THE END GAME

"Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two virtues."

-- Christian Friedrich Hebbel

In politics, truth is perception and perception is everything.

Call this a post-mortem and a prognostication.

The altering currents of history rarely flow as we expect and their directions are often guided as much by forces unseen as by the laws of change themselves. So it is that we American travelers find ourselves on this historic political journey where conceptions of race and gender are shifting and competing before our eyes. A woman and an African-American vied for the Democratic Party’s presidential candidacy and, so we are told, this represents a dramatic change in the fortunes of those who have been marginalize for centuries in this country.

Yes and no. Let's hold on a minute.

While, indeed the sensibilities of the average American have changed with respect to gender and race, and the level of tolerance, respect and acceptance of differences that we now see is something of which all Americans should be proud, power is not given up easily and it can be argued that this historic moment is being exploited by those for whom such changes are not always advantageous.

So what exactly has happened and is happening? If we look back and look forward we will find, I believe, that the answer lies in the “End Game.”

POLITICAL CHESS

"All warfare is based on deception."

--Sun Tzu

The Art of War

Good politicians treat the game of politics like a game of chess. In both arenas, the ability to think several moves ahead (or “deep”) is vital to victory. It isn’t enough to attack or counterattack your opponent, you must be able to anticipate his/her response, and his/her response to your response, ad infinitum.

No matter how noble the words, beneath the message is the action that must guide victory: brutal, merciless strategy. Yet action alone is not enough. Luck must be in the favor of a party or its kingmakers. When both strategy and luck are present, the desired result will always occur.

The Republican party has always played the political chess game like a grandmaster for they understand precisely that it is a game. Power is their idealism. The Democrats and liberals, by contrast, have always served as the eager, well-intentioned amateur. They always mistake idealism for power and play the game poorly because of it.

Such is what we have seen before us this year. The Republicans have played the public (and Democrat) hopefulness of an end to gender and racial barriers to power in such a way as to potentially further their own ends and retain power.

THE OPENING GAME

“Divide et impera.”

[“To divide is to conquer.”]

-- Julius Caesar

I. The Obama Gambit

The Republicans know that the best way to defeat the Democrats is to let them defeat themselves, and this is what they set out to do. When your enemy is numerous, what better than to divide them and set them against each other? This is what has occurred.

There is nothing more tragic than to watch two of the Democratic Party's core constituencies turn against each other: African-Americans and women.

And nothing could be better for Republicans.

A Hillary Clinton candidacy represented a strong threat in the general election because she would be strong with the women’s vote and in doing so give a group (women) who have been historically marginalized and discriminated against a chance to achieve a parity of political power with men.

Women represent the majority of voters in America. If they vote as a bloc, they are nearly impossible to defeat in any election. Women make up the largest portion of the electorate (53% of total US voters in the 2004 election). [ See http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf for more detail. ]

Should Hillary Clinton have been able to harness a large majority of women voters with her historical candidacy it would have been formidable in the general election against the Republicans. Even with her reputation as a polarizing force, Clinton still would have been likely to inspire even a large number of women who had been cool to her during her career simply due to the fact that she would represent the first viable female candidate for the nation's highest office.

How do you fight that? One way would be to divide women from each other and/or divide them from another core Democratic group. As luck as much as strategy is key to victory, luck would have it for the Republicans that a candidate arose who could help them do just that.

Senator Barrack Obama is arguably the most brilliant and charismatic politician we’ve seen in America in the last 40 years. No candidate in my lifetime has shown a greater ability to inspire and transcend than Senator Obama has. He is a singular personality.

He also happens to be black.

Perhaps no group in American history has suffered under the yoke of discrimination as blacks have. There is no need to catalogue the sins perpetrated against people of African ancestry in this country-- from slavery to Jim Crow, we know them all.

If one wishes to neutralize the power of an historical candidacy of one oppressed group, what better way then to advocate on behalf of the candidacy of another oppressed group.

