The death of the GOP's rhetorical advantage or just a perfect storm?

UPDATE: Stupid Josh Marshall basically echoes my points - only more succinctly. Bastard.


Not to be presumptuous but it fairly reasonable to assume that Barack Obama will emerge as the President-elect of the United States in two weeks. The campaign certainly is not over but it is plenty appropriate to examine our evolving national discourse assuming a Democratic ascendancy that has been broadly demonstrated by polling.

The Nixon-Atwater-Rove model for GOP victory centered on the overall resonance of very familiar issues involving minority groups, their rights, and taxes. While long-deflected by Democrats as "wedge" issues, the genius of GOP message-makers was in weaving culturally divisive side issues into a broader political vision that allowed conservatives politicians to provoke reactionary and economically self-defeating voting behavior without doing so in such a way that offended the mainstream (media) borders on acceptable discourse.

For my money, the most concise discussion of the political history of the dissolution of the New Deal coalition and the ascendancy of the modern GOP is (and I think I've said this before) Chain Reaction by Thomas Edsall and Mary Edsall. In it, the Edsalls describe how the GOP seized upon white fears and frustrations as the civil rights movement radicalized in the mid and late 1960s by billing itself as the party of temperance and order in the face of cultural upheaval and increasingly militant demands for the expansion of rights and economic repair. As competing rights movements - women's, gay, Latino, etc. - flexed their muscles on the street and within the rapidly fracturing and inarticulate Democratic Party, the GOP effectively applied the fear inspired by sensational media coverage of direct action campaigns and the overall generational conflict to populist economic policies and the expansion of liberties sent down by Earl Warren's Supreme Court. The issue was not "big government" - it was that "big government" was perceived as only benefiting minority groups. While clearly this is a vast oversimplification of an extremely detailed history, consider some emblematic cases as the GOP monopoly evolved. Nixon's 1968 election on 'law and order' followed the urban civil unrest and the Warren Court's decision on Miranda rights. Reagan's ascendancy seized upon a history of symbolic welfare queens to popularize a supply-side economic approach in which Americans voted against their own financial interests. George H. W. Bush's exploitation of Willie Horton and other similarly coded issues such as the death penalty can be seen as contributing to his victory over Dukakis, who had been lead in the polls into August of that year. But really, by that time, the whole rhetorical package employed by the GOP had been fully developed.

Democrats largely failed to articulate their stances on different policies into an overarching political vision that ordinary citizens could digest and relate to when knowledge of the specifics of a particular issue were lacking. President Clinton was an exception, but part of his success derives from his willingness and ability to co-opt Republican rhetorical frames and policies into his own agenda, welfare reform being the most obvious example.

Concurrent to the development of entrenched GOP rhetorical superiority was the absolute medium dominance by television and the emergence of widespread infotainment-based reporting. Again, this is a vast oversimplification, but Rove was able to feed the television media a steady diet of image points while candidates Gore and Kerry failed to articulate a vision. In 2004 especially, Bush overcame seemingly long odds by using the threat of terrorism as a substance-less fear wedge while Rove built a strong turnout machine in key states by recalling the old anti special rights frame for state amendments banning gay marriage.

But what's happening this year? Is anything different?

Certainly, the last eight years of nearly absolute rule by the GOP has proven disastrous and the Democrats have nominated an inspiring candidate that has been able to advocate for center-left policies within an overarching progressive vision. But is it just Obama's eloquence and the stronger DNC organizing abilities that have brought us to this point? Is it just McCain's various shortcomings as a campaigner and the fractured GOP base that have given the Democratic message such a boost?

After watching this campaign unfold, I think it is reasonable to examine whether or not part of John McCain's problem is that the traditional GOP rhetorical vision no longer resonates with the electorate. Let us try to set some variables equal. Let us assume equal campaign coffers and generic Republican and Democratic candidates. That is, we should take race, age, and personal likability off of the table - because certainly those things are significant factors in this year's election. If we were able to control some of these other factors, would the traditional GOP tactics or vision gain traction with the electorate?

I don't believe so.

Let's examine a couple examples of traditional GOP tactics as employed in this election.

1. Bill Ayers

The McCain campaign has made Barack Obama's relationship with William Ayers a centerpiece of their campaign over the last few weeks. It's a very typical GOP-style smear: generic Democrats are soft on terror. One would imagine a much more powerful resonance with the American public in Obama's case because of the spread of various other-based lies regarding his racial/ethnic background and religious upbringing. Yet despite a truly enormous media push, the numbers demonstrate that the attack has fallen flat. This recent Fox poll indicates that only a third of the electorate has said that the Ayers connection makes a difference for them. In a recent ABC News and WaPo poll, 60 percent of respondents believed that the Ayers relationship was "not a legitimate issue."

2. Taxes

Polling data on whether or not Americans believe the Democratic nominee will raise taxes is striking. The Republicans have been able to go to the tax well for decades, applying the 'tax-and-spend' label to generic Democrats across the board, regardless of the fact that the GOP's tax cuts always went to the wealthy. Not so much now. This CBS poll found that more respondents believe it is more likely that John McCain will raise their taxes than Obama. Those polled by WSJ/NBC this week found Obama to be "better on taxes" by a 48% - 34% margin. A month ago, before the financial crisis, McCain still only had a marginal 41% - 37% advantage. And again, this is striking even accounting for Obama's charismatic appeal since the GOP has historically couched their opposition to progressive taxation in racially evocative terms and because Barack Obama is being very explicit about his intention to raise taxes on the wealthy. This week's McCain campaign line about Dems wanting to raise taxes on those who pay taxes to give breaks to those that don't pay taxes is good example of traditional GOP coupling of taxes to welfare and/or the myth of the willfully unemployed.

