Painting a Portrait
Will you vote for the revolutionary or the rebel?
Overview
The American presidential campaign seemed to be leaning in favour of Sen. Barack Obama after the thunderous reception given by Democratic Party luminaries and supporters at the convention in Denver. Sen. John McCain's thrust as the Republican maverick that dared to defy the establishment's strong positions on key issues was threatening to fall flat in the face of Obamania and its seductively simple mantra of "change". Yet McCain's shock selection of Governor Sarah Palin has - at the very least - reinjected buzz about the Republican ticket, an infusion of energy that has suggested that the Republicans may have the potential to challenge Obama's monopoly on talk about "change".
Why Palin?
Gender as a variable provides the opportunity for McCain to make an extremely cynical and calculated political move. Out of the five candidates that McCain was considering (Pawlenty, Romney, Lieberman, Palin and Tom Ridge) for his running mate, Palin was the only female. Obviously, McCain is counting on those Clinton supporters to spurn Obama and vote for him instead, given that Obama had chosen Joseph Biden as his running mate, failing to even seriously consider Hillary.
Fundamentally, the Republican machinery is banking on the after-effects of the Democrats' own efforts in playing up the fact that a woman may actually become president. The precedent of a woman being able to generate so much political momentum and interest that the prospect of a female president actually became possible was set by an ambitious Hillary Clinton on her campaign trail, and she almost made history before Obama blitzed past her. Picking Palin also serves to resurrect painful divisions within the Democratic ranks as pro-Clinton supporters continue to be reminded of exactly how close Hillary was to becoming the party nominee, and her speech at the convention may be characterised as "noble", or even martyr-esque. Embittered Hillary supporters may decide to back Palin if their paramount objective is to see women's issues being addressed. A cursory glance at McCain, Obama and Biden reveals the simple conclusion: women's issues are nowhere near the top of their agenda.
Track record
Palin's experience as a governor, while too limited to extrapolate and predict how well she would do if elected into office, is by no means impressive. She had quit the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in January 2004 that she had chaired from 2003 to 2004 over what she had termed the "lack of ethics" of fellow Republican members, following up with formal complaints against the state Republican chairman that eventually ended up with the latter resigning and paying a record US$12,000 fine for conflict-of-interest issues. She was the one who stopped the "Bridge to Nowhere", but lest someone accuse me of oversimplifying the issue, let us review the facts.
She had seemingly understood the Alaskan voters' pain at others calling their place "nowhere" when she was running for governor, which has exposed her to charges of hypocrisy as she has found it useful to adopt the "Bridge to Nowhere" slogan as proof of her courage to stand up against special interests and politicians seeking to profit from earmarks. The state, however, kept the money originally earmarked for the Gravina Island bridge, something Palin had conveniently failed to point out while delivering her first speech as presumptive Republican vice-presidential nominee.
Yet while people are focusing so much on the fact that she basically flip-flopped on the very issue she rode on to become elected as a governor, the more salient point to be made here is less obvious to the general public: she dared to stand up against profiteering politicians and bureaucrats. Alaskans are nursing their injured pride that Palin has betrayed a cause she once called her own, that Palin looks reluctant to return and defend the interests of the state she is supposed to be serving.
Yet one main reason why politicians can still get away with corruption is because they can count on their constituencies to think narrowly and lobby in terms of protecting their own "interests" against other states for a share of the national budget. What clearly evades Palin's detractors is that she has braved criticism and stigmatisation from her colleagues in the establishment, risking even support from her own political base in Alaska to make a point: special interests can become deceptively conflated with "state interests", and you may find yourself defending the wrong one. She dared to separate the two at this instance, while others only sought to preserve their share of the spoils.
Obama
For Obama, the challenge is to keep the media spotlight trained onto him while the Republicans attempt to stir things up with Palin's shock nomination. He knows that it is extremely important to keep the momentum from the Denver convention going so as to consolidate his support early to prevent Clinton voters from seceding to the Republican camp. The recent controversy surrounding Palin's pregnant daughter has cast doubt on the quality of McCain's vetting procedures, but Obama has warned that reporters should "back off these kinds of stories".
