Rocky Balboa against African-American

With the upcoming primary in Pennsylvania, observers are looking for a disappearing category of people in polls: white men. The reason is that for the first of his history, the Democratic Party is going to nominate either a woman or an African-American man. Consequently, polls have focused on African-American voters as well as on women voters. In Pennsylvania, white men could make the difference next Tuesday, so that reporters are spread all over the state, searching for white men to interview. As Gail Collins wrote in her New York Times article, courting white men is not easier for the candidates. “The candidates’ desperation to make contact is showing. Barack Obama goes bowling in Altoona – with disastrous consequences. Hillary Clinton attempts to compare herself to Rocky Balboa prompting many people to note that Rocky lost to a black guy. Obama, rather cruelly, points out that Rocky is a fictional character. Clinton, in turn, reveals that she owns her own bowling ball…”
When one asks which discourse could seduce white men voters, commentators answer “maybe not change […] Pennsylvania is a state where change has not been a friend to your average white male, particularly the aging working-class ones who are the candidates’ prime target. Change left the state full of empty factories that towns keep desperately trying to make into condos or art museums.” In Pennsylvania, change pledged by Obama made white men victims, who saw part of their culture taken away. The dilemma of this election is that traditional democratic voters may be turn away from their traditional vote because of the choice offered. This may benefit the Republican Party which nominated a candidate from the majority… a white man.

Fractures,

“What the Democrats have to worry about are fractures within.” In his article published in The New York Times last Tuesday April 8th, Bob Herbert pointed to the danger for Democrats to be as torn as they could not be united enough to win the general elections. Meeting with Hillary Clinton’s supporters, the journalist noted that in case she would lose they will vote for Barack Obama: “I hope Hillary gets the nomination,” he said. “But if she doesn’t, I’ll vote for Obama without any trouble. We can’t stand another four years of Bush, and that’s what McCain would be.”
Fractures are Democrat supporters’ main fear. As Herbert said, “the big question is whether the losers in the fight for the nomination will wholeheartedly support the winners.” The journalist recalls what happened in 1968 when Richard Nixon won the presidential election: “the party was unable to get its act together in 1968 and unite behind Hubert Humphrey, thus opening the door for Richard Nixon. The ramifications of that bitter election are still being felt.”
What the journalist forgot to mention is that as I mentioned it earlier in this blog, the campaign has lasted too long already and neither the US democracy nor the candidates have anything to gain in this long, too long primary campaign. Every single day of campaign now adds to the debit of each candidate and dig in a little more the gap between Democratic candidates.

The darling of the news media

On March 26th, the New York Times ran an interesting story that fits perfectly in our class. The maverick and the media tells readers how John McCain has become the media’s favorite candidate. Indeed, while McCain started the campaign far behind the other candidates, presently, “the mainstream news media by and large don’t cover Mr. McCain; they canonize him.” According to Neal Gabler, the reason is that “Mr. McCain is an ironist wooing a group of individuals who regard ironic detachment more highly than sincerity or seriousness.” The article describes how McCain has cleverly transformed the relationship between the journalists and him; the (apparent) candor with which he approaches this relationship has allowed him to fraternize with them. As a result, journalist have become part of McCain’s communication team; “since the reporters on the bus liked Mr. McCain too much to report on his gaffes, he really didn’t need protection. His candor was without consequence. It was another blandishment of the press.” According to the author, “McCain can be called the first postmodernist presidential candidate” because of “his acknowledgement of the symbiosis between himself and the press and, more important, his willingness, even eagerness, to let the press in on his own machinations of them.” However, the author of the article highlights McCain’s experience as he knows that candidates are the very leaders of the relationship with the press. In fact, the media may have gotten trapped by McCain; “if in the past he flattered the press by posing as its friend, he is now flattering it by posing as its conspirator, a secret sharer of its cynicism. He is the guy who “gets it.”

It has lasted too long!

Last week, American media focused on Barack Obama’s relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Hillary Clinton’s loss of memory. I would like to come back on both events. As for Obama’s relationship with Rev. Wright, the sermons of the latter do not engaged the former and I think Senator Obama had the elegance to remain faithful to the one who has been his friend for years. As for Senator Clinton, things are a little bit different. Indeed, it appeared clearly that Hillary Clinton lied to people by stating that she put her life in danger in Bosnia while she was the First Lady.
Media focused on Clinton’s lie as it has shocked the morality expected from someone running for the presidential office. They also immediately drew conclusions from this lie, saying that Hillary Clinton may have lied for months on her experience.
As far as I am concerned, I think that this lie underscores a huge problem this primary is facing: it has lasted too long. Indeed, if the media focus on Rev. Wright sermons and on Hillary Clinton’s lie, it demonstrates first and foremost that the candidates are running out of arguments. They no longer know what to say to voters to convince them. In addition, I do think that voters do not expect anything more from the candidates; people know perfectly the arguments and the program that the candidates have been relentlessly repeating for more than a year. Hillary Clinton’s lie has pointed out that voters and the entire US democracy have nothing to win in such a long campaign.

