The Debatable Land

The Hillbilly Vote

The day after the Presidential election Matt Yglesias spotted this map that shows the counties across the country which swung towards John McCain this year. As you can see, there aren't that many of them. But what's interesting is where they are:

Matt quipped that, "You can see why John McCain’s principled stand against higher taxes on the wealthy would have a special resonance in this region. Liberals who thought race had something to do with those appeals should be ashamed of themselves."  Andrew Sullivan agreed with Matt: "Ah, yes, Appalachia and Arkansas. Obviously concerned about marginal tax rates for those earning over $250,000 a year, I suppose."

Now, clearly, it would be absurd to pretend - and I do not so pretend - that race had nothing to do with this. But I think this map rather more interesting than that. For that matter, I think the nature of the Appalachian and "Highland" vote is more interesting than this map might initially suggest. 

What the map shows is that McCain did better than Bush in south-western West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, Tennessee, northern Alabama, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Arkansas. (One ought to remember that the map is also distorting: some of these counties had only five or six thousand voters, so the number of people required to turn the map red is not always large.) Still, as I say, doubtless some of this is attributable to racial prejudice, but it seems a stretch and, indeed, a simplification to suppose that this is the only factor at play. That is, one ought to be wary of presuming that race is the only reason a county might buck the national trend and swing towards Obama. 

Ignorance is, I think, a more likely explanation. I think it's worth observing that Obama didn't really campaign in any of these areas.(Marc Ambinder had a useful chart revealing where each campaign was spending their money). As George Packer observes, Obama did as well as John Kerry had in culturally conservative, pretty rural south-eastern Ohio and in parts of rural Pennsylvania. These placesaren't exactly the same as Tennessee and Kentucky of course, but nor are they vastly different. What I'd suggest, however, is that just as Obama was able to overcome a considerable degree of scepticism in Appalachian PA and OH so he might have been able to in KY and TN had he needed to campaign fiercely in those states.

Packer cites a pair of articles written by the New York Times'  Michael Sokolove who returned to his home town of Levittown, PA to take the political temperature in a key swing state. In the second he observed that:

Early on Election Day morning in the Philadelphia suburb of Levittown, Pa., Joe Sinitski, 48, stood in a long line inside a school gymnasium, inching his way toward three blue-curtained voting machines. He wore jeans, a sweatshirt and aNational Rifle Association baseball cap. He said he would vote for Barack Obama, a choice that some months earlier he could not have imagined.

“I have to admit, his race made my decision harder,” he said. “I was brought up that way. And I don’t like his name. I’ll admit to that, too.”

...A lot of people in Levittown needed the five months between the primary election and Tuesday to get used to a new idea. After Mrs. Clinton’s defeat, followed by a financial crisis that shook Americans to the core, they came to terms. If Mr. Obama’s race had been a factor, they eventually had to weigh it against other concerns. “For a long time, I couldn’t ignore the fact that he was black, if you know what I mean,” Mr. Sinitski, the heating and air-conditioning technician, told me. “I’m not proud of that, but I was raised to think that there aren’t good black people out there. I could see that he was highly intelligent, and that matters to me, but my instinct was still to go with the white guy.”

Now perhaps white voters in Appalachia would have remained immune to Obama's charms had he campaigned in Kentucky and Tennessee and so on, but I can't help but feel that at least some of them might have reconsidered their votes had they had been barraged, as voters in PA and OH were, by pro-Obama messages. (This isn't a criticism of the Obama campaign since, rightly, it needed to devote its energies to winnable states.) 

Arkansas is, as ever, a slightly different case. The swing to McCain there may also include a Hillary factor. Indeed, according to exit polls nearly 30% of Democrats who voted for Hillary in the Arkansas primary voted for McCain in the general election. Racism? Who knows? Sour grapes? Almost certainly.

Furthermore, it's worth considering the possibility that some conservative voters were more enamoured of John McCain than they were of George W Bush. By that I mean only that some voters may have found McCain's personal story more persuasive, or even inspiring, than they did Bush's. That is to say, some voters may have been especially impressed by McCain's military service (and that of his forefathers) and that those voters may have been located, to a dispropotionate extent, in the south.

Though the percentage of Americans who are veterans is, broadly speaking, fairly consistent across the states, the south is, according census data from 2000, the only part of America in which the number of veterans as a percentage of the overall population is increasing. More importantly, I would suggest, some research suggests that as many as 75% of folk living in rural areas are likely to know someone who has served in Iraq - a figure that, if accurate, is, I warrant, rather higher than would be the case in urban areas. Equally, the Center for Rural Stregies estimates that the death-rate amongst military personnel is almost twice as high for those from counties of fewer than 50,000 people than it is from the most populous counties across America.

