kewpid.net

Part of the voting public’s frustration with the political class (politicians, pundits, commentators, etc…) has been the formulaic way in which they approach problems and perceived problems.

Mr. Shrike has argued repeatedly that Kevin Rudd’s anti-politics approach to counter this modus operandi was a big factor in his success, and I don’t see any substantial reason to disagree with him.

The reason I bring this is up is the chatter in the American sphere over the potential Vice Presidential picks of both major party candidates. Obama apparently has a “problem” with white male voters, and the predictable response to this is the “ameliorative” VP-pick. The free advice is that Obama should pick someone who ticks all the boxes that he isn’t. Someone who will “balance the ticket”. But as Ezra Klein points out, acting on this advice would be a fairly naked admission that Obama believes that he lacks certain fundamentally important qualities. And that would become its own news cycle. It is business-as-usual politics. It is everything Obama has campaigned against. It is so Washington.

He has made it a foundation of his campaign that he is the candidate for change. The best VP for him then, is someone who will reinforce his positive qualities. The whole ticking the boxes schtick makes me think of Apple vs. the rest of the industry. For example, Microsoft/Dell/SanDisk/etc…’s response to the iPod was to create something that “ticked all the boxes” (More storage, FM radio, blah blah blah). And yet, the competing products failed [Did I just compare Obama to an iPod?!]. The responses were inexplicably reactionary. They did not identify weaknesses, or areas where improvements could be made. Instead something “good enough” was thrown together, and this was somehow supposed to win over the public.

This is why Obama should not pick Jim Webb, or God forbid Hillary Clinton. They would be too obviously tokenistic (among other things). They would be entirely anticipated choices, seen by everyone as a superficial attempt to “unite the party”.

Saying all that, I’m still quite bearish on Obama’s chances in November. Campaigning on change whips up a lot feel-good emotion and enthusiasm, but is he offering just a little too much of it? I think the Democrats have potentially snatched defeat from the jaws of victory here. I believe Hillary Clinton would have ensured them a victory (albeit probably a narrow one. Still, a win is a win.). The beauty of being the sacrificial bitch-Goddess target of the other side for the better part of her adult life meant that she could have easily swept aside and lumped together any criticism the GOP could have thrown at her. “Haven’t we heard this all before?” and “What’s new?” would be the meme her spin doctors pumped to the media. The political class talks about “Clinton fatigue”, but what about “Clinton-bashing fatigue”? Obama on the other hand is fresh meat. And I’m not sure his change stick is enough to beat off the inevitable dirty attacks. He’ll either win big or lose big. And at this stage my feeling is that he’ll be trounced, in spite of the Democrats’ advantage in all the polls. We’ll see come November. For the sake of Americans without health care, I hope I’m wrong.