presidential politics

A WordPress blog on strange maps gives us this gem that compares the major cotton-producing areas of the antebellum South to Obama's 2008 strongholds. Notice the overlap.

There is a pretty intriguing correlation here. The votes for Obama correspond to the settlement patterns of African-Americans two centuries ago.

It's not directly youth-related, but I found it too interesting to not share.

Since Tuesday I had come across a couple things online that really showed me the extent to which change is coming to America.

I thought I'd put a post together, and if there are anymore that you know of, please include those in the comments.

• A great series of images from the gathering in Chicago. Pictures really are worth a thousand words.

  

• Check out this DailyKos diary that tells a great story about an impromptu and diverse gathering of Americans at the Lincoln Memorial. Here's a picture:

  

It would not be shocking to know that I'm thrilled that Obama won; my friends know me as a big Democrat (figuratively, but also literally, as I'm a 6'6" 290 lb. guy), and my very liberal politics bleeds into my writing. But what might shock some of my friends (and probably none of you, given the topics of my recent posts) is the reason I'm happy he won. It's not just that Obama is the first Democrat to win the presidency since my political awakening; it's not just that he's the first black president (sorry Bill); and it's not just that he is a Millennial-friendly president. For me, the excitement is rooted in his views on the relationship between Americans and their government.

On Thursday Peter Levine wrote a blog post about this relationship in the context of other presidents' views.

Obama's core idea is that citizens are at the center of politics. Not private individuals, not the government, not politicians, but people working together in public, on public matters. Campaigning in New Hampshire in 2006, he said, "There's a wonderful saying by Justice Louis Brandeis once, that the most important office in a democracy is the office of citizen. ... All of us have a stake in this government, all of us have responsibilities, all of us have to step up to the plate."

Obama broke away from the helping model that still guided Hilary (sic) Clinton and from the privatism that was the main theme of modern conservatism. On the campaign trail, he modeled his new conception in two important ways--by making his campaign maximally participatory (pushing power out to the network) and by lowering the partisan temperature a notch. He is a Democrat and he was willing to debate and compete with Republicans. But he never seemed to relish this difference. The reason is that citizens are both liberal and conservative, and they need to work together to solve any serious problems. Competition is appropriate in a campaign, but campaigning is a role for politicians, and they are not the heart of politics.

Obama believes the epicenter of American politics is the people, Levine notes. And Obama's campaign certainly reflected this belief. Obama had the largest grassroots operation in history, and created my.barackobama.com, the internet-based propellant for the movement. Obama inspired legions of supporters, building a new coalition of Americans that would lead him to victory Tuesday night.

But Levine emphasizes that politics is not limited to elections in Obama's eyes. And so the election itself is not about merely winning; the election is about getting the chance to solve problems. Such an approach necessitates a responsible, civil, supporter-focused campaign, one focused on the issues that yields the fewest number of barriers possible to effective problem-solving, and one that empowers the problem-solvers, energizing us to do the post-election work.

So what about that work? And how does it fit into our discussion about the relationship between the people and their government?

On July 2nd of this year, Obama touched on his expectations for Americans in an address on active citizenship and service in Colorado Springs, CO.

The thesis of the speech (and his campaign):

I am running for President, right now, because of what Dr. King called the fierce urgency of now. This moment is too important to sit on the sidelines. Our country faces determined enemies abroad, and definitive challenges at home. But I have no doubt that in the face of these odds, people who love their country can change it. That is why I am running for President. That is why I’m determined to reach out - not just to Democrats, but to Independents and Republicans who want to move in a new direction. And that is why I won’t just ask for your vote as a candidate - I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am President of the United States.

This will not be a call issued in one speech or one program - this will be a central cause of my presidency. We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges.

[...]

...Make no mistake: our destiny as Americans is tied up with one another. If we are less respected in the world, then you will be less safe. If we keep paying dictators for foreign oil, gas prices are going to keep rising, and so are the oceans. If we can’t give all of our kids a world-class education, then our economy is going to fall behind.

And that’s how it should be. That’s the bet our Founding Fathers were making all of those years ago - that our individual destinies could be tied together in the common destiny of democracy; that government depends not just on the consent of the governed, but on the service of citizens. That’s what history calls us to do. Because loving your country shouldn’t just mean watching fireworks on the 4th of July. Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it. If you do, your life will be richer, and our country will be stronger.