These examples work to illustrate the rejection of the traditional Republican tactics because McCain's team has invested incredible resources into these two attacks specifically, somewhat levelling the spending playing field on these two issues. Additionally, as I've said, Obama would seemingly be more susceptible to the tactics than a generic Democrat because of the racially-evocative foundation of these GOP strategies.


Finally, other key aspects of the traditional GOP argument against the Democrats seems not to be as potent as in past elections. After having widely exploited homophobia to boost turnout in 2004, gay-baiting seems to be only a peripheral tactic in localized elections where incumbent GOPers face surprisingly tough reelection battles in socially conservative districts. The generic anti big government pitch is less credible than it has been in forty years following the bailout of the financial sector. Railing against activist judges doesn't work now that the Supreme Court is largely conservative. The typical 'soft on crime' attack, demonstrated this week by a new Giuliani robo-call is less salient as introduced to the current political environment but may have been a more legitimate factor had it been a centerpiece of the McCain campaign all along.


Now certainly nothing laid out here represents conclusive evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no way to separate the failure of the Republican message to resonate from the current set of political circumstances - Obama's unique campaign and the cartoonish failures of President Bush.

But I do see evidence that the conservative coalition's rhetorical vision has lost overall relevance regardless of the immediate economic crisis and the temporary Obama ad blitz.

Perhaps later this week, I'll explore why the traditional rhetorical GOP vision is failing.

Hateful Rays-Baiting By McCain Camp at PA Stop

This morning I drove to Bensalem, Pennsylvania, just outside Philly, to check out a John McCain event being held at the TC Millwork facility. TC Millwork manufactures fixtures and whatnot for casinos, health care facilities, and other retailers.

I had wanted to check out for myself some of this hatefulness characterizing many McCain campaign events over the last ten days or so.

But aside from a couple of refrains of "communist" or "socialist," McCain supporters in Bensalem were largely peaceful. No overly offensive anti-Obama tee shirts or buttons. The event was tightly controlled and occurred very early in the morning.

I was disappointed that I had schlepped all the way to Bensalem with a camera only to be put back to sleep by the relaxed crowd and the boring speech but trust me when I say how reassuring it was not to have had to witness a bunch of spiteful human caricatures flying off the handle.

Before the speeches began, I was chatting with some members of the local press gaggle who were wondering about just how short the notice was before this morning's rally. The reason was that the event drew no more than 1000 people. The McCain camp has gotten used to smaller crowds in comparison to Obama's events but the advance team seemed to have anticipated a more substantial turnout - a much larger area was cordoned off in the facility than ended up being necessary.

The other thing I noticed about the crowd was how familiar everybody seemed to be with other attendees. Now that's not an observation of the friendliness and camaraderie of McCain supporters - I'm saying that people knew each other, literally. The crowd seemed to be made up of a lot of regular GOP volunteers, not the larger Bucks County population. Also the crowd was disproportionately over the age of - they were freakin' old. There were some nuclear families there too but overwhelmingly, it was the early-bird.

Remember, it's not as if this event was held in Center City Philadelphia, where Obama is wildly popular. This was a campaign rally in the traditionally conservative suburb of Bucks County. Republicans have long relied on the Philadelphia suburbs to offset the liberal voting power of the city proper. But in 2000 and 2004, Bucks rejected George Bush and so did Pennsylvania at-large. In 2006, Bucks flipped the 8th Congressional district by electing Patrick Murphy, the first Democrat to represent the district since 1993.

Apparently, signals coming from the McCain campaign indicate a Pennsylvania-centered strategy over the next few weeks. Without a viable means of keeping up with Obama's message and campaign machine, the McCain camp seems to be realizing that there is no way they can win Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc. Without flipping a big electoral prize like Pennsylvania, McCain can't win the election. He simply does not have the money, time, or campaign competence to expect to keep all the red states that Obama currently leads in the polls - even if you take Florida and Ohio out of the equation.

To win Pennsylvania, which voted with the Democratic nominee in both 2000 and 2004, McCain will have to reverse the last fifteen years of GOP atrophy and Democratic gain in the Philadelphia suburbs. Not to mention the 8-15 point lead Obama has in the polls in Pennsylvania. He has two weeks to do it and he can't do it without boosting his popularity in Bucks County. And I don't think he can boost his popularity in Bucks County unless he can figure out a way to quintuple the number of people willing to attend his rallies there.

But wait -

John McCain is an experienced candidate and has become increasingly well-versed in the politics of division and deceit. He played the Rays card at today's event in the Philly burbs.

Here's what he said:

I heard that Senator Obama was showing some love to the Rays down in Tampa Bay yesterday. Now, I'm not dumb enough to get mixed up in a World Series between swing states, but I think I may have detected a little pattern with Senator Obama. It's pretty simple really. When he's campaigning in Philadelphia, he roots for the Phillies, and when he's campaigning in Tampa Bay, he shows love to the Rays.

That's the most blatant form of Rays-baiting imaginable. McCain is hinging his campaign on Pennsylvania which means he needs to reverse course in the Philly area. So what does he do? He questions Barack Obama's credentials as a Phillies fan.

Brilliant strategy.

McCain's advisers certainly know how important the World Series is for Philadelphia and have likely encouraged McCain to do whatever it takes to impugn Senator Obama on that issue.

But it's wrong!

Barack Obama has maintained that since his hometown White Sox were eliminated, he'd be rooting for those Fightin' Philadelphia Phillies. And good for him. It's the correct policy. Any objective observer that has studied the history of the game and the current baseball climate knows that the Phillies are the right team for the right time.

Yesterday, after the Tampa Rays won their first ever AL pennant, Barack Obama was introduced at an event by rookie pitcher David Price and some other members of the local nine. Obama politely congratulated them on their success, saying this:

"I have said from the beginning that I am a unity candidate, bringing people together," Obama said. "So when you see a White Sox fan showing love to the Rays, and the Rays showing some love back, you know we're onto something right here."

