GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Reed Galen over at RealClearPolitics makes striking connections between Sen. Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign and that of President Bush’s 2000 and 2004 bids. Of course, we are not talking about ideology or policy proposals…
Ideologically speaking, Barack Obama and George Bush could hardly be more different. Theirs is a dichotomy of Democratic big-government, dovish liberalism and Republican low-tax, free market, hawkish conservatism. But their personalities, when beliefs are removed, are not terribly different to the outside observer. Both shine in tightly-controlled, set-piece environments where the rules of engagement are based on their comfort-level. Although their speaking styles are clearly divergent, their charisma is a defining quality; turning arenas full of people into adoring fans with a turn-of-phrase, wink or thumbs up.
Despite their personal magnetism, though, they are also both clearly uncomfortable in more dynamic situations. Barack Obama in front of a teleprompter and well-screened crowd is a far different candidate than the Barack Obama dealing with Charlie Gibson asking pointed questions during a debate. Obama’s reaction to that particular event also points to another trait he shares with the White House’s current occupant: Neither reacts well to criticism from quarters they believe unworthy to bestow it. Additionally, Obama’s infrequent media availabilities and rare trips to the press cabin of his campaign plane tell us we should expect the same type of minimalist dealings with the fourth estate under a President Obama as we have had under President Bush.
For all his talk promoting post-partisanship and a style of politics that is responsive to public demands, Barack Obama has ran one of the most controlled and, arguably, aloof campaigns in presidential history. Day in and day out, Obama and his surrogates practice message discipline better than any campaign outside of Bush circa 2000 and 2004. In addition, Galen draws a relevant comparison between the two camps in that their efficiency, loyalty, organization, and relentlessness propelled them past their opposition. Obama supporters have demonstrated their impressive capabilities in both voting (dominating caucus after caucus) and fundraising (record-setting donations) for their man.
Yet, what if John McCain can turn these seemingly discouraging factors into positives come November? Like it or not, the media has a soft spot for the Republican nominee. Continuing to offer political reporters and journalists a front row seat on the campaign bus or plane will contrast sharply with Obama’s (relative) reluctance for minimal media contact. As Michael Scherer of Time points out, this certainly does come with added risk. Despite possible pitfalls, however, McCain has an opportunity to paint himself as David to Obama’s Goliath, arguing that the freshman Senator’s dramatic rise to national prestige has clouded his attachment and connection to the everyday voter.
Without a doubt, Obama’s eloquence and prose can make McCain look like a stuttering and cantankerous old man (I am sure some will argue that he is already). But, if Obama agrees to such events, McCain could shine in town-hall formats without a moderator. In fact, exposing Obama to audiences that his campaign has not previously hand-selected would truly do wonders for McCain. A few slip-ups may just tarnish the Chosen One enough to cast off the anchor of an unpopular president and overcome Democratic advantages in organization, fundraising, and party ID. Getting Obama to play McCain’s game, however, will be another story…
May 14th, 2008 at 3:34 am
Great post.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:05 am
I have watched both men in townhall settings and they are both good. What surprised me about Obama is, like McCain, he doesn’t pander. There was a townhall where a young man got up and asked about expanding certain welfare benefits. Obama flatly said no, but that he favored expanding education benefits so the young man could go to school and get a better job. It would be a mistake to assume McCain automatically comes out a winner in a townhall meet-up.
Here is why I believe Obama’s camp wants to do joint appearances. First, if the polls are correct and dems are favored on the issues its not a bad idea to talk about the issues as much as possible and force McCain to defend some unpopular policies. Also, McCain won’t be able to hand the mike over to Phil Gramm to talk taxes or Fiorina to talk trade.
Second, obviously there will be a striking contrast between the two men - age and height are two attributes voters do take not of. Here is how one democratic site described McCain: “An albino dwarf who should go back to the Shire.” That’s harsh even if funny.
Third, and perhaps most important, when Obama and McCain appear together there is an automatic equalling of their statures. That is an awfully big concession.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:47 am
If we are going to compare appearences I’ll put it this way. If I were running for president, I would much rather look like McCain than Obama if that alone is going to determine the winner of the election.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:48 am
And I’d love to see a debate over taxes. Maybe Obama would get another chance to sound completely ridiculous on capital gains.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:14 am
I’d rather look like Obama even if I were not running for president and sure wish I had his brains. And he already has sharpen his answer on capital gains, pointing out that most americans own stock through IRA’s and 401k’s where taxes are deferred and therefore are not affected one way or the other by current capital gains taxes.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Pablo, stocks suffer when capital gains are raised because there is less incentive for investors outside of tax-deferred accounts. So your 401k and IRA’s will be hurt as well. Obama’s tax and trade policies are enough to have me pull my US stocks if it appears inevitable that he’ll win.
I agree that McCain should agree to the townhall formats and see if Obama will actually tell voters what he’s about.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:46 am
I own stocks both in a 401k and IRA and outside. Perhaps I should pay closer attention but taxes have not affected my accounts because I don’t trade frequently. What matters is the economy and for the past few years my accounts have been flat to declining. I would gladly pay a higher tax rate if it also meant my wealth was increasing.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:22 am
You should probably switch financial advisors then… I enjoyed +15% returns on my investment accounts in 2006 & 2007.
If you received no returns, or negative returns on your investments accounts for the past couple of years, the person running those investments should have been run out of town on a rail.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I am a bit tech heavy and while some stocks have done well (like Apple) overall the industry has not faired well. I have a couple mid cap funds and those are ok, but certainly have earned under a 15% return. I wish I had kept my international investments, but I turned domestic because I thought there was a bubble in many international markets.
Finally, the real hit to what little worth I have is my house. It is still worth more than I paid for it, but there are a bunch of properties for sale in my neighborhood that aren’t moving. An neighbor who bought at the height of the market can’t unload it for what he paid.