We need your service, right now, at this moment - our moment - in history. I’m not going to tell you what your role should be; that’s for you to discover. But I am going to ask you to play your part; ask you to stand up; ask you to put your foot firmly into the current of history. I am asking you to change history’s course. And if I have the fortune to be your President, decades from now - when the memory of this or that policy has faded, and when the words that we will speak in the next few years are long forgotten - I hope you remember this as a moment when your own story and the American story came together, and - in the words of Dr. King - the arch of history bent once more towards justice.

This speech certainly defines the citizen and his/her responsibilities as the center of American politics. It calls on citizens to serve each other based on the common purpose shared with their American brothers and sisters. But even more importantly, Obama doesn't stop at the end of the election. Obama is clearly not limiting this discussion to campaign workers doing their part in a campaign, and he's clearly not stopping with the request for votes. He's asking for Americans to take ownership of their country by hitching their individual hopes and dreams to the greater American saga. He's asking for Americans to invest in a country that's already given them so much. Service is symbiotic, as Obama noted: "Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it. If you do, your life will be richer, and our country will be stronger."

One visit to change.gov demonstrates his commitment to this philosophy. Under "America Serves," Obama broadens the opportunity to serve, tripling the number of service-oriented "corps" in the government.

The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.

The message is clear: Americans can serve [and should be serving] their country no matter what their background is, no matter what their skills are; everyone has something to offer everyone else.

Frances Moore Lappe wrote about citizenship in her book Hope's Edge (2002).

To me, democracy is an exciting, living practice, what we do every day. But to most, democracy still means something done "to us" or "for us" -- it doesn't relate to our daily lives, and it sure isn't much fun. I now see that to engage in democracy, to jump into this living practice, we all need something tangible to act on. (p. 31)

Obama's victory excited me because he empowered me. He asked me to do something. He welcomed me to the table, asking me to bring my gifts so they could mesh with the gifts of other Americans. He wants me to be involved -- not just to get him elected, but to make our country better. He's not interested in a paper-thin democracy that only asks citizens to get involved when his career's at stake; he wants to thicken democracy, forging connections between the "Great Experiment" itself and the millions of lives it benefits.

This may not be ground-breaking news, but I thought I'd post something about it anyway.

In a survey of 2,406 18-24 year old Americans conducted by Harris Interactive from September 12th through October 6th, 2008, the Harvard University Institute of Politics found that youth continue to be a strong force in this campaign, and they have, by and large, placed most of their enthusiasm and energy behind the Obama campaign.

• U.S. Senator Barack Obama is favored among 18-24 year-old likely voters by nearly a 2-1 margin over U.S. Senator John McCain in the race for President. Just weeks before Election Day, Senator Obama holds a twenty-six point lead (56%-30%; 15% undecided) over Senator McCain in the 2008 presidential race, a lead that has remained virtually unchanged since July (55%-32%) and March (53%-32%) 2008 IOP polling. Obama’s lead grows slightly among young people saying they will “definitely” be voting (59%-31%). As IOP polling also showed in July, young people continue to say they “trust” Obama more than McCain on eight out of ten major domestic and foreign policy issues facing the country.
• Youth are ready to answer a new call for public service, including working in government. Almost six in ten (59%) 18-24 year-olds say that they are personally interested in engaging in some form of public service to help the country. Nearly one-half (47%) of this group said engagement could include working for the federal, state or local government; almost a third (32%) said they would think about getting involved in a political campaign; and nearly two in ten (17%) said they would consider running for office. Importantly, this is one issue where strong support is seen regardless of party (Democrats 68%, Republicans 63%, Independents 57%), presidential candidate supported (67% Obama supporters, 63% McCain supporters), or gender (63% women, 55% men) of young people today.
• Economy is ten times more important to young people today than one year ago. More than half of young people (53%) say economic issues are their top concern. IOP polling showed 30% of young people expressing the same opinion in March and only 5% in the fall of 2007. During the same time period, the percentage of young people who said Iraq and the War in general was their top concern fell from 37% (fall 2007) to 20% (March 2008) to 9% today. No other issue in this year's poll garnered more than 9%.
• Sen. Biden Vice-Presidential pick shows little effect, while Gov. Palin pick has hurt among Independents and women. When 18-24 year-old likely voters were asked whether each candidate’s vice-presidential selection made them more or less likely to support that ticket in November, six in ten (60%) said that Senator Obama’s pick of U.S. Senator Joe Biden made no difference with just 21% saying the pick made them more likely and 19% saying less likely to support the ticket (Net effect: 2% points positive). However, while only 35% of young people said Senator McCain’s selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin made no difference, 40% of young voters said the pick made them “less likely” to support the ticket with 25% saying “more likely.” (Net effect: 15% points negative). Among young people self-identifying as Independents, the Biden VP pick had a net 8% point negative effect, while the Palin VP pick had a net 22% point negative effect.
• More than half of young people currently supporting a presidential candidate are interested in volunteering for their candidate’s campaign. Among 18-24 year-olds currently supporting Senator Obama, nearly six in ten (57%) say they would be interested in volunteering for the presidential campaign if asked (17% very interested; 40% somewhat interested). Slightly less than half (47%) of Senator McCain supporters said they would volunteer on their candidate’s campaign if asked to do so (16% very interested, 31% somewhat interested).

