Karl Rove’s Strategy for Attacking Obama -How Democrats Can Respond

This piece by Democratic communications analyst James Vega was originally published on August 8, 2008 in "The democratic strategist," and is of the greatest interest today, on the eve of Republican Convention's opening in St.Paul (MN).

______

With the recent appointment of Steven Schmidt and several other staffers to the highest levels of the McCain campaign, the political protégés of Karl Rove have now taken almost complete control. As a result Rove’s basic political strategy has been elevated to the core approach of the campaign.

At its heart, Karl Rove’s approach for the last 20 years has been an essentially class-based attack on Democrats – one that portrays them as representing an out-of-touch, educated elite who have little in common with average Americans. In this strategy, individual Democrats are not simply wrong about specific issues; their errors all arise from deep, pathological defects in their basic values and character.

This general strategy can be traced back to the campaigns of Richard Nixon and George Wallace in 1968 and 1972. But one of Rove’s distinct additions was to recognize that attacks on a candidates’ character must be psychologically plausible – they must be fine-tuned to exploit weaknesses the opposing candidate actually appears to reflect in his behavior.

In this regard, Rove has always had an exceptionally sinister aptitude (one that is reminiscent of Hannibal Lector’s perverse but penetrating form of psychological insight) for being able to recognize subtle human weaknesses and frailties. For example, although Al Gore and John Kerry were both products of relatively advantaged, prep school environments and were clearly not working class “ordinary guys”, they were nonetheless quite distinct. On the one hand Gore was vulnerable to being portrayed as somewhat pompous, self-important and egotistic. Kerry, in contrast, invited the caricature of being a long-winded, detached, emotionally remote New England Yankee. The overall class-based frame worked for both men, but the political hit-man’s art lay in recognizing and exploiting the subtle variations between them.

Obama presents an even more complex challenge. Although meditative, professorial, articulate and elegant, he nonetheless does not fit the image of a typical left-wing college professor (or, for that matter, of a Black militant, a well-to-do New York limousine liberal or corrupt Chicago pol).

The solution the Rove team developed, only days after taking control of the McCain campaign, was to portray Obama as a resident of the rarified world of the “Hollywood movie star liberals” – a pampered universe of exclusive health and exercise clubs, expensive hotel suites and fancy bottled water. The implication was that, like other Hollywood stars, Obama must be “self-infatuated and effete” or “vain and out of touch” or “effete, elite and equivocal” – in short, a weak and vain man without real character; a male fashion model living a movie stars’ life and not the real life of ordinary Americans.

This class-based caricature of Obama is important for the McCain campaign because it provides a critical psychological, character-based foundation to support a very disparate set of accusations – that he does not really care about America’s solders, that he lacks real patriotism, that he “plays the race card” and so on. Using this “typical Hollywood liberal” stereotype, it is not even necessary to explicitly contrast Obama with the “heartland virtues” of John McCain who the Rove team directly links with such traditional movie-hero figures as John Wayne.

How can Obama best respond to this line of attack? The kernel of truth which the attack exploits is the fact that Obama is most obviously not an “ordinary” or “average” guy in any meaningful way and any attempt on his part to present himself as such necessarily appears completely unconvincing and condescending.

But it is a profound misunderstanding of “ordinary people” to think that they require a candidate to exactly resemble them in order for him or her to win their respect and support. On the contrary, individuals who excel and achieve success through hard work, perseverance and dedication are greatly admired by most Americans, so long as they continue to genuinely respect and care about ordinary voters if they enter political life. Average voters genuinely admire upward mobility and success if it is honestly and honorably achieved.

And in fact, Obama’s life story provides a powerful core narrative that supports precisely this alternative way of understanding him. It is composed of three elements:

1. A far from easy or pampered early life and a youth marked by confusion, mistakes, bad choices and lack of direction.

2. A remarkable personal turn-around, build on the foundation of the incredibly hard work, perseverance and dedication that is required to get a law degree at a top university.

3. A decision to turn his back on the “easy life” of a professor or private attorney and to try instead to find a role of service to the community.

This is simply not the life story of a typical pampered Hollywood star or vacuous celebrity. On the contrary, it is a quintessentially American success story of youthful error followed by redemption and success through hard work and an ultimate decision to seek a way to contribute to society.

The McCain campaign’s attempt to fit Obama into the “vacuous Hollywood star” framework simply will not stick if Obama’s unique biography can be correctly presented. Between now and the convention, Democrats must make a coordinated and concerted effort to define a simple core narrative along these lines – one that can be driven home every single time the McCain campaign attempts to stigmatize Obama with their utterly fraudulent depiction of his character.

____

McCain-Palin's Rebranding of The Party Remains Doubtful

It appears that rejuvenating the image of the Republican party, and making its brand more popular among women is not as easy as it seems. The first polls taken after Palin's choice on Friday show that among Democratic women - including those who, according to mainstream media should have been truly disappointed that Hillary Clinton did not win the Democratic nomination - 9% say Palin makes them more likely to support McCain, 15% LESS likely (Gallup).

According to Rasmussen, women soundly rejected her, 48% to 25% in answering to the question: "Is she ready to be president?

Overall, likely voters expressed a favorable impression of her by a 53/26 margin, but there was a severe gender gap on this: Men embraced her at 58% to 23%, while for women it was 48/30.

The widespread uncertainty about whether Palin is qualified to be president amounts to the lowest vote of confidence in a running mate since the elder George Bush chose then-Indiana senator Dan Quayle to join his ticket in 1988. 

Is that surprising? Only for CNN and FOX pundits (as Frank Rich pointed out in his excellent column yesterday). The long trend of American politics are well-established, and one of them is that women tend to vote Democratic because of Republican Party's staunch opposition to abortion. As a large majority of women are pro-choice, it is only natural that they vote for the party who supports their rights in the political arena. Palin is the darling of pro-life women (and men), a constituency that was skeptical of McCain tepid attitude toward their crusade to outlaw abortion. In this respect, it is another move to consolidate the Republican base, not to hunt in the Democratic pastures.

The problem of this strategy is obvious: this year, the number of citizens who identify with the GOP is much smaller than the number of those who consider themselves Democrats. The gap is about 29% to 37%. This means that bringing to the polls all the faithful supporters of the two parties will translate in a large victory for the Democrats, assuming that Independents split 50-50 between McCain and Obama.

____

Charlie Cook Thinks That...

Charlie Cook, the founder of the well respected "Cook Political Report" wrote six weeks ago:

"My father turns 90 years old next month and has joked that at his age, he doesn't buy green bananas anymore.

The folly of a 71-year old nominee picking a green, relatively inexperienced running mate seems much more serious, particularly if that presidential nominee sells as his strong suit that national security credentials are his "raison d'etre" for the presidency.

In a very challenging national security environment, putting someone on McCain's ticket who only has experience heading the Florida or Minnesota National Guard would seem a stretch given McCain's rationale for the presidency."

It turns out that McCain selected not the governor from Florida (pop. 18,251,000) nor the one from Minnesota (pop. 5,200,000) but the chief of ALASKA National Guard (population unknown, but a lot of salmon).

___

McCain chooses a female version of Dan Quayle

And here is the "hockey mom." After the "security moms" of 2004, Republicans try to do some rebranding of the party with Sarah Palin, the youngish Vogue-covergirl-outdoor maniac-devote-conservative-NRA-faithful- Governor of Alaska. Nice try.

However, Palin seems more or less a female version of Dan Quayle, the youngish-conservative-NRA-faithful-Senator from Indiana picked by Bush father in 1988.

This year, however, an obviously unqualified candidate as Vice president will hardly reinforce the ticket. If national security is the raison d'etre for the Republican case for McCain, the question is how the Arizonan would rationalize picking a running mate with even less foreign policy and national security experience than Obama, or Quayle. With a vice president who will be a 72-year-old heart's beat away from the presidency, how does McCain explain selecting someone with zero experience in what he says is so important?

And what about health care, social security, subprime mortgages, or closing factories? Voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Michigan will not be thrilled by a fiscal conservative who has barely set foot on the 48 states south of the Canadian border.

____

Republicans May Postpone Their Convention Because of Hurricane

[Courtesy of Ann Telnaes From the Cartoonist Group]


Hurricane Gustav will strike Florida, Louisiana and Texas.


____

Will Obama Say Something About Wages?

