Voting Democratic for the First Time in 50 Years - Profile of an Obamacan

Jo Anne Morse is a 67 year-old retired schoolteacher from Florida who, in nearly 50 years of voting, has never voted for a Democrat. In the interest of full disclosure, she is also the author’s mother.

In 1968, as a military wife with a toddler son and a husband overseas, she voted for Richard Nixon. In 1984, she scoffed at Geraldine Ferraro’s groundbreaking candidacy and voted for Reagan’s second term. Even in 2004, amid an unpopular war and darkening economic skies, she never gave a second thought to supporting George W. Bush’s second term.

So why the sudden change of heart? Simple, she says. She looked around her and realized that, in the words of Barack Obama himself, the stakes were just too high to do the same thing and pray for different results.

The following is a brief interview conducted last week.

You’ve been voting for 50 years. Have you voted Republican in every election?
I have, yeah. All my life, growing up, my parents were always Republicans and I thought that was the thing to do – and here I am, 50 years later! I made my decision differently this year.
Why did you decide to switch this year?

I started listening to what he said, and I was always impressed with the way he ran his campaign. He had people all excited about him – he talked about what they should do and they could do, and it was very exciting to see people thrilled about his candidacy.

I feel like he encourages people to do something – to be more than they are. I think he’s trying to get them up.

The Republicans have said so much in the campaign – that he’s such a liberal senator, and he’s just so left. But I keep thinking to myself, I don’t think he is.

They say “you don’t know somebody till they’re in office, he may raise your taxes,” but I don’t see that.

Are you concerned that he’ll raise your taxes?
Well, he says that he’ll give tax breaks to 95% of the middle class. So I’m not concerned that he will.

Do you feel like we can trust him to do what he says he will do?
Yes, I feel like we can trust him. Once he gets into office, I know he’ll have a lot of people around him pulling him one way or the other. But I feel like he’s a good person and an honest person, and I trust his judgment to do the right thing.

Does Obama address the issues that are important to you in this election?
I think he does.

Do you feel like he understands what’s important to people?
I think he does. He comes from working with the people in Chicago, trying to help them, and I think he’s in touch with people’s needs. We don’t all have the same needs, but I think he wants to help people and get them going.

I decided to vote for him because he has an understanding of what people are going through, and he can find answers for that. I just had a feeling of trusting him and believing that he could do it.

Is he able to find solutions to those problems and bring them about?
He is. He’s obviously a pretty smart guy, and once he gets into office, I think he could find an answer or find a way to an answer for whatever needs to be dealt with.

I’ve sat here watching him on the campaign and – I guess when I think about it, I’m surprised that I’ve gone Democratic, but I feel like he can be trusted. And I believe what he has to say about the war.

You like Obama’s position on the war?
Yeah, to get out. There’s so much on the other side [Republicans’ Iraq positions] that I used to think. But it’s so ridiculous, how long it’s gone on and how many bad things are happening. A lot of people have been lost, and all the money they’ve spent to get this thing right. And maybe now that the violence is down, maybe…

I just thought, well, maybe Obama has the answers. Everybody seems to have come to that point [phased withdrawal] by now – except McCain. I don’t know that McCain is right, either.

What other issues in this election are important to you?
Well, I’m concerned about all the talk of climate change. I think that’s got to be dealt with one way or the other. And I think if we could bring people home from the war, then we could get settled to take care of things here in the US. And I think that’s what we need to do right now.

Jo Anne used to joke that she couldn’t figure out how she and her husband – both socially conservative, fiscally conservative and politically conservative – had raised two liberal sons. Her youngest (yours truly) would respond “you taught us to have an open mind, to care for the neediest among us and to consider the options carefully.” This year, she took her own advice.

About those "Fundamentals"

On Monday, amid one of the most significant and far-reaching financial breakdowns in half a century, John McCain declared, again, that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong." And the Obama campaign jumped on him like he had said "death to America." The gleeful way the Obama campaign reacted made it clear they believe they’ve got their Ace in the hole.

But as any poker player will tell you, an Ace does not a winning hand make. It’s part of a winning hand, but the other cards must fall into place as well.

Ever the Warrior
It’s no secret that McCain is weak on the economy and out of touch with the needs of the average American. But the "strong fundamentals" line wasn’t born of naïveté. It was the result of an old political instinct, something drilled into him since his days in the Naval Academy: project strength.