Fate dropped just such an opportunity in the lap of the Republicans.

Pitting blacks against women serves a second benefit. The Clinton’s have had long and strong support from African-Americans. By turning blacks against Hillary Clinton, it takes away a core voting group and a group that has been one of her bases. Should she prevail against Obama, it would weaken her in the general election.

Similarly, an Obama candidacy could also potentially divide Obama from some demographics of women come general election should he be the Democratic nominee.

Both results have occurred.

Strategically, a candidate who can attract the latter (women) is more dangerous in the general election than a candidate who can attract the African-American vote. Let’s be clear, both groups are needed in order to win, but sheer numbers favor a campaign that captures the excitement of a large number of female voters. African-Americans make up a relatively small portion of the national electorate (11% of total US voters in 2004), while women make up a far larger number as noted above. [ Again, please see http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf for more detail. ]

Interestingly, and by contrast, a candidate more attractive to the former (African-Americans) can be more dangerous in the Democratic primaries, especially the early ones, as blacks make up a large portion of Democratic voters in places like South Carolina, Georgia and Louisiana.

If Obama could make a strong showing in the earliest states like Iowa which have a very small black population, he would be positioned to wreak havoc on a Hillary Clinton candidacy early on in states with larger African American populations---potentially being able to eliminate her. That is exactly what happened.

Once Obama won Iowa, it showed that he could carry the white vote and thereby be a legitimate threat to Clinton. Moreover, the black vote, which had once strongly been behind Clinton, deserted her after the Iowa caucuses. While she had strong support of black voters 2 to 1 over Senator Obama before Iowa, the percentage more than reversed with Obama capture 80% of the black vote on average afterward.

Certainly the statements of Senator Clinton’s husband, President Clinton, didn’t help, but this was an unintended bonus that only served to harden black support for Obama and against Clinton. Remember, the percentages flipped before President Clinton’s remarks, not afterward. President Clinton unhinged behavior became a Republican gift that kept on giving.

Now the divide is there, and that divide is beginning to harden. Make no mistake about it. According to the most recent polls, there is a hardening of support on both sides. Many African-Americans have now cooled to Hillary (and Bill) Clinton, while some of Clinton’s female supporters are threatening to not support Obama in the general election.

Hillary Clinton’s favorability ratings among blacks have plummeted by 36% over the last year. Her favorability among blacks now stands at under 40%:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/03/opinion/03blow.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Though it should be said that Senator Clinton has continued to reach out to blacks, the wounds caused by what were perceived as racial slights and playing the race card will not be easily healed.

Similarly, many women feel that Clinton has not been treated well because of her gender during the election and have become angered to the point of turning against Senator Obama. Most of the fury has been caused by what is perceived as misogynistic media bias against Senator Clinton, but some have felt that some of Senator Obama’s comments have been condescending towards women. As a result, there is a large groundswell developing directed at getting women to not vote for Senator Obama in the general election:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/women-threaten.html#comments

Though many have said that these wounds will be healed in time for the general election, it remains to be seen. It certainly points to a potential problem for the Democrats.

If the Republican strategy was to foment division, it worked like a charm.

So how did Obama manage to be strong enough to survive in the early primaries and become a viable threat to a once inevitable Clinton candidacy?

First, once it was clear that he could win over white voters, African-Americans were more willing to support his candidacy since it would no longer be something that was simply symbolic, but actually viable. With the legitimacy of his candidacy in hand, Obama was poised to attract black voters in droves.

Second, Senator Obama, as was mentioned above, Senator Obama is an extraordinary politician. Aside from his personal gifts, he’s also run an incredible campaign. Unlike Senator Clinton, who initial ran her campaign as an inevitable coronation, Senator Obama contested strongly in all 50 states, focusing on caucuses as well as primaries. He benefited from incredible enthusiasm from his supporters, particularly younger ones, who responded amazingly to his call for change. Though Senator Clinton has improved her campaign organization as of late and has shown herself to be an incredible candidate, it may be too little too late.

