John McCain hit a tape measure shot yesterday by naming Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Looking through the prism of short term benefits, the Palin choice scores big. For example, her presence on the ticket lets McCain:
1. Change the conversation from the Dems to the GOP.
2. Throw the ultra conservative base a bone.
3. Get the attention of Hillary supporters.
4. Reassert his maverick reputation.
5. Make the Dems nervous.
And you know the Dems are nervous when all the Obama surrogates come out flailing about the choice, saying stupid things like, "She has no experience!". Yeah, where have we heard this before? Or, "he's never even met her!" So what? "It's so overtly political!" Yeah... isn't this politics? I mean, they suddenly sounded like Republicans after Thursday night's convention triumph. (And it was a triumph: 40 million Americans tuning in. Impeccable speech, flawless stage craft. One conservative told me, "there really wasn't too much you could argue with in Obama's speech".)
Fortunately, Obama had the good sense to call off an ungracious official statement by his campaign. Instead, he simply called Palin to congratulate her on her historic ascension.
The good news for Democrats is that a home run doesn't mean you lose the game, at least not in the 7th inning, which is about where we are in this race. In fact, after Obama's home run on Thursday night, one could argue that McCain is still a run behind, even with this shrewd play.
And as time rolls on, we'll see if there are long term benefits to the Palin choice. One benefit will be her ability to campaign to the conservative base, freeing Mac to go for the indies and Dems. But the drawbacks may reveal themselves over time. For one thing, Hillary supporters are not going to support Palin when they discover how anti-abortion, anti gay, and pro guns she really is. And it will be the Dems job to expose the early myths about her positions.
For example, it's true that Palin vetoed a bill to ban health benefits for same sex partners of public officials. But she did it because it was unconstitutional under existing statutes. She then supported the effort to add an amendment to the state constitution banning same sex marriage, which passed. Thus, in the end, the health benefit ban went into effect anyway. She also says that she told the US Congress 'thanks, but no thanks' to funding for the now infamous 'bridge to nowhere'. Not true. In 2006, she actively urged squeezing as much pork out Congress as possible for Alaska, knowing that project was slated for consideration. She even went to Washington herself when she was mayor of Wasilla, to secure funds for her town.
And one unintended consequence of this choice might be to energize Hillary Clinton for Obama. (Talk about a nightmare week for Hillary. You're forced to give a speech supporting the guy who denied you history; then you had to publicly suggest he be nominated by acclamation; then you find out you may never get a chance to make history because the Republicans have done what your own party wouldn't do! Hoo boy.) But the good news for Dems is that instead of Hillary secretly hoping for a McCain win so that she can get another shot in four years, she now has to make sure he doesn't win so that Palin doesn't make any more history than she's already made.
So, now it gets really interesting for the next 66 days. All because Mac went yard.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Mission Accomplished
The four day Democratic Convention ended last night at Invesco Field in Denver with a soaring display of political theater, capped off by another inspirational speech by Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama.
While the pundits from all sides of the political spectrum will debate the success of this convention, one thing is clear: this convention accomplished five important objectives for Democrats:
1. It forced the Clintons to heel--to help the Party heal.
2. It presented a clear mission statement for the campaign: Restore the American Dream and America's leadership in the world.
3. It redefined Barack Obama.
4. It re-energized party faithful and signed up new volunteers.
5. It took on Republican attacks and embarked on the push back strategy.
Considering the threat of chaos and disunity prior to Monday, Dems have to feel good about the arc of their four days. Much of the credit has to go to the Obama campaign. They navigated the treacherous Clinton negotiations and created compromises that mollified most and guaranteed strong political theater. They are also masters of theatrical production. We've said it here often: if a campaign reflects the governing style of its candidate, Barack Obama is at the very least a competent leader.
On the other hand, heavy props also go to the marquee speakers who, with one exception, all smacked home runs. Regardless of whether you agree with the substance of their speeches, they succeeded in their goals. Let's run 'em down one by one.
Michelle Obama
Faced with perhaps the most dificult assignment of any speaker, she exceeded expectations. She cast the theme of the convention, humanized herself, and redefined her husband and herself as regular, patriotic Americans. In remarks that were mostly personal, frequently revealing and always captivating, she succinctly laid out the Democratic vision: to bring the world 'as it is', closer to the world 'as it should be'. No one but the most cynical observer could have found fault with her presentation.