That doesn't make small town and rural America any more "real" than big city America. All it suggests is that, given the nature of small towns, the impact of military casualties is more widely, and even keenly, felt in small towns than it is in big cities. The chances of either knowing or, for sure, knowing someone who knows the dead kid's family, are vastly greater. Two, or perhaps three, degrees of separation. In such circumstances I don't find it hard to imagine vters being swayed by McCain's military heroism even if, on the merits, some of those voters might find themselves more in line with Obama's policy positions. This is, of course, guesswork on my part and I may be entirely wrong. Nonetheless, the point is that communities that send a disproportionate number of their sons off to war ought not automatically to be considered racist if they buck the national trend and endorse the decorated war veteran. And that applies even if some of them are racist.

And that brings me to a second map. This one is taken from the most recent census and shows the concentration of folk who, when asked about their ethnicity, answered "American":

 

As you can see, there's a considerable overlap with the counties that defied the national swing and endorsed McCain more heavily than they had Bush. It's true that the "American-Americans" only represent about 7% of the total population, but clearly they're more numerous in WV, KY, TN and AL in particular (with significant pockets in SC, GA and elsewhere).  This is, as you'll recognise for sure, the heartland of the Scots and Scots-Irish immigration to the US. And all - or at least most - of that was a long time ago. Senator Jim Webb will tell you that these are the people who built America in its early days and that they've been overlooked ever since. That's bred, he would say, a distrust of government promises (indeed, rightly or not, a scepticism towards government full-stop) and in time, I would suggest, a grievance against those who would define themselves (or permit themselves to be defined) as hyphenated-Americans.

This is America, they may say, and we are Americans. No more, no less. We don't look back or east or south so why in hell's name should you? The attitude is, I think, that once you're a United States citizen you should drop you hyphen. That's to say, I think many of these voters would have been suspicious of JFK's catholicism or, had he ever run, Mario Cumo's Italianism. There can be, for sure, and perhaps always is a certain ugliness to this but I wonder if Barry O'Bama or Jose Obama might have had almost as tough a time in these districts as did Barack Hussein Obama. For sure - and perhaps all this undermines some of what I've written here - there's a degree of racial prejudice at work here, but I also wonder - and this, I admit is somewhat speculative - if there isn't also at least something of a backlash against the idea of identity and hyphenatated politics entirely. (Easier, of course, for white folk in rural areas to rail against all of that. I don't defend this attitude, I merely wonder about it's putative existence and how widespread it may be.)

Some of this is, I suspect, a feature of a certain white working-class sense of self-pity and victimhood. Perhaps that is an unjustified sense, but I suspect it exists and that rather than simply or only condemn it one might ask if everything is as simple as lines and squares and colours on a map might make on think. That's all.

And, yes, to reiterate, I do think there's a racial element at work. I just wonder if that's the only thing.

In anticipation of an Obama victory...

Some thoughts on the campaign in advance of the last day of voting tomorrow...

Timing matters and, as any sports coach will tell you, it can't be taught. You have it or, alas, you don't. The same might be said for good fortune. That's to say, success in political campaigns rarely has a monocausal explanation. Hindsight permits one to assemble the jigsaw and see how it all made sense, but that's a far cry from presuming that it was inevitable that this kind of puzzle could only be put together this way.

Nonetheless, the genius of the Obama campaign - and, I assume, the candidate himself - was recognising that a confluence of events over which he had no control himself had created conditions for a presidential run that were unlikely to reoccur in such favourable circumstances as in 2008.

Political campaigns happen in particular places at particular times. That is, the factors that helped Obama win in 2008 did not exist in 2000 (even if he had been a Senator at the time) and may not do so in 2012 or 2016. This was his moment. Who was he running to succeed and who was he running to beat? Both matter.

The impact of George W Bush's problematic Presidency - war, natural disaster, financial crisis - was felt in both parties. On the GOP side of the aisle it poisoned the Republican party's brand; on the Democratic side of affairs, it persuaded liberals that desperate times required desperate measures. The case for "change" rested in large part upon the previous administration's inadequacies. But the scale of those setbacks also permitted voters to ask what "change" really meant and, having done that, consider which candidate seemed most likely to deliver a fresh start for the United States.

In one sense that was Hillary Clinton. A female Commander-in-Chief would clearly represent something new and fresh in American political history. And putting a Clinton back in the White House would be one way of wiping the Bush years from the country's collective memory, making them appear an awkward and unwelcome inter-ruption to a dozen - and maybe 16! - years of Clintonian prosperity. Let the good times roll again.

Except they weren't all good times. And Hillary's surname would, in the end, be a problem not the solution. Could a Clinton really offer real change? Only possibly. And wouldn't electing Hillary reopen wounds best left to mend in peace? In the end and in a sense, wouldn't choosing Hillary be a backward looking notion for a country that likes to think its natural gaze looks to the horizon?

Of course, this theory depended upon there being an alternative to Hillary who could trump the card she used to win the "change" trick. John Edwards? A failed retread and, in any case a white man likely to be defeated by Hillary's army of  women marching-towards-history. Edwards could not but be vulnerable to the gender-card. Not his fault; nor Hillary's for playing it. That's the nature of these elections.

And then Obama entered the race. Suddenly, the calculations were rather different. Electing a white woman might normally be considered quite daring. But it seemed, well, rather vanilla when compared to the excitement suggested by the idea of an African-American president. Hillary no longer had control of the Change narrative. Her glass-ceiling was good, but not quite high or tough enough.

