| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| VDH: McCain's surge, Obama's desperation |
| 2008-09-09 |
| Expect Obama/Biden to get a little desperate and resort to more and more negative campaigning. There are three reasons for McCain's sudden surge apart from a successful convention. (In this regard, I think the effectiveness of Giuliani's comically savage attack on Obama have not been fully appreciated.) Had Sarah Palin not spoken that night or not been as effective a speaker we might still be talking about Rudy's speech. First, the ramifications of not choosing Hillary are now clear: Obama lost a savvy experienced campaigner, who had successfully wooed the white-working class, cemented the Democratic woman's vote, and would have hit the tarmac running, incorporating the entire Clintonian negative-campaigning mob. Biden brings no upside; he's not a fresh "change" face, and is the sort of veteran that isn't popular this year. While the press waits for the first Palin's slips, it is as just as likely that Biden will return to form and out-gaffe her in the short term. Second, Palin deflated the Democratic convention bounce. Her charisma and youth sort of out-hoped and hyper-changed Obama. More importantly, she energized and redefined McCain's stale maverick image into a new "change" tandem--as both he and Palin were now seen as fellow outsiders who bucked the party establishment and would do the same together in Washington. That was a brilliant reconfiguration that was worth at least 1 or 2 points in the polls. She also brought a Zen sort of irony: the more Team Obama talked of her inexperience as a Vice Presidential nominee, the more renewed attention turned to whether Obama himself was any more experienced for the top spot on the ticket. And the more elite feminists attacked her as unqualified, the more we wondered whether they had made it, as did Palin, without patriarchal jumpstarting or matrimonial insider assistance; the more they go berserk over Palin, the more Biden is marginalized. Third, the liberal media's attack on Palin was an unforeseen gift and ripped the scab off the old cultural-war wound that usually favors conservatives. Liberal hypocrisy and hysteria were such that the more the likes of a Sally Quinn, Gloria Steinem, Chris Matthews, or Gail Collins went after Sarah, in ways not commensurate with the examination of Biden or other liberal women politicians of the past, the more the public sympathized with a fellow blue-collar victim of predictable elite disdain. There is a deer-in-the-headlights look to CNN/MSNBC reporters in the field as they try to report their Sarah hit pieces--sort of like "I know I look hopelessly biased, and am--but what else am I supposed to do?" What's next? The Obama campaign will have to figure out how to deal with a growing paradox. Their natural, and now emotional urge is to go after Palin even more, and hope that the media is ever more relentless in search of a meltdown--even as they accept that in doing so they only further garner sympathy for her ordeal, and lose sight that the race is ultimately between Obama and McCain. Obama also would like to fall back on his stump riff of "they are going to scare you with (fill in the blanks about his race, religion, or name)"--even though resort yet again to the victim card will only turn off tired voters even more. And the problem with the return to Lord Hope and Master Change is that the airways are crowded with those cliches, as McCain/Palin are not only expropriating that message, but energizing it with the maverick label--something Hillary was never quite able to do. In this cycle of the see-saw race, expect Obama to take a risk and go really negative as he falls into a gripey, cranky mode. So now we await the Palin interviews, and, depending on her performances, whether all these short-term trends will either revert or accentuate even more. But don't count on a Palin implosion: if one examines Obama's failed House race, and the weird pull-outs of both his primary and general election Illinois Senatorial opponents, then we sense that he has never really waged a knock-out campaign fight until this past year--and that may not be true of Palin's past scrappy and contested rise to the top. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #16 Video of Obama calling Palin a Pig |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-09-09 22:46 |
| #15 Obama called Palin a Pig with Lipstick today. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-09-09 21:28 |
| #14 Mercutio I completely agree. I think Obama and Michelle made a personal decision that it was not worth it to put Hillary on the ticket. It would increase his chances of winning, but he would be unable to lead with her undermining him every step of the way, feeding his missteps to the press and her working hard to keep herself in the public mind as The One Who Should Be The President. I think at that point in time they believed they could do it on their own and she just wasn't worth the trouble she would bring once the election was over. |
| Posted by: Betty Grating2215 2008-09-09 20:06 |
| #13 The MSM & Obama camp (I know: that's redundant) have partly and perhaps mostly immunized Palin from criticism, at least for a while. Even if something with a grain of truth turns up they already appear so desperate to smear her that it'll likely be dismissed by most voters. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2008-09-09 20:06 |
| #12 But don't count on a Palin implosion: I said it before, I'll say it again. The MSM is going to scramble to make as much noise as they can over whatever little gaffe they think they found. Because Gov Palin has caracter they're not going to find much. I'd love to see them break out the magnifying glass on Sen Obama though. If they subjected HIM to as much scrutiny as they will her, he'd sink like the Titanic. |
| Posted by: DLR 2008-09-09 18:56 |
| #11 Don't count Hillary out just yet. The Phoenix could rise in 2012. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2008-09-09 18:51 |
| #10 True enough, Barb, but I am thankful to Obama for one thing: he got rid of the Hildebeast. Remember, last year at this time we were thinking Hilde versus Rudy. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-09-09 18:41 |
| #9 "Obama won partly due to a coup by other Democrats to get rid of the 'dynamic duo.'" Heh heh. As ye sow, so shall ye reap. And it looks like the Dems just got reaped. By themselves. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-09-09 18:35 |
| #8 I think that VDH, and many others, underestimate the loathing that Hillary invokes in the majority of people. Add Bill in to the mix and I don't think it would have helped all that much after the bounce wore off. Loathing is no match for a ruthless political machine that could arm-twist funding. Up until the end of the primary campaign, the Clintons had the reins of the Democrat Party. Obama won partly due to a coup by other Democrats to get rid of the 'dynamic duo'. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-09-09 18:24 |
| #7 Who would want Bill around all the time trying to look up your wife's dress? Actually, I'm quite certain Michelle Obama would be able to handle him. He isn't the chief executive anymore, after all. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-09-09 18:15 |
| #6 What's next? The Obama campaign will have to figure out how to deal with a growing paradox. It's a riddle wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. Lord of The Hoops, you just wouldn't understand. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-09-09 17:48 |
| #5 Who would want Bill around all the time trying to look up your wife's dress? Hillary would have been a miserable choice but certainly there was a Democratic woman Obama could have chosen. Biden cancelled much of the inexperience attacks but then he also nullified the change angle for Obama allowing McCain to take up that angle (which as a REpublican right now he desperately needed). |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-09-09 17:24 |
| #4 I think that VDH, and many others, underestimate the loathing that Hillary invokes in the majority of people. Add Bill in to the mix and I don't think it would have helped all that much after the bounce wore off. They would have had a total of two terms of Senate experience between them and no executive experience. What? First Lady counts? Not to mention all the skelatons in the closet. I expected him to pick Richardson. I'm wondering if the vet found an infestation of worms. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2008-09-09 16:01 |
| #3 Evan Bayh would have been a better choice for Obama. He is young, experienced and appeals to independents. Biden is old, annoying and pisses everyone off. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-09-09 15:43 |
| #2 You know, I'm continually amazed at folks who say ZerObama should have picked HRC as his VP. Yes, that would have probably given him the election, but who in his right mind would want to spend 4 years watching his back for the development "sudden knife" syndrome. She'd have eaten him alive from within... it puts one in mind of wasp larvae and their hosts... |
| Posted by: Mercutio 2008-09-09 15:08 |
| #1 I agree with Mr. Hanson's opinion of Rudy on this one, that set the evening for me. They could have had a pair of dancing chickens on after him and I still would have considered the evening 'successful'. Mrs. Palin then took it over the top. |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2008-09-09 14:52 |