Archive for August 8, 2008

John Edwards: Hero No Longer

John Edwards, disgraced: the former Senator & presidential candidate just now admitted to having had an affair with a campaign staffer, while his wife was at death’s door no less.  A sickening betrayal of family and country.  Imagine the arrogance of running for President while knowing this was out there.  Ugh.

McCain’s “Painful” Ad

Commenters to this blog have pointed out – correctly – that Senator Obama’s spin isn’t always literally “true.” Granted. But McCain’s campaign of hate and anger really crosses a line with this ad (entitled “Painful” – the one accurate part of the ad) as the “bipartiasan maverick” continues distort the facts to smear Barack Obama:

Let’s count the errors (script here):

1. “Life in the spotlight must be grand, but for the rest of us times are tough.” Yes, because John McCain is really suffering. While McCain suffered when his campaign was in the gutter, which he thinks means he can understand the woes of the unemployed (puh-leeze), I have a hard time believing that an eight-million term Senator has a really rough life. John McCain has been a political celebrity for longer than Barack Obama. To pretend that Obama is the only one living the “grand life” is a case of misdirection and an exploitation of the American people’s excitement about Senator Obama.
2. “Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.” Wrong. FactCheck.org has debunked this claim repeatedly, but McCain continues to lie his way into office (references to $42,000 and $32,000 are the same: $32,000 represents the post-tax earnings of someone taking home $42,000). Further, pundits and experts agree that Obama’s tax plan is far more generous to the middle class, while McCain’s plan actually raises taxes on this segment of society. It’s inexcusable for McCain to coast on people’s trust that Republicans are for less taxes, when the reality, at least as applied, is quite the opposite.
3. Shots of extremist magazines: look closely in the ad, and the McCain campaign includes, in their “celebrity” magazines, close-ups of far-left magazines hailing Obama as their savior. Uncool, alarmist, exploitative. As a side-note, how come Obama is the only one who looks bad when extremists think well of him? The Hagee incident never took flight. Liberal media bias my foot.
4. Musical direction: carrying on the Republican legacy of literally “scaring up” votes, the tone of “Painful” is quite dark and fearful – “oh no, what will Barack do next!” Poor form.
5. “Not ready to lead”: this is fast becoming a meaningless mantra of the McCain campaign. Note they don’t even discuss Obama’s “leadership” ability; they just throw the line in for good measure.
6. “I’m John McCain, and I approve this message”: maybe so, but this is not the John McCain I remember.

Juxtapose that dreary piece with Obama’s newest energy ad, a feel-good, “yes-we-can,” substantive discussion of Obama’s energy policy. At least Obama’s taking the right path.

I’m physically in pain watching McCain continue to make American politics about hate, terror, and lies. When this campaign started, I figured it was a win-win for America: either a centrist Republican, or a moderate Democrat. No more. If this is how McCain advertises, this is how he’ll govern.

Hillary PUMAs: What’s the Point?

Talk is growing on the question of whether Hillary Clinton’s name will be on the ballots at the Democratic Convention in Denver. There’re a lot of reasons to think that, just for the sake of catharsis, it should be: as one die-hard Hillary supporter put it (see below), it needn’t be about disrespect to “Future President Obama”. It’s just a way of getting long-simmering emotions out of the way, and letting the party coalesce once everything’s in the open. This is the positive case for Hillary’s continued relevance, and I have to say I support it:

And then there’s the negative case, ably presented, as always, by “The Confluence”: to get Hillary on the ballot, and smear Obama at any cost. While the rest of the world wonders aloud what Hillary Clinton wants, I’m stuck still wondering what die-hard Hillary Democrats (a.k.a., “PUMAS” – Party Unity My Ass) want. From a recent post, it looks that, if they can’t have Hillary Clinton, they want John McCain:

Our problems with Obama are based on the issues. We are not Republicans who go crazy because we are afraid Obama is not Christian enough to keep all the little zygotes from being murdered in their wombs. We don’t care if his middle name is “Hussein” and we don’t think he is a secret Muslim being brainwashed by Angela Lansbury to murder all the white people in their sleep. For Jeebus’ sake, WAKE UP! We don’t think Obama will be a good President because he is a liar, a total opportunist who will betray anyone and everyone in order to gain power and prestige. He has no beliefs. He has no principles. He loves himself more than should be humanly possible. And, he’s being financed by huge corporate interests who have no desire to rock their financial boats.