Freshness helped too. Obama's not been around long enough for everyone to have become bored by him. Or, to put it another way, a culture that craves new sensations - and new stars - in almost every other sphere is also unlikely to suppose that decades of experience in public life constitute the best preparation for the Presidency. For some voters anyway, Obama's novelty has been a bonus, not a blemish. At least, neither Clinton nor McCain has made hay with his lack of years in the national spotlight. But even if they had, it would have been a simple matter for Obama to remind the electorate that this election concerned the future, not the past.

So Hillary retreated to the bunker marked Policy. Ordinarily this too might have been a sensible move and perhaps it was, this time, also necessary. But of course this time, the most important policy issue for Democratic primary voters was the War in Iraq. And by late 2006, Hillary found herself on the wrong side of that argument. More crucially, Obama was in synch with the mood of the electorate. As far as primary voters were concerned (in the beginning and, of course in the end too), Hillary's greater experience (itself a slippery proposition) was counterfeited by her misjudging the greatest policy issue of the day.

Consequently the argument shifted to "Who can beat the Republicans?" Here again, Obama benefited from the Bushian shambles. Had the stars been less obviously aligned in the Democrats' favour, some voters might have been less prepared to take a chance on the young, black guy. The pot odds made the gamble worthwhile.

As did the match-up. It is far from clear that the GOP has any grounds for regretting their eventual, if reluctant, decision to select John McCain. It is possible, perhaps, that Mitt Romney might have handled the financial crisis more effectively, but finding a Romney path to victory remains a tricky business even if he might just have managed to be the policy reformer the GOP needed. Someone to play Sarkozy to Bush's Chirac or Major to Thatcher.

The problem with McCain, however, was that his story, like Hillary's, was trumped by the possibilities suggested by Obama's. Again, novelty matters. The political class had walked the McCain course before. However unfairly, there was a reluctance on the part of the media to treat his 2008 campaign as though it were 2000 all over again. And of course for the media, McCain was a more compelling character as a scrappy, running-against-his-party outsider in 2000 than he was in what was perceived to be his 2008 hug-the-base incarnation. Now, however, he was yesterday's news.

And, alas, McCain was running on his character and biography as much as his opponent. The McCain campaign never managed to settle on its core message. Were Americans voting for a war hero, a wise and experienced leader, a reformer with a record or an unpredictable maverick? It was never quite clear. Or rather, at different moments any one of these might be the message of the day and never mind that they were not necessarily complementary messages.

If all Obama had to offer was a nice story then logic demanded that McCain's own biography be considered equally irrelevant. If wisdom and judgment were the idea of the day, then a way had to be found of squaring McCain being "right" on the surge in Iraq with his having been, in most voters' minds, "wrong" in 2002 and 2003. And wasn't the "wisdom and experience" strategy undermined by the "maverick" line of argument? Mavericks, by definition, are unpredictable and hot-headed.

We should remember that McCain's choice of Sarah Palin, reckless and ill-vetted though it was, did not come out of thin air. It came because the campaign was failing. Palin was the long-shot gamble that might, with luck, change the game. For a few days it looked as though it would work. Alas, then the interviews began and McCain's judgement - the stuff his life of service was supposed to have given him - was fatally compromised.

The Palin pick was the result, however, of Obama's success. And again Obama's relatively skinny  record helped him. He was, if not quite a blank canvass then a candidate onto whom voters of all colours and persuasions could project their own ideas. Throughout the campaign Obama's coolness, his steadyness, his calm created an air about the candidate that seemed to say to voters "Make of him what you will". In one sense, rather remarkably, Obama has been in the spotlight for two years and we still don't necessarily really know as much about him as we might expect to in these circumstances.

Hence, the feverish ravings of some on the right. They looked at Obama and saw a radical. A Chicago hustler who palled around with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. A Marxist even and, obviously, a terrorist-coddler.

But most people didn't see Obama this way. Some, for sure, have swooned thinking the candidate rather too super-impressive. But rather more people have seen Obama as, yes, a law professor from one of the finest schools in the country. He doesn't look like a radical. He doesn't, I think, walk like a radical. And he sure as hell doesn't talk like a radical.

Remember too that there was a time when folk wondered if Obama could really enthuse the black vote. Back then, Hillary Clinton was winning 30 to 40% of the African-American vote and the question was "Is Obama black enough?" That's to say, it was only when black people started voting for him that it became obvious he was a black nationalist. Fishy stuff.

Still, let's not pretend that Obama's ability to be all things to all men (a quality that is, if not vital, certainly extremely useful) is not helped by the particulars of his story. It isn't merely that he doesn't speak in anger or from grievance, or that he's not from the ghetto - though these factors certainly help him.

