Zcom_simple

Obama’s Sobering Choices




Change Text Size a- | A+


Since the inception of the presidential campaign Barack Obama has promised to transcend America’s petty and divisive politics.  During a recent appearance on Late Show with David Letterman, the Illinois Senator remarked that the U.S. was in the midst of electoral “silly season” and that the public should pay more attention to pressing economic concerns.  Savaged by a wave of negative claims from the McCain camp in recent weeks, Obama is desperately trying to turn the conversation back to bread and butter issues.  But McCain is not letting up.  Why should he?  For now, the GOP’s strategy of exploiting American cultural politics is reaping great dividends. 

 

In a new all time low earlier this week, McCain aired an attack ad claiming that as a state lawmaker in Illinois Obama backed a bill to teach “comprehensive sex education” to kindergartners.”  “Learning about sex before learning to read?” the ad intoned.   “Barack Obama.  Wrong on education.  Wrong for your family.”  In reality, the legislation permitted local schools to teach “age-appropriate” sex education, meaning that kindergarten kids could be warned about sexual predators and inappropriate touching but not taught about sex.

 

Obama may scoff at such gutter tactics but the polls indicate that McCain’s cultural strategy and tapping of Sarah Palin for his VP slot is proving enormously successful amongst the American public.  By Obama’s own admission, Palin has been “a political phenomenon.”  Real Clear Politics, a Web site which acts as a clearing house for the most up to date polls, makes for sobering reading these days.  McCain is up by more than two points nationally, a strong contrast from June through August when most surveys showed Obama with about a five point advantage. 

 

The Obama campaign may claim that the election is not decided on the national vote but within key battleground states.  True, but even here the news has been terrible: in Virginia, where Obama was narrowly leading in June and July, McCain is now up by more than two points.  Pennsylvania is now a tossup.  Florida is no longer a tossup and is leaning McCain.  A couple of states that were merely leaning McCain like North Carolina and Georgia are now solidly in his column.  At present the electoral vote is about even with 217 for Obama and 216 for McCain.

 

Faced with this stark reality, Obama has three options: 1) stake out more left positions on the issues; 2) go negative and destroy McCain and Palin’s character; 3) keep on running the same type of campaign he’s done up until now and hope that the Sarah Palin phenomenon dies down or the Alaska Governor trips and falls.

 

 

Option #1

 

Public opinion surveys show that Americans consistently share liberal positions on the environment, Iraq and healthcare.  If Obama were to tack left on the issues he would energize his base and differentiate his campaign from the lackluster Kerry of ’04.  But there’s little evidence that such an approach would lead to electoral success: Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney have staked out more liberal positions than Obama and the American public hasn’t shown any interest whatsoever in their candidacies. 

 

What’s more, if Obama were to reverse himself and adopt a more progressive stance on health care for example he would be accused of being a flip-flopper and worse by the mainstream media.  On Election Day Obama would probably wind up with his home state of Illinois, Vermont, California, Massachusetts and a couple of other liberal states and lose by a wide margin to McCain.

 

 

Option #2

 

Given all of the domestic and foreign policy disasters the U.S. is currently facing, one would think that Obama would win the election in a landslide.  Nevertheless, it’s becoming ever clearer that the public is not receptive to a campaign which is based on tangible issues.  Recently CNN interviewed women voters in Missouri who had become electrified by the McCain ticket.  When asked why they planned to vote for the Arizona Senator, they simply replied that they could identify with Sarah Palin as a person.

 

Looking at the way the polls are headed Obama might soberly conclude that the American public lacks sufficient analytical tools to decipher politics and simply parrots what the media pundits say.  At this point Obama might think that his only option is to try and blacken McCain and Palin’s name.  The alternative is to fall prey to Swiftboat-like tactics and lose the election like John Kerry before him. 

 

If character assassination is the only viable way to win an election in this country, then Obama surely has plenty of ammunition.  He could, for example a) try to paint McCain as someone who is a true elitist and out of touch with the reality of everyday Americans; b) try to depict McCain as unhinged and temperamental; c) show that McCain is forgetful and out of touch with the younger generation; d) depict Palin as way out of the mainstream of U.S. politics.

 

A: Elitist:  Obama could run ads showing McCain’s many houses and emphasize how the Arizona Senator couldn’t even remember how many residences he owned.  It’s a simple and effective ad strategy that even the most uninformed Americans can understand.  “Who’s the real elitist?” Obama might ask.

 

B: Temper: McCain has been dubbed “Senator Hothead” by more than one publication with some justification.  Last year McCain shouted “Fuck you” to Texas Senator John Cornyn.  McCain and Cornyn argued during a meeting on immigration legislation; Cornyn complained that McCain seemed to drop in during the final stages of negotiations.  “Fuck you. I know more about this than anyone else in the room,” McCain reportedly shouted.

 

“Only an asshole would put together a budget like this,” McCain told the former Budget Committee chairman, Sen. Pete Domenici, in 1999. 

 

And on another occasion: “I'm calling you a fucking jerk!” McCain retorted to Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley. 

