This is no surprise given the promotions that Sen. Obama has been getting in the media: ‘Obama elicits more excitement than McCain’, according to USA Today.
I want to be the voice of reason but 21 years in communications tell me that this is important. If your brand, personal or organizational, elicits excitement among its constituents, then you have a greater chance of mobilizing those people when you need them.
Even when it comes to politics, to get messages across to voters, one has to resort to the tried and trusted techniques of branding and marketing.
There are few in the present generations who will, as many bloggers do, investigate someone’s voting record or dig deeply into their histories. It would be nice to say that presidents are not elected based on how much excitement they can generate. Or that we should place greater emphasis on other qualities like honour and sincerity.
While some might point to exceptions, such as the Tory victory in the UK of 1992, I beg to differ. That campaign was hard fought by the Conservatives and depended on party unity—which was sorely lacking in 1997 when Tony Blair was elected. The National victory in New Zealand of 1990 was a result of the cry for change and the belief that Labour was leaderless.
And the cry for change is such a powerful message in politics, because politicians understand our nature: even the vaguest change is better than the strongest, best defined policies if a party has been in power for too long.
Labour in the UK in 1997, National in New Zealand in 1990, Labour in New Zealand in 1999, Clinton in 1992—all these are examples of that message. And that, too, “excites”.
Sen. McCain should not pursue an excitement route himself, but he should capitalize on mistakes that the Obama campaign is making with greater regularity. The New Yorker gaffe—where Sen. Obama felt the need to comment rather than appear presidential and above satire—was an opportunity missed. Meanwhile, I wonder if people appreciate the maverick, go-it-alone style of John McCain, which plays well in the Senate, but could be symptomatic of future Cabinet divisiveness under his administration.
A winner is by no means clear, and a week remains a long time in politics. Months, as Sen. Clinton will attest as she went from dead cert to second-best, are an eternity.
It’s been interesting watching the MSM dissect the Clinton campaign with a whole range of experts saying why she will not be the Democratic Party nominee for the presidency. I would venture to say these are the same experts predicting a Hillary Clinton win a year ago.
It’s that which I have found remarkable today as Sen. Barack Obama becomes the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party, rather than the very strong likelihood that Sen. Obama has won.
For months, the mainstream media have been promoting Sen. Obama heavily. One reason is that he is newsworthy to the left. More often than not, his race is used as the reason behind that promotion. In essence, most New Zealanders, and I would say most non-Americans who watched the news from the US, were left in little doubt that he would take the Democratic Party contest.
Image sells in American politics, and probably politics in many western countries. George W. Bush got people used to thinking about a Republican president in 2000 by forming his cabinet while lawyers battled Florida. When he did win, only diehard Democrats tried to tell the American people they had been hoodwinked. Everyone else awaited the January 20, 2001 swearing-in. Go back a few years and Tony Blair, too, gave an inevitable image of a Labour victory in 1997.
This time, Sen. Obama has done the same, and it has been a well thought-out campaign: his book, writing from a humanist perspective and admitting any faults that his rivals were likely to dig up; a consistent branding scheme (the use of the Gotham typeface, for example); and vagueness (to give his opponents less of a target).
On some of these aspects, Sen. Obama has fielded a very different campaign. Only vagueness seems to be the common thread with other winners. A pre-campaign book was clever as well as admitting to things no other potential presidential nominee would, such as his having tried cocaine.
In fact, when he began getting specific after a challenge by Sen. Clinton, he actually lost traction.
I do not pretend to like all of Sen. Obama’s policies if I were to look at his voting record in the Senate, any more than I find myself in accord with Sens. Clinton and McCain.
As a minority, I am glad that a racial barrier has been broken in American politics. Even though Sen. Obama is biracial, he has been branded an African–American through his father’s homeland, showing just how people are habitual pigeonholers. If by the quirk of genetics he had his mother’s skin colour, would his race have become such an issue?
That one matter shows how far his campaign has come, in a country that would not have fathomed a “black” president other than in fiction, in the form of Morgan Freeman or Dennis Haysbert.
We can accept God being played by Morgan Freeman, but a black president?
While having huge African–American support, I totally understand the campaign Sen. Obama ran in terms of race: he plain didn’t mention it.
I wouldn’t.
Any member of any minority in the world, whether that minority is black, yellow, brown or white, who has been brought up on the idea of hard work and dignity, would not make race an issue—with perhaps the exception of others making race an issue for him or her.
