Now that the dust has settled on the momentous overseas trip for Sen. Barack Obama, the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, the results are coming in. Besides the fabulous visuals on the trip-Barack sinking a trey on a basketball court in front of U.S. troops; 200,000 idolizing Germans listening to his speech in Berlin, schmoozing with leaders of France, Britain and the Middle East-what did American voters actually think? What was the "bounce"?
By "bounce," I mean an uptick in Senator Obama's approval ratings. By all accounts, the trip, highlighted by extensive media coverage (most of it very positive), should have boosted the Democrat over his presidential rival, Republican Senator John McCain.
And sure enough, by Sunday in the Gallup Tracking Poll, Sen. Obama sprinted to a nine-point edge over Senator McCain. A similar tracking poll (which measures daily fluctuations in the race) from the Rasmussen organization showed on Saturday that Obama shot to a six-point lead over Sen. McCain. The Rasmussen lead drifted back down to five on Sunday.
But the shocker came yesterday when the Gallup/USA Today poll showed Senator McCain leading Senator Obama among likely voters. Here I must digress and explain. Polls often ask questions of voters who have varying degrees of enthusiasm and commitment to their candidates as well as voting. Polls are often taken of "registered" voters; that is, anybody who says they are registered to vote. Polls also are taken of "likely" voters who, as you would probably conclude, say they are "likely" to vote in the upcoming election. The likely voters are often a more reliable number than the registered voters because, well. likely voters are more likely to show up at the voting booth.
Registered voters may or may not cast a ballot. So which would you rather have? A huge lead among people who may not vote, or a lead among people who say they will? Watch these numbers reported during all the polling throughout the campaign. They mean different things and should be weighed accordingly. But remember, this is only a snapshot in time. It could mean something, or it may be a statistical blip.
Anyhow, what are the numbers? Among registered voters, Obama still leads McCain but by three points, 47-44. However, among likely voters, it's Senator McCain, 49-45. Huh? In addition, the Rasmussen tracking poll is down to a one-point lead for Senator Obama. The Gallup tracking for today has it Obama by six.
So after the trip, the polls are telling us the race tightened? Why? Shouldn't Senator Obama have lengthened his lead?
Pollsters are still trying to figure this out. Gallup says that Americans actually had a muted reaction to the trip with Democrats saying it was great, Republicans, not. There were more people without an opinion than with one. The Gallup people also say that following the excitement of the Democratic primary race between Senator Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton, Republicans are tuning back into the race; they had obviously tuned out before. Senator Obama's positives among Republicans and independents have suffered slightly, hence the drop.
Throw in the factoid that many Americans think the U.S. media is biased towards Senator Obama, and the trip coverage may have reinforced their opinion, and you may have the beginnings of a little pushback. Republicans may become more energized about the race than before, although many political professionals remain gloomy about the GOP's electoral prospects.
Some commentators are dismissing the polling results saying that the real value of Sen. Obama's trip will come in the fall campaign when he can say, "When I spoke with France's president…Angela Markel of Germany and I…the Israeli and Palestinian leaders told me…" and therefore go head-to-head and toe-to-toe with Senator McCain on foreign policy debates, where Senator Obama could be weaker.
We'll see, but political common sense tells me the numbers should have been a little higher.
Don't hold me to this, but I think the Obama campaign may be suffering from a little hubris, and it's showing. Those voters who aren't devoted to Senator Obama may be put off from supporting him at this moment. They could still hop on the bandwagon and vote for him, but for now, they might think it's a little bit unseemly for him to start acting like he's already the president.
Meanwhile, Senator Obama's campaign and other sources are discussing "serious talks" with Virginia Governor Tim Kaine as a vice presidential candidate. Kaine is a Democrat who has won in a traditionally Republican state. If he can help the Democrats carry Virginia away from the Republicans, that could be great news for the Dems. But Gov. Kaine has only served two years and change as a governor. Perhaps that's not the greatest credential for a presidential candidate who is going to get attacked on his lack of experience. The two are said to get along very well and would present a forward-looking young, not-Washington type of ticket. We'll see.
Senator McCain is still considering a VP choice and some insiders say it is between former presidential candidate Mitt Romney (who was defeated by McCain) and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Conservatives in the party like Pawlenty for his tough economic stands. It's also a state the Republicans almost carried in the 2004 election and would like to take away from the Democrats if possible. Again, a tall order this year but that could be big for the Republicans if the election turns out to be close.
Finally, another Republican in hot water. Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican in the Senate, was indicted today on seven charges of failing to report gifts and income. He is also up for election this year. He plans to fight the charges but as if Republicans didn't have enough to worry about, this won't help.
July 29, 2008
July 23, 2008
Post Surge
There is an interesting storyline developing now in the media regarding Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. John McCain, and the "surge." By way of definition?
Sen. Barack Obama--Democratic Party nominee-in-waiting, leader in the polls, and candidate rock star
Sen. John McCain--Republican Party nominee-in-waiting, trails Sen. Obama in the polls, and is more like a fan of big bands; the other day when he landed in New Hampshire, there was one--count 'em--one reporter on hand to meet him. Unlike say, the press contingent with Sen. Obama on his foreign tour.
Surge--an increase of 30,000 troops to Iraq that seemed, by all accounts now, to have been successful in its goals of reducing violence and introducing a heightened sense of stability to the country, as well as allowing the government time to develop.
What's new is the sense that the "surge" worked. So now that it's worked, let's declare victory and get the heck out. This is also being expressed as the feeling that the American voter doesn't want to hear an endless debate about whether or not the surge worked (it did); who supported it (Sen. McCain), who didn't (Sen. Obama) but wants to know now that the surge is successful, when we will be able to leave?
This argument helps Senator Obama a great deal as he has combined the success of the surge (which he opposed) with his insistence of a timetable or schedule for leaving Iraq at the earliest possible moment. This may well be what voters want to hear; in fact, it's the best of both worlds--we're doing well, the Iraqis have time to work out their solutions, so let's not stay any longer than necessary. It's a forward-thinking argument and sounds a lot more appealing than the surge is working but we have to stay until we decide it's time to go, whenever that is.
Sure, Senator Obama and US Iraq Theatre Commander General David Petraeus disagree on whether or not a "timetable" should be established for a U.S. exit. The new narrative seems to be: the surge worked, so let's go.
Senator McCain may also be running into problems with some gaffes he's been piling up lately. He's been talking about the "Iraq-Pakistan border" (they don't have one); a mix up between Somalia and Sudan, references to "Czechoslovakia" (when that former nation was divided into the Czech Republic and Slovakia), referring to Vladimir Putin as the president of Germany, and others.
