Good Strategic Advice From a Very Unlikely Source
Nate Silver of The Plank says
...A notable facet of McCain's speech tonight was that he seemed to be fighting the Xcel Center crowd -- and not just the imbecilic Code Pink protestors. The crowd simply wasn't giving him much love when he wasn't talking about the three P's -- Palin, Petroleum, and POW. That led to a fairly dreadful stretch of ten or fifteen minutes as he tried to rebut the Democrats on the economy, which in turn reduced the energy level and deprived Mark Salter's conclusion of some of its thunder.
My partner, who's made of sterner stuff and thus watched his speech live while I cooked dinner, came upstairs in the middle to say much the same thing.
Which means I have to give kudos to Mickey Kaus for the second time in a week *ever* for saying
May I suggest to my fellow conspirators that we move directly on to Plan 3: Forget Palin. Stop writing about her. If we make the election about Palin, we will lose. She'll probably win her debate and will almost certainly handle the interviews well enough (to the satisfaction of the voters, at least, if not the experts). The election's not about Palin. It's about McCain. We can beat McCain.
A surprisingly excellent point!
You know how a lot of True Blues feel about Senator Joseph Leiberman? The Dirty Reds feel the same way about Senator McCain. Picking Palin would have been a lot like if Leiberman had somehow landed the Democratic nomination after all *his* double-dealing and then chosen, say, Rachel Maddow or Jon Stewart** as his running mate. It would have been a serious base-pleasing choice given an equally disenchanted base, and would have generated a lot of press and a big Wednesday night speech too. And would *also* have been a serious WTF/desperation move for a very lame candidate. Make the election about Senator McCain again -- to us, the press, *and* his base -- and come election they'll stay home and Blues and independents will show up in droves.
[** Sure, the analogy falls apart almost immediately. For instance Maddow or Stewart would have had enough concern for the fate of our nation, and a sufficient grip on reality, to decline. But for sake of the argument... --fl]
Oh, dear figleaf, you need to stop reading Mickey Kaus. It's not good for the brain or the soul. I don't think he's even entirely right this time. Partly right, yeah.
Frankly, I think either Jon Stewart or Rachel Maddow would be far more competent than the Current Occupant. Okay, I have a schoolgirl crush on both of them. But they're both way smarter than Bush, they're curious, they're quick studies. (I'm still dreaming of Russ Feingold in higher office. I realize I need to get over this.)
As for Palin: Yeah, we need to nudge her out of the spotlight. I'm afraid it's not as simple as just ignoring her, because she has (very unfortunately) reframed this election. Her speech Wednesday night reignited the culture wars. (You saw that one, didn't you?) We can treat her like a dude from here on out - even as she harps on motherhood as her #1 qualification - but her base is now so fired up, no way they're staying home on Nov. 4.
In an ideal world, hammering on the issues should settle this election for Obama with a landslide. But the Dems have been better on the issues as long as I've been eligible to vote. The Republicans have won five of the last seven elections.
Somehow, we've gotta reframe this thing - place the issues in a broader context of meaning. I think Obama goes in the right direction when he talks about an America where people actually give a shit about their fellow human beings. If he can weld collective responsibility (via government) with individual responsibility, maybe he can redirect the conversation.
I'm just worried sick that the Republicans will keep their smears in the spotlight. When they do that, they win.
[Seems to me that one way to go about it would be to say "how surprising that a party that's relied on nothing but stunts for the last 20 years to... pin all their hopes on yet another stunt?" Thanks, Sungold. --fl]