| The Repub VP choice represented a sort of admission by that party that the issues-based campaign was a loser. But that choice has changed the dynamics of the race.
Every day since the day after Invesco, waves of attacks have been aimed at SP. Josh Marshall is apoplectic, and a wing of the punditry too, because the attacks are justified responses to open lies.
The thing is, her abuses of power are forgivable, and the lying marked down as accidental, IF you are strongly impelled to defend SP. Remarks by voters in Lebanon OH seemed instructive. The famous "stupid voters" can attach themselves to SP's image-on-TV easily.
In addition, the Republicans are laying down a barrage of artillery support for SP, in a way that precisely takes advantage of lessons learned by Democrats about rapid response. The wolf ad, the sex ed ad, the "he called her a pig" flap - it's like a kind of video game. It takes too long for the guns of the blogs and the papers to burn through particular lies and outrageous accusations. After a day or two the Republicans just sort of leave the point moot - in the meantime, the acrimony has made a few more people feel that both sides are equally "mean". So in this context, rapid response doesn't make you a counterpuncher. It is the Repubs who are just jabbing, jabbing, and when the response comes, they just fade back and launch another attack from another angle.
------------------
Let's go through the elements of the immediate situation. Obama never gives anyone a chance to call him black. He's hardly put a foot wrong. The attacks that have been made on him are scurrilous - in rational terms. But like the hero of the Seventh Seal, the Republicans have tipped over the chess board to cheat Death. The choice of SP was the first shot is moving the culture war from cold to hot.
In order to try to say what I think Obama should or must do, I will employ a device called sitcom logic.
Let's stipulate that there's a group of voters that don't take their civic duties seriously - people who seem capable of voting against their own rational interests in favor of some kind of Gemeinschaft or Gemutlichkeit of race or gender. We can be kinder and say that America has produced a lot of people who have allowed their lives to trick them into working like crazy, really for little reward. When they get home they want to eat and watch TV. They don't want to be upset. If they feel positively about something, it's expressed irrationally because of the way the news is presented. If they feel negatively about something, they could end up "just not liking" someone whose programs would benefit them.
The full extent of the culture of marriage and family has been denied to many of these people. As a substitute, they have television shows, not all of which are sitcoms, but which develop TV personae, images and characters, according to a sitcom logic. Remember, sitcoms themselves were an "advance" in television toward the presentation of "real" people.
The point is leverage. If you can get a demographic to identify with a TV character, their opinion can be influenced with greater intensity and greater coverage than ad campaigns can achieve. "Attraction is better than promotion."
Americans rely, not on individual shows, but on this general way of evaluating what acceptable behavior is. Ad campaigns can be hung one after another on a solid character that resonates with a public.
SP is being asked to be such a character. Actually, she is only being asked to be herself. She's a ditz - but there are millions of women who will forgive her misstatements because they get "smacked down" for things they say or do. She obviously went off on a trooper and then on his boss in an administratively klutzy way - but she did it for her sister. Her daughter's pregnancy was the real tipoff. While Democrats were hoping that would upset the fundies! SP picked up sympathy for ALL of it.
Women will be pulled to SP by tidal forces the way blacks were eventually pulled in by Obama. They couldn't pass it up. Although I think women will prove much less of a bloc vote, the danger to Obama is clear. Feminism has always shadowed the civil rights movement, and blacks have often rejected that equivalence.
I know this is an irrational argument. In fact it's not an argument at all, but a description of feelings. On the topic of argument, though, consider this problem in sitcom logic. On television, things are different than they are in real life. In real life, many women are dependent on men. But on sitcoms, women are much more independent, and on TV in general. On TV, women seldom have to wait their turn to speak. And as for arguing - nobody can out-argue a female main character, above all not a male main character. The very attempt invites disaster. In sitcoms, man who throw their weight around end up being made fun of and humiliated.
SP can lie, exaggerate, and play with her emotions in any argument. As long as the pace of new kerfuffles keeps up, she will be seen by some women as merely defending her dignity, that is, her logical right not to lose ANY argument with a man.
------------------
There is a little more to it.