In no way did Barack Obama flip-flop on his endorsement of the Phillies. There is nothing wrong with the Tampa Rays. They have a lot of likable players, have a compelling worst-to-first story, and Barack Obama has no reason not to appreciate their efforts. But let us be clear: Barack Obama is pulling for the Phils!

He first endorsed the Phillies on October 12th. He did so AGAIN over the weekend - to an enemy Florida radio show. So what kind of campaign is John McCain running?

McCain, while accurately quoting Obama, makes an absolutely inappropriate inference about switched loyalties. The derision in his voice was palpable - it was scary.

McCain's decision to Rays-bait a tense Philadelphia shows what kind of man he is. McCain himself does not have the courage to pick a World Series team of his own but he has no problem inciting a crowd to - we're talking Philly sports fans here - violence.

It was a shameful display by a man once destined to be remembered as honorable. My how times have changed.

Weekend Notes

- The T-P picks up on Blakely's sad hypocrisy. While criticizing his staff's inability to function in his absence, he continues to maintain a hectic consultant schedule after accepting a new gig in faraway Dubai. (First reported guess where)

-From the no duh dept: White candidates have benefited from the disproportionate injustice perpetrated on African Americans by governmental response to Katrina.

What annoys me about the whole electoral situation is that you'd never know there's even a 50-50 black-white split. You'd think African Americans made up just 10-30 percent of the population given how conservative our excuse for political discourse tends to be.

The hopeful element is that there is ample room for coalition building between African Americans and progressive whites. African Americans politicians are going to need to break away from traditional over-reliance on the vertical BOLDs and COUPs of the world to mimic the horizontal Obama coalition on the municipal level. White progressives need to stop simply working to deconstruct old corrupt machines that tend to divide us on racial loyalties rather than political ideology.

That's going to take a lot of time and effort to accomplish given the power of ultra-conservative and supremacist interests in the greater region.

- Colin Powell won't admit that the Iraq War was a mistake but did have the common sense to recognize the best way not to make that non-mistake again by endorsing Barack Obama. Forget the Meet the Press appearance because his mini session with the press gaggle is a much more stirring and emotional explanation of his decision:





Powell specifically references the downright scary sentiments of Congresswoman Bachman from Minnesota, which left Chris Mathews largely speechless for the first time in his life:




Also see John McCain lie through his teeth in defense of his indefensible robo-calls, a good follow-up to General Powell's repudiation of the narrow-minded 21st Century GOP:





Finally, McCain's recent equation of Barack Obama's proposed middle class tax cuts to "welfare" is absolutely revolting. As someone that has a cursory knowledge of the history of post WWII political communication in the US, there is no doubt in my mind that this construction is solely designed to incite racist emotion. Does anyone disagree with that? Admittedly, my educational interests might make my reaction to this latest BS more emotional than most. Are other people feeling dizzy from this?


UPDATE:

Oh and Lolis Eric Elie tries to trade Ray Nagin's expiring contract and finds there are no takers.

A Little Too Awesome

I think I told the same joke at my Bar Mitzvah.

I'll give it up to McCain for his genuine laughter.



Props to Clay for showing this to me.

Women For McCain

I mean, "health of the mother?"
Vote McCain: The Mom Killer Ticket

Katie Halper is a badass.

For Better or Worse, It's Almost Entirely About Looks

The debates are about how the candidates interact with each other and how they try to relate with the viewing audience. What people saw was a cool customer that seems to try to explain his positions and an angry old man who had to grip on to a Sharpie because his hands shake if left to their own devices.

McCain lost every debate badly because visual perception and interpretation is what determines the winner or loser - not the substance. McCain looked contemptuous and angry while also appearing not to believe some of the words coming out of his own mouth. Every joke he attempted to make, every snicker he tried to elicit fell flat. Whether it's his robotic hand gestures, his insincerity, his refusal to make eye contact in the first debate, his aimless wandering of the set during the second debate, or his palpable disrespect for an opponent largely attempting to be agreeable, John McCain lost support in all three debates even though people try to argue about "points."

These were the visual cues the public perceived.
Visual cues have a greater impact than the verbalized answers. John McCain looks angry, erratic, out-of-touch, and insincere.

He looks old as hell and he acts old as hell.

Forget leading a nation, I don't feel comfortable with John McCain behind the wheel of a Buick.

**To Suggest

...That the charters of New Orleans are anything close to "proven" is beyond ludicrous. In the hours since Senator McCain has said this, I've spoken to New Orleans educational sources and there was laughter down the line. Senator McCain is way way off base on this one.

**

Only hateful GOP fringe and unapologetic racists remain in McCain coalition

The McCain campaign made the decision to go dirty on Barack Obama. Many pundit types grimly suggested that this was the right decision for the McCain campaign given his increasingly abysmal situation in the polls. The line was that he needed to do something to shake things up. He needed to change the conversation, refocus the media off of issues and onto trite matters of personality.

So the McCain camp did just that. They sent out Sarah Puppet to suggest that Barack Obama condones terrorism, supports terrorists, or is one himself. They whipped up their rally crowds into animalistic frenzies and did nothing to discourage taunts of "kill him" and worse. They pushed this extremely dubious Ayers connection in the media and hoped it would draw ratings and dominate the news cycle.

Basically, they felt out the strategy. They tested the waters.

From my view, it didn't seem to have stuck. The media played with it and it got no ratings and provoked no equal and opposite reaction from the Obama camp.

McCain didn't bring it up at the debate.

But really what may have happened was that the McCain campaign was testing not so much whether or not they could get the Ayers connection into the narrative but instead were feeling for the limits of mainstream acceptability. The shouts of "kill him" and the "palling around with terrorists" line indeed provoked some rebuke from mainstream media bigwigs. They called it "ugliness," but I think what the McCain campaign saw was that there were a few more inches to take.

That's why today, we have absolute filth like this, which I refuse to embed.

