Tag: decision-2008

There’s a very interesting article in today’s LA Times (by one of my favorite writers who is still at the Times, Robin Abcarian) about why John McCain picked Sarah Palin. It appears that, just like Hillary Clinton did late in the primaries, he has decided that “Experience” is not the right way to focus the campaign. The public cares less about foreign policy experience — they just want to throw the bastards out (and that’s not just the Republican administration–they are dissatisfied with Congress as well). Hence the McCain campaign appears to shifting their focus to a Reform theme … and here Palin adds to their strengths by being a Washington outsider, who has achieved reforms in her state of Alaska. That’s something neither Obama nor Biden can claim.

So how could the Obama campaign counter this claim. I think by reminding people of history. There have been many times that we have presidents with no Washington experience, wanting to shake up what’s been going wrong. Two examples of where that went wrong were Carter and Bush Jr. An example of where that went right was Reagan. Further, Palin, the one with no Washington experience, is in the VP slot, meaning she can introduce ideas but not have to actually lead on Day 1. Obama might also point out that Palin relied on the earmark system she now opposes.

Personally, I still think Obama is the better choice of the two, primarily because I like the ideas I have heard and I agree more with his social agenda. But this is going to be another close one, because America as a whole still harkens to the puritical background… and thus the social conservatives still seem to have quite a large voice. The scary part is: given the size of the country, this campaign may come down to the media — which is neither unbiased nor “fair and balanced” — on either side. The Presidential Debates and the VP Debate will likely have more of an affect on shaping opinions than any convention will. As for advertising… again the media plays the role, for what makes ads effective is not the running of the ad itself, but the media picking up on the ad and making it the story. That’s what Swift Boated John Kerry — the media attention to the ad.

And so this week the Political Hurricane begins. Right now it’s only a Tropical Depression, but it will be Cat 5 come November. I’m not going to be uber-confident in the outcome: this is one storm where we must study the currents and the flows and make the right decison, lest we be dashed upon the rocks.

From this Op-Ed piece in the New York Times:

This chick flick, naturally, features a wild stroke of fate, when the two-year governor of an oversized igloo becomes commander in chief after the president-elect chokes on a pretzel on day one.

The movie ends with the former beauty queen shaking out her pinned-up hair, taking off her glasses, slipping on ruby red peep-toe platform heels that reveal a pink French-style pedicure, and facing down Vladimir Putin in an island in the Bering Strait. Putting away her breast pump, she points her rifle and informs him frostily that she has some expertise in Russia because it’s close to Alaska. “Back off, Commie dude,” she says. “I’m a much better shot than Cheney.”

Then she takes off in her seaplane and lands on the White House lawn, near the new ice fishing hole and hockey rink. The “First Dude,” as she calls the hunky Eskimo in the East Wing, waits on his snowmobile with the kids — Track (named after high school track meets), Bristol (after Bristol Bay where they did commercial fishing), Willow (after a community in Alaska), Piper (just a cool name) and Trig (Norse for “strength.”)

“The P.T.A. is great preparation for dealing with the K.G.B.,” President Palin murmurs to Todd, as they kiss in the final scene while she changes Trig’s diaper. “Now that Georgia’s safe, how ’bout I cook you up some caribou hot dogs and moose stew for dinner, babe?”

Quote Runner Up, from this Time article:

[Alaska] State fair t-shirt vendor Kevin Beagley says he remembers one particular customer last year who bought a few t-shirts that said “Alaska: The Coldest State with the Hottest Governor”. The buyer? Palin’s own father, Chuck Heath.

According to the AP, Barack Obama’s audience for his acceptance speech likely topped 40 million people, and the Democratic gathering that nominated him was a more popular television event than any other political convention in history. More people watched Obama speak from a packed stadium in Denver on Thursday than watched the Olympics opening ceremony in Beijing, the final “American Idol” or the Academy Awards this year, Nielsen Media Research said Friday. His TV audience nearly doubled the amount of people who watched John Kerry accept the Democratic nomination to run against President Bush four years ago. Kerry’s speech was seen by a little more than 20 million people; Bush’s acceptance speech to GOP delegates had 27.6 million viewers. Through four days, the Democratic convention was seen in an average of 22.5 million households. No other convention — Republican or Democratic — had been seen in as many homes since Nielsen began keeping these records for the Kennedy-Nixon campaign in 1960. The convention that comes closest in interest was the 1976 Republican gathering, which averaged 21.9 million homes. That was the year President Gerald Ford fought off a challenge for the nomination from future President Ronald Reagan. For Democrats, the closest came during the 1980 convention where Sen. Edward Kennedy challenged President Jimmy Carter for the nomination.

I think it goes to show that if you put something of interest out there, people will watch. It also shows how the candidates and competition this year have fired up the electorate, which is a good thing. I wonder if the Republican convention will receive the same viewership. By the way, I highly recommend watching the convention on CSPAN1 if you get it. No commentary, no cutting out of the various speeches, just a simple unadulterated feed of the convention. I gave up on CNN after the first day.

One other interesting statistic: So what’s more popular than Obama? Four playoff football games, including the Super Bowl between the Giants and Patriots, were seen by more than 40 million people.

One last note: Nielsen said that 38.4 million people watched Obama’s speech as it was carried live by 10 commercial networks: ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, BET, TV One, Univision and Telemundo. PBS also televised the speech, but didn’t pay Nielsen for a count of its national viewership. Based on a sample of several large cities, PBS estimated that an additional 4 million people saw the speech on its network. C-SPAN, which also televised the speech, has no estimate of its audience. Obama’s speech was the fifth-highest-rated, non-sports event watched by blacks in the last 11 years. A 30th anniversary Michael Jackson special on CBS in 2001 was on top. The acceptance speech was a particular triumph for CNN, which clearly beat the three big broadcasters head-to-head on a news event for the first time ever. An estimated 8.1 million people watched on CNN Thursday.

