As the current election campaign has drawn on, the economy has slowly displaced all other issues in contention. However, a sizeable amount of swing voters are going to make their decisions based on the character of the candidates, rather than any major policy differences. In this respect, it is interesting to look at how the candidates have portrayed their respective backgrounds.
Barack Obama has, in one sense, had a harder time of it. After all, he cannot go on too much about race without being accused of playing the race card, which is regarded as a dangerous move, to put it mildly. A number of African-American candidates, notably Jesse Jackson in 1988, have overplayed the race card, and suffered in his campaign, which became increasingly polarised along racial lines.
Obama also has another advantage, in that the African-American vote is firmly behind him already. As a result, he is attempting to portray himself as a post-racial candidate, who was born too late to take part in the culture wars of the 1960s, or to have been a major civil-rights figure. While he has had a number of trip-ups, most notably the debacle over Reverend Jeremiah Wright, he is currently managing the difficult act of keeping African-Americans fired up about his candidacy, while reassuring non-blacks that he is a safe bet as well.
John McCain's background is more firmly rooted in the polarisation of American politics that began in the 1960s. His character, as presented to the media, is firmly rooted in his service in Vietnam, and the five years he spent as a POW there. Unlike Obama, who is secure in his voter base and is now trying to court independents and moderate Republicans, McCain has still not fully stifled doubts among the evangelical right about his candidacy. While the selection of Sarah Palin undoubtedly helped, McCain is still trying to shore up his position, and reminding them that he served in Vietnam, and has the scars to prove it, is one way of trying to encourage a high turnout.
Unfortunately, this places John McCain firmly on one side of the partisan divide. The Vietnam War scarred a generation of Americans. While there are undoubtedly many people who regard McCain as a hero and patriot as a result of his service, there are also a large number who regard Vietnam as something best forgotten, or as a stain on American history in which McCain played a brutal part, flying bombing missions agains North Vietnamese cities.
As a result, both candidates have taken differing approaches to the things that defined them. On the one hand, Barack Obama may end up falling victim to racial polarisation anyway. On the other, John McCain would do well to remember that, alongside that of the angry black man, the angry Vietnam vet is a dangerous stereotype to conform to.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Debate 3
The third presidential debate has been referred to, with some justification, as John McCain's last stand. After a string of bad news in the polls, coupled with a widespread perception that Barack Obama won the first two debates, McCain now needs the third debate to be a convincing victory.
As a result, we can expect McCain to go all out for victory this time around. He will be trying to avoid the mistakes that affected his performance in the previous two debates, such as failing to look his opponent in the eye, or the farcical "that one" comment. In terms of content, expect attacks on Obama's character. William Ayers, Tony Rezko, and Jeremiah Wright will probably be referenced, as well as Obama's youth and lack of experience.
In addition, McCain needs to sound strong on economic issues. His latest plan, a $300,000,000,000 mortgage bailout, needs to be fleshed out, and sold to a sceptical audience. He needs to remind people that foreign policy will be a central part of the next president's term, and that this is where he is strongest. He must, above all, avoid appearing uncertain, or making any major gaffes.
For Barack Obama, the challenge is perhaps simpler. All he needs to do is avoid a major error, and in this case a draw will be as good as a win for him. He is likely to have a lot of mud flung at him by McCain, and not losing his cool in the face of this will be important. He may take the opportunity to raise questions about McCain's involvement in the Keating Scandal in the 1980s, though the efficacy of this might be doubtful.
Each candidate will try to frame the debate around their strengths. Obama has to make sure that he retains his lead on economic issues, while McCain will have to find some way of undercutting this. McCain will also have to try and make inroads into Obama's healthcare plans. As the stockmarket has gone downhill, a large number of elderly Americans now find their financial security at risk, and polls have consistently shown that people believe that Obama is more likely to fix the healthcare crisis.
Barack Obama and John McCain have different objectives from this debate. Obama must try to stay cool and solidify the public perceptions of him as a better manager of the economy and healthcare, while McCain has to damage Obama enough, either through refuting his policies or attacking his character, to bring himself back into the race. If he fails to do so, his already dwindling chances in this campaign will look even slimmer.
As a result, we can expect McCain to go all out for victory this time around. He will be trying to avoid the mistakes that affected his performance in the previous two debates, such as failing to look his opponent in the eye, or the farcical "that one" comment. In terms of content, expect attacks on Obama's character. William Ayers, Tony Rezko, and Jeremiah Wright will probably be referenced, as well as Obama's youth and lack of experience.
In addition, McCain needs to sound strong on economic issues. His latest plan, a $300,000,000,000 mortgage bailout, needs to be fleshed out, and sold to a sceptical audience. He needs to remind people that foreign policy will be a central part of the next president's term, and that this is where he is strongest. He must, above all, avoid appearing uncertain, or making any major gaffes.
For Barack Obama, the challenge is perhaps simpler. All he needs to do is avoid a major error, and in this case a draw will be as good as a win for him. He is likely to have a lot of mud flung at him by McCain, and not losing his cool in the face of this will be important. He may take the opportunity to raise questions about McCain's involvement in the Keating Scandal in the 1980s, though the efficacy of this might be doubtful.
Each candidate will try to frame the debate around their strengths. Obama has to make sure that he retains his lead on economic issues, while McCain will have to find some way of undercutting this. McCain will also have to try and make inroads into Obama's healthcare plans. As the stockmarket has gone downhill, a large number of elderly Americans now find their financial security at risk, and polls have consistently shown that people believe that Obama is more likely to fix the healthcare crisis.
Barack Obama and John McCain have different objectives from this debate. Obama must try to stay cool and solidify the public perceptions of him as a better manager of the economy and healthcare, while McCain has to damage Obama enough, either through refuting his policies or attacking his character, to bring himself back into the race. If he fails to do so, his already dwindling chances in this campaign will look even slimmer.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
The Electoral Map Shifts
One of the most telling moments in the election so far was when John McCain shut down his campaign in Michigan. The state had been carried by John Kerry by a margin of only 3 points in 2004, and it had been widely targeted by the McCain camp as a possible insurance policy against a defeat in Ohio. However, as the campaign wore on, it became clear that the state was going to remain blue, and resources had to be shifted to counter Barack Obama's increasing inroads in traditionally Republican states.
As a result, John McCain's strategy now hinges on defending all the states that George Bush won in 2004, and targeting a few potentially vulnerable Democratic ones. Only four states, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania fall into this category, and of these, only Pennsylvania is big enough to offset the loss of Ohio or Florida, both of which look to be a challenge for the Republicans to hold. In addition, in all of the above states, Barack Obama is holding a reasonable lead at the moment.
The Obama camp started out with grand ideas about redrawing the electoral map, making headway into the South, and turning traditionally red states like Georgia into battlefields. While this has not quite been achieved, there is no doubt that McCain will have to defend a lot of states that were previously thought safe.
At this point, there is a strong chance that Iowa and New Mexico, which voted for Bush in 2004, will fall to the Democrats. This puts Barack Obama on 264 Electoral College votes, tantalisingly close to the 270 he needs to be elected. To get the extra six he needs, Obama has plenty of options. He could flip traditional swing states such as Ohio or Florida, either of which would put him in the White House even without Iowa and New Mexico. Alternatively, a gaggle of states have been put in play by John McCain's recent slump in the polls. Virginia, which hasn't voted for a Democratic candidate since 1964, or Missouri, which has been regarded as a bellweather state for decades, would both fall into this category. Virginia, in particular, has been trending Democratic in recent years. It's governor, Tim Kaine, is a Democrat, as is one of its senators, Jim Webb. In addition, when Republican senator John Warner steps down this year, his most likely successor will be a Democrat, Mark Warner (no relation).
