I am writing today to announce the closure of the New Mexico Independent. After three and a half years of operation in New Mexico, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news…
While environmental activists played their part yesterday during demonstrations at the capitol building, going so far as to dress up as solar panels and to sing the tune of “You Are My Sunshine,” their counterparts, the anti-cap-and-trade contingency who has…
Roughly one quarter of University of New Mexico students are unimpressed with the state’s flagship public school, according to a survey that questioned college students about their higher education experiences.
For those of you are struggling with a dangerous addiction to the presidential campaign, here is a little indulgence to feed your need, a little wrap-up of some patterns I’ve noticed over the past week. Read, discuss, comment.
Late last night, after most people had changed the channel or gone to bed, several TV networks announced that Obama had won their snap polls. According to CNN, 54 percent of respondents said Obama won the debate; 30 percent said McCain won. Most also said Obama was the stronger leader (54 to 43 percent), more likable (65 to 28 percent), more intelligent (57 to 25 percent), and more clearly expressed (60 to 30 percent). McCain seemed much more like a typical politician they said.
CBS News’ poll of 516 uncommitted voters (where do they get these people?) showed that 40 percent thought Obama won; 26 percent thought McCain won and the rest thought it was a draw. Most of the respondents said Obama would do better on the economy (68 to 48 percent), that he understands their needs and problems (80 to 44 percent) and would bring real change (63 to 38 percent). McCain scored on their perceptions of readiness to be president (83 to 58 percent), but Obama made bigger gains on that issue during the debate, rising 16 points to McCain’s five.
So what’s the spin this morning? Well, most of the mainstream media reporting made the debate seem as boring as it mostly was. Commentators mostly called it their own camps, although some notable conservatives were disappointed, too. (The National Review said it was a “disaster” because McCain didn’t go negative enough.) Will the snap polls lead to lasting gains for Obama? Look for some answers next week.
Meanwhile, attention seems to be focused on the dreadful state of the economy (bad for McCain) and the dreadful state of the campaign in general. As NMI reported, speaking in Albuquerque on Monday, McCain asked a gathering of supporters, “Who is Barack Obama?” prompting someone in the crowd to shout out the answer Democrats believe he was hoping they wouldn’t say out loud: “A terrorist.” McCain didn’t quibble.
On the same day, Sarah Palin was in Florida, where the warm-up act for her rally, the Lee County Sheriff, referred to Sen. Obama as “Barack Hussein Obama,” something the McCain campaign had previously decried. The traveling press was greeted by boos and taunts, and one supporter shouted racist epithets at a black member of the media. After the fact, the campaign reasserted that they don’t condone that kind of … well, terrorist-baiting is what the local media called it. Black congressmen called it flat-out racism.
And so an editorial in today’s New York Times eviscerates McCain and Palin for their recent negative attacks. Here’s a taste:
It is a sorry fact of American political life that campaigns get ugly, often in their final weeks. But Senator John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin have been running one of the most appalling campaigns we can remember …
They have gone far beyond the usual fare of quotes taken out of context and distortions of an opponent’s record — into the dark territory of race-baiting and xenophobia. Senator Barack Obama has taken some cheap shots at Mr. McCain, but there is no comparison.
But what does the McCain camp care about The New York Times? When Palin mentioned the Times at that rally on Monday, the crowd erupted in boos.
All the fuss probably makes Obama supporters like their guy all that much more, but they still can’t vote twice. What will be the effect on Republicans?
It is possible that the strategy may backfire. The most-viewed story on WashingtonPost.com this morning was “Call Off the Pit Bull,” an opinion piece by Kathleen Parker, a syndicated conservative columnist who has previously criticized Palin. She writes:
Palin is like the high-pitched whistle only dogs can hear. While Democrats heard non-answers, superfluous segues and cartoon words [in the debate] — shout-out, I’ll betcha, doggone, extra credit — Republicans heard God, patriotism, courage, victory.
Time magazine examined voting habits and concluded that most people do not vote for issues, but rather for the candidates. Specifically, they vote for people who are most like themselves. Which is why McCain and Palin have amped up their rhetoric of difference.
The McCain campaign knows that Obama isn’t a Muslim or a terrorist, but they’re willing to help a certain kind of voter think he is.
Maybe that strategy will come back to bite McCain in the ass (Keating Five?), but maybe it will work. At the very least it has succeeded in making former 1960s radical Bill Ayers a continuing topic of conversation. The Washington bureau chief for The Chicago Sun-Times tackles the story today in a piece called, “What did Obama know about Ayers, when?” but didn’t find any good answers.