 

According to the Associated Press, the political landscape in Arizona “is littered with those who have incurred his [McCain’s] wrath. Former Gov. Jane Hull pretended to hold a telephone receiver away from her ear to demonstrate a typical outburst from McCain in a 1999 interview.”

 

McCain’s colleague Senator Thad Cochran said very recently that the idea of McCain as GOP nominee sent a chill down his spine. McCain has battled for years with the Mississippi Republican, a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, over pet projects or “earmarks” inserted by committee members into spending bills.

 

According to Cochran, McCain roughed up an associate of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega on a diplomatic mission in 1987. According to Cochran, McCain grabbed the Sandinista by the shirt collar and literally lifted him out of his chair. “McCain was down at the end of the table and we were talking to the head of the guerrilla group here at this end of the table and I don't know what attracted my attention,” Cochran said in an interview with The Sun Herald in Biloxi, Mississippi. “But I saw some kind of quick movement at the bottom of the table and I looked down there and John had reached over and grabbed this guy by the shirt collar and had snatched him up like he was throwing him up out of the chair to tell him what he thought about him or whatever.”

 

Cochran continued his inflammatory story: “I don't know what he [McCain] was telling him but I thought, 'Good grief, everybody around here has got guns and we were there on a diplomatic mission.' I don't know what had happened to provoke John, but he obviously got mad at the guy ... and he just reached over there and snatched ... him.” Cochran said no punches were thrown and the two sat back down. The man, who appeared ruffled after the confrontation with McCain, was an Ortega associate but Cochran said he was unsure of his identity.

 

Though Cochran is known as a consummate gentleman, when he talks about McCain the Mississippi Senator does not mince any words.  “He [McCain] is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.”

 

As I wrote in a report for the North American Congress on Latin America or NACLA (www.nacla.org), Senator Bob Dole was present at the Managua meeting.  Dole wanted to bolster his national security credentials at the time and had a Republican camera crew film the entire event. It’s unclear whether the film still exists, or even whether the camera captured what was happening across the table where McCain was sitting.  If Obama wants to go negative and prove that McCain is unstable he could try to find out if the footage exists or talk to other people who were present.

 

 

C: Forgetful

 

McCain has been either forgetful or poorly informed about world events.  On different occasions the Arizona Senator has forgotten who was in charge of Iran, confused the difference between Sunni and Shia and didn’t know that Czechoslovakia had split into two countries in 1993.  McCain famously admitted that he didn’t know anything about the internet or computer technology, a point that the Obama campaign has begun to exploit.  The Democrats could weave these points together more shrewdly but so far they seem reluctant to use the age card against McCain.

 

 

D: Palin

 

As for Palin, Obama must counter the Alaska politician’s mainstream image.  It’s not a difficult or uphill task.  According to the Los Angeles Times, Palin “has cheered the work of a tiny party that long has pushed for a statewide vote on whether Alaska should secede from those same United States…‘Keep up the good work,’ she told members of the Alaskan Independence Party in a videotaped speech to their convention six months ago in Fairbanks. She wished the party luck on what she called its ‘inspiring convention.’”

 

Obama could claim that Palin’s Alaska politics fall outside the mainstream.  How could we trust someone who supports the breakup of the United States to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, Obama might ask? 

 

Obama could try another tack by attempting to link Palin with anti-Semitism.  Former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan has said that Palin was a “brigadier” for him in 1996 and attended a fundraiser for his campaign.  Buchanan has defended ex-Klansman David Duke, remarked that Hitler was “an individual of great courage,” and challenged the historical record that thousands of Jews were gassed to death by diesel exhaust at Treblinka. 

 

Florida Democratic Congressman Robert Wexler, an Obama supporter, has lashed out at McCain's choice of Palin as his running mate due to the latter's support of a “Nazi sympathizer” (Buchanan).  So far however, the Obama campaign hasn’t really exploited the issue in a systematic way.

 

Going negative might improve Obama’s poll numbers but such a maneuver would make the Illinois Senator vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy since Obama has belittled gutter politics as a distraction from the issues that matter.

 

 

Option #3

 

Perhaps, Obama might calculate, the Palin “phenomenon” will simply plateau.  The Democrats are surely hoping that Palin is a momentary fad and that Obama will recover in the polls within a week or so once the public has forgotten all about the GOP convention.  Perhaps they’re right, but to expect that Palin will shoot herself in the foot seems misplaced.  Though the Alaska Governor is still uncomfortable with the media she is a conscientious campaigner and has shown herself to be somewhat polished. 

 

Obama can afford to wait a few more days to see how things shake out, but if the McCain-Palin ticket continues to rise in the polls through negative campaigning the Illinois Senator will have to face some stark choices.

 

 

Nikolas Kozloff is the author of Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2008).

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Clarification and elaboration

By Street, Paul at Sep 14, 2008 15:56 PM

There\'s a critical mistake in my comment. It shoud read "one reason corporate elites are NOT terribly upset by the phenomenon of a black candidate" instead of "one reason corporate elites are terribly upset by the phenomenon of a black candidate..