Some more musings on politics from my lunchtime perusal of the papers, as they clean up the confetti in Denver, and pray that Gustav doesn’t distract from Minneapolis:

• The Speech. I was actually quite impressed with Obama’s speech last night. He made some good specific attacks on McCain’s positions, without attacking McCain the person. He acknowledged all the folks he needed to acknowledge (and thus hopefully continued to smooth ruffled feathers). He stated his positions clearly, and clarified his differences from McCain. It should be interesting to watch the debates unfold.
• VP Choices. So McCain has chosen Sarah Palin to be his running mate. Choices say a lot about the chooser. Obama’s choice was risky because it highlighted both the difference in experience and the difference in age. McCain’s choice does the same thing, but I think in a more negative way. The main function of a vice-president is to take over for a president should the unthinkable happen. With Obama it is unlikely he will die in office, but he has a choice with a lot of experience, one who is qualified to be president. As for McCain — he’s the oldest candidate for president, and thus more likely to die of old-age in office. And his choice? Someone with even less experience than Obama, with no foreign policy experience. Makes me think of Dan Quayle. She appears to have been chosen just because of her age and gender — perhaps McCain thinks she will appeal to the PUMAs. But I think when they look at her positions, they will see she is no Hillary. I think it is a poor presidential first decision, Johnny.
• A Lot of Wind. No, I’m not talking about the global warming caused by Al Gore’s speech. I’m talking Hurricane Gustav. It looks like Hurricane Gustav may hit the Gulf Coast the same week as the McCain-Palin show hits the Twin Cities. This is both good news and bad news for the Republicans. On the good side, if there is major damage on the Gulf Coast, President Bush (and possibly VP Cheney) will be in the disaster area attempting to help (which, of course, a presidential visit won’t do)–but it does mean they won’t be speaking at the convention, which is a plus for McCain. On the bad side, it will (a) remind voters of the Katrina (and Rita) fisascos, and (b) distract the news focus from the convention. Of course, the timing is interesting. The Democrats arranged their convention to overlap with a number of significant anniversaries: the 100th birthday of LBJ, the anniversary of the march on Washington, etc. The Republican’s had no such anniversaries, but one appears to have been arranged for them.
• Style, Not Substance. I’ve begun to wonder about the news media. As opposed to the unbiased reporting we believed we were getting in the 1960s convention coverage (who remembers Huntley-Brinkley anymore?), we’re now seeing kerfluffles based on idocy. Examples are easy. Look at the news reports complaining about the Greek-style stage at Invesco stadium, whereas the Republicans will have a simple stage (never mind that the Republicans have gone with the temple motif before). There are also people focusing more on Hillary’s pantsuit than what was said. Oh, how are news media has fallen.

As I close, keep in mind these immortal words of Tommy Smothers: “I’m an American. I don’t have to see something to know it is stupid.”

A few lunchtime political observations on the Democratic Convention:

• Railfans may have a supportive voice in Joe Biden. The Washington Post reports on how ol’ Joe is regular on the 7:35am Acela train between Wilmington DE and Washington DC. You see, unlike some other politicians who we won’t name, Joe only has one house — in Wilmington — and commuted daily to DC on the Amtrak. He even dropped in at Washington’s Union Station to say goodbye to the regulars. This also gave him contact with the regular folk — for every day he would talk to the other riders and commuters. I would think it would also give him sensitivity to those who commute: he had a 75m train trip each way.
• Hillary’s speech — which was quite good — may still not have satisfied some of her followers. According to the Washington Post, her delegates remain divided, and some just won’t vote or still plan to vote for McCain. I think this shows a shifting of attitude of the electorate since at least the 1992 election. There was a time, kids, when an election was an honest fight. Someone one, someone lost, and the loser understood they did their best, and moved on. But now the “we was robbed” attitude has crept in. It started when the Republicans never let go of the Clinton win (to this day it annoys many). It continued with Shrub, and the folks that never let go of the way he beat the Democratic opponents. Hillary’s followers are doing the same thing. You don’t see the supporters for other losing contenders becoming as vocal. Have we lost our ability to vote for a representative of positions, and not the person… and to be gracious when we lose an honest fight?* Is this where our ad hominem attacks have led us?
  [* I know some think Shrub’s election wasn’t an honest fight. How about “lawful”, as in accordance with the law?]

• And speaking of attacks, the LA Times is reporting that they are Biden’s job. Obama must stay above the attack frey, for he has framed himself as a post-partisan candidate, and partisan attacking just won’t do. Besides, as the LA Times quotes Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr: “He cannot hit back. He has to keep smiling. No one wants an angry African American man in the White House.” And so Joe, who hopefully won’t be too Humphrey-esque in length, gets to frame the attack on the McCain-TBA team. Actually, if you read the link on Humphrey, there are some interesting parallels as Humphrey was Johnson’s best attack dog against Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election, which Johnson won by a landslide. Goldwater, of course, was the Republican sitting senator from Arizona. Humphrey was also a former presidential candidate, having run against Kennedy in the 1960 primaries.

Did some more convention watching tonight. As compared to last night, tonight was great. Great message. Great differentiation. I was really impressed with the Governor from Montana — he really knows how to work a crowd. And that lady who spoke after him, can’t remember the name, but she gave a great speech really supporting Barak Obama. Worked the crowd, and really made the point that the important thing was to elect a Democrat, not your favorite primary candidate. I think she’ll go far someday.