A glance backwards

I got interested in the news ran by CNN; Michigan and Florida are about to vote again in the framework of the Democratic nomination. The article recalls that “the Democratic National Committee did not recognize the results of the January 15 Michigan primary. The DNC had ruled that only four states could hold their contests before February 5, but Michigan wasn't one of those.” As far as I am concerned, I think there are a couple of interesting remarks to make. First, on the one hand, it is sort of surprising that Michigan voted while this vote was obviously in contradiction with the DNC’s rules. On the other hand, it is for me always disrespectful not to take into account the results of a vote. Second, nobody really cared about the DNC’s decision until Hillary Clinton raised the issue. It is because the outcome of the Democratic race is uncertain that people are rethinking of Michigan voters and their voice.
The idea to ask Michigan voters to revote is Hillary Clinton’s. Indeed, she won the Michigan primary with 55 percent of the vote. I got struck by Senator Clinton’s strategy; her strategy is based on the basic assumption that since Michigan voters voted for her two months ago, they will for her next June. I think that she could suffer from her logics. First, the CNN article recalls that last January, “some 40 percent of Democrats in the state filed ballots declaring themselves ‘uncommitted’.” It is far enough to give her opponent, Barack Obama, additional delegates. Second, she seems to forget that in this campaign, things change every week. The situation now is not the same as it was in January and it is not the same as it will be in June. For instance, in January, Sen. Clinton was the frontrunner. Yet, Barack Obama has had the momentum for weeks, becoming the leader of the race. She can change that and she has to if she wants to win. If Hillary Clinton wants to win, she should not look backwards.

Stay positive, go negative, or door number 3?

Hi all, at Gordon’s request I tried to put together some of my thoughts on the presidential campaigns. I set forward to write a post laying out some of the ways that the media’s political vocabulary fails to capture dynamism of the Democratic nomination fight. But I was stopped short by this interesting blurb appeared in Friday’s Hotline:

“Obama's camp ‘is wrestling with how to respond forcefully’ to Clinton's ‘recent attacks on his record without violating the positive, uplifting spirit at the core of his message.’ But ‘Obama's arsenal is limited by his insistence that his campaign not engage in below-the-belt attacks.’"

The quoted excerpts are from a story in the Boston Globe titled “Obama vies to push back, stay positive.” The author of the piece insinuates that Obama has two strategic options: To stay positive or to go negative.

But are these really the only possibilities? In short: No.

While the conventional wisdom of politics says that political messages can be categorized as either positive or negative, it would be more accurate to delineate political messages not according to their tone, but by their purpose. And there are only two purposes: To define an individual (either the candidate or the opponent) or to define the choice.

While defining an individual fits neatly into the positive/negative media dichotomy, comparative messages threaten to break those confines. Comparative messages offer candidates the opportunity to remain positive while negating an opponent’s strategic advantage.

Though most have heard messages described as “comparative,” it’s a term usually used by talking heads and consultants who are trying to put a positive face on blatantly negative attacks. Confronted with broad misuse of the term by professional spinners, an understandably jaded media has abandoned the phrase, and apparently the concept, altogether.

Unfortunately, the media’s rejection of “comparison” and embrace of “positive vs. negative” has cut short their ability to describe the Obama/Clinton race.

While most believe that Obama needs to find a way to turn the momentum back in his favor, the media has argued (and his campaign’s public statements have agreed) that unleashing a barrage of negative personal attacks against Clinton would undermine the broader narrative of “new” politics he has worked to cultivate. Seemingly confronted with limited options, the media continues to tell a story of a campaign unable to regain the upper hand.

Despite the media’s characterization, Obama’s campaign has a powerful opportunity to define the choice being presented to Democratic voters. Obama’s broader messages of change, unity and political civility have often contrasted sharply with the Clinton campaigns political tactics and “experience” message.

Let’s look at Clinton’s “3 a.m.” ad as an example.

The ad qualified Clinton in voters’ minds and put the emphasis on security. Aired in the closing days before the Ohio and Texas primaries, the Obama campaign had little time to respond.

Many believe the campaign should respond by going negative – Denigrating Clinton’s crisis “experience” as artificial and attacking her limited experience in military matters.

The campaign chose to remain positive while attempting to co-opt Clinton’s message. They aired an ad highlighting Obama’s judgment on the Iraq war. Ultimately, the force of Clinton’s ad was not blunted, and late-deciding voters tilted sharply in her favor.

What the campaign missed was an opportunity to define the choice on a broader level. To make the campaign not about experienced vs. inexperienced, but between fear and hope, and between political and unifying. Obama could have made the argument that Clinton’s ad was a page from the old political playbook that says; when your poll numbers are low you try to scare people. And he could have argued that was the kind of politics that prevented change and kept the country from unifying. This response would have allowed Obama to reinforce his central message and refocus the debate away from security and experience.

