considers the electoral map: it is very hard to get Hillary to 270 without Pennsylvania.
One issue which I expect will gain greater traction if the Dems ever pick a nominee is education. In 2000 Bush ran a timely ad on the ‘education recession’. I anticipate that the Democrat will launch a strong critique of No Child Left Behind and that this will become more of an issue as we move on in the campaign (particularly, if the democrats link the economic recession to the education recession).
1. Gov. Phil Bredesen: (TN): Déjà vu? Gore squared? There are many good reasons to pick him. First off, Clinton seems to have strength in the mid-south which means that TN might be in play with this pick. If Hillary is as passionate about universal healthcare as she would have us believe, Bredesen helped create HealthAmerica Corp which would offer her an understanding of the business-side of healthcare economics and reform which eluded her in 1993. He won the Nashville mayoral race in 1991 and was re-elected in 1995. He also has managerial experience in education much as Hillary does from her days reforming the Arkansas education system in the mid-eighties. As governor he emphasized transparency and accountability in the political process. A recent SurveyUSA poll showed TN tied in a Clinton-McCain match-up.
Downsides: He’s 64 which cuts against a generational argument; Cut the rolls of the Tenncare program
2. Sen. Max Cleland (GA): Will she try to out McCain McCain? Bill was particularly incensed about the treatment of Cleland as evidenced by his comments in the 2004 campaign trail. This would be continuing the old triangulation strategy of Bill Clinton and merging it with the cooptation strategy Hillary has used so adeptly. It would also would galvanize the netroots which has been supportive (but not effusive) towards her candidacy as many were outraged over the Chambliss campaign’s heavy-handed approach.
Downsides: Does not carrying Georgia matter? Does voting against the war open up an old can of worms for Hillary about needing to apologize? If the electorate has fatigue about the Iraq war will voters really want to turn in for another rehash of the boomer fault line of Vietnam?
3. Gov. Brian Schweitzer (MT) As close as the Democratic Party will get to having a frontiersmen (he flies planes). He could help with those who fear that the Clintons would resurrect their co-presidency. Schweitzer is a force to be reckoned with. He would inoculate Hillary with men and make them more comfortable with the ticket and, he would be a decided benefit in rural areas. Further, he is young. Schweitzer’s presence would also help deflect the stereotypes some may associate with New York City elitism (a degree in soil science can do that). His work as an irrigation developer and in agriculture would be useful in the context of soaring commodity prices and, the perceived need to move on issues like Global Warming. Appointment during Bill’s tenure bodes well for him to pass the loyalty threshold.
Downsides: Could Bill handle being third-fiddle? Is Schweitzer sufficiently qualified? Reaction to his effort to transform coal into fuel?
4. Janet Napolitano (AZ)
Factors increasing probability of being picked: A fellow Methodist, Anita Hill’s lawyer, Achieved voluntary free kindergarten in Arizona, Cut taxes in Arizona, Fiscal Responsibility; legal background in Arizona could bulk up a murky Democratic position on immigration issue.
Downsides: Can she win McCain’s home-state? Too much for some men? Record number of vetoes does not augur well for changing Washington’s culture.
5. Wild Card: Judith Rodin (PA): Nobody said that the Vice-President needed to be an elected official. Dwight Eisenhower served as interim head of Columbia University after World War II. Mrs. Rodin served as the first female president in the Ivy League (University of Pennsylvania). She now heads the Rockefeller Foundation. Formerly a professor medicine, psychology and psychiatry. Passes loyalty question through service on B. Clinton panel on science and technology.
Downsides: Would she be considered a Pennsylvanian? An oppo-researcher for the McCain campaign would salivate at the depth of her publication record.
6. Chaka Fattah (PA): He is an African-American Philadelphia-district House member who is relatively young (51) and has made education policy a central piece of his legislative portfolio.
Downsides: Strongly anti-war and controversy between Philly fraternal order of police and Mr. Fattah’s desire for a new trial in the Faulkner case.
Also, I would like to thank those who commented on the last piece. Jon Corzine is indeed the governor (not the senator as I had said). So far as the prospect of an Obama-Clark ticket, for Sen. Obama’s own good, he should avoid Mr. Clark. First, Clark’s ‘general’ credential would likely be somewhat marginalized in political perception and utility by the public because while Vietnam and the first coalition Iraq war have set operational and political precedents within the broader policy debates (I.E. modification of the ‘domino theory’/‘containment’ ideas and, the ‘overwhelming force’ idea behind the Powell doctrine). I’m not an expert but, I do not think that the most salient foreign policy challenges have that much in common with the Bosnia experience. Would the public accord him the status of an Eisenhower, Powell or, McCain? Personally, I’m skeptical.
Further, Barack needs to be wary of placing a Vietnam vet on his ticket because it almost would invite the use of McCain’s compelling narrative and impede his own post-partisan narrative. Further, Clark is a political neophyte. Obama should pick someone who has a bit more polish on the national-stage.
A last word, I agree with the commenter who speculated that a President Obama would paint in broad strokes and leave the contours to others.
March 27, 2008