THE PLANK JUNE 6, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
With the primary race finally wrapped up, we asked a few friends of the magazine to consider the type of campaign Barack Obama should run against John McCain. Up here is Ed Kilgore, managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.
I agree with virtually all of what my Democratic Strategist colleague and mentor Bill Galston has to say in his essay on Obama's general election campaign. But I'd come at the challenges and opportunities Obama faces from a slightly different perspective.
First of all, in the battle for persuadable swing voters, both candidates have a potentially attractive meta-message. Obama's is that he offers bold and fundamental change, not only from the failed domestic and international policies of the Bush-Cheney administration, but also from the habits of a corrupt and gridlocked Washington. McCain's is that he offers safe if limited change from the political and policy vices of both parties, based on his personal credibility and "maverick" credentials, with a heavy emphasis on the post-9/11 security environment. Both candidates understand this is a "change election," and both also understand the handicaps faced by McCain as a Republican whose signature issue has been an unstinting commitment to "victory" in Iraq.
Entering the general election campaign, Obama needs to recast and rebroadcast his meta-message, which has clearly been eroded by the Jeremiah Wright controversy and the incessant media discussion of his primary campaign struggles, to connect with certain demographic categories of voters (most notably non-college-educated white voters). And at the same time, Obama (with help from his vanquished primary foe, Hillary Clinton) needs to regularly challenge McCain's claim to represent either "safety" or "change" on the full array of issues where voters clearly support Democratic policies.
Team Obama should also recognize that the GOP is promoting two very different and potentially conflicting negative stereotypes of their candidate: He's familiar, in that his supra-partisan and inclusive rhetoric disguises the fact that he's just another Liberal! Liberal! Liberal! Yet he's unfamiliar, representing all sorts of strange, radical, unprecedented forces in America life, from his interracial background to his "radical friends," to his identification with post-Baby Boomer culture.
While Obama should fight both stereotypes, he should recognize that the second one is probably more politically damaging. This could be the first presidential election since 1964 when a majority of Americans would prefer a Liberal! Liberal! Liberal! to any sort of Republican. He shouldn't be defensive about his progressive principles and platform, and above all, he should not risk letting voters go into Election Day with serious doubts about who he is and what he would do as president. That would be an open door to sentiments ranging from racism to a simple fear of the unknown that could undermine all his built-in advantages in this election. And in terms of making voters comfortable with his identity and core values, he can and should make a special effort to get beyond the Wright controversy and display his own authentic faith and his unusually nuanced understanding of its role in public life. Don't fear the preacher.
Second of all, if only because John McCain will try to narrow the issues landscape to national security, Obama needs to avoid the temptation of changing the subject (an inveterate Democratic habit) and constantly articulate a strong, comprehensive vision of America's security challenges, in which his highly popular views on the Iraq War are part, not parcel. He can definitely do that, with or without help from national security validators, on or off the ticket. But thanks to the dynamics of the primary competition, supplemented by GOP attacks, all the majority of voters know about Obama on national security are his commitment to a speedy withdrawal from Iraq, and his pledge to negotiate with unfriendly states without preconditions. A determination to keep America safe, and specifically to use military force if necessary, should be the first, not the last, words he uses on national security issues.
Finally, Team Obama should fully utilize Obama's rhetorical skills, and the freedom he will enjoy to deploy them. He will be the first Democratic candidate in living memory with a significant financial advantage over the opposition. He will have every opportunity to get his message out and should ignore the boredom and cynicism of the campaign-weary chattering classes about his inspirational rhetoric. Obama's acceptance speech in Denver (on the 45th anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" address), will almost certainly be the most observed political speech in, well, history. It will be an unparalleled chance to solidify his identity, his message, and the choices faced by the electorate. It's the sort of opportunity that could move millions of voters. He should seize it.
23 comments
I agree totally that he should ignore snideness about his speechifying and use his rhetorical talents to the full. One charge that Hillary made that never worked was that Obama was full of hot air. He seemed to ride out that criticism; it was the Wright stuff that got him. He should also avoid the bowling/Pabst no-I'm-really-just-one-of-the-guys stuff. It comes across as false and, well, Clintonian. Reach out to these voters, of course. But he has a certain way of reaching out that works. He should stick with it.
He has a strength. Let others criticize that strangth, it's still a strength. The moment he seemed back in control of the primary race was not just NC and IN, but when he gave his speech that night. Barack was back, and Barack had been what worked.
