Debates

Friday's presidential debate is now old news. The conventional wisdom was that no "knock out" blows were struck. I think it was actually one of the better political debates I've heard in recent years - both candidates were reasonably articulate in explaining their positions. I am not quite sure why a number of news reports claimed that McCain had won "on points" - I guess it was because he was the more aggressive of the two, forcing Obama to spend more of his time responding to McCain's charges than in making charges of his own. In my judgment, Obama had the advantage during the first part of the debate when the questions were on economics and that neither candidate had a clear advantage when the questions turned to foreign policy. McCain repeatedly emphasized his long years of experience, but in so doing may also have reminded viwers of his age. His continued emphasis on "dealing with these sorts of problems" for nearly 30 years also undercuts his argument that he is the candidate of real change.

NPR's Cokie Roberts compared Obama and Ronald Reagan in one of her commentarties after the debate. In 1980, Reagan was running against Jimmy Carter. Voters wanted a change but many were afraid of Reagan, believing him too dangerous or not experienced enough to be president. In has first debate with Carter, Reagan came across as calm and reasonable and reassured many voters that he could be trusted with the presidency. Roberts argued that Obama had done the same thing Friday night, and I agree.

Hurricane Ike

As many Houston area residents have found, it is difficult to keep up a blog without electircal power. It is also difficult to keep up on national political news. For two or three days after the storm hit, all the local news outlets focused almost exclusively on hurricane news. For eleven days after Ike hit my primary contact with the outside world was a little battery operated AM radio. As the local stations returned to their normal broadcasting schedules, I gained an increased apprectiation of the role talk radio has come to play in our political process. The overwhelming number of shows I ran across were right of center in their political orientation. Like blogs, there are no editors to fact check the assertions the hosts of these shows make or their listeners. When liberals complain of the conservative bias of talk radio, the response given is that there is a much greater market for conservative talk shows than there is for liberal talk shows. The political influence of people like Rush Limbaugh raises the same sorts of questions about establishing a fair playing field that questions about campaign contributions raise. A candidate who has twice as much money to sepnd than his opponent certainly has an electoral advantage, all other things being equal. Similarly, a candidate who is getting the active support of three or four times as many talk show hosts as his competitor also has an advantage. Money is an extremely important resource in politics but but the only one . . . unions or churches who can turn out their members to work in campaigns, celebrities who help candidates attract large crowds to their rallies, favorable coverage in the print media, guest appearances on late-night TV - all of these things can be of real benefit to a candidate. I am really not sure what the minimum requirements for fairness in an election are - - I suspect that it is nearly impossible for any of us to be fully objective about what constitute a "fair playing field" for an election. So far in thise election, my sense is that the different advantages of the two major presidential pretty much balance one another out. Of course my opinion may change about the fairness of this election if my candidate loses:-)

The Real Campaign Begins

Now that the conventions are over, we can get a better sense of what each campaign is trying to do. From the press reports I've read, it appears as though the basic McCain strategy was not decided on until the last minute. A week before he named Palin as his running mate, he was hoping to be able to pick Joe Lieberman. The right wing would not have been happy about Lieberman but McCain's initial thinking apparently was that conseratives would have no other place to go. My understandig is that he was finally convinved that a Lieberman pick would literally split the party in two and that there was no chance of winning if he lost his party's base. Other possible picks like Romney would have been more acceptable to the base but would not have injected much excitement. Therefore he turned to Palin as someone conservatives like Rush Limbaugh had been pushing all summer albeit below the radar screen of most press coverage. A lot of the press coverage over the weekend argues that the pick helps build McCain's image as an indpendent maverick, but I think it could also be argued that it supports Obama's claim of "more of the same" in that McCain, like Bush, appears to be willing top pander to conservative fundamentalists and to make major appointments on largely political criteria. Republicans will want to campaign on McCain's biography and the heroism he showed as a prisnor of war, aswell as his foreign policy credentials, while attackingObama for his lack of experience and for not being tough enough on defense issues. The Democrats, on the other hand, will want to focus as much attention as possible on the economy and make the election as much as possible as a contest between Republicans and Democrats. McCain, of course, is trying to distance himself from the Bush administration and its record of the last 8 years and has tried to co-opt Obama on the change issue but I think he will have a harder time than Obama he selling himself as a change agent since he has been a member of the party that has been in power these past 8 years. By most indicators, this should be a Democratic year. The best hope of the Republicans will be try to raise enough doubt about Obama that voters will view McCain as their only real option.

Palin's Speech

The Palin speech was well written and she delivered it well. Many questions remain about her background, but she certainly came across as confident and personable. There were some questionable claims in her address but speakers at both conventions have not always been compl,etely honest in their claims. What I found interesting was her effort to glorify small town life and to present herself as a women who was the embodiment of small town virtues. Most voters live in large metropolitan areas. My guess is that working as a community organizer on the Southside of Chicago gives one a lot better perspective on many of the critical issues facing the nation than does serving as a mayor of a town of 6,000 in Alaska. But really the comparison should be between Obama's time in the Illinois Senate and Palin's time as mayor. Illinois is a large and complex state, much more representative of the nation than is Alaska. I am a bit surprised that the Republicans want to make these comparisons . . . whatever Palin's other qualities are, she does not have the kind of experience that Obama has had in the Illinois Senate and in the U.S. Senate and as presidential candidate.

Obama Live!

I was in Canfield, Ohio visiting family over the Labor Day weekend and had a chance to go hear Obama and Biden live at an outdoor rally in Beaver, PA. In the Pensylvania primary, old mill towns like Beaver went heavily for Clinton but the crowd at this rally was large (around 8,000) and enthusiastic. Clinton carried 70% of the vote in Beaver County but I saw or heard nothing to suggest that there remained any lingering bitterness about Obama getting the nomination. The speech itself was a fairly predictable one. Obama criticized McCain for "just not getting it" when it came to economic issues and the problems that working class people face. Most of what he said here was a repeat of what he had said the night before at his acceptance speech in Denver, but with more emphasis on basic "bread and butter" issues. The conventional wisdom is that if the election comes down to a Republicans versus Democrats election, Obama will win because so many people today have a negative image of the Republicans. The conventional wisdom is that McCain's best chance is to dissassociate himself from the Republican Party as it has come to be known under Bush and to run as a maverick or party outsider. The Beaver rally was clearly organized as a party rally, one designed to appeal to traditional Democrativ voters by drawing sharp contrasts between Democratic and Republican positions. It worked well in Beaver but I wonder what effect this type of campaigning will have on Obama's cross-over appeal. In the primaries he was getting signifcant support (much to Clinton's consternation) from Republican voters. Susan Eisenhower's speech at the convention showed the appeal that Obama has for many Republicans. As the campaign goes on, it will be interesting to see if Obama's priority will be soldifying his support among tradiational Democratic voters or trying to win support among more Republicans and Independents. I guess all presidential candidates have a similar choice to make - how much effort to give to solidifying your base and how much to trying to win the support of thise who are not part of that base. The pick of Palin my McCain apears to be an effort to strengthen his support among the religious conservatives within the party while at the same time strengthening his appeal as a maverick who is unafraid to shake things up a little. I'll have more to write about the Palin pick later.