08 Presidential Candidates, Political Analysis

CNN has the report here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/16/warren.forum/index.html

A new ad against Obama, (though not from the McCain campaign) is here:

Obama’s “outreach” during the event at the CA mega-church to social conservatives was not on abortion, though he was specifically asked about it.   He actually came out and said he believes marriage is between a man and a woman and he opposes civil unions.  His votes on the issue are usually the perfunctory “present” rather than yea or nay, but I have to think that he has finally done something that will upset part of his base.

It also confirms my belief that the left will compromise on any and every issue before moving on abortion.

First, on this blog I have been rather critical of McCain’s past ads as ineffective.  But this one merits an A+:

 

Obama meanwhile chose to take a week vacation with his family in Hawaii.  An odd time for vacation to my mind.  He’s running for President and the election is less than 3 months away!  If McCain, whose age is supposed to be slowing him down according to some of Obama’s supporter, is not taking vacation, then why is the youthful, supposedly more energetic, Obama going on vacation? 

Obama was invited to participate in a military town hall, (which would have been a good idea considering all of the negative attention among military families he received for how he treated the troops in Iraq and skipping out on a scheduled visit to visit wounded troops), but instead he is in Hawaii on vacation.  Despite occasional lip service, Obama has shown a consistent level of disrespect toward American soldiers and those who choose a military career. 

Not surprisingly, polls tightened this week and Rasmussen Reports has 7 days in a row with McCain and Obama within a point of each other.  Two of those days McCain was ahead, for the first time since the end of the Democratic primary.

In the background, Senator Clinton has been rallying her troops and calling for a strategy for them to be heard at the convention.  She has explicitly stated that she is not going to try and wrest the nomination away from Obama, but her delegates should be allowed to vote for her if they wish.  She also has been writing articles about what a good President’s policies would be without praising Obama, staying on message for Obama, or criticizing McCain. 

John McCain must spend all his remaining primary money this month or return it to donors by the time of the convention in the first week of September. 

Last, the energy issue has dominated center stage this week.  A brief breakdown in descending order of importance:

Offshore drilling - McCain supports in light of energy crisis.  Before the energy crisis he opposed it.  Obama supports it as of last week, but it is not clear why.  He stated that it would be necessary to reach compromise with Republicans.  He has since hedged his commitment to offshore drilling a bit stating that it should only be allowed when we have exhausted all the federally leased acres and only if environmentally sound.  (The environmental provision would effectively result in a parallel to what has prevented most domestic drilling, as any environmental group can hold the drilling up in court for the entire lease period without ever necessarily getting to the merits of a case).  Precipitating Obama’s switch was public polling in favor of offshore drilling by a 59%-23% margin.  This is likely to be perhaps the largest single action we can take to increase our energy independence at this time.  Previously Obama attacked this idea since he believed it would not increase our oil supply for 5 years.

Nuclear power - McCain has called for 45 new nuclear plants to be built to generate huge amounts of energy for America.  Nuclear energy is generally thought to be good, clean, safe, and cheap energy.  In Europe, they have drastically reduced their energy costs and proven safe.  Obama opposes developing any nuclear power plants.

Coal - Both candidates have supported expansion of coal, and development of clean coal technology.  Even if Pennsylvania were not a swing state, this would still be a good policy.

Alternative energy sources - Sun, wind, and rain can all be converted into energy.  Both candidates support greater utilization of these energy sources and investment in them.  McCain states his is an “all of the above” approach to comprehensive energy solutions.  Obama states that these technologies could create 5 million new American jobs.

Domestic drilling - Though 5th on the list, it is a major factor to my mind.  With brand new drilling sites through the midwest, particularly in North Dakota, this could perhaps even be the largest source of energy.  We won’t know unless we allow more oil exploration.  McCain supports drilling wherever we can find oil.  Obama opposes expanded domestic drilling.  His caveat is that if we use all the 68 million acres that are already leased by oil companies, (which are already incentivized to find oil where they can except they are held up in court often by environmentalists), then new lands could be considered.  In short, he won’t allow it.  While making fun of McCain from the stump, Obama stated that McCain keeps saying “Let’s drill here” even though he was inside once when he said it.  Again, when Obama goes even a little off message, it often does not come off well.

