Sincere apologies for the week long delay between parts 1 and 2. Deciphering Cindy McCain's tax returns and her husband's confusing medical records took longer than originally envisioned.
Back to the lessons...
1. "Lunch Pail" voters may not vote what's best for their "Lunch Pail": After Super Tuesday, Barack Obama had problems specifically with what is known as the "lunch pail" voters, the working class. He was trounced by these cadre in West Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky. Now that their preferred candidate in the primary season, Hillary Clinton, has withdrawn from the race, a large number of this group has insinuated that they will defect to John McCain's side.
To some extent, this is not a particularly surprising development. Rural America is not known as a hotbed of tolerance, and there is historical precedence for these voters to abandon the Democrats (John Kerry to Lil Bush by more than 20 points amongst this demographic in 2004).
What we found from the revelation, that the working class voters may abandon Obama, is that the Thomas Frank thesis is still alive and well; that is, the working class voters continually ally themselves with candidates who offer stolid opposition to their economic well being. John McCain is no different from his Republican predecessors. His vision for the economy does not provide permanent relief from suffocating energy prices (gas tax holiday is the epitome of gimmick politics that his counterparts on the Evangelical right specialize in), it does not provide health care to the millions of the uninsured, and he does not alleviate the chronic wage stagnation and income disparities that have plagued this country since 1980.
Nevertheless, these voters may be shifting to McCain's campaign. There is still obviously months before the election, but their gravitational shift after Clinton's withdrawal at the conclusion of the primaries may foreshadow difficulties for Obama in the Fall.
Then again, I could be grossly misstating the policy preferences of the working class. Maybe they are just enamored with McCain's breathtaking proposal to institute no new taxes on "Internet ventures"
2. Starting your Campaign a month after everyone else is a bad idea:
Ahh, the fate of the formerly teflon Rudolph Giuliani. America's favorite cross dresser decided to eschew all common knowledge about the early primary season, and not compete in the Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina contests. Simply put, this was a fool's errand of the highest magnitude.
Rudy's followers may argue that the relatively conservative electorate in that state would not have taken to Rudy's message. This can be proven illogical on two fronts: First, New Hampshire and Michigan are hardly the bastion of Tony Perkins, James Dobson and the far religious right conservatism. Secondly, "winning" in those early bell-weather states does not necessarily mean the person who receives literally the most votes. In 1992, Bill Clinton finished 2nd in New Hampshire, but by deft manipulation of the media (we all remember the Comeback Kid, don't we?), Clinton emerged from New Hampshire with the perception that he had exceeded expectation and thus truly won the state. Going forward, Clinton was buoyed by that perception much more than who actual won the state.
The same axiom can be applied to this year, in the instance of Hillary Clinton. Hillary, in what came as a shock to her camp, did not prevail in Iowa. However, the gravitas of that loss forced to alter her campaign, and what emerged from that was her most success election persona; that of a fighter who refuses to back down ever.
Rudolph Giuliani was the consensus GOP front runner for the majority of 2007. Undoubtedly, his message did not play as well to conservatives in Des Moines as it would in New York City or Miami, but by abdicating the race pre-emptively, he created the perception of a frail, flawed candidate. By the time he made his last stand in Florida, the ship had sailed and all of that inimitable momentum had gone to John McCain.
3. Hell Hath no Fury like a Clinton supporter scorned?: Washington D.C. on May 31st was a frightening place. Hoards of hyped up Clinton supporter scoured the streets of our National's Capital for anyone carrying a copy of Sports Illustrated, or featuring a pronounced bulge in their trousers. As Sam Stein vividly illustrated on The Huffington Post, he could not safely eat a Reuben without being ensconced and then attacked by fervent Clinton backers.
All hyperbole aside, the vitriol espoused by Hillary's army at the Rules Committee meeting vividly showed us just how much support she had, and by extension, how much of a dent she had put in the proverbial glass ceiling. It can firmly be stated that a lesson from 2008 is that a woman is no longer to be tossed aside as a light weight, non-contender in a Presidential election.
What the fury of her supporters portends for the future of Sen. Obama's campaign is of more interest to this entry. As Salon.com pointed out, every election features some backlash against the winner, from supporters of the loser, even if they hail from the same party. Will the anger linger?
Not if these women have any sort of capacity for rational thought, it won't. Forgetting that Clinton and Obama's positions on major issues are essentially indistinguishable, but what exactly do women who support Clinton have to gravitate to about McCain's campaign? His record on abortion rights is similar to Sam Brownback and all the other right wing demagogues. His health care plan doesn't even cover himself, much less millions of sick children. On a personal level, he deserted his first wife after she was rendered less beautiful following a horrific car accident in 1973.
Obviously, I did not cover all issues that could be of primacy to the female voter, but the litany I just laid out would make it awful in congruent for a disgruntled Clinton supporter to defect to McCain's side.
4. Once the Media confers a "label" on a candidate, it refuses to take it away, even if there is substantial evidence to the contrary: If you read most of the major papers in this country, here is the perception you would have on each of the 2 major candidates:
John McCain- A maverick who never once kowtowed to the orthodoxy of his party. He is unflappable, independent and infallible. His personal story is rife with heroism and notably absent of controversy or moral turpitude.
Barack Obama- According to an editorial in the New York Times, Obama is considered an apostate by most Muslims, and will therefore engender more hate for our troops in the Middle East than Israel and George W. Bush combined. Also, Obama quite possibly doesn't "love American" enough, and would be absolutely giddy if Iran destroyed Tel Aviv.
CANDIDATE REALITY:
John McCain, despite his maverick image, as I mentioned in part 1 of this piece, is with his party hook, line and sinker on nearly every single issue. The only way he becomes distanced from the GOP, and thereby deservedly receives the Maverick imprimatur is if the election comes down to a referendum on Campaign Finance Reform. McCain has also committed the dreaded "flip flopping" twice now, once when he switched to supporting the warrant less wire tapping program, and also when he suggested troops could leave Iraq in 2013 after deriding Mitt Romney as someone who "surrendered" when he suggested a timetable for redeployment.
More over, McCain is not the paragon of virtue that Fox News would like him to be. He indisputably served meritoriously in the military. Since then, however, he has committed adultery and been involved in the Keating 5 scandal.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, has never been embroiled in infidelity (I could personally care less, but this is a rhetorical argument that the right uses against the left all the time, so why not give them a taste of it)), more over, he has unequivocally stated his support for Israel and its right to exist. Obama has also been a Christian ever since he was of age to make decisions on his own, and therefore any lingering accusations or insinuations that he is a Muslim is pure sophistry.
Yet, despite these facts, McCain is still portrayed as a maverick whose judgment on matters of morality, national security can not be legitimately criticized. More over, the media interpretation allows McCain to possess air of being incorruptible, despite considerable evidence to the contrary. In the same vein, Barack Obama has stated ad nauseum his beliefs in the Christian doctrine, and yet the Times allows op-ed pieces that allege he will be hated in the Middle East because of his "former life" as Muslim to be published in May.
This bastion of journalism, our supposed paper of record, and its cohorts in the media originally latched on to the archetypes of McCain as a tireless maverick, and as Obama as the potentially un-patriotic neophyte whose origins are murky, and potentially harmful. In order to save face, a widespread deviation from that initial perception is impossible, no matter how incontrovertible the evidence is to the contrary.
If their is one thing that the Bush 43 years taught us, it is that admitting your wrong is impermissible, no matter how that decision causes one to abdicate from duty, reason and accountability.
Let's hope the media can stop serving as a copy cat for that doctrine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment