It can’t be overstated – and it seems that few in the media except for our own Joshua Marshall, Joe Klein at Time, and Andrew Sullivan over at the Daily Dish are saying it – what a disaster Sarah Palin is for John McCain’s brand. Give this some time to sink in – McCain has run on the basis of experience, foreign policy credentials, a reformer, bucking his own party. Everything he’s run for, Sarah Palin stands as an direct affront to.

So set aside for a moment the excitement. Let's assume everyone thinks about this for a moment over the next few months. John McCain has damaged his brand, the only thing he can lay claim to in this Democratic year, in one fell swoop.

And it's not that Sarah Palin is so, so bad. She’s probably not as bad as George Bush. But she’s claiming executive privilege in trooper-gate in the best of the George Bush/Karl Rove tradition.

And she’s probably not as bad as Ted Stevens. But she backed the bridge to nowhere, she sought earmarks for DNA testing on seals, and she’s outperformed most on getting pork barrel spending both as governor and mayor of Wasilla.

Sarah Palin has some foreign policy experience. She’s been to Kuwait. She’s been to Canada. But as a governor for 1 ½ years and mayor of a very small town before that, her experience is slim to none and she’s got no other credentials that could mollify anxieties that she’s up for the job on day one if on day two, John McCain is stricken down by past maladies or unforeseen circumstances.

So Sarah Palin is no maverick, she’s no reformer, and she’s got little experience. She’s a good campaigner and an exciting politician for the future, but not for the highest office right now. She also doesn’t have any of the other qualities that John McCain lacked or were of some concern – like experience in addressing our economic ills. Her governance over an energy-rich state does nothing to address this and can only remind us how ill-equipped George Bush was in the same area despite coming from oil-rich Texas. We don’t need another four years of energy policy designed by oil executives.

Her pick undermines John McCain’s biggest claim to the presidency – that his experience has prepared him to make the tough decisions of our time. He’s fallen flat on that and pandered to identity politics without even choosing an experienced female politician like Olympia Snow, Kay Bailey Hutchison, or Linda Lingle, governor of Hawaii, first elected in 2002. This was his first and perhaps most important decision as president. He failed.

John McCain had his own pros and cons. On the one hand, he didn’t spend the last 18 months fighting and winning his party’s nomination againt Hillary Clinton, the most qualified and able woman candidate to seek the highest office in recent memory. That gave him the advantage over Barack Obama. On the other hand, he is a Republican and even though Ronald Reagan won 56% of the women’s vote in 1984 when Geraldine Ferraro was running, that was in a good climate for Republicans.

The one thing that Barack Obama evidently understood, though, that John McCain has flubbed is that women were flocking to Hillary Clinton, just as blacks did to Barack Obama, because they believed in her ability to lead. She was qualified. Hillary Clinton was no Geraldine Feraro just as Barack Obama was no Reverand Al Sharpton. And Governor Sarah Palin’s no Hillary Clinton.

So Barack Obama couldn’t pick Governor Kathleen Sebelius, no matter how much she might have balanced his strengths and weaknesses. Executive experience. Working across party lines. A transplanted politician, from Ohio to Kansas. The whole Kansas thing. A calm, measured, composed demeanour. A two-term governor. The heartland. The south.

Kathleen Sebelius would have been perfect, but for one thing – she didn’t seem to have as much experience, arguably talent, and ability as Hillary Clinton. Her pick would have been an insult to Clinton’s 18 million voters, a bald pander and vote grab placing identity politics over substance. Directly the kind of sexism that Clinton experienced from various media personalities as she fought her way from January through to June, even onward as she made what in retrospect now proved to be wise moves towards catharsis and persuasion of her voters back into the Democratic fold.

So Barack Obama went for experience, someone with whom he could work, a resume that was at least as good as if not a good chunk better than Hillary Clinton’s, who is good on the stump and will still complement Obama’s abilities. In fact, he also passed over others whose image or ability to befriend Obama might have exceeded Senator Joe Biden’s but still could have been seen as an insult to the abilities or vote getting pull of a Hillary Clinton – such as Sentaor Evan Bayh, Governor Tim Kaine, and Governor Bill Richardson.

So in the end, Sarah Palin, a younger, prettier, but just as inexperienced Republican version of Geraldine Ferraro, will only remind voters of why they supported Hillary Clinton in the first place. It will dig John McCain deeper into a hole that he’s put himself since he started to reverse his maverick ways and seek the Republican nomination. John McCain used to be a truth teller and policy iconoclast. He’s ably transformed his image into a conservative standard bearer who wants to retain the presidency at any cost to his place in history.  

We’ve seen it before – John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, heck, even Al Gore – brilliant or at least viable candidates having their images skewered and reduced to quivering liberal bleeding hearts. Al Gore invented the internet; John Kerry was a coward who protested while his comrades were being killed; Michael Dukakis furloughed murderers and played make believe with a tank.

So why is this campaign different from all other campaigns?

Ok, dumb question. We all know the answer – the Republicans are a defunct brand. They’re a fast food restaurant with thumbs and fingers stuck in the burgers. They’re the emperors without any clothes. They’re George Bush – every last one of them, marching in lock step with the president for the past eight years as he’s destroyed the country, ran up the deficit, and made Ronald Reagon look like a Nobel prize winning physicist.

So what can the Republicans do to win? Well, it would help if they started by nominating an against the grain candidate who stood up against all of that bed wetting leadership. And they did that – almost to a T – and got the original maverick.

Slight problem – the Republicans can’t run on their record. Slight other problem – that’s exactly what McCain is doing.

Ok, take the surge. Take new Coke while you’re at it. No good if the old coke sucks.

How about ‘I’m against the tax cuts’. Na ah, not gonna’ go it. Now he’s for it.

Ok, well how about, ‘I’m going to run a clean campaign’. Na ah, not gonna’ do it.

If there’s anything that John McCain shouldn’t be doing, it’s running the campaign he’s running right now. You don’t have to run a low road campaign to have a shot at beating Barack Obama. But that’s what he’s doing.

In the process, he’s aligning himself with George Bush. The celebrity ad? Short term gain for long term pain. It will ultimately remind people that it was this kind of campaign that got them stuck with George Bush over Al Gore; and Bush again over John Kerry.

Is there any doubt that had either of those democratic candidates had won, the US would be better off now than it is? Come on. It wouldn’t be worse.

Here’s the kicker – if you think that Barack Obama isn’t storing up a slew of negative campaign ads to run in October, you’ve got to be kidding. October is going to be negative ad paradise for the Democrats. And, they’re not going to get slimed for it. All it will be seen as is hitting back.

And it will be done in a way that Obama couldn’t do against Hillary Clinton. She could hit him hard as the freshman who didn’t know his place. That wasn’t racist; it was fair game. He couldn’t hit her back as hard for a host of reasons, not to mention the least of which was that it went against his brand and he needed her supporters after he beat her.

But he can hit McCain back hard – and he will, especially on the issue of McCain’s temperament, his Achilles heal. Just wait for the quotes to come from fellow republicans who can’t stand him.

The worst thing for Obama would be to peak early – for all the negative ads against him, he’s solid neck in neck with the original maverick. The payback will come. 

First, there is denial, “this can’t be happening to me”. This stage was epitomized by Bill Clinton’s comparing Barack Obama’s win in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson’s similar but different win in 1988 in the same state. Barack Obama’s win, coming after taking Iowa, almost winning New Hampshire, and positioning himself as the leading contender to take the nomination away from Hillary, was certainly real. That the Clintons tried to convince themselves that this was all just a fairy tale was typical denial mode.

The next stage after denial is anger. “Why me? It’s not fair.” Both Hillary and Bill have exhibited anger throughout the primary, but the highlight of their anger came after the debate in Texas, when Team Hillary began to complain about press bias, called shame on Barack Obama for his hits on her Nafta and healthcare positions, and with Bill’s wagging finger (which still hasn’t quite gone away).

Anger only lasts so long, however, and has to give way to a more reasoned emotion. The third step in the grieving process is called bargaining. When dealing with death and dying, it is an attempt to reason with terminal illness and extend the living process to just another day. Hillary Clinton is in the midst of the bargaining process with the electorate right now.

The odds are against Senator Clinton. By winning in a few states and garnering a few extra delegates here and there, Ms. Clinton is trying to bargain her way out of impending doom. If only, she argues, she can gain a few delegates here and a few over there, perhaps she can magically make the 150-odd delegate lead that Senator Obama has go away. She must also somehow argue that Michigan and Florida count, and in particular that her 55% score in Michigan (which at the time was seen to be quite low, given that she was the only candidate) is valid. Fantastical arguments are all part of the bargaining process.

It is likely that the bargaining stage will last at least until May 6th if not until June 3rd, when all the states will have voted. By then, it should be obvious to Clinton that she cannot overtake Obama in either delegates or votes cast. At that stage, she would enter the fourth stage of grief, depression. Depression has to come before stage five, acceptance.

The Clintons’ depression stage will likely take part in private, with friends, colleagues, leading supporters and the like. Except for Bill, that is, whose narcissistic ways will likely provoke him into displays of self-pity for all to see. All of these stages fall into the natural rhythm of their surrounding environs. In this case, the window will close in August, at the convention.

What this means then is that it could take Senator Clinton until mid-July or so to fully come into the acceptance stage, “It’s going to be OK.” We’ve already seen some symptoms crop up. It did in the debate in Texas, where she told the audience of what an honor it was to simply be there with Obama. We’ve also seen it during the Philadelphia debate (“Yes. Yes. Yes. He can win.”) and in her pledge to do everything she can to make sure that a Democratic candidate takes the White House.