We know that John McCain’s world view (what Sarah Palin might call the “McCain Doctrine”) revolves around his military background, and his comment on the economy was no different from a statement on an advancing enemy: "We’re strong. We’re prepared. We will win."

McCain sensed that the American people, in a time of crisis and with no incumbent in the election, might be more interested in finding solace than in placing blame. And being reassured by a three-decade Washington veteran that "the fundamentals of our economy are still strong" can go a long way toward placating certain voters.

The Change We Need
Meanwhile, Obama has been hammering him for said out-of-touchness. With the $520 loafers, the multiple homes and the images of McCain golf carting with Bush 41, this label has a good chance of sticking. And if Obama can seize this opportunity, he’s got the election in hand.

But he won’t win this issue by arguing a negative. To establish himself as a leader with Presidential mettle, he’s got to offer the American people – in simple, specific and no uncertain terms – "change we can believe in." Bold leadership on this issue will not only score him an electoral victory, it will cement him as the type of "out-of-the-wilderness" savior many of his supporters believe him to be. A press conference, a bold plan and a groundswell of support among economists and pundits will be his domestic version of the Brandenburg Gate.

Obama mustn’t allow this to turn into a war of which candidate is less out of touch. Obama has gained some ground with his attacks on McCain’s gaffes. Now he needs to pivot toward the positive – toward the future. And in so doing, he’ll find that his winning hand includes a pair of Aces.

Sarah Palin: Twice As Scary

Sarah Palin scares me.  Twice.  She scares me as a Democrat and she scares me as an American.

The Democrat in me is a little spooked that this brainstorm of McCain’s is so crazy it just might work.  She has a compelling story, a spunky* charisma that makes you want to root for her, and she has strong conservative bona fides.  And lots of hair.  In short, she’s everything McCain is not.

Choosing Sarah Palin was a shameless pander on McCain’s part.  A clear signal to anyone who would listen that his is a dangerously flawed candidacy that cannot survive without a shot in the arm.  And she just may be the right shot.  (They say she has a mean 3-pointer, after all.)

Between the two of them, they are insulated from nearly any criticism – the POW card, the woman card, the infant baby with Down’s, the son heading to Iraq.  And she and her husband are sure to make the NASCAR circuit swoon.

On the other hand, Sarah Palin scares me as an American.  On the off-chance that they do win, and she does become the Vice President of the United States,  she is so underqualified, so unschooled in political thought or maneuvering on a national scale – nevermind the global stage – that she would be a disaster.  Her statement a few short months ago that “I wish someone could explain to me just what the VP does” is perfect proof of that.

Take that and put it in the context of the oldest person ever to run for a first term of the presidency – a cancer survivor with unanswered questions about his health.   Suddenly the choice to put this 44 year old with 20 months of executive experience – the mother of a special needs 4 month-old – one heartbeat away from the presidency is simply negligent.

On Friday, she stood next to a man who is older than the state she governs and spoke to a crowd larger than the entire town she was presided over as mayor and introduced herself to the world.  She did a fine job, getting by on pluck and earnest brow-furrowing – which I suspect is her general MO.

But the last three VPs have taught us something.  Dan Quayle made it painfully, comically clear that good intentions and sit-com facial expressions do not constitute vice presidential mettle.  Al Gore came along to redefine the role of vice president as ax-to-the-grindstone policy wonk and true executive partner.  Then came Dick Cheney, who elevated vice presidential power to unprecedented and dangerous heights.

On the heels of Cheney comes Sarah Palin – Quayle without the chops or the gravitas – and threatens to plunge us back decades.  Which, given the Cold War imaginings of her new boss, probably makes her a pretty good running mate after all.

 

*  On a side note: I’m currently taking bets on which male television pundit will first describe her as “spunky,” and what kind of gender card hell will rain down on him when he does…

McCain To Women: Gullible Is Not In The Dictionary

At noon ET today, John McCain announced his choice for vice presidential candidate: Alaska governor Sarah Palin. And with that pick, the 72 year-old Senator sent a clear message to female voters: I think you’re idiots.

The man known for his public use of the C- word and his conspiratorial laugh when Hillary Clinton, his distinguished Senate colleague, was described as a “bitch” has grown convinced that he can win her voters. He’s spent the past two weeks trying to drive a wedge between Hillary’s female supporters and Obama with triangulation and passive-aggressive, disingenuous messaging.