Among political scientists, it is a truism that many working-class white men left the Democratic Party in 1968, voted largely Republican in 1972, came back home for a moment in 1976, and switched to Ronald Reagan in 1980. Many pundits think that Bill Clinton "won many of them back to the Democratic Party in 1992," but data do not support this opinion. Exit polls actually show that in 1992 Bill Clinton won about the same share of white men as Michael Dukakis in 1988. It was Ross Perot who moved many of them away from the Republican candidate and undid George H.W. Bush.
Now it appears that, with Barack Obama heading the Democratic ticket, the party's trouble with working-class whites remains. Stan Greenberg (Bill Clinton's pollster) returned to working-class Macomb County, Detroit's suburb, a month ago for a new round of polling and focus groups.
According to Harold Meyerson's report in today's Washington Post the economic anxiety has skyrocketed -- understandably enough, with the auto industry in shambles and not much coming along to take its place. Their No. 1 concern is the off shoring of jobs, with rising gas, food and health-care costs running a close second. Their ideal presidential candidate, Greenberg says, would be an "outsider, middle-class" senator who expresses their anger at their betrayal by America's economic and political elites. And race is still a key hurdle for many residents.
In Greenberg's survey of Macomb, Obama is trailing John McCain by 7 percentage points, which in fact means that he's doing better at this point of the campaign than John Kerry and Al Gore were doing four and eight years ago. But that may not be enough to win in key States like Michigan, Ohio and Indiana. According to Princeton's Larry Bartels, outside the territory of the 11 Confederate States, "the Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among white men was 40% in 1952 and 39% in 2004."
One must realize that Democrats have been the party of minorities since 1972, and they did not really compete for white men since the Ford-Carter race in 1976. In 2008, with the Republican Party and its standard bearer remarkably unpopular, a war led by Republicans that has lasted longer than Second World War, during a struggling economy, and at the 40-year mark of the Republican majority (no presidential coalition has ever lasted more than four decades: the New Deal one survived only 36), Democrats have their best opportunity in a generation.
This year, white men initially backed Hillary Clinton: their first instinct was to be with the front runner. But unlike white women, as Obama became more widely known, white men had no stake in the symbolism of her candidacy. Therefore, they were more willing to swing to the senator of Illinois.
Many of these men casting Democratic ballots today are of the 37 percent of white males who voted for John Kerry in 2004, a share of the vote that left the Democratic candidate 3 million votes behind George Bush. Yet, so far Obama doesn't know exactly how to reach out to them, a problem critical to a victory in November. In John McCain, the Democrats find a daunting opponent in competing for white men's vote. He is the embodiment of much they admire.
A simple look at the 2004 exit polls provides a telling lesson for Obama.Using education level as an indicator of social class, you find that white male Democrats without college educations are roughly three times more likely than those who graduated college to value that the candidate who "cares about people like me." In comparison, those who graduated college are roughly three times more likely than those who did not value that the candidate "is intelligent." White male Democrats who graduated college were also three times more likely to say the issue that mattered most was the war in Iraq, where Obama benefited from his early stance against the war. It is no surprise that they would be more sympathetic to Obama today.
It will be this presidential election that tests whether Democrats can turn working class men’s frustration with Republicans into a new majority. In order to to that, however, they must offer something more than platitudes on the economy: it's the big issue of deepening economic inequality that the Democrats must confront. Will Obama say something about raising wages?

______________

John McCain And Gas Prices At The Pump

For the first time in months, Gallup credits John McCain with a statistically insignificant lead over Barack Obama: 46% to 44%. However, this small growth of support for the Republican candidate - unexpected during a Democratic convention - has more to do with the falling of gas prices than with McCain's performances.
If one looks at another Gallup's poll, the one asking voters if they believe that "the economy is getting worse," the answer was "Yes" for 79% of the Republicans in June, while it is only 64% today. This is the real "bounce" of McCain in the polls: his largely skeptical base is seeing a modest ray of hope, entirely linked to the oil prices (felled from $147 a barrel to $112 in six weeks).
This is not the entire story, however. Democrats and Independents have a far more negative perception of the economy than the ideologically-driven Republicans. Eighty-six per cent of the Democrats and 81% of Independents think that the economy is going downhill and Gallup comments: "In this regard, it would appear Democrats are well-positioned to pick up independent support after their convention since both groups seem to share a great deal of pessimism about the future direction of the economy. However, this does not necessarily mean the majority of Americans will share the Democrats' enthusiasm about their proposals for reinvigorating the economy. For example, Americans generally share the Democrats' view that the "wealthy" do not pay enough in taxes.On the other hand, when given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing consumers today, 84% of Americans prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and jobs while only 13% prefer that the government respond by taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly. How Democrats end up balancing these two seemingly contradictory notions may play a significant role in how they fare this November."
Independents will favor Barack Obama, but only if he does something convincing to address the troubles of the economy on two fronts: gas prices at the pump and the mortgages catastrophe.