I think that earned Sen. Obama brownie points among many of the United States’ immigrants and people descended relatively recently from immigrants.
It finally proves so many of those lessons from our parents right: that if you work hard, you can become a leader.
Once upon a time, parents said that but knew that it would take a miracle for a minority to get there, whether we are talking about the US or New Zealand.
Barack Obama is proof not only of his own abilities, but he represents the hope that the presidency is no longer governed by skin colour, but by sheer hard work. That speaks to a large part of the electorate, including Caucasian–Americans.
In some ways this has allowed his policies to be overlooked, which is actually unhealthy for democracy. Americans need to be voting on who can bring them true honour and meaning. But just as Sen. Obama began attacking Sen. John McCain’s policies as he presumed himself the Democratic nominee, it will be up to Sen. McCain to reveal his opponent’s policy shortcomings.
However, it was not always in the bag.
Those same MSM experts seem to forget that Sen. Clinton, using a campaign that broke the rules on branding (a confused message and confused visual communications) got so close to Sen. Obama that it actually was a miracle she survived and gained as many votes as she did. Writing in a country that has had two successive female prime ministers and, at one point, women in the Governor-General’s and Chief Justice’s role as well, the gender difference means far less to me. What I saw was a clumsy campaign that had more traction than logic would allow me to admit.
Sen. Clinton’s progress was nothing short of amazing considering she did not play from the rulebook, and we brand consultants will have to at least acknowledge her case and say: anomalies exist in marketing strategy.
The question is now whether there is a Clinton vice-presidency, but Obama aides are dead set against it. Equally, Clinton aides would not want their senator cosying up with Sen. Obama.
If the Clinton image of “will say and do anything for the top job” is accurate, and as Sen. Clinton herself mentioned the possibility of assassination, I would not consider the senator from New York to be a vice-presidential nominee if I were Barack Obama. I might get “Arkancided” in the hope of her succession.
But right now, Sen. Obama has a Democratic Party to reunite and invigorate, something that Sen. McCain may have difficulty doing for an uninspired GOP. Sen. Obama has media visibility on his side, reaching internal as well as external audiences.
American Infidel posted an excellent piece from Cross Action News on how the US political system has been compromised, by Carl Parnell. Some excerpts:
However, as seen in these different opinions, politicians have been blamed for the failure of America’s political system. But, one respondent to the survey voiced a strong opinion that put the blame on average Americans. Her opinion was:
Our Constitution frames the best form of government on the planet. The balance of powers and the system of checks and balances provided a framework that allowed our young country to grow and develop and remain despot free for the last 220 years. The government itself is not what I have lost faith in. “We the People” is what I have lost faith in.
And advice for the electorate follows (my emphasis), and I have to agree with it as I have never, in the elections I have participated in, voted for personal gain. Even for those who do not believe in God or in prayer, the remaining advice is still useful:
“Of the people, by the people, for the people” means the people should educate themselves and elect leaders at all levels that work for them. The people should watch what those elected officials do and boot them out of office when they no longer work for the people. The caliber of citizens and politicians has declined in the last 220 years.
Therefore, America’s political system is at a crossroads in 2008. When the American electorate votes for the President of the United States and for any members of Congress in November 2008, they must absolutely know the true facts about each candidate. Citizens of the United States must not permit the race, gender, or political party of the candidate be a determining factor in who wins the election. Citizens of the United States must not let personal economic gain become the deciding factor in which candidate they vote for in any election. Citizens of the United States must vote for candidates who have the true qualities of great leaders, such as those possessed by America’s forefathers. Some of these qualities would be honesty, integrity, morality, faith in the nation they serve, faith in the people they serve, having the character of a statesman instead of the character of many modern-day politicians. Of course, true representative leaders of the United States should always pray to God before voting on any legislation that affects the greatest nation in the world.
However, if America continues to elect people to office that assume the role of a politician instead of a statesman, America may lose more than just the faith of its citizens toward its political system. America may possibly lose its status as the greatest nation in the world.
There is still support for the US around the world—but they need a beacon to look up to rather than to criticize. In November, vote to make America great again—not just in economic terms, but in terms of the true leadership and morality that it can stand for.
]]>The reasons I haven’t been fully supportive of John McCain have largely been from GOP-voting friends who have met him. They speak of a man who seems empty with a cold handshake. McCain supporters might say that that is a sign of a man who hates political functions and prefers getting on with the job. I guess it could be seen both ways.