[...]

• More young people see the effectiveness of political engagement than one year ago. Nearly seven in ten 18-24 year-olds today (69%) say they see political engagement as an effective way of solving our nation’s problems, up six percentage points from fall 2007 (63%) and fall 2006 (60%) IOP polling. Fewer young people today agree that politics is not relevant to their lives (28%) than did one year ago (32%) and fewer believe that elected officials don’t share their priorities (69%) than did one year ago (71%) or two years ago (75%). In addition, over six in ten young people (68%) say running for office is an honorable thing to do, up from one year ago (67%) and two years ago (66%).

The thing that sticks out to me is the total rejection of McCain and his philosophy. At the top of the bulleted list of outcomes, the first two are the most telling. Obama's lead has largely stayed the same; if it did change at all, he gained a few more percentage points compared to March's numbers. But when we pair that with the bullet point immediately below, we get that basis for the strong, rock-solid support for Obama: activism through sacrifice and working within the system. With Obama repeatedly linking a call to service with this nation's young people, he's clearly established trust with this age group on this issue -- even among Republicans and McCain supporters. This notion of serving something greater than yourself is very appealing to them, given their loads of experience with volunteerism and the large-scale social traumas they've gone through (9/11, Katrina, financial meltdown). While McCain pushes the military as a way of serving the greater good, Obama sees more diversified opportunities. And you can even see this dedication to serving others in the numbers that are willing to volunteer for their candidate's campaign. Obama's recognized this and with his fundraising advantage, has enabled hundreds of thousands of youth to have those opportunities in many small towns across the country. With McCain's limited financial resources, he doesn't offer those same opportunities (even though his supporters also want to be more involved).

The other thing I noticed is the job this election has done in raising enthusiasm for the political process as a means of creating positive change. Over the past few years, this election cycle has convinced one person in every group of ten 18-24 year olds that the political process is effective. With six out of ten already agreeing with this premise two years ago in 2006, seven out of ten now agree.

Finally, as we've been able to establish for a few weeks now, the idea that Palin somehow attracted and mobilized a large segment of youth for the GOP ticket is, well.. bunk. Young people are repelled from the ticket (40% said it made them less likely to support the ticket, compared with 25%, who said it made them more likely).

David Sirota has a very thought-provoking post up at Open Left pointing out that McCain and his advisers, in the last throes of this campaign, are actually helping Obama, his would-be administration, and the Democratic Party with their polarizing approach. Sirota observes the McCain campaign forcing the electorate to choose between someone very far left and someone very far right:

Indeed, in tacking to the hard economic right and focusing the presidential debate on "socialism" and "wealth redistribution," McCain is creating a very clear decision for our country: Either we reject his neo-Reaganism and the regressive redistribution machine that I describe in my new newspaper column this week. Or, we vote to preserve the regressive redistribution machine that has created the most economically unequal America since the Great Depression.