No, he's not a Jesse Jackson figure. Then again, this is also 2008 not 1988 and America is a very different place these days. In retrospect, the Jeremiah Wright episode - and the manner in which Obama dealt with the controversy - was a turning point.  Sure, Obama attended his church but that hardly means he agrees with everything his pastor says: there must be millions of church-going Americans who find themselves at odds with their preacher from time to time. The significant element, however, was the contrast between two views of race in America: on the one hand you had Wright preaching the old time religion; on the other you had the candidate offering a different, mellower, more inclusive and respectful view.

Obviously, Obama's own life story played a large part in this, but, in retrospect, Wright did Obama a back-handed favour by demonstrating the differences between the two men and their views of America. How could Obama say "god damn America" when America had given his Kenyan father a chance? It didn't add up. And voters could see that. Obama's speech in Philadelphia - the most remarkable of the campaign - was a turning point. A turning point that reinforced the central message of his campaign: it is time to look to the future, time to recognise that politics must change to keep pace with a changing America.

No wonder the "decent" centre has been able to endorse Obama. It isn't merely that folk can feel good about themselves if they vote for Obama (though that's a part) it's that his presence as a candidate gives voters something they crave again: a reason to believe in the United States and that, whatever our policy differences, a bigger, better kind of politics lies ahead.

It's easy to forget that one of the things voters found attractive about George W Bush was the calm he was supposed to bring after the turmoil and hurly-burly of the Clinton years. That desire burns even more strongly after eight years of the Bush administration. Thoughtfulness and a measured approach are back in vogue. And what better way to draw a line beneath the past eight years than by endorsing a candidate who not only has these qualities but also, in physical, flesh-and-blood terms, offers a means by which to turn the page?

Still, I've been struck by how many people still presume that the United States won't vote for a black President. Everybody knows, as a friend put it to me recently, that America is an "irredeemably racist country." Well! I don't believe that, actually. Yes, it remains too difficult for minority candidates to win statewide offices, but change is afoot. It's 40 years since Martin Luther King was assassinated. That's 40 years of racists dying and an entire generation of schoolkids who learn that King was perhaps the greatest American of the 20th century. The Civil Rights movement is the idea in history classes across the country.

America is a much different place these days. And we'll discover tomorrow, I believe, just how much everything has changed. There'll be plenty time enough to disagree with the policies of an Obama administration, but it's worth taking a moment to reflect upon the import and symbolism of this election. Obama's shown that he has a natural sense of timing and, of course, the willingness to exploit every opportunity that comes his way. Now this is his moment. This is his time.

New GOP Campaign Strategy: McCain More Than A Mere Man

Kudos to Frank Foer for alerting one to this priceless passage from David Gelernter's most recent article in the Weekly Standard:

Granting the importance of the topic, the difference in moral stature between presidential candidates has rarely been as enormous as it is today--not (or not only) because Obama's is so small but because McCain's is so large. There is no single English word for McCain the hero, the moral entity. But in Hebrew he would be called a tsaddik--a man of such nobility and moral substance that he approaches holiness. If this assertion sounds crazy, that only shows how little we have thought about the issue.

OK, we'll have to go away and think about it. Mr Gelernter concludes:

"Who shall ascend the mountain of the Lord? Or who shall stand in His holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart" (Psalm 24:3-4). Whether you like or dislike his politics, that is John McCain all over. If he wins this election, it will be a come-from-behind surprise. But in larger American terms, it will be no surprise at all.

I mean, Jesus. Really. Extraordinary.

UPDATE: Commenter JHB has a terrifying question. Terrifying, that is, if it were ever answered in the affirmative: "Now here's a challenge: do you think you could find someone who feels that way about Gordon Brown?"

Imperialists for Obama!

Via Clive Davis, I see that Niall Feguson has abandoned John McCain. In a Guardian interview he says:

He denies suggestions that Colossus, specifically, was written with half an eye on influencing the White House - but he became, for a time, one of John McCain's foreign policy advisers. "I must say that since he won the nomination, which I was very happy about, I've played virtually no role. In fact, I've played no role. Because, uh" - he is suddenly, uncharacteristically halting - "how to describe it? - I felt much less ... enthused, I think is probably the word, now that it's between him and Obama. And I felt much more uncomfortable with some of the positions he has had to take in order to secure the conservative vote."

Presumably this means that Ferguson is reasonably comfortable with Obama's foreign policy views. Given Niall's own positions, one might think this likely to disconcert some of Obama's more "progressive" supporters while, of course, also confirming the paleocon view that there's much less between the candidates' foreign policy "vision" (which is not to be confused with jjudgement and temperament) than is generally thought the case.

Then again, Niall likes to think of himself as a 19th - or 18th - century liberal, so it's no great surprise that he doesn't have an obvious home in either party at present. Of course, Colossus argued that, in the end, the United States didn't have the stomach to do empire properly. I don't suspect he really thinks this will change under Obama, but, rather, Obama's upside is greater than McCain's and his downside, in foreign policy terms at least, no lower.

Pennsylvania State vs Ohio State

For what little it is worth, I think Barack Obama will carry Ohio with something to spare. I also find it quite hard to believe that he could lose Pennsylvania. Still, the argument has always been that in both these states he "struggles" to "connect" with white men. Well he has a chance to do so on Saturday night.

