marbury

obama-isms

Earlier this week Obama made a speech in New Mexico, on Memorial Day. Here's an extract:

On this memorial day, as our nation honours its unbroken line of fallen heroes - and I see many of them in the audience here today - our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.

He sees dead people!

Although there was a bit of online snickering at this mistake, it didn't draw much attention. Now, imagine if Bush had made it. Or McCain. The media and the public would have seen it as evidence of, respectively, Stupidity and Senility.

It's another example of the power of a frame to determine our responses - or lack of responses - to what a politician does or says. Obama's gaffes - for there are a growing number of them - haven't attracted much attention because they don't match up neatly to our conventional assumptions about him. After his latest - the Auschwitz claim - that may start to change.

How might Obama's frame shift? People are unlikely to start thinking Obama is Stupid. They may just start to believe he's Dishonest, as the RNC hope. But I think it's just as likely his gaffes will feed a perception that has been seeded by The Dark Prince himself, Karl Rove.

Rove thinks Obama is lazy, and has said so. He portrays Obama as a man with considerable intellectual and personal gifts who has coasted through life, skimping on the hard work, using his quick mind, easy charm, and perhaps the colour of his skin (Rove doesn't say that, but I get a sense he wants to stoke up a bit of anti-affirmative action sentiment - there may be a drop of racist stereotyping in the tag itself) to bluff his way through.

The danger for Obama is that his mistakes come to be seen as a signal that he's unprepared for the hard work and focused concentration needed for the highest office in the land - and that he's an essentially superficial character.

He ought to get more sleep.

last days?

Between now and Tuesday, three events that may well mark the end of this extraordinary Democratic nomination battle:

• Today, in the arid confines of a Marriott hotel meeting room in Washington D.C, the members of the Democratic National Council's Rules and Byelaws Committee will meet to agree a solution to the problem of seating the Michigan and Florida delegations. If that sentence doesn't get your blood pumping, well...I'm not surprised. But it is a crucial step in the resolution of this contest. Michigan and Florida broke the party rules by holding their primaries earlier than they were supposed to because they wanted more influence over the process (why does Iowa get all the attention?). Clinton won both handily (but as nobody was allowed to campaign there, and she was the best-known candidate, that was inevitable). She is now trying to claw the delegates she won in those states back, with the help of lots of lawyers. The DNC's bind is this: it wants the voters in both states to feel that their votes counted - not least because both are key states in November - but they don't want any old state thinking they can get away with such shenanigans. So they're likely to arrive at a compromise, involving awarding half the delegates to the winner, or something like that (for a more detailed elucidation of possible outcomes, go here). The only outcome that might conceivably make a difference to the outcome of the race is if all the delegates are seated, and that, frankly, ain't gonna happen. Anyway, after today, the dust should have settled on this legalistic but crucial question. And Michigan and Florida party leaders can reflect on the fact that if they'd held their primaries as originally arranged, and Clinton had won them as she might well have albeit by smaller margins, then their delegates might have tipped a close contest the other way thus giving them much more influence over the process than before. Ah, hindsight.

• On Sunday, Puerto Rico holds its primary. It's a US territory rather than a state and hence it doesn't get to vote in the general. But of course its voters have strong ties to many Hispanic voters on the mainland, and both candidates have spent time and effort there (UPDATE - Obama not so much; see Toby's comment below), despite the fact that Clinton is expected to win handily. Although the delegates she wins in PR won't make much difference at this stage, a huge win could push up Clinton's popular vote total and hence her bargaining power with Obama and the party. She has been helped in this by a momentous endorsement from someone else who was big in the nineties.

• On Tuesday, the last 2008 primaries will be held. Yes, you may read that sentence again. The two last states are Montana and South Dakota. Obama will win Montana. South Dakota is a closer call, but there aren't many polls to go on -  nobody seems to be paying much attention. Whatever happens, Obama will all but declare victory on Tuesday night (he's rumoured to have booked an interesting venue in which to do so).

What will Clinton do? Only she knows.

the boy can't help it

Here is Bill Clinton's schedule for the next four days:

President Clinton will return to South Dakota on Friday, May 30, attending “Solutions for America” events in Spearfish, Mitchell, and Vermillion.
 
President Clinton will continue campaigning for Hillary on Saturday, May 31 in Elk Point, Canton, Dell Rapids, Flandreau, and Madison. Chelsea Clinton will join him in Dell Rapids.
 
President Bill Clinton will return to Montana this Sunday, June 1, attending campaign events in Stevensville, Anaconda, Great Falls, and Helena.
 
On Monday, June 2, President Clinton will attend campaign events in Watertown, Milbank, Sisseton, Webster, Aberdeen, and Sioux Falls.

That's eighteen events in four days; at least four events every day. This, in what most consider to be the dying days of the campaign. And he's not even the candidate. Surely the behaviour of a man a who has rediscovered an old addiction and is revelling in it.