Pressure has been building in the liberal blogosphere for an accounting of these misstatements which are being attributed to Senator McCain's age of 71. As one pundit put it, you can criticize Senator Obama's policies, but criticisms of Senator McCain are increasingly being targeted to his age. Obama may be too young and inexperienced at 46, but is Senator McCain too old at 71, soon to be 72?
How will the voting public take to this? It will all factor into this equation which I believe is a soliloquy encapsulating the state of the voters' present mindset:
I think some change is necessary. But I don't know a whole lot about Barack Obama except he's for change and he's awful young. But he seems to have energy, determination, and smarts; and maybe he can change America's image in the world. He seems to have answers and lots of plans. But I'm not ready yet to commit. I need to see a little more of this guy. What if he talks a good game but can't deliver?
John McCain, great guy, patriot, can't imagine what he must have gone through, speaks his mind, is independent, doesn't talk down to you or pander, he'd be good on the war on terror but has his time passed? Is he the guy I want at the helm given what faces us in 2008? He even says he doesn't much care about domestic issues. I'm not sure about that...So, I don't know...I have to figure this out. But I still have time, the election is far away.
Which affects a candidate more...age or inexperience? That's a tough one. But an answer will emerge after the presidential debates, which barring any huge developments until then, could decide that and many other questions.
Sen. Barack Obama--Democratic Party nominee-in-waiting, leader in the polls, and candidate rock star
Sen. John McCain--Republican Party nominee-in-waiting, trails Sen. Obama in the polls, and is more like a fan of big bands; the other day when he landed in New Hampshire, there was one--count 'em--one reporter on hand to meet him. Unlike say, the press contingent with Sen. Obama on his foreign tour.
Surge--an increase of 30,000 troops to Iraq that seemed, by all accounts now, to have been successful in its goals of reducing violence and introducing a heightened sense of stability to the country, as well as allowing the government time to develop.
What's new is the sense that the "surge" worked. So now that it's worked, let's declare victory and get the heck out. This is also being expressed as the feeling that the American voter doesn't want to hear an endless debate about whether or not the surge worked (it did); who supported it (Sen. McCain), who didn't (Sen. Obama) but wants to know now that the surge is successful, when we will be able to leave?
This argument helps Senator Obama a great deal as he has combined the success of the surge (which he opposed) with his insistence of a timetable or schedule for leaving Iraq at the earliest possible moment. This may well be what voters want to hear; in fact, it's the best of both worlds--we're doing well, the Iraqis have time to work out their solutions, so let's not stay any longer than necessary. It's a forward-thinking argument and sounds a lot more appealing than the surge is working but we have to stay until we decide it's time to go, whenever that is.
Sure, Senator Obama and US Iraq Theatre Commander General David Petraeus disagree on whether or not a "timetable" should be established for a U.S. exit. The new narrative seems to be: the surge worked, so let's go.
Senator McCain may also be running into problems with some gaffes he's been piling up lately. He's been talking about the "Iraq-Pakistan border" (they don't have one); a mix up between Somalia and Sudan, references to "Czechoslovakia" (when that former nation was divided into the Czech Republic and Slovakia), referring to Vladimir Putin as the president of Germany, and others.
Pressure has been building in the liberal blogosphere for an accounting of these misstatements which are being attributed to Senator McCain's age of 71. As one pundit put it, you can criticize Senator Obama's policies, but criticisms of Senator McCain are increasingly being targeted to his age. Obama may be too young and inexperienced at 46, but is Senator McCain too old at 71, soon to be 72?
How will the voting public take to this? It will all factor into this equation which I believe is a soliloquy encapsulating the state of the voters' present mindset:
I think some change is necessary. But I don't know a whole lot about Barack Obama except he's for change and he's awful young. But he seems to have energy, determination, and smarts; and maybe he can change America's image in the world. He seems to have answers and lots of plans. But I'm not ready yet to commit. I need to see a little more of this guy. What if he talks a good game but can't deliver?
John McCain, great guy, patriot, can't imagine what he must have gone through, speaks his mind, is independent, doesn't talk down to you or pander, he'd be good on the war on terror but has his time passed? Is he the guy I want at the helm given what faces us in 2008? He even says he doesn't much care about domestic issues. I'm not sure about that...So, I don't know...I have to figure this out. But I still have time, the election is far away.
Which affects a candidate more...age or inexperience? That's a tough one. But an answer will emerge after the presidential debates, which barring any huge developments until then, could decide that and many other questions.
July 22, 2008
A Veep for McCain
As I mentioned yesterday, rumors are swirling that Republican presidential nominee (in-waiting) Sen. John McCain, will name his vice presidential choice by the end of this week. There are 41 days before the Republican National Convention opens in Minneapolis, Minnesota, so it's not as if the nominee is racing to beat a deadline.
It used to be that vice presidential nominees were chosen during convention week. At times, it was the only story at a convention when the candidate had the nomination sewed up and there was little to do save guess who was going to be No. 2.
But with the Democratic Party presidential nominee (in waiting), Sen. Barack Obama, generating mega-headlines and photo ops on his foreign trip, it may that the McCain camp feels they have to make a big splash to dampen the coverage of Sen. Obama (an unplanned pun, pardon me).
Several commentators have said that it's a pretty big card to play at this stage in the race and any true public relations value of such a choice would be wasted away while, frankly, most Americans aren't paying that much attention now to the political race. It would be a big buzz for a day or two, be one of several topics on the weekend political talk shows, but for a major announcement and strategic plan, is it really worth it to do this now? I come down on the side that it isn't.
But if he does, whom will he pick? The most obvious choice is former Massachusetts Governor and defeated presidential candidate Mitt Romney. It is a good, safe pick but certainly not an "exciting" one. Gov. Romney had lots of advantages going into the presidential race in 2007 but failed to parlay them into the nomination. Plus he is a Mormon, and like it or not, it became enough of a campaign issue during the primaries that he felt compelled to give a speech on it.
Then there are the others: former congressman Rob Portman, who for awhile, headed President Bush's Office of Management and the Budget; Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, a popular governor in a critical state who helped the nominee a great deal with a personal endorsement; former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, another defeated candidate, but a guy with personality and an ability to connect with voters, especially conservatives; and former NY mayor and presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, who would buttress support on the senator's national security credentials.
The surprise "exciting" choices would be: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, an Indian-American turned Catholic who is smart, beloved by conservatives, and brings diversity and youth to the ticket. But Jindal is only 37 which would point up Senator McCain's age at 71. On the distaff side, there is Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, a former beauty queen who has a great personal story, is pro-life, and appeals to so-called "swing" voters (who go back and forth among the two parties). Also there's Carly Fiorina, current McCain advisor, former chief of Hewlett-Packard, and someone who speaks in 21st century management buzz phrases.