Still, when it comes to African-American candidates, no matter the brilliance or charisma, historically it has been difficult to break the barrier of race. For a party such as the Republican party, whose bread and butter has been exploiting ethnic tensions, a black candidate would have to find cross that historic divide-- or get unexpected help.

Something very strange began happening in 2007. Prominent Republicans began stating their support for Senator Obama or openly expressing their approval of him. Why strange? Because, first, the partisan divide of the last decade or so have rendered people on either side incapable of expressions of admiration for each other. Second, in particular, for the reasons stated above, the Republican Party is not the most likely ally of distinguished liberal black Democratic senator.

The first indicator was the “Republicans for Obama” website which went up in 2007:

http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=homepage

To be sure, this site has a relatively small number of members, but it was an early, interesting harbinger.

Soon, various prominent Republicans were either announcing their support for Obama or openly showing their approval of him. Tom Bernstein, who co-owned the Texas Rangers with George W. Bush, announced his support in 2007. John Canning, a Chicago financier, is openly supporting Obama. Canning was a “Bush pioneer” donor (meaning he raised at least $100,000 for President George W. Bush in 2004). Susan Eisenhower, granddaughter of President announced her support in 2008. Douglas Kmiec, a former senior Justice Department official under President Reagan supports him.

Robert Kagan, a neoconservative and cofounder of the Project for the New American Century, which was the blueprint for Bush’s foreign policy and the war in Iraq, stated his approval of Obama in 2007 as well. Peggy Noonan, a Ronald Reagan speechwriter, speaks glowingly of him (as she almost never does of most Democrats), and Michelle Bernard, a leading conservative (and some say “anti-feminist” voice) routinely gushes over him on MSNBC.

It makes quite a fascinating snapshot.

In almost every primary, the majority of Republicans who have participated on the Democratic side have supported Obama. In Iowa, against six other opponents in the Democratic primary, Obama won 44% of the Republican vote in an open caucus. Virginia Republicans who voted Democrat voted for Obama 72%-23%. Similarly, Missouri Republicans voting in the Democratic primary voted for Obama 75%-21%, while 72% of Republicans voting Democrat in Wisconsin supported him.

Much has been made in the press about Rush Limbaugh’s call for Republicans to vote for Hillary in the Texas primary in order to cause chaos in the Democratic primary. This was, as always, a brilliant Republican red herring. In point of fact, in Texas, a large number of Republicans pledged their support for Obama before the March 4 primary:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23394070/

In the final vote, according to exit polls only 9 percent of Texas Democratic primary voters identified themselves as Republican, and of that group, Obama won 53%-46% percent.

There are two ways to look at this. One is that Obama has achieved broad support across party lines, attracting people with his messages of unity, hope and change. Sen. Obama himself would say that. In fact he would challenge any contradictory notion as “cynicism.” In his recent powerful speech on race, which he gave this past March 18, he said this:

“For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism… we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.”

Much has been made about "Obamacans," or disenchanted Republicans who support Obama. It may very well be the case that a new political alignment is occurring in America with Senator Obama at its center. To be sure, there is some of this happening. If it is truly the case overall, then we are experiencing one of the greatest ideological changes in American history.

But I would argue that the more "cynical" perspective may be the correct one-- and the proof of that will remain to be seen in the general election. Should Republicans support Senator Obama and help him to victory, his take on the matter will have proven right. However should they abandon him and give the election to Senator McCain, then we would have to question what was at play with respect to all the open support he received from the Democrats opposition.

The final result will depend on how the middle and end game of this possible strategy play out.

THE MIDDLE GAME

“The right man is the one who seizes the moment.”

--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If your opening gambit has gone well in chess, winning requires that you exploit your advantage during the middle game and take tactical control of the middle of the board, methodically cut down your opponent's pieces.

