MONDAY, AUGUST 11,  2008

POLITICAL REALITY

Posted at 11:48 p.m. ET

Among the four or five thousand things that drive me nuts is the pomposity, every time there's a presidential election, about negative ads.  We are above that, the candidates say.  We want to run a positive, forward-looking campaign.  We are pure.  We are good.  God approves of us.

And then we get a torrent of negative ads.  And we will this time, too.

Mark Penn, who was one of Hillary's top gurus during her primary campaign, lays out the blunt reality in a common-sense article for The Politico:

Clever negative advertising works. That is reality.

The tactic meets with media and pundit disapproval and spawns accusations of negativity, but the reality is that a clever negative ad can be devastatingly effective.

The 2008 presidential race is shaping up to be a close battle, and the tighter it is, the more the advertising will be ratcheted up, by both of the campaigns and the myriad independent groups sure to emerge.

Of course, voters publicly condemn negative advertising and suggest they would never be swayed by it. That was my experience in focus groups more than a decade ago, which found negative advertising to backfire. But Republican consultants such as the late Lee Atwater have used these tactics successfully in campaign after campaign. When reality and research differ, it is the research that is wrong.

Very wrong.  Voters sometimes don't tell the truth to researchers.  They say what makes them feel good and noble.

Some negative ads crystallize voters’ opinions without presenting any new information. That’s what was behind John McCain’s recent ad equating Barack Obama’s celebrity status with that of Paris Hilton — that viewers would associate the Democrat’s leadership with mere celebrity, not substance. Fair or not, as advertising it did its job: It used humor, stuck viewers with memorable images and created a debate, just as Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 “Daisy” ad, Walter Mondale’s “Red Phone” spot 20 years later and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s “3 a.m.” commercial in 2008 did.

The Paris Hilton ad may go down as one of the most effective in recent memory - if McCain wins. If he loses, who will remember, or care?

Other types of negative ads use candidates’ own words against them. During Bill Clinton’s 1996 campaign, we used to devastating effect the speeches that Republican nominee Bob Dole and House Speaker Newt Gingrich gave — especially a speech in which Gingrich admitted that his balanced budget plan aimed to cut off Medicare funds so the social insurance program would “wither on the vine.”

And...

With Obama up only about three points nationally, we can expect a torrent of negative ads this fall aimed at each candidate’s perceived weaknesses. Clearly, McCain has a conservative record on social issues that could be a real vulnerability with women. His comments on having to learn more about economics are hardly comforting to a country in a financial crisis. And Obama’s obvious target is that the more things change, the more they stay the same — a McCain presidency would be just a third Bush term. Obama, meanwhile, has an experience hurdle to overcome.

Then there is the pretty one:

Sometimes these ads are unfair — but so, too, are positive ads. In the primaries, John Edwards’ most effective spot claimed he would take away the health care of members of Congress if they didn’t pass his health care bill in 90 days. Never mind that a little thing like the separation of powers makes such a move impossible. When pushed, Edwards admitted as much. But he kept the ad on the air anyway.

You wonder how Edwards escaped any real press scrutiny.  Hmm.

This year, you can expect a tough political season and plenty of negative ads. Done fairly, they serve a legitimate role.

Of course they do.  You have a right, even an obligation, to critique your opposition and tell why you're better. 

The fact is that we're about to have real political combat.  It's going to be a rough, mean campaign, and Obama will be every bit as mean as anyone else, while claiming to be lofty and above us all.  He comes from Chicago politics, where electioneering is considered armed conflict. 

I think the conventional wisdom is correct when it says that the election is about Obama.  McCain must go after him.  There's plenty to go after.  Wait, I take that back.  There isn't plenty to go after, because there's so little there.

August 11, 2008.      Permalink          

TOUGHENING

Posted at 7:51 p.m. ET

The president has returned to the White House and, in a new statement, considerably toughens the American attitude toward Russian actions in Georgia.

President Bush warned in unusually sharp language today that Russia was pursuing a "dramatic and brutal escalation" of its conflict of Georgia, and accused Moscow of seeking to overthrow the pro-Western government in the former Soviet republic.