Sirota goes on to point out that while McCain and the GOP might think it beneficial to make people choose (thinking like Jon Meacham, Pat Buchanan, and the rest of the inside-the-beltway blowhards that this country is "center-right"), they seem to be ignoring the implications of the likely possibility that the voters overwhelmingly reject the Republicans' offer. Barack Obama's plan was relatively moderate in the first place, and so the GOP may have had an easier time with their campaign setting up shop in the middle, being more competitive with the independents. An election fought in the middle would have suited the GOP better than the current campaign topography. Because in that case, it would be hard for either party to claim a mandate, as no ideology would be so vulnerable. And in this political environment, the GOP would have to call that a win. Perhaps, if the election was less polarized, the McCain campaign would have been more successful at constructing a narrative that was based on the personalities of the two men -- the only turf favorable for the GOP this cycle. Even with the economic crisis, perhaps McCain would have appeared less political and more statesman-like; less senile, and more knowledgeable. The campaign may have actually appeared to be more strategic and less tactical. But the GOP (Steve Schmidt and the rest of Karl Rove's cronies) wanted a polarized electorate. They went with the divide and conquer card again. Unfortunately for them, it's not working.

So what are the implications of the Republicans continuing to polarize the electorate in the face of an oncoming Democratic tidal wave? Well, if they're not careful, their prevailing principles and ideological narrative will be washed away. Sirota explains that the McCain campaign, while not too successful the past couple months, has succeeded at "...framing the choice as one between a Republican presidency to the right of Ronald Reagan on economics or a Democratic presidency to the left of Franklin Roosevelt on economics..." This framing is essentially McCain saying "all in." By using the word "socialism," and using the "redistribution" line, the GOP, the McCain camp, and its surrogates, are laying it all on the line for voters: it's the choice between socialism or more trickle-down. Of course, Sirota's thesis notes the inherent irony: with Obama poised to win in eleven days barring a true game-changer, McCain's aggressiveness is actually pushing liberalism forward, not Obama. Obama's moderate agenda has become radicalized by the GOP in hopes that it might scare voters, but if it doesn't and the voters rubberstamp it with a huge landslide, doesn't this actually allow the Obama administration to be more radical thanks to McCain and the Republicans? David Sirota thinks so, and I agree.

But building off of that, what's even more important is the cataclysmic stature of this cycle. If 2008 turns out to be anything like 1932, the electorate that would overturn decades of Washington conventional wisdom would be rewarded for their civic participation and their game-changing activism -- their votes created history, and just like the New Deal Coalition, the "Yes We Can" Coalition could stick around for decades to come. For those Millennials that have been around since 2004, this will be the third election in a row in which they've heartily supported the Democrats, and with such a huge victory on the horizon, one could surely assume, their support for Democrats and progressive causes would be cemented. So in an election that is already shaping up to be one of those transformational moments in American history, the Republicans are upping the ante and going "all or nothing."

What we have developing in front of us, now that the Republicans are willing to risk a mandate for true change, is an opportunity for the values that Millennials espouse to guide this new ruling coalition for the next forty or fifty years. So while McCain's gambling all that he has left, we're all poised to reap the benefits. Someone tell John Mayer he might not have to wait much longer.

Update: Political Wire brings attention to a David Frum quote reflecting the theme of this post.

Former Bush speechwriter David Frum: "There are many ways to lose a presidential election. John McCain is losing in a way that threatens to take the entire Republican Party down with him... I could pile up the poll numbers here, but frankly... it's too depressing. You have to go back to the Watergate era to see numbers quite so horrible for the GOP."

Emphasis added.

One of today's Quick Hits was a piece by Ari Melber in The Nation examining Obama's tech-savvy campaign and its operation. I thought Melber did a great job of penetrating behind the scenes to clarify how the toys and gadgets help Obama put together a one-of-a-kind grassroots organization. But Melber also succeeded at looking into the future and explaining why Obama's technological operation is so crucial to presidential politics.

We know McCain's thinking on technology from an article published in the San Francisco Chronicle this summer:

GOP presidential candidate John McCain, fundraising in the San Francisco Bay Area, one of the nation's technology capitals, acknowledged Monday that he isn't a "tech freak" or entirely comfortable with the Internet, BlackBerrys or e-mail. But he strongly disputed criticism that he is "out of the loop" as unfair.