In short, he reminds us of George W. Bush.

All I can say is, if you think this Convention is going without a hitch… you are out of your freaking mind. And if you do manage to nominate Oba-moi, please know that he will never, EVER be President of the United States. You and your pathetic, elitist comrades-in-Unity(TM) will be going down in flames

To this issue, I have to ask: really? If your problem with Obama is that he reminds you too much of Bush, what exactly is the point of torpedoing his campaign, other than helping get Bush’s lapdog elected? People like “RiverDaughter” and her co-bloggers need to start to look at the endgame, see the forest through the trees, and other salient metaphors. The *realistic* logical conclusion (electing Hillary is unrealistic) of the anti-Obama, pro-Hillary hysteria these people are kicking up is chaos, disunity, and four (maybe eight) years of Republican rule.

I’m all for the continued relevance of Hillary Clinton, and all for keeping her name on the ballot at the DNC. But I cannot stand to watch Democrats advocate tearing themselves apart while Enemy #1 waltzes to victory: it’s like fighting a civil war over how to handle a foreign war.

My question is, what to do with these people? They’re too big to ignore: they hit the WordPress mainpage daily (although Obama happily brushes them off, as the fanatics that they are). What to do? Post and yell at them? Comment and yell at them? Let them fizzle out after the stated goal of getting Hillary nominated fails? I’m not convinced they will fizzle out.

Making My Job Easier; Also, Carnivals

Slate has been kind enough to produce a run-down of all the misdoings of the Bush administration; well worth a look and a grim shake of the head.

Also, next Thursday, we’ll be hosting Carnival of the Liberals here.  If you have a piece of liberal/progressive blogging, of which you’re particularly proud, please send it in!

Tom Toles on McCain’s Negative Turn

Mike Lukovich of my home paper, the “Atlanta Journal-Constitution,” is the only cartoonist that comes close to rivaling Tom Toles.  Toles’ take on negative campaigning: a tacit acknowledgment that McCain is out of ideas.

Rising Above: the Political Science of Negative Campaigning, and How and Why Obama Must Stay Positive

Since the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth debacle of 2004, Democratic politicians have operated under the theory that every negative campaign attack – even the most absurd – merits a full reply. Indeed, this theory finds support in other elections: Dukakis’ failure to respond to Bush’s negative attacks in 1992 made him seem weak and ineffective. But the need to respond only goes so far. Candidate Obama should be careful at the amount of time and money he’s willing to put into responding to negative attacks. While attacks must be met and defused, Obama’s first priority should be to shore up his issue-by-issue credentials.

The Costs & Benefits of Negative Campaigning

Positive campaigning (“I’m Candidate X, and I stand for this issue”) and negative campaigning (“Candidate Y is a liar”) both carry unique strategic advantages and disadvantages. Positive campaigning allows a candidate to define their candidacy by issues that resonate with the electorate, but risks alienating voters who oppose endorsed issues, and loses effectiveness as the candidate’s image becomes entrenched in the public mind: in short, a candidate can max themselves out on “positive” points. Negative campaigning, on the other hand, undercuts a candidate’s built-up “positive” points, and remains effective so long as the public can tolerate perceived “smear” attacks, but risks backlash. ((David Dafmore, “Candidate Strategy and the Decision to Go Negative,” Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 3, Sep., 2002)) In that sense, it represents a “roll of the dice”: a chance to discredit a candidate’s positive appeal, or tarnish one’s own credibility.

