John McCain's Un-Used Asset: Surrogates

As candidates prepared for super Tuesday, where voters went to the polls in more than 20 states, it was impossible for the candidate to campaign thoroughly in all the states.

With this in mind, it is no surprise that Mitt Romney put his children and wife on the campaign trail. For example, consider the following events:

• Monday, February 4 - Josh Romney campaigned in Montana (source)
  
• Monday, February 4 - Ann Romney campaigned in Missouri (source)
• Monday, February 4 - Craig Romney campaigned in New Jersey (source)
  

Similarly, I saw Michelle Obama on TV campaigning alone on multiple occasions and I saw Janet Huckabee in Alaska campaigning.

While watching the campaigns spring across the country over the past few days, I was struck by the fact that I always saw Cindy McCain and other supporters such as Charlie Christ and Joseph Lieberman with John McCain. Consider the following photo:


The official AP caption was: "Republican presidential hopeful, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., flanked by Florida Governor Charlie Crist, left, his wife Cindy McCain, center right, and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, right, calls for an apology from opponent Mitt Romney for remarks Romney made about former Sen. and Republican presidential candidate Robert Dole during a rally Tuesday Feb. 5, 2008, in San Diego, Calif."

Why are Cindy McCain and Florida Governor Charlie Christ in this photo in California? Why aren't Charlie Christ and Joseph Lieberman campaigning in other places?

Memo to John: Dispatch your surrogates.

The Politics of Faith-Based Fear and Smear

A few days ago, I was watching a conservative commentator and pundit on cable TV and I was surprised to hear him refer to presidential candidate Barack Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama." Instantly, I knew that this is a powerful smear line that could damage Senator Obama, especially in a general election. Clearly Senator Obama knows this, because his official Senate website biography never mentioned his middle name.

Although it is true that Barack Obama's full name is indeed "Barack Hussein Obama" (see Wikipedia), there is no doubt that this is a pejorative attack intended to play on the fears of Americans. Lurking behind this dirty faith-based fear and smear is the unstated fact that Americans are utterly terrified of electing anyone close to a Muslim. In short, these attacks use the age-old tactic of guilt by association. There is no doubt that these fear and smear attacks will only intensify as this election progresses.

The power of these attacks will only become clearer as time progresses. Nonetheless, I was quite surprised to see how widespread this pejorative, guilt by association, fear, and smear attack already is:

• January 3, 2008 - CNN - Bill Bennett (more)
  
• January 16, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh (more)
• January 3, 2008 - MSNBC - Chris Matthews (more)
• January 6, 2008 - Bill Cunningham (more)

A simple search for "Barack Hussein Obama" will reveal hundreds of additional instances of this. Be on the lookout because you will hear more of this tacit pejorative attack as the primaries continue.

Securing the Presidential Aura

One of the important parts of convincing voters you would be a good president is convincing them you look like a president and carry the aura of a president.

As the presidential primaries have heated up dramatically in the past two weeks, I have noticed candidates desperately trying to look presidential. Recently, I observed that some candidates have placed men appearing to be body-guards close to the candidate while in public. As someone who has seen a real presidential security detail up-close countless times, something just looked fishy with many of these "security details" (see below Memo to Mitt: Hire a Real Security Firm...Ditch the Red SUV With No License Plate...It Doesn't Look Presidential). Wanting to learn more, I dug deeper and discovered that some candidates have hired security details (e.g., Mitt Romney and John McCain). There is no doubt in my mind that one of the reasons for hiring these details is the desire to appear presidential.

Some readers may think, "well, as the candidate becomes better known, there may be security threats on the candidate's life so he needs to protect himself." However, this is a bad argument because if a real security threat existed, the candidate could ask the Secret Service to provide a security detail and the agency would (e.g., Barack Obama).

Background. Before delving into these expensive attempts to look presidential, I should provide a little background:

• Other than Hillary Clinton, who has Secret Service protection as a former First Lady, Barack Obama is the only candidate with a Secret Service detail. Obama's detail costs over $40,000 a day (more details on this later; for now, see the Washington Post).
• The size of the security details for Hillary and Obama (let alone Romney and McCain) absolutely pail in comparison to the size of President Bush's security detail. It is well known that the Secret Service will fund over 100 full time agents to guard Bush once he retires (see the Washington Post.) One can only imagine how many agents now guard him. Consider that on a recent trip in Israel, the President's motorcade consisted of over 40 vehicles. See photo below, where all vehicles are a part of the President's motorcade.
  

