My Monday column for the FT returns to the way the Democrats are mishandling the campaign. And it notes that the Republicans are doing the same, after their own fashion. Here it is:
If Barack Obama loses this election to John McCain - something which, for the first time, I regard as a real possibility - history will point to August 29 as the pivotal moment. That was when Mr McCain announced that Sarah Palin would be his running-mate, and when livid Democrats and their friends in the media voiced their feelings about her and much of the electorate, and gravely harmed their candidate's prospects.
For Mr McCain to win the election against the odds that faced him pre-Palin - with the economy in the tank and the incumbent Republican president setting records for unpopularity - would be sensational enough. For this to happen because of his vice-presidential pick, a decision that is usually of next to no consequence, beggars belief. The Democrats had to bring all their resources to getting themselves into this fix. They proved equal to the task.
As I argued last week, Mr Obama's own initial reaction to the Palin nomination was exactly right. All the party had to do was follow his lead. Mr Obama, in effect, would give her enough rope; her inadequacies would reveal themselves in due course; it cost nothing, in the meantime, to be courteous, and to keep pressing on the issues, where the Democrats still enjoy an advantage with most voters. Ms Palin's first television interview last week, an adequate but far from stellar performance, affirmed the wisdom of that course.
But the Democratic talking-heads had to exult in their disdain for Ms Palin and all she represents - namely, a good part of the electorate whose support Mr Obama needs. In the space of a few days, they irreversibly damaged Mr Obama's candidacy and transformed this election.
Subsequent developments reflect poorly on both parties, in my view. Are the Democrats learning, and trying to correct their error? No, for the most part, just the opposite. Are the Republicans pressing their advantage with a confident, principled campaign focused on the issues that matter? Again, no.
Certainly, the Democrats can see they are in a hole. Somehow, though, the word has gone out: "Keep digging." Mr Obama is also urged to be less cool and lose his temper. Voters adore an angry candidate, you see. "Dig faster, and be more angry," is the advice coming down from the political geniuses who decided it was a fine idea to laugh at Ms Palin in the first place. A recurring television image in the past few days has been the split-screen contrast between a serenely smiling Republican operative and a fulminating red-faced Democrat about to have a stroke.
Efforts to smear the governor proceed at a frantic pace. My guess would be that there are now more journalists on assignment in Alaska than bothered to turn up for the Republican convention in St Paul, sifting through dustbins, interrogating Palin family acquaintances (extra credit for those with a grievance) and subjecting Ms Palin's expenses claims to a fanatical scrutiny which I dare say their own record-keeping, or that of most senators, might not withstand.
Of course, they will find things. They may even find something important. But the sheer swarming zeal for trivial malfeasance and family embarrassments is rapidly raising the bar for impropriety. I think that many voters - and not just committed Republicans - find this whole spectacle disgusting, so on top of everything else Ms Palin is now getting a sympathy vote.
Among seasoned Democratic politicians, the picture is more mixed. Joe Biden, the vice-presidential nominee, appears to get it. His stump speech has started to include obliging remarks about Ms Palin, which suggests he is approaching the forthcoming television debate in the correct frame of mind. If he can stay polite and respectful while laying bare the gaps in Ms Palin's knowledge and experience, and by highlighting her positions on social issues, which are unappealing to many centrists, he can undo some of the damage of recent days.
But compare this with the comment of Carol Fowler, chairman of the South Carolina Democratic party, who said late last week that Ms Palin's main qualification for office was that she has not had an abortion. Brilliant! Even now, with the polls giving their verdict, there is much more like that. And Democrats wonder why they cannot get the debate back on to their issues.
Republicans are not going to help them do it while things are going so well for them. This may be understandable, but let us be clear - this is not to their credit. If Mr McCain were the kind of leader he claims to be, he would want to be elected for his platform. His policy proposals, not his vapid commitment to "change Washington", would be to the fore. More than this, he would also want to bind the country together, and restore its moral strength and sense of purpose. He would strive to be a unifier. Mr Obama makes that claim, with seeming sincerity, and it is the best thing about his candidacy.