- epicciuto
June 6, 2008 at 4:11pm
Excellent advice, Mr. Kilgore. It is a reflexive Democratic habit to turn away from security issues. That is what McCain will pivot his campaign around because he has little else to work with. The Republican brand is in particularly bad odor and the economy is tanking.
- liberal reformer
June 6, 2008 at 4:15pm
I disagree with the notion that he should avoid the "Pabst" moments. Symbolism is very important. He should speak to veterans groups. He should visit with sportsmen. He can't win the Wal-Mart vote without going to Wal-Mart.
- fougasseu
June 6, 2008 at 4:22pm
Interesting Op-ed in the Times by an astro-physicist who purports to show, based on a method created by two other astro-physicists, that if the election were held to today between Hillary would win and Obama would lose. This is purportedly based on looking at arrays of polls in key states.
The basic notion of looking at arrays of polls is one that I agree with and is more or less what I did in predicting the delegate outcomes from the end of February until NC-IN. However, considering that the guy writing the article purports to rely on the "median" of the polls but then actually discusses the "mode," one might wonder how much he really understands about statistical analysis in this context.
* * *
Having now seen the three TNR blogs on what Obama should do, that you can almost not assemble in a coherent way, I think there are only three sub-themes that the campaign can afford, more than that muddies the waters: jobs, oil, security. I say this in light of the plunging jobs report, the soaring oil price, and the ongoing mess in Iraq. Other things must be related to the three: health care is a matter of US competitiveness in the global jobs market, the environment is secured by ending our dependence on foreign oil, fair rules for globalization, etc. "Go it alone if we have to, but working through effective diplomacy, with friend and foe, so that go it alone is the last resort, not the first." In every instance, Obama needs to emphasize the manner in which his view is a 'change" from the "failed policies of Bush and McCain."
That's all because it is about as much as the national consciousness can handle. "Change" from the "failed policies of Bush and McCain" to achieve "secure, well-paying jobs for all Americans, oil independence, and freedom from terrorism."
- roidubouloi
June 6, 2008 at 4:22pm
Roid: What is going on here? The above is very sensible.
- liberal reformer
June 6, 2008 at 4:29pm
Well, liberal, maybe you're going to have to rethink your previously expressed view.
- roidubouloi
June 6, 2008 at 4:42pm
epiccuto and fougasseu, I think he needs to do a little of both. Surely, he should speak to veterans' groups, go to factories, and talk to sportsmen. Not doing so would mean he thought he didn't need certain groups' support. However, throwing back a Pabst (which I thought was more of the hipster's beer), hunting, or going bowling just to seem more like certain groups of people would be false and be condescending. America is diverse, and voters know when they're being pandered to (hopefully), and don't want their lifestyle to be used as a mask. Everybody is "everyman" in some way, as is Obama. If I were his campaign, I'd get someone to take a picture of him relaxing after a long day's campaigning by watching the NBA finals, maybe with a half-empty bottle of beer right next to him. It would be natural, unpretentious, and show his everyman side.
...or something similar would do too.
- bigfish
June 6, 2008 at 4:57pm
Roid: Don't rethink it, for God's sake, when you say something sensible, embrace it. This phenomenon is about as rare as an appearance by Halley's comet.
- liberal reformer
June 6, 2008 at 5:23pm
Man, this whole question fuckin' cracks me up 'what should Obama do...', here's my thoughts:
1. Get out of bed in the morning.
2. Don't fuck any kids.
3. Don't laugh in McCain's face.
4. Don't yell 'Allahu Akbar!' at any public events.
Wrong track is at 85%, unemployment and gas prices are skyrocketing, everyone hates the war. Oh I know, 4 more years of a GOP presidency... riiigggt.
There's no groundswell for McCain, no one gives a shit about his Harry Truman act. Now that there's plenty of time (HRC gone), barring a huge skeleton, this is an Obama landslide.
- mmathog
June 6, 2008 at 5:41pm
What Matt said, assuming Obama just hits it up the middle, plays it safe, steers every possible conversation back to the economy and health care. Avoid talking about foreign policy if and when you can.
It's about economic insecurity, stupid. Help the puppies, not the yuppies.
- teplukhin2you
June 6, 2008 at 7:30pm
roid,
Tyson should stick to the astrophysics. Aside from the fact that it is rather silly to be talking about median polls when there are only 2 or 3 polls in a state, the original model has been shown to work well for the 6-week period before the election, not for random 6-week periods 5 months out.
