The 2008 Presidential Campaign (was Obama Phenomenon 2)

[Primula Baggins]

At least the polls are looking good just now (especially if you're following the analysis at FiveThirtyEight.com). Today's polls have Obama up by 12 points in Pennsylvania, 6 in Ohio, and 4 in Florida.

Yes, it's early yet, and Kerry had leads at this point that didn't turn into wins. But the actual numbers don't support the media narrative that McCain and Obama are neck-and-neck—or the one that says Obama is having trouble consolidating Clinton voters.

[Túrin Turambar]

They should be looking a lot better. Generally, the election following a Presidency as unpopular as Bush's have been 40-50 state landslides to the opposition party (eg. 1932, 1952, 1980).

[Primula Baggins]

Give it time, L_M. The dynamic is different this year: extremely unpopular president, but also the first black opposition candidate. I think there are people still reserving judgment or reflexively choosing McCain who will end up voting for Obama; it's just not a snap decision for many, especially if it's based on attitudes they didn't realize they held.

Also, part of McCain's present support is fragile—they think he's still the maverick of 2000, and they ascribe positions to him that he doesn't hold or has turned away from. The polls will probably look very different closer to the election.

Which of course includes the possibility that Obama will blow it between now and then. But—anyone he was going to lose for good over the Wright thing, he has probably already lost. It would be much better for the Republicans if that had been left until September or October to blow up. I would bet that Wright was by far their best shot.

We'll see, but I think it is entirely possible that there will be a strong result for Obama—not 50 states or even 40, but decisive on Election Night.

[Primula Baggins]

Don't believe this week's Newsweek poll, because it's been highly contaminated by Primitude. I just got off the phone with them. Fifteen minutes of questions about preferences and who do I trust more on which issue, and then a whole long slew of questions testing my knowledge of current events, people, and the world. Whew. At one point Mr. Prim sitting opposite me started laughing, pulled off his shoe, looked into it and said, "Nine and a half!" (Ob. Python ref.)

It was fun though, and it pleases me that I will help shore up Obama in the highly coveted middle-aged woman demo.

[Inanna]

[Primula Baggins]

At one point they were doing the "positive/negative impression" thing, and the polltaker got to "Cindy McCain," and I said, "Oh, the poor woman didn't ask for this!" And she cracked up.

[Faramond]

A philosophical question:

Is this daily mini-scandal more or less relevant to the 2008 presidential campaign than the Texas Republican vendor selling the racist buttons?

[axordil]

The spots behind the podium are ALWAYS strictly metered out, by ANY staff for ANY candidate, for obvious reasons: they are the candidate's backdrop for the cameras. They look for particular demographics for particular events. What it sounds like is that some of the women's friends fit the demographic, and they assumed it was a group invite.

It's NEVER a group invite. But the volunteers muffed it badly. All you say is: we're just looking for X number of people right now, thanks, where X is lower than the number including the others.

If they had been kept out of the rally, it might be news. If there weren't a number of picturesfloating around the WWW right now of women in head coverings near Obama at rallies, it might be news. As it is, it's an example of what can happen when volunteers with their own agendas/ideas are involved in organizing events.

[Faramond]

But is this story more relevant than the story about those buttons sold at the Republican convention? Is one story more important than the other?

[Teremia]

The head scarf gaffe was committed by people actually working for the candidate: worse than the button.

On the other hand, the button, though not officially sponsored by the candidate, is much more hateful than the head scarf incident,

so we have one example of caution-approaching-cowardice (head scarf) and another of outright-racist-meanness (button).

[Primula Baggins]

I'd like to state that I was completely unaware of the head-scarf affair. I have not been online much today and I didn't hear about it until I read it here just now. It wasn't something I heard of and chose not to mention.

The button thing was in yesterday's blog cycle and so I read about it early this morning.

That said, I think that while both were blunders, the button is worse. The Obama campaign has apologized (and probably there will be more apologies) to the women. It was a blunder. The button is, as Teremia says, just hateful.

[Frelga]

And also, can we please have our prejudices sorted out? Hijab is not a racial symbol, it is a religious symbol. I know plenty of Arab and/or Muslim females who don't wear it. And while refusing, for instance, to include someone who looks like an Arab might be (construed as) racist, it is a little different to exclude a woman whose choice of clothing reflects not just her race and religion, but a particular lifestyle and set of values.

I am still trying to figure out what I think about it. I am all for freedom of religious expression, but privately, my blood tends to boil at any "religious" or "cultural" prescription that demands that women be covered up "decently."

The button is plain hateful.

[superwizard]

In my opinion both issues are pretty much irrelevant and unimportant. Both action were not done by the presidential candidates or their close assistants and both times the actions were condemned.

it is a little different to exclude a woman whose choice of clothing reflects not just her race and religion, but a particular lifestyle and set of values.

Ah but is it not still wrong? I mean as long as that person's particular lifestyle and set of values do not interfere with their contributions to society then should they be punished for them?