Perhaps the biggest indicator of the scale of the swing towards Obama is that the McCain campaign is now on the defensive in North Carolina, a Deep South state which hasn't voted Democrat since the days of segregation. In addition, recent appearances by the candidates in Republican strongholds like Indiana and West Virginia suggest that McCain's campaign has serious worries about their vulnerability, and there is a genuine fear among Republicans that they could be trounced in this election, and reduced to a rump of safe states in the Deep South and the Midwest, making a 2012 comeback a difficult prospect.
John McCain faces a daunting task. Assuming that Iowa and New Mexico fall to Obama, he cannot lose a single other state. Given the current political climate, the idea of him holding onto all of Nevada, Colorado, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, and West Virginia borders on the miraculous. Unfortunately, he has no choice but to try.
As a result, John McCain's strategy now hinges on defending all the states that George Bush won in 2004, and targeting a few potentially vulnerable Democratic ones. Only four states, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania fall into this category, and of these, only Pennsylvania is big enough to offset the loss of Ohio or Florida, both of which look to be a challenge for the Republicans to hold. In addition, in all of the above states, Barack Obama is holding a reasonable lead at the moment.
The Obama camp started out with grand ideas about redrawing the electoral map, making headway into the South, and turning traditionally red states like Georgia into battlefields. While this has not quite been achieved, there is no doubt that McCain will have to defend a lot of states that were previously thought safe.
At this point, there is a strong chance that Iowa and New Mexico, which voted for Bush in 2004, will fall to the Democrats. This puts Barack Obama on 264 Electoral College votes, tantalisingly close to the 270 he needs to be elected. To get the extra six he needs, Obama has plenty of options. He could flip traditional swing states such as Ohio or Florida, either of which would put him in the White House even without Iowa and New Mexico. Alternatively, a gaggle of states have been put in play by John McCain's recent slump in the polls. Virginia, which hasn't voted for a Democratic candidate since 1964, or Missouri, which has been regarded as a bellweather state for decades, would both fall into this category. Virginia, in particular, has been trending Democratic in recent years. It's governor, Tim Kaine, is a Democrat, as is one of its senators, Jim Webb. In addition, when Republican senator John Warner steps down this year, his most likely successor will be a Democrat, Mark Warner (no relation).
Perhaps the biggest indicator of the scale of the swing towards Obama is that the McCain campaign is now on the defensive in North Carolina, a Deep South state which hasn't voted Democrat since the days of segregation. In addition, recent appearances by the candidates in Republican strongholds like Indiana and West Virginia suggest that McCain's campaign has serious worries about their vulnerability, and there is a genuine fear among Republicans that they could be trounced in this election, and reduced to a rump of safe states in the Deep South and the Midwest, making a 2012 comeback a difficult prospect.
John McCain faces a daunting task. Assuming that Iowa and New Mexico fall to Obama, he cannot lose a single other state. Given the current political climate, the idea of him holding onto all of Nevada, Colorado, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, and West Virginia borders on the miraculous. Unfortunately, he has no choice but to try.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The Gloves come off
In an election that was being fought between two men who have put huge amounts of efforts into talking up their bipartisan skills, it was perhaps disappointing to see the slew of negative campaigning that emerged in the past week or so. Both candidates have tried to smear the other, most notably when Sarah Palin used Barack Obama's tenuous association with Bill Ayers, a former founder of the Weather Underground who is now a respected college professor, to claim that Obama was "palling around with terrorists". However, Obama has also shot back with some ads of his own that both tarnish John McCain and fail what Karl Rove once referred to as "the 100% truth test".
In McCain's case, it is perhaps more understandable. He is quite clearly out of his depth on the issues side of things. As the economy takes centre stage to an ever greater degree, McCain's decades at the centre of the foreign policy apparatus look less important. At a rough guess, every point the Dow drops gains Obama about 2,500 votes, and unless McCain can somehow convince voters that he, an admiral's son married to a millionaire, understands their problems and can deal with them more effectively than Obama, it will be exceedingly difficult for him to win in November. This becomes even more important when the swing states are taken into account. McCain has now given up in Michigan, a state John Kerry only carried by three points in 2004. He is now having to defend once-solid leads in both Ohio and Indiana, which have been hit hard by economic problems in the past few years.
As a result, John McCain has decided to take an alternative route to the presidency, namely by trying to paint Barack Obama as unfit for command. He is not the first to do so, and was himself on the receiving end of one of the most vitriolic smear campaigns of modern times in the 2000 South Carolina primaries. However, it is certainly a huge disappointment that a man who has sold himself as an old-style patriot, willing to cross the aisle when necessary, has resorted to the win-at-any-cost methods that came to define much of the George W. Bush presidency. There is also a danger for McCain that, by following these policies, he may well have trouble breaking free from the association with Bush, his most persistent millstone.
Another potential pitfall of McCain's tactics is that they leave him open to being attacked himself. Obama can now piously claim that he did not wish to engage in negative campaigning, but has been forced into it, and unleash a barrage of attack ads. McCain's family, his association with the Keating scandal in the 1980s, and perhaps most importantly his age, can now be considered targets, and McCain may not emerge unscathed.
Perhaps the biggest problem that McCain has is that his campaign may simply appear to many Americans to be a distraction from the problems America faces today. As the economy gets weaker, it will become more of an issue. Perhaps Obama's strongest card would be to stop any attacks on McCain's character, and simply brush off any attacks on his own as evidence that McCain cares more about the presidency than the economy. If Obama can paint himself as the natural leader, John McCain's already difficult task will become nearly impossible.
In McCain's case, it is perhaps more understandable. He is quite clearly out of his depth on the issues side of things. As the economy takes centre stage to an ever greater degree, McCain's decades at the centre of the foreign policy apparatus look less important. At a rough guess, every point the Dow drops gains Obama about 2,500 votes, and unless McCain can somehow convince voters that he, an admiral's son married to a millionaire, understands their problems and can deal with them more effectively than Obama, it will be exceedingly difficult for him to win in November. This becomes even more important when the swing states are taken into account. McCain has now given up in Michigan, a state John Kerry only carried by three points in 2004. He is now having to defend once-solid leads in both Ohio and Indiana, which have been hit hard by economic problems in the past few years.
As a result, John McCain has decided to take an alternative route to the presidency, namely by trying to paint Barack Obama as unfit for command. He is not the first to do so, and was himself on the receiving end of one of the most vitriolic smear campaigns of modern times in the 2000 South Carolina primaries. However, it is certainly a huge disappointment that a man who has sold himself as an old-style patriot, willing to cross the aisle when necessary, has resorted to the win-at-any-cost methods that came to define much of the George W. Bush presidency. There is also a danger for McCain that, by following these policies, he may well have trouble breaking free from the association with Bush, his most persistent millstone.
Another potential pitfall of McCain's tactics is that they leave him open to being attacked himself. Obama can now piously claim that he did not wish to engage in negative campaigning, but has been forced into it, and unleash a barrage of attack ads. McCain's family, his association with the Keating scandal in the 1980s, and perhaps most importantly his age, can now be considered targets, and McCain may not emerge unscathed.
