It's been a long eleven months since the Iowa-New Hampshire days, and I've been wallowing a little in a post-election lassitude. Time gives a little perspective, though. Looking back, I ask myself: where were the turning points? What were the most critical moments (perhaps unrecognized at the time) that drove the campaign the way it played out? Personally, I think these three dates were the most critical in Barack Obama's victory this month:
March 18: The Jeremiah Wright controversy is flaring and threatening to derail Obama's march to the nomination. The "God Damn America!" clip is playing nonstop on the cable news networks. Race and racial tensions are being inserted into the campaign, openly, for the first time. Obama responds with a magnificent speech, in which he speaks directly and with nuance towards the Wright controversy and the topic of race in America. While the issue never quite goes away, after this performance, it never again becomes such a serious problem for the Obama campaign.
August 29: Sarah Palin is announced as the Vice Presidential nominee. Mystifying insiders, electrifying evangelicals, she radically alters the dynamics of the Presidential race, which had been locked into a sort of stasis. Initially, she enjoys a honeymoon and McCain-Palin briefly surge ahead in the polls. But her inexperience undercuts McCain's central attack on Obama, and her inability to handle herself with the media prove to be serious liabilities with the electorate. Later, her incediary rhetoric and unwillingness to stay on message drive away independent voters, who overwhelmingly view her as unready for the office she seeks.
September 14: Treasury Secretary decides to allow Lehman Brothers to fail, triggering the largest bankruptcy in Wall Street history, and precipitating an unprecedented crisis in the banking sector. While McCain's response to this is off-pitch, the atmosphere of crisis intrinsically favors the Democrats in this election climate, and allows Obama to portray himself as a steady leader in a time of crisis.
Those are my picks. It's interesting how many "big events" of the moment wound up as relative footnotes, in retrospect. The big European tour, Hillary's concession, the convention speech -- they were certainly big, but in the end, none of these fundamentally altered the state of the race before or after.
What do you think?
6 comments:
As far as our new political term "game changer" goes, I agree with one and three. I don't know what to make of Palin. I see her more as a necessary gamble that didn't pay off.
I can tell you that for me, one and three were very important. Most importantly, the race speech caused me to really believe that Obama could be much more than a Clinton/Reagan figure. I read that speech and saw more behind the eyes than an inspiring figure. Likewise, the economic crisis revealed a even tempered, grace under fire leader.
These were big moments in the horse race, but they were also evidence of why Obama was the better choice.
IMHO or whatever.
The "lipstick on a pig" week is what did it for me. Up until that point, I felt I could have been okay with a McCain presidency. Granted, Palin made me very nervous, but I still thought McCain was a decent guy. Then his campaign rolled out the contrived outrage to drag the process into the mud. What made me angry, in addition to the shallow calculation of the move, was that there were much, much more important things to be talking about.
For me, that was the week McCain's campaign jumped the shark, the straight-talk express became the B.S express, the straight-talk express went into the ditch, etc, etc, whatever cliche you wish to use.
I agree with Jim that the Palin choice was necessary. It didn't work, but I think it represented his last best chance. It did get more of the religious right to the polls. Had she been only slightly better in interviews, she might not have drive away independents. Think about how this would have gone had she gotten slightly more Huckabee-affable in her interviews...
This election turned for me when George Bush got Roberts on to the Supreme Court.
Then his campaign rolled out the contrived outrage to drag the process into the mud.
I'm not sure McCain's campaign did this any more than Obama's. The *only* time we heard about Obama "not looking like other presidents" was when he brought it up. The only time we heard about his "funny name" from an actual campaign was when he brought it up. You can't blame McCain for Rush Limbaugh any more than you can blame Obama for Jeremiah Wright. The big ears comment came from Obama.
Plenty of staffers pretended that Obama was up against a race-war from McCain, but he wasn't, it was manufactured to serve the Obama campaign.
IMHO or whatever.
I promise not to hate you for anything you say on this blog if you promise never to feel compelled to use phrases like this again. Didn't we segregate ourselves from Sally so we could do this without disclaimers?
I agree with Jim that the Palin choice was necessary. It didn't work, but I think it represented his last best chance. It did get more of the religious right to the polls. Had she been only slightly better in interviews
Totally right. It was a losing gamble, but it was the right type of gamble. The analogy I heard was an onsides kick -- it's a risky move, low yield, and not one you'd pull in the first quarter, but there are times when it represents your only possible path to victory.
Post a Comment