In politics, the middle game represents those long months after the primaries and before the convention. The center of the board in this case is both the political and geographic center of the country, that part of our nation where the populace is presumed to be of moderate or "middle ground" ideology-- neither too liberal nor too conservative.

This is what is called the “Heartland” or “Mid America.”

To control this part of the political game, the usual tactic is for the more liberal Democratic candidate to moderate to his/her right in order to seem more centrist. For the Republican, it's the mirror image-- moderate left for the same effect. Simultaneously, you will want to paint your opponent as an extremist of one ilk or the other. For the Democrats, the goal is to show that your Republican counterpart is far right ideologically. For the Republicans, the reverse is again true; Make clear to voters that the Democrat as an "ultra liberal" or radical.

We are at the precipice of the middle game now. With all appearances pointing towards Obama as the Democratic candidate, the painting of Obama as leftist, radical or extremist has begun. In this part of the game, the portrayal will not be subtle. There will be a strong push to frame the nature of the debate about Obama. However, the Republicans will still try to hold back on what they think would be a knockout punch until the end game, where it will do the most damage.

The first step will be to portray Obama as an “out of touch” elitist. Much has been made about Obama’s comments with respect to “bitterness” in small town America:

“And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Much will continue to be made. The remarks will be repeated again and again in attempt to show Obama as unable to relate to the cultural realities of blue-collar America. This elitist picture will be tied to the same portrayal of the Democratic Party as controlled by liberal elites who are far removed from the everyday lives of the average American.

Raised by a single mother and by his grandparents, Obama is hardly to the manor born, so it would seem absurd to call him elitist, but he’s Ivy League educated and his blessed with a suave patrician style that will be used against him. Somehow we’ve reached a point in American history where having a quality education makes one suspect of all sorts of things. As ridiculous as that is, it appears to be true. (This entire line of attack by the Republicans will also conveniently overlook the fact that McCain is a Naval Academy grad, the son and grandson of an admiral in the U.S. Navy, and also the husband of an extremely wealthy heiress.)

The second tactic will be for the Republicans to play the race card and paint Obama as a race radical due to his personal associations.

Even though Senator Obama has left the Trinity United Church of Christ, the 20-year relationship he had with his church will be used in any way that the Republicans can in order to discredit the notion of him as a man that transcends race. The many videos of Rev. Wright's inflammatory comments and Rev. Wright's own associations are now part of the public record. The recent video of Father Pfleger's comments as a guest pastor at Trinity in which he attacks Hillary Clinton with respect to race (as well as the fact that Pfleger was a spiritual advisor to the Obama campaign) do not help.

Obama's associations with his pastor, Reverend Wright, and his church, Trinity United Church of Christ, have been known for months, if not years, by the media. He mentions his relationships with them in both his books, Dreams of My Father (1995) and The Audacity of Hope (2005). In fact, the title of Audacity of Hope comes from a sermon delivered by Reverend Wright.

The ideologies and teachings of Rev. Wright, therefore, have been public knowledge for years. Obama's ascendancy in 2004 should have called attention to them, yet they did not. Running for the most powerful job in the world, president of the United States, should have made his religious affiliation inescapable, but somehow the press-- and, most glaringly, the right-wing pundits-- were silent for months.

That is until Obama had secured a mathematical certainty of a popular delegate lead in the month of February. Suddenly, with control of the primaries seemingly in hand, this candidate who had been universally praised for his political moderation was "suddenly" discovered to have "radical" skeletons in his closet. Skeletons that had been in plain view for years.

Now Sen. Obama was being tainted by the brush of his associations. While no one in the media will contend that Sen. Obama shares his pastors extremist views, by making those views public, they raise questions in voters minds which naturally begin to cloud Sen. Obama's image to centrist voters in the country's heartland.

Their final move during this middle phase will be to paint Obama's political positions as "liberal" or "leftist" (which are good things to me) in order to continue to shade his image as an extremist. He'll be attacked for his positions on gay marriage, abortion, social programs and withdrawal from Iraq.

