Something to Talk About

The NY Times graphically shows the partisan differences between the convention speakers:

What stands out from this chart is:

Joe Lieberman said NOTHING.

Bill Clinton strayed from the foreign policy message the Obama camp had wanted -- but was rendered a non-issue considering his full-throated endorsement of the Democratic nominee.

Sarah Palin attacked the Dems less often (or perhaps less overtly) than my initial, real-time impression. Does this means her vindictiveness was subtle and snarky? If so, this is a trecherous path for a new candidate (at the risk of being called a sexist, it's especially perilous for a female) to tread.

Moreover, the Republicans simply echoed the call for change. Since anyone with half a brain has known since the 2006 midterms this would be a change election, it seems they're playing a desperate game of catch-up.

The Clock is Ticking...

In the wake of the Republican Rapture in St. Paul it might be easy to overlook the potentially fatal weakness still haunting the McCain campaign.

McCain's desperate need to solidify his base going into St. Paul (resulting in the electrifying "roll of the dice" pick of pistol-packing Palin) means he lost his biggest opportunity to address the concerns of moderate voters.

Obama has been speaking to the middle/independent voters for MONTHS - even while the campaign was still battling Hillary in full primary mode. And what was McCain doing on Labor Day? Shoring up his far right base. Nothing that he or his surrogates said in Minnesota was aimed at attracting the middle or addressing the top concerns of the American electorate. It was nothing more than red meat for the Red Staters.

For a candidate who represents a shrinking party, playing to the base is simply not enough to win an election. It's clear McCain remains months behind with only two months ago.

Politics 101 says playing to your base this late in the game is a sure way to lose an election. Of course, as with almost everything else that has happened in this crazy campaign, this may rule may not apply.

Will Working Women Embrace Sarah?

Typically, I choose to watch events like Sarah Palin's convention speech on C-Span, in virtual isolation without the filter of the media's chatter. Last night I was only able to catch partial snippets of Palin's speech live and out in public. This provided the opportunity to gauge the reaction of average citizens.

As the Palin selection has been viewed as a play for women voters, the reactions of the women during the speech were quite interesting, if only anectdotal. Most were saying such "un-PC" things like, "How can she do that to her 17-year-old daughter? Putting her on a national stage like that?" Or, "How can she talk about a special needs child needing more attention and then go out on the road campaigning for the next two months?" The consensus emerged, "No mother I know would make these choices."

This morning, Mika Brzezinski over at MSNBC's Morning Joe is gushing over how Palin spoke to her as a professional woman. She berated Lawrence O'Donnell for saying, "There are lots of middle class families wondering, 'who's taking care of all those kids?'" She was completely offended and described the question as unfair and sexist.

This may indeed be true. However, I think there are LOTS of Americans - male and female - looking at this family and trying to imagine if they would have made the same decisions. Polling this accurately is probably impossible because the questions regarding family are personal and complex.

Despite decades of striving forward, women still bear the brunt of our society's expectations when it comes to parenting. This is why some professional women are going to be offended by questions they believe (perhaps rightly) shouldn't be asked of a female candidate. At the same time, other working women are likely to ask the questions I heard last night.

The Game Has Changed

I am coming to the conclusion that the Palin pick was, indeed a game changer. A few things worth watching over the next couple of weeks:

1) The Palin image is still under construction - and the jury may be out for quite some time regarding how she will be ultimately perceived. Despite today's media hyper-speculation I don't think tonight's speech is actually a "make or break" situation. Think about how many moments over the past 18 months that the chattering class made a similar prediction about Obama's situation. Her sixty-day introduction to the American people is going to be a minefield for the McCain campaign. This morning some media are reporting Palin may not be out on the campaign until after Sept 11 - when her son ships off to Iraq. Will she be seen as a reformer? Or a hypocritical opportunist?

2) Will McCain's camp be successful in deflecting criticism of Palin by using the "sexism" card? Campaign surrogate Carly Fiorina was on MSNBC this afternoon using a diabolical argument that went along the lines,

"The Democratic Party stood by while Hillary Clinton was subjected to incredible sexism in the media. The Republican Party is not going to stand by. And I don't believe that millions of American women are going to stand by. Whether they agree with Sarah Palin or not, I think women are highly sensitized now to sexism. And when someone of accomplishment is described more as a show horse than a work horse women recognize that for what it is. It's sexism."

