Like Dangling Crack In Front of an Idiot

The Democratic nomination is broadly between two people whose policies are shockingly similar. There are a few of us who find an important enough distinction so as to favor one over another (I favor Obama, as much as anything, for his opposition to the Iraq war contrasted with Clinton's support, while at least one of my livejournal friends prefers Clinton's health care policy).

It's no surprise, then, that the contest has degenerated into decision making based on non-policy meta narratives such as 'electability,' 'change,' 'experience,' 'hope,' 'solutions,' etc. To some degree, these types of appeals are inherently silly. 'Change,' as Clinton notes, in and of itself, is pretty useless. Dubya changed a whole lot. Similarly, as Obama likes to point out Donald Rumsfield and Dick Cheney had a boatload of 'experience.'

So the critical issue right now for a lot of voters, and probably the only way to get anything useful out of these debates, is to look at whether the candidate has the right kind of the trait they tout.

The Flap

Today there is a flap over what should be a minor issue: a Drudge Report special report about the release of a picture of Barak Obama dressed in traditional Kenyan garb.

Is this a dogwhistle? Not yet. But it is designed to be the worst kind of political attack: to lay the groundwork to smear Obama by claiming he is a Muslim (and therefore scccccaaaaaaaarrrrry. Oooooooh). This kind of release is what leads to dogwhistles (if, later in this campaign, you hear McCain talking about Obama's 'unusual background' you'll know to what he is alluding).

Now Drudge is not terribly reliable. He's made his name as the release point of the worst of Republican opposition research. On default, I would assume that anything published on his site was leaked by the RNC. So when he said that he got it from the Clinton campaign, it's worth taking with a grain of salt.

All the Clinton campaign had to do was deny it. Instead they released a laughable/pathetic excuse for a denial.

NOT COOL.

Later they all but admitted they did it.

Why Does it Matter?

This exchange undermines Clinton's positive meta-narratives (that because she is tough and experienced she is the better candidate to compete against the Republicans) while at the same time buoying one of Obama's big weaknesses (that he isn't tough enough to take on smears).

One of the frustrating things about politics is that a lot of things that shouldn't matter, do. It didn't mean anything that Mike Dukakis looked funny in a tank, that Bob Dole looked old, or that John Kerry looked funny on a surfboard. It is only marginally 'meaningful' that George Herbert Walker Bush didn't know the cost of a gallon of milk.

But all of them lost campaigns because they couldn't manage the media.

The bedrock of Hillary Clinton's 'experience' claim is the implied claim that she has the right kind of experience: the experience to take on the right-wing noise machine. That she survived all the crap thrown against her (she is 'vetted') is a major part of her argument. Similarly, that she is willing to wallow in the mud, gouge out eyes, etc. is her meta-narrative.

That's not a bad thing. Hell, I don't like her and find it appealing. But that argument fails if she does more damage to herself then to her opponent. I like the idea of an attack dog, but it would help if her attacks were deft and didn't bite her in the ass.

Similarly, the suggestion that Obama's 'inexperience' in this area is a weakness would be augmented if he responded to attacks badly. He hasn't. Instead he looks tough, firm and willing to respond forcefully to attacks.

This is a complete tactical disaster.