I assume John McCain's campaign will be buying plenty of advertising during tomorrow's Ohio State-Penn State showdown. But I also assume Obama can more or less afford to purchase it all himself. It's the biggest college football game in the midwest this year (alas) and amongst certain demographics seems likely to have higher TV ratings in OH and PA than any of the presidential debates.

Clearly this OSU-PSU match-up invites comparison with the Obama-McCain race. Ordinarily you'd say McCain is Joe Paterno and that Jay Paterno was Sarah Palin. But PSU's offensive (and after last week's game against Michigan, I mean that in both senses of the term) makeover seems to muddy the waters here. Then again, Jay Paterno, like Mrs Palin, has re-energised the true believers who, well, believe all over again. Time will tell how long this can last.

So that would leave Obama as sweater-vest himself, Jim Tressel. True, Obama is rather more glamorous than the sweater-vest. But, as a (Democratic) PSU-minded friend reminds me, Obama is as unflappable as Tressel and, by recanting his prior commitment to public-financing, just as ruthless and prepared to do what - and whatever - it takes to win. And, I suppose, if conservative paranoia about ACORN has anything to it then this might not be so very different, in effect, from tOSU's recruiting policy...

A Michigan friend, however, reminds me that Columbus itself  is "Ground Zero for McCain supporters - ignorant, uneducated, obese, meat-head, crew-cut, jeans-short and tanktop wearing, meth-using, racist, redneck, Palin-lovers..." On the other hand, and to confuse matters still further, my own trip to Happy Valley found the place less than well-stocked with Sartre-reading, chablis-sipping, latte-drinking, arugula-munching, pesto-making pinko traitors.

Still, my bet is that Tresselball will prevail, outsmarting PSU with Terrelle Prior Terrell Pryor* and Beanie Wells carving up the Nittany Lions.

How much, if anything, this can tell us anything useful about the election is a different matter altogether. Sometimes sporting analogies aren't as useful as you need them to be.

My Culture11 piece on college football can be found here.

UPDATE: Wolverine alum Jon Chait, disputes some of this:

John McCain is obviously Joe Paterno. Penn State right now is the McCain campaign circa September 2. By next year (the equivalent of October in campaign terms) they'll be mediocre again.

Other problems with the Tressell-Obama parallel, besides that it makes me want to puke: Tressell is extremely conservative, in his political views, socio-cultural style, and style of football -- the opposite of Obama. He's wildly uncool, a professed Celine Dione fan. He said he knows the words to all her songs.

I think, unsurprisingly, that Obama is the parallel of Rich Rodriguez. Brilliant, innovative figure, hated for his rapid rise and willingness to discard old allies on his way up. Michigan right now is the Obama campaign circa last fall, or this last summer -- fans are panicked, fearing they're trying to change too much too fast, imploring the coach/candidate to revert to more conventional tactics, but the coach/candidate is confident the new course will succeed in the end with some patience.

UPDATE2: Northwestern Wildcat Matt Zeitlin explains why this game matters in Evanston too. He demonstrates the smarts needed to get to Northwestern by labelling his optimism "Cautious".

*Misspelling corrected. Thanks to commenter Adam01!

The Last Throes

It's over. How so? Because campaigns that have a chance of winning don't perform stunts like this:

Please join our campaign for a conference call at 11:30 a.m. EDT, with former CIA Director Jim Woolsey and McCain-Palin Senior Foreign Policy Adviser Randy Scheunemann to discuss recent news stories about which candidate terrorists would like to see in the White House in 2009.

[Hat-tip: Marc Ambinder]

UPDATE: Dave Weigel, bless him, has more.

Obama-McCain. Part 3.

And so, weary campers, the end is in view. Tonight's debate is the third and final tussle between Messrs McCain and Obama. A victory on points won't help Mr McCain; it's far from certain that even a knockout defeat can really hurt Mr Obama. Anyway, I dare say I'll try and live-blog the thing again. So what does Mr McCain have to do? Here are some helpful tips from National Review Online:

Advice to McCain    [John J. Pitney, Jr.]

What demeanor should McCain display tonight? Angry doesn't work. Solemn doesn't work.  ake-smiley doesn't work. Instead, McCain should go back to his roots and unleash his inner smart-aleck. If Obama accuses him of being erratic in a crisis, he should say: "So I'm erotic in a crisis? Who knew?"

This approach has a couple of advantages. First, it enables McCain to show the more appealing side of his personality. Second, it throws Obama off his game. His handlers have surely anticipated every possible attack line about Ayers and Wright. And as a good liberal, he's waiting for the chance to say, "Have you left no sense of decency?" But he'd be hard put to defend against ridicule. The One can't handle the jokes.

So to get ready for the debate, McCain should lay aside the notes, crack open a beer, and watch Animal House.

It really is hard to see what could possibly go wrong with taking this approach. As another doomed candidate once-never-quite-said, "Crisis? What crisis?"

