Campaign strategy session

McCain also entered his party's nominating race as a maverick who had collaborated with Democrats on immigration reform, health-care reform, campaign-finance reform, and other issues. He portrayed himself as a critic of the Bush Iraq policy but as an all-out advocate of the surge strategy — i.e., in favor of applying greater military force, short term, and of remaining in Iraq "as long as it took" until U.S. troops could safely turn over security to Iraqi troops. Just as Obama, he began retreating from his original independence and embracing conservative orthodoxy, especially on economic and tax issues where he was perceived as not a Reaganomics believer.

On key issues, there remain big differences between Obama and McCain. They are the central differences between Democratic and Republican approaches to governance: That is, Obama would have government adopt a more intrusive and determining role on economic and domestic issues, in particular; McCain would leave more power in the hands of the private sector and of state and local governments. Yet both candidates will present themselves henceforth as moderate, reasonable, and not likely to do anything abrupt or upsetting. It would delight either man to be characterized as "a sensible pragmatist."

On foreign policy issues, Obama reflects his party's greater emphasis on multilateralism, international institutions, and identification with Third World problems, as well as its shunning of military options in general. McCain is a greater advocate of assertiveness on behalf of American interests and of diplomacy backed, in the end, with a willingness to use American force. On a case-by-case basis, however, they are likely to blur their differences in campaign debate. Obama will toughen up, pledge defense of Israel, warn against nuclear proliferation by Iran and North Korea, and propose a more flexible Iraq withdrawal timetable and flow of greater military resources to Afghanistan. He will, in short, position himself perhaps one-half-inch to the left of McCain. McCain will use softer language and position himself one-half inch to the right of Obama.

To the unititiated, this may seem supremely cynical. But it is nothing more than the usual quadrennial journey taken by presidential candidates of both major parties. To get nominated, candidates make their appeals to activist constituencies on the Left and Right. To contest a general election, they wear moderate clothing in order to appeal to independent and crossover voters. In other words, they do what they feel they must do at each stage of the process.

Drawing the pictures

As noted above, both Obama and McCain are drawing pictures of themselves for the electorate. They also are drawing pictures of their opponents which they wish the electorate to accept.

Obama cannot complete a sentence without implying that McCain and Bush, as McCain and Bush domestic and foreign policies, are identical. McCain, for his part, would have voters believe that Obama is nothing more or less than a big-government, tax-and-spend liberal who, on national security policy, is inexperienced and not to be trusted.

If you think picture-drawing does not work, consider the fact that for 30 years Democrats associated all Republican national candidates with the failed President Herbert Hoover. The mention of Hoover's name brought boos at any Democratic political event. Republicans rally their troops by derisive references to President Jimmy Carter. They drew quite successful pictures of losing Democratic nominees in 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004 according to Republican, rather than Democratic, terms of reference. (Remember Mike Dukakis and the famous "Willie Horton" commercials in 1988 and the "Swift Boat" commercials in 2004 which wounded John Kerry?).

Here in Washington state, the campaigns of Gov. Chris Gregoire and former state Sen. Dino Rossi are running commercials at this moment attempting to define their opponents in quite negative ways. Correspondingly, positive commercials have thus far been absent.

Challengers normally ask voters to vote "no" on an incumbency, as Rossi is suggesting they do regarding Gregoire's, but Gregoire's campaign at this point is asking voters as well to vote "no" on Rossi.

The Gregoire-Rossi media campaigns are the most mutually negative I can recall at this juncture.

Which tide will engulf the other?

Voters clearly want change. They are fed up with the state of the economy and fatigued by our involvement in Iraq. Yet this apparent Obama advantage could fade if some international crisis or terrorist episode occurred before election day. This could turn voters toward the older, more seasoned McCain.

At the state level, a desire for change should favor Rossi. Yet financial/economic conditions here are superior to those in most other states. Washington is now a Democratic state. The Obama candidacy at the top of the Democratic ballot should bring strength to Gregoire's candidacy as well. If Gregoire is successful in casting enough doubt on Rossi, she could win reelection handily.

Neither the presidential nor gubernatorial election is a sure thing at this stage. But we should at least be aware of what the candidates are doing right now and why they are doing it.