He's made his strategy no secret. McCain clearly believes that women will vote for other women simply because they’re women. His choice of a pro-life creationist who is dead set on drilling in her own beautiful back yard is proof of that fact. By taking a staunch anti-choice stand, Sarah Palin virtually betrays the interests and longstanding struggles of American women – much the way her position on ANWR drilling betrays and endangers the well-being of her home state.

And John McCain’s statement of his intent to nominate conservative activist judges with the goal of overturning Roe v. Wade is further anathema to women’s rights over their own bodies. But women are gullible, he believes. They'll vote their kind, because they go with heart over head. Emotion over reasons.

Sen. McCain clearly believes that women will vote for him in November – against their own best interests – simply because he tapped a woman to be his vice presidential candidate. A choice that would put a severely unqualified, uninformed person a heartbeat away from The Button – weakening American standing and putting our national interests at risk.

But, according to John McCain, women aren’t concerned with that kind of detail. That’s man stuff.

Palin: Is Her Weakness Her Greatest Strength?

It's Sarah Palin. That sound you hear is thousands of reporters and oppo researchers tapping away at Google and shuffling through papers, trying to figure out what this beauty queen-cum-local pol is all about. There’s the state trooper flap. And the dangerous Stevens endorsement (gotta be worse than Rezko, right? Right??). And there’s the fact that she’s a complete greenhorn, utterly unfit to be a heartbeat (a 72 year-old cancer survivor’s heartbeat) away from the presidency.

But that last point, clearly the most important, valid reason to discount her candidacy, could prove to be a valuable asset. For one thing, the experience issue is utterly off the table for the Obama campaign this election. As convinced as Obama may be that his judgment and life experience qualify him to be president, he knows that it’s a losing topic for him. He has plenty of angles from which to attack McCain / Palin, but experience isn’t one of them. The trick for the Obama campaign all along has been to find ways to keep the word “experience” out of the national dialogue.

Fine, so they don’t have to say it. They can show it. After all, isn’t that what all writers are taught: show, don’t tell? About an hour ago, most Democrats’ mouths began watering and they circled Oct. 2 – the date of the Vice Presidential debates – on their calendars. After all, it’s a widely accepted fact that Biden will tear just about any challenger apart in a one-on-one debate. The man’s head is chock full of national security knowledge and his voting record a veritable Congressional history lesson, and he has a direct, candid, hard-hitting style that is borderline relentless.

There’s no question that Biden would win against Sarah Palin, but there’s a very real possibility that he won’t prevail against Palin. Thinking back to the Gore / Bush and Kerry / Bush debates, Bush was uninformed, a poor orator and generally dismantled by both Gore and Kerry. The vast majority of pundits and commentators had Bush losing those debates. But with each failure of a debate, Bush’s poll numbers rose. Republicans painted Democrats as arrogant and condescending. And, truthfully, it’d be damn hard not to condescend to George Bush.

Biden will have an exceptionally difficult time coming out of a debate with Sarah Palin without seeming condescending or preachy. For every verbal smack-down Biden issues, the GOP will issue statements that Biden was overbearing, cocky or “mean.” I can see it now – and it stands a very good chance of working. People’s hearts will go out to the “poor lady” who is getting schooled on national television by an aggressive older man. The Republicans will release YouTube videos using “Papa Don’t Preach” as a soundtrack. They will do everything they can to hold up her shortcomings as strengths, the same way they did with George W. Bush.

It’s a risky pick, to be sure – and it’s a gamble that the American people, having been fooled twice, will be rubes yet again. If there’s anything we love, it’s narratives about underdogs, come-from-nowhere triumphs, and young, charismatic beauty queens. I still believe that Jan 20, 2009 will inaugurate a President Obama, but the McCain campaign just laid down some tacks and maybe an oil slick on the raceway.

Hothead McCain

Over on TalkingPointsMemo, David Kurtz brings up the Obama camp's new line of attack branding McCain as a "reckless hothead," and asks "does it have a chance of working?"

I say the answer is yes - it has a chance of working. I'm not saying it will work, and I'm not saying it's the best message ever. But it has a definite chance of working, for a few reasons.