____

Movie of The Week: "The Ten Commandments" (1956)

Republicans are running a string of TV ads on the theme "Obama as Messiah," using clips from Cecil B. DeMille "The Ten Commandments," and making fun of him. There are several interesting points to explore in this choice.

First, it is true that Obama received, for a couple of months, a very favorable attention by mainstream media. Maybe it wasn't "adoration," as McCain's campaign calls it, but it was a widespread attitude. The reason, however, is hardly the one advanced by Republicans (the cult of celebrities - they compared Obama to socialite Paris Hilton).

In February, New Republic's John Judis put that attitude in context: "Obama is the candidate of the new--a "new generation," a "new leadership," a "new kind of politics," to borrow phrases he has used. But, in emphasizing newness, Obama is actually voicing a very old theme. When he speaks of change, hope, and choosing the future over the past, when he pledges to end racial divisions or attacks special interests, Obama is striking chords that resonate deeply in the American psyche. He is making a promise to voters that is as old as the country itself: to wipe clean the slate of history and begin again from scratch."

Judis continued: "Early generations of Americans became captivated by the idea that they could create a future without reference to the past. The revolutionaries who fought for America's independence saw themselves as breaking not only with the Old World but with history itself. "The case and circumstances of America present themselves as in the beginning of a world," Thomas Paine wrote in 1792. Thomas Jefferson believed the new nation should regularly renew itself, arguing that, if necessary, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed ... with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

This issue of an America always ready to start again, to be "reborn" without reference to the past has been thoroughly analyzed in the past, at least since the importantR. W. B. Lewis's book of 1955 The American Adam. However, it is not clear how much this feeling operates with success in politics: William Jennings Bryan's hopes of "regenerating the Republic" were dashed in 1896. Franklyn Roosevelt did prevail in 1932, and was able to found a new political order, but in more recent times the political system appears to be insensitive to any desire for change. In 1968, "change" meant the election of Richard Nixon, a vice-president between 1953 and 1961. In 1980, "change" was the arrival at the White House of Ronald Reagan, an astute repackaging of Barry Goldwater's ideas of 1964. In 1992, "change" allowed the bizarre Texas millionaire H. Ross Perot to collect 19% of the popular vote but the Presidency went to Bill Clinton, who -confronted to a hostile Congress- never had a real chance of implementing his ideas. And today, it's not a given that "change" will deliver the White House to Barack Obama, who faces the formidable Republican war machine.

In other words, in 2008 Americans do crave for change, but their political system seems to be well insulated against it. Maybe we should start thinking less to the horse race between the candidates and more to the structures that channel political aspirations and movements.

The second interesting point is that the Republican party has built its political fortunes on a close relationship with evangelicals. In November, McCain's courtship notwithstanding, this constituency may well have a different attitude: the Senator from Arizona never was "their" candidate, and many of them have been disappointed by George Bush's policies. What will be their reaction to commercials making fun of Moses? Evangelicals are not know to be a fun-loving brigade: they believe the Bible to be literally true, and when Charlton Heston makes the Red Sea open to allow the Chosen People to pass, in their mind that is what really happened.

Therefore, Steve Schmidt (Karl Rove's protege who is the architect of these commercials) is skating on thin ice: the ads can be fun only for non-believers, while they may irritate devote Christians, of whom in the Republican electorate there are many. 

The ad's conclusion is somehow risky, too. By declaring Obama "not ready to lead," Republican operatives forget that in a few weeks there will be three debates between the candidates. As Obama is an excellent performer on stage, he usually appears calm and in control of the issues, it is quite possible that voters asking themselves "Is he ready to lead?" might answer "Yes, he is." This is not necessarily true of John McCain, whose penchant for spectacular gaffes is well known. A deeply religious people may decide that it is better to have a black Moses than someone who is not able to remember how many houses he owns (an attitude more in tune with those of Egypt's Pharaohs).

____

Mobilization, volunteers and turnout: Will that make the difference?

While the media are transfixed with matters like the choice of candidates vice presidents, the conventions and the polls almost-perfect parity, we should turn our attention to a far more interesting matter: Who will be able to fully mobilize his base on November 4?