Alaska pipeline and ANWR - It is well known that ANWR has enough oil to satisfy our energy needs for the whole country for several years, but both candidates oppose drilling there.  McCain has hinted though that he might reconsider that stance if he felt the national interest and national security required it.  Both candidates praised the construction of a pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48 states that Governor Palin and the Alaskan legislature approved and funded this week.

Inflate the tires - Obama has pointed out, correctly, that AAA and Nascar recommend we inflate our tires.  He incorrectly asserts, however, that this could save more energy than offshore drilling could at 3-4%.  McCain made fun of Obama on this point which irked Obama greatly.  While its true we can inflate our tires, I don’t exactly see that as a policy that will achieve resolution.  Its not even a policy initiative.  Its just an observation.  To offer this instead of drilling is a really poor attack on his opponent’s centerpiece to the energy crisis solution.

Windfall profits tax - Obama has proposed taxing oil companies on “windfall profits” and called John McCain the best friend of oil men and beholden to big oil.  The Center for Responsive Politics, however, pointed out that it is actually Obama who has received more money from oil company executives than John McCain.  Since this would invariably raise gas prices and eliminate the profit incentive for oil companies to drill in any new places, as well as increase our dependence thereby on foreign oil, I mark this as a terrible idea, perhaps the very worst proposal of his campaign.

Gas tax holiday - McCain (and Clinton) supported a gas tax holiday which would lower gas prices by the amount of the tax - a good 20-30 cents per gallon, throughout the summer.  Obama opposed this as he did not believe it would be a long term solution.

Energy credit - Obama has proposed giving every working family a $1000 energy credit.  This would not lower gas prices, but it would help somewhat with the pain at the pump.  McCain has neither endorsed nor rejected this view but has indicated he would be open to measures that would help working families with their pain at the pump as well.

Entrepreneurial incentives - While both candidates have supported some incentives that would encourage scientific innovation, McCain has put more money there than Obama, including a $300 million dollar prize for someone who can perfect an economical electric engine for our cars, (which would save our country billions, perhaps trillions).  Obama opposed that initiative.

Fuel efficiency standards - Obama has also proposed increasing the fuel efficiency standards on cars to in the neighborhood of 40 MPG.  Short of market regulation, this would never happen, as the market clearly shows no signs of jumping there at this time.  While this would save Americans on gas mileage, the downside is the R&D necessary to create those cars and the likely cost of the vehicles themselves would mean we’d all have to buy our cars for about an extra $20,000.  Can’t exactly regulate the market into creating economical fuel efficient cars.

Congressional action - As the Democratic majority Congress, (which since 2006 has seen gas prices rice from $2.30 to $4.10), takes its recess vacation, GOP Congressmen are staying on the Hill demanding the Democrats return.  McCain has pledged that he would as President force the Congress back into session (The President has authority under the Constitution to convene emergency sessions of Congress during the recess) to solve the energy crisis.  Obama has not criticized his fellow party members for taking the paid vacation while the pain at the pump continues across the country and we continue our dependence on foreign oil.

The past few days have seen a lot of back and forth between the two campaigns.  McCain’s team released 2 ads called “Celebrity” and “The One” pointing out that Obama’s candidacy has been propped up by his celebrity type status while failing to address key issues and making himself out to be some type of Messianic figure.  Obama insinuated McCain was racist, McCain’s team accused him of playing the race card, and Obama clarified that he believes McCain is cynical, not racist.  The basic point of the ads to my mind is to point out that there are serious decisions and leadership needs that come with the Presidency that lofty rhetoric and celebrity status are not going to help Obama with.

