John McCain: Playing to Stereotype
It's too early to tell how all this will shake out, but it's amazing to me what gifts John McCain has handed the Democrats in the last two weeks.
Flashback to two weeks ago. McCain was closing the gap in the polls and it looked like his character attacks on Barack Obama were starting to gain traction. At the time, Democrats were searching for an effective counter-narrative, a way of attacking McCain's character. There were two promising avenues. The first was to use McCain's clueless comments about the economy to paint him as out-of-touch and oblivious to the problems that middle-class Americans are facing. The second was to make an issue of his temperament, to make the case that he's erratic and hot-headed, that he's someone who acts impulsively and doesn't think things through.
In the week leading up the Democratic convention, the Obama campaign clearly decided to pursue the first narrative. They released commercials highlighting McCain's various quotes about how well the economy is doing. They repeatedly referred to him as out-of-touch. They asked: "how can he fix the economy if he doesn't know its broken." Then, like manna from heaven, McCain committed a timely gaffe. When asked how many houses he owned, he told reporters he'd have to check with his staff. Suddenly, the out-of-touch narrative was catapulted into the mainstream and took on a life of its own.
Then, last week, a number of Obama campaign surrogates began to push the second narrative, that McCain is erratic and does not have the temperament to be president. Obama himself implicitly raised this issue in his acceptance speech, challenging McCain to a debate about who has the better "temperament and judgment" to be president. Then, for the second time in a week, McCain played exactly to stereotype; he made one of the more rash and impulsive decisions of all time: picking a virtually unknown Alaskan governor whom he'd only met once and had barely vetted to be his running mate. By doing so, he again catapulted a negative character narrative into the mainstream. Today's media coverage is almost entirely focused on the issue of McCain's judgment.
Again, it's too early to know how all this will play out. But there's little question that McCain has done much more in the last two weeks to reinforce two potentially harmful character narratives about himself than his opponents possibly could have done on their own. The Obama campaign really couldn't ask for more.
Flashback to two weeks ago. McCain was closing the gap in the polls and it looked like his character attacks on Barack Obama were starting to gain traction. At the time, Democrats were searching for an effective counter-narrative, a way of attacking McCain's character. There were two promising avenues. The first was to use McCain's clueless comments about the economy to paint him as out-of-touch and oblivious to the problems that middle-class Americans are facing. The second was to make an issue of his temperament, to make the case that he's erratic and hot-headed, that he's someone who acts impulsively and doesn't think things through.
In the week leading up the Democratic convention, the Obama campaign clearly decided to pursue the first narrative. They released commercials highlighting McCain's various quotes about how well the economy is doing. They repeatedly referred to him as out-of-touch. They asked: "how can he fix the economy if he doesn't know its broken." Then, like manna from heaven, McCain committed a timely gaffe. When asked how many houses he owned, he told reporters he'd have to check with his staff. Suddenly, the out-of-touch narrative was catapulted into the mainstream and took on a life of its own.
Then, last week, a number of Obama campaign surrogates began to push the second narrative, that McCain is erratic and does not have the temperament to be president. Obama himself implicitly raised this issue in his acceptance speech, challenging McCain to a debate about who has the better "temperament and judgment" to be president. Then, for the second time in a week, McCain played exactly to stereotype; he made one of the more rash and impulsive decisions of all time: picking a virtually unknown Alaskan governor whom he'd only met once and had barely vetted to be his running mate. By doing so, he again catapulted a negative character narrative into the mainstream. Today's media coverage is almost entirely focused on the issue of McCain's judgment.
Again, it's too early to know how all this will play out. But there's little question that McCain has done much more in the last two weeks to reinforce two potentially harmful character narratives about himself than his opponents possibly could have done on their own. The Obama campaign really couldn't ask for more.
posted by A.L. at 12:19 PM
6 Comments:
If I believed in the way liberals define words, one could possibly see things the same way: that McCain is out of touch, and that he's erratic.