The question is interesting because Republicans won the last two elections giving up independents and running campaigns whose goal was to bring every single evangelical, military man, security mom, tax-hater millionaire, and gun-obsessed crank to the polls. In other words, Karl Rove's strategy was based upon political cynicism (highly negative campaigns depress the turnout) and upon technical virtuosity (the so-called micro targeting of segments of the electorate potentially leaning Republican). This combination allowed GOP's candidates to bring to the polls all the faithful who, with the help of the over-representation of Republican-leaning rural states in the electoral college, and some tricks here and there, propelled George Bush to the White House.

At this game, the Democrats were handicapped by their poor choice of candidates, by their inability to conduct aggressive campaigns, by their lack of solid, easy-to-understand, programs. Nevertheless, they were able to mobilize an important number of young people in 2004, and this year Obama should bring millions more to the polls. Will this be enough to make the difference?

First, let's focus on some general factors that influence turnout.

The perceived closeness of elections has a positive effect on the turnout. Citizens who believe their candidate can win are enthusiastically standing in line for hours. Citizens who feel that the guy they support is doomed to defeat are less motivated to do the same.

This latter feeling tends to have a cumulative effect were numerous messages from trusted sources exacerbate pessimism among supporters, if for example the media tell voters that one candidate has no chances. The closeness effect is more strongly felt by the challenger than the incumbent. This means that the opposition party will see greater mobilization if the election is considered close.

Another factor in determining turnout is the state of the economy, and during the run up to the election, a topic explored by Daniel Stevens in his 2007 paper Mobilization, Demobilization and the Economy in American Elections in the British Journal of Political Science.

Depending on the incumbent party, the economy has different factors. Democrats are more interested in unemployment numbers and joblessness, where Republicans are more closely tied to inflation. Bad economies have a demobilizing effect on the supporters of the incumbent party (as it is the case in 2008). High inflation demobilizes Republicans and mobilizes Democrats, to a limited extent, while high joblessness drives down Democratic turnout. Obama should play up the bad inflation numbers to help depress Republican turnout.

What is Obama doing in the field?

First, his campaign is registering voters. Then he is contacting potential voters via phones, mail, and volunteers' contacts. The registration of voters is very important as people can vote only if they are registered. Being registered and identifying with a particular party is also positively associated with casting a vote for that party (and, this year, self-identified Democrats outnumber Republicans 41% to 31%). However, it is also true that for irregular voters, those who do not vote in every election, the longer the time between registration and voting day the less chance that person chooses to vote. That is why the second part of Obama’s game plan is important. 

The most effective way to motivate voters is through face to face contact. Obama’s field offices and volunteers going door to door will have, potentially, the greatest impact on turnout. The two big studies regarding the effectiveness of the door-to-door canvassing were conducted by Yale’s Donald P. Green and Alan S. Gerber. Their findings indicated a significant increase in turnout: 12 successful face-to-face contacts translated into one additional vote. So for every twelve people that are contacted Obama gains a vote. That is 83 votes per 1000 face-to-face contacts. Everything depends on how many volunteers you have, in how many locations, for how long.

Obama clearly plans to bust the turnout records in the states he targets with large scale ground games, that are several because of his large fund-raising advantage. Given that the GOP base should have a lower turn out, due not only to the economic factors but also to a general tepidness towards their candidate, the surge in Obama turnout could be the difference in several states where Gore and Kerry didn't have a chance like Virginia, Indiana, even Montana or North Dakota. 

McCain has not been investing heavily in the ground game and is instead focusing mostly on negative TV ads, somehow effective so far. There is some evidence that negative advertising has a demobilizing effect on the casual or independent voter, and the whole question is if Obama's effort to mobilize will be stronger or weaker of Republican efforts to demobilize.

It is important to add that the effects of contact are fully felt only in the days immediately preceding the election. The effectiveness of the contacts now may be less. However, Obama’s ground game will indeed be a very important part of this election and this is why polls at this time are much less importance than journalists and pundits tend to believe.Turnout alone will not be enough for Obama to overcome McCain but it will show its importance in the swing states.

Obama, possible Vicepresidents, and swing states/3

After the first installment of this series, many readers have been asking: "What's going on in Indiana?" Today, there is a new poll there, showing John McCain ahead 50% to 44%. As we mentioned, Indiana has historically been a very red state and it seems unlikely Obama might win it this year, with or without Evan Bayh as a running mate.

Senator Biden came back from Georgia and, again, Washington DC is whispering that he will be the candidate Vice president. Maybe. However, this would make Obama's campaign even more similar to the traditional, and losing, campaigns of the past 30 years. A month of hard-hitting Republican ads erased his advantage in many key states, and his lead in the electoral college.