One thing political analysts say the Republicans are noted for is order in their succession. The next guy (or gal) in line always gets the nod, no matter what. If that is the case, look for Mitt Romney. But if the Arizona senator wants to truly roll the dice in a race that seems stacked against him he could make a major splash and choose from Jindal, Palin, or Fiorina.
We'll see what he does if he does it....and sorry for all these liquid metaphors!
It used to be that vice presidential nominees were chosen during convention week. At times, it was the only story at a convention when the candidate had the nomination sewed up and there was little to do save guess who was going to be No. 2.
But with the Democratic Party presidential nominee (in waiting), Sen. Barack Obama, generating mega-headlines and photo ops on his foreign trip, it may that the McCain camp feels they have to make a big splash to dampen the coverage of Sen. Obama (an unplanned pun, pardon me).
Several commentators have said that it's a pretty big card to play at this stage in the race and any true public relations value of such a choice would be wasted away while, frankly, most Americans aren't paying that much attention now to the political race. It would be a big buzz for a day or two, be one of several topics on the weekend political talk shows, but for a major announcement and strategic plan, is it really worth it to do this now? I come down on the side that it isn't.
But if he does, whom will he pick? The most obvious choice is former Massachusetts Governor and defeated presidential candidate Mitt Romney. It is a good, safe pick but certainly not an "exciting" one. Gov. Romney had lots of advantages going into the presidential race in 2007 but failed to parlay them into the nomination. Plus he is a Mormon, and like it or not, it became enough of a campaign issue during the primaries that he felt compelled to give a speech on it.
Then there are the others: former congressman Rob Portman, who for awhile, headed President Bush's Office of Management and the Budget; Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, a popular governor in a critical state who helped the nominee a great deal with a personal endorsement; former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, another defeated candidate, but a guy with personality and an ability to connect with voters, especially conservatives; and former NY mayor and presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, who would buttress support on the senator's national security credentials.
The surprise "exciting" choices would be: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, an Indian-American turned Catholic who is smart, beloved by conservatives, and brings diversity and youth to the ticket. But Jindal is only 37 which would point up Senator McCain's age at 71. On the distaff side, there is Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, a former beauty queen who has a great personal story, is pro-life, and appeals to so-called "swing" voters (who go back and forth among the two parties). Also there's Carly Fiorina, current McCain advisor, former chief of Hewlett-Packard, and someone who speaks in 21st century management buzz phrases.
One thing political analysts say the Republicans are noted for is order in their succession. The next guy (or gal) in line always gets the nod, no matter what. If that is the case, look for Mitt Romney. But if the Arizona senator wants to truly roll the dice in a race that seems stacked against him he could make a major splash and choose from Jindal, Palin, or Fiorina.
We'll see what he does if he does it....and sorry for all these liquid metaphors!
July 21, 2008
Obama in the Middle East; VP Names?
The news is saturated with coverage of Democratic Party presidential nominee in waiting, Sen. Barack Obama, and his trip to Afghanistan and Iraq. Sen. Obama is in the region to see for himself the situation on the ground.
It doesn't seem to have affected his desire to pull out most American troops from Iraq in 16 months. The Iraqis say the want US troops gone at some point although they would not commit to a timetable. Sen. Obama says that knowing what he knows now, he still would have opposed sending more troops to Iraq last year.
But almost all Middle East observers (and Sen. Obama to some degree) say the "surge" of forces to Iraq worked; violence is down, Iraqi security forces have made gains and the nightly stories of bombings that dominated news broadcasts and front pages of papers have been relegated to the back or end of the broadcast, if they are mentioned at all.
Withdrawal as a goal without a timetable, based on the events on the ground, with residual forces left, is morphing into the default position of both candidates and the Bush administration. The differences among them are becoming minute although the rhetoric is still strident. And Senator Obama is calling for more troops in Afghanistan.
Politically, the trip will do Sen. Obama much good as the American public will see him with foreign leaders and in the war zone. They may not hear much of what the anchors accompanying him on the trip will say and the substance may get lost in the background noise. What they will hear is what the press thinks. So far, the coverage has been positive but restrained. Sen. Obama has to be careful of making any gaffes and so far, his trip has been structured to do just that.
Senator McCain is trying to keep in the game as Sen. Obama dominates the headlines with critiques of his own on the Democrat's foreign policy. The Republican said that by taking a trip to the region, Obama would "have the opportunity to see the success of the surge."
Iraq and foreign affairs have taken a back seat to the economy and oil prices in recent months. If the election is fought over economic issues, that will rebound to the favor of Senator Obama, as he is of the "out" party. But if it is about national security and keeping us safe, that advantage goes to Sen. McCain.
Another political observer pointed out that the election will be a referendum on one of the two candidates. Each wants to make it a referendum on the other. Candidates usually lose referendums on themselves.
Americans are still coming to know Sen. Obama; he has only been on the national stage for four years; before that he was a state legislator. I also get the sense that Americans are in no hurry to make up their minds as the election is still over 100 days away. There have been articles suggesting this is a rerun of the 1976 election between President Gerald Ford (Republican) and Governor Jimmy Carter (Democrat). President Ford was challenged at the convention by then Governor Ronald Reagan of California, inflation was high, and the mood in the country was sour. President Ford won at the convention, but barely.
Gov. Carter had a huge advantage in public opinion polls, but later in the campaign, President Ford caught up and nearly won.
The other analogy is to 1980 when Gov. Ronald Reagan trailed President Carter through most of the election season. People knew Ronald Reagan as an actor on television, and a governor who was not ashamed to say what he thought. They didn't know him politically.
Again, the country was in a sour mood, with the Iranians holding US hostages, and American prestige around the world damaged. There were major economic troubles and the American public wanted a change, they just weren't sure if Gov. Reagan was the man they wanted to lead that change.
There was one presidential debate in the election season and in it, Ronald Reagan demonstrated he wasn't the monster portrayed in the media. He seemed kind of likable, avuncular, and connected with the audience. After the debate, it was a close race no longer, Gov. Reagan sprinted to a lead in public opinion polls and won going away.
Right now, I am leaning towards the 1980 model with Sen. Obama playing the role of Ronald Reagan. There are differences, to be sure, but I think much will depend upon how Sen. Obama comes across in the debates. If Americans don't think he is too young or too inexperienced for the job, he may win going away, too. But if they do, it will end up being a very close contest.
BTW, reports are filtering in that both candidates may soon be ready to name their vice presidential running mates. Sen. McCain may do this by the end of the week, Senator Obama in a couple of weeks. I'm not sure why they are doing this now a full month ahead of the conventions, but look for possible announcements. Republicans are leaning towards former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who was defeated in the primaries by Sen. McCain, the Democrats are anybody's guess. I haven't heard much about Sen. Clinton and the vice presidency in a long time.
