Don't Think of a Maverick! Could the Obama Campaign Be Improved?

Throughout the nomination campaign I was struck by how well the Obama campaign was being run, especially how sophisticated the framing was. I was heartened that my five books on the subject might have had a real effect. But recently I have begun to wonder. It looks like, in certain respects, the Obama campaign is making some of the same mistakes of the Hillary campaign and the Kerry and Gore campaigns.

The Dayton speech on education had fine policy, but was the first really deadly dull Obama speech I've heard. It started out with lots of numbers. True, but dull. And he is promising more of the same policy wonk speeches. He's right that we are facing serious realities, and he's right to say what he intends to do, but the old inspiring Obama just isn't there. And the surrogates -- Biden and Hillary -- are policy-wonking it too.

I hope I'm wrong. Given my great respect for those who ran the nomination campaign so well, I wonder if I should say anything at all. But, as I predicted, Palin has turned out to be effective and the Obama campaign has not been effective in dealing with her. I've been getting loads of email asking me to say something to the campaign. So with some hesitation and a great deal of respect, I will simply point out what I see.

Four years ago I wrote a book called, Don't Think of an Elephant! The title made a basic point: Negating a frame activates that frame. If you activate the other side's frame, you just help the other side, as Nixon found out when he said, "I am not a crook," which made people think of him as a crook.

The Obama campaign just put out an ad called "No Maverick". The basic idea was right. The Maverick Frame is central to the McCain campaign, and as the ad points out, it's a lie. But negating the Maverick Frame just activates that frame and helps McCain. You have to substitute a different frame that characterizes McCain as he really is. There are various possibilities. Let's consider one of them. Ninety percent of the time, McCain has been a Yes-Man for Bush. Think in terms of questions at a debate. If the question is, is McCain a maverick?, you are thinking about him as a maverick, even when you are trying to find ways in which he isn't. McCain wins. If the question is whether McCain is a Yes-Man for Bush, you put McCain on the defensive. People think of him as a Yes-man 90 percent of the time, and try to think cases when he might not have been. This is not rocket science. It's the first principle of framing.

The "No Maverick" ad also misses an opportunity. It correctly observes that McCain's campaign is loaded with "lobbyists." But most of the people the ad is trying to reach don't know just what a "lobbyist" is. McCain is saying he is fighting against the Washington power structure. A lobbyist is a "member of the Washington power structure." If you use such a phrase, you can point out that McCain campaign itself is part of the Washington power structure, the old-boy network.

But these are small, easily fixable problems. Just change a word here or there. The campaign is facing bigger internal problems. Let's start with the statement by Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, that the campaign is "not about the issues."

In 1980, Richard Wirthlin -- Ronald Reagan's chief strategist -- made a fateful discovery. In his first poll he discovered that most people didn't like Reagan's positions on the issues, but nevertheless wanted to vote for Reagan. The reason, he figured out, is that voters vote for president not primarily on the issues, but on five other factors -- "character" factors: Values; Authenticity; Communication and connection; Trust; and Identity. In the Reagan-Carter and Reagan-Mondale debates, Mondale and Carter were ahead on the issues and lost the debates, because the debates were not about the issues, but about those other five character factors. George W. Bush used the same observation in his two races. Gore and Kerry ran on the issues. Bush ran on those five factors.

In the 2008 nomination campaign, Hillary ran on the issues, while Obama ran on those five factors and won. McCain is now running a Reagan-Bush style character-based campaign on the Big Five factors. But Obama has switched to a campaign based "on the issues," like Hillary, Gore, and Kerry. Obama has reality on his side. And the campaign is assuming that if you just tell people the truth, they will reason to the right conclusion. That's false and they should know better.

Chris Cillizza, in his Washington Post column, made the mistake of calling this a matter of "personality." DLC theorists Bill Galston and Elaine Kamarck have previously made the same mistake. Voters are smarter. Since they don't know what the situation will be in a couple of years, it is rational to ask if a candidate shares your values, if he's saying what he believes, if he connects with you, if you trust him, and if you identify with him. That is a rational thing to do. Not just a matter of personality.