Official caption: "President Bush's convoy, more than 45 vehicles in all, makes it way from Jerusalem to Ramallah on the West Bank, where the President met with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas." Photo from White House Photo blog.


Romney Securing the Presidential Aura

Examine the following picture and caption, provided by the AP and ask yourself whether it is about security or appearance.


AP Photo; source; "With his security detail guarding the door, Republican presidential hopeful, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, left, reviews notes before talking with reporters after a campaign speech in Denver, Friday, Feb. 1, 2008."

Notice that this same guard is in another photo of Romney two days later.


AP Photo; source; "Republican presidential hopeful, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, smiles as he cheers with his supporters during his Illinois campaign rally at the College of DuPage, Sunday, Feb.3, 2008, in Glen Ellyn, Ill."


Reuters photo; source; "Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney shakes hands with supporters after speaking at an appearance at Freeway Ford in Denver, Colorado February 1, 2008."

Now, I'm sure some readers are thinking, "well, of course he would hire security, he is worth $250 million." But, if it was really about security, why didn't he acquire a security detail earlier?

The Real Secret Service on the Campaign Trail

The contrast between candidate Mitt Romney, who has no Secret Service protection, and candidate Barack Obama, who was placed under Secret Service protection in May 2007 (more here: CNN, Washington Post, or New York Times), could not be clearer to those who know what to look for (e.g., the real ear-pieces, the real chest pins, etc.) However, to the general public, Mitt Romney looks at least somewhat presidential with his security detail.


Reuters photo; source; "US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama (D-IL) greet supporters as he takes part in a rally in Wilmington, Delaware, February 3, 2008."


The Real Secret Service and The Real Presidential Aura


AFP; source;

White House; source.


Memo to Mitt: Hire a Real Security Firm...Ditch the Red SUV With No License Plate...It Doesn't Look Presidential

In looking to confirm my hunch about Mitt's Romney's security detail, I was surprised to find the following AP photo and caption:



"Republican presidential hopeful former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney shakes hands with his local security detail upon arrival at the airport in Denver, Friday, Feb. 1, 2008."

There are so many problems with this scene I could hardly contain myself when I saw it:

1. The President does not publicly shake hands with his security detail.
2. The President does not rely upon a "local security detail." Although there are local Secret Service agents who provide security for events, numerous agents are with the President on virtually all travels (look for them deplaning Air Force One about 20 seconds after the President). (Obviously, Romney has some traveling security detail as evidence by the appearance of the same security officer with Romney in multiple states--see above).
   
3. The President never uses a red SUV. He uses a black limo or a black SUV (see photos above and below).
4. Where's the license plate?

Memo to Mitt: next time you hire a security detail, consider examining the real thing for a few ideas about the presidential aura.


Official caption: "A member of the Secret Service checks the engine of President Bush's vehicle in Mount Vernon, Va., home of George Washington." Photo from White House Photo blog.



Official caption: "Secret Service agents wait in their vehicles as President George W. Bush greets German Chancellor Angela Merkel at his Crawford, Texas ranch." Photo from White House Photo blog.



Official Caption: "Don Powell, President Bush's coordinator for Gulf Coast recovery, talks to White House staff while Bush toured a neighborhood affected by Hurricane Katrina in Long Beach, Miss. March 1, 2007." Photo from White House Photo blog.



Official Caption: "The door to the President's limousine stands open as the President and the First Lady board Air Force One en route from Czechoslovakia to Germany, June 5, 2007. The armor-plated vehicle travels with the President on all state visits." From White House Photo blog.



Official Caption: "A Secret Service agent stands guard during a White House visit to the Boys and Girls Club of South Central Kansas, in Wichita, June 15, 2007." From White House Photo blog.

Crying for Votes

If George Bush plays politics with fears, Hillary Clinton plays politics with tears.

As you may remember, one day before the New Hampshire primary, Hillary became teary eyed as she described her ostensible passion for America:

"You know, I have [had] so many opportunities from this country, and I just don't want to see us fall backwards, [Hillary's speaks softly, her eyes glistening, her voice starting to break.] Some people think elections are a game, they think it's like 'who's up' or 'who's down,' it's about our country, it's about our kids' futures, it's really about all of us, together."