I don't believe liberals define words and phrases correctly, and never did. As far as being "out of touch", Obama is a wealthy man. Maybe not in the vain of the McCain family (or the Kennedys or Kerrys), but wealthy. He is now hugely separated from those he claims to represent. Who cares? He and his wife earned their money, did so through hard work, and nobody should take that away, especially the government. You could argue that they didn't grow up the same, and you'd be right; Obama grew up middle class and McCain was a Navy brat. So that kinds of clears things on that.
Liberals call McCain erratic. Uh-huh. Po-ta-toe, Po-tah-toe. I would call it ballsy, and not at all erratic. In fact, I would call Obama's picking of Biden as extremely ordinary and boring, since Biden is an old version of Obama, except more long-winded. I would say that Obama matches the liberal definition of a conservative: someone who is stuck in the past and unwilling to change. Because liberals in this country haven't changed their tune in over 40 years.
Let me add one other thing. Palin had actually fought and beat the corrupt Republican establishment in Alaska. Obama has embraced the thoroughly corrupt Democratic Machine in Chicago. It never changes, it never gets fixed, and has now created the ridiculous situation we have here in Illinois. Obama clearly represents the culture of corruption, not his constituents. He never did.
Steve, you repeat two canards in your comment that I'd love to see you flesh out a bit more. First you, accuse Obama of "embracing the thoroughly corrupt Democratic Machine in Chicago." This is an oft-repeated trope by right wings, but no one ever spells out what they mean. What has Obama done to "embrace" this "machine"? And what corruption are you accusing him of being involved in?
You also praise Palin for having "actually fought and beat the corrupt Republican establishment in Alaska." Again, this is an oft-repeated Republican trope. What exactly did she do during her 18 months in office to "fight and beat" the Republican establishment?
Just asking.
Steveil,
Since you brought up the issue of "defining words and phrases correctly", you might be interested to learn that it's "in the same vein".
Also, according to no less an authority than John McCain, Obama and family are not wealthy, but middle class (remember the "5 million dollar income" threshold?)
It isn't only liberals who find McCain erratic. Several of his fellow Republicans have said, on the record, that they don't think he has the temperament to be president.
I second A.L.'s request for specifics on your claims, re: Obama and Palin.
As to Obama's choice of Biden: sometimes the best accompaniment to a meal is the plain old potato.
Oh, and by the way, that's Gershwin:
"You like potato and I like potahto
You like tomato and I like tomahto
Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto."
If you are going to complain about how other people use words and phrases, the least you could do is look up the ones you intend to use and use them right.
"I would call Obama's picking of Biden as extremely ordinary and boring..."
Of course, Barack Obama's first and foremost criteria for selecting a running mate SHOULD have been providing for the amusement of right-wingers.
First you, accuse Obama of "embracing the thoroughly corrupt Democratic Machine in Chicago." This is an oft-repeated trope by right wings, but no one ever spells out what they mean. What has Obama done to "embrace" this "machine"?
Let's see; it's still there, the corrupt Democratic Machine in Chicago. There have been several Daley aides recently convicted of corruption charges. There is the Tony Rezko conviction, which impacts another Chicago Democrat, Gov. Blagojevich, whom Obama has supported (and no, I'm not tying Obama to Rezko's corruption charges). Obama supported the candidacy of Todd Stroger instead of those who would reform the Cook County government (and I do mean Stroger's Dem rival). And I would bet Obama will support the unqualified son of Emil Jones for Jones' Illinois Senate seat.
I'm not accusing Obama of any corruption. He just hasn't done anything about it, and politically supports those who engage in it.
As far as Palin, you can read this.
To c2h50h, my apologies to Mr. Gershwin. I was not actually trying to quote from the song, just put it down phonetically.
And yes, I can agree with you that Biden is like an old potato, one that is rotten.
Good postings on Palin, AL. But don't let up on the unwed pregnant teen daughter story (result of rightwing abstinence teaching).
When the f___ did bloggers become mini-Mother Theresas too ethical to talk about candidates' families? The election will decide life or death, food or starvation, freedom or prison, etc., for millions of humans, and bloggers will put all that aside to avoid making one rich teenage slut feel 'bad' about herself; where are these f___ing priorities coming from?
The rightwing keeps claiming Sarah Palin's supersized family shows the superiorty of rightwing values -- so the slut daughter is very relevant.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home