September 11, 2008
Campaign Idea for Obama
I was thinking about how effective Jon Stewart’s instant juxtaposition of video clips is, showing politicians saying one thing today and the opposite months ago. I wonder if Obama could take a big screen TV or projector with him when he speaks before crowds in places that are sure to draw CNN coverage, where he could show clips to live audiences. Then they would see the hypocrisy–and viewers on CNN would see the clips as they saw the people watching and responding to them. Then nobody could claim he was playing dirty because–there it is, in their own words. What do you think?
comments
11 Responses to “Campaign Idea for Obama”
Leave a Reply
Is Al Gore available? I hear he has some kickass A/V skills.
Yeah, Al Gore…. Anyway, I’m not talking Powerpoint here. I just keep thinking, when I see good things on Jon Stewart–how can we get this stuff to the people who just watch the pap CNN deigns to show? How can we get around the lack of coverage about such things? If Obama does a big speech and CNN doesn’t cover it, their bias will show–so if the speech has this stuff in it they will be showing it. I guess it’s a silly idea, but it seems that the people we need to get to here are those who don’t know much about seeking such things out on youTube.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. All these clips of McCain contradicting himself and only the people who look for them or watch comedy central will ever see them.
I think the best solution would be the “liberal” media living up to reputation and playing these clips for us, but I’m not holding my breath.
Everybody seems so afraid to point out the lies.
I don’t think it’s a silly idea, Daryl. I think you’re completely correct. the house of cards collapses when you see the words out of his and her mouths. I’m all for it.
as Michael says, this really is the job of the media, whether they choose to accept it or not.
I’m reading a lot of analysts at newspapers beginning to use the lie word. for it to have the full impact it needs to be seen on television.
Yes, this morning on NPR I heard a veteran journalist refer to Palin’s representation of the Bridge to Nowhere as a lie. A lie. It’s not simply a misrepresentation, it’s not mere semantic maneuvering, it’s a lie. I was glad to hear it.
I am baffled beyond comprehension as to why the party that refers to itself as being most strongly rooted in values and morality doesn’t want to look at these lies, and McCain’s entire campaign, for what it is–political maneuvering to get elected, at any cost. John McCain used to be a man I respected. He has sold his soul for this election, and that makes me sick.
I would like to see them point out that the McCain / Palin campaign is not only telling lies–they are continuing to use the same lies even after it has been pointed out to them that what they are saying is a lie. This clearly demonstrates that they don’t care: it’s only the effectiveness of the lies that they care about. They are very likely to blaze out on the day before the election with something like “new evidence finds link between B__ O__ and Al Qaeda!” or “McC has just fought off a secret plot by Dems to wreck Social Security!”
I have discussed this with a former chief of staff of a couple of state election campaigns here in Australia. He told me that he thought that parties (we have less of the individual campaigns here) avoid it because it can be a slippery slope. That is, you do it to Joe Bloggs, he does it back to you. Inevitably politicians (unlike most of us) make statements on the public record. Sometimes these statements are either contradictory, or can be manipulated to appear so out of their proper context. This is magnified if you’ve been around a long time. So there is that ‘self-defence’ mechanism in not using it as a tactic yourself.
The tactic can also been turned around of course. That is, Joe Bloggs can turn the attack into a positive. That is, “I am not afraid of changing my mind” or “I am willing to listen to constituents/compelling arguments etc”, or invert it: “my opponent resorts to cheap stunts because he lacks substance and he has no clear policy agenda/speaks in platitudes”. Given Obama’s lack of policy “meat” and tendency to speak in broad generalities (which in some respects is forced upon him by the very nature of US campaigning), I would imagine that he would be apprehensive about taking the battle there.
That’s shouldn’t be seen as a complete knock on Obama though, as US Presidential elections seem to encourage either simplistic thinking, or fudging on explicit policy. Complexity with regards to ‘how’ something will be done is easily lampooned. My own thinking is that because the President is hamstrung on actually getting ‘big stuff’ through, and can be made to look a mug when it doesn’t happen (look at Bill Clinton’s first two years, and how his main promises were watered down or rejected by Congress). As a consequence, he kind of fudged his way through the ’96 campaign. That’s what astounded me with Hillary Clinton, who released a very complex and thought out Health Care policy promise very early, only to lose out to Obama, who kind of bluffed his way though on Health.
Thank you, Kris, for your fine comment here. I think I have a slightly different view, though, from the one you set forth. For instance, I think the McCain / Obama camps are already seeking as much ammunition and chances to use it as possible. Thus, fear of escalation becomes a question of whose strengths a given quantity of information plays to. I think Obama comes out ahead for these reasons: McCain has more shifts and contradictions to draw upon (all of which may be “jacked with” in terms of context as much and as well as anybody could do the same to material from the other side); Obama has a technological advantage of the sort Howard Dean had (McCain is not computer literate and always doesn’t know what a simple google search would tell him [and I have other reasons for this]); and American politics is, sad to say, about appearances–a wash of mood manipulation, aimed at producing impressions at a precisely scheduled time. What McCain is susceptible to is, ironically, art–because artists, who deal in manipulation of perceptions, tend to be radical due to the priorities of artistic freedom, whereas McCain is a mere user of what they thrive on. McCain is pragmatic in a way that can’t keep up with innovation, and his way of compensating is to lie fast, big, and with a constancy that begins to look consistent. This is why irony can break him. In a sense, laughter doesn’t lie–even if one doesn’t see the exact truth it presents, but begins to feel it is such.
