This past week has been a busy one. The Republicans have successfully managed to keep the campaign off of any of the issues that really matter in the day-to-day lives of most Americans and, instead, switched the focus to the spectacle that is Palin. Palin is not a credible candidate for Vice President. Palin is a side show act; Palin is distracting entertainment. Palin is exactly the type of lousy excuse for 'serious discussion' that Jon Stewart railed against when he appeared on CNN's Crossfire. (Stewart's appearance helped to end the show's run on CNN shortly after his appearance)
In that appearance Stewart said, "Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America." By dressing up Pundants in a 22-minute show, complete with empty arguments, cheap shots and Lightning Question Rounds, it masqueraded Theater and called it Political Discourse. Serious Political Discourse at that. Crossfire was as much serious political discourse seeing Russia from your living room window makes you an expert on International Policy.
This past week the headline were dominated by as many different ways of looking at The Sarah Palin Story as newspapers and TV news shows could come up with. Charles Gibson was granted a sit-down interview by her Republican handlers late in the week, thus giving us our first glimpse of what she really does and doesn't know (Bush Doctrine, anyone?) and how well she's learned to parrot the various talking points of the McCain campaign thus far.
The overall effects of this are likely to be 'a wash', however. That 40% of Americans who will be voting Democratic come November -- come h3ll or high water -- saw only that Palin truly isn't ready for anything close to Vice President, especially not with an elderly man like McCain at the helm. That 40% of America who will be voting Republican come November -- come h3ll or high water -- saw their party's great white hope take on the media elite and score a resounding victory.
As usual, this election will come down to those 20% of people who claim to be Undecided. If part of that decision comes down to how the women in that 20% feel about Sarah Palin, there are two things that give me hope.
The first is that Palin is on the cover of the latest National Enquirer magazine. Now, I'm not a huge fan of the Enquirer, but there is a huge portion of the American public, nationwide, who either buy the Enquirer or at least read the headlines at their local grocery story check-out aisle. (I fall into the latter group, being a fan of The Weekly World News, myself. Real check-out aisle truth comes in simple black and white) While the cover image isn't all that unflattering, the story headline reads:
PALIN FAMILY SHOCKERS: WHAT SARAH'S REALLY HIDING!
The article lists family drug addiction, vandalism, kicking their pregnant daughter out of the house (once the pregnancy was discovered)... Even if the story is either partially true or not true at all, it's enough to tarnish the pristine Palin image in the sub-conscious mind of the American public.
Second, for the more thoughtful, there's the new blog Women Against Sarah Palin (which is not to be confused with the web site Women Against Palin, nor the Women Against Palin site's own blog although, there's nothing wrong with confusing any of them with one another, for that matter). These sites all feature intelligent women who are working to quickly move America away from the false entertainment of the Palin nomination back to the issues that must decide this election.
...
Posts
2 comments:
Issues? Who cares about issues? Apparently not the undecideds. Read this 2004 New Republic article by Christopher Hayes.
(See also a comment on that article today by
Ross Douthat.)
Most of the undecideds pay little attention to the political fray, but vote with their gut, according to Hayes. Three of his bullet points are chilling: "Undecided voters don't think in terms of issues", "Undecided voters aren't as rational as you think", and "A disturbing number of undecided voters are crypto-racist isolationists." (Then why do they even bother to vote? Well, they see it as an unpleasant duty.)
I'm afraid this election is going to go to the candidate (it's Obama vs. Palin now, face it) who is seen as most "likeable", or most "like me". Bill Clinton got elected because he convinced enough people he could feel their pain. George W. Bush was the guy more people wanted to have a beer with.
If Obama's going to win, somebody on his side has got to drive up Palin's negatives (or "club the baby seal to death", to steal a Monica Crowley line from back in the primaries). Yes, it would be great if the National Enquirer were to be the one to take on that task, but if they find that their circulation numbers fall when they bash Palin and rise when they glorify her, they're going to end up giving her good press. I don't know how that's going to play out yet.
Also, keep in mind, what's a "negative" to us Eastern elites is nothing of the sort to a lot of people in this country.
Of course, Obama himself should stick to acting presidential, leaving the dirty stuff to others. He needs to keep reminding the country that Republicans have been in charge for the past eight years. (Somehow it feels like George Bush has already left the scene and become a former president, doesn't it?) With any luck, today's meltdown on Wall Street will help that task. Just don't expect to get that message across using reason. "Issues" are OK only if you can reduce them to a bumper sticker.
Sorry to be so cynical. I just want to win this time.
I still think Obama is going to win, I just think it's going to be more of a fight now than it appeared to be just 3 weeks ago.
Palin gave the Republicans something they were craving -- a celebrity of their own to cheer for. The problem with celebrity of all kinds is that the veneer wears thin quickly and, to mix metaphors, they tarnish even quicker.
I was very impressed to see the Enquirer go after Palin. They're not saying much that hasn't already been said in those nasty liberal blogs, but at least it's being said in a relatively impartial publication. (After all, they went after -- and were right about -- John Edwards) The Enquirer is at least putting the stories out there, which is more than most other media are doing.
Obama needs to become more forceful, more certain of himself and his message. He needs to do a bit less appealing to the intellect and more appealing to that visceral gut level instinct. (Actually, he needs to be more like Joe Biden. Did you hear any of his speeches from today?)
Also, the Democratic Faithful will actually have to get out and work for this one, too. We can't just rest on Bu$h's record of ineptitude and failures. We have to push the message home as well.
Don't lose hope, don't lose faith. Become the change you want to see.
...
Post a Comment