John McCain

Well, Palin's speech was the best of the night, but that's not saying much.

Palin gave a decent speech, but the problem was its sarcasm and its nasty tone. MSNBC actually made it onto the floor with the delegates (they surprisingly were not harmed at all) and began interviewing some people who were enamored by the spectacle of an Alaskan hockey mom ripping Barack Obama to shreds in her nasally accent.

But no matter what Pat Buchanan thinks, appealing to the Republican delegates, to the Republican base (read: the same 27% that support President Bush) is not going to win you an election. Yes, the speech was exactly what was needed in order to get 27 out of every 100 Americans fired up; unfortunately for Palin, McCain, and the GOP, I think just as many, if not more, are now leaning in Obama's direction.

When we look at the bit about community organizing ("I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."), yes, it got a big reaction from the Republican faithful. But isn't this arguing against the social responsibility community organizers like Harriet Tubman and Martin Luther King, Jr. exemplified? I'm not saying it's a surprise that Palin or any Republican would use that language or tone; what I am saying is that Mr. Independent Voter, sick of politics as usual, and listening to this speech is not going to be taken with Ms. Palin's nasty jabs (even if it is in an Alaskan accent).

Yes, I think Palin was effective in shoring up the base tonight. But the problem for the McCain campaign is that she probably was just as effective at pushing those leaners even harder toward Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

(And I must ask -- how LAME is this convention??)

This isn't going to be a long post, but more of something to think about.

We all know that McCain's hastily choosing Sarah Palin as his runningmate has led to a steady flow of information as the media does McCain's vetting for him.

While I love the fact that we're all included in the process, and therefore included in discovering the titillating tidbits that seem to surface with each passing hour, we're learning more and more about McCain's ability to make snap decisions and what it might look like in a presidential setting -- none too pretty.

But as I was going through my RSS reader, I found a post on Hotline's On Call blog that contained an insightful comment from a reader:

"Country First" as campaign/convention slogan was rolled out a couple of weeks ago. Seems this slogan was crafted in preparation of and to justify picking Joe Lieberman - another maverick that has put his country ahead of his party (as their story goes).

That McCain caved in to the conservative wing of the Republican Party, dumping Lieberman at the last minute to go with Palin, seems to put politics and party ahead of country. If Palin isn't qualified to govern then she is clearly on the ticket for electoral benefit only - again, party first, McCain first, etc. Is this not the story to cover? Is this not the real point of the incomplete vetting story? A snap decision being back-filled with post-facto vetting, all this junk about how she's a reformer, took on Republicans, etc.

In his first presidential test of strength - to stand up to the party he claims to be willing to stand up to, McCain flinched. If Obama passing over Hillary was spun for political benefit by Republicans, it seems Dems could also spin McCain passing over Lieberman to weaken the "Country First" frame.

I, too, think there needs to be more focus on the "Country first" theme. And it would make sense that this was chosen for a Ridge or a Lieberman runningmate more than someone like Palin. (Elisabeth Bumiller's piece in today's Times has more on this.)

While they might be selling it as a "gut" decision he made, perhaps his campaign is covering up the fact that it didn't live up to it's own "patriotic" motto. They caved to the Religious Right, placing party first, and in the process, they picked a candidate who, at one time, was "Alaska first."

How in the world is this passed off as good judgment? It looks like an ugly mess to me -- one that places anything BUT the country first. Perhaps Obama/Dems should look into this line of attack.

Any thoughts?

In his impressive speech on Thursday, Obama hinted at what is probably going to be the theme of the last two months of his campaign: McCain just doesn't get it.

Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn't know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year? How else could he propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies but not one penny of tax relief to more than one hundred million Americans? How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits, or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college, or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement?

It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it.

Emphasis added. This theme is sharp, but it can't be portrayed as an attack on McCain's character. The theme makes some very subtle jabs at his age, but on the face of the statement, there's really nothing to criticize about it. The phrase can connect with so many of McCain's dangerous qualities, some of which don't even make it into this paragraph of Obama's speech -- his lack of understanding of technology, his inability to grasp the economy, his ignorance of how much Americans do want to be called to sacrifice. He doesn't get that people are tired of the same tax cuts, the same war, the same pandering to the religious right, the same wedge politics.