As former head of the U.S. Senate Commerce committee, McCain said, he has been a driving force to oversee legislation that helped the Internet flourish - even as he is still learning to get comfortable with it himself.

"Am I a tech freak? No," he said in an interview Monday with The Chronicle. "And I don't like to text message because I'd rather call somebody on the telephone."

"I do understand the importance of the computer. I understand the importance of the blogs," he said.

McCain said he is well aware that technology "does drive the news. It is changing the shape of the news. ... It's changing the information age, and I've got to stay up with it."

He added, "But I am forcing myself ... let me put it this way, I am using the computer more and more every day."

Melber's closing reminds us why having a candidate who understands technology is so important to this nation:

If his strategy succeeds, all presidential politics could change. First-time voters--both this generation of the young, black or marginalized as well as future rookie cohorts--might become a constituency that candidates pursue. The long shot, if Obama wins big, is a larger electoral universe that forces Republicans to play catch-up. The party that spent decades stifling voter turnout, from illegal suppression to court-sanctioned ploys like ID requirements, could find electoral salvation depends on the ability to register its own new voters. Couple that grassroots pressure with an economic crisis stoking intense bipartisan populism, and a "new politics" might really be on the horizon.

The vision is obvious, and frankly, kind of Rovian: strike at the heart of your opponent's strengths and force them to run on something else. I love the fact that Melber pointed out the Republicans' strategy of squashing participation, because I think that it really gets to the heart of why technological development is such a Democratic issue. With technology boosting political participation and engagement all across America, we suddenly are toeing a new political landscape, one the Republicans have worked against for years. By refusing to adapt and be -- gasp! -- progressive, the GOP created an opening for someone to supply the enthusiasm, dedication, and the message to create a self-sustaining system that is immune to most "wedge" tactics, in which society is turned against itself for partisan advantage. Obama has put this vision forward, and it's paying dividends, registering unbelievable numbers of new voters this year and flooding the campaign coffers with cash. As a result, an Obama presidency might just be the tip of the iceberg for the GOP.

Over the past few weeks we have seen the McCain campaign flailing, as the economic crisis has forced its way into the political dialogue, forcing McCain and the Republicans to talk about an issue with which they have absolutely no credibility.

We've seen the outcomes expressed in a few ways. We've all seen Obama skyrocket in the polls, as voters have been more impressed and comfortable with his approach to the economy -- perhaps because he understands it. Here is a graph from Open Left yesterday of both candidates' support in an average of four tracking polls (Gallup, Rasmussen, Hotline, R2Kos):

We've also seen the revival of the dream of capturing a filibuster-proof 60 Senate seats thanks to a surge in Democratic support. Races in Georgia, North Carolina, Minnesota, and Oregon are trending heavily blue.

But it's the implicit that truly shows the enormity of the last few weeks in this campaign.

Like the effects of McCain going negative so early. Marc Ambinder gets it:

One worry for Republicans is that McCain has already gone too negative too quickly; you never pull out the strongest punches against your opponent until the very end; it's hard to get tougher than the kindergarten ad... or over-the-top statements about Obama not being fit to lead.

McCain's advisers, perhaps thinking they were listening to their inner-Karl Rove, have already waged the character war in May, June, July, and August. It knocked Obama on his heels for a while, but he and his campaign survived. How do you top those blistering attacks from earlier this summer? Apparently, if you're Sarah Palin and the McCain campaign, you start pounding even harder on the character message, even if it means 1.) citing a source you've disparaged as a pro-Obama advocacy organization, and 2.) exaggerating the scope of the story to make it fit your shrinking narrative. One problem with this approach for the McCain campaign is that Americans have already seen and heard this ad nauseum, and so, to them, it's boring. The other is, unlike the past couple elections, the Democrats are organized and ready to strike back:

The economic crisis could actually be the catalyst of the downfall of the "Nixonland" politics of cultural resentment that reigned for the past forty years. Todd Beeton from MyDD hits the nail on the head here:

So far throughout this entire election cycle, remarkably, we've seen facts and rationality win out over fear. Will that continue over the next 30 days? It's clear that Palin's reference to plural "terrorists" (no comment, of course, from the McCain campaign on who these other terrorists Obama is "palling around with" are) and her evocation of racial cues in her speech yesterday are intended to make people fear Barack Obama, to portray him as "the other" but for that strategy to work, they need the nation to be its old 2004 self. Again, too bad for John McCain, not only is the country in a much different place than it was just 4 years ago, but the left is far better organized with a media infrastructure that has been able to effectively hit back against such attacks in real time. This isn't 2004 anymore.

