A New Audience and Post-Debate Strategy

Rather than trying to appeal to on the fence voters or rally their own supporters, it seemed that many of Hillary Clinton's attacks where focused mostly on trying to win more superdelegates. In a race to the end, where so much is decided by these mysterious superdelegates, it is not surprising that Hillary had particular interest in wooing them. She kept trying to put Obama on the defensive and show the flaws in his electability. It didn't seem to do her any good however, as Obama announced even more superdelegates this week. Personally, I'm tired of everyone harping on gaffes such as shootings in Bosnia and bitter comments. I would rather hear more about their strengths and why they would make a good president, not why their opponent would not. I need something other than offhand comments to determine which one is actually a better choice.

Another interesting aspect of this debate is that rather than doing clean-up on their own comments, the new post-debate strategy seems to be to attack the moderators. The public criticized the moderaters for not getting into substantive issues early enough. Obama chimed in on this note when he was in Raleigh, saying “We set a new record because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people." While I agree that I tired of the trivial issues, it seems very easy for the candidates to have avoided those big questions and then pretend like they didn't actually want to avoid the big questions. We should have gotten to big issues first, but do not criticize the moderators for that. Answer the big questions now.

National Identity and Whims

Roger Cohen has declared that Asia is the new world power. 81% of Americans feel that this country is headed in the wrong direction. The challenge that this set of presidential candidates faces is not defining national identity in patriotic terms that our country can unite under, but rather forming an identity that the international community can get behind.

Right or wrong, America has been the dominant power in international arenas. Our economic, military and political strength has consistently placed us as the leader, that many countries have gotten behind and looked to for help in any number of situations. This perception has changed gradually in the last couple of years however. With an unpopular war and a demeaned president, the international community sees Americans laughing at their own state of affairs and is quick to join in the ridicule. But at what point did anything substantive change in the way American operated? Is a war in and of itself enough to deplete a country like America to the point where it is only a punch line? Or is it that public perceptions have built upon each other until it appears to be this way?

It is clear to me now that we need a change. This is not because I disagree with every policy that has been enacted in the last four years or that I disagree with the war or president entirely. I believe we need change simply because people perceive we need change. While I still do not agree with some of the policies that "change" would bring about, I have to respect the national and international thirst for it. Like someone had mentioned in class, what kind of difference in direction would having another old white man signal? Barack's appeal to me then, is not his policies or political competency, but simply the fact that he is new, young, fresh body and a blatant change in direction and identity for the US.

Although I changed my major after taking Econ 10 and I do not pretend to be an economist of any sort, it seems to me that a significant portion of our economic problems are identity related as well. It would not surprise me to see a jump in the economy after November if Barack is elected, simply because people think things will be better and thus have more confidence in their economy. I do not believe that the U.S. is on a downward unstoppable spiral to being uprooted as a world power. I do believe that we flush ourselves down the toilet. Our negative national identity is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If Americans could start looking at their country with faith and confidence again, the international community would easily follow suit and America would be right back or better than where it started. This has nothing to do with policies, it has everything to do with perception.

Would McCain Vote for Obama?

Since I wrote my last post on the electability of Barack, I figured I needed to address the opposite view that Stanley Fish talked about. Fish claims that in fact McCain has more flexibility in his stance than Barack, meaning that Barack is not willing to adjust and reform his approach to the war depending upon the route that the war is taking. McCain's view of the war has in essence mirrored that of a large portion of the public. Many people forget that they actually supported the war in the beginning (although many faulted the reasons we went in), but have in time come to criticize the execution and length of conflict. McCain was a regular criticizer of Rumsfeld and his approach to the war and was also a supporter of change in the form of a surge, which has had a modicum of success. In contrast, Obama has simply said no no no, out out out.

Another interesting thing that often is overlooked or glossed over in the media when looking at Barack's stance on the war, is that Barack was not actually in the Senate at the time of the vote and therefore did not actually vote against the war. Granted, his public position may still have been against invasion, but its very easy to say that you are against something when it has no immediate political consequences for you. Barack was an outsider looking in at the time, not susceptible to the strong response fever that swept much of the government in the wake of a terrorist attack. He could just as easily turned around and said that he would have voted for the war, as he could have said he would have been strong enough to oppose a movement that was undeniably popular in politics at the time.

Fish bases his view that Barack is potentially defeatable on the fact that all of Barack's criticism of Hillary does not apply to McCain. Hillary voted for the war mostly on political manuevering rather than conviction. I think however that Fish underestimates the power of the war. The anti-war feeling is so strong that any support of it is still likely to take a vote away. Ultimately I do think that Barack is still more likely to be able to defeat McCain than Hillary, but he will have to change his tactics and responses slightly.

Skeletons in the Closet

Generally, when deciding if I will or will not vote for someone, I go down a list comparing policies, values and personality. It had not occurred to me until I saw a poll on Super Tuesday coverage, to vote for someone simply based on whether or not they could defeat their opponent. I'm sure that most naturally competitive people (aka anyone involved in the world of politics) would prefer it if their candidate won, but I personally would not have listed it in the top 5 of my voting criteria. However, in an election environment where most people seem intent on simply getting rid of W and anyone who could be associated with him, it makes sense that electability would be more important. Once I had established the importance of this new criteria, I was not surprised to find out that Barack is deemed more electable than Hillary.

In an article in last week's NYT, Nicholas Kristof cites Barack as having the largest approval rating with Independents as well as the least downfalls to his candidacy. What I found interesting was that Clinton’s "personality and past history make her too polarizing to win independent and Republican-leaning voters". For a presidential candidate who's only true criticism is that he is young and too inexperienced, it seemed that this "disadvantage" played directly into the strengths of his campaign, namely his personality and image. Obama has not fluctuated much on his votes, views and media persona or collected many skeletons in his closet, simply because he has not been around long enough. While inexperience is still a critical determinant in his policies and effectiveness if he gets to Washington, it has only helped his point that he is a fresh, dynamic, agent of change.

Hillary on the other hand, has to fight against a long history of different personas, images, criticisms and choices. Navigating a past that includes playing the roles of lawyer, first lady, injured wife and state senator, she has had to reinvent herself in some way each time. To successfully fill each role, her image had to change, even if only slightly. Her presidential campaign has provided the magnifying glass for too-masculine-here, too-feminine-there past. While playing to a particular image at one point may have helped her, now it is impossible for anyone to lock down on exactly what her personality is, let alone have that personality inspire someone to vote for her.

While both images are no doubt carefully crafted by each campaign and the media, Hillary's simple existence in the political realm for a longer period of time, leaves more questions for her to answer. While Obama's practical inexperience may still provide him with some obstacles, the public's inexperience with him has allowed him to carefully and deliberately craft a compelling persona without the interference of a past.

Chuck Facts

Not necessarily my vote but everyone can appreciate Chuck Norris...