Unfortunately, it is also easy to manipulate these things with marketing techniques. As Cillizza points out, McCain and Palin are being marketed as American icons: the war hero and the ideal mom. Obama and Biden were marketed (honestly) as realizations of the American Dream, living hope that it is still possible -- with Obama as the lone figure with the charisma, character, and talent to actually unite the country and bring back the dream.

So far, the McCain-Palin narratives are proving powerful. Palin has enormous charisma of her own. Meanwhile the Obama narrative is being given up in favor of "the issues." It is as though, after the Republicans attacked Obama's charismatic leader persona, the Obama campaign gave up on it, instead of realizing that they could capitalize on it.

Barack Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe released the following statement: "We appreciate Senator McCain's campaign manager finally admitting that his campaign is not in fact about the issues the American people care about, which is exactly the kind of cynical old politics people are ready to change." But Plouffe, very much to his credit, beat the Clinton campaign in just that way. Hillary played the policy wonk and lost. Barack ran on what his biography showed about his values; his willingness to say what he believed (authenticity); his ability to connect, communicate and build trust through his sincerity; and on the use of his biography to get voters to identify with him. The beauty of Obama's nomination campaign, right through his acceptance speech at the convention, was his ability to frame realities through running on those five character factors. The campaign performed brilliantly.

But post-Palin, the Obama-Biden campaign seems to have become the Gore-Kerry-Hillary campaign. They are running on 18th Century theory of Enlightenment reason: If you just tell people the facts, they will follow their self-interest and reason to the right conclusion. What contemporary cognitive scientists have discovered (See my new book, The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st Century Politics with an 18th Century Brain), and what Republican marketers have known for decades, is that the Enlightenment theory of reason doesn't describe how people actually work. People think primarily in terms of cultural narratives, stereotypes, frames, and metaphors. That is real reason.

Realities matter. To communicate them, you have to make use of real reason. That's what Obama did in the nomination campaign when he used his personal narrative to communicate about the country's needs. Obama needs to go back to being Obama. The Obama campaign's job is to shine a light on those realities through Obama's unique personal qualities as a leader and communicator.

The Obama campaign has problems with conservative populism. They don't seem to understand it. Conservative populism on a national scale was invented in the late 1960s. At the time, most working people identified themselves with liberals. But conservatives realized that many working people were what I have called "biconceptuals" -- they are genuinely conservative in their mode of thought about patriotism and certain family issues, though they are progressive in their understanding of nature (they love the land) and their commitment to communities where people care about each other, etc. So conservatives have talked to them nonstop about conservative "patriotism" and "family values", thus activating their conservative mindset. At the same time, conservative theorists invented the ideal of "liberal elitism": that liberals look down upon working people and are not like them. Conservatives have been working at constructing this mythology for nearly forty years and liberals have stood by and let it happen. Palin is a natural for the conservative populists. She understands their culture.

Conservative populism is a cultural, not an economic, phenomenon. These are folks who often vote against their economic self-interest and instead vote on their identity as conservatives and on their antipathy to liberals, who they see as elitists who look down on them. Simply giving conservative populists facts and figures won't work.

They tend to vote for people they identify with and against people who they see as looking down on them. The job for the Obama campaign is to reverse the present mindset that the Republicans have constructed, to reveal the conservatives as elitist Washington insiders who cynically manipulate them, to get conservative populists to identify with Obama and Biden on the basis of values and character, and to have them see realities through Obama's leadership capacities. Not an easy job. But it's the real job.

Debate Preparation

I am concerned about the upcoming debates. There are two aspects of debate prep: internal and external. Let's start with the external, since it's less obvious. What happens in a debate depends very much on questions asked and the framing used to ask them. It's the job of a campaign to get questions asked that use their own framing and language, not the opposition's framing and language. The McCain campaign has been very active in prepping the press to ask his questions with his frames: The Maverick Frame, the Country First Frame, The Surge Is Working Frame, the Victory Frame, The Drilling Frame, the Change Washington Frame, and so on. McCain can answer questions based on these frames easily and forcefully, as he did at the Saddleback debate, which he won handily.

