Is the 2008 election like 2004?

How much things change, and how much they stay the same.  At a certain angle, the election in 2008 is very similar to 2004.  Or is it?

A few things to think about when making the comparison:

• Who are the candidates perceived as?
• What support are they tapping in order to secure a win?
• What type of campaign can be expected as a whole?
• What issue will win the election?

First, lets look at the two fellas:

Who are the candidates perceived as:

In 2004, the contrast was between the most liberal senator in Congress and the pro-war Republican candidate.  John Kerry ended up being portrayed as a stiff, hollow man who calculated more than a calculus professor.  George Bush did a fine job of putting himself in stark contrast as the passionate president who led with his gut as much as with his belly.  

John McCain may not be a conservative in the same vein Bush was, but he is slowly making inroads in that direction.  Framing himself as a no-nonsense right winger who is pro-life, pro-war, and anti-hippie, he knows the move he needs to make is to the right, to the right, as Beyonce would say.

Barack Obama is also not a liberal in the same vein as Kerry.  First of all, Kerry always rubbed liberals the wrong way with his pro-war stance.  The only reason he was stomached by most was because he was NOT Bush.  He ran a campaign off of a negative quality.  Obama is already outraging liberals, but for other reasons.  He is as much an intellectual as Kerry, but he does not wear it on his sleeve; instead, he takes a step back and takes the most pragmatist approach to issues.  This may eventually paint him as calculating, which was one of the downfalls of the Kerry campaign.

What support are they tapping in order to secure a win:

In 2004, it was all about the base.  Independent voters, undecided citizens, bah!  They played second fiddle to both parties.  Bush was lucky enough that the grand Karl Rove strategy to increase Evangelical turnout by 4mill proved to be a success.  Kerry built his campaign around the Bush outrage, again running a negative quality campaign.

The 2008 election could not be anymore different.  The base has dispersed from both parties, especially the GOP.  Instead of courting the choir, McCain and Obama have to proselytize to a new flock.  Moderates, independents, discouraged former party loyalists, they are all walking around aimlessly, judging each candidate with a grain of salt.

In order to win in 2008, both candidates will have to win the voters who decide who to vote for the day before the election.

What type of campaign can expected as a whole:

Dirty.  But that would not make 2004 that much different from most elections.  What made it distinct was how the dirt was thrown and received.  On both sides the dirt was thrown from outside the official campaign.  Bush mostly used the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (most effective, in the end), while Kerry relied on MoveOn.org and every other left-leaning group in the Western Hemisphere.

So far this campaign has been run with little fanfare.  An awkward New Yorker cover here, some inappropriate jokes made by McCain there, but nothing earth-shattering.  I suspect as the months roll by that McCain will become the aggressor in this campaign.  He is already positioning himself as the "underdog", which he is but not really.  His party is still fundraising very well, and he is not that far off from Obama in most polls.  Still, he is quite vicious when pinned against a wall.  Obama might keep a low profile except on media-heavy occasions, such as the debates and the convention.

What issue will win the election:

Security, security, security was the motto in 2004.  Bush knew this, Kerry didn't.  Kerry thought making himself a reasonable, smart, careful candidate would raise the collective feeling of comfort and give him a win.  But Bush knew better, creating instead a gap between what might happen with me and what happen without me.  The key emotion was fear, not comfort, and Bush tapped it out for all it was worth.  

In addition to the tandem of fear and security, 'morality' was key.  Bush won this handidly because of one thing he had over Kerry: clarity.  It was not really consistency, because both candidates lacked that.  But Bush was able to make what would be a 3-page long argument by Kerry into a bumper sticker that sticked.  He made his positions clear and compact, while Kerry went on diatribes that felt like lectures not positions.

So far there are a few issues that are raising their heads this year.  One is the economy, or more specifically, the potential of a worst economy.  The other is change.  This does not secure a win for Obama, as the polls show.  This is an issue that McCain is continually trying to adopt by making "Unlike the President, I..." statements.  How successful he will be at that, I am not sure of.

I believe the issue of Afghanistan, lobbyists, and healthcare will gain some prominence.  These are issue Obama and McCain differ in by wide margins, so the decision between both candidates, by Nov. 4th, will be an easy one to make by someone who has made up their mind on these issues already.

