TheCenterLane.com

June 16, 2008

Will someone please tell John McCain that he has already secured the Republican Presidential nomination?  He doesn’t seem to have trouble acknowledging this during talk shows.  Nevertheless, many of his positions on the important issues in this election contradict those we would expect to hear (and those we have heard in the past) from John McCain.  Arianna Huffington summed it up best, with her proclamation that the John McCain of 2000 is not a candidate in this election.  McCain seems to be stuck on winning over the Rovian “base”.  This may be the result of the favoritism extended to Willard “Mitt” Romney by Fox News and the “hard right” talk radio punditry during primary season.  The primary season is over now.  So, why does McCain continue to campaign as though he is still trying to win over the hearts of the most conservative Republicans, rather than win over the independents and undecided Democrats?

His critics call him “McBush” and the candidate for “the third Bush term” because he is pledging support for most of the current policies of what has become the most unpopular Presidential administration in modern times.  Most would have assumed that after securing the Republican nomination, McCain would have moved back to the center, reflecting the positions of the moderate “maverick” we knew from the past.  However, the current incarnation of John McCain is heading toward the far right spectrum of the Republican ranks in the belief that this is the best route to The White House.  His traveling companions have been two faces we now regularly see in the news.  One is Joe “The Tool” Lieberman.  Joe hopes to bring him some support from independent voters, despite the fact that Lieberman sold his soul to Bush, Cheney and Rove in 2006.  The second is Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the most likely choice as McCain’s running mate.  The choice of Graham would reinforce the obviousness of McCain’s tack to the right at a point in the campaign when conventional wisdom would seem to suggest the opposite move.

Beyond his support for the unpopular Iraq war, McCain is now ready to revitalize Bush’s failed attempt to “privatize” Social Security, as depicted in a CNN report from June 13.  A report by Charlie Savage in the June 6 New York Times, discussed how McCain’s current view, supporting Bush’s wiretaps, contradicts the view expressed by McCain to The Boston Globe six months earlier.  Although McCain previously opposed the Bush tax cuts as skewed to benefit the wealthy, he now favors extending those cuts.  Most recently, as disclosed by neoconservative Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard, McCain and Lindsey Graham are plotting to subvert the recent Supreme Court decision protecting the habeas corpus rights of “enemy combatants” with the introduction of legislation to create a “national security court”.  ¡Viva Guantánamo!   This legislation would be introduced on the heels of a June 15 report by Tom Lasseter of McClatchy Newspapers that “dozens of detainees” at Guantanamo have been imprisoned by the U.S. on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence.

Much of the criticism directed against McCain’s campaign has concerned the slim turnouts at his rallies, his speech delivery and his failure (or unwillingness) to keep economic issues on the front burner.  Although quite a bit of criticism has questioned his ability to carry “the base” in November, precious little has been focused on how he expects to win over “undecided” voters and those from the center.  McCain has to face up to the fact that “the base” has no other alternative than to vote for him.  If he expects to win the election, he would be wise to distance himself from the policies of the Bush administration, rather than cling to them as some sort of political life-raft.

June 11, 2008

If you listen closely, you can hear the knife sharpeners grinding away.  The attack ads are being prepared right now.  The 527 groups are headed into the studios with their “Swift Boat”-style TV spots.  Floyd Brown, the godfather of the Willie Horton ad campaign against Mike Dukakis, has already started a web ad campaign against Barack Obama, based on the “secret Muslim” theme.  In today’s Los Angeles Times, Robin Abcarian discussed the numerous negative magazine and blog articles directed against Michelle Obama.  In today’s New York Times, Maureen Dowd noted that there are “creepy web sites … dedicated to painting Michelle as a female version of Jeremiah Wright, an angry black woman.”  Without Hillary Clinton to kick around any more, those with unreleased sexist rage are now turning to Mrs. Obama as the new focus of their attention.  This could result in drawing support for Obama from those disgruntled, female Clinton supporters, who were ready to cast a revenge vote for McCain.  This may be happening already.  A report issued today by Jeffrey Jones of the Gallup organization, revealed that Obama’s lead among women has now expanded from five percentage points to 13.  Barack may owe some thanks to the Michelle-haters for this popularity bump.