To date SP has displayed two weaknesses - none having to do with any gaffes or misdeeds. She is literally unassailable for some women, because she is a woman and a mother.
First, in her acceptance speech, she was seen by many, including many women, as mean or catty. They expressed their dislike of this because they didn't want it to interfere with their liking her.
Second, women in sitcoms who try to throw their weight around get laughed at too. Her new will wear off, it can wear off.
I think the Repubs acted because they felt Obama had crossed the trust barrier at Invesco. He was leading the parade. A large majority of people think Obama is qualified. But some of these people are demanding that he be more likable, in effect.
This demand is legitimate in sitcom logic and in politics. George Bush is no worse a president today than he was eight years ago. But people are sick of seeing his face on television. Obama too is a little overexposed because of the primary season's length.
Let's say that the stupid voters (and some others) are viewers of The Government Show, that comes on several times a day. They are not choosing an instrument to carry out a program. They are contracting a relationship. The president is the father - or mother - of a country. Consider successful sitcom fathers (the ones everybody else works around are more numerous) - Cosby, the father on Fresh Prince (who is still the butt of a lot of jokes).
Women dominate these situations. However, SP does have some of the characteristics of a typical sitcom ditz. Her voice grates. Her nickname - barracuda - goes to the fact that's she's a schemer. This is a recognizable character, and not a well liked one. Many women in big roles in sitcoms and in reality TV are talkative gladhanding schemers.
I always "bury the lede" because I'm not a journalist. But I feel able to conclude that Obama must risk engaging the enemy on this ground, on television.
This cannot have anything to do with classic ad campaigns. If Axelrod and Plouffe are rock-ribbed conventional then we'll have to wait until things seem even worse. And maybe they'll get better! God knows I hope so. But Obama might have to go on television in a different way.
In effect, Obama and SP are now the main characters in a sitcom-like season of The Government Show. This season, the power of pundits and anchors to drive the news will be limited. It is a year of comeuppances. Hillary had hers, and the GOP VP losers had theirs. And the journos and TV talking heads that are now trying to hold SP's feet to the fire may have theirs. I think Chris Matthews has already demonstrated this. After Invesco he was talking about running against Specter. Now he sees a few days of bad polling and he's already tacking toward Audie Murphy.
When the Republicans drop the lies they maintain and the "Quick Willie (Horton)" attacks they are running, the press will not have the time to pursue them.
So in the sitcom world, Obama can be set opposite SP.
In this world, the special nature of black people, as long as they are reasonably well-intentioned, is recognized. That's why the TV president didn't have to wait long to be black.
The special nature of women is also compensated, partly as a function of the ethics of sitcom behavior, partly as a riposte to the perceived stereotypical weaknesses of women compared to men in daily life.
Sitcoms are not soaps. In soaps, no conflict ever ends. On sitcoms, all conflicts must end with the episode.
How can Obama muffle or cushion the shock of TV-SP? Within sitcom logic, she is challenging his authority.
McCain is nowhere in this situation. The people of America want him to be an icon, but they don't want to see his face. McCain will just try to backpedal during the debates. The Repubs remember that the worst scare they got in 2004 was after Bush was "mean" in the first debate. They'd love to have Obama come out combative in the debates. (Although that too could backfire on them.) Biden is nowhere. He and McCain are not main characters. McCain is like "the owner". SP will express McCain. McCain will echo SP. He's racking up points with women by staying out of her way and not correcting her or dominating her in any way.
Obama has to create a venue where he can do several things at once. He has to "come home" and confront ALL the attacks made on him at once. More than that, he can't "refute" them because in the TV world, argument is not a connected series of propositions leading logically to a conclusion. It is a form of battle.
He must suffer and be seen to suffer - and yet this suffering must not disturb his calm or scar him. The audience must be catered to, not accused.
For every attack, there is a proper response. The sex ed ad should be countered by a reminder of his cute daughters. Of course that one's gone by now.
On television, Barack could pet a wolf. He could put lipstick on a real pig (with double-entendres out the ass), and then let them come out against that in high dudgeon. Mr. and Mrs. America want to laugh, folks. They want the Government Show to be happy sometimes, even through the gloom of recession.