Perhaps the biggest problem that McCain has is that his campaign may simply appear to many Americans to be a distraction from the problems America faces today. As the economy gets weaker, it will become more of an issue. Perhaps Obama's strongest card would be to stop any attacks on McCain's character, and simply brush off any attacks on his own as evidence that McCain cares more about the presidency than the economy. If Obama can paint himself as the natural leader, John McCain's already difficult task will become nearly impossible.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Obama's Foreign Policy team
Barack Obama faces two challenges in naming his foreign policy advisors. Firstly, he must name competent individuals in an effort to shore up his reputation as a foreign policy naif. Secondly, and in a contradictory direction, he must also try to keep his message of "change" running through all his appointments. Balancing these two will likely prove a difficult task.
In terms of the National Security Advisor, a good bet would be for Richard Clarke to come back to the White House. Clarke, who was Bill Clinton's counterterrorism czar, has been an outspoken critic of the current administration's counterterror policy, and an early casualty of the Iraq war. he is also on record as warning the Bush team, as they came into office in 2001, that an Al-Qaeda attack was on the cards.
Obama's big chance to play the bipartisan card is in picking the Secretary of Defense. For this post, the most likely candidate is probably Chuck Hagel. Currently, Hagel is a final-term Republican senator with a reputation for independent-mindedness. In addition, he has a strong background in defense, and was a strong critic of both the Iraq War and Donald Rumsfeld. Alternatively, Robert Gates, the current incumbent, could keep his position.
There is no obvious candidate for the position of Secretary of State. It is possible that Obama may select someone from within the State Department, or go outside the government altogether. However, there is another interesting possibility. A stellar candidate exists, with excellent government experience, who is respected in both America and across the world. This person's recognition factor alone would be helpful, as would their track record in conflict resolution and diplomacy. The only problem is, would Bill Clinton be willing to serve in an Obama presidency?
In terms of the National Security Advisor, a good bet would be for Richard Clarke to come back to the White House. Clarke, who was Bill Clinton's counterterrorism czar, has been an outspoken critic of the current administration's counterterror policy, and an early casualty of the Iraq war. he is also on record as warning the Bush team, as they came into office in 2001, that an Al-Qaeda attack was on the cards.
Obama's big chance to play the bipartisan card is in picking the Secretary of Defense. For this post, the most likely candidate is probably Chuck Hagel. Currently, Hagel is a final-term Republican senator with a reputation for independent-mindedness. In addition, he has a strong background in defense, and was a strong critic of both the Iraq War and Donald Rumsfeld. Alternatively, Robert Gates, the current incumbent, could keep his position.
There is no obvious candidate for the position of Secretary of State. It is possible that Obama may select someone from within the State Department, or go outside the government altogether. However, there is another interesting possibility. A stellar candidate exists, with excellent government experience, who is respected in both America and across the world. This person's recognition factor alone would be helpful, as would their track record in conflict resolution and diplomacy. The only problem is, would Bill Clinton be willing to serve in an Obama presidency?
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Who'll be Running McCain's Foreign Policy?
In an election where foreign policy was expected to play an important role before the economy became a central issue, it is interesting to speculate on the individuals who will be involved in the national security/foreign policy apparatus, depending on which candidate wins. In this posting, I intend to look at some of the likely contenders for the positions of Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and National Security Advisor in both John McCain and Barack Obama's potential cabinets
In many respects, John McCain has a harder task. Given that so much of the George W. Bush national security team has been discredited by the conduct of the Iraq War, he cannot afford to retain many in their current positions. However, this means looking at either bringing in outsiders, or going back sixteen years to the administration of Bush Senior, and picking individuals who were second-tier at the time. The danger of either course is that it either brings in candidates with little experience, or who are too old and rooted in a supposed Cold War mentality.
The major candidate for retention is probably Bob Gates at the Pentagon. McCain was an outspoken critic of Donald Rumsfeld long before it was fashionable, and Gates has been reasonably successful in his job, and enjoys bipartisan support in the Senate. In addition, his strong record in the first Bush administration both toughens up his resume and gives him a reputation independent of that of George W. Bush. Alternatively, McCain could go for someone like Joe Lieberman, in an attempt to bolster his cross-party credentials, or potentially someone within the military.
However, the most likely position to be filled by a military man is probably that of National Security Advisor, which has been filled by several military men in its history. The most likely candidate for this is probably retired Army General Jack Keane. Keane was, alongside McCain, one of the early advocates of the surge, and has worked closely with General David Petraeus in bringing it to fruition. In addition, it was a 2006 report by Keane and Frederick Kagan that laid out the theoretical framework for the surge, so he can claim a good deal of the credit for it success. Other candidates include Petraeus himslef, retired Army General Eric Shinseki, and John Negroponte, currently Deputy Secretary of State and former Ambassador to Iraq.
Negroponte is also a possibility to go upstairs to become Secretary of State. His length of experience, particularly in the Middle East, would certainly qualify him for the job. However, at the same time, his human rights record while ambassador to Honduras in the 1980s was somewhat dodgy, and his ties to the current administration, as well as the fact that he oversaw Iraq's descent into chaos, may mitigate against him. A more interesting candidate would be Negroponte's successor as Ambassador to Iraq and then the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad. Khalilzad has a wealth of experience in the Middle East, having been Ambassador to both Iraq and Afghanistan after the overthrow of the regimes there. More importantly, he is Afghan-born, and is a Sunni Muslim. The symbolism of appointing such an individual to the top diplomatic post on the planet should not be underestimated.
In many respects, John McCain has a harder task. Given that so much of the George W. Bush national security team has been discredited by the conduct of the Iraq War, he cannot afford to retain many in their current positions. However, this means looking at either bringing in outsiders, or going back sixteen years to the administration of Bush Senior, and picking individuals who were second-tier at the time. The danger of either course is that it either brings in candidates with little experience, or who are too old and rooted in a supposed Cold War mentality.
The major candidate for retention is probably Bob Gates at the Pentagon. McCain was an outspoken critic of Donald Rumsfeld long before it was fashionable, and Gates has been reasonably successful in his job, and enjoys bipartisan support in the Senate. In addition, his strong record in the first Bush administration both toughens up his resume and gives him a reputation independent of that of George W. Bush. Alternatively, McCain could go for someone like Joe Lieberman, in an attempt to bolster his cross-party credentials, or potentially someone within the military.
However, the most likely position to be filled by a military man is probably that of National Security Advisor, which has been filled by several military men in its history. The most likely candidate for this is probably retired Army General Jack Keane. Keane was, alongside McCain, one of the early advocates of the surge, and has worked closely with General David Petraeus in bringing it to fruition. In addition, it was a 2006 report by Keane and Frederick Kagan that laid out the theoretical framework for the surge, so he can claim a good deal of the credit for it success. Other candidates include Petraeus himslef, retired Army General Eric Shinseki, and John Negroponte, currently Deputy Secretary of State and former Ambassador to Iraq.