Here is the ad:

http://www.johnmccain.com/videolanding/theone.htm

The biggest news of the day was Obama reversing his previously steadfast opposition to offshore drilling.  I am hard pressed at this point to name any major issue on which Obama has not flip-flopped his position to some degree.  Again, I recognize politicians will sometimes change positions based on new facts, a change of situation, or simply a change of heart.  Those individuals may nobly do so when they recognize there is a change, explain their rationale, and are not just doing it because of polls.  Time and time again, however, Obama has changed his position when polls clearly show his position had become unfavorable.  After an extensive media campaign launched by McCain to emphasize the need for offshore drilling and comprehensive energy reform proposals, the public opinion swung in favor of offshore drilling by a 57%-29% margin, (with even higher support in swing states in the upper mid-west).  And, again Obama denies that there was any change in his position at all.  Nor does he state that there are new facts or circumstances that justify the change in position.  Can anyone name three significant issues Obama has not reversed himself on?

Obama also has reneged further on the number of debates.  After declaring in the primary that he would debate McCain “anytime, anywhere” he rejected McCain’s invitation to do a series of 10 joint town halls.  Obama stated he would do 1 town hall and the usual 3 debates.  Obama has reneged further because he is no longer willing to do even the one town hall.  His campaign has to be the most carefully controlled and scripted campaign I have ever seen.  So much for a new type of politics.  Obama also refused to debate Clinton when it no longer suited his political interests to do so.

This week Obama bounced up to a 6 point lead and back down to 1-2 points after his “world tour” of the Middle East and Europe.  Along the way, he stayed on script with a carefully controlled message, with little interaction with the press.  Many in the press have hailed it a success.

On the downside, however, Obama did not shake hands with the troops and spend much time with them besides his photo op shooting hoops for a few minutes.  He released his “Plan for Iraq” the day before he went on his “fact finding mission” which he asserted afterwards to have confirmed his beliefs, despite his position’s contrast to that of General Petraeus, he deftly asserted he would still now knowing the results of the surge which has cut American troop deaths by 65-70% have opposed it, and cut out off his schedule the trip to visit wounded soliders in favor of spending extra time in Germany.  Even the German newspapers noted in der Spiegel that he was thin on specifics.  While the Europeans welcomed his pledge to withdraw from Iraq, (in a speech which did not discuss residual forces, listening to the commanders on the ground, need to possibly return if chaos results, etc.), they were unenthused and stonewalled his call for them to help in Afghanistan.

McCain continued to hammer away at all the mistakes in judgment Obama has shown on foreign policy.

On a lighter note, I recommend visiting http://sendables.jibjab.com/sendables/1191/time_for_some_campaignin#/teaser/1191 for an amusing video making fun of both candidates.

The most notable news story this week to my mind has been the New York Times editorial page’s refusal to publish John McCain’s response to Barack Obama’s submission on his plan for Iraq.  This flagrant partisan censorship was capped with a condescending and patronizing feint at neutrality as they stated that although McCain’s first submission didn’t meet standards, he could submit another draft if he wanted. 

So when did the New York Times become John McCain’s 10th grade history teacher taking a struggling student under their wing?  Long criticized for its failure to maintain neutrality and blatant partisanship, especially in yet another election cycle where the New York Times is writing puff pieces on Obama and hit pieces against McCain on a daily basis, this act can only be considered an abandonment of whatever pretense at professional journalistic integrity they maintained.  

But as to the fallout, yet again, I believe this will hurt the New York Times more than John McCain.  The ad revenues at the New York Times are reported as down 84%, including a 16% drop in June alone.  Once a somewhat reputable newspaper, Democrats could cite to the New York Times as evidence in support of various claims.  The New York Times could paint the issues that would get discussed.  Republicans felt uncomfortable dismissing such a large “mainstream” newspaper.  But no more.  

Rasmussen Reports recently reported an astounding 49% and rising block of the public feel the media is out to help Obama get elected.  While the 31% or so of the public Rasmussen reports as enthusiastically supporting Obama will not admit it, they are most likely aware that the newspaper tends to disproportionately support their candidate.  The real number of people, therefore, who know the media, and in particular blatantly partisan media outlets such as the New York Times, is biased is probably well over 80%. 

A critical mass has been reached in the public consciousness such that the New York Times, and similar groups such as the L.A. Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, etc. are no longer owed any deference or automatic credibility in the public conversation.  Reading them may be a nice reference point, but it is no different really than going to a liberal blog.