Sam I think that the Obama campaign would be smart to hit very hard on Sarah Pailin\'s clear lack of qualifications, experiential and otherwise  (her chilling nomination is just incredibly crass and vile) in party because McCain would be the oldest president ever inaugurated.  He\'s 72 and for what it\'s worth his father died of a sudden heart attack at age 70 and his grandfather (paternal, I think) did the same at age 61.  It\'s no joke to say that Sarah Barracuda would be a heartbeat away from the presidency.  

 LucyFur, yes I\'ve heard from rumblings that Obama may not really want victory enough to prevail anymore; I\'m more skeptical about that than my comment lets on because my reading of his past is that he\'s passionately wanted to be king of the world for a long time.  But still, maybe the drag of the campaign (which has gone very ugly) and the realization of how incredibly awful the state of the nation (bound to humilitate even a much better candidate) he would be expected to fix has worked its way on his will to fight.  He has it made for the rest of his life as it is. He will not personally suffer the real damage of another hard-right presidency (neither will my upper-middle/coordinator-class neighbors who insisted on Obama over the true progressive Kucinich and the semi-progressive Edwards, both fof whom ran as populist fighters).

One thing about Obama is that he\'s never had to fight it out in a serious fifteen-round match with a viable Republican in a general election contest. He\'s going to have to move left and get ugly at the same time if he wants to come out on top is my sense.

By the way,  I think NK did a nice job of posing critical issues and sparking readers to think and I thank him for that even as I disagree with the Nader and McKinney comment.

Reply this comment


Person

What about Bush?

By Richards, Samuel at Sep 14, 2008 13:54 PM

I agree with Paul Street\'s comments below, plus I went to suggest another angle the Obama campaign might pursue, which your article leaves out:

Relentlessly associate McCain/Palin with the Bush Administration.

They should play that clip of McCain saying he voted with Bush 90% of the time over and over until November.  Bush is by far the Republicans biggest liability this election year.  He wasn\'t mentioned at all during McCain and Palin\'s RNC speeches.  He\'s the most unpopular president in history, or at least as far back as public opinion could be reasonably measured.  His administration is one of the major reasons there\'s been an increase in grassroots political activity this election cycle (whether genuine or candidate-centered). 

 

 

Reply this comment


Occupy_iowa_city_rally

By Street, Paul at Sep 14, 2008 09:22 AM

Interesting reflections but: 

 A. 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive.  i recommend combining them.

B. The comment about Nader and McKinney (allegedly showing tat Obama couldn\'t tack left to win) is absurd.  Since Nader and McKinney are actually left true-progressive candidates, the corporate funding and media systems make sure that they cannot be heard or be taken seriously in the mainstream (I can\'t fathom that the author wouldn\'t know this) . The miltiantly centrist Obama, on the other hand. is obviously being heard and taken quite seriously.  He wouldn\'t have to move all that much further left to avoid Kerry\'s fate - the shift could be largely about tone and (Lakoffian) framing (the main thing that pays off under the rules of corporate-crafted candidate-centered U.S. presidential politics).  It wouldn\'t necessarily have to involve health care - there are other issue areas he could try to seem more progressive on.

C.  Race plays a role in tempering Obama\'s populist pretense.  Team Obama is afraid (justly, perhaps) of activating the toxic white "angry black man" stereotype --- one reason corporate elites are terribly upset by the phenomenon of a black candidate.

If he wants to win, Brand Obama should tack left and combine that with a negative assault on a  terrible and dangerous GOP ticket.  Personally, I think it\'s likely he won\'t do that. Left populist rheotric does  not fit well with his history, training, socialization, and temperament going back to the beginning of his career.

There may be reason to wonder if he really wants to win at this point. He may have decided his ticket is already punched and that the best thing is just to enjoy his status as an unfairly defeated bourgeois-liberal icon ala Al Gore or even Adlai Stevenson.  Or maybe he thinks the underlying fundamentals --- especially the bad economy -- are so good for a Democrat that he can just cruise in without having to fight all that hard or passionately.  That would be a bad assumption. 

The devaluation of serious policy issues and their trumping by image and candidate "qualities" or character is a staple of U.S. political culture and the U.S. party system.  It goes way back before this election and will sadly outlast the current electoral cycle. 

 

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Person

Re:

By Beringer-Newlin, Gretchen at Sep 14, 2008 12:04 PM

\"There may be reason to wonder if he really wants to win at this point.\" My thought exactly. If Obama wins, the Democrats will stand stark naked in the light. Obama can\'t do anything the corporatocracy doesn\'t want him to do. Democrat voters, with their delusions of hope and a new way, will be appalled at the slaughter in Afghanistan, etc. Third parties will look more and more attractive. A tsunami could occur. If McCain wins, the Democrats are saved .... again. Because the race is so close at this point - by design, IMO - Nader, McKinney and their supporters will be blamed for the ensuing mayhem. Obama will receive an attractive promotion, possibly be allowed to pull off a progressive bill or two, just to dig it in. \"Obama never got the chance!\" they will rail. Third parties will be marginalized and maligned even further (the M&M treatment). And best of all: THE DUOPOLY IS SAVED! --gretchen

Reply this comment

Loading_border