Election 2008

John McCain’s choice of running mate, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, will prove either brilliant, or desperate.  We won’t find out until at least the Vice Presidential debate on October 2.

Today Governor Palin issued a joint statement with her husband saying their 17-year old daughter Bristol, is five months pregnant.   (Bristol is the first on the left.)  Bristol is unmarried, but plans to marry the father of her child, according to Palin’s annoucement. All this mentioned in an effort to restructure the conversation after an Internet swarm among liberal bloggers that Trig, Palin’s fifth child who has downs syndrome, is actually Bristol Palin’s child.

John McCain’s choice of a female running mate sent mixed signals to the commentariat: is McCain vying for female supporters of Hillary Clinton by selecting a pro-life Governor?  Does McCain believe the fact that Palin is a working mom abet Joe Biden’s sometimes-flippant, yet often effective debate style?  Does McCain feel secure enough in his foreign policy credentials that he doesn’t need a VP nominee to bolster his international experience? And perhaps most poignantly: Is his selection of Palin a move to secure the most conservative wing of the party?

Palin’s news today may undermine impressions among the conservative base of a “perfect family,” but Bristol Palin’s decision to keep the baby remain in line with the pro-life mantra.  We’re still learning about the Sarah Palin, and bloggers continue to pry into the candidate’s background (Was Palin party to the “bridge to nowhere” PR disaster?  Was she a member of the Alaskan Independent Party and what does that mean? )

Presumably, McCain chose Palin to secure support from the conservative base, attract middle-of-the-road suburban women, and to bring a new face into the Republican mainstream.  To achieve all of these ambitions, McCain’s choices seemed slim.  As Marc Ambinder put it, McCain may reap for his high risk a [possible] high reward.

You can be sure that when the choreography of a political event emphasizes symbolism, it’s usually at the expense of content. So it was with the Democratic show of unity at tiny Unity, NH (population 2,100). Lots of smiles, promises to work together, and Hillary and Obama trading compliments. Obama emphasized how much the country and the Democrats owe Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Hillary (Bill was not there) said it was important for her supporters to vote for Obama in November.

It was a long way to go to get a photo op with “Unity Town Hall” in the background.

The two erstwhile opponents do, in fact, need each other. In that sense the unity message is sincere enough. Hillary wants Obama’s backers to cough up $22 million so she doesn’t have to eat her campaign debt. Obama wants the votes and money of “die hard” Hillary backers. But it seems that you can’t just say this and be done with it. The symbolism demands that you pretend that the harsh attacks of the last year didn’t really happen and that the Party is really one big happy family.

So earlier in the week, there was Obama’s call to his top donors to pay Clinton’s “vendor debt” — as if Hillary can’t go on unless her “campaign” pays her back the millions she loaned it. Then came Thursday’s joint appearance in Washington — no cameras, please! — before Hillary’s top fund raisers. Obama spread the love by writing his own check to Hillary for $2,300.

Media observers seem to think this is all good. What’s more important than unity — even if it is just symbolic?

President Bush, it seems, has been a lame duck for months. In addition to the blogs following his activities on his road back to Crawford, the President’s polling numbers are excruciatingly low–68 percent of Americans disapprove of the Bush Presidency, higher than any other disapproval ratings Gallup has ever tracked (they’ve been measuring since 1938).

The good news rests on the side of the (now determined) general election contenders. According to the newest ABC/Washington Post poll, Obama and McCain are all of four percentage points apart (48 to 42, Obama). Obama attracts those in search of new ideas and a new direction (82 to McCain’s 10 percent). McCain supporters believe strength and experience to be most important in a candidate. The contest will get into full swing after the conventions this summer, and Americans from both persuasions will choose their candidate.

Those watching abroad seem to have chosen theirs already. The most recent Pew study reports high interest in the election abroad, not to mention strong preferences among the leading candidates.

People around the world who have been paying attention to the American election express more confidence in Barack Obama than in John McCain to do the right thing regarding world affairs. McCain is rated lower than Obama in every country surveyed, except for the United States where his rating matches Obama’s, as well as in Jordan and Pakistan where few people have confidence in either candidate.

Obama’s advantage over McCain is overwhelming in the Western European countries surveyed: Fully 84% of the French who have been following the election say they have confidence in Obama to do the right thing regarding world affairs, compared with 33% who say that about McCain. The differences in ratings for Obama and McCain are about as large in Spain and Germany, and are only somewhat narrower in Great Britain.

Along with the prospects of a new US President, foreigners are gaining confidence in the overall image of the US.

The survey finds a widespread belief that U.S. foreign policy “will change for the better” after the inauguration of a new American president next year. Among people who have been following the election, large majorities in France (68%), Spain (67%) and Germany (64%) say that they believe that U.S. foreign policy will improve after the election. This sentiment is also common in the African countries included in the survey - Nigeria (67%), South Africa (66%) and Tanzania (65%).

Many of the Muslim countries don’t see improvements happening at all: “In Jordan and Egypt, more people who are following the election say they expect new leadership to change U.S. foreign policy for the worse than say they expect a change for the better.”

The next President, whomever he is, will look for public support at home and abroad, and will have to compete against predetermined biases.