Daryl, I think that you’re spot on in your analysis there. The trouble though, the US political system is always going to be hamstrung by voter turnouts. It all comes down to turnout. US Presidential elections generally feature (relatively) low voter turnouts. Partly this is because it is (comparatively) ‘difficult’ to vote in the US, due to uneven electoral laws, the need for registration on advance, the fact that many (most) states don’t actually allow for workers to take time off from employment without reprisal or loss in pay. The last reason is the increasingly ‘toxic’ strategies employed by Republicans post-1980 that I will save until last!
The problem for the Dems is that the deck stacked in favour of a certain type of voter. Rich people are more likely to vote than poor people; employed more than unemployed; college educated more than non-college educated; older people are more likely to vote than young people; whites are more likely to vote than African Americans (although less than Asian Americans); Hispanics more likely than African Americans; the gender breakdown is more complex, as it varies across the subsets.
In all of this, what really matters is that the demography that does exist generally suggests that Republicans will get the rub of the green in all of these breaks (that said, the Democrats used to get that rub until the Republicans stole it with their ‘Southern Strategy’).
Now I think that Obama will shake that up a bit. As you suggest, there is a feeling of ‘greater engagement’ from the type of voter that typically doesn’t turn out will be up, but just like Kerry was able to capitalise on the ‘info-rich’ younger type of voter, they are more likely to reside in Democratic-leaning states anyway, and he was still trumped by the organisational drive of the churches. That said, my gut tells me (the polls are all over the show) that Obama has the ability to mobilise way in advance of Kerry, and that there is a general mood for change of party in the White House.
HOWEVER (isn’t there always a however), the Republicans, well they know that the lower the turnout, the greater the odds that they’ll won. Thus, the strategy of many of their candidates and supporters (but not all) since the early to mid-90s has been to try to convince those who wouldn’t dream of voting for them that politics is a horrid business, everybody is as bad as each other and there is no point in voting. They know the odds are that those who will remain ‘committed’ to voting whatever the atmosphere are more likely to vote for them.
My own personal view is that the nastier the attacks on McCain and (especially) Palin by (ostensibly) Obama supporters, the more likely it plays into this strategy. I think that Obama is trying to keep it clean, but his supporters (including some of those on the fringe of your description above: the ironic crowd) don’t, and taint him by association. I call the harsher edge of these the ‘post-ironic crowd’, and find their contributions occasionally noxious (or at least I did in the Dem Primary campaign). McCain’s people know this (look at how quickly they mobilised after the ‘lipstick on a pig’ comment, and they’ll look to draw and flak that they can and lean back rubbing their hands with glee.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that yes, Obama’s more technologically hip supporters can be both an advantage, but if they push it too far, could become a thorn in his side.
God I crap on.
Kris: Great perceptions you present here. About voter turnout, it is exactly as you say that Republicans have long tried to thwart voter registration drives and groups that try to assist elderly, poor, and minority voters (often applying strange voter laws to such groups that they don’t appy to their own causes). There were many reported instances of vote suppression in Florida, as well, in 2000 and 2004–but since “the victor writes history” there was never any real investigation of such abuses. But one thing that I find encouraging this time is the record number of new voters registered when Obama and Hillary were fighting it out. I saw a recent note that more than three quarters of newly registered voters are going for Obama (so far), and there seems to be great energy now among those who are often disaffected and stay home. My fear, though, is the soft racism in middle America: it’s the sort that isn’t openly acknowledged and often isn’t even recognized by those who have it, but the way it appears is in the readiness to suddenly “care about” issues that offer an escape from voting for Obama, thus insulating one from the charge of racist views.
As for the dangers of Obama’s supporters doing what the Swift Boaters did in besmirching John Kerry’s war record, I think you are right that the danger is there. But I think it is possible for Obama to retain the high ground of running a clean race while also hitting very hard at the things that go to the heart of policy and integrity, rather than the cult of personality and the “fashionable” eyewear Sarah Palin wears. For instance: Phil Gramm is one of the smarmiest characters to be found, having been right at the center of the deregulation of the mortgage industry that has led, now, to taxpayers footing a huge bill for the gambling orgy that has taken place. Americans are mad about that, and could certainly be more clearly informed about who did what. McCain distanced himself from Gramm when Gramm said Americans were a bunch of “whiners”–but it is still very possible to get pictures of them both together, laughing and consulting right now. The key thing is: look for what Americans are already mad about and show the ways your opponent is responsible for those things. All McCain has is the strange thought that many were wrong to be mad about how the war was going (in spite of the fact that ten billion a month is still being spent, when the financial bailouts could cost more than a trillion dollars).
Kris, your thoughtful analysis presents a clear picture of what I was trying to suggest here at one point last week–that the Democrats are in huge danger of people feeling they have an excuse not to vote. The challenge, as I see it, is for Obama and his supporters to remain vocal, strong, and positive. It’s a fine line to walk, but my perception is that Obama is keenly aware of the tightrope and is navigating it beautifully. I hope that all of his supporters can do the same.