This little item at WaPo by Al Kamen got me thinking about political photo-ops, and more particularly the value of composing them carefully when possible. Political ad agencies test images for campaign lit and videos regularly, but I know of no studies that provide statistical verification of the relative importance of photo-ops in a campaign. Nonetheless, visual images have consequences in politics, one of the most oft-cited cases being Nixon’s beard stubble in his televised debate with JFK, which many believe was a significant factor in Kennedy’s 1960 victory.
The appearance of candidates gets a lot of attention, as Edwards’s famous haircut indicates. But I wonder how much attention campaigns are paying to the background in photo-ops, debates and candidate appearances. No doubt the sheer chaos of campaigns limits opportunities for composing photo-op backgrounds. But there are some occasions, such as debates when it becomes possible and potentially important.
In the July 23rd “YouTube” Democratic debate, Senator Clinton was centrally positioned among the podiums, wearing a bright peach-hued jacket among the dark suits (photo here). CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin cracked that the field looks “like Gladys Knight and the Pips.’ She also brought her ‘A game’, which added to the effect of making the others look like also-rans, in stark contrast to her Iowa concession speech, when she was flanked by Clinton Administration elders, a drab tableau, to put it charitably. I gather that her positioning at the YouTube debate was random, but it showed that a favorable set-up can have a beneficial effect.
I remember also watching a televised debate between Senator Max Cleland and GOP challenger Rep. Saxby Chambliss in ’02, and being struck by how downright “senatorial” Chambliss looked — straight out of central casting. He was all gussied up in an elegantly-tailored dark suit and crowned by a shock of perfectly-coiffed white hair (I think they pretty much all shell out big bucks for their doos, not just Edwards). But more interesting, Chambliss was positioned in such a way that the American flag was behind him, not the incumbent Cleland, who was a little off his game that day and looked tired. I’d like to think that Georgians would not be swayed by such superficial considerations as candidate appearance or a flag in the background, but Chambliss did win, so who knows? I strongly suspect, however, that somebody in the Chambliss campaign paid a lot of attention to the setting for that debate, and Cleland’s campaign probably didn’t give it enough thought. The same guy who managed the Chambliss upset is now running McCain’s campaign, as noted yesterday. So don’t be surprised by American flags in the backdrop becoming a staple of McCain image management going forward.
I’m sure it’s possible to over-do it, and photo-ops can look too ‘stagey.’ The Colbert Report certainly gooses a lot of grins out of the set’s flags and eagles slo-mo background, a goof on the networks. Flags or otherwise, it might be a good idea for Democratic campaigns to try and get some more inspiring backdrops for candidate photo-ops than their fading stars of yesteryear.

An aspect of the Democratic presidential contest that’s rapdily become accepted by both campaigns and most independent observers is that neither Clinton nor Obama is likely to nail down the nomination solely on the basis of pledged delegates awarded after primaries and caucuses. In a close race, that’s hardly surprising, since 19% of the convention votes are reserved for unpledged “superdelegates.”
Thus, technically, we are going to have a “brokered convention” in the limited sense that no one’s probably going to Denver with 2,025 pledged delegates. But obviously, if either candidate has a clear majority of both pledged delegates and of superdelegates, he or she will be the putative nominee, and the convention won’t be “brokered” in any meaningful sense.
There is at present a fair amount of disagreement about pledged delegate totals for each candidate, but that’s only because different observers use different assumptions about delegates “won” in primaries or especially caucuses, but not yet formally selected. Pretty soon, those counts will begin to solidify and converge.
But the picture is more complicated with superdelegates, whose allegiances can only be deduced from individual public statements and/or private commitments.
The Democratic Convention Watch blog has focused on this problem obsessively, and is independently trying to push superdelegates to declare or undeclare themselves unambiguously. At present, however, superdelgate counts diverge significantly. DCW itself has Clinton up 233-147. CNN has her up 234-156; CBS says it’s 210-142, and AP has it at 242-163. That’s a variation of 32 votes for HRC, and 21 votes for Obama.
Meanwhile, there’s a different sort of superdelegate tracking under way at OpenLeft, which has announced a “Superdelegate Tranparency Project” aimed at publicizing the primary and caucus vote preferences of each superdelegate’s constituency. The explicit goal of this project is to reduce the possibility that superdelegates will “overturn” a popular vote mandate for one of the two candidates. But since superdelegates are not apportioned according to any purely representative formula, it’s not clear to me, at least, that if every single one of them “deferred” to his or her “constituency’s” wishes, it would necessarily add up to agreement between superdelegates as a whole and pledged delegates as a whole.
That’s how murky this whole process has become, folks.
In the end, the whole problem would likely resolve itself if one candidate or the other got on a late “roll” in primaries and caucuses, won a comfortable majority of pledged delegates, and then enjoyed a stampede of support from superdelegates. But if that doesn’t happen, tracking superdelegates will become a major cottage industry.