Todd is right on all of those points, especially when we examine Palin, who just may be the best representative of Nixonland politics since the man himself. Talk about playing up cultural resentment, fear in ordinary, everyday Americans -- Palin's last month and a half of practice at this traditional brand of Republican politics has made perfect. But, again, it's 2008, and it's not working this year. In an economic crisis, it turns out lipstick, hockey moms, and Joe Six-packs aren't what they used to be.

I'll go further than Todd, though, and argue that another significant reason why 2008 is so different than 2004 is the presence of Millennials in the electorate. Jerome Armstrong interviewed Michael Hais and Morley Winograd, the authors of Millennial Makeover, in April. One of the questions Jerome asked Hais and Winograd dealt with the positioning of Millennials in the electorate -- were enough of them able to vote to actually make a difference?

Only third to half of the Millennial Generation will be eligible to vote in 2008. Wouldn't that point to 2012 as the election where this generation will have its greatest impact? On the other hand, if you look at the years of realignments, 1828-1860 was 32 years, 1860-1896 was 36 years, 1896 to 1932 was 36 years, and 1932 to 1968 was 36 years. Now, it's been 40 years since 1968. And we could be looking at 44 years if it winds up being 2012 for the realignment.

Certain fundamental demographical facts about Millennials make it likely that 2008 will be the realigning election. There are currently about 100 million Millennials ranging in age from 5 to 26 years old, making it America's largest generation. Millennials now comprise about one-third of the U.S. population, a percentage that will only grow in coming years as members of older generations pass from the scene. Given the fact that many Millennials will not yet be able to vote this year, it is certainly true that the full force of this huge generation will be most strongly felt in elections beyond that of 2008. Nevertheless, we argue that Millennials will have a decisive impact this year. This will be due, in large part, to the unity of the Millennial Generation. Millennials, unlike Gen-Xers and Baby Boomers, are not sharply divided along gender, racial, or ideological lines. Moreover, a clear majority of Millennials identify as Democrats, while the two next older generations are divided fairly evenly between the two parties. Assuming that the Millennial Generation retains its unity, it should provide the decisive balance between the more sharply divided older generations in 2008 and beyond.

Historically, realigning elections occur when a new group of voters enters the electorate in significant numbers for the first time and their unified attitudes tip the balance of power decisively to one party or the other. Keep in mind that in American presidential elections a 53/47 victory is considered decisive. Consequently, a realigning generation's numbers don't have to be overwhelming to cause this outcome. Normally, in the subsequent national election after the realignment, this shift in party fortunes and policy attitudes is ratified by an even larger victory for the newly dominant party. For example, Franklin D. Roosevelt won big in 1932, but the New Deal realignment was reaffirmed in a much larger landslide in 1936. Richard Nixon won relatively narrowly in 1968, but he won in a landslide in 1972, reconfirming the electoral shift to the GOP. Whichever party wins in 2008 will do so clearly, and then will likely win a landslide victory in 2012, bringing with it a mandate for sweeping changes in policy that will be debated intensely in the years between the first victory and the second.

Emphasis added. I think we should also remember that Millennials not only are more unified in their political preferences than previous generations, but they're also more serious -- more meritocratic and pragmatic -- in their approach. They want the best product for its money. There's clearly a job that needs to be done, and rebuilding the country is going to take a huge effort. Millennials, an optimistic, can-do, collaborative generation, want someone who's willing to take on the challenge and prove their competence in doing so.

So when we revisit the latest McCain campaign strategy, is this mold of young voters really going to be convinced that the best hope for our country during these troubling times is the candidate who won't even talk about it?

Not only is this campaign slipping away for McCain, but he's quickly becoming a Herbert Hoover -- the candidate who tried to push away and resist destiny; the candidate who maintained that deregulation was the best way to go; the candidate who said the fundamentals of the economy are strong; the candidate who was the weakest on using the latest technology of his time; the candidate who just didn't understand.