Whether or not it makes any difference to the electorate is dependent on the media's willingness to call these lies out for what they are. Otherwise, the McCain camp will continue to inch forward with increasingly hateful smears.

Overall, I think the public and the media will be pretty sickened by this and the strategy will ultimately yield the same results as much of the Steve Schmidt era:

The GOP base and affiliated racists will be angry and fired up and most everyone else will be totally turned off.

Ultimately this has been the net effect of Palin's spot on the ticket, for instance.

The risk that McCain is taking here is that should he cross the threshold of acceptability with the center-right mainstream media, he's taking down the entire GOP with him. It's not just his legacy he's putting on the line for this election, it's the party backing him.

While it is possible that these attacks might change the dynamics of this election, isn't it more likely that the erratic and poorly organized McCain team crosses the line blatantly enough for the whole strategy to backfire in their face?

If the GOP brass were smart, they'd let John McCain know that there is a limit to what he can get away with in terms of media reaction without damaging the party for the next election cycle.

If the media backlash against the hatefulness of the GOP is large enough, if they pander too much to the fringe, doesn't the GOP risk some degree of political marginalization in a new Washington dominated by the Dems?

The few extra points he might get in the tracking polls probably isn't worth the risk given that he's down nearly double digits, even if the pundit class claim that his negative smear campaign has been "working."

Friday A.M. Update: Here's a new despicable ad from the McCain camp that sticks to the same sordid insinuations but seems slightly dialed back compared to the absolute abomination from yesterday.

McCain in High Def: the 2nd Debate

This town hall format was sooo up McCain's alley, right?

Eh maybe not so much.

He didn't look so hot did he?

There were a couple of times where he seemed like he lost his breath.

Not ready to lead.

debate 1 reaction

Angry and Desperate: The Real John McCain

John McCain knows he's falling fast in the polls and has been a hindrance to the bailout bill so he's working overtime, more or less begging the public, the media, and members of his own party to listen to him. The campaign is free-falling right now, unable to stay on message long enough to to massage the media narrative.

Thus the John McCain we're getting on the campaign trail right now is an unfiltered John McCain, an off the cuff John McCain. He's improvising out there and has taken a much more angry and confrontational tone over the last 24-48 hours. But it's not str8 talk McCain up there, it's this contentious and bitter old man I've never really seen before.



And he seems to be doing a media blitz with this attitude. Here he is defending his campaign's assertion that Barack Obama supports teaching sex to kindergarten students:



He was also on NPR this morning giving an interview in which he defended the sex ed lie once more.

While we can see very plainly that his campaign is disorganized and panicking, perhaps it's also beginning to appear that the man himself is losing his bearings under the immense pressure of the financial crisis.

The Union: Anecdotal Sociology

As an underemployed college graduate in the service industry, I try to pick up odd jobs here and there to help make ends meet. One thing I have in my bag of tricks is union membership. I only get about 5-10 workdays each fall and winter but they're fairly well-paying, especially if I can milk overtime out of it. Without getting to0 specific, it is in support of a beloved aspect of the entertainment industry and is considered an unskilled position.

The typical job that I'm normally brought in for, demands about 8-12 unskilled 'utilities.' I've been doing this for about four years and have become fairly familiar with the regulars. As a twentysomething with a college degree, I stick out like a sore thumb. Most of the guys are in their forties or fifties and have spent a lifetime working their way to the middle class mostly with their hands. One of the guys owns a lawn care business, others work as electricians or elsewhere within related fields. They're all white and they're all men. They live outside Orleans Parish but in the greater metro area, most of them originated here.

Never one to hide my political views, the other guys know me to be opinionated and informed, but they don't know about WCBF and my various 'recovery-hurting' activities.

One union buddy came up to me when I arrived and said, "My man, I've been waiting to see you since last October. You called it. Look at Barack Obama!"

This particular co-worker, W, is my favorite to chat up about politics because he tends to be most informed about different issues. He's a lifelong Republican that jumped ship after Bush's first term. I don't get how he could have ever been a Republican, he's quite progressive on the economy and was most upset by the GOP's gifts to Halliburton.

We got to talking about the campaign - there's a lot of downtime on these gigs - and soon attracted the rest of the cast. It felt like some sort of weird campaign focus group. Here was a group of about nine blue collar union white men between 35-55 from the South, a collection of "typical" guys from an oft-discussed demographic.

Make no mistake about it, a lot of these guys are pretty racist and sexist. The "jokes" I've heard over the years have at times been haunting, particularly in a work environment with maybe 5% African Americans and maybe 5% women, even when you include the skilled labor and the white-collar professionals from out of town. But at the same time, most of the guys exhibit competing endearing and/or esoteric characteristics that temper the vitriol of some of the b.s. that comes from their mouths. I bite my tongue hard at these moments, trying to balance my objections with the need to remain on friendly terms.

So we were talking about politics at the table and of course that meant bringing up Barack Obama. I had to sit out for awhile.

"He's just going to give everything to the blacks."

"He won't say the pledge."

"He's a Muslim."

"Do you know what CHANGE stands for? Can't Help A N----r Get Elected!"

Ouch, right? So much for an Obama surprise in Louisiana. So much for having any kind of appetite for the union breakfast. Everyone nodded their heads except for me. Most of the guys added some concern about Obama and their perception that he would only govern for black people or some racist joke they'd heard about him.

The polarization of race in the South is a scary thing. Never mind that these guys have been getting absolutely shafted by GOP policies toward unions, blue collar labor, and the middle class in general, nothing was of greater concern than the possibility that African Americans might get help.

Such unfortunate ignorance, I thought. I was so disheartened.

But then there was this incredible shift in the conversation that finally allowed me to swallow some union eggs.