Amongst all the various theories of why the Clintons are continuing to campaign, perhaps the simplest and most convincing one is that they love it.

obama's 'looking-off-into-the-future' pose

The Onion reports on Obama's pose strategy:

As the 2008 presidential election draws closer, Democrat Barack Obama has reportedly been working tirelessly with his top political strategists to perfect his looking-off-into-the-future pose, which many believe is vital to the success of the Illinois senator's campaign.

When performed correctly, the pose involves Obama standing upright with his back arched and his chest thrust out, his shoulders positioned 1.3 feet apart and opened slightly at a 14-degree angle, and his eyes transfixed on a predetermined point between 500 and 600 yards away. Advisers say this creates the illusion that Obama is looking forward to a bright future, while the downturned corners of his lips indicate that he acknowledges the problems of the present.

paxo americana

Just caught up with this, and it's fun. It features the American Jeremy Paxman (sort of), Chris Matthews, taking apart a talk radio pundit who is throwing around the word 'appeasement' without knowing what it means. It gets really good about 3:50 in.

clintonian psychoanalysis

Hillary's current, somewhat elegaic stump speech contains the following passage:

I don’t run for president because I need any more publicity. I don’t run for president because I need the adulation or the celebrity.

Usually when Clinton or Obama talk about why they're running for president they do so to contrast their motivation with their opponent's, and I think that's what Hillary is doing here. Reading those remarks reminded me of Bill Clinton's recent suggestion that he and Obama, both raised by single mothers, share some deep psychological traits:

I think I understand him. There are enough similarities in our childhoods and things that I think I get what he is doing.

Perhaps this is the Clintons' joint theory about Obama: that he has the young Bill's desperate need for adulation - to replace the lack engendered by an absent father - without the political substance that the Arkansas Governor had accumulated by 1992.

mccain's taste for the high life - and the low life

 

The New York Times has a profile piece up about McCain's transition from the military to politics. It contains lots of passages like this:

A trip to Asia in late 1978 cemented their bond. Mr. McCain and the two senators stole away from official briefings to stroll in Tokyo’s Ginza district of nightclubs and restaurants, visit the Temple of the Reclining Buddha in Bangkok and take a memorable midnight tour of what Mr. Hart remembered as that city’s “light and dark sides.”

Gosh I wonder what the 'dark side' of Bangkok is? I shouldn't imagine, given Gary Hart's reputation for moral rectitude, that those boys got up to anything they wouldn't want to tell their pastor about. McCain later falls under the wing of John Tower, another man famous for his aversion to alcohol and loose women.

In fact, the whole piece is threaded with references to boozing and philandering, made in the usual coy code of the NYT. Now, these years cover the time between McCain's two marriages, and he wasn't an elected politician at the time, and he probably deserved a bit of fun after five years in a prison camp, and so on. But given the kind of character he is, or has been, it makes you wonder if stories of more recent misdemeanours are going to surface during the campaign. In particular, stories of marital infidelity (the NYT nearly but couldn't quite bring itself to break at least one).

If they do, will they hurt him? You'd think they might. Religious conservatives who already have their doubts about him would have another reason to stay home on election day. On the other hand, maybe the odd sex scandal would make him seem younger and more virile?

murdoch thinks mccain is a dead parrot

Rupert Murdoch, normally quite cautious in his public pronouncements on politics, made a bold prediction yesterday: Obama will win the general election. He thinks McCain is too erratic, too ignorant of economics, and has been around in Washington too long to win.

He doesn't even get on to McCain's biggest problems.

I have a feeling that the perception of Obama as the strong favourite in this race will become conventional wisdom over the next three months.

viral rebuttal

A valiant attempt by Obama supporters to create an antidote to the most persistent online rumours about their candidate:

can she still do it?

Adam Boulton cautions against the conventional wisdom that Obama has this sewn up. He outlines Clinton's two-pronged strategy: first, hammering home to superdelegates that she is the safer bet in a battle with McCain, based on current polling evidence. Second, challenging the legitimacy of the whole primary process to date (Adam says the Clinton team is drawing up a legal challenge to this effect).

I'm all for unconventional wisdom, but I think Adam's reading of the Clinton strategy is wrong. Even these most ferocious of fighters know the game is up. Do they really envisage a path to the nomination that includes a legal battle with the party, and the savage internecine warfare that would result from an attempt to overthrow the presumptive nominee? I don't think so: the Clintons know that if they lost this battle, as they almost certainly would, both of their reputations would be destroyed in the party for good. Her political future would be over.

No, I think the Clintons are using the two prongs Adam identifies to frame a possible 2012 bid. First, they want everyone to be absolutely clear that We told you so when/if Obama loses to McCain in November. Second, they want the party to change the rules for electing nominees - eliminating caucuses - so that Clinton has a better chance of winning in 2012 (when she might even be up against Obama again).