There are two large corollaries to this theme. The first is that Obama is then given the opportunity to be more positive by concluding that, while McCain doesn't get it, he does. He did this in his speech:

Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.

Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.

I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

...America, now is not the time for small plans.

Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. Michelle and I are only here tonight because we were given a chance at an education. And I will not settle for an America where some kids don't have that chance. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American - if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

...And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.

Never before has Obama been so specific on what change means, yet so insistent on big dreams and goals. He reassures people here that while change may be risky, there is a sound, logical case to be made for it. Failing to change in this election means moving further off the path; if the country votes for his change, we restore the essence of America. Obama focuses on the issues -- problems that need to be solved. And so the patriotism here is a lofty patriotism -- he dreams big in solving these issues because he cares about this country. He's wagering that a majority of Americans hunger for this; we certainly know that youth do.

Now let's look at the other corollary. By saying McCain doesn't get it, Obama is also able to offer up evidence to back up this assertion. He did this in his speech, but now that he's cornering the market on change and on competence, he can roll out a new criticism of anything McCain does or says and apply a comprehension test.

For instance, unless you've been under a rock the past few days (without a Blackberry or a laptop with wi-fi), you've heard that John McCain has picked Sarah Palin, a 44 year old governor of Alaska, to be his runningmate. Many pundits are puzzled -- they don't want to disparage the pick because it is so -- novel? But let's look at this logically: she's in the middle of a scandal in her homestate; she has out-of-the-mainstream views on abortion and in the battle between evolution and creationism; John McCain did not have more than one conversation with her before asking her to run with him. Keeping all of this in mind, please remember that the runningmate decision is supposed to be the first "presidential decision" that a candidate makes. So what does this say about McCain's judgment and his ability to make tough decisions? And what does it say about his "country first" slogan?

The Los Angeles Times has some analysis today on what McCain's runningmate selection might mean when thinking about big decisions in a McCain presidency.

For a candidate known to possess a quick temper and an unpredictable political streak, the decision raises questions about how McCain would lead -- whether his decisions would flow from careful deliberations or gut checks in which short-term considerations or feelings outweigh the long view.

"Americans like risk-takers, but they also want to know that in times of crisis, you're going to be calm," said Matthew Dowd, who was a senior campaign strategist for President Bush but is neutral in the McCain-Obama race.

"Americans don't necessarily want somebody in a time of crisis to be overly emotional," Dowd said. "That's the balance that John McCain's going to have to show the public."

If I'm David Axelrod, I'd be doing two things with McCain's decision: 1.) I would publicly examine McCain's decision-making progress here to further illustrate the issues of temperament and judgment McCain has in making the important decisions -- i.e. do we really want McCain to be making decisions at 3AM when he's pissed someone had the audacity to disturb his slumber? 2.) I would explore publicly the small politics involved in this decision -- if you were placing your country first, wouldn't you be sure to talk to your partner more than once before placing her a heartbeat from the presidency?

Finally, when we further examine this with the youth in mind, why would this group of voters, focused on solving problems through working together, be interested in supporting a candidate and a campaign that appears to be so careless and politically-motivated?

I have always been interested in politics. I could recite the presidents in order when I was in the first grade. I was fascinated by the red/blue maps they would show on TV on election night. The first time I really remember being captivated by politics -- knowing what was going on and what the ramifications were -- was when I watched the results of the 2002 congressional elections in my residence hall room with my Republican hallmate and friend (he's now a Democrat). As 2004 came, I remember being obsessed with the election and closely monitoring it on both the internet and television. I was frustrated during both cycles -- Democrats were showing a remarkable ability to fight the battle exclusively on Republican ground. Issues like gay marriage, abortion, and immigration were complemented by weak Democratic positions on the war in Iraq. Voters were offered no compelling narrative to balance the Republican platform -- so given the choice between Republicans and impostor Republicans, they chose the real thing.