Talk at you later.
It doesn't seem to have affected his desire to pull out most American troops from Iraq in 16 months. The Iraqis say the want US troops gone at some point although they would not commit to a timetable. Sen. Obama says that knowing what he knows now, he still would have opposed sending more troops to Iraq last year.
But almost all Middle East observers (and Sen. Obama to some degree) say the "surge" of forces to Iraq worked; violence is down, Iraqi security forces have made gains and the nightly stories of bombings that dominated news broadcasts and front pages of papers have been relegated to the back or end of the broadcast, if they are mentioned at all.
Withdrawal as a goal without a timetable, based on the events on the ground, with residual forces left, is morphing into the default position of both candidates and the Bush administration. The differences among them are becoming minute although the rhetoric is still strident. And Senator Obama is calling for more troops in Afghanistan.
Politically, the trip will do Sen. Obama much good as the American public will see him with foreign leaders and in the war zone. They may not hear much of what the anchors accompanying him on the trip will say and the substance may get lost in the background noise. What they will hear is what the press thinks. So far, the coverage has been positive but restrained. Sen. Obama has to be careful of making any gaffes and so far, his trip has been structured to do just that.
Senator McCain is trying to keep in the game as Sen. Obama dominates the headlines with critiques of his own on the Democrat's foreign policy. The Republican said that by taking a trip to the region, Obama would "have the opportunity to see the success of the surge."
Iraq and foreign affairs have taken a back seat to the economy and oil prices in recent months. If the election is fought over economic issues, that will rebound to the favor of Senator Obama, as he is of the "out" party. But if it is about national security and keeping us safe, that advantage goes to Sen. McCain.
Another political observer pointed out that the election will be a referendum on one of the two candidates. Each wants to make it a referendum on the other. Candidates usually lose referendums on themselves.
Americans are still coming to know Sen. Obama; he has only been on the national stage for four years; before that he was a state legislator. I also get the sense that Americans are in no hurry to make up their minds as the election is still over 100 days away. There have been articles suggesting this is a rerun of the 1976 election between President Gerald Ford (Republican) and Governor Jimmy Carter (Democrat). President Ford was challenged at the convention by then Governor Ronald Reagan of California, inflation was high, and the mood in the country was sour. President Ford won at the convention, but barely.
Gov. Carter had a huge advantage in public opinion polls, but later in the campaign, President Ford caught up and nearly won.
The other analogy is to 1980 when Gov. Ronald Reagan trailed President Carter through most of the election season. People knew Ronald Reagan as an actor on television, and a governor who was not ashamed to say what he thought. They didn't know him politically.
Again, the country was in a sour mood, with the Iranians holding US hostages, and American prestige around the world damaged. There were major economic troubles and the American public wanted a change, they just weren't sure if Gov. Reagan was the man they wanted to lead that change.
There was one presidential debate in the election season and in it, Ronald Reagan demonstrated he wasn't the monster portrayed in the media. He seemed kind of likable, avuncular, and connected with the audience. After the debate, it was a close race no longer, Gov. Reagan sprinted to a lead in public opinion polls and won going away.
Right now, I am leaning towards the 1980 model with Sen. Obama playing the role of Ronald Reagan. There are differences, to be sure, but I think much will depend upon how Sen. Obama comes across in the debates. If Americans don't think he is too young or too inexperienced for the job, he may win going away, too. But if they do, it will end up being a very close contest.
BTW, reports are filtering in that both candidates may soon be ready to name their vice presidential running mates. Sen. McCain may do this by the end of the week, Senator Obama in a couple of weeks. I'm not sure why they are doing this now a full month ahead of the conventions, but look for possible announcements. Republicans are leaning towards former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who was defeated in the primaries by Sen. McCain, the Democrats are anybody's guess. I haven't heard much about Sen. Clinton and the vice presidency in a long time.
Talk at you later.
July 19, 2008
Obama in Afghanistan
Democratic Party presidential nominee Barack Obama is in Afghanistan as part of his European and Middle East trip. If you're a supporter, this is an educational exercise for the nominee, a chance to meet foreign leaders face to face, and judge the situation in Afghanistan and possibly Iraq.
If you are a critic, this is a shameless photo-op and a campaign trip.
But for the nominee, there are upsides and downsides to this trip. The upside is he will likely be greeted in Europe as a conquering hero and the man who will take the presidential oath of office in January of 2009. While relations between the Bush administration and Europe have warmed in recent months, most Europeans consider Barack Obama one of them, perhaps the closest to a western European democrat (small D) that an American candidate has been in some time, even closer than the Democrats' 2004 standard bearer, John Kerry.
In the Middle East, though, it is going to be much more complex (isn't it always?) Iraqis, while welcoming him, have a mixed view. If he indeed pulls out troops on a schedule, despite what is going on on the ground, that could be viewed negatively. Not that Barack would ever say so publicly. But at the same time, Iraqis say they are ready to have the US leave in a less formalized way.
Back at home, Barack has sought to maintain his views on the Iraq war (leaving as soon as practically possible) but insists on building up forces in Afghanistan. Unless the Democratic Party campaign suddenly adopts the Afghanistan war as its own, it could be a difficult (but not impossible) sell to its striden anti-war base.
Interestingly, the polls remain close, at least for now. The results of this trip will also try to get more Americans comfortable with the idea of Barack Obama as commander in chief, so he has to be careful to play the part. It's harder than it sounds, particularly in the Middle East, so the stakes for him are high.
There will be lots of media coverage, all major US network anchors are going which has led the McCain camp to cry double standard. When Senator McCain went on trips to the Middle East, the anchors didn't go along, so why now? Well, it is a little different and Senator Obama is on a maiden voyage of sorts. But obviously, righit now, this election is about him, not Senator McCain, hence the super coverage.
Let's see if this turns into a mushy pr campaign, or if the senator is asked some tough questions about how this will impact his views on the war and what he will do about it as president.
If you are a critic, this is a shameless photo-op and a campaign trip.
But for the nominee, there are upsides and downsides to this trip. The upside is he will likely be greeted in Europe as a conquering hero and the man who will take the presidential oath of office in January of 2009. While relations between the Bush administration and Europe have warmed in recent months, most Europeans consider Barack Obama one of them, perhaps the closest to a western European democrat (small D) that an American candidate has been in some time, even closer than the Democrats' 2004 standard bearer, John Kerry.
In the Middle East, though, it is going to be much more complex (isn't it always?) Iraqis, while welcoming him, have a mixed view. If he indeed pulls out troops on a schedule, despite what is going on on the ground, that could be viewed negatively. Not that Barack would ever say so publicly. But at the same time, Iraqis say they are ready to have the US leave in a less formalized way.
