Democrats panic in the face of Palin-mania
Barack Obama has gone from ‘sure bet’ to defensive candidate in the space of a fortnight
Democrats, exquisitely sensitised to the footfalls of defeat by the debacles of 2000 and 2004, caught the first menacing chords of impending disaster last weekend and have been panicking ever since.
The hours they were able to revel in the apparent success of their Denver convention and Obama's big speech were pitifully brief. The very next day John McCain picked as his running mate a virtually unknown governor from Alaska and the country has gone Palin-crazy ever since.
Contrary to Obama's appeals for unity, America has become joyously divided. Evangelicals, braced by Palin's Christian faith, have risen spryly from the bed of their indifference to McCain, a man whose relationship to the Holy Spirit is remote. Now their champion is an accredited
bible-thumper, Palin the Pentecostalist.
Liberals, particularly women, maddened at the spectacle of attractive Governor Sarah embodying everything they loathe, flood the internet with frantic oaths and seize on every particle of gossip from Alaska suggesting that Palin is a hypocrite, a mismanager, a would-be burner of books, a bad mother and 'Untrue to her Man'. Those scoffing only a few short weeks ago at the National Enquirer's 'mere unverified gossip' about John Edwards's affair, now hasten to the supermarkets to buy the Enquirer's latest allegations about Palin and her family.
As the political news circuits began to buzz with news of improved polling numbers for McCain-Palin in the battleground states, Obama's ascent towards the status of a Sure Bet abruptly stalled. After the triumphs of Denver, the candidate relapsed into the nerveless mode of early August.
He had the poor judgment to go on the cable news show of Fox's Bill O'Reilly and make the extraordinary statement that the so-called 'surge' in Iraq had "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams".
At a stroke, with this deadly concession, Obama handed McCain the opportunity, in their upcoming debates, to congratulate his Democratic opponent for acknowledging McCain's superior political and military judgment.
Simultaneously Obama left spinning in the wind all those liberal supporters who had been arguing that the present lowering of violence in Iraq owes little to the surge in US troops, as opposed to changes in local political conditions. It certainly confirmed my view that Obama rarely has the stomach to stand his ground, when challenged from the right with any vigour.
When a candidate trips up, or loses the initiative, his path becomes one endless snare. Obama's likening of the hypocrisies of the McCain campaign to a pig wearing lipstick was swiftly converted by the right into a sexist insult against Palin. The Democrats try to fight back by saying McCain and Palin are being unfair, are misrepresenting their views. But then, the next day, the Republicans
launch another slur and retain the initiative.
Ominously reminiscent of John Kerry in 2004, defensiveness seeps from a Democratic ticket endlessly trying to set the record straight. Obama's running mate, Senator Joe Biden, pays tribute to Hillary Clinton at a campaign rally and says politely that "quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me". This is instantly offered up on the right-wing talk shows as a confession of total inadequacy.
Day after day McCain's escorts shielded Palin from any impromptu exchanges with the press, until the eagerly awaited three-part interview with ABC's Charles Gibson began last night. Her performance reminded me that an ignorant candidate who doesn't panic can get away with almost anything.
In the mid-70s, covering Ronald Reagan's first presidential bid, I remember formulating complicated smarty-pants questions on the campaign trail designed to trip up the California governor and expose him as a tyro in foreign policy.
I taxed him at his impromptu press conferences with recondite queries about the Law of the Sea and side agreements to the latest GATT round. Reagan sailed through on cushions of blather, just like Palin did last night.
Gibson asked her about the Bush doctrine and like most of the TV audience Palin clearly had no idea what it was. But Gibson's successive attempts to pin her down to something more precise than bluster about America's right to protect itself ended up sounding querulous.
So the Obama campaign is rattled, and the Republicans heartened. But it's way too soon to make larger surmises. Presidential elections are settled by the electoral college and not by popular vote, and in the states crucial to a majority in the electoral college Obama is still doing pretty well.
In 2004 Kerry lost such swing states as Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Colorado. Today (somewhat depending which polls you trust) Obama is ahead in Ohio, Michigan, New Mexico and New Hampshire. McCain leads in Florida and Virginia.
Obama has a lot more money for campaign advertising than McCain. Economic conditions are bad and the official rate of unemployment (about half the actual rate) is now above six per cent.
Last weekend, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson rushed to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the largest nationalisation in history, privatising the profits and nationalising the losses, sticking the taxpayers with a $300bn tab. This week it's the turn of Lehman to go belly up, with Washington Mutual also in bad trouble. Governor Palin may be weak on the Bush doctrine, but McCain's grasp of the economy is frailer by far.
We have the debates ahead and six weeks in which Americans can recover from the intoxication of their first date with Governor Sarah and ponder whether they really want Republicans in the White House for 16 straight years. Popular though the Palin pick may have been, she'd need truly magical powers to elicit a 'Yes' on that big question. 
Posts