Democrats will deny it, but they opened this new front in the culture war by their response to the Palin nomination. The mess they are in is their own fault. They still seem intent on driving significant numbers of women and moderates over to the other side and Mr McCain's political instinct is doubtless to help this rift in the electorate widen further. It could be a winning strategy. But good politics is not the same thing as responsible leadership. I intend it as a compliment to Mr McCain when I say that if his means to victory in this election is to divide the country, it is a victory he should not want.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Obama couldn't get arrested for streaking. Palin is still on the front page of every magazine and newspaper, and all the DNC wants to do is insult her. Obama's campaign is the one which is off target with it's aim at Palin and off target with their message to voters. Your last paragraph in which you criticize McCain has it backwards---it is not McCain who is going about things wrong, it's Obama. If the first rules of holes is to stop digging, the second is not to interrupt your opponent as he continues to dig.
Efforts to smear the governor proceed at a frantic pace
I find it curious that a supposed journalist like Mr. Crook labels the fact that reporters are going to Alaska to find out background and bona fides of this unknown candidate as an effort to smear her. Sounds like an Economnist "journalist": attitude, self-regard and snarky allegiance to ideology are more important than mundane things like reporting.
What is it about this situation that is so daunting to people? Why is it so wrong for Democrats AND Republicans to call the situation with Gov Palin what it is? an absurd and dangerous attempt at desperate politics. Why is it insulting to point out that Gov Palin running this country is ridiculous? When looking at the inadequacies of the last eight years with Bush, who in their right mind wants to put someone else who knows nothing about how to lead this country, into the white house? i guess i just don't get it.
Thompson is right about the last paragraph being backwards.
Yeah democrats are in a hole, but I don't think they dug much of it. It was more of a well-laid, cynical pit trap.
Nobody saw this coming, and it's impossible to coming, and it's impossible to coordinate a low-key response from a party as diverse as the Dems. They are anything but "fall in line"...
If the ploy works, it will say more about what's wrong with America than it will about the Dems' rightful-yet-self-immolating disdain for Palin.
I think it's probably going to come down to a single state like OH, FL, CO...perhaps even VA. I'm sure the media will love it as it makes for great television to keep the race close.
Best analysis has been at http://fivethirtyeight.com , over the past week or two...
Sure, Gherald, the problem with this country is that the right won't just sit there and except the disdain of the left. Suurrre.
Mr. Crook should define who he means by "Democrats and their friends in the media." No doubt the initial reaction was out of control and off the board. Andrew Sullivan may may very well end up having cost Obama the election by legitimizing the ONLY truly insane story in that initial reaction, allowing it to rise out of the loony blogosphere. But once that (likely inevitable) dynamic was established, it is not clear that a strategy of walking on eggshells around the governor is called for. Whatever the tone of the discussion, she is a profoundly weak candidate for what is in this situation a critical office, and the American people should understand what that says about John McCain's judgement.
Beyond that, the Democrats are far from singularly responsible for the Culture War that has eruptd. It was the intention behind the Palin pick, and it was clearly the exclusive intent behind the entirety of the Rebublican National Convention. This is not to deny that the Democrats have played into that strategy. But it is profoundly disingenuous to suggest this is the fault of the Democrats more than it is of the Republicans. Qui bono, after all, Clive?
Also, aren't you a business columnist? Didn't you have bigger fish to eat today?
I've been watching American politics for a long time, and I can't recall a time when a candidate for the White House is caught in a misstatement, can't deny it, and then goes out on the campaign trail and repeats the misstatement.
Palin famously claimed to have killed the Bridge to Nowhere, was revealed to have been for it before she was against it by Charles Gibson, didn't deny it...and then went right back to repeating the claim on the trail.
This is now well-accepted in the media: every time she repeats the claim on the trail, reporters call her on it (even TV reporters, even Fox).
And yet somehow this mess is the Democrats fault, even though it's not to the Republicans credit that they would campaign this way. Wha? Isn't this the natural result of McCain's determination to have victory and nothing but?
Call me a traditionalist in a post-modern world, but I think a decent respect for verifiable truth is a non-partisan issue.
No questions for the candidate, please.