Back at home, Barack has sought to maintain his views on the Iraq war (leaving as soon as practically possible) but insists on building up forces in Afghanistan. Unless the Democratic Party campaign suddenly adopts the Afghanistan war as its own, it could be a difficult (but not impossible) sell to its striden anti-war base.
Interestingly, the polls remain close, at least for now. The results of this trip will also try to get more Americans comfortable with the idea of Barack Obama as commander in chief, so he has to be careful to play the part. It's harder than it sounds, particularly in the Middle East, so the stakes for him are high.
There will be lots of media coverage, all major US network anchors are going which has led the McCain camp to cry double standard. When Senator McCain went on trips to the Middle East, the anchors didn't go along, so why now? Well, it is a little different and Senator Obama is on a maiden voyage of sorts. But obviously, righit now, this election is about him, not Senator McCain, hence the super coverage.
Let's see if this turns into a mushy pr campaign, or if the senator is asked some tough questions about how this will impact his views on the war and what he will do about it as president.
July 15, 2008
Update
Sorry for not having posted in a bit but, hey, it's summer...the pace slows down a bit. Not for the candidates, mind you, but for those who follow them. But all good things come to an end (at least for me), so now back to the campaign trail. Here's a roundup of recent events. And thanks for the kind compliments that have come in; they are much appreciated.
Whiners:
When we last left you, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, said he wanted to cut off part of Democratic Party presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama's anatomy. The senator, in the Rev. Jackson's view, was "talking down to black people" with remarks on responsible fatherhood. It caused a flap and the Rev. Jackson had to apologize, which he did, early and often.
But soon after, former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, an adviser to the Republican Party's nominee, Sen. John McCain, said, in essence, that Americans who complained about the economy were "whiners." This has been the Republican tack for some time on the economy--things are not that bad and you don't know how good you have it.
Once again, the hammer came down, and Senator McCain had to apologize for former Sen. Gramm's remarks. Politically, the remarks were seen as close to an insult to voters who have been wracked by high gas prices, the threat of home foreclosures, increased overall costs, etc. It seemed out of touch and insensitive. Whatever advantage Senator McCain may have gained in the Jackson-Obama flap (and it probably wasn't much) was lost immediately in the flap over the "whiner" comment.
Curiously, some on the conservative side defended Sen. Gramm's remarks saying Americans were whiners. While you can point to lots of statements and polls that show Americans do tend to whine on certain topics, politically it was not a great thing to say. Advantage: Obama.
But speaking of Obama, it has not been a great couple of weeks for the senator. His lead in the polls over Sen. McCain remains small (in fact, in a Newsweek poll, it dropped from 15 to 3; others show it essentially tied) and his movement to the political center has caused angst among his most fervent anti-war supporters.
Senator Obama based his entire campaign on his early opposition to the Iraq war. He has said consistently he would withdraw troops the first day he took office and have them out within two years. He also opposed the "surge" in Iraq which, by most accounts, has worked to lessen violence and bring some stability to the country. Now, any criticism of the surge is no longer on his website.
So, Senator Obama has been "clarifying" and "moderating" his position on Iraq in advance of a trip to the region. He says he tie any decision on American forces in Iraq to events in the ground after talking to commanders there. Although he still says he will withdraw forces, it's a lot fuzzier now than it was before.
In a speech today, and in previous opinion pieces, he said that if elected, he would be sending "additional Afghanistan brigades," and argued "the U.S. faces a growing threat from a resurgent al-Qaida in Afghanistan." Polls show Americans are more optimistic about the war in Afghanistan than in Iraq (but not by much), so perhaps, Sen. Obama is trying to show he is committed to the war on terror (to please voters who are not anti-war types but have concerns about Iraq) by fighting it in Afghanistan.
This is costing him some support among his passionate anti-war activists, but so far, his personality and the change he represents still attracts a strong base of support.
However, among independents and non-partisan voters on both sides, the Obama of 2007 and the winter of this year is not the same Obama as now. His focus seems to be much less clear and it's hard to pin down exactly where he is standing (although today's speech should give pundits lots of food for thought).
Voters who are considering casting a ballot for Obama haven't made up their minds yet, and they still have doubts based on his age, and shall we say, modest, experience on the national scene. Of course, nobody has to make up his or her mind yet, as there are 112 days to go before Election Day on Nov. 4.
Obama staffers believe over time, voters will grow comfortable with the idea of Sen. Obama as commander in chief. But as the underdog, every day that decision is put off, is a good day for the campaign of Senator McCain.
Whiners:
When we last left you, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, said he wanted to cut off part of Democratic Party presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama's anatomy. The senator, in the Rev. Jackson's view, was "talking down to black people" with remarks on responsible fatherhood. It caused a flap and the Rev. Jackson had to apologize, which he did, early and often.
But soon after, former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, an adviser to the Republican Party's nominee, Sen. John McCain, said, in essence, that Americans who complained about the economy were "whiners." This has been the Republican tack for some time on the economy--things are not that bad and you don't know how good you have it.
Once again, the hammer came down, and Senator McCain had to apologize for former Sen. Gramm's remarks. Politically, the remarks were seen as close to an insult to voters who have been wracked by high gas prices, the threat of home foreclosures, increased overall costs, etc. It seemed out of touch and insensitive. Whatever advantage Senator McCain may have gained in the Jackson-Obama flap (and it probably wasn't much) was lost immediately in the flap over the "whiner" comment.
Curiously, some on the conservative side defended Sen. Gramm's remarks saying Americans were whiners. While you can point to lots of statements and polls that show Americans do tend to whine on certain topics, politically it was not a great thing to say. Advantage: Obama.
But speaking of Obama, it has not been a great couple of weeks for the senator. His lead in the polls over Sen. McCain remains small (in fact, in a Newsweek poll, it dropped from 15 to 3; others show it essentially tied) and his movement to the political center has caused angst among his most fervent anti-war supporters.
Senator Obama based his entire campaign on his early opposition to the Iraq war. He has said consistently he would withdraw troops the first day he took office and have them out within two years. He also opposed the "surge" in Iraq which, by most accounts, has worked to lessen violence and bring some stability to the country. Now, any criticism of the surge is no longer on his website.
So, Senator Obama has been "clarifying" and "moderating" his position on Iraq in advance of a trip to the region. He says he tie any decision on American forces in Iraq to events in the ground after talking to commanders there. Although he still says he will withdraw forces, it's a lot fuzzier now than it was before.
