Governor Sarah Palin did better in the veep debate than many expected, but all the polls and serious commentators agree that Biden won it by any reasonable set of measures. Now it seems fair to ask, is Sarah Palin going to do Meet the Press and other more in-depth interview shows, as has Biden and every other veep candidate since the early days of television? Or are the pundits just going to shrugg it off? Biden, one of the most frequent MTP guests in the progam’s history, raised the issue when he last appeared on the program, explains HuffPo‘s Sam Stein:

On NBC’s Meet the Press, Biden told Tom Brokaw, “Eventually, she’s going to have to sit in front of you like I’m doing and have done. Eventually, she’s going to have to answer questions and not be sequestered. Eventually, she’s going to have to answer on the record.” Later, Brokaw told viewers he had reached out to the Delaware Democrat’s Republican counterpart to no avail.l

We’re still waiting. A couple of interviews with anchors doesn’t get it. The debate was good, as far as it went. But the format didn’t allow much time for for tough follow-up questions. Are the better news interview shows (Meet the Press, This Week, Face the Nation etc.) now going to roll over and give her a free pass? The pundits — not just two network anchors — should have a chance to interview her in depth, if the McCain-Palin campaign is serious about her capabilities and if they care about serving the public interest.

Will he or won’t he? As I write, John ‘Hamlet on the Potomac’ McCain is still dithering over whether or not to honor his commitment to debate Senator Obama tonight, rudely leaving many McCain supporters as well as his adversaries, in the lurch. Voters are supposed to believe that he can’t take a few hours to fly to Mississippi and proceed with the debate as he agreed because his physical presence in D.C. is so urgently needed.
Hard to say what McCain will do at this point. MS Governor Barbour reportedly expects him to show. GOP strategist Ed Rollins doesn’t think so. Who could blame Obama — and level-headed voters — for saying “Oh, whatever.”
No telling how McCain’s latest stunt will play with voters on Nov. 4. As our staff report indicated yesterday, most voters want the debate to proceed, albeit with some discusssion about the economic crisis. Yet, on election day McCain’s debate vacillations could be old news.
Meanwhile Katie Couric’s interview with Governor Palin yesterday did nothing to dismiss the argument that McCain picked a lightweight or that her selection was “gimmicky,” as GOP strategist Mike Murphy termed it. McCain may survive waffling about the first debate. But my guess is that one more such stunt would be “strike three” with many, if not most undecideds.

Much of the speculation about McCain’s debate postponement proposal around the blogs settles on grandstanding as The Noble Bipartisan (Digby and The Fix), putting Obama on the spot and inadequate debate preparation (Tapped) as his real motives, all of which are plausible explanations.
I suspect another motive is that he would like to push the foreign policy debate closer to the election to give it a little more shelf-life in voters’ minds. The tip-off would be if his campaign fights hard to make the last debate about foreign policy. McCain and others believe foreign policy and national security are his strong cards, and that debate affords his best opportunity to shine in comparison to Obama. He may be wrong about that for a number of reasons, but it’s never stopped him before.
I’m not sure it helps him. His postponement proposal may well add to the image of McCain as erratic, mercurial, and distracted, in addition to the obvious grandstanding meme. McCain clearly has an inordinate fondness for the ‘wow factor’ and the ‘Hail Mary.’ He’s the player most likely to bet the ranch on an inside straight as the situation deteriorates. You couldn’t blame voters for thinking ‘I don’t know what this guy is going to do next.’
Here’s hoping Obama doesn’t fall for rescheduling the foreign policy debate. If McCain simply refuses to debate, then nothing happens on Friday. But Obama should hang tough as the solid, steady guy who shows up on time and keeps his agreements. Let McCain, who has missed 412 of 643 Senate votes this session, be viewed as the one who didn’t show for the debate, either.

Meredith Viera’s deer-in-the -headlights interview with John McCain ought to be a training video for TV reporters who want to see how the hardball political interview is conducted. Viera makes the GOP nominee squirm, sweat and jabber, as he struggles to reconcile Carly Fiorina’s leading role in his campaign, her 45 million dollar golden parachute and his hypocritical put down of “greed on Wall St.” and execs’ “huge severance packages.” Almost a ready-made ad for the Obama campaign.
On the same topic, see Elizabeth Bumiller’s New York Times article “McCain Stands By Fiorina,” in which McCain blasts two Fannie Mae execs for their golden parachutes, each about half the size of Fiorina’s package.

In a McCain-Palin administration, there will be no seat for these people at the policy-making table…They won’t even get past the front gate at the White House

I guess he would let Fiorina in the back door.