He has been the butt of my own jokes. On television a couple of years ago, I asked the audience, ‘So what party is this guy with again? I can never tell.’ There has been a perception of McCain being not conservative enough and even in the lead-up to his party’s nomination for the presidency there were members of the religious right who felt the senator from Arizona could not possibly be their guy. Hence, former Gov. Mike Huckabee looked more palatable to them; while the technocrats could not fathom anyone like Huckabee getting the nomination.
Examine McCain’s record and he’s a pretty consistent conservative, from his time in Congress (where he was a supporter of Ronald Reagan), so this perception may have been an invention of the media and his opponents. Remember, when he and George W. Bush were battling it out in 2000, things got dirty as both ran attack ads. McCain came off pretty terribly.
In fact, when I looked at McCain’s record today I am not too sure why there may be some liberal support for him, although he might be able to use that to his advantage with the voting public. Unless people like George W. Bush have been even more staunchly conservative and have offended those liberals.
While voting for the War on Terror Sen. McCain also had amendments to bills added, such as ensuring that the US did not engage in illegal torture of its PoWs. That is easily explained: if you were beaten up and tortured yourself over a five-and-a-half year period, you’d be pretty averse to seeing another human being go through the same thing.
I write of him now not because I have suddenly picked up a GOP baton and figured he’s the best choice for President, but because he hasn’t really had any time in the limelight.
The media are chanting either Obama or Clinton, although more seem to be wondering why Hillary Clinton is still in the race. She must either know she’s a fading cause célèbre, or the Clinton fear-mongering tentacles of Arkancide run deeper in the MSM than we can give them credit. Unless she has a genuine chance, prepared to come on stream if something happens to Obama.
I have written about Barack Obama on this blog because being a minority I want to redress the balance of some of the racist tendencies of some MSM coverage. Politically I do not agree with him any more than I agree with many of the contenders for their parties’ nominations. From memory most of the candidates have a 60 to 70 per cent similarity with my views, which makes you wonder if they are just all saying the right things.
I feel similarly when I defend John McCain. He is the subject of less media coverage (which is the bias here), and he is the subject of ageism as America goes around with this notion that only a younger person can be a dynamic president.
This is not just a US phenomenon: the west loves the idea of a young, glamorous leader.
The US’s finest hours have come from experienced, wise presidents, backed up by strong and wise first ladies. JFK did not live long enough, in my view, to have given the country a “finest hour” in his presidency, though he was inspiring; historical presidents such as Adams, Lincoln, Hoover and FDR were hardly young men.
In this election, Americans need to consider not just the candidate’s stated position but what their past says about their characters—not what the MSM, attack ads and campaign lies say.
They need to strip away the biases of age, race and gender as each principal candidate has suffered from prejudice of one sort or the other.
They need to examine McCain’s 27 years in elected office, without the rhetoric, just as they need to examine Obama’s 12 and Clinton’s eight. (If Obama is inexperienced, according to Clinton, then what does that make her?) And if we are to consider Clinton’s time as First Lady of the country and of Arkansas as she wishes us to, then the record of Lt Cmdr McCain and later Capt McCain needs to be considered, too.
Because the next four years are not about trying to restore Camelot in the White House: they are about putting a person in the White House that can only preach honour but has shown it.
Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, what we foreigners want to see is trustworthy leadership. Honour begins at home, and who do you want saying, ‘The buck stops here’?
If voters dislike spin then who has offered the least spin, the candidate on whom you can rely most? Or that other countries can rely on most: that America’s enemies will know their days are numbered, that America’s allies will know they have a real friend, and that those who fell out with America know that the nation will in fact consistently and genuinely stand for freedom and liberty?
Men like me were brought up to admire the US for its service to humanity and freedom, and its opposition to Communism, and we want to admire it again. It should not be a country perceived as slogan-heavy and substance-free, yet the perception has shifted toward this since the 1960s. A candidate who resorts to such techniques does not necessarily fit in the 2008 scene and, sadly, that is how I perceive Sen. Clinton. If McCain is really a maverick, then he might shake things up as much as people hope Obama will.
This should be a race between McCain and Obama, and the next months, hopefully, will reveal it is just that.