First and foremost, it's consistent with the way the public already views McCain. Other memes, which should be more damaging - the Bush III meme, especially - require a bit of swimming upstream. For years, McCain has held the title of Maverick in the eyes of the public and the press. And, while he no longer deserves that title, it will take a lot to convince low-information voters of that fact.

Whereas, with the trigger-happy meme, it goes in lock-step with everything we know about the man. Even what we (and by we, I mean the press & the electorate) like about him. It is one thing that is consistently true all the way back down the narrative line. Now, Obama doesn't have to trot out a bunch of Phillip Butlers the way the Swift Boaters did in '04 or talk about the C-word if he doesn't want to get his hands dirty. There's plenty of poorly chosen one-liners, Senate floor tantrums and Iraq War grandstanding that will do the job just fine.

And secondly, it subtly ties McCain in with Bush - in a way that's much more effective than hammering home "Bush's Third Term" over and over again. It's effective because it plays on the same emotions - the war fatigue, the sense that Americans are dying for our president's (vice president's?) whim.

If Team Obama gets this point across, then the only card McCain has available to him will backfire sensationally. Every time he tries to talk about judgment, experience, the 3am phone call, he will be undermined by his own carefully-nurtured narrative. At least, there's a chance of that.

Contractor Clinton vs. Architect Obama (To Win the Working Class, Obama Must Speak Their Language)

Earlier in the campaign, I used an analogy to illustrate the difference between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama each see a car for the very first time. Hillary opens the hood and asks “how does it work?” Barack gets in the driver’s seat and muses “where can we go with it?”

The analogy was meant to describe their divergent approaches to government: Hillary the policy wonk vs. Barack the big-picture reformer. But as Senator Obama struggles to wrest the fiercely loyal blue collar vote from Senator Clinton, the analogy takes on new meaning.

Beyond the Clichés
For all the clichés of identity politics – the racial divide, the generation gap, the culture wars – the pundits have missed a more fundamental distinction. Call it forest/trees, process/product or left brain/right brain – these are the true differences between the two candidates, and they’re reflected to a T by their supporters.

Demographers are fond of pointing out that Obama is a hit with college-educated populations, while Clinton retains her base of union workers (despite Obama’s near-monopoly on union endorsements) – and the quick translation into economic terms seems like a no-brainer. But “Bittergate” notwithstanding, the causal relationship has been overstated: people don’t support Obama because they’re rich and no one pulls the lever for Hillary simply because they're poor.

There is no logical, policy-based reason for “down-market” Democrats to prefer Sen. Clinton to Obama any more than there is for gun owners to. Hillary’s personal narrative contains little class struggle and her policies are certainly no friendlier to the working man. (In fact, Hillary’s reticence to move the cap on Social Security tax suggests more sympathy for the upper middle class.) The difference between the two lies in how they draw their conclusions and, more importantly, communicate them to voters. Some people respond viscerally to broad calls for sweeping change. Others demand specific, concrete, policy-oriented solutions: what does it mean for me?

While the blue collar/white collar distinction provides a convenient shorthand, it rings true in a manner that goes well beyond income level. By and large, blue collar jobs are tactical jobs. They’re focused on the individual elements that make up a whole: building, assembling, diagnosing, repairing. People who devote their lives to these pursuits are tactical thinkers, they break a mission down to its inherent steps and proceed incrementally.

Architects vs. Contractors
Nowhere is this distinction more apparent than in the construction industry. Architects, famous for their lofty plans drawn up in air-conditioned offices, face a disconnect when trying to communicate with contractors. Unless the architect comes to the table armed with a comprehensive understanding of materials, man-hours and job specs, the architect and contractor quickly arrive at an impasse. The artist’s rendering may be beautiful, but without a sound tactical plan, it’s meaningless.

Similarly, Barack Obama’s rendering of a new American architecture sounds gorgeous, but until it’s translated into a concrete roadmap of steps that directly affect Americans it’s, well, just words. Taking on special interests sounds nice, but how does that fill our tanks with gas? Sure, we’re in favor of bringing our country together, but we also want to bring our kids to college.

So, while Obama shows off his working-class bona fides by recounting his days organizing steel workers or reliving his modest single-parent upbringing, he misses a golden opportunity. These voters aren’t interested in whether he is rich or poor (voters tend to assume candidates are rich, regardless); they may not even want to know whether he can relate to their problems. All they want to know is how he will solve them. He’s already won over the architects, now it’s time to work on the contractors.