Things are different in 2008, though. The gloss to these superficial issues began to wash away in the floodwaters of Hurricane Katrina. No longer could we pretend that immigration, right to life issues, or same sex marriage were real priorities for this country. Poverty was devastatingly linked with actual people; America got a glimpse of why it is ineffective and heartless to talk about wedge issues rather than solve the actual problems our country faces. There were Americans who were suffering and were gagged; career politicians didn't care to hear their cries for help. In 2006, after Republican scandals further decimated the notion that the GOP's way of doing things would be good for the country, Democrats ran a populist campaign largely based on the issues the country cared about, and they were wildly successful, reclaiming both the Senate and the House.

Young people were enthused by the campaign in 2006. In 2004, Kerry won 18-29 year olds by 54-45 margin over Bush. In 2006, 18-29 year olds voted Democratic by a 60 to 38 margin. Candidates like Jim Webb in Virginia and Claire McCaskill in Missouri ran campaigns that appealed to the gut. Webb's State of the Union response only twenty days after he was sworn in demonstrated why he had so much success while beating former Republican senator George Allen. It was short and to the point, focused on the issues that were relevant. In 2005, after he lost his bid for the Democratic Party's nomination in the previous year, Howard Dean was elected as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and he immediately announced plans to broaden participation among rank-and-file party members, creating a fifty state strategy aimed at mobilizing the people. This call to action combined with a focus on shifting the debate back to the problems affecting people's lives led to a Democratic landslide in 2006 and set the stage for something bigger in 2008.

This year, we've been blessed and/or cursed with a protracted primary battle between two candidates. One candidate in particular demonstrated his understanding of the culture of America's youth. Embracing technology, creating opportunities to serve, and emphasizing the solving of problems led to a surge in support of Senator Obama among the youth community. Democrats, following Howard Dean's and Barack Obama's lead, have made participatory politics chic. Whether they both had read Millennials Rising or not, the change in political approach was exactly what was needed to capitalize on this new civic-minded generation.

We've been reading over the last several months now about how Barack Obama can not close the deal. We've been reading about how American voters may still entertain racist feelings because they're unsure of Obama. We've been reading about how people are worried that Obama might be elected and destroy the government. We've been reading about how Obama isn't patriotic because he doesn't wear a small piece of metal on his jacket. We've read a lot. But while we've been distracted on these issues -- defending Obama's patriotism and his capacity to lead us -- the strategy over the last couple years has actually put us in an enviable position.

This Democratic Party, one tending to focus on youth, on service, on technology, on being connected to one another, on solving problems, on getting involved, on taking responsibility for your community, is a winner. When we ask people to sacrifice and articulate why it's important they do so, that is an appeal to the best Americans have to offer. When we all participate, we're all better off. That is, in my mind, the message that differentiates this Democratic Party from those of years past.

Peter Levine, the director of CIRCLE, wrote on Thursday about the momentum behind the service movement, given that Barack Obama and John McCain have both agreed to appear and participate in a September 11th summit on national community service in New York City. Levine notes that this signals how far service as an American priority has come over the years. Both candidates will make statements -- they will not debate -- on a variety of philosophical and financial questions about the service movement.

This is once more evidence of the Democratic Party, the Left, whatever you'd like to call it, being successful at reframing the debate to talk about issues that are more tangible to the American people. This is also an example of the current foresight of our Democratic leaders -- forcing a discussion on a topic that is hugely important for our future leaders. Our up and coming generation has had a long love affair with volunteering and helping others. Many cite service's immediate impacts as the appeal (although youth seem to be becoming more patient with the process and getting politically involved as well). Of course, it will only help that Sen. Obama was a community organizer when he speaks next month.

As this campaign heats up over the next couple months, please notice the difference between this Democratic Party and the one that we had to suffer through five or six years ago. And then, please think about the difference between this Democratic Party and the one we will build five or six years from now. There are problems with funding the youth arm of the left's infrastructure as Mike as done a great job of noting here, so in order for this to happen, we still need to make sure we're backing it with all the resources we have. But if we do, and if we make a commitment to talking about these issues, the goal of creating a future majority among youth couldn't help but be met.