Somehow, the Republicans think they're going to claim the mantle of post-partisan feminists. It's a classic Rovian twist - take one of your opponent's strengths and turn it into a potential point of weakness. In this case, they've been lured by the Angry Hillary Voter, believing they can continue dividing the electorate - and convincing some disaffected group to vote against their own self-interest. It's coupled with their tried and true attacks on the media as biased against conservatives.

3) How does the 'love affair' between McCain and the media end? Typically, relationships built on illusions and deception come crashing to bitter ends, with recriminations all around. The media had been awakening to the real McCain (if he ever was a 'maverick,' he certainly hadn't been acting like one during the primaries) over the summer. I don't think the total surprise of the Palin pick is going to wear well within the tradmed, his core constituency.

Remember those old "I Can't Believe It's Butter!" commercials where the woman cloaked in flowing white bellowed, "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature!!!" Well, the media is another -(un)natural force and I don't think they like being played for fools or targeted as scapegoats. The media was clearly frustrated by Obama's 3AM text message to supporters announcing the Biden pick (as it took them out of the dialogue). That frustration may have been overwhelmed by the absolute surprise of McCain picking Palin. Already disoriented by their rapidly evolving and now less familiar role in modern politics, these latest developments may have awakened a docile press corps. Both campaigns could be subjected to heightened scrutiny as a result.

4) Where is the storyline about the disunity in the Republican Party? After the breathless media coverage of the barely existent "Hillary-Bill-Barack" schism leading up to Denver, the silence about the Ron Paul shadow convention going on in Minneapolis, the bruised Romney ego after being shunted aside as a VP, and the reopened rift between Dubya and McCain is remarkable.

The fact that the Palin pick plays well within the convention hall (she gets louder applause than McCain does almost universally) means there are far more differences within the Republican party than the media is covering. In fact, her selection by McCain is an admission of his own unpopularity with the base. But, the question lingers, "Are the establishment republicans (fiscal conservatives and national security hawks) happy about this pick?" They're being drowned out on the convention floor (and the spinners are remaining faithful to the RNC talking points) but are these rank-and-file voters energized or disheartened by Palin as the number 2?

5) The Palin pick has electrified the base on social issues and has threatened to subvert BOTH campaigns' main messaging objectives. Obama and the Democrats want to talk issues - economy, Iraq, energy - while the McCain camp wanted to resurrect his moderate maverick image. Everything is being drowned by social issues. Within the St Paul cocoon this may seem smart, but whether this translates into a successful general election campaign is uncertain. The elevation of the divisive social issues may -incite- excite the conservative base but there is a huge risk (for Republicans) that a significant backlash from the middle could overwhelm them.

A week ago, in the wake of Obama's once in a lifetime speech, I thought 'the only thing the Dems are missing this year is a 1992 Pat Buchanan hate speech from the GOP convention.' At the time, it was pure fantasy. Now, after watching the conservative rapture in St. Paul, I wouldn't be surprised if someone unpacks the pitchforks tonight.

It's been said before but it's worth repeating: this is the election year of a lifetime.

Palin' in Comparison

Twelve hours ago, after a Mile High acceptance speech, the chattering classes were awestruck.

This morning, they're simply dumbstruck.

Sarah Palin? Really?

Moving Goalposts Arrive in Denver

I realize now that those shifting goalposts from the primary season may have been much more media-created than I previously understood.

Last night I was impressed by Hillary's speech after having been firmly ensconced in the ABC (Anybody But Clinton) Camp throughout the primaries. This morning, I found myself amazed, enraged and ashamed by how the media is pushing the PUMA-driven "Clintonistas are bitter" storyline so aggressively.

I'm exhausted by the media's relentless handwringing (and schizophrenic) chorus.