Speaking at the White House upon his return from the Summer Olympic Games in Beijing, Bush also demanded an immediate cease-fire and the return of troops to the borders that were recognized last week before hostilities erupted.

"I am deeply concerned by reports that Russian troops have moved beyond the zone of conflict," Bush said. "It now appears that an effort may be underway to depose Georgia's duly elected government."

And...

The brief statement marks a notable toughening of rhetoric from Bush, who had been more cautious in his earlier remarks about the escalating military conflict in Georgia. Bush's warnings echo allegations from the Georgian government that Russia is attempting to overthrow President Mikheil Saakashvili, a strong U.S. ally.

Bush's audience is also Eastern Europe, whose people will need reassurance that we will stand with them in a crisis.

"Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people," Bush said. "Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century."

But Bush did not threaten Russia with any specific actions or sanctions if it failed to withdraw.

Best not to make threats we can't carry out.  But there have to be consequences if the invasion continues.

On the U.S. presidential campaign trail, meanwhile, Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama each strongly criticized the Russian actions.

McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican nominee, said today there was no justification for "Moscow's path of violent aggression" and charged that Russian actions were "in clear violation of international law..."

...Obama (Ill.), who is vacationing with his family in Hawaii before the Democratic Party's nominating convention later this month, said late this afternoon that "the Georgian government has proposed a cease-fire and the Russian government should accept it."

Obama's more recent statements have gotten stronger, after a first statement flopped.  Problem is, when you're in the Oval Office you don't get tryouts.

The high-level public statements from the Bush administration underscored the depth of its concerns about Russia's offensive against a U.S. ally. Georgia sustained more attacks today despite its withdrawal of troops from South Ossetia, the region that has been in dispute.

But U.S. options may be limited, given Washington's need for Russian help on a wide range of issues.

John McCain, by the way, had an interesting take on the possible Russian psychology at play here:

"NATO's decision to withhold a Membership Action Plan for Georgia might have been viewed as a green light by Russia for its attacks on Georgia, and I urge the NATO allies to revisit the decision," he said.

I don't personally know whether that's right or wrong, but at least the man knows the history, and knows his stuff.

August 11, 2008.      Permalink          

GEORGIA

Posted at 3:14 p.m. ET

There used to be a saying in foreign-policy circles that the worst thing you could be in this world was a friend of the United States.  It was a time when betraying our allies seemed to be a State Department sport.  Hungary erupted against the USSR in 1956.  We did nothing.  The Czechs similarly erupted in 1968.  Not much response.  We cut off aid to our South Vietnamese allies in 1975, forcing them into defeat.  Not much expression of regret among "sophisticated" observers.

No administration did betrayal better than Bush 41.  Freedom fighters confront Chinese tanks in Tiananmen Square?  Hey, no bother.  Just send Brent Scowcroft to China and never mention it.  Kurds want freedom from Iraq?  Send Jim Baker, man of many oil deals, over to the Mideast to turn his back on them.  Israeli allies in danger?  Just ridicule them and their supporters. 

Now we have a full-blown crisis with Russia.  That country has invaded Georgia, supposedly an ally of the United States and the West.  And what is our response?  Well, we've got Bush-41-trained Rice at State, and Bush-41-trained Gates at Defense.  And guess what?  Our reaction is anemic, and the president who was so gutsy during his first term sits in the stands and enjoys the Olympics. 

Scott Johnson covers it beautifully at Power Line.

President Bush made Georgia one of his signature projects. One of the very first decisions Bush's security council made in 2001 was on Georgia. Georgia's progress over the last few years has been awe-inspiring and President Bush can very plausibly take a significant amount of credit for that. The Georgians sure think so. They renamed the main street in downtown Tbilisi after him. They sent troops to help us in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo. Russia is punishing Georgia for cozying up with the US, and telegraphing the message to the rest of its neighbors: listen to us and not the Americans.