While it is certainly commendable that Obama has forcefully spoken up about the limits of the media and the unsavoury politicisation of family matters, his remark also comes at a time when news is trickling through the cracks, concerning his half-brother George, who lives on US$1 a month in Nairobi. Andrew Breitbart was one of the very few who carried the story in the American media, and the abject lack of willingness of other journalists to shed more light on the issue has convinced me that the media is consciously intending to portray Obama as one who can do no wrong. Their justification for painting such a pretty picture: America needs a revolution in politics, and only Obama can do it. Ever watched "Man of the Year"?
People will criticise that I am judging Obama as to why he has not extended a helping hand to his own half-brother in Nairobi, because to do so would be involving his family members. Yet isn't that the way Americans operate in terms of picking their candidates? Obama's charismatic appeal is considerably boosted by his image as a family man, and Michelle Obama's speech at the convention clearly displayed the Obama political machinery's intentions to paint that portrait of the man of the moment. Is Obama afraid that Palin's portrait may be painted as favourable despite the controversy surrounding her now, and thus contribute to a more intimate understanding of the woman?
That Palin returned to her job only three days after giving birth to her special-needs child may be spun as her not getting her priorities right. How can you expect Palin to govern the country if she doesn't even know how to take care of her own family? Yet the fact that she has steadfastly practised what she has been preaching about pro-life not only speaks of her strong convictions, but also that she is human like everyone else.
Agent of change
My point is this: regardless of how much either side is going to spin it (and I don't think I need to tell you that they won't miss a single opportunity to do so), any amount of publicity for Palin will only help in painting a more intimate portrait of her. She fits nicely with McCain's "maverick" status, adding to the cohesiveness of the campaign message that these two will not hesitate to challenge the status quo and risk going against public opinion or confronting demagoguery within their own party.
She has yet to be tested as to whether she can stand up against the system of patronage and corruption that has plagued American politics as effectively as she has done in her own state, but her track record shows that at least she has the potential to usher perhaps what Obama promises to be a new era of fresh politics. It may only be a perception, but in American politics, perception is everything. Obama knows it, and that will keep him on his toes now that Palin has arrived.
In Obama's own rhetoric, she stands for "change".
The American presidential campaign seemed to be leaning in favour of Sen. Barack Obama after the thunderous reception given by Democratic Party luminaries and supporters at the convention in Denver. Sen. John McCain's thrust as the Republican maverick that dared to defy the establishment's strong positions on key issues was threatening to fall flat in the face of Obamania and its seductively simple mantra of "change". Yet McCain's shock selection of Governor Sarah Palin has - at the very least - reinjected buzz about the Republican ticket, an infusion of energy that has suggested that the Republicans may have the potential to challenge Obama's monopoly on talk about "change".
Why Palin?
Gender as a variable provides the opportunity for McCain to make an extremely cynical and calculated political move. Out of the five candidates that McCain was considering (Pawlenty, Romney, Lieberman, Palin and Tom Ridge) for his running mate, Palin was the only female. Obviously, McCain is counting on those Clinton supporters to spurn Obama and vote for him instead, given that Obama had chosen Joseph Biden as his running mate, failing to even seriously consider Hillary.
Fundamentally, the Republican machinery is banking on the after-effects of the Democrats' own efforts in playing up the fact that a woman may actually become president. The precedent of a woman being able to generate so much political momentum and interest that the prospect of a female president actually became possible was set by an ambitious Hillary Clinton on her campaign trail, and she almost made history before Obama blitzed past her. Picking Palin also serves to resurrect painful divisions within the Democratic ranks as pro-Clinton supporters continue to be reminded of exactly how close Hillary was to becoming the party nominee, and her speech at the convention may be characterised as "noble", or even martyr-esque. Embittered Hillary supporters may decide to back Palin if their paramount objective is to see women's issues being addressed. A cursory glance at McCain, Obama and Biden reveals the simple conclusion: women's issues are nowhere near the top of their agenda.
Track record
Palin's experience as a governor, while too limited to extrapolate and predict how well she would do if elected into office, is by no means impressive. She had quit the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in January 2004 that she had chaired from 2003 to 2004 over what she had termed the "lack of ethics" of fellow Republican members, following up with formal complaints against the state Republican chairman that eventually ended up with the latter resigning and paying a record US$12,000 fine for conflict-of-interest issues. She was the one who stopped the "Bridge to Nowhere", but lest someone accuse me of oversimplifying the issue, let us review the facts.