----

Obama, possible Vicepresidents, and swing states/2

Yesterday, Washington DC was in a frenzy about Senator Joe Biden being the happy one chosen by Obama as VP. However, Senator Biden left to Georgia on a fact-finding mission, and it would be rather odd for Obama announcing his choice while the candidate is abroad, and not at hand for a photo opportunity. 

That leads us to the question: what about the swing states? Basically, Obama needs a state with at least 11 electoral votes, and the obvious candidate would be Indiana. Advantage n. 1: it is close to his home turf, Illinois, where he enjoys a double-digit advantage over McCain. Advantage n. 2: the junior senator there is Evan Bayh, a fifty-something politician who looks younger than his age, is a popular former governor, and is the scion of a respected former senator, Birch Bayh. Advantage n. 3: Bayh has a moderate record, is fond of bipartisanship, and would reinforce Obama's appeal to independent voters.

It's a deal? Not so fast.

Disadvantage n. 1 is that Indiana didn't vote for a Democrat as President since 1964: maybe it will do it again this year, but it's not a safe bet. Disadvantage n. 2:his wife's work on seven corporate boards that paid her more than $837,000 last year and her firm, WellPoint Inc., is part of a medical research partnership awarded a $24.7 million federal grant in May after much lobbying by the Indiana delegation in Congress. NOT a good start when Ethics in Washington is a major concern of voters. Disadvantage n. 3: the militant wing of the Democratic party hates Bayh, who has an habit of voting with the Bush administration in foreign policy matters, and let it known by campaigning furiously against him in the blogosphere.

That leaves us with only one swing state: Virginia, 13 electoral votes that would propel Obama, if things go smoothly, to the White House. Advantage n. 1: the demographic structure of the state changed in the last years, and it became more a Washington's suburb with many youngish liberal voters (in its northern part) and less a backward southern state solidly republican. Advantage n. 2: in the last two years it elected a democratic senator who is a former Republican, Jim Webb, and a popular governor, Tim Kaine. Advantage n. 3: a southern personality in the ticket would appeal to voters in other states that are in play, like Florida.

Here we are! Not quite.

Disadvantage n. 1: again, the state didn't vote for a Democrat as President since 1964. Disadvantage n. 2: the most interesting politician, former Reagan's Secretary of Navy Jim Webb, is not interested in the job. Disadvantage n. 3: Tim Kaine is a nice guy, but he is a first-term governor and he is virtually unknown at the national level.

All this leaves Obama with few choices. Aside from Clinton herself, or Biden, there is only one Democrat who has the right profile, comes from the SouthWest, and has some international experience: former governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson. It would not bring to Obama the 5 electoral votes of his state (New Mexico should go for the Democrats anyway) but he is a latino, an important constituency. He is a former ambassador and was in the Clinton's cabinet, that means experience. 

Richardson could be a good choice, but in these matters only one opinion counts: Obama's. And he may want to surprise supporters and voters alike...

Obama, possible Vicepresidents, and swing states/1

In less than a week, the Democratic convention will open in Denver, and before that Obama should pick his Vice-President. The debate over the possible choices has been raging since May, when it became clear that he was the nominee. There was much speculation about Hillary Clinton, but of course this was an impossible choice, for obvious reasons (there must be some mutual respect and trust in the ticket).

Removing Hillary from the short list automatically eliminates every other woman, so the Governor of Kansas Kathleen Sebelius is not an option.

Basically, what remains is the choice between an experienced politician (namely, Senator Biden of Delaware) or someone younger, who would stress the message of change that Obama wants to convey. As Obama is campaigning full time against "business-as-usual" in Washington, DC, Senator Biden is not an option, either.

That shorts the list to someone who would be not too old, not completeley unknown and, possibly, could deliver a swing State.

The reason for this last requirement is that Obama's strategists still boast about a "50-state" strategy, but they know well that, in the end, the race will be closer than expected. They can count on the States where Kerry won in 2004: that is a solid Democratic bloc. Obama, however, is struggling in many swing states, not to mention the "red" ones, and they cannot take many risks.