I think the liberal media should start investigating itself for all the attempts to smear Sarah Palin in the press. What ever happened to journalism anyway? And, they really must think that so many of us in society are sheep and will buy into that rhetoric, which, by the way, is all about emotion and not about fact. The frenzy and rumor mongoring are soooo obvious. It's a true 'media-gate'. I think the liberal media thinks they can tell people in the USA what they should think! Wrong!!!
No, you moron, America is in a hole, and the Republicans are still digging. Aren't you supposed to be a financial columnist? How is it that the ongoing meltdown of the American financial system has escaped your obviously limited attention?
Your new motto, pea brain, shound be: "Vote Republican....but be sure not drop the soap and have to bend over in the shower."
Yes, it would beggar belief that a VP choice would have this sort of effect.
Which is why sane people realize that McCain simply got his convention bump, which is actually wearing off a little faster than most models predict.
Clive, you are becoming unreadable. This is nonsense: "...the Democratic talking-heads had to exult in their disdain for Ms Palin and all she represents - namely, a good part of the electorate whose support Mr Obama needs." That's absurd, Clive. As soon as she left Alaska a few days ago, 1500 women turned out for a protest against her. The majority were white and I'd imagine a good many were "working class." Isn't that the group she's supposed to be appealing to?
No, she appeals to an even thinner slice of the electorate. The Republican's evangelical base. Votes that Team Obama were never seriously counting on. Both Obama and McCain are counting on independent swing voters to win this election. Time will tell if the tremendously under-qualified Sarah Palin helps to swing their votes in McCain's direction.
And, Clive, who exactly were the "Democratic talking-heads" that exulted "in their disdain for Ms Palin and all she represents" and who exactly is "subjecting Ms Palin's expenses claims to a fanatical scrutiny which I dare say their own record-keeping, or that of most senators, might not withstand?" Could you provide some links? And since when do we care about the finances of journalists?
This is a woman who may be president of the United States and you are faulting the press for trying to learn as much as possible about her in the few days we have left before the election? How dare you? US citizens have a right to know who we are choosing to lead our country. The press has a job to do. You should be aware of that.
You conclude your post with an argument that only a true partisan hack could make: "Democrats will deny it, but they opened this new front in the culture war by their response to the Palin nomination. The mess they are in is their own fault." Right.
Another terribly disappointing analysis, Crook.
I asked a question last post - this post has answered it without doubt.
You are not so much a mendacious cunt, as a stupid cunt.
thanks for resolving that conundrum.
Well done, Clive; I'd have to say that this is one of the more reasonable columns I've read for awhile. :) It's actually hard to tell what party you support, and usually I can tell within the first few sentences. ;p
Speaking for myself, I find it rather amusing watching how the liberal media has been doing its best to misquote, gotcha, and otherwise diminish Sarah Palin's popularity as VP--not realizing that by doing so they were only harming their own reputation as an impartial third party. Ah well--it's all too true that those who dig pits for others only fall into them themselves.
Good article on a fascinating dilemma. I am reposting my re-edited comment from FT. Delete it if that's a problem.
The dilemma posed here is that the Democrats should change course, but they can't. And it's not the tightening loop of negative campaigning. They are pinned down by their 'friends', not their enemies.
Starting off, 80-90% of mainstream media newsrooms are self declared Democrats and contribute dollars accordingly. They routinely put a finger on the scales because, deep down, they want to win. It's only human.
Additionally, a large segment of entertainers are vigorously progressive and use their megaphone to amplify their views.
How did the media/entertainment industry get this way? Who knows, historical pendulum, university, or group think; whatever, that is how it is.
But this is a mob not a cabal. Add in the Kos Kiddies and the 'netroots' and it is an increasingly surly and anarchist one. Pitchforks and torches, oh my. It is not under any direct chain of command.
And this mob has reacted hysterically to Sarah Palin because she is such an anti-thesis of who they are. She unabashedly declares values they sneer at.
The sectors of this mob feed each other. From Kos's keyboard to Bill Maher's lips to MSM 'opinion' pieces pick up the meme. It only took one demented Kos diarist to weave a tale of Sarah Palin's latest baby not being her own to unleash a storm of speculation and innuendo across all the mediums.