To make up for its advertising revenue losses, the New York Times has hiked its prices for the second time in a year, with the newstand price now at $1.50 per day.  That’s $45.00 a month.  Heck, for half that, anybody could pay for their internet, drop the newspaper, and get far more diverse, professional, and thorough news online.  One could even take that $45 a month, get a computer on a monthly payment plan, get their internet connection, and still be saving money!

While Obama’s “media army” marches on the home front, he continues his tour of the Middle East.  Obama spoke to the Israeli’s today, incorrectly asserting his role in pushing forward legislation that would put economic pressure on Iran.  Obama referred to the bill as coming out of “his committee” even though it did not.  It seems anytime he is put in any setting where his message is not carefully controlled through teleprompter, advance knowledge of the questions and control of the backdrops, or avoidiing random questions from reporters, he gets off message and flubs something.

His reception in Jordan was positive, and several terrorist groups declared, (though Obama did not rebuke them nor reject their offer) that Obama was under their protection as he visited the Middle East.

Obama also re-declared his support for peace in Israel, but seems to have taken a yet third stance on the issue.  First, he stated he supported a non-divided Israel.  Then, he stated that he wanted to have things divided between the Israelis and the Palestinians and that Israel should commit to trading land and any future settlements to achieve peace.  Then he oscillated back to support for a non-divided Israel.  Now, he is saying that it would be unrealistic to expect to achieve peace quickly given the historical problems and that it is chiefly up to the Palestinians and Israelis to work it out.  Israelis favor McCain by a 2-1 margin.

Here is an excerpt from an interview of Obama by Katie Couric:

Meanwhile, McCain has struggled to gain media attention here in the States.  McCain has, to my mind, wisely utilized this juncture to call attention to Obama’s multiple unpopular policies and position changes, as well as misjudgments on Israel, Iran and Iraq.  Most pointedly, McCain points out that Obama, (as recently as today), is still harping on the surge as a mistake, stating that he would still vote against the surge.  The surge in American troops though has been directly responsible for the reduction in violence, the reduction in loss of life of American troops (from 80-90 or more per month to under 30 per month).  Obama continues to bleat that a political solution is necessary.  While of course that is true, Obama seems very Bush-esque in that he seems incapable of admitting he made a mistake in voting against the surge and that his judgment was off.  Obama also claimed that nobody could have foreseen the Sunni militias joining with American forces as “Sons of Iraq” and the “Awakening Councils” which coincided with the surge, and the announcement there would be a surge, which also helped turn the tide. 

One story, perhaps a tactic of the McCain campaign this week, was a rumor that McCain might pick a veep this week.
 
Here are my thoughts on the respective candidates:

1.  Mitt Romney - while he currently is considered the leader among possible candidates, and he would not make a bad veep, he would be the wrong choice.  For an excellent analysis as to why, see Dick Morris’s article - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/romney_a_mistake_for_mccain.html.  While I disagree that Romney’s Mormonism would be a big problem to the base, and Romney does have some economic gravitas, Romney for whatever reason has not been able to win anything despite heavily outspending his opposition in the primaries.  What would be interesting though is to see whether Romney would help the ticket much in Michigan, the one state he did win, and see a few polls there.  He would not carry Massachussetts, and the Mormon vote is already going to go strong for the GOP, so there’s no chance of losing there anyway.  Most pointedly, Romney was a voracious critic of McCain in the primary, almost to a brutal extent.

2.  Tom Ridge - Would be an unmitigated disaster of a choice.  Ridge was Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and comes from Pennsylvania, which are overstated as accolades.  A recent Rasmussen poll showed just as many people would be less likely to vote for McCain as more likely to vote for him with Ridge on the ballot.  Ridge would not help McCain carry Pennsylvania.  Ridge would also hurt McCain in important base constituencies to whom Ridge’s pro-choice stance is anathema.  No pro-choice veep ticket could possibly stand even a slight chance of winning in 2008.  I’ll say that again - no pro-choice veep could do anything but destroy McCain’s chances of winning.  McCain has had a long hard road to unite his base, but he will lose in a landslide if he alienates them by picking someone like Ridge.  In that same vein, forget about Rice, Powell, and Giuliani.