Given the weak response from the US, who do you think Russia's neighbors are listening to right now? Countries like Estonia or Kazakhstan are going to be terrified over this. Or think about the Czech Republic who just fought a very contentious political battle to allow missile defense radars (the Russian Chief of Staff of the Army threatened an invasion!) . Poland has yet to sign an agreement to allow missile defense interceptors on their soil. What do you want to bet the price just went up? NATO has also been silent. What does that mean for countries like Ukraine who have asked to join, bucking Moscow's decree not to do so or else. The message is clear: don't go too far out on the US' limb because they won't back you up. (and what kind of lesson will Israel take away from this?)

I'm afraid Scott is right.  This is a bad moment for us.  Even The New York Times is reporting the bitterness the Georgians now feel toward the United States.  One Georgian soldier asks, "But where are our friends?"

Your friends, young man, have turned to "realism."  Yes, Senator McCain has issued a tough and generally worthy statement, but the probable next president is on vacation in Hawaii and can't be bothered.  Obama's initial statement was so pro-Russian, reflecting the leftist nostalgia of his aides, that it had to be withdrawn.

That's where your friends are.

And where are those "sophisticates" who are endlessly telling us how we're losing prestige in the world because we liberated Iraq?  They are suddenly silent.  This kind of loss of prestige - humiliation, betrayal, the turning of our backs toward a democratic ally - this suits them just fine.  They are intellectuals, and they understand these things.  And confronting Mother Russia is something that will not get them invited to a party on the West Side of Manhattan.

The usual suspects are out, informing us that the situation is "more complex" than simple Soviet aggression.  It may be.  That does not justify this assault. 

There have been, in the last few hours, some tougher words coming out of Washington.  Nothing from the beaches of Hawaii.

I suspect we'll wind up doing very little, and will pay for it down the line.  In the Afghan caves, in the ministries of Tehran, other eyes are watching, and seeing how America responds to this latest crisis.  They are pleased.

August 11, 2008.      Permalink          

TRACKERS

Posted at 1:19 p.m. ET

Both trackers are out for today.  Rasmussen has Obama up two, no change from yesterday.

But Gallup has Obama up five, a jump of two from yesterday. 

While changes in the trackers have been small recently, I think they're significant, for psychological reasons.  All the stories you see about McCain's new chances are based on the fact that, after Obama's recent European trip, Obama took a small dip and the candidates were essentially tied.  On a few occasions McCain even took a one-point lead in the Rasmussen poll.

Now, though, the "danger" to Obama may have passed.  His lead in Gallup is five points, consistent with other polls.  The Rasmussen result, compared with other polls, has Obama's lead a bit low.

We are talking only psychology here.  To create even a mini-crisis in the Democratic Party, as the end-of-the-month convention nears, the polls would have to show an important Obama erosion.  They do not, as of the last three or four days.  Yes, it's true, Obama should still be much further ahead than he is, but he is not receding further, at least as of today.

Obviously, all this can change.  But if Obama holds steady, his handlers can claim that he's capped the damage and is "poised" for victory.  If he gains before the convention, even stronger language can be used.  If his position erodes, then things can get interesting.

These are small numbers.  Their psychological effect, especially in a party that is split, and has doubts, can be large.

August 11, 2008.       Permalink          

MORE WORRY FOR OBAMA

Posted at 7:34 a.m. ET

Let's pile on, and convince ourselves that the other side does it, so why shouldn't we?

Our first two stories today were not happy talk for the Obama crowd.  Now comes a third, from The Politico.  It is the kind of story that can ruin Obama's Hawaii vacation, despite optimistic handouts from his headquarters:

The campaign’s confidence may turn out to be justified but two weeks prior to the national convention there are more than a few worrisome signs for Obama. Here are seven:

The seven The Politico finds are:

1.  " Race."  Will America actually vote for a black man?

2.  "Obama’s strength in Virginia may be overhyped."

3.  "Michigan’s in play for McCain."

4.   "Bad times could be good for McCain. If anger helps Democrats, fear advantages Republicans."

5.   "Where have you gone, Ross Perot? Bill Clinton, the lone two-term Democratic president since FDR, wouldn’t have been elected if independent Ross Perot hadn’t siphoned 19 percent of the vote in 1992. Former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, staging an indie bid from McCain’s right, has little cash and doesn’t seem to be a factor in competitive states."

