(orig. written 1/30/08)

John McCain's victory over Mitt Romney in Florida, 36% to 31%, was a severe blow to the Mitt Romney campaign. In a state in which no independent or crossover voting was allowed, and in which 68% of Republican voters told exit pollsters that they were either "enthusiastic" or "satisfied" with the Bush administration, Romney had hoped that he would establish himself as the conservative's choice. It didn't happen. The outcome also humbled the many pundits who said that if the voters gave priority to the economy, Romney would win, and if they chose the Iraq War as the nation's major issue, McCain would win. Such conventional wisdom turned out to be flat wrong. Exit polls showed that 45% of voters judged the economy to be the central issue of the campaign, as compared to 14% who gave priority to the war. The conventional wisdom notwithstanding, McCain beat Romney comfortably in both groups.

What does this mean? First, it means that voters don't choose their candidate based on simplistic binary logic ("I'm worried about the economy, therefore I'll vote for Romney"); it also indicates to me that predictions of how people will vote based on a catalogue of issues always omits one of the most significant variables in voter decision-making, that of character. It is the character issue that dogs Romney in this campaign. Support for Romney is compromised by the perception that he has reinvented himself as a Reagan Republican specifically for this election. Throughout the 2008 campaign, Romney will continue to be burdened by the perception of him as inauthentic. When people joke that Romney is "too perfect," when pundits confide in us that "all the candidates dislike Romney," it is not simply a reference to his perfect hair and great wealth. Rather, it is a reference to fact that there is a broad perception of him as plastic, as having no ethical center, as an empty vessel that morphs and panders to every constituency that he faces.

I had my own epiphany about Mitt Romney during the Republican YouTube debate in November in St. Petersburg, Florida. During that debate, a 72 year old retired Brigadier General named Keith Kerr, who is an openly gay man, discussed his exemplary 43 year career in the military, and challenged the Republican candidates to explain why they felt that openly gay individuals should not serve in the military. What followed was an predictable series of platitudes by the candidates about "unit cohesion" and "morale." Then, however, debate moderator Anderson Cooper surprised Romney with the following question:

"Governor Romney, you stated in 1994 that you looked forward to the day when gays and lesbians could serve 'openly and honestly in our nation's military.'" Do you stand by that?"

After a brief deer in the headlights look that betrayed a feeling of "oh my god, they found that quote from Massachusetts!" Romney said, "this isn't that time, this isn't the time. We're in the middle of a war right now..." Apparently, Romney's humanism toward gays in the military applied only in the event of perpetual peace on earth. Undaunted, Cooper pressed Romney two more times, "But do you still look forward to that time?" Romney then hemmed and hawed and wouldn't recommit to the clear statement that he had made during the Massachusetts campaign in 1994.

It was at that moment that I realized, "Wow, this guy has no core beliefs whatsoever. There is nothing that he believes that he wouldn't reverse if it were politically convenient!" Indeed, if you go back and look and at his statements on abortion, gay rights, gun control, and even Ronald Reagan ("I was an independent during the time of Reagan/Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan/Bush." 1994), his earlier views were each stated with the same unctuous sincerity with which he voices the opposite today. It is precisely because of McCain's image as a stark contrast to Romney's inauthenticity that Republicans who distrust McCain's conservatism are willing to vote for him. McCain has become the default choice.

Hillary Clinton is equally inauthentic as Mitt Romney, but in a somewhat different way. While her core beliefs have generally remained constant over her political life, she shares one fatal flaw with Mitt Romney, an almost complete lack of shame. It was very instructive to watch her on "Face the Nation," the day after losing in South Carolina. Moderator Bob Schieffer began the questioning by asking her:

"Senator Clinton, they often say that we learn more from our losses than we do from our victories. You took a real drubbing last night in South Carolina. What did you learn?"

The question was particularly significant, because Clinton had in essence refused to give a real concession speech the night before after her loss. Concession speeches aren't simply empty acts of courtesy; they are an opportunity for voters to observe a human response from a candidate after adversity. They are a way for the electorate to process and understand what happened in an election, by getting some guidance from the losing candidate. Because Hillary Clinton had not made such an offering the night before, Schieffer was determined to elicit this from her. All he was looking for was something on the order of, "Well Bob, it was a disappointing defeat. We obviously didn't get our message out. We'll do a better job on Super Tuesday." Unfortunately, no such answer was forthcoming. Clinton simply was not going to answer the question. She responded, "Well Bob, I congratulated Barack Obama and thanked the people of South Carolina," and then launched into her stump speech, both avoiding the question, and talking for so long that it was hard for him to ask another question. The seven minute interview became an exercise in futility as Schieffer tried to get Clinton to acknowledge mistakes in the South Carolina campaign, but she was in full denial mode.