I am all for freedom of religious expression, but privately, my blood tends to boil at any "religious" or "cultural" prescription that demands that women be covered up "decently."

Well in all fairness Islam also calls for men to be covered up 'decently'. The difference is that mainstream opinion on what men can wear (covering up from belly button to knee) is less stringent then what mainstream opinion is on what women can wear (head covering is commonly seen as a requirement). Both cases are a matter of interpretation and I know several people whom I respect who disagree with this and believe that women do not need to cover their hair and simply don't. I also know many women (some of whom I also greatly admire) who believe that women should cover their hair. As long as there no one is forcing anyone one way or another (yes believe it or not I know several instances where daughters have been prevented from covering their hair by their parents even after they became adults) I see it as a personal decision that should be respected.

[JewelSong]

The headscarf incident is, IMHO, the result of overly-cautious volunteers.

The button is just stupid. Not even hateful. It's idiotically, moronically stupid.

The two incidents don't compare, really.

[anthriel]

In my opinion both issues are pretty much irrelevant and unimportant. Both action were not done by the presidential candidates or their close assistants and both times the actions were condemned.

Have I mentioned before how much I admire you, Fuzzy? This is an incredibly fair-minded statement.

______


I hold Obama a bit more a fault, here, though. Surely the selection of people who would be standing behind Obama is important-- as Ax says, they would be foolish not to consider it. And surely the process of which people to select, while not carried out by Obama himself, should have been dictated by Obama and his campaign. The buck stops with him, on this one.

On the other hand, I really don't blame him and his campaign. So much has been made of his Muslim connection, and so much of that has been painted as if any connection with Islam implies that one is a terrorist... it's stupid. It's wrong. It's unfair in a way that makes my toes curl. Remember the picture of him in a certain dress of clothes that the Clinton administration was circulating, at one point? And the implications left to gather from that simple outfit?

People buy it, too. A woman whose daughter rides at the barn with my daughter turned to me as I was speaking (to someone else) about Obama, and said "You're not going to vote for him, are you? Barack Hussein Obama?"

Oy.

The button, on the other hand, was being peddled by a vendor at the Republican meeting, right? Just a vendor? I guess the Republicans should have some say-so in what is sold under their noses, and it sounds like they addressed it. As well they should have.

[JewelSong]

Of course, there is the company that decided to market an "Obama Sock Monkey" doll...

Read all about it...

[Faramond]

Does either incident prove anything? I think they are both pretty irrelevant, as they don't tell us anything about either candidate, or about the majority of their supporters --- they only tell us things about minorities of their supporters that we already knew if we were paying attention. Any amount of noise can be dumped into this thread. I know others disagree with that characterization.

[solicitr]

Well, Faramond, in an ideal world this sort of thing wouldn't really matter, but in the RW it does. Just ask George Allen.

[axordil]

I think the headscarf incident says something about how the particulars of this campaign worked out in a specific (and if the other pictures are any guide, isolated) setting.

I think the button, the sock monkey, the email spampaigns, the lady at Anthy's stable, and the other data points of hate added together say something much broader, but which also has to do with the particulars of this campaign. To wit: some people are not only bigoted, they are SO bigoted they can't understand how YOU can't be bigoted too. They don't "get it."

There is a well-known phenomenon in psychology in which smart, well-educated people, who are usually in contact with other smart, well-educated people, have a fairly good idea of how smart they and others are, while not-so-smart, not-so-educated people consistently think they are just as smart as the next person, even if the next person has a PhD and a Nobel Prize.

Same principle.

[Primula Baggins]

I was polled by a national poll last night, and one of the questions was "To the best of your knowledge, is Obama Muslim or Christian?"

Anth, I'm sure there are some pretty strict guidelines about who sits behind Obama, as there would be for any candidate, and that they change depending on the nature of the speech—I've seen this for all the candidates in the primary. The demographic the candidate is trying to reach will be well represented. But I would be surprised if the guidelines were so specific as to describe how people dress. Ruling out women in hijabs would be blatant and stupid in a way this campaign has managed to avoid.

I think it was a mistake by the volunteers.

Faramond, I thought twice about putting that button up because I wasn't sure it was really relevant, and you've convinced me it was not. I won't be doing similar posts again. As you say, "noise," and if we start reporting these kinds of acts by a candidate's supporters whom he doesn't control, we'll end up filling the thread with muck, not discussion. I'm sorry for posting it.

However, I think mistakes by the campaigns are relevant, as are controversial statements by the candidates or their official supporters/endorsers/surrogates, and questionable coverage by the media. That frame from Fox News that I linked to, referring to Michelle Obama as "OBAMA'S BABY MAMA," was relevant to the discussion because it shows how at least one national news organization is covering Obama.

Edit: Cross-posted with Ax and soli. George Allen got caught by the attitude Ax describes. And, soli, the "macaca" incident was relevant, because Allen was displaying his own casual bigotry and poor judgment both at once (he was being recorded on video and it didn't occur to him to care). Both are entirely relevant to his qualifications for office.