Obama's On Your Own Frame for McCain is one the press should bring up. And whether our economic problems are all psychological, as McCain has said. And Obama's riff on empathy, and caring for one another being the basis of our democracy. This is a matter for Obama to decide, but the press should be prepped about what the moral and character issues are for Obama, as well as what the policy issues are.

McCain won because he used short answers, and answers that reflected deep conservative values. Obama hesitated, tried to give nuanced answers, and came off looking like he had no values. Obama needs to train, to give fast, straight-on, inspiring responses that link his major themes -- empathy, responsibility (both social and personal) and aspiration -- to the foundational ideals of our country. Obama's values are America's values, and that has to come out loud and clear.

Additionally, he must show just how extremist the McCain/Palin ticket is.

Drilling

Senator Obama occasionally uses a rhetorical strategy that I believe is counterproductive. In response to a conservative position he rightfully opposes, he will sometimes try to sound sweetly reasonable by using a conditional sentence of the corm: If A, then B. Here B is the conservative position he is against, and A consists of one or more reasonable proposals that he knows conservatives would never accept. If we raise fuel efficiency standards on cars, get rid of the oil company subsidy, invest hundreds of billions in renewable sources of energy, ... , then I might be in favor of limited office drilling. This is reported in the news as Obama changes his position on drilling, when he hasn't changed it at all. Knowing that the if-clause could not be accepted by conservatives, he isn't really making a commitment to offshore drilling. But the fact is that, to many people, it looks like he supports drilling, and in so doing, he is helping to legitimize drilling.

Meanwhile, an opportunity is being lost. The Drilling Frame is being accepted. The Drilling Frame works like this:

You drill. You hit oil. You pump it up. There's lots of it. Prices go down.

What is left out of the frame are all the crucial facts.

The timeline: It's ten years from drilling to getting gas at the pump.

The amount: It's very small compared to what we use. We'll barely notice it. There isn't enough to significantly bring down prices.

The danger: Drilling is killing: Offshore spills can destroy fishing grounds.

The world market: The oil will go on the world market, which means that China, India, and other countries will drive up the price. There may be no saving at all.

Global Warming: More oil can only increase global warming.

A Diversion: Drilling takes investment away from alternative energy.

Just stating the facts won't change the frame. But the right visuals might. Start with the existing frame and visuals. Add each pitfall visually, one by one, so that it becomes clear at each stage what will go wrong. Visuals are powerful, and they can be used to put McCain on the defensive.

The Moral: Obama needs to be Obama again, the inspiring figure who gives us hope, not the dull policy wonk. He underestimated McCain's debating abilities, and needs to prep both externally by giving the press new questions to ask, and internally, by being precise and making his values clear. And he has to remember that voters vote on the basis of values, authenticity, communication, trust, and identity. If he is going to bring realities into the campaign, he has to do it via a strategy that includes all of those.

Natural charisma and brilliance are not enough. There's some hard work to be done.

George Lakoff is the author of The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st Century Politics with an 18th Century Brain. He is the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley.

Comments

[sosad]

"Voters vote for president not primarily on the issues, but on five other factors -- "character" factors: Values; Authenticity; Communication and connection; Trust; and Identity."

Exactly. So, why is Obama having difficulty? What is wrong with the American voter? I have wondered about that question since I first voted for JFK in 1960! Do we think McCain and Palin have the above quoted characteristics more so than Barack Obama? And ... what is wrong with looking at the 'facts' in an intelligent way? During the debates in 2000 and 2004, I thought, surely, Gore or Kerry would win by a large margin (and win they did, or at least Gore did in the opinion of many).

I think the majority of American voters are like lemmings; we place too much value on Party loyalty. We don't have the time or inclination to listen to the facts. When any of the candidates look into the camera and state a 'fact', whether true or made up, the American voter takes it as the truth! In re. the title, "maverick" used to describe McCain - what maverick? He wanted Romney or even Lieberman as his VP; but, the Republican powers that be forced Palin on him, I firmly believe that. I have been wondering why the newscasters have not brought this up. Stop calling McCain a maverick, the name does not describe the man.