It is this penchant for denial, the inability to acknowledge mistakes, the inability to be reflective, and as a result, self-corrective that not only impairs Clinton as a candidate, but makes her a kindred spirit of George W. Bush. Both perceive any acknowledgement of weakness on their part as fatal to their goals, rather than as a normal, positive, human trait. Individuals who cannot acknowledge mistakes are not only prone to making them, they are likely to persist in those mistakes in the face of negative results. The Iraq War in a case in point.

This character flaw in Hillary Clinton was highlighted last night in Florida, as we saw her throwing a faux victory party for a meaningless election. After all, what person of any character and dignity, signs a pledge with her fellow candidates to boycott and invalidate a primary, and then once it takes place, declares herself the winner? You would think she would be above such tactics, but there she was last night, her frozen smile at the ready, taking credit for a win in a primary where nobody campaigned and where no delegates were at stake, now arguing that the election should count! The polite word for this is chutzpah; the more accurate term is Nixonian. It falls to the American people to determine whether, on both sides of the aisle, the politics of inauthenticity will prevail or will be repudiated.

(orig. written 1/27/08)

When the South Carolina polls closed at 7PM, MSNBC, armed with all the exit polls, maintained a cautious posture, saying that Obama would win "by a substantial amount." The Associated Press, however, had no such inhibition, calling the contest "a rout" from the outset. It's hard to imagine a more satisfying victory for Obama: His vote total doubled that of Clinton, as he collected 55% of the vote to her 27%. If ever there was a case of "instant karma," this was it. The Clintons had played the role of schoolyard bully during the campaign, and when Obama stood up to them, the South Carolina electorate turned on the Clintons in droves.

In my last blog, I had strongly urged Obama--under attack at the time--to not only fight back vigorously, but also to make character a central part of his critique of the Clintons. To my great satisfaction, he did exactly that in Monday's debate, and surprised a lot of people who had never seen Obama's tougher side. The contentious debate was often messy, loud, and unpretty, and made a lot of observers very uncomfortable. However ugly, it was also very necessary; it was essential for Obama to draw a line in the sand, and show that he had the toughness and resolve to punch back when hit.

The aftermath of the SC debate was a study in media groupthink: A predictable chorus of voices rose up telling us how deplorable the arguing was, how the issues had been ignored, how both candidates had hurt themselves. I disagreed then, I disagree now, and the results of the election validate my view: Despite the media’s universal use of words like "bickering" and "squabbling" to describe the debate, such terms do an injustice to what actually happened. The truth is simply that some things are worth arguing about. When your opponent says that your opposition to the Iraq War is a fairy tale, or accuses you of endorsing Reaganomics when you've spent your political career opposing the Reagan agenda, then you have to fight back. Did the electorate react badly to Obama's newfound toughness? Exit polls from the election suggested that many voters condemned both Clinton and Obama, and that John Edwards may have benefited. However, in this case, I think the polls lie.

Any time you ask the man on the street what he thinks about arguing, displays of temper, or negative campaigning in politics, he will give you what he thinks is the “intelligent” answer: "Oh I think it's terrible. The candidates should be talking about the issues!" Such answers are usually phony. Most voters would be at great pains to give you an issue by issue rundown of the candidates’ positions. Rather, voters make their choices far more impressionistically, and care little about policy nuances. Obama's moxie during the debate in my view, actually enhanced the public view of his resolve, toughness, and depth of character, particularly in the black community.

And what about race, so prominently discussed in the SC campaign? While, Obama has almost perfect pitch politically, I do believe that he made a mistake during the run-up in SC: Obama should have said more clearly and more frequently that his quarrel with the Clintons wasn't about race, it was about honesty. In South Carolina, the role of race was way overplayed, and the extent of the Clintons' dishonesty was much underplayed. When former Chairman of the South Carolina Democratic party, Dick Harpootlian accused the Clintons of behaving like the late Republican hatchetman Lee Atwater, Wolf Blitzer of CNN immediately jumped to the conclusion that Harpootlian was talking about playing the race card. More likely, Harpootlian was talking about the politics of ruthlessness in general, not race per se. After all, does anyone doubt that if Obama were white, and was seriously challenging Hillary for the nomination, that the Clintons would be behaving in exactly the same manner? In keeping with this, I have a campaign slogan for Obama: “It’s about the truth, stupid!” There's a reason why the politics of personal destruction became the norm during the Clinton years, and why many fear going back to that ethos. Bill Clinton was asked by a reporter to comment on the tone of the campaign, and Clinton's response was both honest and very telling: "You think this is a dirty campaign? Man, if you think that, you haven't been in many campaigns."