6.   "The Legacy of LBJ, Jimmy and Bubba. Barack Obama would have been a trailblazer no matter what – but the Democrats’ trail to the White House has been remarkably narrow since 1960, accommodating only southern whites with border-state strength: Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton."

7.   "Americans may want divided government. Some Democratic operatives think a possible landslide for their party in congressional races could backfire on Obama." 

Well, those are seven solid reasons.

Do you know why The Politico ran that story?  I made this point yesterday, and I'll make it again.  They ran the story because of polls, because the polls show a nearly even contest.  Some observers say polls in August don't count.  As I've written in this space, they definitely do count because they create a psychology, and that psychology can inject either doubt or hope.  Don't count August out.  It's a critical month.

August 11, 2008.       Permalink          

THE CENTER SHIFTS

Posted at 7:08 a.m. ET

The first item we posted this morning featured a dream scenario by The New York Sun, suggesting that Hillary could rip the nomination from Barack.  We were skeptical.

And yet, along comes a Washington Times story, well-reported, that provides some fodder for that distant Clintonite dream.  It's not enough, but it may keep the mischief going, which all of us love.

Seen. Barack Obama is doing what Republicans once thought only a presidential candidacy by Seen. Hillary Rodham Clinton could do - uniting the right and center.

State Republican Party leaders interviewed by The Washington Times said fear of a far-left Obama presidency is warming once-skeptical voters to Sen. John McCain, fueling growing enthusiasm among Republicans that Mr. McCain's more aggressive campaigning can lead to victory.

"It appears that the more that Obama speaks, the more afraid folks in South Carolina get," said Spartan burg County Republican Party Chairman Rick Beltram. "We are seeing 'die-hard' Democrats tell us that Obama is not their man.

That is beautiful music.

In union-dominated Michigan, a state targeted by both major parties, state Republican Party Chairman Saul Anguish said he is seeing signs that independents and Reagan Democrats are moving toward Mr. McCain.

"People who may have been apprehensive about McCain now see this race as potentially winnable," Mr. Anguish said.

The melody swells.  A Democratic activist said:

"You never know. Bad things can happen at conventions and Democrats need to be careful [that] Hillary doesn't somehow ultimately cause some sort of acrimony at the convention among her supporters or makes Obama look like a weaker nominee," Mr. Jackson said.

It's great to begin the week with a smile.

Republicans credit Mr. McCain's gains in recent weeks partly to the campaign's new feisty, hard-hitting ads painting Mr. Obama as a self-absorbed celebrity who ducks meetings with wounded American troops and wants to raise taxes.

"People are getting more enthusiastic about McCain because he is getting more aggressive toward Obama, which makes Republicans and conservatives believe McCain actually can win," said Jeffrey M. Frederick, the newly elected Republican Party chairman in Virginia.

Exactly right.  Despite all the high-minded talk, politics will always be a contact sport.  You'd better make contact.

In Indiana, another usually Republican state where polls show a tight race, Mr. McCain is winning the hearts of conservatives, helped by polls that suggest Mr. Obama is neither inevitable nor unbeatable.

Good.  Keep it going.

Jay Kenworthy, communications director for the Indiana Republican Party, said his state's voters are getting to know Mr. Obama and not liking what they see. "We hear people saying, 'McCain may not have been my guy, but we can't afford Obama,'" he said.

Mr. Kenworthy said a tax raiser who is weak on national defense - the image Republicans are trying to create for Mr. Obama - is "not a good combination in the Hoosier state."

Same thing happened in the Democratic nomination campaign.  The more people saw of Obama, the less they liked. 

Mr. Beltram sees Mr. Obama as a drag on Democratic candidates "down-ticket," giving a glimmer of hope to state and local Republican candidates.

"Although the interest in McCain is only tepid, we are very excited about our prospects for many local elections that we thought 60 days ago would be very difficult," Mr. Beltram said.

Nevada Republican Party Chairman Sue Lowden said polls are narrowing in Mr. McCain's favor, although data show more voters are registering Democrat rather than Republican.