[MPCarr]

You are right. Obama's campaign has become just like Kerry's 2004 campaign..­.and Gore in 2000, and pretty much every Democratic campaign after the conventions.

The problem with Obama is he can't go back to being inspiring--this is the time to get down to the issues, and Obama has nothing to base his candidacy on. No legistation or reforms or political resume or vision going forward.

All he has is his inspiring speeches, and their time is past.

[lorenrt303]

Actually Obama has a very impressive legislative record. The Obama/Lugar (A Republican) bill provides, for the first time, a mechanism to store Nuclear and Conventional confiscated weapons.
Prior to this we could collect them but then what? There was a custody "Dead End". Nobody knew what to do with them.
Obama also wrote and pushed through, a bill to create a searchable data base of every govt contractor, the jobs they had bid, and the fees they were collecting. That's his own bill. Now the press or you, or I can go find out exactly what Blackwater, ETC is doing and how much we're paying them. Obama created that!
All in all there are 16 pieces of major legislation which he has gotten through committe or are now law or up for vote!
Pretty impressive for a junior Senator from the minority party.

[BillCarson]

>The problem with Obama is he can't go back to being inspiring

On the contrary, that's exactly what he needs to do.

[ethel08]

Go away, troll. Look at the record. It is out in full view.

[harriscrl3]

I think Obama is doing what he needs to do I trust his instincts I notice that he a couple of rallies lined up I think thats great. He needs to inspire. I think the AMerican people is comfortable with him they trust him they think he is capable what they need is to be inspired especially since we just had the largest deficit in history. He needs to make Americans feel hopeful about the future again.

Carol

[tchristin]

There is no shortage of advice for Barack Obama from all corners of the country, on how to speak, what to say and what to do. Yet he put together the most impressively organized campaign in modern history. Raised more money than anyone ever believed was possible. Here's a man of color from Chicago with a funny name that no one could remember or pronounce raising our hopes and dreams and he does it because when he speaks we know he is sincere.

Because of the long contentious Democratic primary (god bless Hillary Clinton) hundreds of thousands more people have registered to vote and those new and returning voters may determine the winner of the general election. Barack Obama is now a household name around the world, we know his wife and his kids too. We know all about him. We know he has the intelligence and judgment required to navigate our country through one of the most challenging times. And we know he has the god given charisma to lift our spirits and channel our energies to our collective good.

It's amazing that he is leading in the states he is leading, that he is in a dead heat with a Senator we have known for over 25 years, who never lets us forget he's a hero of the last war that should never have been fought, a Republican with seemingly very little integrity who will say anything, do anything to get elected.

He is just getting started.

[jacqmac]

AMEN! I am so tired of reading either hand-wringing, crepe hanging articles or 'THE PROBLEM WITH OBAMA IS---" articles. Geez!! He can't BE all things to ALL people, no matter how much we want him to be. And for some, he's just NOT the type of person, no MATTER HOW MUCH you LIKE him, that you'd invite over for Sunday dinner. I am-of course-talking about that BIG FAT ELEPHANT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LIVING ROOM. Did we REALLY BELIEVE that this was going to be easy? Obama HIMSELF warned us about the scare tactics he knew were going to come.You remember the REACTION of the McCain people? 'He's PLAYING the RACE CARD, HOW DARE HE?' Squawking and flapping ensued. NOW it's the GENDER card-or maybe the species card-although I haven't heard of any pig farmers getting upset about that remark. So which one do we want? The 'angry Black dude'? The Policy Wonk? The guy that can go one on one with David Letterman joke for joke? The 'Just Plain Folks' guy? The 'Dad'? The 'Husband'? Sheesh! He's given us all of those and a bag of chips and it's still not enough! And all we can do is say 'The problem with Obama' 'The problem with Obama' 'The problem with Obama' like a broken record. This leads to 'Obama losing' "Obama floundering' 'Obama camp flummoxed' yaddayaddayadda!

[petegrif]

We now face exactly the same situation. Obama has many criticisms of Bush and by inference of McCain. And he has unified his position as one of redemption, unification and most important of all - change. But the problem is, that whilst he has indeed articulate a very simple overarching idea for himself, which is good, he has no such powerful idea for McCain.