Meanwhile, on June 9, Tim Reid of the London Times reported that Barack Obama has established a “crack team of cybernauts” who “will form a rapid response internet ‘war room’ to track and respond aggressively to online rumours”.  Jen Psaki, a spokeswoman for Senator Obama, told the Times that “the only way to run a campaign is to respond immediately when inaccurate information is put out”.  The Obama campaign might want to re-think this strategy.  Rather than allowing itself to be placed on this defensive course, constantly putting out fires, Obama’s team might want to consider a more sophisticated counterintelligence strategy.  They should try fighting disinformation with disinformation.  The various “smear” campaigns themselves are examples of disinformation.  Yet there are also disinformation campaigns that are used to attack the use of rumor and innuendo.  As explained at Wikipedia.org:

When channels of information cannot be completely closed, they can be rendered useless by filling them with disinformation, effectively lowering their signal-to-noise ratio and discrediting the opposition by association with a lot of easily-disproved false claims.

So here’s my idea:  the Obama camp should fight these smear campaigns by flooding the internet with even more false rumors that sound more ridiculous than those being circulated by the opposition, thus undercutting the believability of the rumors originating from the anti-Obama crowd.  Some examples might be:  “Obama wants to paint the White House black” or that Obama wants to change the National Anthem to an expletive-laden, rap version of “The Star Spangled Banner”.  Eventually, people will have heard so many stupid rumors about Obama, that they will no longer pay attention to them.  As soon as someone starts out a sentence with “Well, you know, Obama is secretly trying to …” the listener will tune out.

Rather than counterpunch with a negative smear campaign against McCain, the Obama camp should try a positive approach.  This would involve unlimited positive remarks about the Libertarian candidate, ex-Republican Bob Barr.  A little more consideration for Mr. Barr might also be appropriate. When the subject of “town hall meetings” is raised, Democrats should ask:  “Is Bob Barr agreeable to those?”  When debates are being scheduled, they should ask whether Bob Barr is being invited to participate.  Of course, the Republicans could strike back by inviting Ralph Nader to those events.  However, the Democrats would not have to worry, since Nader would simply reinforce their theme of corporate control of our government.  Nader would pose no threat to Obama, since Ralph has about as much charisma as a breadstick.  (Nader became a problem for the charisma-impaired Al Gore, although he won’t pose that same threat to Obama.)

Of course, the Democrats would never go along with this strategy.  They are dedicated to the preservation of the two-party system.  To change that, would be to make life more complicated (and expensive) for the lobbyists.

June 9, 2008

Pseudo-moderate, Senator Joseph Lieberman, has been keeping himself in the news.  On June 5, Jake Tapper of ABC News described the encounter between Barack Obama and Lieberman on the Senate floor on June 4, when Obama returned to the Senate as the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee.  Here’s what Tapper had to say about the incident:

They shook hands. But Obama didn’t let go, leading Lieberman – cordially – by the hand across the room into a corner on the Democratic side, where Democratic sources tell ABC News he delivered some tough words for the junior senator from Connecticut, who had just minutes before hammered Obama’s speech before the pro-Israel group AIPAC in a conference call arranged by the McCain campaign. … The two spoke intensely for approximately five minutes, with no one able to hear their conversation. Reporters watched as Obama leaned closely in to Lieberman, whose back was literally up against the wall.

Senator Obama was showing off a physical characteristic we aren’t used to seeing in Democrats.  It’s called a spine.  Since Lieberman’s re-election to the Senate in 2006 as an Independent candidate (after losing the Democratic primary to Ned Lamot) the Democrats have been struggling to keep Joe in their “Big Tent”.  The Senate Democratic Caucus (or Conference) consists of 49 regular Democrats and 2 Independents, one of whom is Joe “The Tool” Lieberman, who calls himself an “Independent Democrat”.  The Democrats are desperate to maintain their 51-percent majority in the Senate, so they have been doing all they can to make sure The Tool is a happy camper.  All that changed when Barack Obama became the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee.  Such notable individuals as former speechwriter for George H. W. Bush, Peggy Noonan and even Rupert Murdoch have predicted a “Democratic landslide” in the 2008 elections.   The Tool has been throwing his weight around quite a bit with his endorsement of John McCain.  Obama has made it clear that Lieberman’s star is fading quickly and he is being cut loose —  now.

As the junior Senator from Connecticut, Lieberman has worked his way onto the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, including its Subcommittees on: Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection (where he is Chairman), and the Subcommittee on Public Sector Solutions to Global Warming, Oversight, and Children’s Health Protection.  He is also on the following Senate Committees: Small Business and Entrepreneurship, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (where he is Chairman), as well as the Senate Armed Services Committee.  If the predicted Democratic landslide occurs — watch The Tool lose all of these appointments.