Confronted with this response, the media wouldn’t have been able to say that Obama had gone negative.

So, going into Mississippi and Pennsylvania, what strategies will the campaigns employ? Will Obama go “comparative?” And, if he does, how will the media react?

Bush’s endorsement

I have been waiting for this moment for several weeks. President Bush has finally decided to endorse Senator McCain last Wednesday. This campaign event turned into a non-event. Firstly, I found President Bush’s endorsement very formal. Indeed, President Bush waited Senator McCain on the steps of the White House, they posed inside the White House seating in front of the fire place, and then gave a short press conference in the Rose Garden. The fact that President Bush received John McCain the same way he receives statesmen gives McCain a statesman dimension, but, in the meantime, Bush’s endorsement appeared to be a little bit cold and forced. Secondly, President Bush waited Senator McCain to be sure to win the GOP nomination before receiving him. By doing so, on the one hand President Bush has clearly chosen not to take part to the presidential race, and on the other hand he has chosen not to stand aloof from it.
On John McCain’s side, the question is: will President Bush’s endorsement benefit him? It is a fact that Bush’s popularity has never been so low. However, by being received like a statesman, McCain can boast a picture that none other candidate will. Moreover, by making this endorsement a non-event, it is not an episode of the campaign that the other candidates will usefully use against Senator McCain. In order for McCain to avoid any critics regarding his endorsement, President Bush used a surprising way to endorse Senator McCain: “If my showing up and endorsing him helps him — or if I'm against him and it helps him — either way, I want him to win."

He’s not running for President, but…

While the campaign seems to be crystallized around three candidates, surprisingly, some people anxious to raise their voice have emerged. It is noticeably the case of Michael R. Bloomberg who wrote an op-ed article in the February-28 New York Times.
Michael Bloomberg’s intervention is interesting for many reasons. Firstly, as the Mayor of New York City, he is undoubtedly an important political character. Secondly, Bloomberg cleverly fed the doubts surrounding his choice to run or not for the presidency. Thirdly, the time-frame as well as the message of his article are two interesting elements. Indeed, Bloomberg belongs to the Republican Party as well as Senator McCain, whose nomination by the RNC is now well-nigh certain.
Throughout this article, Bloomberg clearly wants to play a role in the campaign. The set-up of his article is mainly political. On the one hand, after he listed the issues the nation is facing, he points to candidates’ cowardice in not proposing the necessary solutions to the voters; “the vast majority of Americans know that all of this is true, but—politics being what it is—the candidates seem afraid to level with them.” On the other hand, rather than sketch plans or ideas to bring in the debate, Bloomberg advices an independent candidate to run as candidate, as the solution is, according to him, neither on the Democratic nor on the Republican side.
Independence is Bloomberg’s article’s key word. Yet, despite the fact that he keeps on pleading for a third way, that he claims he makes the right diagnostic and that he has the right solution, Bloomberg keeps on saying he will not run for president. Is that to be an independent?

Time for a break!

The last week before Super Tuesday will have been marked by a seeming break in the campaign. Indeed, based on the outcomes of the first primaries and caucuses, Giuliani and Edwards’ withdrawals appeared to be a non event, Senator John McCain victory in Florida alike. Yet, two other events should have held people’s attention. The first one was President George W. Bush’s last State of the Union, and the second one was the CNN Democratic debate in Hollywood. To be perfectly honest, both events were disappointing.
Although people did not expect something new from the Democratic debate, the latter broke its promises. As usual, the topics tackled by Senators Clinton and Obama were the same; the American economy, the healthcare system and the war in Iraq. As for the arguments developed on each topic, both candidates contented themselves with developing the same answers since the beginning of their presidential bid; Barack Obama emphasized his opposition to the War in Iraq, while Hillary Clinton emphasized her female and maternal concern for children healthcare. At the end, observers tried to determine who won the debate. However, to win the debate seemed to be far from being candidates’ main purpose. A couple of days before Super Tuesday only, Democratic candidate frontrunners’ aim were to handle their own lead and not to make any mistake. That is probably what happened, as the comments the day after the debate were surprisingly nearly nonexistent.
As for Bush’s last State of the Union is concerned, nothing really exciting. White House officials promised viewers a speech that would look forward and not back, but rather than talking about the economy issue, the US president preferred to concentrate most of his speech on the War in Iraq. During a period of the campaign marked by endorsements, I looked for that of George W. Bush or at least a sign that could tell people president Bush’s preference for a candidate. Except maybe the similarity between President Bush and Senator McCain’s outlooks on the Iraq War issue, it is impossible to answer the question which is whether or not Bush is going to endorse officially a candidate. The week was as calm as Super Tuesday may be decisive.