For all the cynicism about Senator Clinton and her husband’s conduct during this campaign, it must be remembered that she is a person who has stood by her arguably less intelligent husband for over 30 years despite his philandering, triangulating, and his advancement due to a luck in gender that she did not have. He gained successes that she played an equal part in achieving. When finally society had advanced to a degree that it was possible for a woman of her capabilities to be elected president, she has found to her chagrin that her time has past. What she gained for her husband came at a considerable cost for her own possibilities.

Obama was never going to win states where Hillary had long ago established a large lead, among them Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Texas. They voted too early for his momentum to crest against a “super” candidate (or should we call her “automatic”) like Hillary Clinton. The Clinton machine, the inevitability of her candidacy, and the yearning on the part of the electorate for a sure victory made it impossible for even a natural like Barack Obama, in his year (in the sense that he is truly the candidate of the moment) to win these states.

But nonetheless, it would be a mistake to underestimate Obama’s long term strategy that we may now be seeing unfold. First of all, Obama may have realized about the Clintons and himself that the rest of the public did not. The Clintons fatal flaws are impatience, confabulation, and a sense of entitlement. Obama’s gifts are the opposite – patience, honesty, and equanimity. He has used these traits again and again against his opponents.

As an aside, equanimity is a rare but important facet for a leader. It was something people saw in George W. Bush that allowed him to lose sufficiently close to Gore to gain the White House. Bush was fine with losing. He did not see it as his right to win. He has had a steady hand in the White House during the past eight years of scandal, incompetence, and absent leadership. These kinds of crises could destroy an ordinary person. Bush is no ordinary incompetent. 

Senator Obama’s campaign has slogged it through the winter. Now that spring is here he seems ready to expend the political capital that he has built up over through the past three months of hand to hand combat with the Clintons. It’s worth re-emphasizing what he has done by taking on both Clintons single handedly while at the same time batting away Senator McCain, who has yet to attack Senator Clinton. Obama has essentially defeated the most popular Democratic president since Kennedy, who has run by proxy through his political partner for life, Ms. Clinton.

But what Obama has not been able to do until now is completely and totally define Senator Clinton, or rather, let her define herself negatively for the electorate, to see her she would be in a general election. These primaries have us shown two things. Firstly, that Senator Clinton and the former president are experts at a politics that is distinctly of the past.

That is to say, a politics of attack ads, cynicism and confabulation. This kind of politics can dominate when the media is in the hands of a select few. The age of the internet changed all of that and has made everyone a potential pundit. It has put the truth online on a never ending loop. This in turn has emboldened the official punditry on the mainstream networks and has injected a level of accountability into reporting that was not present in the last three or four presidential contests.

It also bears noting that the stakes now higher as well. Iraq, the economy, and the failed presidency of George W. Bush has given the media has a heightened sense of responsibility. They cannot fail the public in their role as the fifth estate and have tacitly agreed to subject candidates to a more thorough vetting of their character and their claims.

All of which leads us to the second thing the primaries have shown us. Senator Clinton’s (and her husband) have not yet made the transition to the new political reality imposed by the Internet. They still will do and say anything to win. They both lie with impunity whenever it suits their needs. They cannot stop it, either – it is the only way they know how to win. They are truly victims of a newly recognized condition – Democratic Republican Stockholm Syndrome.

Democratic Republican Stockholm Syndrome is a disease that strikes democratic candidates who have been conditioned to believe through being witness to seemingly countless Democratic defeats that the only way to win in politics is through lying, sliming, and attacking your opponent. This is its own kind of elitism – a belief in the noble lie, that one cannot trust the public by conducting an optimistic and honest campaign (unless you want to lose – hence their mantra, “Obama can’t win”). It is a belief that the public only responds to a veneer that covers the truth. Hence, any lie is excusable (“you gotta do what you gotta do”) and any political tactic allowable given the stakes at hand.

Getting back to the moment in the campaign in which we find ourselves right now, in the past three months we have seen the Clintons exhibit all of the symptoms of this condition but it would have been a major misstep for Senator Obama to accuse the Clintons of this style of politics without the evidence and the political capital of his own to make that argument. Now, given the tipping point of recent events, he can go press this in the final week of the Pennsylvania primary.

To accuse Senator Clinton outright of being a congenital liar in the pursuit of power for it’s own sake would of course engage in just the kind of tear down that Obama stands against. To let it go, though, when all of the evidence is in would be the mark of a loser. Not only does Obama want to win but he needs to show that he can win to convince democratic voters. Thus, it is necessary at some point for him to go after Clinton’s major weakness.