Yet again, John McCain makes a play "for the youts." I don't know about you, but I think this video just screams "I'm relevant." The best part about it is that the embed functionality is totally busted unless you want an auto-playing loop in an ill-fitting frame on your blog.

And how's McCainspace's new "Generation 08" doing?

That's right, a whopping two members. To be fair, it's only been a day since the official launch, but hey, maybe it's also all the stiff competition from the College Republican's Storm Network. Or, I don't know - the real MySpace, or that FaceSpace thingum? Or maybe it's just yet another crap social network that no one wants to join. Why hop on a social network with little to no social network opportunities compared to the already robust social network you are already a part of?

Or maybe, as PEW found out in its new poll today, it's just that fewer and fewer young people are identifying as Republicans. PEW found that 37% of 18 - 29 year olds identify as Democrats, compared to just 23% who identify as Republicans. If you add in "leaners," those numbers jump to 55 to 36%.

Kind of hard to startup a social network when your brand is electoral poison.

Update: HippieChick has more on this in her diary. I also wanted to point out that when Bush was making similar noises in 2004, Rock the Vote ran a great campaign focusing on the draft. It infuriated Ed Gillespie and the RNC. It would be great to see something like that again.
------------------------

I'm not looking to fearmonger or anything, but the dude said it himself:

Think Progress has the scoop.

What I'm reading today:

• The American Prospect looks at the good and the bad behind Obama's takeover of the DNC.
• A companion piece looks at the 15 most important advisors behind the Obama operation.
• Chris Bowers examines the demographic trends behind Obama's coalition and declares an end to the era of Values Voters and "Bubba Dominance."
• WireTap profiles Tony Peyton, the youngest member of the Pennsylvania House, and how the Center for Progressive Leadership helped shape him into a winning candidate.
• John McCain is trying to steal credit for the new GI Bill, which he actively opposed and obstructed.
• Bondelli explains how you can build your own Sprout Widget.
• The Voto Latino blog pointed me to this GQ profile of Meghan McCain from back in March. It's so vacuous at times that can't decide if it is a terrible profile or sheer genius on the part on the part of the McCain campaign. The girl did go to Columbia. What do you think?
• If, like me, you've been mesmerized by HBO's Generation Kill, you should check out the original Rolling Stone article by Evan Wright.
• Youth are a prime target in the Indiana Governor's race.
• Gawker thinks that MSNBC is trending Democratic and will continue to do so as it rakes in younger viewers.
• The Virginia Pilot notes that 2/3 of the 200,000 newly registered voters in the state are under the age of 35. The paper declares voter registration the new youth movement. I couldn't agree more.

This is a guest post by Millennial Makeover authors Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais. Originally published in The Politico. --Mike

The key to waging a successful presidential campaign by either Barack Obama or John McCain will be their ability to use their respective conventions to overcome generational tensions. What happens in Denver and the Twin Cities could give the nominees freedom to embrace the generational changes that will shape American politics for decades to come.

If the candidates pay proper attention to generational politics, each convention will begin with a nod to their party’s Boomers and then pivot away from the past to address, on the final night, new voters whose support they will need to win in November.

The candidates must take the lead in managing their party’s convention so that the ticket and its platform reflect the desire of the electorate to move beyond the cultural wars of the 1960s. Each party’s understanding of this generationally driven challenge will be evident in how it handles the iconic, Boomer figures demanding center stage at their conventions.

Obama, in an acknowledgement of the generational strains in his party, has agreed to Hillary Rodham Clinton's request to not only address the convention in prime time on Tuesday night, but to have her name placed in nomination the following night. In return, he has gained the agreement of former president Bill Clinton to, in effect, lead the Boomers in the Democratic Party to embrace and endorse Senator Obama's nomination on Wednesday night.

As tough as that challenge has been for Obama, the problem is more acute for John McCain. President Bush's job performance ratings are among the lowest of any president. But he remains popular with Boomer ideologues in the GOP, who are continually looking for signs that McCain has stayed from party orthodoxy. Any attempt to deny a sitting president the spotlight at their national convention, as Democrats did in keeping Lyndon Johnson from addressing their 1968 convention, will be met with cries of “I told you not to trust him” from Republican true believers.