The Democrats problem is this mob is out of sync with maybe 60 percent of the country which is actually trending towards social conservativism, possibly as a response to the excesses of the boomer generation.
My prediction is they will lose the election for Obama. Many Americans will see this mob as a single storm front and reject them. To the extent that the public sees the mob as a single entity, the Republicans can leverage this and attack the Democrats and suppress press interviews with impunity.
I personally have found Obama engaging, intriguing and hyper-intelligent. I am a center righty, but was considering him. Unfortunately this election will not be a referendum on issues or plans for economic revival and energy independence. Barring a financial meltdown or some other catastrophe, this election will be another round in the culture wars.
"Democrats will deny it, but they opened this new front in the culture war by their response to the Palin nomination."
I'm in no way a Democrat. This sentence is preposterous. Obviously you didn't watch her convention speech.
I think you should wait until after you write a column to eat those funny mushrooms Mr. Crook, when you eat them before, as it seems you have done with this column, you seem to invent connections between events and people that are tenuous at best, and completely imagined in the main.
This is a well thought-out article, Mr. Crook. I'm quite unhappy with the fact that those around Senator Obama did not follow his behavior. I admit that I became fairly hysterical with rage when Palin was announced and the RNC did not lower the pitch of my anger. I am a no one, my thoughts and opinions do not matter on any stage, but there are those who do have national spotlight that responded the same way I did - and it was tantamount to throwing a teenage hissy fit. No one is respected when they behave that way.
I simply don't understand why commentators like Mr Cook give Palin a pass for the violent culture war barbs and smears that pepper her public statement, while they moan and groan when the American media from US magazine and the National Inquierer up to FOX News (yes even FOX so you can not say it is a 'liberal' conspiracy like some deranged bircher would) ask questions that are only embarassing and 'attacking' because the republican VP candidate has no credible answers.
Clean your eyes and ears, let the scales fall away, dare to live in the light of truth.
Mr. Crook, you make some valid points as well as some wrong ones as well. I'm sure that we each see our different sides through our own shades of red or blue, but I do not think that your complete scope is accurate. I do not believe that the majority of Americans are looking for nation unification. They realize that, focusing on the issues absent all candidates and their personalities, this election is merely a credit to the increasing divide within the mentality of the American culture. There is no way to reconcile most of the issues on the table for this year without major compromise from both parties. This simply will not happen, in my opinion, because these ways of thinking are simply the antithesis of each other. However, if anyone one could do it, John McCain has had more experience actually crossing party lines especially since his voting records suggests his extremely liberal leanings. Consider that he almost ran as a democrat four years ago. I agree with you that neither candidate has truly made the issues the focus of their campaign except to point out the negatives of their opponent's policies. Obama and McCain both need to focus on why their policy will help. Not just why it is different from the opponent. I want to know exactly how they will help. I don't think Americans want the candidates to simply tell them that they will raise or lower taxes; I think they want someone to tell them why raising or lowering taxes will help them. We are in an election of very different philosophies, avoiding the more tantalizing conversation of the candidates' personal lives, pasts, and catchy speech excerpts. This is a battle for a new direction. And frankly if you really read the policies of the candidates, neither candidate is like anyone from the past. McCain is no Bush, and Obama is no Kennedy. It reminds me of my studies about Reagan. Although preceded by a Republican officer, his terms in office proved such a stark contrast that his legacy will be remembered through out history as positive and life altering for America at that time. We must remember what this election is truly about. It should not be about personalities or who can get the crowd to scream louder at the end of their moving speech. This is about two sincerely different philosophies - and only one can win out come November.
The polls are not shoing any swing of the sort you describe. They are showing the predicted convention bounces. By this time next week the race will be back to where it was before the conventions as predicted and you will ascribe that to some other unrelated event.
Dear Mr Crook,
You get get off the hobby horse now. Have you noticed you are riding a dead meme?
From my own inspection of current news stories and commentaries, the prevalent meme is that John McCain is running a lying and dishonorable campaign that is oscillating between high farce and deep tragedy.
Have you noticed the polls swing back towards Obama? I have watched him now on several shows and appearances; he is the exemplar of cool. Today McCain was grumpy and blustering on more than one show. Who, exactly, is under pressure then?