Michael Gerson's Wishful Thinking

Michael Gerson today:

Obama's current success is not enjoyable for conservatives. But this does not make McCain an incompetent. Maybe he is a great man running at the most difficult of times.

Gerson's thesis is that McCain was doing well until the financial crisis intervened. Perhaps. Certainly there is polling evidence that can be cited to support such a view. And yes, there was a spell when Democrats fretted that Obama was, relative to the generic Democrat vs Republican race, under-performing. According to Gerson:

Previous to this economic free fall -- and after his transformative vice-presidential choice -- McCain was about tied in a race he should have been losing by a large margin. The public clearly had questions about Obama's leadership qualities. But the McCain campaign also proved itself capable of constructing an effective narrative: Obama as lightweight celebrity, McCain as maverick reformer. Until history intervened.

Up to a point. Once a race is over, of course, everything falls neatly into place. It was always going to end like this, wasn't it? Naturally, this is not actually the case. True, it's because the underlying circumstances were so favourable to the Democrats that the party could take  risk by nominating a youthful, black, liberal Senator rather than the safer (in terms of known unknowns), if still problematic, option of choosing Hillary Clinton. Noentheless, Gerson is mistaken. In the first place, he ignores the impact of the Palin pick: yes, the Barracuda helped in the short-term and yes gave the base reasons to believe, but she also undermined the central thrust of McCain's candidacy in terms of how the GOP was trying to frame the debate: experience, wisdom, judgement and reform vs callow inexperience.

Equally, "constructing" a "narrative" of Obama as a "lightweight celebrity" was a strategy that depended upon Obama showing himself to be nothing more than a lightweight celebrity candidate. But what if he showed more than that? What would the McCain campaign do then? In other words, McCain's strategy depended upon Obama failing, not McCain succeeding. As such it was vulnerable. Indeed, it was predicated upon an analysis that was not the GOP's to control.

Then again, this was rather the strategy that had worked for McCain in the primaries. McCain did not so much provide a reason for voting for him - the apparent success of the "surge" notwithstanding - as outlast his opponents. Rather as Booker Prize judges frequentlyend up choosing everyone's second or third choice novel, so the GOP turned to McCain once the other candidates - Giuliani, Thompson, Romney - had, one way or another, disqualified themselves.

Once Obama demonstrated at the convention and then in the first two debates that he had the look of a President about him, the McCain campaign's strategy had little left to offer. It was trying to sell the public a product voters didn' believe in, spinning the punters a line that was contradicted by their own perceptions. Whereas John Kerry did often come across as a flip-flopping doofus, Obama doesn't come across as a recklessly inexperienced Hollywood candidate. At the risk of labouring the point, if Obama - still relatively unknown to many voters just a couple of months ago - showed the posise and gravitas voters expect, then the McCain "narrative" was left in tatters. Equally, the Palin pick, as I say, undermined McCain's own claims to leadership experience and judgement. 

[Via Daniel Larison, who has more to say on the matter.]

McCain and the Ignorance of Crowds

I've been down on John McCain for quite a while (but, heck, so have a lot of people!) but despite the ugliness of his campaign he shows the better side of his nature in this film. Then again, it's hard not to be struck by the boos that greet him. Boos, of course, from audiences of rock-solidly partisan Republican voters. It's hard not to think that people like this bloody deserve to lose:

Obama-McCain: I Am A Man of Constant Sorrow

Shockingly Tom Brokaw has rejected Bill Kristol's internet-submitted question. Typical MSM bias. Fair play to the plucky folks at Fox however, they're doing their best to best to suggest that Obama is less-American than a flesh-eating Muslim eskimo. Or something like that. Fred Barnes, a shit who aspires to being something more anatomical than that, suggests McCain needs to "do a Sarah Palin"... God help us all. Anyway kids, here we go again...

Final Verdict: I've been a little harsh on Obama. He won this debate. When even Karl Rove can't make a great case for McCain then you know the game is over. And, again, Obama looked and came across as a President whereas McCain seemed like, as I say. a cranky wee man who'd been dropped from the bowling club's first team and considered this a vast. world-changing injustice.

Instant verdict: a no-score draw. Boring and dull and platitudinous. No heavy punches landed. The format scarcely helped. In fact it helped snuff out any threat of life or spark or conflict or, damn it, interest. And so, because of that, Obama, leading in the polls, won. Will puts it more, er, entertainingly but I basically agree with him: "Gut read. Obama owned it. This election’s over unless he murders and eats the flesh of a child on live television."

3.32: "I think what I don't know is what most of us don't know" says McCain. Like what? Life after death?

3.30: "What don't you know and how will you learn it?" What is Zen about that? Obama's answer not terrible however. Much more popular with CNN's women dialers than the men, mind you.

3.27: The rest of us of course are pretty comfortable with a "second holocaust". Obviously it's disappointing neither candidate has promised a first strike nuclear policy vis a vis Iran.

3.25: "Is Russia a new Evil Empire?" Seriously? This was a question? WTF?

3.21: No, we are not all Georgians now.