Senator Obama is now able to fully engage Senator Clinton on this issue without seeming to do so in bad taste. When Clinton’s Bosnia lie finally fluoresced into an all out media backlash (after weeks in which she stood by the “fairy tale”), Obama stood silent. He did the honorable thing in doing so and letting her explain what happened. Was he rewarded when he made a bad choice of words while seeking to explain why a natural constituency for democrats, small town folks who are down on their luck, votes republican and “cling” to guns and religion (and making a point Bill Clinton himself made to Charlie Rose in December)?

The Clinton campaign rushed into what it saw as a media bloodletting (no doubt ready to attack the media as biased if they too did not rip into Obama) and called him an elitist and accused him of being out of touch. In doing so, out trotted congenital liar Hillary Clinton’s confabulations, this time talking about her long time love of guns and going duck hunting with her father. Now, it may be that she did this. But who is going to believe her? Senator Obama gave a sharp answer, calling Senator Clinton on both her attacks and her strange sounding claims:

I expected this out of John McCain. But I’ve got to say, I’m a little disappointed when I start hearing the exact same talking points coming out of my Democratic colleague Hillary Clinton. She knows better. She knows better, shame on her. Shame on her. She knows better!

Hillary Clinton’s out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday. She’s packin’ a six shooter! Come on! She knows better. That’s some politics being played by Hillary Clinton. I want to see that picture of her out there in the duck blinds.

No-one should predict what is going to be a close call next week. But personally, I think that not only will Pennsylvania be close, it may be Clinton’s Waterloo, or her Stalingrad, whatever you want to call it. The moment that Senator Obama feels comfortable calling her directly on the fact that she has campaigned like Karl Rove (stealing her “shame on you” lines) and earned a deserved reputation as a congenital liar, this campaign has now, finally, turned its last decisive corner.

Senator Obama, when he gets his campaign into its natural swing, is the new, great communicator. He showed his naturals strengths in dominating the news cycle during January when he baited the Clintons with the comments on the Republicans being the party of ideas and Reagan being a transformational figure in a way that Clinton was not. He showed that he was able to respond to attacks and turn them around to illustrate his own strengths and abilities to cross party lines, attracting independent voters.

What is amazing about Senators Clinton and McCain is that, for all their years in politics, they can't see the bait when its laid. They are so eager to jump on their opponent and so fearful of him that they jumped on his most recent statement in California, once again giving him the opportunity to lay bait and switch. 

This news cycle that has just started is going to earn Obama votes. It may take a few days to sort itself out, but Senator Obama's comments about bitter folks in places like small town Pennsylvania is a comment that perfectly captures the zeitgeist of the moment and shows how we are at a turning point in America's national conversation about issues such as religion and race. It also shows how Senator Obama is a potentially transformational figure, something the people are desperate for. 

Americans are desperate to move their national political conversation beyond such stalemate issues as abortion, guns, and morality issues that have nothing to do with the way the country is governed and whether peoples lives are improved. They have nothing to do with them because they are polarizing issues that divide people regardless, often, of race, creed, class, and religion. They enable a punditry and political class that exploits these issues to the detriment of progress on anything else.

For those who do not want the country to make real progress, guns and religious issues are perfect. Some politicians would love to have elections always decided on disagreements over guns and religion. And Senator Obama is calling them on it. Events such as the Iraq war, problems like the deficit, and the decline of America's standing in the world are alerting the public to the fact that there are much more pressing problems that they'd like to talk about, if only a politician could circumnavigate the shoals of the usual political bogeymen.

Senator Obama's speech in Terre Haute, Indiana in response to the brouhaha over his remarks in San Francisco to fundraisers about small town bitterness shows that he is person for the job. Thanks to the cooperation of Senators Clinton and McCain, he is able to do so while simultaneously making them look like prisoners of the political past. He laid the bait in San Francisco. In Terre Haute, he reeled the fish in by saying the following: 

People don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anybody is going to help them. So people end up voting on issues like guns and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. They take refuge in their faith and their community, and their family, and the things they can count on. But they don't believe they can count on Washington.

To appreciate the crowd’s response and to understand the nature of the political abilities being flexed here, it’s helpful to watch the entire part of this speech. People are nodding their heads while Obama speaks. They’re agreeing that this is what politicians do – make rabble rousing speeches while the chickens are being raided by the wolves. When he makes his final point, they give him a standing ovation.

People are bitter. They see no progress on the most important political issues of the day. Deficits are going up. The war in Iraq is never ending. Politicians are doing the bidding of lobbyists. Corporate welfare is subsidizing companies like Haliburton and Blackwater, which make millions off a war that was started on false pretences. No healthcare for millions. Low paying wages. The natural response is to seek refuge in religion, the right to bear arms, issues that can restore some sense of control for a person living in an out of control world. Senator Obama is speaking the truth. He can thank Senators Clinton and McCain for helping him sharpen the focus, taking the bait and showing the public a real difference between him and his opponents.