Let me suggest one - the Republicans, and McCain, are BURNT OUT. have no policies or solutions because they are burnt out. They are stealing out positions because they are burnt out.

This is an extremely simple but powerful idea which has the ring of truth!!! The Republicans are, in truth, burnt out right now. They may well ideologically and intellectually reconstitute themselves but right now they are at a low point. This truth will be felt by the media as well as people at large.

Had Obama so positioned McCain at say the convention, then think how much easier it would now be to respond to the Palin situation - 'the desperate gamble of a burnt out campaign.' etc etc. Whereas now Obama is now stuck responding on an issue to issue basis with the Palin question and liberals are squirming to find something on her that will stick - good luck with that. This ducking and dodging from issue to issue will not work.

It is extremely painful to watch this campaign repeating EXACTLY the same strategic error made by Gore and Kerry.

[petegrif]

If I may add a second major strategic error that the campaign is repeating from the Gore and Kerry campaigns.

Gore and Kerry's criticisms of Bush were made on an issue by issue basis. In other words, they would select and issue, say economic management, then articulate why it was mistaken and their remedy. Intellectually all very interesting, if you have the time and energy to listen - but most people don't. And the danger is that you are not presenting an OVERALL criticism of the administration. There is no overarching simple, readily communicated concept which links ALL such criticism of issues. But without such an overall concept the problem is that your criticism is fragmented and too detailed. People simply don't get a clear picture with what is fundamentally wrong with the administration. I think it is true to say that both Gore and Kerry made this mistake.

Let me give an example of a very simple idea that Kerry could have used that would have enabled him to cluster all his more detailed criticisms under one banner - incompetence. The bush administration is incompetent. They can't manage their way out of a paper bag. Ironically, this very word subsequently in Bush's second term BECAME an overarching criticism of his administration. But that only shows its power. The reason that it would have been a powerful simplifying stroke is that is was basically true!!!!!

[Bramptonian]

George, you're missing one crucial point. It's not that Obama is doing much different. It is that people like yourself -the media at large- seem to be enamoured by Palin and have been contributing to the hype about her.

[TenThings]

I trust Obama's campaign instincts, wonkish when they need to and animalistic when they don't. Elections are Democratic but winning an election, is not Democratic. You have to go down to the most basic, instinctive, animalistic level, in order to win the election.

The problem with some Democrats, especially those that supported Hillary Clinton and others that now question Obama, is that you people do not know how to win an election in "this climate." You know how to govern - but you do not know how to win.

Obama knows how to win, in this climate. Many Democrats, especially the thinkers, over think: they get nervous, they start to doubt themselves, they questions their leaders all the time, they say "where did it go wrong."

If its any consolation, Republicans spend their whole time, manipulating and winning elections, but once they win, they do not know how to govern. Governing and winning elections are two different animals. If its any consolation, Republicans have become too animalistic.

[Bocababs]

I am going to say this again. Two word sound bites...ov­er and over and repeat and repeat in the voters ear by Obama. Forget nuance and policy. This electorate -- to quote Bill Mauer is Stupid.
You only have to look at some of the reasons they are voting for McCain because of Palin....
Things I have been told over the past few days:

1) She is a mom.
2) She is hot.
3) She speaks well.

Things I have talked about with fellow Democrats over the same three days:

1) She cannot hold a candle to Hillary.
2) She is scary.
3) She has NO foreign policy experience.

[SpectCon]

Just remember that Republicans always vote...and they're all registered.

So the media likes to talk enthusiasm gaps, but it just doesn't matter for the GOP. With or without Palin, the GOP vote wasn't going to change. The polls changing are simply bad polling and/or indicative of more GOP being excited to admit to being GOP (which they were going to vote anyway). You aren't seeing the Democrats picking up the phones in the same large numbers as Dem voters are the opposite..­.notorious­ly fickle.

The Dems have managed to lose many campaigns where all they needed was to turn out. The GOP doesn't lose that way.