In a speech today, and in previous opinion pieces, he said that if elected, he would be sending "additional Afghanistan brigades," and argued "the U.S. faces a growing threat from a resurgent al-Qaida in Afghanistan." Polls show Americans are more optimistic about the war in Afghanistan than in Iraq (but not by much), so perhaps, Sen. Obama is trying to show he is committed to the war on terror (to please voters who are not anti-war types but have concerns about Iraq) by fighting it in Afghanistan.
This is costing him some support among his passionate anti-war activists, but so far, his personality and the change he represents still attracts a strong base of support.
However, among independents and non-partisan voters on both sides, the Obama of 2007 and the winter of this year is not the same Obama as now. His focus seems to be much less clear and it's hard to pin down exactly where he is standing (although today's speech should give pundits lots of food for thought).
Voters who are considering casting a ballot for Obama haven't made up their minds yet, and they still have doubts based on his age, and shall we say, modest, experience on the national scene. Of course, nobody has to make up his or her mind yet, as there are 112 days to go before Election Day on Nov. 4.
Obama staffers believe over time, voters will grow comfortable with the idea of Sen. Obama as commander in chief. But as the underdog, every day that decision is put off, is a good day for the campaign of Senator McCain.
July 10, 2008
The Rev. Jackson's "Cutting" Remarks
If this campaign gets any weirder, well, I don't know what I'll do.
The other day, the 66 year-old Rev. Jesse Jackson, the civil rights leader and former presidential candidate, was on a talk show on the Fox network about the election. When he thought the microphones were off, he said that Democratic Party presumptive nominee, Sen. Barack Obama was, "talking down to black people" when the candidate was making speeches at black churches. Senator Obama's crime? He apparently was telling the audience that black parents need to set better examples for their children..particularly fathers.
"Too many fathers are AWOL (absent without leave), missing from too many lives and too many homes," Sen. Obama said.
For some reason, this angered the Rev. Jackson, who then said, referring to Obama, "I want to cut his --- off," (you can find the exact quote elsewhere) according to the Fox News Web site.
Immediately, the punditry went into high gear. Of course, the Rev. Jackson was angered. As a two time presidential candidate (class of '84 and '88) who came nowhere near winning, he is probably angered at Senator Obama's success at becoming the first African-American to win the nomination of a major party and perhaps the first African-American to win the office of president. Jealousy? Envy?
I report, you decide.
But is Senator Obama talking down to "black people?" His advice could apply to people of any race. It isn't just black fathers who are AWOL in their childrens' lives. But it is a particular problem in the black community.
For instance about ten years ago, 57.7 percent of all black children, 31.8 percent of all Hispanic children, and 20.9 percent of all white children were living in single-parent homes. Entertainer Bill Cosby has spoken out about this quite regularly; he, too, has been criticized for doing so.
Nevertheless, the Rev. Jackson began to apologize to anyone who would listen and reemphasized that he remained a supporter of Sen. Obama. Gee, I would hate to hear what he had to say if he was an opponent :-)
Even his own son, Jesse Jackson, Jr., a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, blasted his dad (although he said he loved him) for the comments. There's family...and there's politics.
But the real hoot (at least to me) was the instant analysis of whether or not this would "help" Senator Obama with working class white voters who are a tad more traditional than either the Rev. Jackson or Sen. Obama. Their verdict? It would!
"It reinforces Obama's effort to present himself as an advocate of responsible personal behavior, a position that Republican candidates like to secure as uniquely their own," said Mark Rozell, Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University.
Please....
Voters may select candidates for a variety of odd reasons (he has a mustache, I never vote for a person with a mustache; she wears loud color dresses and looks drab; he's too young) but this is not one of them. I doubt anyone is going to pull the lever in November based on an insult made in July. And an insult that is going to be viewed as one of personal pique.
This won't have any effect at all; it highlights the way pundits think American voters are like children. It angers me at times that something like this would even be considered to "help" or "hurt". I think voters make decisions based on a lot more than that...all right, at least most voters.
But it may point out a little quiet divide between older civil rights leaders and Senator Obama, the "post-racial" candidate. If Senator Obama wins the presidency, you can expect a great deal of heavy pressure put on him by the civil rights establishment for long-time cherished goals like increased social spending for blacks, reparations legislation, and more.
Will Senator Obama go along, or believe his path to mastery over U.S. politics lies somewhere in the middle?
In American politics, the middle ain't a bad place to be.
The other day, the 66 year-old Rev. Jesse Jackson, the civil rights leader and former presidential candidate, was on a talk show on the Fox network about the election. When he thought the microphones were off, he said that Democratic Party presumptive nominee, Sen. Barack Obama was, "talking down to black people" when the candidate was making speeches at black churches. Senator Obama's crime? He apparently was telling the audience that black parents need to set better examples for their children..particularly fathers.
"Too many fathers are AWOL (absent without leave), missing from too many lives and too many homes," Sen. Obama said.
For some reason, this angered the Rev. Jackson, who then said, referring to Obama, "I want to cut his --- off," (you can find the exact quote elsewhere) according to the Fox News Web site.
Immediately, the punditry went into high gear. Of course, the Rev. Jackson was angered. As a two time presidential candidate (class of '84 and '88) who came nowhere near winning, he is probably angered at Senator Obama's success at becoming the first African-American to win the nomination of a major party and perhaps the first African-American to win the office of president. Jealousy? Envy?
I report, you decide.
But is Senator Obama talking down to "black people?" His advice could apply to people of any race. It isn't just black fathers who are AWOL in their childrens' lives. But it is a particular problem in the black community.
For instance about ten years ago, 57.7 percent of all black children, 31.8 percent of all Hispanic children, and 20.9 percent of all white children were living in single-parent homes. Entertainer Bill Cosby has spoken out about this quite regularly; he, too, has been criticized for doing so.
Nevertheless, the Rev. Jackson began to apologize to anyone who would listen and reemphasized that he remained a supporter of Sen. Obama. Gee, I would hate to hear what he had to say if he was an opponent :-)
Even his own son, Jesse Jackson, Jr., a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, blasted his dad (although he said he loved him) for the comments. There's family...and there's politics.
But the real hoot (at least to me) was the instant analysis of whether or not this would "help" Senator Obama with working class white voters who are a tad more traditional than either the Rev. Jackson or Sen. Obama. Their verdict? It would!
"It reinforces Obama's effort to present himself as an advocate of responsible personal behavior, a position that Republican candidates like to secure as uniquely their own," said Mark Rozell, Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University.
Please....
Voters may select candidates for a variety of odd reasons (he has a mustache, I never vote for a person with a mustache; she wears loud color dresses and looks drab; he's too young) but this is not one of them. I doubt anyone is going to pull the lever in November based on an insult made in July. And an insult that is going to be viewed as one of personal pique.