3.  Tim Pawlenty - Governor of Minnesota, he also would not be a bad choice, but I’m not sure if he’d give the ticket any boost at all.  While Minnesota would be closer, he would not carry Minnesota for McCain, and a loss is a loss is 0 electoral votes from Minnesota.

4.  Mark Sanford - While this South Carolina star would please the base, and would not be a bad choice, he also would not particularly help McCain.

5.  Sarah Palin - Governor of Alaska, she is without a doubt the best choice of any potential veep candidate, head above shoulders over the rest.  The political stars are perfectly aligned for her candidacy.  The Clintonistas who have never been really won over by Obama yet reluctantly support him would flip back against Obama.  Before Clinton dropped out to a few days after, Obama went from a 8-10 point underdog to McCain to a 5-10 point leader.  That was a swing of about 15 points.  While McCain campaigned well over the next month and managed to even the polls out to the virtual tie its at now, with perhaps Obama still sporting a point or two lead, the “Clintonistas” are still out there as the reluctant Obama supporters.  NO MALE VEEP WILL FLIP THESE VOTERS TO MCCAIN.  There is no larger swing block that can be moved by a veep selection in this cycle.  Hispanics are a second major swing group that McCain could tap into through selecting a Hispanic, but the female vote is even bigger in this cycle.  McCain should promise some prominent positions to HIspanics in his administration and continue to reach out to them, but a female veep is the ticket this year.

Clintonistas still remember Obama’s sometimes chauvinistic and sexist comments and how their gal criticized his inexperience and other shortcomings in that long brutal primary.  The “bitterness” if you will of that drawn out primary is still the hatchet sticking out of the ground behind Obama’s back that the GOP could lift up if McCain is wise enough to pick a female.

Not only that, but look at the internals in the polls in swing states as to the gender gap.  In Michigan, there is a 21 point gender gap according to Rasmussen Reports. 

Last, the Clintonistas should not be thought of as merely acolytes of NARAL and NOW.  Exit polls consistently show only 9 percent of the public base their vote on abortion, and they break 7-2 Pro-Life.  So those 2% are only a small portion of the 25-30% of the Democratic party who just two months ago were saying Obama would not win their vote over McCain. 

They are still open to McCain.  They want a woman.  They know the glass ceiling got more cracks in ever in it during the Clinton candidacy, and McCain’s nomination choice could be the hammer that breaks that glass ceiling once and for all.

See my previous posts for a full top 25 reason list as to why Palin is the best choice on an array of other issues.  The beauty queen, sports star, highly effective, strong fiscal conservative, strong social conservative, with an astronomical approval rating and excellent resume on achieving energy independence, as well as nothing short of heroic stand on ethics reform where she risked her own political demise and came out the brighter for it, is the ticket.

The Dems can’t attack her without risking bleeding support.  A mother of five and successful working woman, she is the whole package.  If they attack her in almost any way, more women will line up and rally behind her and McCain.  If they attack McCain for being too old, the Clintonistas will be even more cognizant that as our nation’s #2, she could become the first female President a lot sooner than any Democrat could.

McCain’s team has released the following video on Obama’s position changes on Iraq which can be found at this link:

http://www.johnmccain.com/videolanding/documentary.htm

The major bit of news from the Obama campaign this week was that he raised an impressive $51 million in June, though it is not clear how much he has spent, but he continues to open new campaign offices around the country.  The other news highlight is Obama’s visit to Iraq.  During this visit, Obama’s team released a long planned editorial, published in the New York Times, defining his position on Iraq.  It can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Notably absent from Obama’s plan is language referring to his previous commitments to listen to and take advice to the commanders on the ground and our ambassador in Iraq.  Restored are his (late) primary positions of pledging to withdraw from Iraq within 16 months.  The “plan” strikes me as notoriously optimistic, focused on the past, and entirely silent as to what contingencies/backup plans are in place if things go differently than expected. 

It seems Obama plans on either continuing to oscillate back and forth between pledging to withdraw in 16 months and listening to the commanders on the ground as polls dictate or he is incapable of imagining a scenario where the two do not coincide, (such as now and the previous year).  No matter where someone stands on Iraq, it would seem hard to imagine being confident that Obama is your guy or knowing what he believes. 