As a defector from the Democratic Party, The Tool is not only campaigning for John McCain, but he has joined the ranks of those partisans who refer to the Democratic Party as the “Democrat” party.  Accordingly, he has a vested interest in seeing that such a landslide does not occur and that Barack Obama has no “coattails” in the 2008 election, which would add more Democratic Senators, making The Tool a useless commodity.  As a result, Lieberman is doing all he can to sabotage Obama’s election possibilities. Anyone who has the chutzpah to call himself “bipartisan” or a “moderate” while talking about a “Democrat Party” would do well to read Hendrik Hertzberg’s article in the June 9, 2008 issue of The New Yorker.  (You can read it online for free.)

On the day after The Tool was taken to the woodshed by Obama, Lieberman issued an e-mail to his “Fellow McCain Supporters”.  He noted that he had previously been “the Democrat Party’s nominee for Vice-President” and went on to note that he was creating and chairing a new “grassroots organization”, called “Citizens for McCain”.  He described this group as “an organization within the McCain campaign for people who put country before political party and support the candidate for President who has a proven record of bipartisanship”.  His first misrepresentation in this e-mail was to mis-characterize this group as a “grassroots organization”.  A look on Wikipedia.org will tell us the following about the meaning of the term “grassroots”:

A grassroots movement (often referenced in the context of a political movement) is one driven by the constituents of a community. The term implies that the creation of the movement and the group supporting it is natural and spontaneous, highlighting the differences between this and a movement that is orchestrated by traditional power structures.

Sorry Joe, your group doesn’t qualify as “grassroots”, since it was orchestrated by a Senator, already working from “within the McCain campaign” and who is a member of numerous Senate Committees, including the Armed Services Committee.  The previously-quoted Wikipedia entry goes on to state:

Faking a grassroots movement is known as astroturfing.  Astroturfing—as the name suggests—is named after a brand of artificial grass, AstroTurf.

By January, 2009, The Tool will have lost all of his Committee memberships and he will likely find himself as a powerless backbencher.  When his Senate career ends four years later, he might be able to start a lucrative, new career:  selling AstroTurf.

June 5, 2008

One of life’s important lessons, that not enough of us learn, is to quit while you’re ahead.  Some people take the term “ahead” to mean “ahead”, as in “leading” or “beating the game”.  Most of us other, more humble, people take that word in this context to mean “before you have lost very much”.  This week, both Hillary and Bill Clinton have demonstrated such ignominious failures in this lesson as to have simultaneously destroyed the Clinton brand.

Hillary should have abandoned her Presidential campaign at the point when it became mathematically impossible for her to gain enough delegates to win.  That was back on March 13, when Dick Morris (who had been Bill Clinton’s political consultant for his 1996 re-election bid) and others made that observation.  Whatever motivated her to continue on, ultimately resulted in the dissociative speech she gave on the night of Tuesday, June 3, 2008, when Barack Obama earned enough delegates to guarantee himself the Democratic Presidential nomination.  She spoke to her relatively small audience of sycophants and losers, as though she had just assured the nomination for herself.  On the following day, she was faced with conference calls from 28 House members and 8 Senators, both pledged delegates and superdelegates for Clinton.  According to Howard Fineman of Newsweek, these people made it clear that they were beyond disappointment that she had not given a concession speech.  They were outraged by her arrogance and gave her an ultimatum:  Hillary must release them as her delegates, or they would endorse Obama, regardless of her consent.  Hillary agreed to a concession event, to take place on Saturday, June 7, at which time she would formally endorse Obama.

Invoking the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as an excuse for staying in the race was bad enough.  However, here we had that same loser, unwilling to concede to the man for whom she had raised the prospect (or perhaps, fantasy) of assassination in her own mind and shared it with the public.  So …  was she going to wait for Sirhan, Jr. or what?  The Senators and House members, upon the suggestion of a (now former) Clinton advisor, made that “wake-up call” to Hillary a little later than 3 a.m.  The message was clear:  she had overplayed her hand.  She was now toxic.  Continued association with her could spell political doom.

Meanwhile, back at the Chappaqua ranch, (actually while in Milbank, South Dakota) Bill had already shocked the world with his reaction to the Vanity Fair article about him, linking him to the steamy-hot Ms. Gina Gershon.  Mayhill Fowler of The Huffington Post asked him if that story had been weighing on his mind.   Bill became unhinged.  Unlike the charming Bill Clinton we once knew, he called the Vanity Fair author (Todd Purdum) a “sleazy” “dishonest” “scumbag” and linked Obama operatives to some sort of Vanity Fair conspiracy against him.  Bill went on to lash out at the media in general.