Nothing spectacular, but that's not the point in this part of the game. The point is to gain position, not capture the king... yet.

THE END GAME

“If an injury has to be done to a man, it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.”

-- Niccolo Machiavelli

Finally, in the end game, you must be merciless. You must eliminate any obstacles to your capture of the opponent’s king. This is the heated time between the convention and the general election when, in the end, you hope to finish as the last king standing.

The most brutal attacks come at this point because the public typically has a short memory. Should you use your toughest assault too early in the election cycle and the controversy may be forgotten or your opponent may have time to repair the damage or counter. Waiting till the end has the strongest effect.

Toward the November election, these are the hard attacks that Obama will face:

1. The Extremist: Middle East Connections.

a. Rezko: Exploiting Anti-Arab Bias—Sen. Obama had a long-time relationship with Chicago political operative Tony Rezko. Mr. Rezko has just been convicted on charges of corruption. While this alone will taint Sen. Obama due to his association with him, Rezko has connections with somewhat shady characters from the Middle East. Nadhmi Auchi, is an Iraqi billionaire who provided Rezko with $3.5 million as a loan, which ultimately caused Rezko to lose his bail bond for the fraud charges. The key aspect of this relationship is that Auchi was also the beneficiary of a lucrative power plant deal in postwar Iraq. Questions have arisen as to how he obtained that deal. Those questions may ensnare Sen. Obama even though there is no reason to believe he has that much of a connection to Mr. Auchi. Given scare tactics and whisper campaigns about Sen. Obama being a Muslin, this connection is bound to be used against him eventually.

b. Israel-- Though Sen. Obama's recent statements have made clear his support of Israel, look for questions about his ties to advisors who have not been considered steadfast in their support of Israel. Such names to keep in mind are Robert Malley, a Middle East scholar who is of Syrian ancestry and who is considered pro-Palestinian; the ubiquitous Rev. Wright, whose church web site contained some views considered anti-Israel; and George Soros, the multibillionaire investor whom some have painted as anti-Israeli.

c. Osama/Obama-- This oldie-but-goodie is bound to return if Obama is the Democratic candidate for president. Mind you, it will never be stated overtly. Oh, no. There will just be an unusual number of "slips of the tongue" that begin to be made in order to subtly remind people of the similarity in names.

Also, Osama is always good for a well-timed video of some sort. Considering it's been nearly seven years since 9-11 and President Bush still hasn't been able to find him for some reason, I imagine Osama has had enough time to build a whole video studio. It wouldn't be a surprise if we see some "supportive" video about Obama released by Osama. Something about how good it would be to have a "Muslim" in the White House, or nonsense of that sort.

2. National Security: An "October Surprise"-- If all else fails, we can always look forward to some "October Surprise" threat to our national security in the form of an Osama video, al-Qaeda warning, conflict in Iraq or with Iran-- you know, the usual scare to remind us how we need a "strong, macho" man like McCain.

3. The Black Militant: Skeletons in the Closet— The specter of Rev. Wright, Father Pfleger and Trinity Church will be resurrected again and again. More whisper campaigns will be started about other extremist writings or speeches by those connected with Sen. Obama, perhaps even something about his wife Michelle.

EPILOGUE

Just because the Republicans will attack, does not mean it will be successful. One thing we've seen is that Barack Obama is possessed of singular political gifts and has shown the tenacity and willingness to fight back.

Obama has charm and oratorical gifts that are powerful weapons. He can disarm even the most potent attacks with an easy-going response or an extraordinary speech. He also has developed a reputation as a straightforward operator whom the public takes at his word. In addition he has assembled an amazing campaign team that responds quickly to potential problems. Lastly, he is blessed with supporters that can only be described as "devoted" and who have made clear that they will make their voices heard in response to any attack on their candidate.

He has the tools to fight back, for no matter how great the strategy, there's always a counter.