The comparison between 2004 and 2008 shows that while party faithful drive your primary campaign, they can ruin your national campaign.  Going after independents voters is essential, but ultimately, the power to rein is held in the hands of those who have held it before.  Obama and McCain are two of the most contrasting presidential candidates in decades, and keeping that contrast while reaching out for the middle will test both campaign's mettle and will to win.

lhp

Obama: Vietnam was not my bag

In a very thorough interview with the very thorough Fareed Zakaria (this guy is seriously a genius), Sen. Obama pretty much proves Andrew Sullivan's and my theory right.  

Fareed Zakaria centered the interview around foreign policy and the Senator's view on everything from Islam to Vietnam to the importance of Iraq.  

In one enlightening question, Zakaria pinpoints the core reason why Obama will fail to own the definition of 'Liberal' we have come to expect:

ZAKARIA: Why did you major in international affairs?

OBAMA: Well, obviously, having lived overseas and having lived in Hawaii, having a mother who was a specialist in international development, who worked -- was one of the early practitioners of microfinancing, and would go to villages in South Asia and Africa and Southeast Asia, helping women buy a loom or a sewing machine or a milk cow, to be able to enter into the economy -- it was natural for me, I think, to be interested in international affairs.

The Vietnam War had drawn to a close when I was fairly young. And so, that wasn't formative for me in the way it was, I think, for an earlier generation.

The Cold War, though, still loomed large. And I thought that both my interest in what was then called the Third World and development there, as well as my interest in issues like nuclear proliferation and policy, that I thought that I might end up going into some sort of international work at some point in my life.

Some inferences from this answer:

A) Vietnam did not form him like it did the Clintons, McCain, Bush, and Gore.

B) His candidacy is not so much about expertise, but exposure and comprehension of what the world is currently.

C) He is a pragmatist and unifier, who prefers a workable answer that dissatisfies some, rather than a faulty answer that promotes some.

lhp

Is 2008 more like 2004, 2000, 1992…1968?

Elections are no different from other grand shows of spectacle.  The Super Bowl, the Olympics, the new Batman movie, all of these are events that come with their own expectations and expected consequences.  Being so grand and anticipated they are often compared to other great events that have past.  Will the Giants be like the Joe Namath Jets and upset the seemingly invincible Patriots?  Will Phelps be our era’s Spitz?  Will the new Batman be a successful superhero sequel like Spiderman 2, or will it crash on top of its viral marketing scheme like Snakes On A Plane?  Questions, comparisons, anticipations, this is what makes stuff worth talking about.

How will 2008 measure up?  I see a few possible comparisons of what is still a nascent election season.

It could end up becoming an election decided by each party’s base, just like 2004 pitted Kerry’s angry liberals against Bush’s angry evangelicals.

It could become an election decided between two progressively similar candidates, moving each to the center as the campaign goes on until voters are not sure who is who or what makes them different, as was the case in 2000.

It could be an election lost by a splintered conservative base, thereby handing the presidency to the Democrats, similar to Bill Clinton’s 1992 victory.

Or it could become a historic election with historic implications, won by a photogenic, charming Senator over an older man considered angry, rough around the edges, and just untrustworthy because of the company he kept, like it was in 1968 between JFK and Nixon.

Which will it be?  I will explore each scenario in greater depth in later posts, but for now, what election year does this remind you of?  See any parallels with other elections?

lhp

Obama Supporters Flinch When Asked To Help Clinton

At a Women For Obama Fundraiser, Hillary Clinton might have hit it right on the nose:

Anyone who voted for me has so much in common with those who voted for Barack and it is critical that we join forces, because the Democratic Party is a family, sometimes a dysfunctional family, but it is a family and we care about what’s going to happen to the economy and health care and education and what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I can only infer that Hillary is the stepmom the Democratic kids aren't sure of, and she is trying to let them know she is cool with papa Barack, even though she might rub them the wrong way.  

The biggest problem with the Democratic party right now is themselves.  They are not sure how much they like each other.  Progressives are going against moderates, Clintonites against Obamaniacs, all the while Barack and Hillary pose nice for portraits and crack jokes about each other tinged with a slight bitterness.

As this NY Times article pointed out, the jabs were light-hearted, and reminded those present of an old school "screwball comedy."  How delightful!  Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn all over again.  I call it "Bringing Up Barry"...get it? Barack used to go by Barry...ah forget it.  

The premise here is a bit more dramatic than a screwball comedy could offer.  Barack needs Hillary.  Hillary needs Barack.  But Barack doesn't need all of Hillary, just her moral support.  Hillary needs Barack's dollars. So again we go back to the stepmom/kids methaphor.