It's not 2004 anymore, John. Things are changing.

After being on the road for most of the day, I came back and found this election analysis from McClatchy in my RSS reader. It made for a good end to the weekend, and I thought I'd share it.

Five weeks before election day, the tide may be turning toward Barack Obama.

Several things still could swing the contest back toward John McCain, most notably the remaining debates. But as of now, forces are coming together to help Obama just as the long campaign enters the final stretch.

Among the key developments in recent days:

* His performance in Friday night's debate helped assure some nervous voters that he is experienced enough to be commander-in-chief, a critical threshold for the young, first term senator to meet;

* The continuing focus on the economy plays to his political advantage. The Wall Street crisis and proposed bailout guarantees intense attention by voters, and the remaining debates will overwhelmingly focus on it and domestic issues;

* The initial burst of Republican enthusiasm over Sarah Palin may be dampened by shaky performances in TV interviews and skepticism, if not outright hostility, from some conservative columnists.

[...]

But some fundamentals may be changing late in the campaign that could help him hold and perhaps even build his lead.

For one, the debate may have started to settle the question of whether Obama could be commander-in-chief, a critical test.

One survey of poll watchers for CBS News, for example, found a jump in the ranks of people who believed Obama was prepared to be president. More people still thought McCain prepared, by a margin of 18 percentage points — but a majority for the first time in that poll said the same of Obama.

These past two weeks have obviously allowed Obama to flex some political muscle and grab the control of the campaign back from McCain.

Of course, there is still much work to be done. There are doors to be knocked on, phone calls to be made, and votes to get out. But in this one moment in time, I think we have reason to be confident in our efforts so far. Keep working hard!

Some post-debate reading:

• Newsweek just put out an open letter to young Obama supporters from a Millennial born on the cusp, Jonathan Darman. I like it all but this part, which unfortunately happens to be the crux of the letter.
  

  With the new fiscal reality, neither he nor John McCain should get away with promising everyone what he or she wants. In debates they will be pressed to explain their priorities. Seize this opportunity. To get the best of Obama, young people, cut out the blind devotion. Get off the Huffington Post. Stop the Facebook blasts. If you really want to be the change you've been waiting for, start holding Obama to some of his promises to our generation. In these waning days of the campaign, ask not what you can do for Barack Obama, ask what Barack Obama can do for you.

  This once again assumes that internet activism doesn't get anything done. Not cool.

• Is Friday night the best night to have a debate in order to attract more youth attention and involvement?
• A Columbus Dispatch piece visits a debate-watching party near Ohio State University to get feedback from both College Dems and College Republicans organizations on campus.
• Michael A. Cohen of the New America Foundation penned a decent piece appearing in the New York Times a few days ago on the state of the race.

  His words at the end dovetailed with the coverage of Obama's performance in the debate so far:

  All of these elements make the presidential debates so crucial for Mr. Obama — and so potentially dangerous for Mr. McCain. Unlike an acceptance speech before a partisan crowd or campaign advertisements, debates are the single best opportunity for a relatively inexperienced presidential candidate to show the electorate their qualifications for America’s top job. Indeed, Mr. McCain’s debate performance will be of almost secondary importance. If Mr. Obama, who already has the political wind at his back, is able to show that he has the proper facility with the major issues of the days to go head-to-head with Mr. McCain, he will go a long way toward erasing the doubts that many voters still have about his experience.

  Since June this election has been Barack Obama’s to lose. Because of his consistent message discipline, Mr. Obama has ensured that with approximately 40 days until Election Day, this is still the case.

• An actual example -- in Frederick County, MD -- of the energy from this election reinvigorating local parties.
• A piece on the Student Voter Act of 2008 -- Rep. Jan Schakowski's the lead sponsor -- that would require all institutions of higher education receiving federal funding to offer students the opportunity to register to vote while registering for classes.
• An article from the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern examines preparations being made for another surge in the youth vote this November.
• "Youth Activism Isn't Dead, Just Different" -- a good piece by Ned Resnikoff found on Pushback.

One thing that stuck out to me in last night's debate is the refrain of "just doesn't understand" that McCain kept using on Obama. Clearly a premeditated line, I question its effectiveness.