Obama's victory speech was a thing of beauty. His post-election speech in Iowa had been highly praised, but this one was better, because it also contained the hard lessons that Obama had learned over the past two months. The speech was warm and inspirational, but it was equal parts tough and cautionary, letting his followers know that no one was going to hand him the nomination, and that the campaign would likely get more bitter from here.

A few parting thoughts: The attack ad that the Clintons used, implying that Obama supported “special tax breaks for Wall Street. Running up a $9 trillion debt. Refusing to raise the minimum wage or deal with the housing crisis” may someday be seen as a turning point in this campaign. It was so patently dishonest and sleazy, and generated so much criticism, that Hillary was forced to pull the ad after 24 hours. It’s the closest we may ever see the Clintons to exhibiting shame… Finally, the endorsement that Obama received today from Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg in the New York Times is highly symbolic. While Ted Kennedy has expressed his desire to stay neutral, she is a more than adequate proxy for him. It will be interesting to see if any more big names sign on this week after Obamas's triumph. It's been quite a week. I suspect that the Clintons now view Obama with newfound respect as an adversary; they now know that he can not only sing, he can fight too…

(orig. written 1/21/08)

The recent detour that the Democratic campaign took into racial politics, was not only unfortunate, it was also avoidable. If Obama had intervened sooner and smarter after Hillary's MLK remarks, he could have framed the the issue in a way that both strengthened his campaign, and avoided the intellectual mud wrestling that eventually took place. Let's review:

The recent fracas began during the New Hampshire debate, during which Hillary--panicked by the polls and by the excitement that Obama was generating--made a desperate statement during the debate, when she told Obama that he shouldn't be giving people "false hopes" about what was possible. This, coming from a Democrat, was a truly extraordinary statement, since hope and idealism are the mother's milk of the Democratic party. Obama should have immediately addressed this comment forcefully, decrying the cynicism of Hillary's remark, and playing up its incompatibility with the ideals of the Democratic Party. After all, what serious Democratic candidate disses the notion of hope, except one who is anxious to score a point at any cost? Instead, Obama soft-peddled the issue, only later making academic references to the role of hope in the American Revolution, the women's suffrage movement, and the civil rights movement. It was the latter comment by Obama that provoked Hillary, at great pains to win the argument, to minimize the role of Martin Luther King, and to play up that of Lyndon Johnson.

Hillary's comments about Martin Luther King were a major gaffe, not because her remark represented some underlying racism. Rather, it was a gaffe because it represented another cynical attempt to win the argument at any cost, to get in the last word. In truth, Hillary has the same appreciation of the role of Martin Luther King that all Democrats have. However, in her zeal to chip away at Obama's inspirational message it suddernly became necessary to minimize MLK's role in the Civil Rights Act, so she took her shot. Her statement was outrageous not because she believed it, but because she didn't believe it. It is this cynicism, this willingness to say anything to score a political point that has recently characterized the Clinton campaign, and which plays into the worst stereotypes of the Clintons. This should have been a major teaching opportunity for Obama to educate the voters not about racism, but about opportunism and cynicism. He didn't take it.

In a similar example, when Bill Clinton went to Hanover, New Hampshire and told students that Obama had told the New York Times in 2004 that he didn't know how he would have voted on the war resolution, Clinton knew full well that it was a fib. A look at the NY Times story shows this. Here are Obama's words: ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.'' By leaving out the last sentence, Clinton managed to turn Obama's statement upside down, and create a false impression. Once again, this should have been a powerful teaching opportunity for Obama to contrast for the voters the "old politics" vs. the "new politics."

Indeed, many voters still aren't sure what Obama means when he discusses the old and new politics. Well here was a paradigm case: The difference between old and new politics isn't how fast you would withdraw troops from Iraq, or how many citizens would receive health care under your plan. Rather, the new politics is about campaigning--and governing-- based on a set of strong principles that one adheres to even under difficult circumstances. The new politics is about speaking honestly about your opponent even when it would be convenient to do otherwise. Obama should be pointing out repeatedly that the candidate who uses falsehoods throughout the campaign will also have no compunction about fudging the truth once he or she is in office. And he should be taking every opportunity to point out the Clinton distortions and mischaracterizations, not one by one and piece by piece, but rather as a broad and corrupt campaign strategy in which anything goes as long as it works politically.

In doing so, Barack would also accomplish a second important goal, that of showing that he is up to the fight. No one gains the White House unless they have some serious fight in them, and currently there are many in the country who question whether Obama has the stomach to go the distance. He needs to demonstrate clearly that being an idealist and being a fighter are in no way incompatible. He needs to show that he can stand up when necessary and say to his opponent, "Your campaign is based a set of serial distortions that speak volumes about your character." And Obama has to stop worrying about coming across as "nice." At this point in the campaign, it's not as much about manners as it is moxie.