Negroponte is also a possibility to go upstairs to become Secretary of State. His length of experience, particularly in the Middle East, would certainly qualify him for the job. However, at the same time, his human rights record while ambassador to Honduras in the 1980s was somewhat dodgy, and his ties to the current administration, as well as the fact that he oversaw Iraq's descent into chaos, may mitigate against him. A more interesting candidate would be Negroponte's successor as Ambassador to Iraq and then the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad. Khalilzad has a wealth of experience in the Middle East, having been Ambassador to both Iraq and Afghanistan after the overthrow of the regimes there. More importantly, he is Afghan-born, and is a Sunni Muslim. The symbolism of appointing such an individual to the top diplomatic post on the planet should not be underestimated.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
The Shine comes off Sarah Palin
It is now several weeks since John McCain unleashed a political earthquake by naming the little-known governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, as his running mate. In retrospect, his reasoning seems clear: as things stood, he was trailing Barack Obama in all polls, and given that Obama had just nominated Senate heavyweight Joe Biden as his running mate, something was needed to shake things up.
And shake things up she did. After the Republican convention, polls for the first time showed McCain leading. White women, already bitter about the defeat of Hillary Clinton in the primaries, rallied around a new standard bearer, with a swing in that demographic of twenty points in a week. The religious right, meanwhile, which had been sceptical about McCain, now had a new icon.
However, more recently, questions are beginning to emerge. Despite all the claims by the McCain camp that Palin represented a fellow maverick, it has become very hard to defend some of Palin's credentials. In particular, it emerged that, despite her vaunted fiscal credentials, she requested millions in federal assistance as mayor of Wasilla, and was a big proponent of the Gravina Island "Bridge to Nowhere", before it became clear that the project was sunk.
Similarly, in terms of supposed foreign policy credentials, Sarah Palin listed the countries she has visited: Canada, Ireland, Kuwait, Iraq and Germany. In and of itself this is not particularly impressive, but when it became clear that her visit to Ireland was a refuelling stop at Shannon, and that she only went as far as the Iraqi border with Kuwait, not only does her resume become 40% thinner, but she can, with some justification, be accused of playing fast and loose with the truth.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, her status as a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, which has pleased the right wing of the Republican party no end, may backfire among moderates. While most Americans may not fully believe in Darwinian evolution, most aren't Young Earth Creationists either, and oppose the idea of teaching it in schools. Similarly, it becomes very hard for John McCain to bolster his claims to be pro-stem cells and emission capping when his running mate has been on record as being opposed to both.
John McCain took a gamble with Sarah Palin. He picked her on the basis of a single meeting, a fact which in itself raises questions about his judgement. However, the polls showed he needed to gamble. Whether or not it pays off remains to be seen.
And shake things up she did. After the Republican convention, polls for the first time showed McCain leading. White women, already bitter about the defeat of Hillary Clinton in the primaries, rallied around a new standard bearer, with a swing in that demographic of twenty points in a week. The religious right, meanwhile, which had been sceptical about McCain, now had a new icon.
However, more recently, questions are beginning to emerge. Despite all the claims by the McCain camp that Palin represented a fellow maverick, it has become very hard to defend some of Palin's credentials. In particular, it emerged that, despite her vaunted fiscal credentials, she requested millions in federal assistance as mayor of Wasilla, and was a big proponent of the Gravina Island "Bridge to Nowhere", before it became clear that the project was sunk.
Similarly, in terms of supposed foreign policy credentials, Sarah Palin listed the countries she has visited: Canada, Ireland, Kuwait, Iraq and Germany. In and of itself this is not particularly impressive, but when it became clear that her visit to Ireland was a refuelling stop at Shannon, and that she only went as far as the Iraqi border with Kuwait, not only does her resume become 40% thinner, but she can, with some justification, be accused of playing fast and loose with the truth.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, her status as a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, which has pleased the right wing of the Republican party no end, may backfire among moderates. While most Americans may not fully believe in Darwinian evolution, most aren't Young Earth Creationists either, and oppose the idea of teaching it in schools. Similarly, it becomes very hard for John McCain to bolster his claims to be pro-stem cells and emission capping when his running mate has been on record as being opposed to both.
John McCain took a gamble with Sarah Palin. He picked her on the basis of a single meeting, a fact which in itself raises questions about his judgement. However, the polls showed he needed to gamble. Whether or not it pays off remains to be seen.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
How much difference will the War make?
Just over a year ago, as violence in Iraq persisted at high levels, the major question pundits were asking was which major Republican candidate would be the first to break ranks and call for a withdrawal from Iraq. If the GOP were to have a chance in the election, it looked like they would have to abase themselves before the world and break with the Bush line. John McCain, the candidate deemed least likely to change his opinion, seemed sunk.
Since then, massive security gains have made McCain's opinions, that the USA went with far too few troops from day one, look prescient. As a result, he has managed to claw back a lot of the respect the Republicans lost in national security.
Barack Obama, too, has benefited hugely from the war. By being on record as opposing it from the beginning, and commenting that it would commit the US for "an undetermined time, an undetermined cost, and with undetermined consequences", he was able to claim that he was anti-war from the start. This proved hugely effective in the primary season, where his main rival, Hillary Clinton, had been a strong supporter of the war, and had initially voted for it. As a result, she was faced with a choice of continuing to support a deeply unpopular war or admitting that she was completely in error from the start.
However, at the moment, as the situation on the ground continues to improve, the war has faded from public consciousness next to issues such as the economy. In one sense, this benefits both candidates. John McCain can take some credit for arguing for the surge, and his withdrawal plans are currently more popular than Obama's. On the other hand, Obama has always believed that the war was not worth fighting in the first place, a position that many Americans have come to believe.
As a result, the war undoubtedly helped both candidates in their primaries. However, at the moment, the improvements in the situation have greatly benefited McCain, by pushing Iraq out of the spotlight, thereby negating Obama's advantage from opposing the war all along. However, at the same time, McCain similarly has been unable to fully capitalise on the benefits of the surge. In addition, both candidate's plans for withdrawal are now nearly identical, thereby pushing Iraq further into the background.
On balance, the improving situation in Iraq may well have put McCain where he is now. He could not, having supported the war all along, have broken ranks at the last minute, and escaped with his political reputation intact. Similarly, by pushing the war into the background, McCain has at least managed to sweep his own unswerving support for the war under the carpet, at a time when most people just want it to be over.
Since then, massive security gains have made McCain's opinions, that the USA went with far too few troops from day one, look prescient. As a result, he has managed to claw back a lot of the respect the Republicans lost in national security.
Barack Obama, too, has benefited hugely from the war. By being on record as opposing it from the beginning, and commenting that it would commit the US for "an undetermined time, an undetermined cost, and with undetermined consequences", he was able to claim that he was anti-war from the start. This proved hugely effective in the primary season, where his main rival, Hillary Clinton, had been a strong supporter of the war, and had initially voted for it. As a result, she was faced with a choice of continuing to support a deeply unpopular war or admitting that she was completely in error from the start.
However, at the moment, as the situation on the ground continues to improve, the war has faded from public consciousness next to issues such as the economy. In one sense, this benefits both candidates. John McCain can take some credit for arguing for the surge, and his withdrawal plans are currently more popular than Obama's. On the other hand, Obama has always believed that the war was not worth fighting in the first place, a position that many Americans have come to believe.
As a result, the war undoubtedly helped both candidates in their primaries. However, at the moment, the improvements in the situation have greatly benefited McCain, by pushing Iraq out of the spotlight, thereby negating Obama's advantage from opposing the war all along. However, at the same time, McCain similarly has been unable to fully capitalise on the benefits of the surge. In addition, both candidate's plans for withdrawal are now nearly identical, thereby pushing Iraq further into the background.