Negative campaigning also has other effects, including potentially decreasing voter turnout, ((Martin P. Wattenberg and Craig Leonard Brians, “Negative Campaign Advertising: Demobilizer or Mobilizer?” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 93, No. 4, Dec., 1999 (finding that negative ads do not decrease turnout, despite the opposite conclusions of many other researchers, and arguing that, if they did decrease turnout, their use would be less widespread, since changing a voter’s mind is better than de-mobilizing a voter))) and creating differential effects on voter populations (supplying some accurate information to sophisticated voters, who can “see through” the spin, and supplanting correct information with spin in the minds of unsophisticated voters). ((Daniel Stevens, “Separate and Unequal Effects: Information, Political Sophistication and Negative Advertising in American Elections,” Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 3, Sep., 2005)) Although this represents only a slice of the wide array of research done on negative campaigning, I assume the accuracy of these conclusions for the sake of this post.

Evaluating Obama’s Needs

Assuming that these are the rules of the game, Barack Obama has a lot to lose by campaigning negatively. Although he continues to hold the electoral edge over McCain, Obama suffers from low voter trust in a number of key areas, suggesting that Obama’s candidacy is not yet fully developed: people like his ideas and his potential, but don’t trust him to carry through on either. Framed in the context of the above, Obama has not maxed himself out on “positive” points yet. ((Although the limited bump he received after his trip abroad suggests he may have maxed himself out on his foreign credentials, his domestic credentials at least need the help.)) Closing the “trust” and “experience” gap ought to be the Obama campaign’s prime ad vector, a goal best accomplished by continual highlighting of Obama’s accomplishments at home and – to a lesser extent – abroad. “Rising above” negative campaigning also makes Obama look like a cool-headed leader, an image he must continue to project.

If Obama has a lot to gain by campaigning positively, and highlighting his ability to follow through on his promises, he has a lot to lose by campaigning negatively. While academics may debate whether or not negative campaigning suppresses turnout, this is not a chance Obama should take: he leads in registered voters, but trails in likely voters, and needs to reap the benefit of increases in registered Democrats. Depressing voter turnout is the equivalent of Democratic suicide. Similarly, Obama cannot run the risk of a negative campaign backfiring, as this could potentially feed into key groups’ already negative opinions of him (elitist, etc.). Simply put, staying on-message and staying positive is a win-win, for Obama, and for America.

Evaluating Obama’s Responses to McCain’s Negative Ads

Bearing this in mind, the Obama campaign’s response to McCain’s negative streak has been largely responsible. His recent ad, featured on his website, entitled “Low Road” -

- responds where necessary, attacking McCain’s message rather than the candidate himself, and quickly moves on to a positive note, with an admittedly abrupt and odd change in music. Strategically, this is a good choice. Obama’s off-the-cuff responses to McCain’s attacks, though, are a little less well-planned:

No doubt the past eight years have been plagued, indeed, by public officials delighting in their ignorance. Even Hillary’s done it. But aggressive language like this is likely to appeal to the choir – I enjoyed it – while putting off moderates, which Obama must avoid. Anti-elitism in America is something for our candidates to fight by their deeds rather than their words, at least until they’re in the White House.

Conclusion: What to Expect from McCain

Against this backdrop, it’s no surprise to see McCain turning negative. Left to his own devices, as Obama closes his ticket’s perceived experience deficit (possibly by pickng a good vice president…), his numbers are only going to go up, while McCain, exposed to the public eye for so long & so entrenched on the issues, stands to gain nothing more by keeping it above the belt. Negatives are the only way for him, now, to shift the numbers, and accordingly, we can probably expect more of this from him as the election season goes on. There’s every reason to expect, though, that dependence on negatives will backfire on McCain, who’s made his name on being above exactly this type of campaigning. By fighting dirty, McCain is rolling the dice, and counting on the ability of his glistening veneer of bipartisanship and moderation to shield him from voter backlash. But sometime soon, the dice will come up the wrong way, and when they do, Obama will be in the best position to capitalize on the mistake if he keeps his head high and presidential.