Ted Kennedy
As if brain cancer wasn't enough, Ted Kennedy defiantly left a Denver hospital bed suffering from kidney stones to deliver this emotional speech. He presented the fire expected of the party's unapologetic left wing standard bearer. He also looked better than a man in his condition had any right to.
Mark Warner
Warner's Tuesday night key note address was the only dud in the primetime line-up of Democratic speakers. He, of course, was in the unenviable position of living up to Obama's key note of 2004 and then, preceding Hillary in the evening's festivities. As for his poltical career, his speech was not the game changer Obama's was in 2004. Yet even Warner's remarks served a valuable function: to show the pragmatic side of the Party. He is naturally plain spoken and unable to furnish heavy rhetorical flourishes. But he delivered the important message that Dems will be hammering in this election cycle: we are the Party of jobs and opportunity.
Hillary Clinton
Take it from me, an ambilvalent Hillary observer. Tuesday night's marquee address was one of the all time great political speeches in convention history. A high voltage advocacy of the Democrats' vision for America, coupled with just the right amount of support for Obama made this a home run. Her tone was pitch perfect, her delivery was flawless and she found eloquence in authentic plain spokeness. It has always struck me as ironic that Clinton seems to be most attractive when she has been humbled. Perhaps a dollop of humility is the softening agent that Hillary bashers lament they never see when she is getting her way. No one could watch this speech and not be impressed by her range of policy knowledge, her emotional propriety, and her flat out leadership qualities.
Bill Clinton
Not to be outdone by his wife, the former President's Wednesday night speech delivered even more Clintonian fireworks. With Obama's folks biting their nails because his speech wasn't vetted, Clinton not only delivered a surgical breakdown of Democratic policy, but he emphatically excecuted his primary task: to declare Barack Obama ready to be President. Recalling his critics in 1992, who said he was too young and inexperienced to be Commander-in-Chief, Clinton delivered a forceful message on Obama's behalf. He had one of the best lines of the entire convention: "America has always been best when it leads by the power of its example, not by the example of its power." Go, Bubba.
Joe Biden
Following Bill Clinton is never an enviable speaking task. But Joe Biden, historically, has never been afraid to talk, before, after or during anyone else. His confidence showed in a pitch perfect speech that bolstered his credentials to working class voters, demonstrated his personal touch on the stump and previewed the tenor of his attacks on McCain. I wrote a week ago that I was not convinced that Biden was a good fit as Obama's Veep. This speech went a long way to assuaging those doubts. As impressive was the strong stage craft of Obama's 'surprise' appearance and the Biden clan swarming the stage in Kennedyesque fashion.
Al Gore
For a clear, eloquent and unassailable presentation of the choice Americans face in this election, Al Gore's warm-up speech for Obama Thursday night rivaled Bill Clinton's . For sheer articulateness, this was a remarkable address. It was an example of what well chosen words and the appropriate recollection of history can do to sell a point of view. Just another reason for Democrats to shake their heads and a say, "Where was this guy in 2000?"
Barack Obama
It's easy to take for granted Obama's communication skills, but watching his acceptance speech is to watch a master communicator on top of his game. Consider how many of his speeches we have seen. Now consider that he has to deliver his most important one, preserving the best of what we have come to expect, and adding enough fresh material to keep us interested. Very tough. I thought he pulled it off. He introduced some catchy phrases including "Eight is enough" in reference to another four years of Republicans in the White House. And purely in terms of the tasks at hand-- redefining himself personally, recommitting to his message of change, signaling a willingness to go mano a mano with McCain, laying out specifics of his policy goals, and leaving a little left for good old fashioned inspiration, he succeeded wildly. When you see every crowd shot include people with tears streaming down their cheeks, it's a powerful reminder of the power of well stated ideas.
In 2004, at a Democratic function, I told Howard Dean that Democrats had to tell better stories. I said that there was nothing wrong with the substance of the Democratic message, but that Republicans consistently couched their issues and demonized their opponents with more effective storytelling that resonated with ordinary folks. Phrases like the 'death tax' and 'flip-flopping' consistently created enduring images with which Republicans bludgeoned Dems to successfully make their case. That was the night that I first heard Dean lay out his 50 state strategy and pledge that Democrats would start making their case as the party of 'real family values'. For, example, he said, Democrats couldn't keep conceding the faith card to Republicans--they had to talk openly about their faith and God.
This convention completed that evolution. The story telling prowess of Democrats, through their production techniques and choices, to the speechifying of their principles, has improved dramatically since 2004. And it's worth noting that no Democratic convention has heard more talk of faith and God than this one.