You read like someone who gets a good idea every month, then flogs it to death until another idea wanders along.
All this stuff is old hat at this stage.
Let's pretend for a moment that everything Clive says is true. So if the Democrats win, it will be because the Palin strategy didn't work.
Voters rejected the smear campaigns; the push polls. They didn't mind the Democrats attacking Palin.
Will Clive see the irony in whining Democrats beating the Rovians, or will he present a completely different set of reasons for that outcome?
"Democrats will deny it, but they opened this new front in the culture war by their response to the Palin nomination."
Of the four acceptance speeches (Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin), only one was about the culture war. That was the one which dripped venom and contempt for community organizers, anyone who hadn't been in the military, and people who weren't from small towns.
And yet the Democrats "opened this front in the culture war?"
I think Crook is right on here. It is not that the Dems and their friends are making false claims. It's not that Palin is in any way qualified to be VP. It's that the Dem's response to her selection lacks any sense of proportion. I personally think she is unqualified and holds many views that would turn off some swing voters. She is one additional reason to vote for Obama (I'd guess she barely cracks the top ten reasons to vote for Obama/against McCain). But the dems have made Palin's flaws the central argument for Obama. If the Dems make this election about the issues they've got a winning argument. If they make it mainly a referendum on Palin, then not so much.
The notion that McCain is precipitating "a divide" in the country
doesn't even pas the laugh test and only underscores the myopia of
so many Europeans.
The exacerbated rift between left and right reached a boiling point in 2000 when many perceived the Supreme Court decided the election between Gore and Bush.
It had begun to percolate during what many consider to be "The Hunt for Bill Clinton" subsequent to his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
This is American Presidential Politics 101. It is mindboggling that
a European talking head would not comprehend this.
Have you bothered to see the trend lines and polling since her debut?
I think the blogosphere and what the media cherry picked from it did a good job of reframing her in a timely manor.
Further, independents don;t seem to be as impressed as early indicators implied they were.
While it's true it fires up their base, making a red state redder isn't a game changer.
I agree with you assessment to what Obama should and did do; but as for what the rest of the party did, it was apportion (minus a few way overboard false attacks)
The comments of Carol Fowler were despicable. I have emailed her, and written a letter to her asking that she resign from any all positions she holds in the Democratic party.
I don't think there is some big ledger book kept by the gods where they weigh the ignorant, cruel and obnoxious statements by the big wingnuts who are sprinkled through both political parties. But, it is mistake to attribute the idiocy of some people whose idea of fun is flapping their big traps with people who support Obama. Believe me, I was very offended by Fowler's sick comment.
Don't hold your breath for Obama to follow the hundreds or even thousand people who are advising him to "lose his temper" and be an...angry candidate." That's McCain's pathology and sole turf. If there is any thing remarkable about Obama it is his temperament. I have yet to observe him failing to keep his sense of emotional balance. I am voting for and supporting Obama, not only for his policies, but because of his clearly demonstrated basic honesty, thoughtful opinions, ability to adjust to changing circumstances, and his rock steady emotional health. McCain, is the absolute opposite of Obama. McCain is impetuous, has a terrible temper to the point of being pathological, is inflexible, has a shortage of 'smarts' and doesn't possess an adequate base of knowledge.
Clive, be honest, you know as well as I do that there are many Republican senators who are not supporting McCain. It's not his ideology that turn them away from McCain, but his explosive and destructive temper.
I think it is important for everyone across the political spectrum to focus on the candidates and not a sprinkling of people who have gone after each candidate, and who have no connection to either candidate [e.g., Matthews, O'Reilly]. Obama has been the subject of a campaign of mis and disinformation since he announce his candidacy. McCain was similarly subjected to propagandistic trolls during his 2000 run against Bush.
For you to imply that Obama's supporters or "Democratic talking-heads" represent the Obama
campaign, is misleading, and verges on disinformation, where the truth be damned, and facts are disdained.
Clive name the "Democratic talking-heads" to whom you refer. Are they part of the Obama campaign? Who do they represent? It's a poor policy to attribute the statements of a few jerks to jump to a conclusion that stereotypes Obama's supporters.
