Guilt By Association

Yesterday I bemoaned the state of mudslinging in the campaign and laid the blame squarely in the McCain camp. While I'm still moaning (and still blaming McCain), I also want to level some criticism at the Obama campaign, in the interests of fairness.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Keating Economics video that the campaign is circulating is similar in spirit to the Ayers accusations that McCain and Co. are throwing at Obama. Of course, there are numerous differences. McCain was involved with Keating at the time that he (Keating) was doing bad things. Obama was 8 when Ayers was doing his dirty work. There was an investigation into McCain's dealings with Keating and he was chastised by the Senate Ethics Committee. But that investigation is exactly the point I want to bring up. Remember, the investigation found that McCain did nothing wrong. His judgement was poor and that allowed him to be put in a position where it looked like he might be doing something wrong, but he didn't take part in any wrongdoing himself. As we start throwing criticisms around, we should remember that facts matter. Any unfounded attempts to paint someone with the guilt by association brush are lamentable, no matter which side they come from.

Clearly McCain started this round of character attacks (he even said he was going to be). But saying, "He started it" isn't a great reason for doing something. I'd also like to point out that the "Oh yeah?" response isn't really a recipe for raising the level of political discourse. If I were advising Obama I'd say to focus relentlessly on the fact that McCain isn't putting forward any plans to help the middle class or to end the war in Iraq. Every time McCain says anything I'd say, "Once again, Senator McCain chooses to focus on X rather than present a plan for how he's going to help the middle class and end the war in Iraq." That's a change we can believe in.

On a slightly related note, you should really read this article from the New Yorker. It's their editorial board's endorsement of Obama for president. It presents a comprehensive, thoughtful, and thorough take down of the McCain campaign and at the same time builds up Obama's. It was one of the clearest articulations of the choice in this election that I've seen. Just brilliant. I didn't even know the New Yorker did endorsements.

Of course, for a candidate being accused of East Coast liberal elitism, the New Yorker endorsement may not be the most coveted one out there.

Calm Down Everyone

Proving once again that there's no place for humor in modern politics, the New Yorker is taking a lot of flak for it's most recent cover. The cartoon, entitled "The Politics of Fear", depicts Obama in Muslim clothing fist bumping his wife who's carrying a rifle under a picture of Osama bin Laden while the American flag burns in the fire place. My first thought on seeing the cover was: That's pretty funny.

However, not everyone was amused. Almost immediately, the campaign called the cover "totally inappropriate." And that was the McCain campaign. An Obama spokesman called the cover "tasteless and offensive."

Let's stop here for a moment and just calm down.

First of all, the cover is kind of funny. Is this really what people are worried an Obama presidency will look like? Really? By showing is so bluntly it kind of puts the lie to all the black radical, secret Muslim stuff that just keeps on floating around.

Second, the cover of the New Yorker is hardly a deciding influence in the political realm. Often the covers feature what I take to be a very dry humor or have some sort of very New York-centric humor. The point is that this is not that big a deal, even if it were bad.

And for those of you out there worried about the picture being taken out of context and being portrayed as fact or something, think about it for a second. Obviously the thing is a cartoon, not reality. Let's also not forget that there are actual pictures available online of Obama wearing a turban. If I were looking for Obama images to take out of context, I'd start there.

So let's turn down the swift boating radar for a moment and just enjoy the joke. If we can't do that, the last laugh will be on us.

Feeding the Beast

A recent New Yorker article ostensibly focused on whether or not John McCain could reinvent Republicanism also touched on some interesting points regarding the media strategies of the different campaigns. The profile of McCain opens with him engaged in long, frank conversations with members of the press aboard his campaign bus. This is contrasted with the "overly managed" campaigns of Obama and Clinton in which the media is held at arm's length and only fed pre-chewed sound bites and talking points. Obama's campaign in particular is singled out for its similarity to the Bush White House in terms of message discipline and rooting out leaks with "frightening intensity."

If there's anything that the Bush media team has taught us, it is that hyper-fanaticism in message discipline does not work as a long-term media strategy. It can certainly be effective in the short term (and a campaign may be just the right amount of time), but over the course of a presidency the magic is bound to wear off.

To use a slightly less-than-flattering metaphor, the modern media is a thousand-headed beast with a voracious appetite that has to be fed 24 hours a day (if not more) in order to be kept happy. Faced with this reality, presidents must choose what they are going to do in order to keep the beast calm and well-fed. After all, even thousand-headed beasts will usually refrain from biting the hand that feeds it. What the Reagan White House did so well and the Bush White House tried to take even further was placing such an extreme level of discipline on those who talk to the press that no matter how hungry the beast gets, there is still only one story to cover: the story the White House wants covered. In theory this makes an awful lot of sense. Limit access to the president, everyone else is saying the exact same thing, and there's only one game in town.

Except that's where the problem arises. While there's only one White House and one president, there will never only be one game in a town like Washington. If the press beast isn't being fed at the White House it will lumber elsewhere at which point the White House loses control over the story. Suddenly, the White House isn't dictating the agenda anymore and isn't in front of the news cycle. This is what we've seen over the course of the Bush years.

At first, the press was happy to take what was offered and coverage was generally good. As time passed, the beast began to grow restless. The Bush communications team didn't recognize their changing situation (no surprise there) and continued to insist on one line a day, one story, one morsel. When the press insisted on more and they didn't get it from the White House, they turned elsewhere. Coverage has only gotten steadily worse from there.

While an Obama team (or Clinton team) might be able to improve upon the Bush structure, the system itself is fundamentally flawed because it is impossible to satiate the beast entirely with pre-selected soundbites.

So what is a president to do?

Interestingly, John McCain might already be on the right track. (He is also following in the footsteps of Franklin Roosevelt more than he would like to admit as he tries to solidify his standing among conseratives.) What Roosevelt, and now McCain, did so effectively was coopt the press by giving them a steady stream of information that they wanted, but with his spin on it. FDR engaged in long conversations with members of the press answering virtually whatever questions they asked. In doing so, he was able to give them the White House version of facts first, before they had to go out and learn about it on the street. By getting the first word in, FDR was able to shape the coverage he received. By engaging in frank discussions of the issues the press wanted covered, he was able to maintain his advantage of getting the first word in.

McCain seems like he is doing that now and it should serve him well. Hopefully the Democrats figure it out too. After all, even a thousand-headed beast with a voracious 24-hour appetite will think twice before biting the hand that feeds it.