MyDD‘s Jonathan Singer flags Laura Vozzella’s Baltimore Sun article about John McCain’s recent visit to Baltimore. Vozzella’s piece included this nugget shedding new light on McCain’s much-noted ‘character.’:

McCain’s visit brought Bo Harmon back to town. Ehrlich’s former campaign manager is McCain’s national political director.
Ehrlich created a bit of a stir by hiring Harmon, who in 2002 had run Saxby Chambliss’ upset campaign against then-Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia. The Chambliss campaign ran a TV ad questioning the courage of the Vietnam vet and triple amputee.
Among those who objected to the ad: a certain senator from Arizona. “Worse than disgraceful,” McCain called it.

Singer adds:

The evidence of this unscrupulous side of McCain does not begin with his hiring of someone whose pièce de résistance he previously called “worse than disgraceful.” From the beginning of his career through today, McCain has shown that he stands for little other than advancing his own career for ambition’s sake. For instance, in 2001 McCain was apparently nearly willing to give up on everything he ever believed in, including his vaunted Ronald Reagan, in order to switch parties to give the Democrats control over the United States Senate. Three years later, McCain’s campaign approached John Kerry about forming a bipartisan ticket, which would have thoroughly undermined everything he had purported to fight for over the course of his career in Washington. Just in the last few months McCain has given up on his long-standing position on immigration. The list goes on.

It will be interesting to see if any other msm reporters call on McCain to account for his record in the months ahead.

Last night, as soon as the polls in Virginia closed, Barack Obama was instantly declared the winner. For the people on the news, independent voters immediately became the first topic for discussion.
Thirteen states have open primaries, and Virginia is one of them. When voters in the Commonwealth show up at the polls, they are simply asked to declare which party’s ballot they’d like to cast. Once they vote, they put a card indicating their party preference in a basket on the way out the door.
Last night, according to the exit polls, Independents made up 22 percent of the Democratic voters in Virginia, and Obama won 69 percent of them.
But in a lot of states, calculating Independent support just isn’t that simple.
The networks projected Obama to win the Maryland primary just seconds after the polls in that state closed as well. But Maryland’s primary is completely different — it is closed, and you must be a registered Democrat to get a Democratic ballot. That said, the exit polls still have 13 percent of the Democratic voters describing themselves as Independents, and once again, Obama won that demographic–62/27. What’s with the discrepancy?
In every state that has a primary, there’s a question of whether it’s open or closed. Most states are like Maryland and hold closed primaries that require that you be registered with a party to get that party’s ballot.
Even if a state does allow independents to vote in the primary, there’s a question of whether the primary is actually open — like Virginia — or open with party registration. In Iowa, for example, Independents and Republicans are welcome to vote in the Democratic caucus, but to do so, they must switch their party registration on site.
Finally, we get to the situation last night. In Maryland, as in most states, there is an important difference between registered Independents and self-described independents.
Registered Independents are unaffiliated with both the GOP or the Democratic party, and in a closed primary, they’re only given a ballot for any nonpartisan races that happen to be contested.
Self-described independents are people who register with a party, but for whatever reason, don’t think of themselves as Republicans or Democrats.
My Dad, for instance, has been a registered Democrat his entire life. He’s a regular primary voter. But in the general election, he’s not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter or a Democratic senatorial candidate since Terry Sanford. The reason he doesn’t bite the bullet and switch parties? Because in our part of North Carolina, nearly every local elected office is held by a Democrat, and most of the state elected offices are too. He calls himself an independent, but if he wants any say at all in the electoral process, it’s got to be with the party of Jefferson.
On Election Night, there’s certainly merit in discussing which candidates have a bit of crossover appeal. Indeed, when Obama and McCain talk about electability, their primary performance among indies is certainly part of the equation. But some precision is in order. Independents are not always who we think they are.

