Your email address is safe with us. View our Privacy policy.
Author Bio:
Michael Barone has studied at both Harvard and Yale, where he was editor for publications from both colleges. He has also served as an editor for ...
Read more about Michael Barone.
Michael Barone has studied at both Harvard and Yale, where he was editor for publications from both colleges. He has also served as an editor for ...
Read more about Michael Barone.
The Chosen Obama Narrative
Michael Barone
Once upon a time, the two parties' national conventions chose
presidential nominees. Now, they are television shows that try to
establish a narrative -- one that links the long-since-determined
nominee's life story with the ongoing history of the nation, one that
shows how this one man is perfectly positioned to lead America to a
better future. The hope is that the nominee will get a bounce in the
polls.
And they usually do. Gallup poll data shows that nominees got a 5 percent or better bounce from 14 of the 16 national conventions between 1976 and 2004. And that's even for nominees that in retrospect seem less than inspiring.
In 1988, Democrats presented Michael Dukakis as the son of immigrants who produced the Massachusetts miracle; Republicans presented George H.W. Bush as the pioneer who went to Texas and was now ready to take on another mission. Both got 11 percent bounces.
The biggest of all -- 30 percent -- went to Bill Clinton, "the man from Hope" in 1992, helped by Ross Perot's withdrawal on the day of his acceptance speech. The notable exceptions came in 2004, when a polarized electorate gave George W. Bush only a 4 percent bounce and John Kerry -- "reporting for duty" -- actually lost ground.
There is a difference between the two parties, however. The Democrats can usually depend on the mainstream media accepting their narratives uncritically, while the Republicans can expect them to punch holes in their storylines. In 1988, the media didn't note that Dukakis was less an earthy ethnic than a reformer in the Massachusetts Puritan tradition, but it was eager to point to the senior Bush's aristocratic Eastern background.
The narrative of this year's Democratic National Convention can be forecast with some assurance. It will emphasize Barack Obama's roots in Kansas more than Kenya or even Hawaii; it will portray him as a leader from a new generation eager to cast off the partisanship of the last decade; it will hail him as a symbol that America has risen above past prejudices and can once again stand proud in the world. His acceptance speech in Invesco Field will invite comparison with the other two Democratic nominees who spoke in stadiums, Franklin Roosevelt in Philadelphia's Franklin Field in 1936 and John Kennedy in the Los Angeles Coliseum in 1960.
An interesting question is whether mainstream media have any appetite for undermining this undeniably attractive narrative. Of "the whole Obama narrative," one reporter told The New Republic's Gabriel Sherman, "like all stories, it's not entirely true."
Obama's record of reaching across party lines is, as his own answer to Rick Warren's recent Saddleback Civil Forum showed, pretty thin. His paper trail is surprisingly thin, too. He has left no papers from his Illinois Senate days; he hasn't listed his law firm clients or provided more than one page of medical records; the papers of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which he chaired and in which the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers was heavily involved, were suddenly closed to National Review's Stanley Kurtz by the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois.
Mainstream media, with the conspicuous exception of ABC News' George Stephanopoulos, have shown little curiosity about Obama's connection with Ayers. It will also be interesting to see if there is much coverage of Obama's 2003 vote in Illinois against protecting infants born alive in attempted abortions, now that his campaign has conceded the bill was virtually identical to one that passed the U.S. Senate 98-0 in 2001.
Obama backers dismiss attempts to undermine his narrative as distractions or as racism, beyond the bounds of reasonable discourse. Most of the mainstream media tend to agree. Ayers is no more likely to appear at the convention than the disgraced John Edwards. But other media have a voice. Obama will probably get a nice bounce out of his convention. But it's not clear whether his narrative can be sustained in the weeks and months ahead.
========
To read more political analysis by Michael Barone, visit www.usnews.com/baroneblog. To find out more about Michael Barone, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc.
This news arrived on: 08/23/2008
Printer Friendly Version | Send this page to a friend | Post Comment
Rate This Story:
Great - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Bad
Posted Comments:
08-26-2008 05:11
ed wrote:
I don't agree with Steve Hartwell that you have to serve in the armed forces -- but why on earth would anyone vote for someone who agrees/carouses with people who hate America? i.e., Bill Ayers, the pastor of his church, even listening to his wife Michele. You have either got to be influenced by them or why would you associate with them?
08-25-2008 00:41
Pittbull wrote:
To Papaay
to Papaay:
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. America was founded to be a free nation & one of our most cherished rights is property rights which include a man's hard earned money. You are right that the first evil step was the income tax but social security was the next catastrophe. I believe the founding fathers would have taken up arms against both measures.
Social security is SOCIALISM & I do not believe it was EVER a good idea. All democratic & Republican states are doomed once the people realize they can help themselves to the national treasury (I think Churchill said that).
At least we agree that the government is usually run by thieves who will steal the people's money everytime. However since that is practically a hard & fast rule, I think it is yet another reason that social security was an evil, immoral idea in the first place and time has proven that it, along with other similar style entitlements, has brought America to the brink of ruin.
Anyway, I like & respect your opinions. God bless!
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. America was founded to be a free nation & one of our most cherished rights is property rights which include a man's hard earned money. You are right that the first evil step was the income tax but social security was the next catastrophe. I believe the founding fathers would have taken up arms against both measures.
Social security is SOCIALISM & I do not believe it was EVER a good idea. All democratic & Republican states are doomed once the people realize they can help themselves to the national treasury (I think Churchill said that).
At least we agree that the government is usually run by thieves who will steal the people's money everytime. However since that is practically a hard & fast rule, I think it is yet another reason that social security was an evil, immoral idea in the first place and time has proven that it, along with other similar style entitlements, has brought America to the brink of ruin.
Anyway, I like & respect your opinions. God bless!
08-24-2008 21:02
Pspaay wrote:
To Pittbull
Social Security was a good idea if the politicians had kept their hands off the money. Too many people never save enough to live on once they can't work anymore. Before the 1900s, people took care of their older family and a lot of the time there were three or four generations under one roof. As the country became more industrialized, more people had to live in smaller homes in the city. There wasn't room to take care of the older family members. (Or the money, once the central government started all their tax and spend in 1913) Anyway, the idea was good but you can't put money near the thieves! They'll steal it every time
08-24-2008 20:46
Pittbull wrote:
Bridget & Ann
Bridget: Social Security is bankrupt. It will soon be gone along with the rest of the welfare state because our nation is on the verge of financial collapse. FDR slipped America a poison pill. It took 75 years but America is almost dead.
Anne B:The Media did NOT FOIST GEORGE BUSH ON US. How ANYONE can say that is beyond me. The media ALWAYS SUPPORTS THE DEMOCRAT IN EVERY ELECTION. With Obama it is even more obvious than usual.
Anne B:The Media did NOT FOIST GEORGE BUSH ON US. How ANYONE can say that is beyond me. The media ALWAYS SUPPORTS THE DEMOCRAT IN EVERY ELECTION. With Obama it is even more obvious than usual.
08-24-2008 14:40
steve hartwell wrote:
mccain is a proven patriot
i think this gives him a definite advantage over obama
Comment archive | Comment FAQ's
![]() |
![]() |
View Michael Barone ezine stories by date or visit the complete archive |
Featured Channel: Politics
The ArcaMax Politics channel is one of 70 content categories offered by ArcaMax Publishing on this ... |











Body Mass