In many ways this probably helps uncover the Bradley effect, by giving GOP a reason to admit they're GOP and for racists to have a reason to avoid Obama. So even if the numbers are looking a little low, they really aren't that bad in this worst case scenario.

Last, people seem not to be considering that maybe GOP won't turnout this time BECAUSE of Palin. I know I just said they always turnout, but when have they had a female VP? Remember how excited people were for Liz Dole in 2000? Maybe we call it a the Dole effect, but I'm not certain that all GOP will vote for a female on the ticket.

[SwampeastMike]

Thank you George.

Why do "voters vote on the basis of values, authenticity, communication, trust, and identity" and not issues? Perhaps the inevitable result of [fairly] direct Presidential election and our entrenched two-party system?

People often believe rather unflattering things about candidates.

1) They'll make LOTS of promises, few of which will be realized even in part.

2) They'll avoid saying things bad things about members of their own party, even if they don't personally like them.

3) They'll avoid saying good things about members of another party, even if they do personally like them.

4) They'll publically disavow a lifelong friend if they appear to be a liability.

5) They'll say very different things depending on the nature of those listening.

6) They exist in a highly corrupting environment.

Given these common attitudes, is there any wonder voters seek, "authentic values" more than "issues"?

Senator Obama's primary campaign was exceptional--not so much about issues as about, "Change to a new breed of politician­."

Even before the convention, he began to alter his identity and began to act like a politician. The "new type politician" mystique disappeared people looked for authentic values. But instead of defining himself, his values and his positions in a concrete manner, it has been fluid. His opponent is defining him--negatively of course--better than he is defining himself. Bad, bad move.

[vegasobserver]

The Dems are going into these campaigns both overconfident and overcautious.

Some of this has to do with Democratic political and media consultants, who are notoriously careerist and would rather take the safe, conservative, risk-averse approach to campaigning. (Think Mark Penn). If they don't think outside the constraints of the media bubble, and use zero imagination, then after they fail, nobody can accuse them of having made bad decisions, because in effect they've made no decisions.

By contrast, the culture among Republican consultants is different. Democratic political consultants are political animals through-an­d-through, whose careers are all politics, all the time. Republican political consultants are influenced much more by the private sector and the marketing profession. They are actually less risk averse than Dem consultants, and more adept at framing macro-issues instead of focusing on minutiae and "micro trends" like Mark Penn did in Hillary's campaign.

In any event, Obama will pay for the risk-averseness of his consultant­s...

[SpectCon]

Perhaps a chinese firewall is needed.

Let the nationa/multistate Obama campaign work with polls off and TVs off. The general terrain isn't going to change: CO, OH, MO, IN, MI, PA, NH, NC, VA, NV, NM, FL, MT, ND. Of those, VA, NC, OH, CO, NV and NM probably deserve the full attention of Obama and Biden. Have the big rallies, positive imagery, inspirational messaging, and don't even bother discussing McCAin. Leave IN, MO, MI, PA, NH, FL, MT, and ND for what I'm about to suggest.

On the other side of the firewall let Plouffe decide where to microtarge­t... Let him decide where to run the negative ads in small buys. Put out mailings. Do the door to door. Of course, you'd need the most creative consultants working here to tailor messages district by district.

Finally, outside both operations, I like Obama's strategy today of one red meat ad, the media is now paying attention to these super cheap and silly web ads. So make one for every of the next 52 days. If you want to, release it where Plouffe says it could help. But the main idea is to control the media by giving them entertaining stories each night. (Not reactionary or response ads, just attack ads on McCain...f­unny and absurd.) Maybe you even do a couple on some days.

What do you think?

[BlueTide]

I think you are right on. Obama needs to be Obama again. He can be both inspiring and still talk about the issues through story telling. He needs to talk about the economy in ways that ordinary people can understand. He should find that guy that lost his factory job. He should find that working mother who can't afford health insurance. Then he should tell their stories.

[SensibleAmerican]

"The "No Maverick" ad also misses an opportunity. It correctly observes that McCain's campaign is loaded with "lobbyists­." But most of the people the ad is trying to reach don't know just what a "lobbyist" is" pretty much sums up the Dem campaigns of not only Obama but also Mondale and Dukakis and Kerry and ... ad nauseum ... ad infinitum ...