The editors of The New Republic have a post scolding Senator Obama for his reluctance to use the word “Republican.” Here’s the gist:

If voters thought McCain was just another Republican, they would run away screaming. That is why McCain is desperate to shed the label–and Barack Obama is desperate to make it stick.
Except, um, that’s not what Obama is doing. On the day before McCain released his ad, Obama gave a major speech on economics. It was a hard-hitting address, in which Obama proclaimed, “It’s time to put an end to a broken system in Washington that is breaking the American economy.” But the word “Republican” never came up. The next day, Obama released a somber ad in which he addressed the camera for two minutes. It included plenty of smart ideas (something he has never lacked, notwithstanding the bogus charge that he’s “all talk”). But its message was all about Obama the non-ideological reformer–that is, the guy positioned to clean up Washington. “Partisan fights and outworn ideas of the left and right won’t solve the problems we face today,” he said. Republicans? They didn’t make cameos here, either. Neither did Bush.

It is a consequential decision, but not necessarilly such an easy call. I tend to agree with the TNR editors that Obama has to use the label to make it stick. Surrogates’ sound bites just don’t get the necessary buzz. Yet Obama is making some inroads with “Obamacons” and seniors (see new CNN poll), many of whom are Republicans. And his campaign’s internal polling may show a potential for many more in light of the deepening financial crisis. Not all conservatives are gung ho in favor of bailing out failed businesses, elective war and nation-building in other countries. He has to be a little careful, not to be perceived as engaging in name-calling that would alienate potential supporters.
That said, the Republicans are directly responsible for the deregulation mania that lead to the financial meltdown, and you can’t hold them responsible without saying so at some point. The challenge is artfully making the distinction between Republican office-holders “who have betrayed their conservative heritage” and fed-up Republican voters who may be considering a Nov.4 cross-over. It’s about simultaneously holding the GOP responsible, while at the same time expressing welcoming respect for potential converts.

The meltdown of top financial institutions has left millions of American workers in doubt about the security of their retirement assets, and it’s a particularly urgent concern for those nearing retirement age. The crisis presents an opportunity for the Obama campaign to make significant inroads into a major demographic group that has trended toward McCain thus far and who are now feeling the big hurt — seniors.
Amazingly, the GOP nominee has cooperated in trashing his own credibility on the topic. Here’s John McCain breaking bad on golden parachutes:

Speaking to NBC’s Matt Lauer about the current crisis on Wall Street, the Republican nominee said executives have “treated it like a casino and need to be held accountable and stop walking away with these fat-cat packages.”

Ridiculous as it sounds, coming from one of the Fat Cats’ most reliable Senate bellhops, lots of people will buy it. Why? Because it fills a void. Working people do want more accountability and more fairness in retirement pensions. To those who are not familiar with his track record on social security, pension reform and banking regulation, it sounds plausible, and it fits in well enough with the McCain campaign’s ‘Maverick’ meme, bogus though it is.
But it can only work if Senator Obama and the Democrats let it go unchallenged. Let all Democrats hasten to point out at every opportunity that McCain’s trusted business and economic advisor/sidekick/mouthpiece, Carly Fiorina floated away from her unproductive tenure at the helm of Hewlett-Packard with a golden parachute worth a cool $42 million.
One way to do the the soundbite for speeches, ads, debates and interviews:

John McCain recently called for more accountability for corporate executives with “fat cat packages.” You can bet he didn’t get that idea from his top business advisor Carly Fiorina, who left Hewlett-Packard with a $42 million dollar golden parachute. Now millions of American workers are seeing their retirement saving slashed.

Or, on Social Security reform:

John McCain was one of the champions of putting your social security assets in the private sector. Imagine the shape millions of working families would be in now if he got his way. We need better judgment in the white house.

It appears the Obama is on the right track. Here’s what he said yesterday in New Mexico:

“In the next 47 days, you can fire the whole trickle-down, on-your-own, look-the-other-way crowd in Washington who has led us down this disastrous path,” he thundered. “Don’t just get rid of one guy. Get rid of this administration. Get rid of this philosophy. Get rid of the do-nothing approach to our economic problem and put somebody in there who’s going to fight for you.”

When we say “It’s the economy, stupid,” we’re basically talking about four key concerns — jobs, pay, retirement and health security, and now we can add housing — all of which have been put at risk for millions by GOP-driven deregulation and the current meltdown. Democrats have been given a timely opportunity to demonstrate leadership and the superiority of their track record and policies as champions of genuine economic security. Making the most of it with seniors will serve us well.