Many pundits declared that Hillary, already down by double digits in polls, would pay the price for her "un-presidential" display of emotion (see Hillary's first crying moment here). However, as results came in the next night, it became clear that Hillary's cry did the opposite: Hillary won a stunning upset against Barack Obama.

In a January 9, 2008 editorial in the New York Times entitled Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?, columnist Maureen Dowd wrote:

When I walked into the office Monday, people were clustering around a computer to watch what they thought they would never see: Hillary Clinton with the unmistakable look of tears in her eyes.

A woman gazing at the screen was grimacing, saying it was bad. Three guys watched it over and over, drawn to the “humanized” Hillary. One reporter who covers security issues cringed. “We are at war,” he said. “Is this how she’ll talk to Kim Jong-il?”

Another reporter joked: “That crying really seemed genuine. I’ll bet she spent hours thinking about it beforehand.” He added dryly: “Crying doesn’t usually work in campaigns. Only in relationships.”

Today, it looks like Hillary is pulling out the tears again. At Yale, Hillary was introduced by a former law professor who said, "Here is the abiding truth we know — you have always been a champion for children. Welcome home, dear friend. We are so proud of you." At this, Clinton teared up:



(Above: Hillary gets emotional at Yale on 2/4/08; photo from the AP story.)

Afterwards, Clinton said: "I said I would not tear up. Already we're not on that path."

Now, I do not want to be cynical, but I find it hard to believe that this was entirely natural. Simply consider the following:

• Hillary has spent years controlling her emotions so well that she has earned the reputation of being cold and stodgy. It is hard to believe that she could not control her emotions when she knew full well what the professor who introduced her would say.
  
• Hillary pulled out the tears right before the New Hampshire primary and won, despite double digit deficits in polls. Now, she is pulling out tears the day before Super Tuesday.
  
• The fact that Hillary promised beforehand that she "would not tear up" almost makes it more likely that the entire thing was actually a setup. In other words, if Hillary cried out of the blue, it could be more easily seen by some to be calculated. But, if she promised beforehand not to cry and then cried, it could be seen by some (naive individuals) as genuine. Yet, I suspect that Hillary issued the "no-cry" warning in order to make her planned tears appear more genuine.
  

The Clinton strategy is obvious: strategic crying will

• Make Hillary appear more emotionally sensitive and enable her to bond with voters (especially female voters) on a deeper level.
• Capture press coverage away from Obama.

On the point of press coverage, consider that the homepages of Yahoo News and CNN each featured video of Hillary in prominent positions:

(Yahoo News. Notice the video in the upper left entitled "Play of the Day: Clinton gets emotional")


(CNN. Notice the video in the upper left entitled "Clinton gets personal").

"God bless you"

For a while now, I've been suspicious of Hillary Clinton's use of "God bless you" to conclude her speeches. At times, she would conclude by invoking god and at other times she would not. I noticed she started talking more about god after the 2004 presidential election when George Bush successfully discussed (or, more accurately, exploited) religion.

Just as Hillary varies her accent depending on the region of the country where she speaks, so I began to suspect that Hillary may be so phony and crafted that she even calculates whether to say "God bless you." I decided to investigate further and my hunch appears to be true (admittedly, there is no hard and fast rule and exceptions exist).

When Hillary is in states with a lot of religious voters (e.g., Iowa and Georgia), she tends to conclude by saying "God bless you." In contrast, when she is in states with fewer religious voters (e.g., Massachusetts and California), she tends to conclude by simply saying "Thank you."

Consider the following:

In an 1/3/08 speech in Iowa, Hillary closed by saying: "Thank you all very, very much. God bless you."

In a 1/4/08 speech in New Hampshire, Hillary closed by saying: "Thank you all very much."

In a 1/31/08 speech in Georgia to a faith-friendly audience, Hillary closed by saying: "Thank you and God bless America."

In a 1/11/08 speech in California, Hillary closed by saying: "Thank you all very, very much."

In a 12/5/07 speech in New York, Hillary closed by saying: "Thank you all very much."

In a 11/29/07 speech in California to a faith-friendly audience, Hillary closed by saying: "Thank you all very much and God speed."