This won't have any effect at all; it highlights the way pundits think American voters are like children. It angers me at times that something like this would even be considered to "help" or "hurt". I think voters make decisions based on a lot more than that...all right, at least most voters.
But it may point out a little quiet divide between older civil rights leaders and Senator Obama, the "post-racial" candidate. If Senator Obama wins the presidency, you can expect a great deal of heavy pressure put on him by the civil rights establishment for long-time cherished goals like increased social spending for blacks, reparations legislation, and more.
Will Senator Obama go along, or believe his path to mastery over U.S. politics lies somewhere in the middle?
In American politics, the middle ain't a bad place to be.
July 8, 2008
Safeco Acceptance Speech
Democratic Party nominee Senator Barack Obama plans an unusual departure from convention orthodoxy when he accepts his party's presidential nomination in a 76,000-seat stadium rather than the 15,000-seat convention hall in August.
The nomination will be August 28--the 45th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream Speech--and the setting should be a roaring, adoring crowd, the kind of venue in which Obama performs best.
The networks are scrambling because they have spent four years preparing for the four-day convention which they assumed would be held in the Pepsi Center; now it will change locations. There is grumbling on the part of the networks and threats to reduce convention coverage, but the theatre of August 28 plus the symbolism will be much too much to ignore. Bet on massive coverage of the acceptance speech on television.
But what if it rains?
Just asking...(as others have in the press).
I keep reading that in this race, it truly will be a referendum on Barack Obama and that Republican Party nominee Senator John McCain, is really "incidental" to the whole question of who will take the oath of office at high noon on Jan. 20, 2009.
While there is some truth to this, it is exaggerated, and the closeness of the presidential polls in what should be a landslide year for the Democrats hints that Senator McCain and the Republicans (at least so far)are not "incidental".
There are some interesting political calculations going on which I will have more on later but that's it for now. Gotta run...
The nomination will be August 28--the 45th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream Speech--and the setting should be a roaring, adoring crowd, the kind of venue in which Obama performs best.
The networks are scrambling because they have spent four years preparing for the four-day convention which they assumed would be held in the Pepsi Center; now it will change locations. There is grumbling on the part of the networks and threats to reduce convention coverage, but the theatre of August 28 plus the symbolism will be much too much to ignore. Bet on massive coverage of the acceptance speech on television.
But what if it rains?
Just asking...(as others have in the press).
I keep reading that in this race, it truly will be a referendum on Barack Obama and that Republican Party nominee Senator John McCain, is really "incidental" to the whole question of who will take the oath of office at high noon on Jan. 20, 2009.
While there is some truth to this, it is exaggerated, and the closeness of the presidential polls in what should be a landslide year for the Democrats hints that Senator McCain and the Republicans (at least so far)are not "incidental".
There are some interesting political calculations going on which I will have more on later but that's it for now. Gotta run...
July 2, 2008
Shakeup at McCain HQ
According to various press sources, Republican Presidential nominee in waiting, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, has shaken up his campaign.
The campaign manager, Rick Davis, will now be spending much of his time on fundraising, planning the convention and the vice presidential search. Unpaid advisor Steve Schmidt, who has been traveling with the senator, moves into a more day to day control position.
What is interesting to me is that Steve Schmidt ran the successful rebranding of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenngger in his re-election campaign as well as the "war room" for President Bush and Vice President Cheney in 2004. He is a details man who is said to be a stern taskmaster and a guy who can control all the various aspects of a presidential campaign.
Many press accounts indicate Republican Party frustration with the McCain campaign for what they said was the squandering of the time after the Arizonan won the nomination that could have been put to use "identifying" himself with the American public at large. That would have been difficult at any rate because most media types were reporting in overdrive on the Clinton-Obama race. Nevertheless, many Republicans feel that the campaign has been literally adrift. The last straw could have been a speech on June 3 in which Senator McCain appeared before a stark green backdrop and gave a speech before what has been called a "sparse" and "uninterested" crowd. The speech was generally panned.
Compared to the speech given by Senator Obama (it was the night he clinched the nomination and was at the Excel Center in Minnesota) who was speaking before a roaring crowd in a packed house, the McCain effort was found wanting. Again, the man and the moment reverted to Obama and while his speech ran long that night, all networks covered it almost in its entirety while ignoring, for the most part, Senator McCain.
At any rate, such things as appearances matter and Republicans hope Steve Schmidt can fine-tune the operation.
Given the challenges facing Senator McCain and the Republicans in this election, he needs to run a near-flawless campaign.
Polls still show it's close so the good news for Senator McCain is that Senator Obama does not have a big lead at this point. But in this day and age of visual, visual, visual, the McCain campaign has to show it can compete with that of Obama's on a variety of levels. Given the way the Obama campaign has performed, that won't be easy.
Something else to keep in mind is that Mr. Schmidt's sucess with Gov. Schwarzenngger involved a candidate who came into office as a conservative firebrand and morphed into a moderate Republican who embraced global warming and other social policies. This may be what he needed to do in liberal California, but it could also serve as a hint that the McCain camp thinks it needs to appeal more to independents and moderates who may be uncomfortable with the increasingly difficult to understand and ever-evolving positions of Senator Obama.
The McCain camp has its work cut out for it, but this election is far from over, at least in current polling.
The campaign manager, Rick Davis, will now be spending much of his time on fundraising, planning the convention and the vice presidential search. Unpaid advisor Steve Schmidt, who has been traveling with the senator, moves into a more day to day control position.
What is interesting to me is that Steve Schmidt ran the successful rebranding of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenngger in his re-election campaign as well as the "war room" for President Bush and Vice President Cheney in 2004. He is a details man who is said to be a stern taskmaster and a guy who can control all the various aspects of a presidential campaign.
Many press accounts indicate Republican Party frustration with the McCain campaign for what they said was the squandering of the time after the Arizonan won the nomination that could have been put to use "identifying" himself with the American public at large. That would have been difficult at any rate because most media types were reporting in overdrive on the Clinton-Obama race. Nevertheless, many Republicans feel that the campaign has been literally adrift. The last straw could have been a speech on June 3 in which Senator McCain appeared before a stark green backdrop and gave a speech before what has been called a "sparse" and "uninterested" crowd. The speech was generally panned.
Compared to the speech given by Senator Obama (it was the night he clinched the nomination and was at the Excel Center in Minnesota) who was speaking before a roaring crowd in a packed house, the McCain effort was found wanting. Again, the man and the moment reverted to Obama and while his speech ran long that night, all networks covered it almost in its entirety while ignoring, for the most part, Senator McCain.
At any rate, such things as appearances matter and Republicans hope Steve Schmidt can fine-tune the operation.