If a convention's primary purpose is to set the course for the remainder of the election and fire up the party faithful to engage in the work to elect their candidates, this convention succeeded.
And whether you're a Republican or Democrat, watching 84,000 people waving American flags and actually enjoying the political process is hopeful indeed.
Mission Accomplished.
While the pundits from all sides of the political spectrum will debate the success of this convention, one thing is clear: this convention accomplished five important objectives for Democrats:
1. It forced the Clintons to heel--to help the Party heal.
2. It presented a clear mission statement for the campaign: Restore the American Dream and America's leadership in the world.
3. It redefined Barack Obama.
4. It re-energized party faithful and signed up new volunteers.
5. It took on Republican attacks and embarked on the push back strategy.
Considering the threat of chaos and disunity prior to Monday, Dems have to feel good about the arc of their four days. Much of the credit has to go to the Obama campaign. They navigated the treacherous Clinton negotiations and created compromises that mollified most and guaranteed strong political theater. They are also masters of theatrical production. We've said it here often: if a campaign reflects the governing style of its candidate, Barack Obama is at the very least a competent leader.
On the other hand, heavy props also go to the marquee speakers who, with one exception, all smacked home runs. Regardless of whether you agree with the substance of their speeches, they succeeded in their goals. Let's run 'em down one by one.
Michelle Obama
Faced with perhaps the most dificult assignment of any speaker, she exceeded expectations. She cast the theme of the convention, humanized herself, and redefined her husband and herself as regular, patriotic Americans. In remarks that were mostly personal, frequently revealing and always captivating, she succinctly laid out the Democratic vision: to bring the world 'as it is', closer to the world 'as it should be'. No one but the most cynical observer could have found fault with her presentation.
Ted Kennedy
As if brain cancer wasn't enough, Ted Kennedy defiantly left a Denver hospital bed suffering from kidney stones to deliver this emotional speech. He presented the fire expected of the party's unapologetic left wing standard bearer. He also looked better than a man in his condition had any right to.
Mark Warner
Warner's Tuesday night key note address was the only dud in the primetime line-up of Democratic speakers. He, of course, was in the unenviable position of living up to Obama's key note of 2004 and then, preceding Hillary in the evening's festivities. As for his poltical career, his speech was not the game changer Obama's was in 2004. Yet even Warner's remarks served a valuable function: to show the pragmatic side of the Party. He is naturally plain spoken and unable to furnish heavy rhetorical flourishes. But he delivered the important message that Dems will be hammering in this election cycle: we are the Party of jobs and opportunity.
Hillary Clinton
Take it from me, an ambilvalent Hillary observer. Tuesday night's marquee address was one of the all time great political speeches in convention history. A high voltage advocacy of the Democrats' vision for America, coupled with just the right amount of support for Obama made this a home run. Her tone was pitch perfect, her delivery was flawless and she found eloquence in authentic plain spokeness. It has always struck me as ironic that Clinton seems to be most attractive when she has been humbled. Perhaps a dollop of humility is the softening agent that Hillary bashers lament they never see when she is getting her way. No one could watch this speech and not be impressed by her range of policy knowledge, her emotional propriety, and her flat out leadership qualities.
Bill Clinton
Not to be outdone by his wife, the former President's Wednesday night speech delivered even more Clintonian fireworks. With Obama's folks biting their nails because his speech wasn't vetted, Clinton not only delivered a surgical breakdown of Democratic policy, but he emphatically excecuted his primary task: to declare Barack Obama ready to be President. Recalling his critics in 1992, who said he was too young and inexperienced to be Commander-in-Chief, Clinton delivered a forceful message on Obama's behalf. He had one of the best lines of the entire convention: "America has always been best when it leads by the power of its example, not by the example of its power." Go, Bubba.
Joe Biden
Following Bill Clinton is never an enviable speaking task. But Joe Biden, historically, has never been afraid to talk, before, after or during anyone else. His confidence showed in a pitch perfect speech that bolstered his credentials to working class voters, demonstrated his personal touch on the stump and previewed the tenor of his attacks on McCain. I wrote a week ago that I was not convinced that Biden was a good fit as Obama's Veep. This speech went a long way to assuaging those doubts. As impressive was the strong stage craft of Obama's 'surprise' appearance and the Biden clan swarming the stage in Kennedyesque fashion.