On balance, the improving situation in Iraq may well have put McCain where he is now. He could not, having supported the war all along, have broken ranks at the last minute, and escaped with his political reputation intact. Similarly, by pushing the war into the background, McCain has at least managed to sweep his own unswerving support for the war under the carpet, at a time when most people just want it to be over.
Friday, September 12, 2008
John McCain, Agent of Change?
John McCain's campaign, until recently, has run on one of two themes. The first was that McCain, as a long-time Washington insider who has the ear of numerous foreign politicians and leaders, would be more effective than Barack Obama, who is largely based on empty rhetoric. The second part is that John McCain is not an average Republican.
In an election season where simply being Republican is likely to kill the careers of dozens of Congressmen and a number of Senators, it is clear that McCain had to do something to distance himself from his party, and its deeply unpopular president. However, in recent weeks he has moved even further, promising real change in Washington. His nomination of Sarah Palin, another supposed maverick with an appetite for change, is supposed to demonstrate this.
This policy is hugely risky. Firstly, it means throwing away the biggest stick that the McCain camp had to beat Obama with: that Barack Obama, a freshman senator, was simply not qualified to become President. To some degree, this particular tack lost a lot of its effectiveness with the selection of Palin as McCain's running mate, but by trying to appropriate the "change" mantra, it means that McCain's previously vaunted Washington experience now becomes something of a liability.
Secondly, it has led the McCain camp into some extremely dodgy situations vis-a-vis the veracity of their claims. John McCain is pro-stem cell research; Sarah Palin is not. John McCain has run adverts claiming that Barack Obama opposes immigration reform, despite the fact that both men's Senate voting records on the subject are identical. Sarah Palin was a supposed anti-pork campaigner. This in spite of the fact that she sought over $400 million in specific federal earmarks, and campaigned heavily for the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere" in Gravina Island. McCain is a big supporter of clamping down on global warming, Palin has gone on record claiming it to be a fabrication, or at least not related to human activity.
Perhaps the biggest danger facing John McCain is that now the central theme of his campaign is the same as Barack Obama's, and he is now fighting on Obama's home turf. Obama can now claim, with some justification, that McCain is now simply jumping on the change bandwagon out of desperation. Similarly, with John McCain's long history in Washington, and his voting record (about 90% along party lines), why, the Obama camp can ask, has he only noticed the need for change now that he's running for president?
Given that a huge majority of Americans think that their country is on the wrong track, and that the Republican brand is very unpopular in America at the moment, it was perhaps necessary that John McCain would have to claim to be a different sort of politician. The problem for him is, he may not be able to do so with the same credibility or effectiveness as Barack Obama, and it may yet be his downfall.
In an election season where simply being Republican is likely to kill the careers of dozens of Congressmen and a number of Senators, it is clear that McCain had to do something to distance himself from his party, and its deeply unpopular president. However, in recent weeks he has moved even further, promising real change in Washington. His nomination of Sarah Palin, another supposed maverick with an appetite for change, is supposed to demonstrate this.
This policy is hugely risky. Firstly, it means throwing away the biggest stick that the McCain camp had to beat Obama with: that Barack Obama, a freshman senator, was simply not qualified to become President. To some degree, this particular tack lost a lot of its effectiveness with the selection of Palin as McCain's running mate, but by trying to appropriate the "change" mantra, it means that McCain's previously vaunted Washington experience now becomes something of a liability.
Secondly, it has led the McCain camp into some extremely dodgy situations vis-a-vis the veracity of their claims. John McCain is pro-stem cell research; Sarah Palin is not. John McCain has run adverts claiming that Barack Obama opposes immigration reform, despite the fact that both men's Senate voting records on the subject are identical. Sarah Palin was a supposed anti-pork campaigner. This in spite of the fact that she sought over $400 million in specific federal earmarks, and campaigned heavily for the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere" in Gravina Island. McCain is a big supporter of clamping down on global warming, Palin has gone on record claiming it to be a fabrication, or at least not related to human activity.
Perhaps the biggest danger facing John McCain is that now the central theme of his campaign is the same as Barack Obama's, and he is now fighting on Obama's home turf. Obama can now claim, with some justification, that McCain is now simply jumping on the change bandwagon out of desperation. Similarly, with John McCain's long history in Washington, and his voting record (about 90% along party lines), why, the Obama camp can ask, has he only noticed the need for change now that he's running for president?
Given that a huge majority of Americans think that their country is on the wrong track, and that the Republican brand is very unpopular in America at the moment, it was perhaps necessary that John McCain would have to claim to be a different sort of politician. The problem for him is, he may not be able to do so with the same credibility or effectiveness as Barack Obama, and it may yet be his downfall.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Which way will Rust Belt vote?
The four states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan between them account for 69 electoral votes, and are perhaps the main swing bloc in the country. In 2004, Ohio and Indiana voted for George Bush, while Michigan and Pennsylvania voted for John Kerry. Had Ohio, which voted for Bush by only a tiny margin, switched to the Democrats, John Kerry would have become president.
There are ways to win for either candidate without taking Rust Belt, but in practical terms, whoever takes the area in general, and Ohio in particular, will probably win the election. As a result, both candidates are investing heavily, with Barack Obama seeking to reverse the result in Ohio, and John McCain attempting to add Michigan into the Republican fold.
There are factors in all states that will benefit both candidates. All have seen major economic problems in the past few decades, generally blamed on outsourcing, and their workforces are heavily unionised. This should play into the Obama camp, with its pro-union, anti free-trade ideals. At the same time, the large number of veterans in those states, who have shown an overwhelming tendency to back McCain, means that both candidates will be able to make a fight of it.
However, in the primaries, neither candidate managed to get these states fully behind them. Obama lost the primary in all four states to Hillary (admittedly his name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan), and in the one seriously contested Rust Belt primary in the Republican race, in Michigan, Mitt Romney handily beat John McCain. As a result, neither candidate has managed to rally their base in these states.
In addition, a number of demographic problems loom for the candidates. Three of the states have fewer African-Americans than the national average (Michigan has more), and all are generally poorer than the national average, meaning that Obama's strongest supporters, Blacks and well-off liberals, are underrepresented. Similarly, much of the Republican support in the area comes from the rural populations of small-town evangelicals, whom McCain is still trying to bring on board. In this respect, both candidates are going to have to move beyond their traditional areas.
In this respect, the candidates' choice of running mates is interesting. Joe Biden is from a working class background, and still commutes from home to the Senate. Sarah Palin is a strong social conservative from a small-town background. Both have been clearly chosen to win over disaffected members of their respective parties, particularly in Rust Belt. Whoever does a better job, may well decide the outcome of the election.
There are ways to win for either candidate without taking Rust Belt, but in practical terms, whoever takes the area in general, and Ohio in particular, will probably win the election. As a result, both candidates are investing heavily, with Barack Obama seeking to reverse the result in Ohio, and John McCain attempting to add Michigan into the Republican fold.
There are factors in all states that will benefit both candidates. All have seen major economic problems in the past few decades, generally blamed on outsourcing, and their workforces are heavily unionised. This should play into the Obama camp, with its pro-union, anti free-trade ideals. At the same time, the large number of veterans in those states, who have shown an overwhelming tendency to back McCain, means that both candidates will be able to make a fight of it.
However, in the primaries, neither candidate managed to get these states fully behind them. Obama lost the primary in all four states to Hillary (admittedly his name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan), and in the one seriously contested Rust Belt primary in the Republican race, in Michigan, Mitt Romney handily beat John McCain. As a result, neither candidate has managed to rally their base in these states.