In a 11/10/07 speech in Iowa, Hillary closed by saying: "Thank you and God bless you."

In a 11/1/07 speech in Massachusetts, Hillary closed by saying: "Thank you all very, very much."

In a 8/23/07 speech in New Hampshire, Hillary closed by saying: "Thank you all very much."

Clinton Tries Inspiration But Its Not Inspiring

Earlier today, I was sitting in my apartment eating dinner and flipping through the TV channels. Unimpressed by the overdone super bowl pregame shows that have been going on for an entire week, I began flipping through the channels hoping to find something more interesting (perhaps the History Channel would have a fascinating special on World War II or CBC would have a good hockey game). I stopped flipping when I saw coverage of Senator Clinton making remarks on the campaign trail in California. After only a few seconds, instead of changing channels, I realized that Senator Clinton had changed her tone and style considerably. So, I kept watching. She was very clearly trying to be inspirational and visionary. My first thought was, "she is trying to sound like Barack Obama." I yelled at my brother in the other room and told him to come and watch. We were both disgusted to see phoniness taken to such a remarkable level. Hillary sounded so contrived and phony. We have both commented that, up to this point in the election, Senator Clinton has offered the most substantiative policy speeches and discussions with voters of any candidate (republican or democratic). However, it is clear that her campaign believes this is not a winning strategy and she is adjusting.

The thoughts that I was misjudging Hillary's approach evaporated when I saw the New York Times offer similar comments. Personally, I am not sure how effective her approach will be, but one thing is for sure: if there was any doubt that Hillary will do anything, say anything, or become anybody in order to get elected, the doubt is now removed.

It is a sad day in politics when persuasion and charisma trump policy and clarity. Consider the New York Time's criticism of Hillary for giving too meaty policy speeches:

"Mrs. Clinton once again showed one of her deficits as a candidate: She simply has trouble pulling off a great rally....No matter the setting, Mrs. Clinton treats nearly every campaign event as a wonk-filled town hall meeting. Rather than whip up the crowd by tossing brickbats at President Bush; rather than tell funny stories or show the sides of herself that Mr. Danson and Ms. Steenburgen hailed; rather than try to deliver her best stemwinder – Mrs. Clinton instead sunk into the weeds of her policy ideas, laying out her plans for tax credits and health care and education reform."

John McCain: The True Politician

In John McCain's new ad entitled True Conservative, the McCain campaign plays up McCain's association with Ronald Reagan. Moreover, the McCain camp tries hard to portray himself as "the true conservative"--a line similar to one that former senator and presidential candidate Fred Thompson used extensive.

On the whole, this ad is about a B-. It is not great, but it is not terrible. It evokes a connection between McCain and Reagan, but it fails to inspire. Moreover, it is extremely narrowly focused and it rehashes ground candidates have covered so many times (e.g., who's the true Reagan?) Similarly, the ad fails to differentiate substantially McCain from other candidates because everyone is citing evidence of being the true Reagan conservative. Finally, this ad makes the campaign about the past when the voters have clearly indicated they want the election to be about the future--about change.

Let's unspin the political rhetoric in this advertisement.




"[McCain:] I enlisted as a foot solider in the Reagan revolution."

John McCain is trying to forge a powerful association between himself and Ronald Reagan. In essence, he is trying to portray the aura of an endorsement from Ronald Reagan. In addition, McCain's language is designed to evoke subtly the aura of national security (e.g., "solider" "revolution"). Notice that these words are used instead of economic terms. The reason for this is obvious as McCain's strength is national security.
For those with experience in politics, it is well known that a photo with the president is not substantial. But, that does not matter to the campaign's message.



Many individuals will see this photo and simply think of Ronald Reagan with John McCain. However, there is a subtle message. This photo is taken in the Oval Office with Ronald Reagan at the President's desk. In addition, the video makers are incredibly subtle in their timing of the original video. As soon as John McCain says, "I enlisted as a foot solider in the Reagan Revolution," President Reagan's head nods, almost to give the appearance of agreeing with John McCain's statement and affirming him.



The advertisement ends with the above image. One wonders, "if John McCain is the true conservative, why did the advertisement only talk about McCain's military experience? Why was there no substantiative mention of economic or social conservative?" Moreover, one wonders, "why are so many true conservatives such as Sean Hannity so upset with McCain if he is a true conservative?"