It's indisputable, however, that Clinton was polling very well in general election matchups during the last month or so of the campaign. What's debatable is whether those numbers should be taken at face value. Nate Silver (aka Poblano of fivethirtyeight.com) has a good article arguing that they shouldn't.
www.guardian.co.uk/.../strengthinnumbers
He makes a good point that I hadn't thought of before, which is that the Obama vs. McCain matchup is a real one, while the Clinton vs. McCain matchup is purely hypothetical. As he puts it, "The polls presume an instance in which Clinton spontaneously replaces Obama as the nominee - the "Obama is struck by lightning" scenario. But in order for Clinton to actually get from here to there, a lot of blood would be shed in the process." Whatever blood was shed for Obama to become the nominee (and there clearly was some: witness some of the lingering resentments in Hillaryland) should already be evident in the polls. That's not to say that Clinton wasn't making real progress; I tend to think she was, but it isn't really an apples-to-apples comparison.
Of course, it's irrelevant now, which is why I don't really see what the purpose of Tyson's article was.
- AlanSP
June 6, 2008 at 8:11pm
"It's about economic insecurity." Absolutely. People are broke. Broke financially, broke spiritually. They've lost confidence in the government's ability to be of help. Stop talking about helping the Iraqis, start talking about helping Americans.
- fougasseu
June 6, 2008 at 8:26pm
Obama should ignore all of us and keep listening to himself and his team of quiet geniuses.
He'd never be anywhere had he listened to CW. He should continue to keep politely ignoring us all.
- Wandreycer1
June 6, 2008 at 8:48pm
"Obama should ignore all of us and keep listening to himself and his team of quiet geniuses. "
*ding* *ding* *ding* We Have A Winner!
- GSpinks
June 6, 2008 at 9:20pm
Alan,
I agree with you completely. Without having had enough to time to look into it, I was suggesting that it seems unlikely that this guy's approach made sense. Among other things, I kept talking about there being 2-3 polls when there were a lot more than that. As well, the McCain/Clinton matchups have been in the realm of fantasy for a while and hence not meaningful. I also went and looked again at the state poll results available both at Rasmussen and RCP and couldn't see anything that looked like the data he was describing.
I do wonder what the purpose of the Times was.
- roidubouloi
June 6, 2008 at 11:43pm
sorry: "he kept talking about there being 2-3 polls when there were a lot more than that"
- roidubouloi
June 6, 2008 at 11:57pm
The suggestion, liberal, was that YOU rethink your previously expressed position. I wasn't offering to do so.
- roidubouloi
June 7, 2008 at 12:03am
Roid: Your last post shows how literalist you really are. And you commend humor to me. How funny but only uinintentionally. I knew very well what you meant and was making light of it. As i said before, your Guantanamo would consist of you being forced to read F. Kafka.
- liberal reformer
June 7, 2008 at 1:09am
Mr. Narcissism: I love the hysteriac in you - you capitalize YOU. It is revealing too; your Freudian slip where you "accidentally" inserted the first person singular for the third person singular.
- liberal reformer
June 7, 2008 at 1:11am
Liberal, the chance that you might understand anything at all written here at TNR, whether written by me or anyone else, is remote in the extreme. For example, it has yet to come to your attention that you are the object here of ridicule. What would Freud have to say about that, I wonder?
- roidubouloi
June 7, 2008 at 2:37am
Yes, yes, roid, I know, ridicule etc, but the thing is that LR isn't a person. I mean, there's obviously a human being doing the writing, but he/she is not a real poster in the same way as almost everyone else is around here. By "real" I mean that, when someone posts something, there is a kind of warranted basic assumption that the voice is saying what the individual behind it thinks, even if it's not a straight declaration of opinion.
Wiliamyard for example posts a lot of weird and wonderful shit, but it's clear that it's him -- it's not someone casually moving in and out of the "williamyard" identity, taking up and dropping a personality as it suits.
LR's little game will come out, eventually.
- ironyroad
June 7, 2008 at 3:13am
Ironyroad: You and roid in bed together, hilarious. I am about the most transparent person you will - thank God! - never meet. I do not shift personae whatsoever. I am capacious and therefore it shortcircuits your minimalist neocortex. I obviously gotten under your (thin) skin because you keep posting on behalf of your bunk mate. I am effective, that is why you dislike me. Williamyard is a great poster, better than you could hope to be in a million years but he is non-threatening to you. If he started calling some of you jerks down, he would recieve the same traetment as I do.
- liberal reformer
June 7, 2008 at 2:28pm
I know, I know. Don't worry about it.
- ironyroad
June 7, 2008 at 4:06pm