3.19: "We're not going to have a new Cold War with Russia" says McCain. Not when we can have a Hot one! Also" Putin has reduced all manner of liberties? True! He's a ghastly wee nyaff. No word, of course, tonight, from either candidate about closing Guantanamo or ending "extraordinary rendition". (That latter of course being a policy inaugurated by the Clinton administration. It was shameful then and remains so now.)

3.17: "We have to have a government in Afghanistan that is responsive to.." Washington? Sorry, no, "the Afghan people".

3.14: Obama backs democracy promotion. Again. Which is fine. But how many of his most fervent fans want to know that he basically shares the neo-conservative analysis?

3.10: Obama is not going to do well on Pakistan. Yes, sure, make it personal vis a vis bin Laden, but this is still a naive answer in real rather than electoral terms. McCain, astonishingly, is sort of half-correct. At least in broad terms.

3.07: "A cool hand at the tiller". Does anyone think that describes John McCain?

3.06: The phrase "My friends" also needs to be retired.

3.03: Obama tells a lie: well, he sort of suggests that matters in Darfur could have been different. Also, everyone gets or needs a doctrine these days!

3.02: McCain sees Russia-Georgia as a match-up for the ages. Because, yeah, it's all about who has the bigger balls. Welcome to LBJ-land.

3.00: McCain: only someone who has been in favour of every war ever started by a Republican president has my track record of being wrong.

2.59: Peacemaker? Where did that come from?

2.55: A reader writes: "McCain is better than before. In that he's making his talking points fairly effectively but in his paedophile uncle, rather than his mad uncle, voice."

2.53: Why do we have 80 "neutral" punters asking the "questions"? Wouldn't 80 rabid partisans offer more entertainment?

2.50: Oh fuck. More health care. Time out.

2.49: Even I - who knows nothing about economics - may know more about economics than John Sydney McCain.

2.47: Oil use: What that means is that the United States is filthy rich. How terrible!

2.46: I think Obama meant the internet, but the computer was not invented in America. Shout out to Alan Turing! And Bletchley Park!

2.45: Obama wants you to know he also owns a magic wand.

2.42: McCain keeps telling us that he's always been fighting for all these things. What do these things have in common? They are all unwon causes. When did McCain last win a victory worth winning? Vote for John McCain! He knows what it's like to lose!

2.41: McCain" Social Security is easy! Medicare is tougher! But both kill debates.

2.39: Bring Back Sarah Palin! We miss her!

2.37: Why does Tom Brokaw say "we have another question from the internet" as though he meant "And another paedophile writes in to ask..."?

2.35: Hmm, the ghost of Hoover! But which candidate looks like Hoover? And why is McCain adopting a voice more normally associated with reading a bed-time story to a two year old kid?

2.34: This is brutally dull. Can Sarah Palin come on in fishnets and do a proper half-time show?

2.33: As a viewer, I wish I were drunk right now.

2.32: Obama to Big Oil: "Use 'em or lose 'em!" Acres that is. Or what? But what if they used this land and made more money? Wouldn't that be reprehensible?

2.29: Woo! McCain returns to his "spending freeze" on everything except, like, 70% of the Federal budget. Also "We're Americans" so we can solve everything immediately. OK!

2.28: What sacrifices will you ask every American to make? How about the lives of the fourth born? (Yeah, I'm the eldest and I have a kid brother and sister).

2.26: I recommend you check out Will Wilkinson. Oh, fuck! Obama just did a Palin and suggested that Venezuela is a threat to the United States. Energy independence is so not like going to the moon. The American people might decide they ain't gonna be fat; don't mean they're gonna be slim.

2.24: There is a risk here that we may have to hear about health care. This being so I play the traditional foreigner's card of opting out of this. Is there any more boring subject - for furriners - than American health care? No, there is not.

2.23: If John McCain knows how to "fix the economy" then so do I.

2.21: I have a clear record of terrible policy, says McCain, citing campaign finance reform and his "work" with Joe freakin' Lieberman. McCain is, however, trying to dial down the "I'm just a crazy wee old man" look tonight.

2.20: Obama wants spending cuts and increased spending? Has anyone ever delivered this before? Also: when did it become un-American to petition your government?

2.16: Correspondence from Maryland: "Are the African Americans in the crowd really undecided, or did the debate commission have to diversify the crowd?"

2.13: This entire spectacle is nauseating. Come listen with Grandma'. The President is hear to hear, feel and soothe your pain. Cookies and marshmallows for all! Paging Gene Healy...

2.12: Had McCain heard of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before, say, last month? Also, John-boy, these folks were giving loans to the white peeps you need in Ohio...

2.11: No talking! No discussion! No, like, debating! Brokaw lays down the law. Meanwhile, the lads and lasses at the Confabulum are also live-blogging. Check 'em out.

2.09: If Meg Whitman is so fantastic why isn't she the nominee? Oh hang on, Petraeus was God last week. So, no room for McCain or the delectable Palin.

2.08: McCain's answer to the financial crisis? Energy independence? Seriously. Also cites massive turd laid by his own party but claims to have the necessary equipment to deal with it. Also tell the old folks of America - folks like me! Or not - that they can keep their homes under JSM. BHO obviously favours robbing little old ladies in Florida.