After the guys got through with their racist comments, and trust me they went after Palin's lips too, they really wanted to know what I thought about things. The first thing I said was that it was ridiculous to think that only African Americans would benefit from a more progressive tax code, citing Obama's proposed tax cut for everyone making under $250,000 per year. I went into a few other things about how we would all benefit from eliminating tax cuts and loopholes to millionaires and multinational corporations, universal health-care coverage, and improvements to our national infrastructure. "I mean, we're union guys, how could we not recognize the negative impact the GOP has had on our ability to make money?" The one guy who had made the really disgusting 'what does change really stand for' joke chimed in that he'd lost 20% of the value of his retirement over the last six months or so.

Without so much convincing, the ringleader of the racist joke-making, nodded his head and acknowledged, "Of course I'm voting for Obama, I'm not stupid." My friend W, who I already knew to be a least a tepid Obama supporter, voiced similar sentiment at this point as well, goading the other guys to examine where this country is at compared to eight years ago.

By the end of the breakfast provided to us, each and every one of my union coworkers said within a conversation or came up to me privately to say that indeed they were definitely going to vote for Obama. Even the one guy that had repeatedly pressed his point about "benefits for blacks" said that he agreed with what I was saying and that he had been planning to vote for Barack.

That same guy also said that I should run for Mayor of New Orleans. Who could blame him for that?

Much is made of the Bradley Effect and whether or not the phenomenon might rear its head on Election Day in 2008. But maybe it's not just wishful thinking to wonder if there's a reverse Bradley Effect in especially conservative areas where it might actually be considered more socially acceptable to vote for McCain.

McCain in High Def

Even since it became appropriate sometime last spring to anticipate a general election campaign between Barack Obama and John McCain, I've made one point more than any other during many private conversations.

My belief was, and I often emphasized this especially to those most skeptical of Obama's general election chances, was that even if Senator Obama could inly keep it a toss-up until the debates, he'd be fine. Now of course he's performed waaaaay better than that as a candidate and in the polls, already assuaging many of the fears of those feeling anxious after a contentious Democratic primary process but the point remains relevant as we try to understand how the media and voters might differently digest this debate.

My point then, and throughout the summer, was that once you got the two of these candidates side-by-side on television, there would be no mistaking the stronger candidate. Once you put the stoic, tall, young Obama next to the old, short, weathered-not-grizzled McCain, the substance of the debate would be of little consequence. This isn't something that pleases me, because I'd prefer Obama to win purely on the superiority of his policies but it is the reality of the television age of politics.

While most pundits, even Obama supporters like Josh Marshall, have scored the debate as a draw because neither candidate "scored points" or something, early polling data and focus groups indicate a fairly convincing victory for the Senator from Illinois. At this stage of the election, there are few true undecided voters remaining and I could be wrong about this but it is likely that many of these undecideds are not the types that tend evaluate the candidates on their policies. Those that still show no preference between the political agendas of either John McCain or Barack Obama, are either cartoonishly centrist or simply not paying that much attention to policy. Rather, a sizable chunk of undecided voters tend to 'feel' their way to a decision based on an image-based perception of strength, readiness, steadiness, charisma, and consistency.

When you examine CBS's poll of purely "uncommitted voters" Obama is considered the victor by a slightly larger margin.

Getting back to my point about the electoral effect of seeing the two candidates side-by-side, the line I always shot at people skeptical of Obama's chances against the GOP election machine was: Have you seen John McCain in high definition? That line always elicited laughs, and it was meant to be funny, but the larger point was serious. John McCain's age, the wear and tear on his body from several bouts with skin cancer, would speak louder than words. He would 'look' unfit. He would 'look' like the lesser candidate.

And that's precisely how it played out, even if we totally ignore the eye contact/body language miscues that are being emphasized in the media. McCain looked like the weaker man.

How many elections in your lifetime seem to have been decided based on that? Pretty much all of them, right?

Though Jeffrey is dead-on in lamenting the anti-substance fixation on McCain's body language, the reality is that the appearance of the candidates is EXACTLY what people focus on. Save for a major gaffe or transformative moment or line that sticks out, Obama wins all three debates by default.

This is Serious.

This is a very strong speech and I've got to recommend it.



He hits some good grooves within this speech.

Good politics, I think we'll win on November 4th.

Senator Obama really puts the screws on McCain in this speech, abso-lutely ridiculing his proposal for a 9/11-style commission to study the economic crisis and describing John McCain's policies that contributed to our current conundrum and his commitment to delaying concrete action. He really lays down the gauntlet in a way that breaks down the starkly divergent economic policy histories of the two candidates in a very media-friendly package.

"This isn't 9/11. We know how we got into this mess. What we need now is leadership that gets us out. I'll provide it. John McCain won't."

Staying 'On Message' Difficult For Some McCain-Palin Flaks

1. Carly Fiorina: Palin not qualified to run major company
(Being a CEO is not a qualification for political office but I'd like to think someone running for VP would be able enough to lead some measly company given that it is most certainly a step down from leader of the free world.)

2. Douglas Holtz-Eakin: McCain helped create Blackberry
(Not that John McCain knows how to use a Blackberry or even knows what one is)


It must be hard to talk for a candidate when you're not sure what you're being fed is true or false. It must be difficult to stay 'on message' when the campaign has no message.

Turning Point?

Palin's answers to Charlie Gibson's softballs were not vague in any cute or folksy kind of way. Instead, she came off as woefully unprepared and uninformed. There's really no silver lining; the McCain camp squandered a great deal of political capital in setting preconditions for this interview and isolated Palin for days from the media to help her prepare but she performed miserably.

Obama is out with two very strong new ads, one raises touches on how out of touch John McCain is with modern times and the other is an extremely positive ad that confronts the GOP's claim that they can be change too.