In addition to the video link above, McCain’s speech the following day on the same topic can be found here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/strategy_for_victory_in_afghan.html

Obama has also spoken of increasing our military presence in Afghanistan, (McCain has done the same), and has not ruled out invading Pakistan, nor going back into Iraq after the 16 month withdrawal if that causes conditions in the country and/or region to deteriorate.

Last, der Spiegler, a German news magazine, reported this week that al Maliki endorsed Obama’s 16 month withdrawal plan, which, after the Obama team touted the report, was flatly denied as a misrepresentation and mischaracterization by the Iraqi leader.

Obama will tour Europe, including Germany, after he finishes his first trip to Iraq in over two years.

McCain, meanwhile, continues his outreach efforts to Hispanics.

The most striking development over the weekend was the evaporation of Barack Obama’s narrow lead.  Rasmussen Reports now has the two tied.  Newsweek, which had the largest outlier of all polls with Obama at a 15 point lead a few weeks ago now only say he is 3 points up.  Rasmussen puts McCain and Obama at 43-43 and with leaners 46-46.

Obama’s slide down in the polls I attribute to an array of factors, detailed in the earlier posts of the past two weeks.  But several overarching factors/causes jump out as most prominent.  One, Obama faces a revolt in his own base over his rapid moves to the center.  In time, he will likely be able to quash them, but they are going to fight hard to bring him back to the left some.  Two, Obama’s startling volume of position changes undermines people’s confidence in his self-portrayal and claim to be a “different type of politician” as they have seen this type of politics before and can discern that he is consistently putting polls before principle, and self-interest ahead of prior professed beliefs.  Further, this malleability makes supporters queasy perhaps as to how far right he will go and if they know what they are buying while making others willing to withhold their support perhaps as leverage to pull them in the direction they want (particularly the netroots).  Three, McCain’s outreach to Hispanics has probably dented the prior huge pro-Obama margins in that demographic. 
 
Cynthia McKinney looks like she will be the leader of the Green party in this 2008 Presidential race.  McKinney stated the Green party’s goals will be to get on the ballot in 40 states and get 5% of the vote.  Although they will likely do neither, they will likely siphon more support from Obama than from McCain.  Yet, with environmental responsibility being such a buzzword for the modern ethics of good citizenship, it is not impossible to see them making a splash, perhaps particularly on the west coast.

Last, Obama “sort of” reprimanded comedian Bernie Mac for some racy jokes at a campaign event, (yet again a $2300 a head rich donor only event), where Mac joked about infidelity, promiscuity, etc.  Obama chided him that he needed to keep it clean because this was a family affair, (though I’m not sure how many families can afford $2300/head dinners), and then Obama added “By the way, I’m just messing with you man.”  After the event, the Obama campaign overstated the moral courage of Obama in standing up to Bernie Mac as “Sen. Obama told Bernie Mac that he doesn’t condone these statements and believes what was said was inappropriate.”  Some voters may ask themselves, if someone cannot stand up to a comedian making racy jokes and being shouted off the stage by the crowd, how can he stand up to political pressures and other scenarios involving actual moral courage?  See http://omg.yahoo.com/news/bernie-mac-makes-off-color-joke-at-obama-event/10715?nc.

This incident with Mac may further hurt Obama at the end of a bad week in three ways.  One, the lack of moral courage paints him as a weak character in inviting someone to headline an event who says inappropriate things, rebuke him, then hedge the rebuke and turn that into a joke, and then the campaign releases a statement portraying him as having made an unequivocal stand and rebuke.  Two, this hurts him with women.  These comments Obama was comfortable joking about are offensive to women.  Pair that with his previous such blunders/comments offending women voters, and it adds to the tally.   Three, it adds to the narrative that Obama does not pick his friends wisely.

First, McCain’s team’s recent emphasis on “Jobs for America” and his economic plan are described in detail by the campaign here:

See www.JohnMcCain.com/economicbriefing if link does not load.