Given the challenges facing Senator McCain and the Republicans in this election, he needs to run a near-flawless campaign.
Polls still show it's close so the good news for Senator McCain is that Senator Obama does not have a big lead at this point. But in this day and age of visual, visual, visual, the McCain campaign has to show it can compete with that of Obama's on a variety of levels. Given the way the Obama campaign has performed, that won't be easy.
Something else to keep in mind is that Mr. Schmidt's sucess with Gov. Schwarzenngger involved a candidate who came into office as a conservative firebrand and morphed into a moderate Republican who embraced global warming and other social policies. This may be what he needed to do in liberal California, but it could also serve as a hint that the McCain camp thinks it needs to appeal more to independents and moderates who may be uncomfortable with the increasingly difficult to understand and ever-evolving positions of Senator Obama.
The McCain camp has its work cut out for it, but this election is far from over, at least in current polling.
July 1, 2008
Back on the Trail
Hey there...
Now that my one-week vacation is over, I can return to the world of politics. Let me tell you, since I escaped the Beltway for a week, most Americans do not spend every waking hour worrying or wondering about who will succeed whom in what office. At least now. Maybe later, but not now.
Politics outside of Washington is like a radio playing in the background. People may watch a bit of a newscast here or there but then move onto other things--like what is for dinner, what the kids are doing, the weather, and griping. Politics is not a dominant fixture in their lives.
They know who is running for office, they know the issues, but there's plenty of time before they need to get serious, so why do it now?
While I was away, I saw that Senator Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama appeared on the same stage at the same time; Senator Clinton's husband spoke to Barack Obama in a long anticipated "chat," the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Americans have the right to own guns in their own homes for self-defense, and the candidates continued sniping back and forth over this and that.
Senator Obama had to give a speech saying that he was an American patriot (countering claims that he wasn't) and Senator John McCain was being attacked on his military record (seems like a dumb move to me).
We are going to see a lot of this back and forth trying to win the news cycle for the next several months so get used to it. That and lots of polls released almost daily by dozens of organizations, some of whom should not be in the polling business. Don't worry, I'll sort them out for you.
Basically, Senator Obama can be safely described as "ahead" although not by very much. Given President Bush's low approval ratings and the large advantage Democrats enjoy in generic polling, it could be said that Senator McCain should be grateful it's this close. It can also be said that given all the Republican Party's woes, it's a good sign for Senator McCain that he is only slightly behind (in most polls, not in all).
There was an interesting article posted about a focus group in the Washington Post recently. Focus groups are gatherings of 5-10 people chosen demographically and are asked questions and followups. Unlike a poll, a good focus group leader can drill down into peoples' emotions and feelings about a candidate or party and glean things that could make a diference in a campaign.
This one particular group showed that a consensus leaned towards Senator Obama but that there were still many unknowns about him because he has so recently become a national figure. There's interest but no finality and if Senator Obama can't close the sale, Senator McCain will be there to fill the void. So, the election is still pretty fluid, as far as I am concerned, although I would say Senator Obama is still the guy to beat.
Lately, Senator Obama's statements on such issues as gay marriage (he does not favor gay marriage but does favor gay "unions" and wants the issue left to the states but does not favor a referendum in the state of California to prohibit gay marriage) are beginning to leave a muddled taste in some polling. What does this guy really think? Is he the true post-political figure who can bring Americans together, or is he trying to slide an ambitious political agenda through a series of mushy bromides?
Senator McCain was viewed by this focus group as too close to President Bush and the Democratic argument that electing Senator McCain would fulfill a third term for President Bush is falling on receptive ears. People in this group felt a change was necessary but were not quite agreed on what that "change" was or should be.
Voters will have to decide but they will have time to do it, and at their own pace. Even if it's not the pace of Beltway insiders who think of politics all the time. Tonight, I actually found myself thinking: what's for dinner? :-)
Now that my one-week vacation is over, I can return to the world of politics. Let me tell you, since I escaped the Beltway for a week, most Americans do not spend every waking hour worrying or wondering about who will succeed whom in what office. At least now. Maybe later, but not now.
Politics outside of Washington is like a radio playing in the background. People may watch a bit of a newscast here or there but then move onto other things--like what is for dinner, what the kids are doing, the weather, and griping. Politics is not a dominant fixture in their lives.
They know who is running for office, they know the issues, but there's plenty of time before they need to get serious, so why do it now?
While I was away, I saw that Senator Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama appeared on the same stage at the same time; Senator Clinton's husband spoke to Barack Obama in a long anticipated "chat," the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Americans have the right to own guns in their own homes for self-defense, and the candidates continued sniping back and forth over this and that.
Senator Obama had to give a speech saying that he was an American patriot (countering claims that he wasn't) and Senator John McCain was being attacked on his military record (seems like a dumb move to me).
We are going to see a lot of this back and forth trying to win the news cycle for the next several months so get used to it. That and lots of polls released almost daily by dozens of organizations, some of whom should not be in the polling business. Don't worry, I'll sort them out for you.
Basically, Senator Obama can be safely described as "ahead" although not by very much. Given President Bush's low approval ratings and the large advantage Democrats enjoy in generic polling, it could be said that Senator McCain should be grateful it's this close. It can also be said that given all the Republican Party's woes, it's a good sign for Senator McCain that he is only slightly behind (in most polls, not in all).
There was an interesting article posted about a focus group in the Washington Post recently. Focus groups are gatherings of 5-10 people chosen demographically and are asked questions and followups. Unlike a poll, a good focus group leader can drill down into peoples' emotions and feelings about a candidate or party and glean things that could make a diference in a campaign.
This one particular group showed that a consensus leaned towards Senator Obama but that there were still many unknowns about him because he has so recently become a national figure. There's interest but no finality and if Senator Obama can't close the sale, Senator McCain will be there to fill the void. So, the election is still pretty fluid, as far as I am concerned, although I would say Senator Obama is still the guy to beat.
Lately, Senator Obama's statements on such issues as gay marriage (he does not favor gay marriage but does favor gay "unions" and wants the issue left to the states but does not favor a referendum in the state of California to prohibit gay marriage) are beginning to leave a muddled taste in some polling. What does this guy really think? Is he the true post-political figure who can bring Americans together, or is he trying to slide an ambitious political agenda through a series of mushy bromides?
Senator McCain was viewed by this focus group as too close to President Bush and the Democratic argument that electing Senator McCain would fulfill a third term for President Bush is falling on receptive ears. People in this group felt a change was necessary but were not quite agreed on what that "change" was or should be.
Voters will have to decide but they will have time to do it, and at their own pace. Even if it's not the pace of Beltway insiders who think of politics all the time. Tonight, I actually found myself thinking: what's for dinner? :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