George Will’s column, “McCain’s Closing Argument,” appearing today in WaPo and zillions of other newspapers, urges the GOP nominee to make the old ‘virtues of bipartisan government’ argument as his trump card. It’s a clever strategy, and would be more effective if Will had not gone public with it and instead coached McCain to roll it out in the final presidential debate, catching Senator Obama off guard.
McCain will make the argument. He has to, although not only in the debates. He may roll it out even sooner, hoping to get a meme going. The danger for Democrats is that it is an argument that has some appeal for moderates. Will knows Obama will now have a response ready, which will include a couple of key points.
One counter-argument is that there are not two, but three branches of government, including the judiciary, which was conveniently not mentioned by Will. In fact, the ‘virtues of divided government’ argument is misleading for that reason. The only way we could ever have an evenly divided government is for the Supreme Court to have an even number of members, instead of nine.
After eight years of Republican judicial appointments, the U.S. Supreme Court and federal judgeships are already drifting too far to the right. Four or eight more years of GOP domination of the judiciary could be disastrous for women, unions, working people, consumers, the environment and civil liberties.
But it’s not just the judiciary. Eight years of Republican control has also transformed all of the federal departments and agencies into rubber stamps for the worst policies of corporate management, serving the super-wealthy and privileged at the expense of working people. Senator Obama can respond to good effect “What would America look like after 16 years of Republican control of the executive and judicial branches of government?”, with the current meltdown as exhibit “A.”
As the nation’s most widely-read columnist, Will’s real goal in promoting the ‘virtues of divided government’ argument is to generate buzz among the electorate in living rooms and at water-coolers across the nation. No doubt the buzz is already rolling. Democratic candidates, campaigns and ad-makers should be ready with the rebuttal.

In response to my Wednesday post on messaging decisions, a chap/chapette with the handle ‘cvh1789’ offers an interesting soundbite idea (first suggested by frequent TNR commenter roidubouloi):

An intelligent comment I read at the New Republic website suggests a particular line of attack: describe the Republican Party as “the bridge to nowhere.” That would work for Palin and McCain.

Here’s an excerpt of the riff from roidubouloi:

The Republican party didn’t just try to build the bridge to nowhere at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, the Republican party is the bridge to nowhere. It cannot protect us from our enemies. It cannot protect us from falling behind in global competition. It cannot protect us from the storms and natural disasters the result from climate change. It is not just the party of the past, it is the party of no place, no program, no values.”

I like it. Stir in the notion that today’s GOP is “not your father’s Republican Party” and we get a nifty little bumper sticker:

Today’s GOP: The Real ‘Bridge to Nowhere

Or a speech/interview/ad zinger:

The Clinton administration gave us peace, prosperity and a bridge to the future. McCain and Palin are offering us a bridge to nowhere.

It may not be as catchy as ‘where’s the beef?’, but “bridge to nowhere” is a familiar phrase that resonates with voters. And it makes the point that the Republicans have no vision or program, other than wielding power.

Lynn Forester de Rothschild’s opinion piece, “Democrats Need to Shake The ‘Elitist’ Tag” in yesterday’s Wall St. Journal had a couple of insightful nuggets, including,

If Barack Obama loses the presidential election, it may well be the result of a public perception that he is detached and elitist — a politician whose expressions of empathy for hard-working Americans stem more from abstract solidarity than a real connection to the lives of millions of citizens….
While Obama supporters attempt to dismiss the charges about their candidate’s perceived hauteur, they confuse privilege and elitism. Elitism is a state of mind, a view of the world that cannot be measured simply by one’s net worth, position or number of houses. Throughout American history, there have been extremely wealthy figures who have devoted themselves to genuinely nonelitist principles. (Franklin Delano Roosevelt is probably the best-known example.) At the same time, many from modest backgrounds, like Harry Truman’s foil, Thomas Dewey, personified elitism.

De Rothschild likens Obama to Adlai Stevenson, explaining,

…while Stevenson’s stylish, articulate, high-brow manner thrilled the nation’s intellectuals, he could never connect with large numbers of working-class Democrats who found him aloof and aristocratic…The “new politics” Democrats have found their new, improved Stevenson in Mr. Obama…It is ironic that the candidate who comes from a more privileged background — John McCain — can genuinely point to at least one crucial moment in his life when elitism went by the boards.