Meanwhile, McCain's latest ad is another grotesque race-baiter, inaccurately portraying Sarah Palin as a victim of fabricated viciousness on the part of Obama and Biden, using a female voice over to derisively call Senator Obama "disrespectful," you know in an uppity kind of way. Uppity meaning presumptuous or something. They've crossed some lines this week with this ad and with the one about teaching sex to kindergartners.

(See all three ads together here)

Elsewhere, John McCain is finally being forced to defend his choice by reporters in unlikely places. A local Maine TV reporter asked John McCain if Sarah Palin has any experience in the field of national security. Senator McCain paused awkwardly and then said "energy."

Then this morning on the VIEW of all places, John McCain was put on the spot repeatedly and did not fair well at all. I especially recommend McCain's dance around pointed questioning of what exactly Sarah Palin was going to reform in Washington, given who has been in power. In his answer, McCain LIES, falsely claiming that Sarah Palin has not requested earmarks as Governor of Alaska. In another critical segment, the girls confront John McCain on his campaign's recent attack ads, bringing up the ridiculous pigstick controversy and the lies about Obama's sex-ed legislation. They questioned whether or not McCain really approved of these things and he indeed does. This is a critical development because so many pundits this week have expressed their disbelief that John McCain actually approves of the negativity coming out of his own campaign. If you watch the clip, John McCain clearly stands by the ads even after the Walters and Co. reminded him that his campaign's claims are patently false in many instances.

Thus, a very encouraging day so far. The McCain camp's inappropriate and unjustifiable demands for deference from the press may have paid off earlier in the week but the viciousness and blatancy of the lies put forth and the refusal to address them when called out ultimately seems to have pushed the media to a relative breaking point. No more free passes on Palin's qualifications for office and no more free passes on the repetition of blatant falsehoods on the stump and in attack ads.

I still think the best course of action for the Obama campaign is to continue to avoid addressing Sarah Palin directly. She is still going to evoke the strong sympathies many and will still be put forth by the McCain camp as a victim of the media and of viciousness from Obama in manner that will create some wiggle room for McCain to dishonorably continue to push the envelope with racial imagery. Besides, it is John McCain that should be forced to answer for his own judgment, policies, and platform. And because it is impossible to ignore Sarah Palin's increasingly apparent unfitness, it is John McCain that should be forced to answer for his decision to bring her on the ticket and for the lies and character smears his campaign continues to propagate.

McCain Campaign Strategy Is Crystal Clear

For Steve Schmidt, Rick Davis, and John McCain, it's only tangentially about swinging different demographic groups with divisive smears and distortions that feed divisions related to identity.

What we're seeing intensified this week, this typical GOP lie and deny, is a tactic that enhances the McCain camp's larger road map to victory.

"This election is not about issues."

That's what McCain campaign manager Rick Davis told the WaPo's Chris Cillizza last week. (emphasis his)

Rick Davis, campaign manager for John McCain's presidential bid, insisted that the presidential race will be decided more over personalities than issues during an interview with Post editors this morning.

"This election is not about issues," said Davis. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."

Davis added that issues will no doubt play a major role in the decisions undecided voters will make but that they won't ultimately be conclusive. He added that the campaign has "ultimate faith" in the idea that the more voters get to know McCain and Barack Obama, the better the Republican nominee will do.

And yesterday, in the thick of all that pigstick, Cillizza pointed to some data from the most recent WaPo-ABC polls that truly illustrates where the McCain camp thinks it wins this election.

Which is more important to you in choosing a candidate for president: their personal qualities such as experience and leadership ability, or their positions on specific issues?

Presidential Preference Among "Issue" Voters

Presidential Preference Among "Personal Qualities" Voters

NOTE: Results among registered voters.
SOURCE: This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone September 5-7, 2008, among a random national sample of 1,133 adults and 961 registered voters.

The graphic on the side should help drive this home. Essentially, the Republicans believe that they can change the numbers on the first pie chart there. The McCain campaign thinks they can whip the media into a personality-based narrative in the final weeks of the campaign and that coverage of personality scandals, regardless of the tone of the reporting, will ultimately influence people to vote based on personal qualities.

Of course, by extension, the McCain camp believes that the more people do that, the more likely they will be to choose "maverick" McCain and "hockey mom" Palin over "arrogant" Obama.

This is partially why I believe that the continued focus on Palin, even when progressives point out that she's been lying about her record, is ultimately detrimental and feeds into the McCain camps overall strategy. Because the lies are relatively banal, the media will not use that term and will not really press the McCain camp to stop repeating them. GOP surrogates are very deft at pivoting away from questions related to Governor Palin's record toward a discussion of her background as a small town mom or traits like her feistiness, etc.

This is also why the McCain camp has decided to keep Palin by McCain's side for pretty much the rest of the campaign. They welcome the Left's objection that she's hiding from the media and will only agree to puff interviews because it allows for them to continue to distract voters and the media with charges of sexism or the imagery of ruthless packs of wolves. Never mind that one could allege that the McCain camp is being sexist for claiming that Palin cannot handle herself in the media because I'm sure the McCain camp would love to talk about that. Anything to avoid substantive debate based on policies and issues - because they understand that they lose overwhelmingly if voters are focused.

The media is content to go along with this game, even though responsible journalists are beginning to call out the McCain camp for deceptions and even though many deemed pigstick to be irrelevant at best and fabricated at worst. The fact is that the media still covered it ad nauseum because it generated ratings. Palin was able to get her way in terms of "deference," able to force the media (Charlie Gibson has no integrity) to accept her fluff-only interview preconditions because she draws high ratings.

But Obama can cut the bull here. He draws high ratings too and he can leverage some of his influence over the media when really bs stories like this one are being force-fed on the country by the McCain camp. He should have issued a statement calling out pigstick for being what it was but also simply stated that the matter was closed and that his campaign staff and supporters had been encouraged to move on to contrasting the two campaign's education agendas. And I think the media would generally have accepted this from the Obama campaign as reasonable, at least to the point where we might have had a more balanced news day yesterday.