In addition, a number of demographic problems loom for the candidates. Three of the states have fewer African-Americans than the national average (Michigan has more), and all are generally poorer than the national average, meaning that Obama's strongest supporters, Blacks and well-off liberals, are underrepresented. Similarly, much of the Republican support in the area comes from the rural populations of small-town evangelicals, whom McCain is still trying to bring on board. In this respect, both candidates are going to have to move beyond their traditional areas.
In this respect, the candidates' choice of running mates is interesting. Joe Biden is from a working class background, and still commutes from home to the Senate. Sarah Palin is a strong social conservative from a small-town background. Both have been clearly chosen to win over disaffected members of their respective parties, particularly in Rust Belt. Whoever does a better job, may well decide the outcome of the election.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Policies or Personalities?
In recent elections, the character of the candidates has generally been more important than the policies of those candidates. This is for a number of reasons. Mainly, however, there haven't been enough policy differences that matter to swing voters for candidates to focus on. The upshot of this is that both sides have focused on the character of their candidate, and on smearing the character of the opponent. Thus, in 2000, the Democrats portrayed George Bush as being stupid, while the Republicans retaliated with a campaign questioning Al Gore's honesty. In 2004, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign aimed to undermine John Kerry's credentials as a war hero.
In the 2008 election, however, this may not be so. On the one hand, both characters are hugely charismatic, with genuinely American backgrounds. One is the child of a Kenyan father and an American mother, who grew up trying to deal with the fact that he didn't fit in anywhere. The other is a man who volunteered for an unpopular war, and spent five years being tortured for it. On the other hand, there are now significant policy differences that resonate with swing voters.
There are of course, the usual ones, abortion, gay marriage, taxes, etc. However, the people for whom these are important issues generally vote on strict party lines anyway, and as both candidates toe the party line on these issues, there is not going to be much bickering about these particular issues.
The issues that will resonate hugely, however, are very much policy rather than politics. There is the question of the best way out of Iraq, the best way to fix the economy, provision of universal healthcare, and the best way to reduce America's dependence on foreign energy. In the first area, it looks like John McCain has the edge. While both candidate's plans for withdrawal have merged to be nearly identical, McCain is both perceived as a better judge of foreign policy, and now, with the surge going well, Americans may be more willing to slow down the pace of withdrawal from Iraq.
On the economy, Barack Obama has consistently shown a better grasp, at least in the eyes of the voting public. While McCain has announced that his idea of rich is earning more than $5,000,000 a year, and plans further tax cuts without any corresponding spending cuts, Obama at least plans to roll back the most egregious of the tax cuts of the Bush years. Most Americans, quite obviously, don't earn $5,000,000 a year, and McCain's tax cuts look set to benefit only those at the top. Again, in healthcare, the issue may be moving Obama's way. His plans are both more realistic, and sound fairer than McCain's.
Finally, the price of gas may play a crucial role in the election. On the one hand, McCain has come out in favour of increased drilling. This smacks of populism, given that, as Obama pointed out, it would take years for any benefits to come onstream, and the amount of gas gained would roughly approximate the amount that Americans would save if they pressurised their tyres properly. However, Obama is not without his own populist streak, blaming much of the problem on Big Oil.
While there are undoubted policy differences, this election may yet hinge on the personalities of the candidates. Obama has traded heavily on the "Change" card, which McCain seems belatedly to be trying to appropriate. Whether he can do this will play a major factor in influencing the outcome. At the same, time, if he cannot prove that his policies will improve the lives of ordinary Americans, it will be an uphill struggle
In the 2008 election, however, this may not be so. On the one hand, both characters are hugely charismatic, with genuinely American backgrounds. One is the child of a Kenyan father and an American mother, who grew up trying to deal with the fact that he didn't fit in anywhere. The other is a man who volunteered for an unpopular war, and spent five years being tortured for it. On the other hand, there are now significant policy differences that resonate with swing voters.
There are of course, the usual ones, abortion, gay marriage, taxes, etc. However, the people for whom these are important issues generally vote on strict party lines anyway, and as both candidates toe the party line on these issues, there is not going to be much bickering about these particular issues.
The issues that will resonate hugely, however, are very much policy rather than politics. There is the question of the best way out of Iraq, the best way to fix the economy, provision of universal healthcare, and the best way to reduce America's dependence on foreign energy. In the first area, it looks like John McCain has the edge. While both candidate's plans for withdrawal have merged to be nearly identical, McCain is both perceived as a better judge of foreign policy, and now, with the surge going well, Americans may be more willing to slow down the pace of withdrawal from Iraq.
On the economy, Barack Obama has consistently shown a better grasp, at least in the eyes of the voting public. While McCain has announced that his idea of rich is earning more than $5,000,000 a year, and plans further tax cuts without any corresponding spending cuts, Obama at least plans to roll back the most egregious of the tax cuts of the Bush years. Most Americans, quite obviously, don't earn $5,000,000 a year, and McCain's tax cuts look set to benefit only those at the top. Again, in healthcare, the issue may be moving Obama's way. His plans are both more realistic, and sound fairer than McCain's.
Finally, the price of gas may play a crucial role in the election. On the one hand, McCain has come out in favour of increased drilling. This smacks of populism, given that, as Obama pointed out, it would take years for any benefits to come onstream, and the amount of gas gained would roughly approximate the amount that Americans would save if they pressurised their tyres properly. However, Obama is not without his own populist streak, blaming much of the problem on Big Oil.
While there are undoubted policy differences, this election may yet hinge on the personalities of the candidates. Obama has traded heavily on the "Change" card, which McCain seems belatedly to be trying to appropriate. Whether he can do this will play a major factor in influencing the outcome. At the same, time, if he cannot prove that his policies will improve the lives of ordinary Americans, it will be an uphill struggle
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Sarah Palin: 8 Days Later
It is now eight days since John McCain dropped a political bombshell by picking Sarah Palin, the little-known governor of Alaska, to be his running mate. In that time, an already exciting race has reached near fever pitch, as people try to come to terms with what McCain's decision means to the election outcome.
In the short term, there is no doubt that it was an excellent tactical move. For the first time in the race, the Republican ticket is now the centre of attention. It was telling that, only a week after Barack Obama managed to smash the viewing ratings for a political speech, McCain managed to draw even more viewers.
In addition, the choice McCain made has managed to bring the relgious right back onside for the moment. This is partially due to Ms Palin's character, and also because of fears on the right that McCain might bolster his maverick credentials by picking a moderate such as Tom Ridge or worse, Joe Lieberman. The fact that she is a woman may also encourage disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters to switch sides, though Palin's views on issues such as abortion mean that it is unlikely they would break ranks in sufficient numbers to make a difference. However, the image Palin projects, of a working mom with strong family values, stands as a useful counterpoint to McCain, who is twice married, and whose children are all too old to be much use for photoshoots.
However, there are a number of problems with Sarah Palin that may yet turn her into a liability. Two of these are relatively trivial. The fact that her daughter is pregnant at 17 is ironic, given Palin's strong pro-abstinence stance, but unlikely to make much difference. It may even be a boost, giving Palin a chance to show her pro-life views, and generating a sense of empathy among parents who share similar worries about their children. Similarly, it doesn't particularly matter whether or not Palin was ever involved in the Alaska Independence Party. It is not in the Democrats' interest to make this election about who is more patriotic, as John McCain easily beats Barack Obama by most markers in that department.