McCain is talking off "drill here, drill now" which more than matters to "real America"
Dems are chortling over Sarah Palin's lack of knowledge vis-a-vis the "Bush Doctrine" which not only has been interpreted in over half-a-dozen ways but is also alien to most in that same "real America"
McCain ads question Obama's morality and integrity, slimingly so, but they do
Obama's ad mocks McCain's lack of knowledge of computers and emails!!!

Dems aim at the cerebelum while the Republicans always aim for the heart. Dems lose mostly while Republicans win mostly ...

[SpectCon]

I agree.

[jgfox]

Fascinating and insightful article.

The major problem in "changing" back to the old Obama is that it can't be done. It would take a national "neural neutralizer" to remove all the memories and images now implanted and to try to reconstitute the past.

And we know what happened to Gore when he assumed different personalities for each debate with Bush.

Palin is the only true outsider in the race.

McCain and Biden helped lay the first bricks for the Senate building, Obama comes out of a well run Chicago political machine, and bursting on to the scene, comes Annie Oakley. We’ll find out she also can sing and shoot.

Since “judgment”, not experience has been an Obama theme, would someone explain to me how he selected Biden (won 6,000 popular votes) over Hillary (won 18M votes)?

If Obama continues to fall in the polls … pack = media

"In politics you must always keep running with the pack. The moment that you falter and they sense that you are injured, the rest will turn on you like wolves."

R. A. Butler
British (Indian-born) politician (1902 - 1982)

[ethel08]

If you'll explain why McCain chose Palin over Huckabee, Romney, or Giuliani.

[SpectCon]

Obama still has an advantage even in magical poll land which ignores 8 years of Bush, bad economy, old wrinkly dude v. handsome young dude, registered Dems and has no way to account for African American turnout.

The big fall the media has been selling this week is from a slight Obama lead nationally, to a dead heat. And it's national. The state polls would still point to an Obama win if held today.

So is he really slipping or is this 2 weeks of Palinmania that is rapidly tiring? My guess is the latter. As the CW points out people vote for President and 50 days is forever if McCain can turn this from certain defeat to winning in 10 days.

BTW, it's interesting that people point to August now saying how Obama was doing well up until then. Remember it had been nothing but Obama had a terrible summer at that point. Now we learn McCain had no shot at that point.

[vegasobserver]

For 16 years, the right wingers have attacked Hillary for being shrewd, shrill, careerist, ambitious, hectoring, calculating and virago-like.

But when a right wing extremist woman is nominated by the Republicans for Vice President, who has all those characteristics in spades -- more than Hillary ever did -- they salivate and embrace her in a fawning love fest.

[SpectCon]

Yeah, weird huh? But republicans don't like democratic candidates and demonize them. Just goes with the territory.

[fairguy]

Reading this excellent article, I wonder whether Obama is really as smart as I thought he was.

It's a no-brainer that most Americans (like most other people in the world) vote on emotions, perceptions and not realities.

I think his last chance will come in the debates. His responses need to be be really hard hitting and at least somewhat emotional. Forget the ads - nobody watches them anyway, we all have DVRs and fast-forward over them.

[SpectCon]

Most people don't have DVRs.

I totally disagree about being hard hitting in the debates. The emotion he should strive for is optimism and being jovial.

He should looking into the future and presenting a positive image of tomorrow like Reagan did in 1980.

[ethel08]

I agree. People know that it's bad now. They like Obama (and Palin, honestly) because he has made them feel like things can be good again. He needs to keep on that. People vote on the future, not the past.

[ssg13565]

I can just see Obama with the "There you go again" line after McCain repeats one of his lies.

[fairguy]

I accept the correction about most people not having DVRs.

But optimism and being jovial in the face of the disaster of the past 8 years? You gotta be kidding, that would be totally handing it to the other side.

The identity emotion people will most likely align with is anger. Many folks are in deep financial trouble, angry at the current state of things and are looking for a buddy upstairs to help them.