It appears that McCain’s advisers have decided to throw cultural war red meat to the delegates with appearances by Bush and Vice President Cheney on Monday, in hopes that the electorate won’t pay too much attention until later in the week.

If history is any guide, the place where both candidates will be willing to make concessions to their party’s ideological base will be the party’s platform. Since this policy statement is debated early in the convention, with little penalty for abandoning a plank or two later in the campaign, platforms are the easiest way to throw a bone to ideological purists. The Generation X and Boomer Democratic blogosphere has previously attacked Obama for failing to adhere to hard left positions on post 9-11 issues and offshore oil drilling.

Similarly, a number of conservatives have condemned McCain's former positions on climate change, immigration, and campaign finance reform.

The choice each candidate must make is whether to use the platform debate to give the cultural warriors in their party a final opportunity to replay the political drama of the nation’s Boomer past or to use the platform debate as a “Sister Souljah” generational moment and decisively break with that kind of divisive politics.

In the end, however, there will be no better place for the two candidates to demonstrate their break with the politics of past generations than in their acceptance speeches.

The McCain campaign has signaled its intention to use their candidate’s story of personal sacrifice on behalf of the nation throughout the convention. This effort will likely culminate in an acceptance speech attempting to simultaneously distinguish his life’s experience from those of the Woodstock generation (“I was tied up at the time”) and arouse the passions of his party’s Boomer base.

The challenge, however, is how to do that that without awakening a set of related thoughts among Millennials about just how old and potentially out of touch with their generation he is. Millennials weren’t around for Woodstock, don’t care about it, and prefer that everyone “play nice” together. Passion displayed as anger turns them off. To capture a new and winning coalition in this campaign, McCain would be better off using his acceptance speech to underline his national security credentials based on a lifetime of service, both of which appeal greatly to Millennials.

Obama’s decision to deliver his acceptance speech before a large outdoor audience on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech comes with its own set of risks. Echoes of that remarkable speech are sure to arouse the passions of the liberal half of the Boomer generation. But, it will also remind viewers of the turmoil of the 60s that drove a majority of the nation to embrace the Republicans’ appeal for “law and order.”

Obama’s rhetoric will need to inspire a new generation to take the next steps toward achievement of King’s dream, without creating a backlash among the rest of the electorate that wasn’t enamored with the racial overtones of the Democratic primary campaign.

To succeed in November, both candidates will have to speak explicitly to the future and demonstrate that their campaign represents the hopes of a new generation. The country is waiting for a new leader with a new approach to guide it out of the Boomer briar patch in which it has been stuck since 1968. After the conventions, we will have a clearer idea who can best lead the country into a new era of American politics.

Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais are co-authors of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics published by Rutgers University Press.

Some reading for your Saturday. (Updated by Mike)

• A Missouri state senate race was decided by youth volunteers.
• Russell Simmons, a famed hip-hop producer, appears on Fox News to discuss his GOTV effort.
• An excellent article delving into McCain's failure on technology policy and its connection to his poor performance among youth.
• Paul Krugman ponders our globalized economy and its understated fragility with regard to geopolitics.
• David Broder tackles the well-oiled machine that is the Obama campaign.
• The Toronto Star has an interesting column on the disappearance of fashion's connection with politics; it turns out Millennials would rather profess their opinion online and turn them into social movements -- who knew?
• MSNBC examines the volunteer efforts of China's Ba-Ling-Hou Generation, the American Millennial's counterpart; many Chinese youth have mobilized to confront the damage from the recent massive earthquake that struck a few weeks ago.
• U.S. News and World Report has a profile on the generations of the two presidential candidates; unfortunately no discussion of the impact of Millennials.
• User Generated Content at its best:

McCain uses Wikipedia which is the voice of the people, thus McCain is using the words of the people... according to Stephen.

The Lieberman jokes are particularly funny...