2008 Presidential campaign

This isn't going to be a long post, but more of something to think about.

We all know that McCain's hastily choosing Sarah Palin as his runningmate has led to a steady flow of information as the media does McCain's vetting for him.

While I love the fact that we're all included in the process, and therefore included in discovering the titillating tidbits that seem to surface with each passing hour, we're learning more and more about McCain's ability to make snap decisions and what it might look like in a presidential setting -- none too pretty.

But as I was going through my RSS reader, I found a post on Hotline's On Call blog that contained an insightful comment from a reader:

"Country First" as campaign/convention slogan was rolled out a couple of weeks ago. Seems this slogan was crafted in preparation of and to justify picking Joe Lieberman - another maverick that has put his country ahead of his party (as their story goes).

That McCain caved in to the conservative wing of the Republican Party, dumping Lieberman at the last minute to go with Palin, seems to put politics and party ahead of country. If Palin isn't qualified to govern then she is clearly on the ticket for electoral benefit only - again, party first, McCain first, etc. Is this not the story to cover? Is this not the real point of the incomplete vetting story? A snap decision being back-filled with post-facto vetting, all this junk about how she's a reformer, took on Republicans, etc.

In his first presidential test of strength - to stand up to the party he claims to be willing to stand up to, McCain flinched. If Obama passing over Hillary was spun for political benefit by Republicans, it seems Dems could also spin McCain passing over Lieberman to weaken the "Country First" frame.

I, too, think there needs to be more focus on the "Country first" theme. And it would make sense that this was chosen for a Ridge or a Lieberman runningmate more than someone like Palin. (Elisabeth Bumiller's piece in today's Times has more on this.)

While they might be selling it as a "gut" decision he made, perhaps his campaign is covering up the fact that it didn't live up to it's own "patriotic" motto. They caved to the Religious Right, placing party first, and in the process, they picked a candidate who, at one time, was "Alaska first."

How in the world is this passed off as good judgment? It looks like an ugly mess to me -- one that places anything BUT the country first. Perhaps Obama/Dems should look into this line of attack.

Any thoughts?

Bumped. I'm not sure I agree (see my comment), but it's an interesting question. --Mike

Yesterday, while standing in line at my bank (to get some quarters, because, well, why else would I actually need to consult a bank teller?), I heard the familiar & eerie voice of the presumptive Republican nominee. The voice was coming from the two televisions above the bank windows, which are constantly tuned to CNN, & from that voice I heard something like this:

"I would rather lose an election & win a war ... Barack Obama would rather win an election & lose a war ..."

(The statement was followed, of course, by that creepy smile, which flashes as embarrassingly as an "applause" sign above a studio audience.)

This line of argument (or rhetoric) is an example of imprecise thinking for a number of reasons, the most obvious of which is that, in the context of Iraq, the clear dichotomy between winning & losing is not evident. Also, another less obvious, but still paramount, fact to understand before launching into a tirade about anyone "wanting us to lose", is that, technically, we already won the war.

The War on Iraq (or the "Iraq War", or "the war for the liberation of Iraq") was executed masterfully by Coalition forces (led by the American military) in 2003. We invaded (on 20 March 2003) & toppled Saddam's Ba'athist in something like 26 days, with Baghdad falling on 9 April 2003, & the invasion declared "over" on the 15 April. & while "Mission Accomplished" was some sort of cruel hyperbole, it was not inaccurate to say we had achieved, militarily, what the Bush Administration had set out to do. (Here, I'm trying to suspend my understanding that, for all intents & purposes, we were probably lied into this war, & that we should have been focusing on al Qaeda, etc., but, you know ...)

Then came the occupation & the attempt to set up a stable, democratic, peaceful Iraq with the ability to defend herself, principally, from insurgents, many of which were former Ba'ath Party members, as well as members of the military who were purged during "Jerry" Bremer's de-baathification. Ostensibly, while military operations are still going on in Iraq (though the "surge" may have ended), it is not precise (nor is it accurate) to use terms like "winning" or "losing" or "victory" or "defeat" with regards to the situation ... All we have are benchmarks, or key attributes, that we hope the Iraqi Republic can attain to someday. I hope they can, honestly, so something good can come out of this ill-conceived conflict.

The question is, & this election will be a referendum on this, what is the best road, now, for Iraq to follow in order to become able to govern & defend herself, to promote employment, modernization, religious pluralism & moderation, & to be a stable, democratic model for other countries in the region? (Although, I must admit, I am skeptical that what has been termed "Jeffersonian democracy", including ensuring the basic freedoms we cherish in this country, can ever take root there, but I'd like to be proven wrong ...)

My feeling is, when our troops withdraw, Iraqis will stand up & take ownership in each of these areas, & not the reverse. They've already told us they want us out. Now (& this, I think, tends to be Obama's view) this will not mean total disengagement from Iraq, but we do need to take an American face off of this occupation, & replace it with one that is less detested in the region & specifically in that country.

Is that "losing", or "admitting defeat"? Absolutely not - it's intelligently & purposefully trying to find a decent & honorable end to conflict that probably should have never been waged in the first place. It's also, incidentally, a responsible way to promote Iraqi self-governance (& sovereignty) &, ultimately, stability in the region.