First, they told us, "Michelle must define herself and allow voters to become comfortable with her family"
initial reviews: CHECK
"Good job. But where was the red meat?" Is there any rational human (other than those who receive the RNC's daily talking points email) who believes the image of an angry, on-the-attack Mrs. Obama would have endeared her to undecided voters?

Next they turned their obsession to Hillary's Herculean task. "How can Hillary pivot and transfer the support of her 18-million strong army to become part of Barack's Battalion? Will she look genuine? Or will she come off as readying her 2012 bid?"
initial reviews: missions accomplished!
Well, she was good - maybe her best speech ever, in fact. But, wait, come to think of it, you know she forgot to mention whether or not she now feels Obama is ready to receive that 3 AM call. And, look, here's an angry white woman who still seems dissatisfied that the system robbed Hillary. Cleary, she left some work undone.

Where are all the critiques of the Bush/Cheney administration? Why haven't they hung that 24% approval rating around McCain's neck? They're missing their opportunity! Is this Kerry '04 redux? When will the Democrats learn politics is a contact sport? All the time they're saying this, speaker after speaker is on the podium denouncing Bush, McCain and failed Republican policies.

The media opts to air more of themselves bloviating about the real issue before voters: Bill Clinton feels dissed by the upstart and aloof Barack Obama.

So, today we're treated to "What will Bill say? And, what will he look like while he's saying it? Will he look like he's passing a kidney stone? Will he wag his finger? Even more importantly, what will he be thinking when he says it?

Thankfully, we have Dr. Maureen Dowd to help us with that analysis.

Oh, and by the way, Obama speaking in front of 75,000 people - that just reinforces this celebrity thing dontcha think? Politicians should be serious and not really popular. American leaders should be plodding and boring - not inspirational. Maybe if he had spent time in a POW camp, he would understand how unwise it is to make the most important speech of his lifetime in such a public venue.

The inevitable result is an unwinnable situation where Democrats are confronted by an endgame with bogus goalposts, impossible Catch-22s created by morning after psychologists and manufactured drama driven by a minority who are desperate for their fifteen seconds of fame (yes, in the youtube era, Warhol's prediction has been truncated into nothing more than a sound bite).

I've taken to watching the convention on CSPAN, where there is no bloviating media telling me what to think. I'm hoping Barack and Plouffe have made a similar decision.

UPDATE 3:26, 8/26/08: The Boston Globe's editors share my affinity for CSPAN's convention coverage.

GALLUP: Campaign 2008 Cliff Notes

Gallup's "Quick Read on the Election" provides a presidential campaign overview as we approach the unprecedented "back-to-back" party conventions. After the two week hiatus provided by the IOC, the roller-coaster is about to begin. How do the "experts" see the general election shaping up?

Not surprisingly, the Gallup Gate Keepers reinforce the traditional media's prevailing narrative. Despite the Democrats' "structural" election advantage (Democrats are viewed much more favorably than the GOP and more Americans are identifying as Democrats), Obama is underperforming in national polls. His average lead of three points throughout the summer indicates a third straight close election. While both nominees-in-waiting have solidified their partisan coalitions (despite the coverage some outlets have provided to the PUMAs), neither McCain nor Obama has exhibited either partisan cross-over appeal or the ability to build a significant lead among independent voters necessary to alter this "50/50 Nation" dynamic.

Pattern of candidate support is similar to 2000 and 2004 elections. Obama's strengths: non-white race and ethnic groups, including blacks and Hispanics; 18-29; those with postgraduate educations; women; those with very low incomes; those who have no religious identification/for whom religion is not important/do not attend church; those who are unmarried. McCain's strengths: non-Hispanic whites; 65 and older; those who are married; white Protestants and non-Catholic Christians; whites who attend church frequently/for whom religion is important.

Ever-helpful, the pollsters also raise a couple of red flags for the Obama campaign, reinforcing the nervous hand-wringing among nervous Democrats watching national and state polls tightening.

Current position of the candidates predicts little. In previous two elections, both candidates who lead polls in summer, pre-convention (Bush in 2000, Kerry in 2004), ended up losing the popular vote.

History predicts modest bounces for candidates when they make their vice presidential announcements and after their conventions. This year, all of this will be compressed in a short two-week period in late August/early September. Back-to-back conventions are unprecedented. Voters will have a steady stream of election input. Bounce will likely follow bounce. This could be one of most fascinating times in presidential election history. Standings after conventions will be critical.

Earlier this summer, Gallup reminded political junkies that the July polling leader has lost six of the last nine close presidential elections. History clearly isn't on Obama's side, the chattering class warns. The failure to close the deal (despite leading McCain in national polling since February, which is VERY different from the polling swings witnessed in both 2000 and 2004) means Obama's candidacy could be following Gore and Kerry to electoral defeat. As if on cue, a chorus of "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" has risen from Chicken Little Democrats who fear yet another defeat in the wake of what was once deemed near-certain victory.

And don't overlook the 2008 convention calendar quirk. The back-to-back conventions – particularly during this era of the 24/7 never-ending news cycle – may negate the Mile High Convention/VP selection bounce many Democratic activists and media talking heads anticipate. The electorate's short attention span and the media's rapid transition from Denver to St. Paul may lessen (or even erase) the Democratic bounce. If this happens, expect the chattering class to start more clucking about Barack's "failure to seal the deal." The fate of his candidacy will come down to the debates. The punditocracy will fretfully ask, "Will Obama lose the election with a "Gore sigh"? And Democratic partisans will sweat it out, fearful of history repeating itself.

But, wait. Not so fast.

Gallup provides Obama a lifeline. And it's one Team Obama has been aware of all along.

Turnout will be a key factor. Obama would benefit from unusual (and unprecedented) enthusiasm among young voters and minority voters. McCain would benefit from a more typical higher turnout among Republicans, highly religious white voters. Results of likely voter modeling this summer so far have been mixed.

Note what they're saying here. It is young voters (who until this past primary season had historically been one of the least engaged voting blocs) who hold the key to an Obama victory. The Democrats' unprecedented investment in field offices, grassroots organizing, voter registration and Election Day GOTV efforts is critical and unpredictable. If the pollsters can't confidently identify which voters will actually show up at the polls, it is difficult to provide accurate polling numbers. If the Democrats are successful in increasing the youth vote (combined with even a slight uptick in minority participation), the polls may be irrelevant – and horrifically inaccurate. This is without considering the underrepresentation of voters under 35, whose reliance on cell phones places them beyond the reach of traditional polling.

At the same time, McCain is forced to rely on an unmotivated (and shrinking) Republican base. Nothing indicates the enthusiasm gap the Democrats have enjoyed (in fundraising, voter id and voter interest) over the past year and a half has closed. On the eve of the Mile High convention, Pew tells us the electorate is much more interested in the Democratic shindig than the Republican pow-wow. Unless the conventions and VP picks dramatically alter the dynamics, Obama's investment in grassroots infrastructure may be the difference-maker this November.

Finally, Gallup's last point moves beyond the horse race and to the issues which may determine how the electorate will decide:

Top voter issues this year skew towards the domestic, in particular economy and energy. Iraq, healthcare, and terrorism remain important. Obama's perceived strengths: domestic issues, compassion, empathy, bringing about change. McCain's perceived strengths: experience, international issues, terrorism, viewed as capable commander in chief. A continuing uptick in consumer confidence and increase in perceived success in Iraq could benefit McCain.

I don't agree with Gallup's conclusion. Following months of an economy mired in a severe stall, it's rather late in the game for an "uptick in consumer confidence" to make a difference in how Americans feel about the general direction of the country. If Team Obama succeeds in tying McCain to the Bush economic policies, it's difficult to see how the Republican can overtake the Democrat on these domestic concerns.

The electorate's feelings about Iraq also seem firmly set. McCain will continue and elevate the fearmongering. The Islamofascist threat, memories of 9-11, a new Cold War with the Russians on the march – every fear card the Republicans have in their ghoulish deck will be played as they hope to divert the public's attention from the pocketbook issues. Foreign policy remains a wild card, but Joe Biden as a VP pick minimizes McCain's advantage, at least at first glance. Essentially, the last eight weeks of the general election campaign is going to come down to whether Americans want change or the status quo.