But that is the sticky point.  The Democratic kids, especially those on the Obama side, aren't quite sure what motivates this Hillary lady, and they sorta distrust her, too.  A point of concern is how vocal Obama supporters are being when they refuse to help Hillary out with her massive debt.  Some choice responses:

Why would I help pay off debts that Hillary amassed simply to keep damaging Senator Obama?

Gas prices are up, the markets are in turmoil, my kid’s fall tuition bill is coming soon. Writing checks to politicians I don’t like is not at the top of my list.

Not a penny for that woman. Or her husband. Or — god forbid --Mark Penn.

They are not sure about this Hillary lady at all.  What does she want from papa Barack, and why does she keep pinching our cheeks when we don't like it???

The Obama knows what needs to resolved, and what needs to be resolved now: Unity.  I don't mean the little town in New Hampshire where the senators made their first joint appearance after Barack clinched it.  I mean party unity.  Sen. McCain is still having major issues working on his own party's unity, so if these two senators could come in to the convention with a happy family, that would be all the more powerful of contrasts between campaigns.

Barack and Hillary may not love each other, they just need to bear each other.  Do it for the children.  And children, in return, please try to like this new girl daddy is with.  Lets try to be a family, ok?

lhp

The Ting Tings-That's Not My Name

I'm in love.

lhp

McCain Talk Pretty One Day

There is a proposition made by the McCain campaign, and considered by the Obama campaign, that a string of town-hall debates should be had across the country.  Very a la Stephen A. Douglas v. Abraham Lincoln.  This is a nice idea.  The traditional town hall give and take is a nice show to check out.  It keeps the candidates on their toes, the voters involved, and the media in full attention waiting for a faux-pas.  What strikes me as specially cute is the Douglas v. Lincoln comparison.  Lincoln, the tall, lanky, oratorical genius hailing from Illinois, against the short, stout candidate of a splintered party, who was well known for as a political tactician, the "Little Giant" of politics.  How fitting!

McCain is not Douglas in a traditional way.  Douglas had a bit more hair and had a meaner mug.  But he does share something with the racist dead man: going against a Lincoln.  I am not comparing Obama with Lincoln, although a solid case could be easily made.  The likeness is in their rhetorical wizard.  Obama can galvanize thousands in an arena with only a few sentences.  McCain has trouble uttering a few sentences correctly to a few dozen supporters waiting for the free donuts and coffee.

As this New York Times article points out, McCain is getting better.  But don't get crazy now, he is still mad at the teleprompter:

In a town meeting in Cincinnati the next day, Mr. McCain would again slip up on the name of the Massachusetts town, where, he noted, “Americans asserted their independence once before.” He called it “the Lexiggdon Project” and twice tried to fix his error before flipping the name (“Project Lexington”) in subsequent references.

 

 It can be a tricky thing, you know, reading.  Is this a character flaw? Not at all.  Bill Clinton was a poor public speaker before he became a great one.  In the 1988 Democratic National Convention, a then Governor of Arkansas Clinton gave a boring, booed-at 32 minute schpeel that almost destroyed his political career.  So, things can get better. 

What is inopportune for McCain is the circumstance.  He is not Bill Clinton in 1988, going against only himself and bored to death party faithful, but against Barack Obama, one of the greatest orators American politics has ever witnessed.  The stout, grinchy McCain is absolutely going against the tall, galvanizing Obama.  This is not a character flaw, but a political one.  This a campaign of change, no matter who takes up the slogan (both have).  If you present yourself as an inept, uninspiring, dull candidate, how does that translate to sense of dynamic change? 

Unfortunately for Sen. McCain, it doesn't.  That is unfortunately, Un-four-choo-nat-lee.

lhp

Obama Make Liberals Mad! Liberals Smash!

The weeks after Obama secured the Democratic nomination have made liberals cringe.  They bitch and moan and yell "Treason!"...but only under their breath.  Liberals do not want 2004 redux.  They trust Obama will keep his liberal streak going when he is elected; they know he is just courting the center and a bit of the right just enough to secure a win.  He's just playin', they tell themselves.

And it gets harder and harder to believe themselves.  The most recent gasp-inducer was Obama's proposal to keep, and potentially expand, Bush's faith based initiatives.  Nay!, they say, Separatin of Church and State!, they clamor.  But they just don't get it.  Obama is not your typical liberal.  Is he a liberal, period?  Yes.  But instead of a period it is more of a 'w00t'.  A new brand of punctuation.