If you read a lot of progressive blogs, you probably already know about this, since it was trumpeted last night as perhaps a bigger deal than the presidential primaries, but in any event: Donna Edwards decisively beat incumbent Democratic congressman Albert Wynn in a surburban DC district of Maryland.
Edwards came very close to upsetting Wynn two years ago. Her candidacy this time around probably drew more national attention and support from progressive netroots circles than any since the Lamont challenge to Joe Lieberman.
Wynn got the bullseye painted on his back for a variety of reasons, most notably his reliance on corporate contributions, and particularly his vote for bankruptcy “reform” legislation, a longstanding progressive cause celebre that’s gained new life thanks to the mortgage foreclosure crisis, which hit Wynn’s district disproportionately. This district, probably the wealthiest majority-African-American CD in the country, is centered in Prince George’s County, with a slice of Montgomery County as well.
There was some talk as recently as yesterday that Wynn might pull a Lieberman and run as an independent in the general election if he lost the primary. But he’s already endorsed Edwards, and this is a heavily Democratic district.
This primary will be treated as another object lesson in the willingness of progressives to “primary” wayward Dems, and also as part of a longer-range struggle within the African-American political community wherein membership in the Congressional Black Caucus no longer ensures perpetual re-election.

In the wake of Barack Obama’s very good week, there are a variety of assessments available about the shape of the Democratic contest going forward.
At Open Left, Chris Bowers offers a state-by-state pledged delegate count that shows Obama up 1,137 to 1,002.
At RealClearPolitics, Jay Cost has a complex analysis of the demographics of Obama and Clinton voters that suggests to him that HRC has a decent chance for a late comeback, particularly if “momentum” isn’t that big a factor, and if she makes no mistakes.
In terms of potential momentum-changers, there’s at least one article, at ABC News, reporting that John Edwards is leaning towards an endorsement of HRC.
And SurveyUSA, which has had a pretty good track record of late, has a new poll of OH out showing HRC with a pretty robust, 17-point lead over Obama in that crucial state.
Democratic Convention Watch, which maintains a fairly conservative list of superdelegate preferences, reports that Obama’s keeping up with HRC in endorsements, but isn’t yet cutting into her lead.
But AP’s Ron Fournier predicts that superdelegates could easily turn against HRC based on a long list of accumulated grievances against the Clintons.
Hard to say exactly where this contest goes next.

As you probably know if you’re reading political blogs at this time of night, Barack Obama is romping to a big win in VA, winning (according to exit polls) nearly half the white vote, a majority of the Hispanic vote, and all but one region of the state (the rural western region going for HRC).
And John McCain has held off a tough challenge from Mike Huckabee in VA.
But there’s good news for all Democrats, including HRC supporters, in VA.
For one thing, Democratic turnout is running at nearly double the Republican turnout–in a state that hasn’t voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since LBJ in 1964.
And for another, independents, who could vote in either primary, appear to have chosen Democratic ballots by nearly a two-to-one margin as well. And here’s the surprising thing: independents voting in the GOP primary spurned supposed indie-magnet McCain, going for Huckabee by a 43-34 margin, with Ron Paul pulling in 19 percent.

As we all await poll closings (7:00 EST in VA, 8:00 EST in MD and DC) for the Potomac Primary, there’s an interesting estimate by Constituent Dynamics of how the Democratic delegate fight will turn out, based on robo-polls and a district-by-district breakdown of where the chips may fall. The estimate predicts that Obama will win 93 delegates, and HRC 62, with 13 “too close to call.” And that’s based on polls showing a healthy but not overwhelming Obama margin in all three jurisdictions.

I know we’re all juiced about the Clinton-Obama race. But whoever wins the Dem nod, McCain’s nom is a done deal, and there is a need for some serious oppo-focus if Dems want to shut him down. Toward that end, Arianna gets things off to a good start with her perceptive HuffPo via Alternet post on the McCain of today vs. his saner persona of a few years back. Here’s a taste, with a richly-deserved b-slap for the msm:

So, please, stop pretending that McCain is still the dashing rebel that made knees buckle back in the day — and stop referring to him, as the New York Times did this weekend, as “moderate” and a “centrist.”
What is it going to take for you guys to face reality? McCain verbally stroking Rove should be the equivalent of that great scene at the end of The Godfather where Diane Keaton’s Kay watches in horror as Al Pacino transforms, in the kiss of a ring, from her loving husband Michael into the next Don Corleone. This ain’t the same man you married.
…The Thousand Year War Express is careening along the road to the White House, and the new John McCain is gunning the engine. And he has to be stopped.