2.06: Obama's first answer: puppies and kittens for all middle-class folks.

2.04: Woo! Looks likes a mega-church rally! And with even less theological discipline! Come hear Pastor Obama! See Rev McCain!

2.03: What is it with the politeness fetish? Give the audience eggs and rotten tomatoes.

2.02: Brokaw: "From a long list of questions..." I have selected the most boring.

McCain gives up on Michigan?

Politico's Jonathan Martin has a telling scoop:

John McCain is pulling out of Michigan, according to two Republicans, a stunning move a month away from Election Day that indicates the difficulty Republicans are having in finding blue states to put in play.

McCain will go off TV in Michigan, stop dropping mail there and send most of his staff to more competitive states, including Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida.   Wisconsin went for Kerry in 2004, Ohio and Florida for Bush.

If this is indeed true, then it adds weight to the growing sense that Obama isn't just going to win this election, he's going to win it comfortably - at least in electoral College terms. For a long tie, Michigan seemed one of McCain's best chances of pinching a state that went for Kerry in 2004. No longer, it seems. If the writing isn't on the wall yet, the pen has certainly been picked up...

Alan Keyes on Obama and McCain

Toby Harnden reminds us that the only man to have debated both Obama and McCain is Mr Loony Tunes himself, Alan Keyes. So what does he think?

So what does he think of their debating skills? "Both of them, I confess, I found not very impressive as people in debates," he told me. "If by eloquence we mean the force of truth, then neither of these guys is good at debate.

"Both of them represent and take stands both about themselves and about the country that have no truth in them. Obama rejects the fundamental truth the country was founded on that we are all created equal and endowed by our creator with our unalienable rights starting with the right to life. Though he pretends to be different, McCain also rejects that principle."

Now it all makes sense...

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin is Susan Alexander...

Amusing comment left on this post that dared to observe that Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric was less than wholly impressive:

what do you know. english marxist hates palin. she did better than biden.

Well, it's a point of view. What's more interesting is the question why Palin has been so poor. The easy answer, of course, is that she's just not up to it and certainly that's the obvious, immediate impression one gets from her Couric interview. So much so, in fact, that one can't help but feel rather sorry for her. Yet my sense is that, while she's clearly no foreign policy maven, she's dramatically under-performed the (quite low) expectations even folk predisposed to give her a chance were prepared to grant. She isn't usually - or, if you prefer, necessarily - a babbling, incoherent wreck. See this Charlie Rose interview for example. So, again, why? Nerves, clearly. Also the sense, one imagines she may feel, that she may be out of her depth. The vastness of the stage too.

In fact, her performance is akin to that of an actor who, suffering from stage fright, forgets her first line and then, trying to get back on track, finds herself jumbling lines from this scene with ones from the rest of the play, creating an entirely new, but alas nonsensical, text that loses the audience and, before long, the actor too. Soon you have no idea where you are or what comes next even though you do - or did half an hour ago - actually know the lines. Of course, on stage you might have other actors who could help you out. But TV interviews are a one-player show in which there's no hiding place.

Alternatively and, it must be said, less charitably, she's Susan Alexander and all the training in the world can't turn her into Maria Callas. Of course, that would leave John McCain to play Charles Foster Kane...
UPDATE: Ezra Klein has more. As does Chris Orr.

McCain Behind the Eight Ball

John McCain wants to suspend campaigning until Congress has sorted out how to bailout Wall Street. What does this mean? Simple: he's losing and he knows he is.

Andrew Sullivan and Sarah Palin.

Let me make something very clear: I like, admire and respect Andrew Sullivan and his writing. I can’t remember when I first started reading his blog, but I think it must have been in early 2001. Certainly before 9/11. Since then I suspect I must have read more words written by Andrew than by any other journalist or blogger. Before his blog moved to Time and, subsequently, The Atlantic, I regularly contributed to his bi-annual pledge drives. I’d recommend his book, The Conservative Soul to anyone interested in the subject.

Heck, he’s often been kind enough to link to this blog  and, indeed, I once helped fill-in for him while he took a well-deserved break. In other words, I owe Andrew rather more than the nothing he owes me. That goes for most bloggers, mind you, even those to whom he hasn’t sent his readers. Any history of blogging - and its interaction with “traditional” journalism - that fails to include a lengthy passage on Andrew’s career is unlikely to worth reading. He’s done more for blogging than almost anyone else. I mean this.

From this you will surmise that there must be a rather hefty “but” on the way. And you would, alas, be correct. Nevertheless, the existence of this "but" does not in any way invalidate anything I've written here.

There are plenty of long-term Sullivan fans disappointed and even, in some cases, infuriated by his reaction to John McCain's decision to put Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket. That's everyone's prerogative of course and, equally obviously, Andrew can and should write whatever he damn well pleases. (Equally, I'm sure there are thousands and thousands of people who admire his recent writing and consider it the best stuff he's ever produced.)