I'm cutting & pasting, with a little editing, an entry I wrote a few weeks ago about the youth vote during both the Democratic Primaries & the general election cycle (which, of course, is still going on) ... It's all pretty self-explanatory:

Generational Tectonics

Young people did not trust Hillary Clinton, & by huge numbers did not vote for her. Young people do not trust John McCain, & by huge numbers will not vote of McCain in November. (Or, rather, Hillary Clinton could not relate to young people. & she lost. John McCain will not be able to relate to young voters, & will lose in November.)

On the other hand, young people overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama in the Democratic Primaries & Caucuses, & will stick with him through the general elections. That was the conclusion of a study conducted by Harvard's Institute of Politics, the findings of which were organization published in April of this year. The IOP's conclusion is as follows:

"A new national poll by Harvard University’s Institute of Politics (IOP), located at Harvard Kennedy School, finds 18-24 year-olds who plan to vote for the Democratic candidate in November strongly prefer U.S. Senator Barack Obama over U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (70% to 30%) to be the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. The poll also finds a majority of likely young voters favor Obama (53%) in a hypothetical head-to-head contest against U.S. Senator John McCain (32%) but give Clinton a much smaller lead (44% to 39%) when matched up against the Arizona Senator."

I think there are a lot of good reasons for this trend, which I started to lay out here & I would like to finish, you know, laying out. (I will say that when I'm discussing "young voters", or "people my age", or "young people", I speaking of people, roughly, 18 to 32 years old - basically people who remember when MTV still showed music videos.)

First, Barack Obama is the youngest of the viable candidates, & at 46, he is also the first non-"Baby Boomer" candidate since that generation was named. He is also very handsome. Now, these facts do not mean that young voters are automatically going to think he is authentic, or truly able to understand our generations concerns & values. But this generational proximity is definitely a bonus, even for superficial reasons.

The second reason for Barack's strength with young voters is his authenticity. It is ironic that in a campaign that is built on so much calculation - where every speech, event, announcement is calculated for effect, to counter a narrative or effect us on an emotional level as well as a, well, political level - Obama's appeal to young voters lies in the fact that, at least when it comes to acting like one of us, he is actually not acting. Candid moments like the fist-bump, especially, but also, when he would joke around with Clinton & Edwards in the debates, or when he's riding his bike, or hosting a slumber-party for his daughters, or playing basketball, or discussing how he just paid off his student loans, are incredibly telling about Barack's personality, and bespeaks authenticity to young, hip people who would certainly would know better, & can spot a fake a mile away.

Thirdly, Obama is not a member of the "Baby Boomer" generation, who people in my generation look at with contempt & blame for many of the messes we're in right now. Young people perceive that the "Baby Boomers" were the generation that were given so much, & gave back so little - who, for instance, were the authors of the the egomaniacal decadence of the 1960s & 70s, as well as the fiscal & moral irresponsibility of the 1980s - whose greatest legacies will probably be the Iraq War, the deficit & the national debt, the burdens of which will be shouldered by my generation, my children's generation, & beyond.

Fourth, Barack Obama has spawned a cottage industry of apparel, both from his campaign & the Democratic Party, & from people how want to cash in on his youth appeal. Kids would not be buying his face or name on a shirt unless there was a great deal of support for him, & this is compelling evidence that Barack is seen as cool or hip. This is beyond campaign buttons, or the standard issue campaign logo shirt - these shirts straight up look hot. This may seem laughable, but it also means McCain will not be able to cash-in on this sort of phenomenon because it would (1) look like he was plagiarizing Obama's market, & (2) John McCain is unbrandable vis-á-vis youth culture - it would simply be a hilarious failure.

I have never seen or supported a candidate that I felt understood my experiences, & also shared my interests ... until now. I think this is universal but most young people feel dismissed & misunderstood by the "hegemonic" generation of their day - it's just nice to see someone speaking to my interests without pandering, or being phony, or someone who's just too damn old to understand why the issues that matter the most to me do or how the internet works.

You can find the original post, along with my non-political writing at:

http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com

I promise I'll have more original stuff here, well, maybe tomorrow.

And step 2 for MySpace in the Presidential Primary Social Networking Extravaganza is to bank on the fundraising apparatus and all the great bugaboos that go along with it namely tracking names, commitments, and all other personal information for a given donor that is identifying him or herself with a given candidate.

I have to admit when ActBlue first started, as a campaign person I was terrified about the idea of going through a 3rd party with our fundraising. Someone other than us would have copies of our lists, our donors, their personal information, and anyone who worked there or interned might have access to mountains of personal data about our contributors.

Over time with more use of ActBlue I became a little more relaxed mostly because it was a clearly partisan organization. Opposition was not a threat. Last cycle I read their Privacy Policy over and over and over again before I finally started to learn how I could use it to my own benefit.
“Other than as described above, we will not use your personal information nor release it to any other party without your permission, unless we believe it is necessary to share information in order to investigate, prevent, or take action regarding illegal activities, violations of our terms of use, or as otherwise required by law.”

Where MySpace differs is that they are playing both sides of the fence, they are owned by a confessed conservative, and they aren’t in it to help candidates fundraise from the grassroots like ActBlue but rather

“to track and monitor online donations made to presidential candidates through its MySpace subsidiary, giving the media group an increasingly prominent role in the 2008 presidential election.” Financial Times