More serious are the impropriety allegations hanging over her head. Essentially, it appears that Palin may have intervened to have her brother-in-law fired from his position as a State Trooper after he divorced her sister. While not a hugely serious accusation, it would harm the McCain campaign should it emerge that she acted improperly, particularly as the investigation is due to conclude in October, shortly before polling day.
Perhaps the biggest danger in picking Sarah Palin is her lack of experience. She has been governor for only two years, and prior to that was a small-town mayor. This both undercuts the McCain camp's argument that Obama lacks the experience to be President, but also brings McCain's age back into the centre stage. After all, should McCain die or become incapacitated, Palin will be president, and if Obama lacks sufficient experience, she has almost none, particularly in terms of national rather than local affairs.
Part of the reason McCain picked Palin was the lack of better candidates. Tom Ridge and Joe Lieberman are both pro-choice, and therefore anathema to the right. Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and is also extremely rich, and was therefore both a liability with the right and the working class. Tim Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota, while solid in most areas, would simply not be able to wrest the agenda away from the Democrats. As a result, the realities of the situation conspired to force McCain to gamble on Palin. Whether or not it will pay off remains to be seen.
In the short term, there is no doubt that it was an excellent tactical move. For the first time in the race, the Republican ticket is now the centre of attention. It was telling that, only a week after Barack Obama managed to smash the viewing ratings for a political speech, McCain managed to draw even more viewers.
In addition, the choice McCain made has managed to bring the relgious right back onside for the moment. This is partially due to Ms Palin's character, and also because of fears on the right that McCain might bolster his maverick credentials by picking a moderate such as Tom Ridge or worse, Joe Lieberman. The fact that she is a woman may also encourage disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters to switch sides, though Palin's views on issues such as abortion mean that it is unlikely they would break ranks in sufficient numbers to make a difference. However, the image Palin projects, of a working mom with strong family values, stands as a useful counterpoint to McCain, who is twice married, and whose children are all too old to be much use for photoshoots.
However, there are a number of problems with Sarah Palin that may yet turn her into a liability. Two of these are relatively trivial. The fact that her daughter is pregnant at 17 is ironic, given Palin's strong pro-abstinence stance, but unlikely to make much difference. It may even be a boost, giving Palin a chance to show her pro-life views, and generating a sense of empathy among parents who share similar worries about their children. Similarly, it doesn't particularly matter whether or not Palin was ever involved in the Alaska Independence Party. It is not in the Democrats' interest to make this election about who is more patriotic, as John McCain easily beats Barack Obama by most markers in that department.
More serious are the impropriety allegations hanging over her head. Essentially, it appears that Palin may have intervened to have her brother-in-law fired from his position as a State Trooper after he divorced her sister. While not a hugely serious accusation, it would harm the McCain campaign should it emerge that she acted improperly, particularly as the investigation is due to conclude in October, shortly before polling day.
Perhaps the biggest danger in picking Sarah Palin is her lack of experience. She has been governor for only two years, and prior to that was a small-town mayor. This both undercuts the McCain camp's argument that Obama lacks the experience to be President, but also brings McCain's age back into the centre stage. After all, should McCain die or become incapacitated, Palin will be president, and if Obama lacks sufficient experience, she has almost none, particularly in terms of national rather than local affairs.
Part of the reason McCain picked Palin was the lack of better candidates. Tom Ridge and Joe Lieberman are both pro-choice, and therefore anathema to the right. Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and is also extremely rich, and was therefore both a liability with the right and the working class. Tim Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota, while solid in most areas, would simply not be able to wrest the agenda away from the Democrats. As a result, the realities of the situation conspired to force McCain to gamble on Palin. Whether or not it will pay off remains to be seen.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Obama's abortion gambit
A recent ad by the Obama campaign, running in seven states, claims that, if elected, John McCain will ban abortion on demand. While this is a familiar theme in American politics, there are two major pitfalls in running this ad in this campaign.
Firstly, it's simply not true. There are two ways that a McCain presidency could seek to restrict abortion rights. They could pass a constitutional amendment forbidding it, or they could get the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 judgement that made abortion on demand legal throughout the United States.
Neither is likely to happen. As it stands, in any revisiting of Roe, the Supreme court, based on previous statements and judicial histories, would vote at least 5-4 to uphold the status quo. While it is true that some of the current pro-choice judges may not be on the court for long (John Paul Stevens is 88, and the others are all in their 70s), at the same time, any replacement will require the approval of the US Senate. Barring a political earthquake, the Democrats will, regardless of the outcome of the Presidential election, increase their majority in the Senate, and, given their history of using Roe as a litmus test for determining suitability for nomination, it is nearly impossible that an anti-abortion judge would be appointed during the first term of a McCain presidency, and highly unlikely that the make-up of the Senate would shift enough in the second term.
The second method, by constititutional amendment, is even harder. In order to get an amendment even proposed, two-thirds of both houses must agree on it. In order to get it passed, 38 of the 50 states would have to back it. The likelihood of either happening is so miniscule as to not be worth thinking about.
The other danger for Obama is that playing abortion politics may backfire. Firstly, the voters who he is trying to reach, namely pro-choice women who voted for Hillary and may now be drawn towards Sarah Palin, are going to be well aware of McCain's views on abortion. When a voter uses abortion as a litmus test, they will generally vote Democrat if they are pro-choice. Secondly, it will bring Obama's own abortion record into question. Obama is militantly pro-choice, and has a spotless record among abortion advocacy groups. While McCain has always been perceived as lukewarm in one direction, Obama is a clear partisan on the other. This plays into the McCain camp's hands. The religious right, whom McCain is still trying to swing fully behind his presidency, may be spurred into action by the idea of one of the most pro-choice candidates in history getting into the White House. In addition, only a minority of Americans support unrestricted abortion rights as they are now. By making abortion a central issue, Obama may be driving away more people than he brings back.
Firstly, it's simply not true. There are two ways that a McCain presidency could seek to restrict abortion rights. They could pass a constitutional amendment forbidding it, or they could get the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 judgement that made abortion on demand legal throughout the United States.
Neither is likely to happen. As it stands, in any revisiting of Roe, the Supreme court, based on previous statements and judicial histories, would vote at least 5-4 to uphold the status quo. While it is true that some of the current pro-choice judges may not be on the court for long (John Paul Stevens is 88, and the others are all in their 70s), at the same time, any replacement will require the approval of the US Senate. Barring a political earthquake, the Democrats will, regardless of the outcome of the Presidential election, increase their majority in the Senate, and, given their history of using Roe as a litmus test for determining suitability for nomination, it is nearly impossible that an anti-abortion judge would be appointed during the first term of a McCain presidency, and highly unlikely that the make-up of the Senate would shift enough in the second term.
The second method, by constititutional amendment, is even harder. In order to get an amendment even proposed, two-thirds of both houses must agree on it. In order to get it passed, 38 of the 50 states would have to back it. The likelihood of either happening is so miniscule as to not be worth thinking about.
