Submitted to a Candid World

Another short post today, because I’m in the middle of a 24-hour take-home exam. Don’t worry, it’s open book, no cheating here :-).

Well, McCain and Obama have picked their general election strategies, including how they want to define their opponent: Obama will define McCain as Bush the Third, and McCain will define Obama as an out-of-touch elitist. These are both tried and true strategies, and both candidates have given the other ample reason for their opponents to succeed. McCain’s famous Bush hug (above left), his “100-years-in-Iraq” gaffe (it may be out of context, but that doesn’t matter in politics!), and his cozying up to the administration during the past seven years of hell will not serve him well. On the flip side, Obama’s “bitter” gaffe and his Jeremiah Wright connections could make the “elitist” label stick. Will it? Which adverse definition will succeed?

Now, I’m an optimist, but I’m calling this for Obama.

People hate Bush more than they hate Jeremiah Wright (42% disapprove of the McCain/Bush link; 34% disapprove of the Obama/Wright link). All Obama has to do is jokingly say, “four more years!” On the contrary, Obama has an inherent immunity to the “elitist” label. The main reason is, he’s not John Kerry.

I worked for John Kerry, and I wish he would have won, but he could not have given Bush an easier fight. Time and again Kerry proved himself uniquely capable of - aside from failing to deflect Bush’s criticisms - entrenching those criticisms by his words and deeds. His speeches were wordy and obtuse, he went skiing and looked quite poor hunting, and a million other instances all added up to make the label seem appropriate, stereotyping him as the rich, northern, elitist white man.

But Obama is not like that. He is a forceful speaker. He plays basketball. He attempts - and fails at - everyday challenges (bowling). He’s black. He’s not from Massachusetts. He’s not John Kerry. He can shrug off the mistakes, most importantly, because they’re the outliers.