That bring us, of all places, to Iowa, that joined New Mexico as one of the only two states that voted for President Bush in 2004 after favoring Al Gore four years earlier. Bush over John Kerry by a thin 0.7 per cent. As public opinion has turned strongly against Bush since then, boosting Democrats’ hopes of returning the state to their column, where they had prevailed in the four elections from 1988 through 2000, this is an obvious reason to work there. Just adding Iowa’s electoral votes to the 252 that Kerry had means that Obama is sitting on 259 electoral votes, 11 short of the needed majority of 270.

Iowa doesn' need to have someone in the ticket because Obama built there a strong, well-organized campaign in January, in order to win Iowa’s caucuses, while McCain took politically unpopular positions on key farm-state issues, and skipped the state, a decision for which he may pay a price in November.

The question, therefore, is: which states have 11 Electoral Votes, or more, and can be won adding a popular native politician to the ticket as VP?

The answer tomorrow.

Obama and McCain, Religion and Politics

Reverend Rick Warren of the Saddleback megachurch in Orange County (CA) must be happy this morning: he has been the first host of a presidential debate. Both candidates agreed to be interviewed by him last night, discussing their faith, and the issues. What is remarkable is the very fact that a democratic candidate appeared in such a forum: in 2000 and 2004, evangelicals were the most solidly republican voting bloc. This year, things may change: while McCain still led among evangelicals before the debate, Obama already had the advantage among non-evangelical Christians, 43 per cent to 31 per cent.

The opportunity was important for Obama, who has not yet completeley overcome the perception that he is a "muslim" (12% of voters believe that) or, partially, a "foreigner," two innuendos that republicans spread with the help of some lunatic fringe's characters like Jerome Corsi.

Public opinion less compliant than many would love

American elections enter in their last lap: within two weeks, both partys will have their nominating conventions, and there are only 48 days left to the moment when polls will open. The media love the format of competion, they crave for personal duels, and nothing excites the journalists pack more than candidates going mano a mano (the bizarre, faux-Italian, slang for "close combat"). This has been even more true this year, when the show has offered TWO competitive horse races: the first between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and the second opposing the latter to John McCain. If you look at Gallup's polls, you see an almost perfectly flat line, usually with Obama 3 points ahead, a dead heat.

This approach neglects the facts that voters, too, want to have their say and hate the focus on "strategy" and "competition" while neglecting the issues. Public opinion remains less compliant that many would love it, and Political Communication is not yet an exact science. While the list of republican successes in manipulating citizens through skillfull propaganda is longer than the Mississippi river, sometimes the "handlers" of politicians fail miserably not because of a lack of professional skill but because they don't register with citizens' fears and hopes. 

One should ask: in 2008, which are the key issues in the minds of voters? According to Rasmussen Reports, "79% of voters think that the Economy is of top importance to them, National Security has moved up to the second spot, a very important issue for 66% of voters, up from 61% last month. a few points ahead of Government Ethics and Corruption, a top issue for 65% of Americans."

These numbers do tell a story: voters want change. Change in Iraq (two thirds want the troops home in a short time). Change in the "benign neglect" Congress and the President adopted toward the economy. Change in the "productivity" of institutions, paralyzed by special interests (a polite word for corporations' lobbysts). All this explains Obama's successes. Voters want to turn the page, and McCain's ability in keeping his candidature afloat will not change that. 

True, Obama has yet to offer much on these very issues, and his trouble in articulating a response about gasoline's prices, and more generally the economy, is evidence of that. But the elections is still his to lose.

HOW MANY RACIST WHITES ARE OUT THERE?

There are a number of good reasons not to trust the polls numbers that give the race as a dead heat. However, it is plain that Obama should have a much larger lead over McCain at this point of the campaign. If he has not, it is partially because the percentage of white voters who cannot bring themselves to vote for a black candidate is much higher than one may think. One estimation puts it as high as 15 percent, and that would be more than all black voters combined, or more than all voters under 24 years old, two reliable Obama's constituencies, as pointed out by The New York Times.

Part of them would vote for the Republicans anyway, but that doesn't mean that this attitude is not present among some Democratic voters as well. In the end, I believe that Obama will win but, all ballots counted, his numbers will be significantly lower than those of the polls.

OBAMA'S COMMENTS ON ENERGY

BACK AT WORK

As you may have noticed, The Marco Polo Review of Books, took a month vacation but we are now back at work. July didn't offer much in the area of political news and polls are exactly where they were when we left on July 1: Obama has a miniscule, but steady, advantage. We shall discuss that in depth. In August we will have both conventions, and the "real" campaign begins. So, wherever you are, stay tuned (even Karpatos' bars now have wireless connections).