Andrew Sullivan, of The Atlantic, wrote an enlightening article on Why Obama Matters.  The key question all Obamaniacs have to answer for themselves.  But Sullivan takes a pragmatist approach, not a trait typically assigned to liberals (I would know, I slowly went from liberal to pragmatic liberal, and like it here, thank you very much).  In sum, he believes Obama is important because he is the one bringing the least amount of generational baggage:

It isn’t about his policies as such; it is about his person. They are prepared to set their own ideological preferences to one side in favor of what Obama offers America in a critical moment in our dealings with the rest of the world. The war today matters enormously. The war of the last generation? Not so much. If you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation and face today’s actual problems, Obama may be your man.

That is the point most liberals are missing.  Obama will not be like Ted Kennedy, will not be like Kucinich, like Edwards, or even like Hillary.  He does not share their generational baggage.  He was born after the 'silent majority' and the 60's kids clashed.  He will not be a peacenik, not a welfare liberal, not a culture warrior.  He is something else.

Bush's faith based initiatives, while they have been proven to work and help out those in need, are immediately dismissed by liberals because they tend to proselytize.  True, but that is only part of the reality.  This is enough to take them out, however, for the most militant liberals.  Black or white answers are what people acting based off an ideology, theology, or tradition, prefer.  Obama likes grey more.  He is not bipartisan, or partisan, or party-none...he is antipartisan, which includes the liberal faction of the partisanship.

Obama will continue to disillusion liberals.  And he will take the wind out of them when he takes his presidential oath.  This, what you are seeing now, is the real Obama.  He is a liberal, but is also a pragmatist.  He will favor leftist policies, but he will also favor real politik.  The ideological war Hillary and McCain represent is something foreign to Obama.  Why does he matter? Because he doesn't 'get' the divides, the animosities, the loyalties.  Good for him, and good for us.

lhp

ROT: Reviews Off Trailers

Here is another installment of ROT, where I dissect a trailer and tell you if it will be a good movie or not based off that little sliver of screen time. It would seem pretentious to do that, but believe me, my track record is pretty outstanding. On we go!

Movie: Quantum of Solace

WTF: A Bond movie is like a grilled cheese: you know exactly what is in it, what it will look like, and whether you will like it or not.  BUT, it still depends on the details to make it a great grilled cheese, or a mediocre one.  Daniel Craig was the organic, perfectly tasting cheese the franchise needed, and he is back for seconds (seriously, I could go off this analogy for days).  This movie is an immediate continuation of the last.  It looks like it will still be darker than most, which worked well in Casino Royale.  The only thing to look out for is how much Bond will be in Bond.  Will it ham itself up, or will it take itself seriously and give us some interesting insights into how James becames James.

Prognosis: Good grilled cheese, but maybe getting colder.

Movie: Hellboy II The Golden Army

WTF: Not to be confused with The Man with the Golden Arm, this is not a Frank Sinatra diddy.  Although, Frank Sinatra would be right next to Ron Perlman if the asked you who would be least likely choice to helm this franchise a few years ago.  Seriously, this guy?  Well, 'this guy' has done a good job so far.  People were mixed about the first one, but I thought it was visually stunning, grimy, and fun-loving.  This one looks BETTER.  Do not be surprised to see this become a sleeper hit.  Sure, Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk and Batman are gonna have a helluva summer, but Hellboy II might creep up on them.

Prognosis: I got a fever, and the only thing that can cure is some more Hellboy.

Movie: X-Files: I Want To Believe

WTF: Seriously, WTF? I Want To Believe??? I am sorry to say this to any X-Files fans out there, but you are alone.  Alone in going to see this movie.  Besides the bad movie title, the trailer does nothing more than keep cranking up the volume on the hectic background music, rehash 90's pop culture (Mulder believes, Scully doesn't, and it will end up being Mr. Hooley, wearing a mask, almost getting away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids), and assuring us that something, something!!!, is under that ice.  Oh yeah, and the priest dude's eyes bleed.  This movie may have a nice opening weekend, but it will soon die off.  Off the trailer alone, I have no reason to be interested in what might be found by those two FBI peeps, and, as a nod to the poor work done on this piece of advertising, I am almost certain whatever is found will be anti-climactic.  I feel like this will be like The Village.  

Prognosis: Stop believing.  It aint a UFO, it is a bad movie.

view responsibly.

lhp