Next, McCain’s team released a new ad called “Love” which again hearkens back to defining the character of McCain as a war hero and a patriot who has sacrificed for and loves his country.  While the ad will not hurt him, it still lacks the “pathos” emotional connection of his earlier ads.  Frankly, they should replace whoever is coordinating the ads for this campaign and involve someone who understands how ads can utilize an emotional appeal.  I give this ad a C-:

http://www.johnmccain.com/videolanding/love.htm

Except for the most determined McCain haters, even his opponents already recognize that he is a war hero who sacrificed greatly for his country.  Independents are also already aware of it.  The 60s images and pop cultural references have got to stop quite simply, or he will start to look like a cultural ignoramus.  The sound quality on the ad is poor, the static images, the absence of engaging people in emotional images, the overabundance of images that make him look like a CEO, the inexplicable failure to have the candidate himself narrate in favor of a dull voice with no emotional investment in the message, the overuse of symbols such as the bald eagle (not even a soaring one or even a picture of one but an image of one) make this ad poor in quality.  He already looks plenty presidential, but that is simply not enough.

If McCain’s ads do not start demonstrating his care for them on bread and butter issues, the American public will conclude he does not.  The ads should have a conversational feel to the viewer.  McCain may never be the charismatic speaker type, but anybody who has genuine care on an issue or driving passion can communicate that and frame it in a way that could resonate with others who are looking for a leader who understands them and cares about them.  By contrast to Obama, McCain is losing on a huge block of voters who respond to such appeals and, at least as yet, is missing opportunities for significant inroads against Obama.

Obama meanwhile campaigned in Virginia, devoting the day to reaching out to women.  His speech is here:

 

Obama’s speech was not bad but he frankly looks tired and not invested in this message for women.  Obama’s problem is the opposite of McCain’s.  While McCain is short on “pathos”, Obama is short on “logos.”  Voters looking for concrete measures, plans, and commitments are left feeling these comments are overladen with rhetoric and thin on something tangible they can point to that Obama would do if elected.

McCain’s outreach to women is summarized here - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2008/Jul/11/like_obama__mccain_devotes_a_day_to_women_voters.html.  This is, however, a demographic in which he needs serious inroads.  Men love McCain more than Obama.  But the same female voters that Obama was weak on during the primaries are, to put it most precisely, defaulting in large margins to Obama.  What McCain could do to make huge inroads in this demographic, and what in my humble estimation he should do, is to name a female Vice President candidate.  This would be especially powerful if he does so at the convention right after Obama nominates a male.  (If Obama picks a female, the Clintonistas will pivot to Obama and McCain should pick a different veep, preferrably a Hispanic like Senator Martinez, or another minority such as Gov. Jindal).  Among the female candidates out there now, the clear favorite that is getting surprisingly little discussion is Gov. Palin of Alaska. 

Palin has a number of things going for her:

