Leslie
08-05-2008, 06:25 PM
LOS ANGELES -- Today's politics is fueled by a string of Rorschach tests, double entendres and code words. We see what we want to see; we hear what we want to hear. Candidates and their campaigns bet on that. And that has sullied the 2008 Presidential race.
So far this has been the most disappointing and the nastiest Presidential campaign since, well, 2004. It's a basic axiom of electoral politics that candidates need to define their opponents (and themselves) before their opponents define them. And framing the opposition always goes negative; often it gets downright nasty.
John Kerry was not the first candidate to learn that the hard way, when the "Swift boaters for Truth" cast aspersions on his Vietnam bone fides. But this campaign was supposed to be different -- the end of "politics as usual," a "civilized" contest between two "nontraditional" candidates scrapping to champion the "politics of change." However, the lessons of using -- and ignoring --"swiftboating" are too recent and too powerful to ignore. So much for the High Road.
John McCain's campaign unleashed a barrage of early -- extremely early -- negative ads and disparaging comments attacking McCain's Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, for his "celebrity" and "presumptuous arrogance." Obama countered with an ad chiding Mc Cain for engaging in "the same old politics" and "the politics of the past" and labeled the McCain campaign "cynical."
When does "celebrity" become a code word for "lightweight," "elitist," "out-of touch," or "lacking values?" When that's what voters want to hear and the McCain campaign knows that.
When do images of a black male juxtaposed with those of young, blonde Anglo girls (who happen to be "celebrities") sway voters who are uncomfortable with a black candidate? When people are looking to be swayed and campaigns make it easier for them, by simply supplying those images.
When does "arrogance" mean "uppity?" When the term is used to communicate to voters who are not comfortable with the prospect of an African-American as President.
When do "old politics" and "politics of the past" connote being old -- perhaps too old to make it in the White House? When these terms resonate with voters discomfited by McCain’s advanced age. And "cynical" can remind people of what McCain promised not to be --"politics as usual."
The Obama campaign knows that.
There's little argument that the issue of race is more dicey for Obama than for McCain. Democratic pollster Peter Hart, part of a bipartisan team polling for the Wall Street Journal, "estimates that 10 percent of current Democrats and independents who say they support… Barack Obama may not be giving a fully honest answer…" There remains what founding L.A. Times poll director Bud Lewis called a "built-in, racist vote."
There’s simply no percentage in Obama's "playing the race card' to risk stirring up voters' doubts and insecurities -- particularly among white voters in key swing states. And, of course, talking about race means not talking about the dismal economy, high gas prices, the failures of the current Republican President -- and other issues congenial to Democrats.
The campaigns have blamed each other for raising and for dissembling on the race issue, although both candidates have tap-danced their way through the race debate. There's a third actor -- or rather a horde of actors, who has remained invaluable in keeping the "race" debate high on the political radar screen. It's known as "The Media." Cable news and the now ubiquitous Web logs, in particular, have had a field day parsing the heated rhetoric -- again and again, and playing the cool visuals of Paris, Britney, Moses, and "The One" -- over and over.
Talking heads gleefully debated Britney Spears for at least five consecutive news cycles!
In a perfect world, the role of the media could have been to cry, "Stop this nonsense! Let's do issues." But, nooooo. Trashing makes better fodder for TV than policy assessment and is easier for the "commentariat" to handle. Let's face it, "dishing" is far more fun than sober analysis.
Negative campaigning works on several levels, and until it doesn't, that's what voters will be fed.
In Sunday's Huffington Post , Kathy Hilton, mother of Paris (one of Obama's "celebrity" co-stars that McCain attack ad) and a contributor to the presumptive GOP nominee, voiced her disapproval of the negative campaign tactics now being embraced; it is an observation that applies to the nasty tilt of both campaigns.
"It is a complete waste of the country's time," she said, "…at the very moment when people are losing their homes and their jobs. And, it is a completely frivolous way to choose the next President of the United States."