I am not Sen. John McCain’s biggest cheerleader by any means—heck, I even made fun of him on national television—but there are aspects of his life where you think, ‘Man, this guy has served his country.’ And when I say ‘served his country,’ I don’t mean taking a trip to Bosnia with Chelsea Clinton and coming under sniper fire. Some quotes about his past, which might explain just why he has his fans. First, from VietnamWar.com:
John McCain’s 5½ years of captivity in North Vietnam were divided into two phases. Early on, this son and grandson of high-ranking Naval officers was accorded relatively privileged status. Then he refused early release—which he saw as a public relations stunt by his captors—insisting that POWs held longer than him should be granted their freedom first. Thereafter, McCain was treated much more severely, but he also had an opportunity to bond with his fellow prisoners.
So this captured PoW, a Naval Lieutanant Commander, who had suffered two fractured arms, a fractured leg, a bayonet wound in the foot, said: I’m not going home early, no matter how bad.
He was then beaten every two hours in the second phase, while suffering from dysentry, and later two to three beatings a week. While not the worst given out to PoWs in Vietnam, McCain said he discovered where his breaking point was.
When running for Senate, and accused of being a carpet-bagger, McCain responded to a journalist:
Listen, pal. I spent 22 years in the Navy. My father was in the Navy. My grandfather was in the Navy. We in the military service tend to move a lot. We have to live in all parts of the country, all parts of the world. I wish I could have had the luxury, like you, of growing up and living and spending my entire life in a nice place like the First District of Arizona, but I was doing other things. As a matter of fact, when I think about it now, the place I lived longest in my life was Hanoi.
I know this is McCain in his past, and not everyone agrees with him today, but these aspects don’t seem to be brought up much in the media. He holds a Silver Star, Bronze Star, the Legion of Merit, the Purple Heart and a Distinguished Flying Cross, and retired in 1981 in the rank of Captain.
If the American election is about experience, as Sen. Clinton says, then John McCain looks pretty unbeatable. But, this election is about so much more.
Sen. Hillary Clinton admits she made a mistake about her Bosnian “sniper fire” story:
“I did make a mistake in talking about it, you know, the last time and recently,” Clinton told reporters in Pennsylvania where she was campaigning before the state's April 22 primary. She said she had a “different memory” about the landing.
“So I made a mistake. That happens. It proves I'm human, which, you know, for some people, is a revelation.”
“This is really about what policy experience we have and who’s ready to be commander in chief. And I'm happy to put my experience up against Senator Obama's any day.”
No, Senator. This is really about honour. But if it is about experience, Sen. Obama has had four years more than you have in elected office.
He has a voting record that Americans can examine.
Sen. McCain has had even more experience, so if this is the issue, then why don’t Americans all vote Republican?
And, Americans will now be thinking the following: do I want someone in the White House who can’t recollect when she was under sniper fire?
I mean, it’s a pretty big deal to be shot at.
It’s a very big deal if your own daughter is with you when you first claimed that you were shot at. I would be remembering, ‘I was scared for my daughter.’
But now it seems you might not have ever had that emotion.
It’s a big deal to not admit to the mistake for such a long time and defuse the situation.
If you were Sen. Capt John McCain, USN (retd.), a man who served his country in war, then you could be forgiven for mixing up when you were shot at. The guy has been shot at plenty.
Just imagine how bad your recollection might be if you had to take a call at 3 a.m.
This is off a page on Digg, which is what you might guess when it comes to involvement in digital media. One might even say it reflects their personalities. Barack Obama is very active, Hillary Clinton hasn’t been active for a few weeks, and John McCain—well, he hasn’t been active in a long time.
]]>Pravda, the mouthpiece of the CCCP many moons ago, asked Sen. Hillary Clinton 12 questions, to which it has not received a reply beyond a standard, anonymous answer of two years ago. Repeated contact has amounted to nothing. Even Dick Cheney’s office acknowledged the questions it received.
I think the American people might want to know the answers from Sen. Clinton, too. They are seemingly harmless questions, though the first might be possibly inflammatory and the fifth could be difficult to answer. Pasted from right-wing site Death by 1,000 Papercuts.
1. Senator Clinton, is it true that you insinuated President Putin does not have a soul?
2. You have said you wish to reform the US healthcare system. Could you please tell us how you plan to do this?
3. Why should you succeed where others have failed?
4. How would you comment on your statement that being a Republican and a Christian are difficult to conciliate?
5. Is it true that you have the support of the Jewish Lobby? If so, how will this influence your foreign policy? Will it continue to be controlled by Israel?
6. What is your message to the average American voter? How would you propose to make his/her life better?
7. What are your plans for Iran? Do you stand for a war?
8. How would you improve America's standing in the international community?
9. Why did you support the war against Iraq?
10. What are the reasons for your having fallen for the lies which were launched against Saddam Hussein?
11. Why does your Candidate website not have an email for the Press, whereas that of Senator Obama has? Would you agree this is a comment on the professionalism or the arrogance of your campaign?
12. Did you hope to gain an advantage over your opponent by announcing your trip to Florida and your support for the seating of Florida delegates just prior to the Florida primary?
The newspaper then commented on Sen. Clinton’s failure to acknowledge or respond:
The absense [sic] of an answer, on a systematic basis, can mean one or all of a number of things: Senator Clinton cannot answer these questions, does not want to answer these questions because she cannot find a credible enough reply, could not care less about the international press (in which case, what a fine candidate for a US President at a time when the USA needs to build bridges) or worse still, never received the messages in the first place, which would indicate a tremendous and shocking degree of lack of professionalism. If she cannot handle a website, how can she be expected to govern a nation of 300 million people?
Indeed, for some reason Barack Obama’s website has a contact for the Press, whereas Senator Clinton’s has none.
If Sen. Clinton indeed has more of a clue on how to do her job than Sen. Obama or even Sen. McCain, she is not showing it in this case.
]]>I was at GinBaby’s Vox blog and noticed she had done the Glassbooth poll on which potential presidential candidate is closest to our own views. I decided to try it out and it was a huge surprise what my results are.
66%, Barack Obama (i.e. Sen. Obama shares a 66 per cent similarity with my beliefs)
64%, Hillary Clinton
64%, John McCain
61%, Mike Huckabee
58%, Ron Paul
55%, Mitt Romney
Mind you, this is based on their stated and reported values—not what they might actually do. It is also based on the issues that I found most important (economy, education, social security, health care, foreign policy).
As with all these political quizzes, what I believe as my ideal and what I believe must be done right now to get to that ideal are two different things. I am Confucian, which is closer to libertarian, yet right now I think the US needs a mixture of policies from left and right ends of the political spectrum.
I also compared myself to some of the people who have left the race:
68%, John Edwards
66%, Dennis Kucinich
55%, Fred Thompson
55%, Rudy Giuliani
This is great, isn’t it? I am scoring more closely to the folks I don’t like.
I redid the quiz and used up all the issues (including abortion, drugs and other matters), but still with an emphasis on education, trade and foreign policy, which most Americans might be most concerned about.
69%, Mike Huckabee
66%, John McCain
64%, Hillary Clinton
63%, Mitt Romney
61%, Barack Obama
54%, Ron Paul
Again, with the former candidates:
64%, John Edwards
61%, Rudy Giuliani
59%, Fred Thompson
56%, Dennis Kucinich
John McCain and Hillary Clinton might figure highly in this quiz, but it reveals one extra thing about it all. If I was an American, I wouldn’t support either. Their characters are lacking in my book, they both come across as smarta***s, and what they say now might not be what they will do in office. They seem like politicians.
Similarly, a Toyota Corolla might do everything you need it to do, but I sure as heck wouldn’t buy one. Character means an awful lot and I believe that Americans want someone they can trust to do the right thing.
New Zealanders and Americans are divided by a common language, it seems.
All the reports I read about the US election said that the economy is the number one issue on Americans’ minds. Why, then, did Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton do so well in the Super Tuesday primaries for her party? She has just taken California, I see.
As a Wal-mart board member, Mrs Clinton was quite happy to be anti-union and see jobs outsourced to Red China. That was her position from 1986 to 1992.
By the time she was First Lady, her husband presided over an administration that saw this trend continue in full force, satisfying the technocrats. That was her position from 1993 to 2000.
Today, while Sen. Clinton says Wal-mart no longer represents her beliefs and that she respects the right of workers to unionize, she still took $20,000 in campaign contributions from Wal-mart. That is her position in 2008.
Add the 2004 joke she made about Mahatma Gandhi being some guy who pumps gas in St Louis, and it’s plain to see that Sen. Clinton is no friend of the American worker. She spent only a year working with a non-profit—certainly her record is not as grand as she would like voters to think.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton thinks along élitist lines and that is the one consistent position she has had throughout her life. Watch any speech she gives: she thinks she’s better than you.
If it’s about the economy, stupid, to borrow a 1990s phrase, then she would be the last person whom I would associate as being a friend of the American worker.
Or of any worker.
Sorry, Democrats, this guy sitting in New Zealand just doesn’t get it.
Mind you, if she gets her party’s nomination, this sure is ammo for the Republicans to use.