The other danger for Obama is that playing abortion politics may backfire. Firstly, the voters who he is trying to reach, namely pro-choice women who voted for Hillary and may now be drawn towards Sarah Palin, are going to be well aware of McCain's views on abortion. When a voter uses abortion as a litmus test, they will generally vote Democrat if they are pro-choice. Secondly, it will bring Obama's own abortion record into question. Obama is militantly pro-choice, and has a spotless record among abortion advocacy groups. While McCain has always been perceived as lukewarm in one direction, Obama is a clear partisan on the other. This plays into the McCain camp's hands. The religious right, whom McCain is still trying to swing fully behind his presidency, may be spurred into action by the idea of one of the most pro-choice candidates in history getting into the White House. In addition, only a minority of Americans support unrestricted abortion rights as they are now. By making abortion a central issue, Obama may be driving away more people than he brings back.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Obama and elitism
Of all the charges levelled at Barack Obama during the primary campaign, none had the sticking power of the allegation that he was "elitist". Obama himself did much to facilitate this, notably when he claimed that Republicans cling to "guns and God" out of bitterness, but also on other occasions. As a result, Obama is having far more trouble than he ought to winning over blue-collar males, one of the major floating demographics.
This is perhaps surprising, given the nature of the election. John McCain is, together with his wife, worth around $40,000,000. He is an admiral's son who married an heiress, and doesn't know how many homes he owns. Barack Obama, on the other hand, is the son of a dirt-poor Kenyan immigrant, who experimented with drugs and alcohol in his youth, and is worth only approximately $1,300,000, a fraction of McCain. Whereas McCain, for the past three decades, has been involved in Washington, Obama has worked firstly as a community worker, before teaching law.
However, despite their differing backgrounds, McCain connects with blue-collar males far more easily than Obama does. His military background, as well as his torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese, appeal to this group, many of whom are veterans of the Armed Forces. In addition, McCain comes across as empathising better with their problems, and his character, of the hard-headed tough guy, is much more appealing than Obama's more nuanced personality.
Quite clearly, the charge of Obama being elitist is spurious, but it has a lot of credibility. Given that, in all likelihood, the working-class male vote will be a deciding factor, particularly in Rust Belt Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama must work harder at convincing them that he is one of them, and shares their aspirations, as well as their fears. By rights, it should be easy. However, given that in the primary he couldn't shake the charge of elitism made by Hillary Clinton, whose wealth was such that she could lend her campaign $11,000,000, most of it donated when it was obvious that she would not be the nominee, Obama patently has yet to do enough, and if anything sinks his campaign, it will be the fact that floating voters related to McCain more than they do to him.
This is perhaps surprising, given the nature of the election. John McCain is, together with his wife, worth around $40,000,000. He is an admiral's son who married an heiress, and doesn't know how many homes he owns. Barack Obama, on the other hand, is the son of a dirt-poor Kenyan immigrant, who experimented with drugs and alcohol in his youth, and is worth only approximately $1,300,000, a fraction of McCain. Whereas McCain, for the past three decades, has been involved in Washington, Obama has worked firstly as a community worker, before teaching law.
However, despite their differing backgrounds, McCain connects with blue-collar males far more easily than Obama does. His military background, as well as his torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese, appeal to this group, many of whom are veterans of the Armed Forces. In addition, McCain comes across as empathising better with their problems, and his character, of the hard-headed tough guy, is much more appealing than Obama's more nuanced personality.
Quite clearly, the charge of Obama being elitist is spurious, but it has a lot of credibility. Given that, in all likelihood, the working-class male vote will be a deciding factor, particularly in Rust Belt Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama must work harder at convincing them that he is one of them, and shares their aspirations, as well as their fears. By rights, it should be easy. However, given that in the primary he couldn't shake the charge of elitism made by Hillary Clinton, whose wealth was such that she could lend her campaign $11,000,000, most of it donated when it was obvious that she would not be the nominee, Obama patently has yet to do enough, and if anything sinks his campaign, it will be the fact that floating voters related to McCain more than they do to him.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
McCain's religious dilemma
There is little love lost between John McCain and the evangelical right. When, in 2000, he was deemed unsympathetic to them, the retaliated firstly by enthusiastically taking part in the smear campaign run by the Bush team, and then by voting in droves for George W Bush. Unfortunately for him, if the religious right can't be gotten out to vote for McCain in November, then Barack Obama will become the 44th president of the United States of America.
While he has a strong conservative legislative record on religious issues, McCain never seems to be comfortable talking about religion. Unlike Obama, who exudes easy confidence when dealing with issues of his faith, McCain tends to be reserved about it, and with good reason.
The problem that the religious right have with McCain is his character. Aside from his reticence in matters of faith, there is the fact that he is divorced, and was seeing his second wife while still married to his first. While he says the things the evangelicals want to hear in areas such as abortion, gay rights and religion in schools, there is always the impression that he doesn't fully support his own positions. In addition, some of his positions, notably on global warming, run contrary to the broad opinion on the right.
As a result, unlike George W. Bush, John McCain will have to work to get the evangelicals out to vote. As the core of the Republican party, their support is vital, and they are doubly important in swing states such as Florida or Ohio, where they are present in considerable numbers. They are not people who would naturally vote for a Goldwater-esque conservative like McCain. Therefore, expect the McCain camp to put out as many ads as possible stressing their candidate's religious credentials.
This, however, also carries risks, particularly among the other group that McCain must target: Independents. A slim majority of Americans now think that religion and politics should be kept separate, and with Barack Obama, a candidate who has a record of attracting independents to his banner, as his opponent, McCain cannot afford to alienate independents by taking too religious a line.
This is not to say that McCain doesn't have certain advantages with the religious right. Firstly, he is a genuine war hero, who spent five years in a POW camp in North Vietnam. He has, in spite of his lacklustre rhetoric, a solid conservative record. Perhaps most importantly, his opponent's views are extremely liberal, by American standards. While the religious right may not vote for McCain, they may vote against Obama. The big danger for McCain, however, is that they may not vote at all.
While he has a strong conservative legislative record on religious issues, McCain never seems to be comfortable talking about religion. Unlike Obama, who exudes easy confidence when dealing with issues of his faith, McCain tends to be reserved about it, and with good reason.
The problem that the religious right have with McCain is his character. Aside from his reticence in matters of faith, there is the fact that he is divorced, and was seeing his second wife while still married to his first. While he says the things the evangelicals want to hear in areas such as abortion, gay rights and religion in schools, there is always the impression that he doesn't fully support his own positions. In addition, some of his positions, notably on global warming, run contrary to the broad opinion on the right.
As a result, unlike George W. Bush, John McCain will have to work to get the evangelicals out to vote. As the core of the Republican party, their support is vital, and they are doubly important in swing states such as Florida or Ohio, where they are present in considerable numbers. They are not people who would naturally vote for a Goldwater-esque conservative like McCain. Therefore, expect the McCain camp to put out as many ads as possible stressing their candidate's religious credentials.
This, however, also carries risks, particularly among the other group that McCain must target: Independents. A slim majority of Americans now think that religion and politics should be kept separate, and with Barack Obama, a candidate who has a record of attracting independents to his banner, as his opponent, McCain cannot afford to alienate independents by taking too religious a line.
This is not to say that McCain doesn't have certain advantages with the religious right. Firstly, he is a genuine war hero, who spent five years in a POW camp in North Vietnam. He has, in spite of his lacklustre rhetoric, a solid conservative record. Perhaps most importantly, his opponent's views are extremely liberal, by American standards. While the religious right may not vote for McCain, they may vote against Obama. The big danger for McCain, however, is that they may not vote at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)