My sentiments, exactly.
Link (http://www.knbc.com/politicalperspectives/17091721/detail.html)
Reality check. :thumbsup:
So far this has been the most disappointing and the nastiest Presidential campaign since, well, 2004. It's a basic axiom of electoral politics that candidates need to define their opponents (and themselves) before their opponents define them. And framing the opposition always goes negative; often it gets downright nasty.
John Kerry was not the first candidate to learn that the hard way, when the "Swift boaters for Truth" cast aspersions on his Vietnam bone fides. But this campaign was supposed to be different -- the end of "politics as usual," a "civilized" contest between two "nontraditional" candidates scrapping to champion the "politics of change." However, the lessons of using -- and ignoring --"swiftboating" are too recent and too powerful to ignore. So much for the High Road.
John McCain's campaign unleashed a barrage of early -- extremely early -- negative ads and disparaging comments attacking McCain's Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, for his "celebrity" and "presumptuous arrogance." Obama countered with an ad chiding Mc Cain for engaging in "the same old politics" and "the politics of the past" and labeled the McCain campaign "cynical."
When does "celebrity" become a code word for "lightweight," "elitist," "out-of touch," or "lacking values?" When that's what voters want to hear and the McCain campaign knows that.
When do images of a black male juxtaposed with those of young, blonde Anglo girls (who happen to be "celebrities") sway voters who are uncomfortable with a black candidate? When people are looking to be swayed and campaigns make it easier for them, by simply supplying those images.
When does "arrogance" mean "uppity?" When the term is used to communicate to voters who are not comfortable with the prospect of an African-American as President.
When do "old politics" and "politics of the past" connote being old -- perhaps too old to make it in the White House? When these terms resonate with voters discomfited by McCain’s advanced age. And "cynical" can remind people of what McCain promised not to be --"politics as usual."
The Obama campaign knows that.
There's little argument that the issue of race is more dicey for Obama than for McCain. Democratic pollster Peter Hart, part of a bipartisan team polling for the Wall Street Journal, "estimates that 10 percent of current Democrats and independents who say they support… Barack Obama may not be giving a fully honest answer…" There remains what founding L.A. Times poll director Bud Lewis called a "built-in, racist vote."
There’s simply no percentage in Obama's "playing the race card' to risk stirring up voters' doubts and insecurities -- particularly among white voters in key swing states. And, of course, talking about race means not talking about the dismal economy, high gas prices, the failures of the current Republican President -- and other issues congenial to Democrats.
The campaigns have blamed each other for raising and for dissembling on the race issue, although both candidates have tap-danced their way through the race debate. There's a third actor -- or rather a horde of actors, who has remained invaluable in keeping the "race" debate high on the political radar screen. It's known as "The Media." Cable news and the now ubiquitous Web logs, in particular, have had a field day parsing the heated rhetoric -- again and again, and playing the cool visuals of Paris, Britney, Moses, and "The One" -- over and over.
Talking heads gleefully debated Britney Spears for at least five consecutive news cycles!
In a perfect world, the role of the media could have been to cry, "Stop this nonsense! Let's do issues." But, nooooo. Trashing makes better fodder for TV than policy assessment and is easier for the "commentariat" to handle. Let's face it, "dishing" is far more fun than sober analysis.
Negative campaigning works on several levels, and until it doesn't, that's what voters will be fed.
In Sunday's Huffington Post , Kathy Hilton, mother of Paris (one of Obama's "celebrity" co-stars that McCain attack ad) and a contributor to the presumptive GOP nominee, voiced her disapproval of the negative campaign tactics now being embraced; it is an observation that applies to the nasty tilt of both campaigns.
"It is a complete waste of the country's time," she said, "…at the very moment when people are losing their homes and their jobs. And, it is a completely frivolous way to choose the next President of the United States."
My sentiments, exactly.
Link (http://www.knbc.com/politicalperspectives/17091721/detail.html)
Reality check. :thumbsup: