Commenting from Abroad: Acceptance Speeches of Senators Obama and McCain
By Steven Rood
Steven Rood is The Asia Foundation’s Country Representative in the Philippines, where he has lived for 27 years. He can be reached at srood@asiafound.org.
After living as an American in the Philippines for 27 years, I’ve grown accustomed to explaining the U.S. electoral system every four years. As a political science Ph.D. whose dissertation was on elections in the United States, I fulfill this duty with pleasure.
Recently, I was in Davao, in the southern island of Mindanao, attending an evening session on the peace process (or, rather, the breakdown of the peace process) between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, when I received a call from Ricky Carandang, a TV host on the ABS-CBN News Channel (ANC), the local cable news network. He wondered whether I could appear on his show the next morning to serve as a non-partisan commentator on the acceptance speech of Senator Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention. I hopped on a flight to Manila the next morning, making it into the studio just in time for air.
My co-panelist, and enthusiastic partner in the analysis, was from Democrats Abroad. Before Senator Obama delivered his speech, I provided background on the U.S. primary process, which took place in so many different places over such a long period of time, and in so many different formats, that the eventual winner (Obama) had demonstrated an ability to win in many ways. The acceptance speech’s significance is that it was the last time before the election that a candidate could talk to the voters on his or her own terms – minus the clutter of interruptions from reporters or debaters. Plus, all the American television and cable networks must cover it in the same way.
Then the speech came on live feed, and my panel mate really came alive. Off-camera, throughout the speech, he was absolutely thrilled with what he was hearing – emphatically agreeing and approving of zingers. I tried quietly to take notes so as to be able dispassionately to analyze the speech.
When we came back on, my partner was fulsome in his praise of how the speech demonstrated Senator Obama’s vision and fitness for office. I emphasized how Senator Obama had tried to make himself more familiar to an American audience by focusing on first-hand accounts, such as his mother arguing with a medical insurance company for care. Recalling the unofficial slogan of Bill Clinton’s first campaign, “It’s the economy, stupid,” I noted how little time was spent on foreign affairs while economic matters predominated in his speech.
We panelists both agreed that it was an excellent speech; the only fault I could dig up in stateside media was criticism of the faux-Greek columns in the background. Asked what the presidential campaign meant for the Philippines, I replied that, in general, the presidential campaign had been good for the American image abroad. Global public opinion polling tends to show an upward swing in opinion about the United States, and I think this has to do with a vivid, televised demonstration of democracy at work. For Southeast Asia in particular, whoever wins this election is likely to be more engaged in the region than the current president. Despite Senator McCain’s wartime experience as a prisoner, the Republican nominee has demonstrated a serious interest in reconciliation with — and development of — Vietnam, while Senator Obama, the Democratic nominee, is considered a hometown boy by Indonesians.
Then last week, I was invited to return as a nonpartisan commentator for Senator McCain’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. My companion this time was from Republicans Abroad, an early McCain supporter, and was considerably more restrained.
By the time of McCain’s speech we knew that the acceptance speech of Obama had broken all records for American viewership of a national party convention, but that the naming of Governor Palin as Senator McCain’s running mate had generated an enormous amount of interest. Not only had the Republicans successfully changed the subject within a day of the Democratic Convention, but Governor Palin had come close to matching Senator Obama’s audience numbers (and surpassed Senator Biden’s by 50%). However, Governor Palin’s speech had not been carried by Philippine TV, so when I repeated her line about the difference between pit bulls and Hockey Moms (“lipstick”) it was fresh for the viewers.
Senator McCain obviously had a higher ratio of national security comments to economic comments than did Senator Obama. The Republicans Abroad representative, who has lived in the Philippines continuously for 14 years, was uncomfortable with the direct contrast that Senator McCain drew between himself and “his opponent”(Filipinos abhor direct confrontation, preferring more indirect means.)
We managed to scan in an electoral map that I had brought, showing the state by state “red” versus “blue” standings. This allowed me to try to briefly explain the electoral system (always a mystery to foreigners) and that Senator Obama was far ahead at that time with electoral votes, despite only a slim lead in national public opinion surveys. Combining “safe” and “leaning” Democratic states, the pollsters had Senator Obama with 260 of the 270 electoral votes he needed. I was able to point out, however, that President George W. Bush had won all but one of the “toss-up” states in 2004, so the race was far from over.
I ended by explaining the “hockey” label I had put on Minnesota and Michigan. Both states were rated as leaning Democratic, but inasmuch as they are big fans of hockey in those northern climes (I grew up in Michigan, and Governor Palin’s son has trained with a Michigan team), perhaps having a “hockey mom” on the ticket could help the Republicans.
My daughter, who does indeed try to follow my occasional TV appearances, remarked that I had at last found something so striking to say that most people would remember it.