Now take it on over to The Nation, where David Roberts picks up on one of Arianna’s themes in “John McCain and Climate Change.” As Roberts explains:

The media touts McCain’s stance on climate as evidence of his straight talkin’ maverickosity. Conservative stalwarts assail McCain for his heresy (Romney attacked McCain’s climate bill in Michigan and Florida). The public hails him for reaching across the aisle. Even Democrats and greens seem inclined to give him a grade of Good Enough on climate.
This is a classic case of what our president calls the soft bigotry of low expectations. Judged against his fellow Republicans, McCain is a paragon of atmospheric wisdom. Judged against the climate and energy legislation afoot in Congress, he falls short. Judged against the two leading Democratic presidential candidates, he is a pale shadow. Judged against the imperatives of climate science — that is to say, judged against brute physical reality — he isn’t even in the ballpark.
It’s time to stop grading McCain on a curve.

Roberts has plenty more, enough to put a permanent end to the oft-cited McCain-as-green-gipper myth. But Paul Waldman’s American Prospect article “The Maverick Myth” is the capper for today.

A Lexis-Nexis search reveals that in the month of January alone, McCain was referred to in the media as a “maverick” more than 800 times. Pick up today’s newspaper or turn on cable news, and you won’t have to wait long before a reporter or pundit calls McCain a maverick.
According to Congressional Quarterly’s party unity scores, which track how often members of Congress side with their party on key votes, over the course of his career McCain has voted with his party 84 percent of the time—not the highest score in the Senate but hardly evidence of a great deal of independence. Similarly, the American Conservative Union gives McCain a lifetime rating of 82.3, making him a solid friend of the right’s. And according to the widely respected Poole-Rosenthal rankings, McCain was the eighth-most conservative senator in the 110th Senate.
…Reporters decided long ago that John McCain’s character is of a higher order than ordinary mortals. In their telling, his motives are pure, his every word and deed speaks of unrivaled courage, and his fierce independence makes him a “maverick.” Everything McCain does is either highlighted or ignored based on whether it fits this pre-existing portrait. So when McCain lards his campaign with lobbyists and GOP insiders, as he did in its initial formation, or when he genuflects before religious radicals like Jerry Falwell and John Hagee, reporters dismiss it as a momentary aberration not representing the real John McCain.

No matter who wins the Democratic nomination, a prerequisite for winning in November is putting an end to McCain’s free ride with the media, and the progressive blogosphere will have to lead the charge. The aformentioned articles are a good beginning for unmasking McCain as the GOP’s flip-flopping, pseudo-maverick errand boy for the fat cats.

Most of the national attention being paid to today’s so-called Potomac Primary in MD, DC and VA is about the Democratic contest; even at National Review, that’s what they’re mostly talking about. On the Republican side, the main question seems to be whether Mike Huckabee might be convinced to withdraw from the race if he gets trounced, as expected, today.
But ah, what if Huckabee pulls a rabbit out of his hat and wins something today? SurveyUSA has a new poll of VA out today that suggests that Huck got some real mojo out of his primary/caucus performance over the weekend:

On the eve of the Virginia Republican Primary, it’s John McCain 48%, Mike Huckabee 37%. Compared to an identical SurveyUSA tracking poll released 72 hours ago, McCain is down 9, Huckabee is up 12. McCain had led by 32, now leads by 11. Among Conservative voters, McCain had led by 21, now trails by 5. Among Pro-Life voters, McCain had led by 20 points, now trails by 6. Among voters in Southeast VA, McCain had led by 28, now trails by 12. Among voters focused on Immigration, McCain had led by 16, now trails by 17. Among voters who attend religious services regularly, McCain had led by 24, now trails by 2.

You never know, but it’s unlikely Huckabee’s going to pull out so long as he’s able to make a victory speech now and then. If that happens tonight, then he’ll stick around. It’s not like he seems to need any money.