First -- poll numbers from last night show it clearly didn't work. From the CNN poll, thanks to TPM:

Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think each one better described Barack Obama or John McCain during tonight's debate:

• Was more intelligent: Obama 55%, McCain 30%

• Expressed his views more clearly: Obama 53%, McCain 36%

• Spent more time attacking his opponent: McCain 60%, Obama 23%

• Was more sincere and authentic: Obama 46%, McCain 38%

• Seemed to be the stronger leader: Obama 49%, McCain 43%

• Was more likeable: Obama 61%, McCain 26%

• Was more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you: Obama 62%, McCain 32%

The last one is the most important here. This thirty point spread indicating Obama is the candidate that is more in touch with needs and problems is political gold, especially when its in the face of McCain's repeated declarations that the Democrat doesn't understand. Not only did the last point bear out the ineffectiveness of this strategy, but so did the leadership question. McCain's "not ready to lead" theme may have been disproven by Obama's threshold performance -- clearly the leadership people gleaned from the debate didn't scare anyone. But, of course, we can expect the McCain campaign to bring up the fact that Obama is a master wordsmith and point out we shouldn't have expected anything different.

Second, for someone that doesn't understand, Obama's body language was superior. The senator was mostly looking into the camera, speaking directly to the viewers at home. And when he wasn't doing that, he turned to look directly at his opponent. McCain, meanwhile, was looking anywhere but Obama's eyes and the camera. He was acting like the event was not televised, looking out at the crowd for most of the debate. Not only that, but TPM had some readers well-versed in psychotherapy and psychology write in with their own analysis of McCain's inability to look at his opponent for any amount of time. Quite interesting:

As a psychotherapist and someone who treats people with anger management problems, we typically try to educate people that anger is often an emotion that masks other emotions. I think it's significant that McCain didn't make much, if any, eye contact because it suggests one of two things to me; he doesn't want to make eye contact because he is prone to losing control of his emotions if he deals directly with the other person, or, his anger masks fear and the eye contact may increase or substantiate the fear.

I noticed him doing the same thing in the Republican primary debates. The perception observers are likely to have is that he is unwilling to acknowledge the opponent's legitimacy and/or is contemptuous of the opponent.

Afraid of Obama?

I think people really are missing the point about McCain's failure to look at Obama. McCain was afraid of Obama. It was really clear--look at how much McCain blinked in the first half hour. I study monkey behavior--low ranking monkeys don't look at high ranking monkeys. In a physical, instinctive sense, Obama owned McCain tonight and I think the instant polling reflects that.

Obama demonstrated that he did understand the issues, especially when he was asked to name legislative priorities for his presidency, even with the financial crisis tying his hands. Obama talked about healthcare, the energy issue, and the economy; McCain talked about minutae in defense spending? This is about 7:22 in. (Apologies for using Faux News's recording -- it was what I could find in a short amount of time.)

Finally, I know I've discussed this repeatedly in the past, but I keep going back to what Millennials and young voters would think. How often do you think these serious young activists, trying to get a seat at the table and be taken seriously, are told "you just don't understand?" Keeping that in mind, it's even less difficult to see why McCain just wouldn't appeal to young voters who seek to work within the system to create change.

Yes, young voters that seek to act as change agents within organizations might be predisposed to support Senator Obama anyway; but with these comments, McCain doesn't give his campaign any chance to be seen as a credible alternative to a young voter who doesn't quite agree with Obama.

Yes, young voters are just as diverse (and maybe even more so) as the rest of the electorate and so to make generalizations can be dangerous. But being a young voter myself, and having surrounded myself with young voters both at my place of employment and in my own social life, I notice that while we're by and large not a big proponent of civil disobedience, we're still headstrong and stubborn. We don't like to be told by our elders that we can't do things or that we're too naive to understand issues. And so it's not a huge stretch to assume that McCain's patronizing tactic didn't play well with young voters.

All in all, I thought the debate was a tie. Both candidates had a few good moments. But the fact that it was a tie on the scorecard actually favors Obama in the grand scheme of things. He didn't make any mistakes, he came off looking in touch with America and as a credible leader, and he held his own against John McCain on a subject that is supposed to be McCain's strong suit.

What did you think?