-

Stop spotlighting Palin. The McCain campaign is juiced to use her as a ratings draw and as a distraction from the repulsive agenda of the GOP and of the McCain-Palin ticket. The left should be working to make her a boring non-factor instead of a polarizing focal point.

When Americans are thinking about issues, we win. We lose when we play on GOP turf like this. We actually have moral high ground in this election because what's gone on the last eight years and because of the lies being put forth by the McCain campaign. We can leverage it to get back to discussing issues and back to dominating news cycles.

--

On Monday morning, Obama and Biden should talk about the housing crisis and the free falling economy from near one of McCain's several properties in Arizona, kicking off a tour of Western swing states. Especially since McCain's lead in Arizona is much smaller than one might imagine.

All Pigstick All Day

I worked my service industry job during the day today and it was slow so I got to watch a whole lot of MSNBC. I was treated to an entire day of this stupid back and forth over the lipstick pig comment. It's a funny thing, this controversy, because the media actually seems to be accurately portraying the fracas as an intentional misinterpretation of the remarks on the part of the McCain campaign to avoid discussing policy. But the media kept on leading every hour with 'lipstick politics.' Chris Mathews, who absolutely demolished the McCain camp on this and expressed utter frustration that it's even being covered nonetheless still devoted two whole segments to it. Even NPR talked about it.

So even though the media fairly vetted both sides in the controversy, they were still doing the bidding of the McCain campaign by making this thing the top story all day long. The McCain camp didn't much care that the media was largely debunking their claims because the focus stayed on the Palin personality and off of the repulsive policies of the GOP.

And unfortunately, the Obama campaign chose to play defense on this controversy all day. Barack Obama even responded personally. He did so effectively, tying this distraction to all the failed discourses of past election years, but he was still in response-mode.



Playing armchair campaign consultant, I would have recommended, once it became clear during the mid-morning that the McCain camp was effectively making this pigstick comment an all-day affair, that the Obama campaign craft a simple press release. In it, I would have spelled out all the criticisms that Senator Obama outlined in the video above but also that the campaign considered the matter closed and would not be issuing any more statements on the matter. Campaign representatives and talking heads would then have grounds to completely pivot away from responding to this bullsh*t to remind viewers about the detailed policy proposals that Senator Obama outlined in Denver.

Sleaze Season

The McCain camp's latest ad is horrendous. It straight-up lies about Barack Obama's record on sex-ed, soberly telling Americans that he wants to teach your kindergartner about sex before he or she even learns to read.

Notice that behemoth news organization McClatchy actually enhances their objectivity by calling the ad precisely what it is: "wrong" and "deliberately misleading."

And of course there couldn't possibly be any racial element when the McCain camp maliciously sexualizes Barack Obama with a blatant lie and attempts to use that lie as proof that Obama is wrong for "your family."

In terms of dishonesty, I have to say that this ad easily surpasses that which was used to short-circuit Harold Ford's bid for the Senate from Tennessee in 2006. That ad is now universally accepted in the mainstream press as having been intentionally racial, though reporters were much more cautious about saying so when the ad was running. I wonder how the mainstream press takes this one.

Let's Stop Talking About Palin

I've been mulling over lots of different thoughts since John McCain's announced his VP choice.

I thought at the time that it reflected a desperate lack of judgment on the part of Senator McCain and exposed some real control issues within his campaign. How, I asked myself, could they not even vet her? Why would they undercut the 'experience' theme they've been building for months? How could McCain choose someone he'd only spoken to once or twice?

And then when the details began to emerge, from her daughter's pregnancy to the state trooper firing scandal to the bridge to nowhere lies, I thought to myself that McCain's gambit had totally backfired. Here he's elevated this total political novice without fully vetting and it's backfiring right in his face.

And maybe it did sort of happen like that. McCain's advisers and GOP stakeholders knew he needed to shore up the evangelical base not just if he was going to have a chance at bridging the so-called 'enthusiasm gap' but also because there would be no grassroots basis for 2010 or 2012 if McCain had had his way and picked Joe Lieberman. They convinced John McCain to go with Palin, assuring him that the positive aspects of a ratings draw for the ticket would far outweigh whatever gaffes she may commit or bad positions she'd previously taken.

Democrats and especially a lot of online progressive news sites walked into the unintentional trap. Immediately there were many questions about Sarah Palin's ultraconservative ideology, her poor performance as Mayor of Wasilla, and the trooper scandal. There were even more questions about what the selection said about McCain's judgment, whether or not he himself had a basic familiarity with Governor Palin, whether or not he'd known about the family preganancy. I'm not sure that I 100% buy the argument that the 'unintentional trap' was the typical GOP wagon-circling and push back against the elite media though certainly this was the party response. I don't think that the left is entirely caught off guard by that tactic anymore, as it had certainly been employed at various junctures by the McCain camp already.

Rather, the 'unintetional trap' that Democrats stepped into was Palin's personality.

The GOP push back against the 'liberal media' was in full swing in the days before Palin's acceptance speech but it did not necessarily yield any kind of response from the public. I anecdotally remember seeing many numbers indicating fairly disparate national favorability numbers for Palin, shockingly low considering that VP picks are supposed to poll positively right after their selection. As I recall, roughly 38% of respondents indicated that Palin had made them more likely to vote for McCain and pretty much the same number indicated that Palin made them less likely to vote for McCain.

Once Palin flashed that smile on stage in St. Paul and told her story, her place on the ticket was solidified beyond a doubt. The two most often quoted lines from that speech illustrate what her selection was really all about. Can you remember anything she said she'd do politically? No. You remember the line about hockey moms and lipstick, you remember the brilliantly delivered cutesy line about putting the state jet on EBay, you remember all the small town America nonsense. The whole speech was about imagery, identity, personality, and relate-ability.