She had seemingly understood the Alaskan voters' pain at others calling their place "nowhere" when she was running for governor, which has exposed her to charges of hypocrisy as she has found it useful to adopt the "Bridge to Nowhere" slogan as proof of her courage to stand up against special interests and politicians seeking to profit from earmarks. The state, however, kept the money originally earmarked for the Gravina Island bridge, something Palin had conveniently failed to point out while delivering her first speech as presumptive Republican vice-presidential nominee.
Yet while people are focusing so much on the fact that she basically flip-flopped on the very issue she rode on to become elected as a governor, the more salient point to be made here is less obvious to the general public: she dared to stand up against profiteering politicians and bureaucrats. Alaskans are nursing their injured pride that Palin has betrayed a cause she once called her own, that Palin looks reluctant to return and defend the interests of the state she is supposed to be serving.
Yet one main reason why politicians can still get away with corruption is because they can count on their constituencies to think narrowly and lobby in terms of protecting their own "interests" against other states for a share of the national budget. What clearly evades Palin's detractors is that she has braved criticism and stigmatisation from her colleagues in the establishment, risking even support from her own political base in Alaska to make a point: special interests can become deceptively conflated with "state interests", and you may find yourself defending the wrong one. She dared to separate the two at this instance, while others only sought to preserve their share of the spoils.
Obama
For Obama, the challenge is to keep the media spotlight trained onto him while the Republicans attempt to stir things up with Palin's shock nomination. He knows that it is extremely important to keep the momentum from the Denver convention going so as to consolidate his support early to prevent Clinton voters from seceding to the Republican camp. The recent controversy surrounding Palin's pregnant daughter has cast doubt on the quality of McCain's vetting procedures, but Obama has warned that reporters should "back off these kinds of stories".
While it is certainly commendable that Obama has forcefully spoken up about the limits of the media and the unsavoury politicisation of family matters, his remark also comes at a time when news is trickling through the cracks, concerning his half-brother George, who lives on US$1 a month in Nairobi. Andrew Breitbart was one of the very few who carried the story in the American media, and the abject lack of willingness of other journalists to shed more light on the issue has convinced me that the media is consciously intending to portray Obama as one who can do no wrong. Their justification for painting such a pretty picture: America needs a revolution in politics, and only Obama can do it. Ever watched "Man of the Year"?
People will criticise that I am judging Obama as to why he has not extended a helping hand to his own half-brother in Nairobi, because to do so would be involving his family members. Yet isn't that the way Americans operate in terms of picking their candidates? Obama's charismatic appeal is considerably boosted by his image as a family man, and Michelle Obama's speech at the convention clearly displayed the Obama political machinery's intentions to paint that portrait of the man of the moment. Is Obama afraid that Palin's portrait may be painted as favourable despite the controversy surrounding her now, and thus contribute to a more intimate understanding of the woman?
That Palin returned to her job only three days after giving birth to her special-needs child may be spun as her not getting her priorities right. How can you expect Palin to govern the country if she doesn't even know how to take care of her own family? Yet the fact that she has steadfastly practised what she has been preaching about pro-life not only speaks of her strong convictions, but also that she is human like everyone else.
Agent of change
My point is this: regardless of how much either side is going to spin it (and I don't think I need to tell you that they won't miss a single opportunity to do so), any amount of publicity for Palin will only help in painting a more intimate portrait of her. She fits nicely with McCain's "maverick" status, adding to the cohesiveness of the campaign message that these two will not hesitate to challenge the status quo and risk going against public opinion or confronting demagoguery within their own party.
She has yet to be tested as to whether she can stand up against the system of patronage and corruption that has plagued American politics as effectively as she has done in her own state, but her track record shows that at least she has the potential to usher perhaps what Obama promises to be a new era of fresh politics. It may only be a perception, but in American politics, perception is everything. Obama knows it, and that will keep him on his toes now that Palin has arrived.
In Obama's own rhetoric, she stands for "change".
Labels:
American Politics
0 spoke up:
Post a Comment