I'm a white guy, 61, who is disabled from wounds I received in Vietnam as a grunt, live in a working class, under-employed, rural town of 800, and live on Social Security and my VA pension. To what demographic do I belong in and which candidate am I supposed supporting?
And yet the Democrats "opened this front in the culture war?"
Yes, because they should have ignored her speech. She is only a vice-presidential candidate, after all - not a target worthy of much fire power.
The person at the top of the ticket is the one to shoot at.
You will notice that Clive did not denounce the behaviour of the Democrats as immoral - he said that it was stupid.
Clive, you should spend more time reading Andrew's blog; he's spot on.
Palin's not qualified. The only thing she proves is that McCain puts winning ahead of the good of the nation.
Zic is absolutely right. Go Zic!
Yes, it is a disaster for Democrats when the McCain bounce deflates, he has a richly deserved reputation as a liar, and Palin's favorability ratings are as viable as a lead balloon. As for smears, she has been lying pathologically on the stump, as has McCain. Equally, the evidence that she is incompetent, dishonest, financially profligate and an all-star practitioner of cronyism is clearer by the day. Truly, an impressive selection. Or did you not notice that no serious conservative commentator now defends her? If there's a hole here, it's the one McCain put the GOP in when he selected an unqualified and disastrous head-banger like Palin.
Sarah Palin WILL NOT be the deciding factor in this election. Your little column is hogwash. This is a great story for "journalists" to follow because its got all of the soap opera qualities (yuppie MILF, mystery baby, etc) that appeals to the dim-witted while also giving Republicans a chance to express (canned, phony) class-struggle outrage.
Being a writer for the Financial Times, you may have noticed that banks are collapsing and the economy is in turmoil. Believe it or not, jackass, thats the issue that will be on people's minds in November. McCain may win this election, but Sarah Palin will by that time be, at best, a wash for his prospects. People vote with their wallets when the economy is in the crapper. I fail to see how someone as unquestionably mediocre as Sarah Palin will win it for the 72 year old John McCain down the stretch.
The whole thing is hilarious, at this point I now hope McCain wins if only to teach the media a lesson that they can't throw an election to their favored candidate and that some types of smears are a turnoff to voters.
Here is the URL of a report in today's NYTimes with some real reporting on business-government relations in Alaska under Gov. Palin.
http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/moo/index.html
Apparently this is what Crook means by reporters attempting to "smear" Palin by, like, reporting how her record is at variance with her words. You know, reporters doing hateful biased things like actually presenting the facts about a candidate's record rather than simply acting as broadcast media for a campaign's attempts to distort that record. Shocking of Egan to do this. A total betrayal of his journalistic holy creed.
Clive, as Roy Keane famously said of Mick McCarthy, you're a wanker.
If Gov Palin is a serious candidate she deserves serious scrutiny. The GOP seems to think that because they nominated a woman we are all supposed to swoon over her and treat her like our long lost grandmother. Hardly!
My personal distaste for Palin has nothing to do with the contents of this article. It is the fact she comes from the far-right wing of the Republican party. The same wing that brought us George Bush and the madness of the last 8 years. Palin is even more like Bush than McCain and is proving it right out of the gate with her lies, cowboy talk, and not even elected she is trying to shut down the judicial process. She walks/talks/barks just like George Bush. To point that out has nothing to do with her gender.
I fear that the problems today are quite complicated and there are too many simplistic solutions. For example the issue is not about more or less taxes but who really bears the burden of different taxes, whether the system is fair to different income groups(regressiveness) and more important how the money is spent(quite a bit of money on war goes to contractors close to politicians),the inflationary nature of war itself,whether the health care system should not be made preventive, a much needed fresh examination of the the food and subsidy policies(and their impact on the health of the land and the people). In sum the pervasive lack of innovation in 'policy-thinking' is pronounced. Even in the market for thoughts Gresham's law seems to operate.The two sides have not come up with a truly substantial long term vision. And Mr Crook, you may like to recall occasionally your papers motto..Americans may also think back about leaders like Lincoln or FDR who were men of much intelligence but with their heart in the right place and who did not offer empty rhetoric and were open to fresh ideas. Let us hear about some matters of substance.