Al Gore
For a clear, eloquent and unassailable presentation of the choice Americans face in this election, Al Gore's warm-up speech for Obama Thursday night rivaled Bill Clinton's . For sheer articulateness, this was a remarkable address. It was an example of what well chosen words and the appropriate recollection of history can do to sell a point of view. Just another reason for Democrats to shake their heads and a say, "Where was this guy in 2000?"
Barack Obama
It's easy to take for granted Obama's communication skills, but watching his acceptance speech is to watch a master communicator on top of his game. Consider how many of his speeches we have seen. Now consider that he has to deliver his most important one, preserving the best of what we have come to expect, and adding enough fresh material to keep us interested. Very tough. I thought he pulled it off. He introduced some catchy phrases including "Eight is enough" in reference to another four years of Republicans in the White House. And purely in terms of the tasks at hand-- redefining himself personally, recommitting to his message of change, signaling a willingness to go mano a mano with McCain, laying out specifics of his policy goals, and leaving a little left for good old fashioned inspiration, he succeeded wildly. When you see every crowd shot include people with tears streaming down their cheeks, it's a powerful reminder of the power of well stated ideas.
In 2004, at a Democratic function, I told Howard Dean that Democrats had to tell better stories. I said that there was nothing wrong with the substance of the Democratic message, but that Republicans consistently couched their issues and demonized their opponents with more effective storytelling that resonated with ordinary folks. Phrases like the 'death tax' and 'flip-flopping' consistently created enduring images with which Republicans bludgeoned Dems to successfully make their case. That was the night that I first heard Dean lay out his 50 state strategy and pledge that Democrats would start making their case as the party of 'real family values'. For, example, he said, Democrats couldn't keep conceding the faith card to Republicans--they had to talk openly about their faith and God.
This convention completed that evolution. The story telling prowess of Democrats, through their production techniques and choices, to the speechifying of their principles, has improved dramatically since 2004. And it's worth noting that no Democratic convention has heard more talk of faith and God than this one.
If a convention's primary purpose is to set the course for the remainder of the election and fire up the party faithful to engage in the work to elect their candidates, this convention succeeded.
And whether you're a Republican or Democrat, watching 84,000 people waving American flags and actually enjoying the political process is hopeful indeed.
Mission Accomplished.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Hey, Joe
The jury will be out until the first gaffe, (maybe it already happened when he referred to Obama as Barack America?), or until the first week in November, but the McCain campaign has to be smiling at Obama's pick for Veep, Senator Joe Biden. Here's a transcript of the announcement made at a joint appearence in Springfield, Illinois.
Biden is one of two predictable choices that Obama could have made. The other was Evan Bayh of Indiana. Longshots like Kathleen Sebilius, Tim Kaine, Chuck Hagel and especially Hillary Clinton, would have created more uncertainty for McCain. But with Biden, the McCain campaign already has an ad quoting Biden's diss of Obama's experience ready for rollout.
So what was Obama thinking in choosing the 65 year old Delaware Senator? Biden doesn't bring a swing state into Obama's column, he can't run for President in eight years, and he has character baggage in the form of plagiarism charges that are frequently raised by Republicans.
Conventional wisdom is that Obama wanted a foreign relations and national security expert and a glib attack dog to signal the beginning of a new, tougher approach to this campaign.
My only original thought is that Obama also wanted someone who knew McCain well; someone who could point out inside vulnerabilities of which the public and media may be unaware.
Otherwise, I have personally evolved from an anti-Hillary-for-Veep stance to a 'she's-the-way-you-win, stupid' stance. Terry McAuliffe said, “If [Obama] picks Hillary he gets her 18 million supporters and we would win in a cakewalk and control the White House for 16 years.” This seems to look more and more like an accurate assessment. This blog routinely ignores polls, but one poll remains amazingly consistent: about 20% percent of Hillary supporters say they will not support Obama if Hillary is not the nominee or the Veep choice. They said this in the primary and they are saying it now. I have personally talked to several women who are violently dissappointed that Hillary is not the Dems' nominee, to the extent that they will sit this one out to insure that Hillary gets a second crack at it in four years.
I also think that Republicans are scared to death of Clinton. They see a politician who is willing to slog it out in the dirt like they are, and it worries them. But now, they can feel safe in their ability to dish out the negativity in a more one sided way.
Obama, like McCain, has been able to make campaign decisions at crucial times that were great for his campaign. Maybe this is one of them. We'll see.