Is anyone really going to want to pay Bill’s high-dollar speaking fees after this?  He has now sunk below “B-list”.

This is really sad.  Bill was always such a charismatic fellow.  Even after Monicagate, many of us still loved him.  This charismatic quality, contrasted with Bill’s recent antics and his history of temper tantrums, brings to mind the subject of what is called “borderline personality disorder”.  Many people with this disorder are considered quite charismatic, most of the time.  Then Dr. Jekyll suddenly becomes Mr. Hyde.  Research that subject on webmd.com or your favorite resource.  Think about Bill when you read it.

With Hillary toxic and Bill “off the charts” nuts, there is now little left of the Clinton brand.  This could have been avoided if Hillary had just faced up to the fact that she lost, back when many astute observers said she did.  Instead, both Hillary and Bill fought on, destroying the Clinton brand in the process.  Sound familiar?  According to Dick Morris, Bill could have settled the sexual harassment claim of Paula Jones, although it was Hillary who opposed this.  Monicagate could have been completely avoided if Bill had just settled Paula Jones’ claim.   Then, as now, it was Hillary’s decision to ride the scandal down the toilet.  In the Jones case, it resulted in Monicagate and impeachment. Now in 2008, Hillary’s decision to ride her Presidential campaign down the toilet has destroyed the precious Clinton brand, which was supposed to bring her to The White House.  You have to know how to quit when you’re ahead – and that means:  “before you have lost very much”.

June 2, 2008

The time is quickly approaching for the person who wants to be that special, “Last Superdelegate” for Barack Obama (the one who puts him over the top for the nomination) to be ready to jump up.

It is estimated that after Tuesday, Obama will be approximately 20 delegates short of the new number for winning the nomination: 2118.   Once Tuesday’s results are tabulated, there will be a scramble to become  .  .  .  not the first post-primary season superdelegate to endorse him – but to be the twentieth.  It’s a lot like a radio station that offers free concert tickets to the twentieth caller.  Much of that same science will come into play on Tuesday night.  Superdelegates aspiring to be “kingmaker” would be well-advised to consult with those who have won concert tickets from radio stations.

As the Clinton campaign winds down, it is interesting to study where the whole thing went wrong.  My opposition to her candidacy has been my revulsion at the idea of yet another “Dynastic Presidency”.   Nevertheless, I would be delighted to see another “Clinton vs. Bush” Presidential campaign (that is:  Roger Clinton vs. Neil Bush — the “cocaine scandal” candidate vs. the “Asian hooker scandal” candidate).  The “attack ads” would be delightful, although not very “family friendly”.  It would be my kind of campaign.

As for the mistakes by the Clinton campaign, my favorite area is the subject of body language.  Were he still alive, Marshall McLuhan might be willing to confirm my theory that the advent of HDTV has enhanced the obviousness of existential inauthenticity.   Existential authenticity has been one of Hillary’s weak areas throughout this campaign.  I believe that HDTV has made it more obvious.  By McLuhan’s terms, HDTV would be a “hot” medium (as opposed to the “cool” analog TV, which required the viewer to put together a “mosaic” from a limited number of screen lines forming a TV picture).  Once in the HD milieu, a political candidate’s body language becomes crucial.  Here are a couple of Hillary Clinton’s worst “body language” mistakes:

— The Nod:  She would do this herself when emphasizing a point she wanted her audience to accept.  It was reminiscent of a shoe salesman’s saying:  “Those shoes are you!  Just put a tongue pad in there and your heels won’t slip out anymore” (while nodding affirmatively).  Eventually, the change was made to have a “designated nodder”.  With this strategy, a guy would stand behind Hillary and start nodding whenever she was making an important point.  Neither tactic worked because HDTV gave it all away.  This is a different world from 1992, when Bill first won.

— Waving to a Phantom “Old Friend” in the Audience: Chelsea was coached to use this tactic, as well.  She would do it right after Hillary did it.  Each would pretend to recognize an “old friend” in the audience; point at the phantom; say “hi”; smile in an exaggerated way and wave.  Most of the cruel, “crazy face” pictures of Hillary were captured during these moments.  They were extremely obvious in hi-def.

History will look back on the 2008 campaign as the first HDTV Presidential campaign.  The candidates may not yet know it, but they are in a technological and political minefield where they are the pioneers.