"McCain is attracting independents and Hillary Democrats. The more time he spends in Nevada, the more people like him. It's a small state and easy to reach out to voters," she said.

If the story is accurate, and I suspect it is largely so, there is reason for a tentative smile.  Obama should be much further ahead, and momentum should be toward him.  Instead, he's stalled at under 50 percent in every poll, and momentum is at best blurred.

Stay tuned.  Better  was right.  It's going to be a bumpy night.

August 11, 2008.      Permalink          

SHE'S BAACK!  MAYBE

Posted at 6:39 a.m. ET

On the "juiciness" meter, this has to hit a perfect ten.

The New York Sun, knowing that we yearn for entertainment on a warm Monday morning, provides us with a scenario for Hillary Clinton to wrest the Democratic nomination from the now-vacationing Barack Obama.  If I were a corporation, I'd buy commercial time on this broadcast:

Could Senator Clinton win the Democratic presidential nomination at the last minute by taking advantage of buyer's remorse among Democratic super-delegates who are dismayed by the performance of Senator Obama's campaign so far?

Oh, the imagination here!  The Sun lists all the usual reasons that Obama should be way ahead in the polls, then notes:

Despite all these factors, Mr. McCain is running roughly even in the polls with the presumptive Democratic nominee, Mr. Obama, a time when he is supposed to be way ahead. In early August of 1988, Governor Dukakis was ahead of Vice President Bush by a wide margin. In early August of 2004, Senator Kerry was ahead of President Bush. If Mr. Obama doesn't have a big lead now, it could get pretty ugly for the Democrats as November approaches, the theory goes.

It will only get worse when Messrs. McCain and Obama face off in presidential debates. The public will discover that Mr. Obama, notwithstanding his reputation as a silver-tongued orator, is not that good a debater — which explains why he did his best to dodge debate invitations from Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain. Feature Mr. Obama's flubbering on the outbreak of war between Russia and Georgia.

Did you hear that the networks plan to help Senator Obama by running the debates without sound?  No, no, no.  I didn't mean that.  It's a joke.  Today.

Is all this enough to prompt Democratic super-delegates to re-think their allegiance to Mr. Obama and hand the nomination to Senator Clinton?

Well...

Probably all this isn't enough — at least not yet. But what if, by the time the convention rolls around, Mr. Obama isn't just running neck and neck with Mr. McCain but is lagging by, say, five percentage points, or if Mr. Obama makes a big blunder with his choice of a running mate, or some other campaign stumble? Then expect the whispers already swirling among Clinton supporters to turn into a full-fledged roar.

Mrs. Clinton's Tuesday keynote address, scheduled for the Tuesday of the Convention, could then start to sound less like an endorsement speech and more like a final campaign plea. If it's a real hit, anything can happen. Expect, too, the well-timed release of some public poll showing Mrs. Clinton doing better than Mr. Obama in matchups against Mr. McCain in battleground states. Already the Clinton campaign is surfacing, through the forthcoming issue of the Atlantic Monthly, a memo portraying Mr. Obama as "not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values."

The Clintonites are such warm and kind people.  How could The Sun think this of them?  We're so negative and cynical these days.

Finally...

Mr. Obama may think the primary campaign is over, but Mrs. Clinton's die-hard supporters still itch for a last-minute surprise.

Well, it sure is intriguing.  The problem is, Mr. Obama isn't just any faltering candidate.  He's the first black candidate to be the presumptive nominee of his party.  Can you just imagine the reaction in black America if the nomination were ripped from him?  The Clinton dreamers at the convention will be read the facts in no uncertain terms.  Without the black vote, the Democratic Party cannot win a national election.

It would take a collapse in the polls, or an Edwards-sized scandal to knock Barack Obama out of the box.  Someone would have to produce a Barack Obama Jr., living in an orphanage in the Philippines, to pull it off.  As far as Obama's vice presidential choice is concerned, the short-list names mentioned thus far don't seem to raise any red flags. 

But this could sure be fun.  May Hillary's dreams be kept alive, and may we be the holders of front-row seats.

August 11, 2008.      Permalink