The jury is out.
Biden is one of two predictable choices that Obama could have made. The other was Evan Bayh of Indiana. Longshots like Kathleen Sebilius, Tim Kaine, Chuck Hagel and especially Hillary Clinton, would have created more uncertainty for McCain. But with Biden, the McCain campaign already has an ad quoting Biden's diss of Obama's experience ready for rollout.
So what was Obama thinking in choosing the 65 year old Delaware Senator? Biden doesn't bring a swing state into Obama's column, he can't run for President in eight years, and he has character baggage in the form of plagiarism charges that are frequently raised by Republicans.
Conventional wisdom is that Obama wanted a foreign relations and national security expert and a glib attack dog to signal the beginning of a new, tougher approach to this campaign.
My only original thought is that Obama also wanted someone who knew McCain well; someone who could point out inside vulnerabilities of which the public and media may be unaware.
Otherwise, I have personally evolved from an anti-Hillary-for-Veep stance to a 'she's-the-way-you-win, stupid' stance. Terry McAuliffe said, “If [Obama] picks Hillary he gets her 18 million supporters and we would win in a cakewalk and control the White House for 16 years.” This seems to look more and more like an accurate assessment. This blog routinely ignores polls, but one poll remains amazingly consistent: about 20% percent of Hillary supporters say they will not support Obama if Hillary is not the nominee or the Veep choice. They said this in the primary and they are saying it now. I have personally talked to several women who are violently dissappointed that Hillary is not the Dems' nominee, to the extent that they will sit this one out to insure that Hillary gets a second crack at it in four years.
I also think that Republicans are scared to death of Clinton. They see a politician who is willing to slog it out in the dirt like they are, and it worries them. But now, they can feel safe in their ability to dish out the negativity in a more one sided way.
Obama, like McCain, has been able to make campaign decisions at crucial times that were great for his campaign. Maybe this is one of them. We'll see.
The jury is out.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Heeeere's Johnny!
It's the only mention I'll make of the new McCain spot that is getting so much play now. You know, the one with Britany Spears and Paris Hilton...and Obama. The one that lampoons Obama's celebrity. Even though I don't think it's as harsh a spot as some are claiming, it is decidedly un-McCain. It's more like McCain as host of a bad talk show. And clearly, the fingerprints of new campaign manager Steve Schmidt are all over this. He is a Karl Rove protoge--(you know, the Karl Rove that has systematically destroyed the Republican brand)--and Schmidt's mission is to get his guy elected. So you do whatever you have to do. Go negative, question character, make inane comparisons. I get it.
But my question is, when will the American people get that a disconnect between what a candidate says he stands for, and the way his campaign actually behaves, translates into the kind of leadership he will provide in office.
When George Bush said in 2000 that he was a compassionate conservative, but his campaign savaged John McCain with a pack of lies prior to the South Carolina primaries, should we have been surprised that he would become a polarizing figure with serious credibility issues on everything from the War in Iraq to the firing of federal judges?
So in 2008 when John McCain says he wants to have a serious debate about the issues, and then decides that the only way he can win is to go relentlessly negative on Obama, do we really think a McCain Presidency would include the honest bi-partisan dialogue he says he wants to have to get things done? Please.
I think Obama's two main statements on the spot were right on: "I have noticed that John McCain doesn't seem to have a lot of positive things to say about himself"; and, more to the point, "Is that the best he can come up with?"
I think that's a good question for Americans to ask John McCain.
Does the spot reflect the true John McCain? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.
But my question is, when will the American people get that a disconnect between what a candidate says he stands for, and the way his campaign actually behaves, translates into the kind of leadership he will provide in office.
When George Bush said in 2000 that he was a compassionate conservative, but his campaign savaged John McCain with a pack of lies prior to the South Carolina primaries, should we have been surprised that he would become a polarizing figure with serious credibility issues on everything from the War in Iraq to the firing of federal judges?
So in 2008 when John McCain says he wants to have a serious debate about the issues, and then decides that the only way he can win is to go relentlessly negative on Obama, do we really think a McCain Presidency would include the honest bi-partisan dialogue he says he wants to have to get things done? Please.
I think Obama's two main statements on the spot were right on: "I have noticed that John McCain doesn't seem to have a lot of positive things to say about himself"; and, more to the point, "Is that the best he can come up with?"
I think that's a good question for Americans to ask John McCain.
Does the spot reflect the true John McCain? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