1.  She has executive experience as a Governor.
2.  She brings youth to the ticket.  Further, as a female, her youth does not contrast nastily with McCain’s age as would a young male on the ticket.
3.  She is the mother of 5, a true working mother success story who women will know is someone who can identify with and understand their struggles.
4.  She would unite the cultural conservatives to the ticket, and generate honest to goodness enthusiasm in that critical part of the GOP base.  Not only is she Pro-Life, pro-2nd Amendment, etc. but her life story makes her a poster child hero for the movement as well.  Her youngest child, and 5th has down’s syndrome, but she never wavered towards abortion.  She could be the most credible Pro-Life advocate perhaps ever.
5.  She could help unite fiscal conservatives as well.  She has a strong record of pro-growth policies, reducing taxes, and cutting excess government spending.
6.  The Clintonistas are itching still for a women to get to the White House.  The “unity events” Obama and Clinton have held have a forced and thick with tension air about them.  The Clintonistas were passionate about not her but what she represented - the breakthrough the highest profile glass ceiling in the world.  Her victory would have felt like their victory.  They may pivot to other issues if there are no females on the tickets, but they still feel like they lost.  Given the chance to recapture that feeling and fight that fight, they would welcome the second chance.  From a very pragmatic standpoint, when Clinton withdrew and endorsed Obama, Obama went from a 5 point underdog to an 8 point favorite.  At least 1/4 to 1/3 of the entire Democratic party I believe could be open to switching to the McCain/Palin ticket.  It could be McCain’s only way to a landslide.  And, if it was a landslide, she could become the most prominent female voice in the world.
7.  If McCain won with her on the veep side, this would look an awful lot like a potential 16 year ticket for the GOP.
8.  People love her.  Not only is she a former beauty queen and sports star, but she has an approval rating that is nothing shy of astronomical at 84%.  Contrast that with someone Obama might pick from the Congress (which one poll last week put the Congressional approval rating at 9%) and there is a clear favorite.
9.  She is the epitomy of a government ethics champion with a Hollywood quality story line.  Opposing corruption within her own party, she fought the good fight against corrupt interests that went as high as the Governor’s office.  While the old boys’ club ignored her message and ostrasized her, she resigned in protest.  Shortly thereafter, she was vindicated as the wave of anti-unethical voters and scandals swept her political enemies into disrepute and she overtake an incumbent Governor in a primary battle, and then went on to win the nomination.
10.  She is strong on energy issues, as a consistent supporter for drilling, offshore drilling, and other alternative energy proposals, and her leadership led to the construction of a major new pipeline in Alaska that has greatly increased the prosperity of the people there.  The country as a whole, especially given the current energy crisis and mounting public opinion demanding independence from foreign oil are going to like that in her.
11.  She is a Washington outsider that can outflank Obama’s “new politics” message.  What voters have become skeptical and/or disillusioned about in him, she exemplifies.
12.  On a very basic level, her selection gives McCain supporters “cultural cover” to become active.  I believe a huge portion of people are going to be reluctant to be the ones with a McCain/(any other old white guy) bumper sticker or yard sign.  Very few people who level the critiques against that are going to feel comfortable dispiriting those who are supporting the ticket that would create the historic first female Vice President. 
13.  She has no serious disagreements with McCain on any important issue. 
14.  She mirrors his reputation as a maverick, as an ethics reformer, as strong on spending restraint, strong on independence from foreign oil, could easily be harmonized to his strength on foreign policy, and simultaneously reaches major demographics where he has no traction.
15.  It would put the Democrats into a horrible Catch-22.  Along would come this human interest superstory who could infatuate the media interest which translates into superstardom and teflon from complaints.  The Democrats then must either let her importance works its magic or try to take her down with attacks.  If they try to attack her, they must spend that much less attacking McCain and they come off message.  What’s worse, if they go to hard, they risk alienating women.  They can’t call her unqualified, she has a much stronger record than Obama.  If they say she has too many children, (as some mindless Obama surrogate will likely do), that too would backfire in a major way.  If they say she cannot do such an important job due to her family obligations, if they say she was too recently pregnant, if they say she is only being chosen because she is a woman, etc. it would all backfire.
16.  She bears the antithesis of resemblance to Dick Cheney.
17.  She alienates no part of the GOP base.
18.  Though Alaska is probably not in contention, the old saw that you should pick a veep from a swing state is overstated.  Pawlenty would not carry Minnesota, Ridge would not carry Pennsylvania, Lieberman would not carry Connecticut.  Huge inroads into the national female voting blocks could, however, carry New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc.
19.  As yet, she has not really been attacked by anyone in any important way.
20.  She would be a surprise ace in the hole, as none of the key pundits are plugging her as a possibility.
21.  McCain’s campaign is way too male right now throughout its senior leadership.  Women know this.
22.  She would help balance the “cool” gap McCain lags behind Obama now.  That matters to young voters, even though they never say it that way.
23.  There is a huge “enthusiasm gap” in which McCain lags behind Obama.  There are simply more passionate Obama supporters and grassroots activists on Obama’s side than McCain’s, though there are huge, huge, huge untapped conservative grassroots out there that could get involved with the right veep.  McCain alone or an unexciting veep is not going to do it.   
24.  She has the “pathos” element to complement McCain’s message and may even help bring it out in him.
25.  No other veep possibility has nearly as few down sides, as important the upsides, or the ability to help McCain win that she does.