He could invite the Republican ticket to meet him on Oprah. He could go on Oprah for a week, and let them scream bias. The Obamathon. He could take nasty calls from "folks" around the country and let everybody see how he reacts to stories of tragedy.
To be honest, if I hear how he lifted the steel workers on the South Side of Chicago out of their despair one more time I'll scream. I was gob-smacked by the repetitiveness of the speeches at the Dem convention because it was so obvious.
Just as tightly managed as the convention was - just that loose does he need to get in some venue. The great advantage is that on TV he is invulnerable. All attacks from others on the same bill, or from callers, will just be opportunities to handle people nicely. It's not exactly "Hola Presidente!" but it's close. He should take calls from Pennsyltucky, and chat equably with people who admit that they can't vote for him because he's black. Another thing - if handled correctly, a very open setting like this is almost gaffe-proof. Obama will make gaffes. But the audience, and maybe Ellen, and other demographic second bananas will immediately punish him! His wife could even shake her head. Obama must show a willingness to admit mistakes. He must say he loves us, and ask our forgiveness if we love him. Even the worst attackers must be accepted like disliked characters on sitcoms. Nobody is torched, or if they are stung by a joke, they are allowed back in to laugh at themselves too.
In such a situation, Obama could be Obama, something he hasn't been since the "typical white person" remark. A breathtaking wager on openness. He's a happy man, that's obvious. He would get a chance to show his cute sense of humor.
The ratings would be incredible.
The Democrats have tried to get over top of SP. They need to get underneath, submarine her in the manner of Brazilian jiu-jitsu.
A whistle stop tour could have done it, but Obama is all over the map already.
I want him on TV talking to people for long periods of time. Not just town hall questioning. A mixed program in which he gets to talk about policies...but every few minutes something new, some new person from somewhere in America calls in, and Barack like King David sits patiently in the mercy seat.
He has to be seen to be hurt, but to master his feelings. The sex ed ad would have hurt someone's feelings in a sitcom. But we can't exile the enemy to the outer depths in a sitcom. They will be back again tomorrow. In this way sitcoms are more moral than politics; on sitcoms the actors know they cannot campaign for their rivals' destruction. (On soaps that's all you do, but it never quite comes true.)
And of course there's nothing wrong with raising money during a TV show. the Obamathon. Put a dollar counter against a wall, and I bet money the Republicans will put up the same kind of show and the same kind of counter.
------------
I realize this note is longer than bloggers like. I can't do anything about that. I'm compressing as much as I can.
I have two closing remarks.
First, the global situation is heating up. Hurricanes, fires, floods, bankruptcies, repossessions, Russia and Pakistan, unemployment risin' fast, the Beatles' new record's a gas. It's a ball of confusion. A global recession is a virtual certainty. More of a wrench for rich people than for poor, really. But not only end-timers will feel the desperation of both sides in this campaign.
Obama has been out campaigning. There's a lot of time left. When I saw the Dublin OH rally, I thought, they're going to redo Invesco everywhere on a smaller scale. And maybe that will work, along with the much-ballyhooed voter registration drives and the thousand field offices.
But if the polls don't level out... It seems that Georgia is gone, and maybe North Carolina. Alaska is gone, and maybe Montana. Can Obama bring maximum force to bear in one state, like Virginia or Colorado, and steamroller a win? Or will election day chicanery be the difference again?
Second: John McCain will try to be the eminence grise of the campaign. If Obama can't stop doing rallies to try some unconventional television, then there is one other way. Any anger shown by McCain will sink him. He'll be on his best behavior, but he hates Obama and he hates his running mate. Speaking not from sitcom logic but from Washington logic: McCain is filled with hate. He is a very, very prideful man. Use Keating. Use Iseman. Test SP's ability to defend and inoculate him.
Either Obama exposes himself to attack freely (in order to gather the attacks together in one place), or the campaign goes dirty for dirty. Cosby Show or National Enquirer. Your choice. If McCain moves into a clear lead, I'll need considerable help in trusting in the ground game. |
STATE BLOGS