Then, when it was kicked back to the Left's pool of tv pundit talent or to the progressive blogosphere, the pointed questions kept being asked - and it looked like this 'everywoman' was being bullied around on her first day at school - never mind that she's been lying about her record.

And since the convention wrapped, criticism of Palin continues dominate the headlines, even on progressive blogs. I know she's being isolated from the press and being briefed over and over again because she has little command of the issues Americans face in this election. I know she's lying about the bridge to nowhere.

But who cares?

Is it really more important to highlight Palin's lies than it is to contrast McCain's blank speech to Obama's extremely detailed agenda? Shouldn't we be highlighting the ridiculousness of McCain's calls for change?

Palin brings ratings. And she brings them to a Republican ticket that was really struggling to generate any kind of interest or excitement.

This Dick Polman piece, which is excellent, examines this theme by critiquing the poor political sense of those clamoring for the use of Hillary Clinton as a foil to Palin:

The Clintons may be exasperating figures to roughly half the Democratic electorate, but they do know a few things about politics and how to play the game. The McCain people have made a politically smart move by picking Palin - her lack of preparedness is another matter entirely - because they have created buzz for the Republican ticket, allowing the GOP to focus on personality and thus distract voters from the Republican policy record of the past eight years. If Hillary was to take on Palin directly, in a battle for the sisterhood, she would be fighting dumb, on the new Republican turf - personality versus personality - while failing to focus voters on the Republican policy record of the past eight years.

And consider this: If Hillary went mano a mano with Palin, how long would it take for this kind of imagery - courtesy of James Bond cinema - to be the talk of the nation?

Wolfson, wise to the imperatives of popular culture, and the allure of so-called "cat fights," put it this way: "For whatever reasons, editors and news executives are convinced that two women fighting sells magazines and attracts eyeballs. You can imagine the thinking. If Angelina Jolie vs Jennifer Aniston, and Britney Spears vs Christina Aguilera sell copies, what could be better than Hillary Clinton vs Sarak Palin...(That) might drive ratings and sell magazines, but it wouldn't be good for the Democratic party or the cause of women's rights."

You see, the McCain camp became wise to the fact that Americans are really bored by John McCain. They realized that McCain's understated public persona, awkward mannerisms, inability to fluidly read a teleprompter, and increasingly common 'senior moments' really exacerbated the age issue and turned off voters on the right and in the middle. The McCain camp is happy to have Palin bump McCain's TV time. Her appearance alone makes her inherently better able to connect with average Americans than John McCain. Notice that Palin and McCain continue to stump in tandem. It may be, as many on the Left snicker, because Palin needs more prepping before she's allowed to do her own photo ops recite her own talking points. However, it is much more probable that the McCain campaign strategists are purposefully working to obscure Americans' views of the ticket by putting Palin out front. It ensures that media coverage of any McCain campaign speech is as much coverage of Palin's barbs as it is anything the actual nominee says. It ensures that Biden and Obama will continue to be pressed to respond to this Palin quote or that Palin quote. It ensures that the progressive blogosphere continues to rip apart all of her misstatements and distortions.

She sells ad shares, she drives web traffic. Palin is getting pretty good mileage out of the same one-liners written for her convention speech whereas Barack Obama's extremely detailed, persuasive, and historic argument for progressive change has generally failed to generate residual coverage.

It's what the McCain camp is banking on.

I actually think the Obama campaign has really played this pretty good. Neither Biden nor Obama have really mentioned Palin by name and continue to hammer away at McCain's proposals that expand upon the Bush administration's disastrous policies.

Unfortunately, however, the progressive netroots is being called to action to clamor on and on about the media's refusal to report accurately on Palin. That's a mistake, it's not something worth leveraging progressive muscle for.

Call out her lies, highlight her distortions, and continue to uncover her insufficient qualifications but stop making her the focal point of the response to the McCain campaign. She should be treated as though she is completely irrelevant because she's essentially being put forth to distract Americans from the actual proposals of the GOP platform and of the McCain campaign.

It's also extremely frustrating as a resident of New Orleans. So much energy went into going after Sarah Palin, who is still essentially a NOBODY, that few bothered to question the 'gee Louisiana really dodged a bullet with Gustav' narrative that allowed the GOP to go back to partying in Minnesota while a huge swath of America barely hangs on.

Sarah Palin & Glen Beck Hate Polar Bears

I'm sorry that this is a ten minute video. Governor Palin shows up at around the 4 minute mark but you might want to watch Glenn's monologue, for which Mrs. Palin expresses her appreciation.




And here she is defending herself for getting her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper.




Village alcoholism, sure. But is she ready to lead?


--

Below is a more substantive report on the abuse of power investigation and here is a the backup article.



Those are fairly serious allegations and quite a two-step out of the gate for Governor Palin. It would be one thing if the investigation had been unable to find anything but this story just broke last month. It's brand spanking new and will remain in the news as more information comes forward. McCain's demonstrating some fine judgment with this pick. Another panicked response out of the McCain camp.

Whether he's talking up war with Russia or Iran or picking our possible next vice president, John McCain just can't seem to take a deep breath and evaluate things clearly. There is no steady hand at his campaign and a rapidly diminishing judgement within the candidate himself.

Did they even vet Sarah Palin? Did they run any polls on her?

Do they really think that a first term governor from a state of 700,000 people in the Arctic that was previously the Mayor of a town of 8,00o has comprehensive knowledge of the complicated foreign policy matters of the day? Do they think she could possibly understand the national economy?

Do they really think Americans are going to be confident enough to count on her as insurance for McCain's age?

--

Bad judgment update:

From CNN

John McCain first met Sarah Palin only six months ago and had just one conversation with the Alaska governor before offering her the vice presidential slot on the Republican ticket, the Arizona senator's campaign said Friday.

Really? You just picked someone to be your replacement, a potential commander-in-chief during a crisis, based off of one conversation?