The author goes on to overstate her case with more debatable broad-brush generalizations about both the Democratic Party and Senator Obama. But in these excerpts she does suggest a concern that merits consideration. For three election cycles now, Dems have nominated brilliant policy wonks, highly able, accomplished men of exceptional integrity and compassion, who have trouble getting traction in the white working/middle class. The three nominees have often been out-manuevered by two upper-class, make that ruling-class Republicans who were somehow able to project a persona that resonates better with the middle class. Quite bizarre, when you think about it.
Even more ironic, Senator Obama, who lived with his grandparents for seven formative years, has more real-life experience living in the white middle-class than Bush, McCain and several other recent GOP presidential candidates put together. That he doesn’t try to affect a folksy persona in his interviews and speeches speaks well of his integrity and seriousness of purpose. How much it helps him will be determined on Nov. 4.
McCain, for all of his character flaws, is very comfortable and relaxed enough to affect a ‘regular guy’ persona. One of his strengths as a candidate is that he is a naturally-gifted actor, who can do crocodile tears about bipartisanship or project a self-effacing persona on Saturday Night Live with equal panache. And to give McCain and Bush due credit, they both have a good ear — they can talk the talk of the middle class, though neither has ever walked the walk. No doubt McCain’s ‘Hanoi Hilton’ experience gives him additional leverage.
Candidate character and persona are always important, in some elections more than others. And yes, there are millions of “low information voters” who vote based on such criteria. But I agree with Ed’s Tuesday post, “No Issues, Please“, that issues still trump such considerations with millions of voters. In this election cycle in particular, Dems have a very strong advantage in this regard, and that has to come across loud and clear over the next seven weeks. If you had to boil the republican’s grand strategy down into one word, “confusion” would do as well as any. It’s up to us to insure that they don’t prevail.

The trickiest decisions to be made in the closing weeks of the presidential campaign involve the optimum allocation of candidate time, energy and money. The campaigns have to decide how much emphasis and resources they will put into four key messaging tools: speeches; ads; debates and interviews. Among the considerations:
In 2000 Al Gore delivered the best speech of his career to date, when he accepted the Democratic nomination. He looked terrific and it was well-filmed. I remember thinking “Boy, they can make great ads with clips from this speech.” But we never saw any of it again. Speeches are obviously Obama’s strong card, and he will be making plenty of them over the next 7 weeks. But it would be a shame to leave it at that. The Obama campaign should repackage his speeches into a “greatest hits” anthology and buy a fat block of TV time to show them and the huge cheering crowds to the nation, not just stump audiences thither and yon. We Dems haven’t had a speaker this good since JFK. We shouldn’t pay any attention to the McCain campaign’s snarky references to our candidate’s oratory. People want to be inspired, and Obama can deliver the goods. If we don’t make the fullest use of Obama’s speaking skills, we will flunk.
What I have seen of the new Obama ads is encouraging. On the whole, they are pretty sharp and punchy. TV is still king, but other media are critical as well, especially the internet and radio. A new and important consideration this cycle is recycling or producing ads on the internet, going viral with YouTube etc. Plus the always difficult choices to be made about money and TV markets well in advance of broadcast.
There will only be three presidential debates (see details and formats here) plus one veep debate, and both tickets will put in a lot of prep time. Here Obama should focus on soundbite-sized responses to questions, and avoid the temptation to explain things to smithereens. As PA Gov. Ed. Rendell put it, “We’ve got to start smacking back in short understandable bites.” McCain already knows this. Dems might consult with John Stewart and Bill Maher for some punchy zingers. It’s a shame ‘where’s the beef’ has already been done, since it fits the GOP ticket so perfectly. No question should elicit a long, rambling answer. If the question is off point or softball, Obama should practice seizing the opportunity to respond along the lines of “Well, the more important question/point is…”
Media interviews are free ads, as well as potential minefields. McCain may have an edge here, since he gets more free rides from MSM reporters, and his proclivity for shorter answers serves him well. Obama might try floating more zingers in his interviews. A good one-liner can become a devastating meme. A ‘Where’s the beef’ type zinger could be used here as well. Despite an occasional gaffe, Biden may be the best interview in both parties, as evidenced by his record number of MTP appearances. Using his skills more extensively than has been the case for veep nominees thus far could help the ticket.
Apart from messaging, both presidential campaigns will be at full bore in taking advantage of early voting opportunities and in registering their key constituencies before the voter registration deadlines. About half the states will close registration by October 7th, less than a month away. The key decision here is targeting the most likely swing states, and the calculations change almost daily. But the turnout mobilization has to happen everywhere. The “Movement” aspect of the Obama campaign may well provide a decisive edge in turnout — and for victory in a close election.