On Hand-wringing

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 17:47


The TPM interview with Harold Ickes today is definitely worth a read. First, I agree with most, but not all, of this:

Ickes added: "It seems to me that there's this great desire to rush to judgment...this has been a genteel debate for God's sake. People are wringing their hands, `oh, we're gonna tear party apart.' The party's a lot sturdier than these hand wringers in Washington would have you believe."

I wouldn't call the campaign "genteel," what with the racialized discussion, but I also don't think that there is a big risk of long-term damage to the party at this point, or that the extended campaign is a negative. The most dangerous scenarios for the party would be if Clinton secured the nomination without winning the popular vote, and / or if there is no presumptive nominee by the end of June. However, I just don't see either scenario as particularly likely right now, since Obama remains on course to lock up the nomination at some point between May 20th and June 21st. Considering the organizing that will have been done in virtually every state by that point, considering that the general election matchups remain tied, and considering what will be Obama's overwhelming financial advantage on McCain, I still feel confident we are headed toward an Obama Presidency. After another two or three months of nearly exclusive focus on Democrats, we will still have twenty weeks to take on McCain, unite the party, and win back the White House. Maybe I should be more worried about this situation than I am, but at this point it won't be long before the voting begins anew, which will inject new life into the nomination campaign, and clear out some of the dead air we have been experiencing since mid-March.

Now, with all that said, here is some hand-wringing by Ickes himself:

"Look what the Republicans did to a genuine war hero," Ickes said, in a reference to John Kerry.

"Super delegates have to take into account the strengths and weakness of both candidates and decide who would make the strongest candidate against what will undoubtedly be ferocious Republican attacks," Ickes continued. "I've had super delegates tell me that the Wright issue is a real issue for them."

In a reference to Wright's controversial views, Ickes continued: "Nobody thinks that Barack Obama harbors those thoughts. But that's not the issue. The issue is what Republicans [will do with them]...I think they're going to give him a very tough time."

Oh no, the Republicans are going to attack us! Whatever shall we do? Surely, Republicans will lay off attacking a different nominee, say Hillary Clinton. Talk about lame hand-wringing.

Here is my question: what attacks, exactly, will Obama face in the general election that will be worse than what he has faced in the primary campaign? Will it be worse than arguing that he is a Muslim who attended a madrassa? Will it be worse than selected exceprts from Rev. Wright played on every single news channel for weeks on end? Will it be worse than the most recent Democratic President saying McCain is more qualified to be commander in chief than Obama?

No, it won't be any worse. In fact, Obama will actually have a much easier time in the general election, media wise, than he has had in the primary. The reason for this is simple: in the general election, the most prominent Democrats in the entire country, the Clintons, will not be reifying every single right-wing attack against Obama. It has become a truism in politics that when both Democrats and Republicans are delivering the same message on a given topic, that message will invariably become conventional wisdom nationwide. Right now, when it comes to both Rev. Wright and qualifications to become President, Obama faces the triangle of Republican attacks, corporate media, and Democratic complicity in those attacks. In the general election, the Democratic complicity will be removed.

The media environment for Obama will actually be easier in the general election than in the primary. The argument that Obama won't be able to withdstand the oh-so vicious Republican attacks is nonsense, because he is weathering those attacks right now, even when Democrats are helping Republicans out in those attacks. This isn't even my theory-this is the theory put forth by Clinton senior staffer Peter Daou. If Obama can get past he primary and still outperform Clinton against McCain, then he is pretty much a sure bet to win the Presidency. The rest is just a bunch of hand-wringing by nervous, Clintonista types.  

Chris Bowers :: On Hand-wringing

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
On Hand-wringing | 25 comments
Thank you ! (0.00 / 0)
Thank you for making those things clear. That argument about Wright has been driving me nuts for three weeks.
How is it that it is somehow a bad thing that we know what attack they will launch on Obama - and we know he can withstand it - is a bad thing ? How is it that intelligent Sds would not be aware there is probably just as much dirt - some known, some unknown - if not more about the Clintons that the Republicans will be THRILLED to bring up (Puerto Ricans terrorist pardons anyone ?) if she is the nominee ? And that people would actually be much more inclined to believe the smear about her - because, fair or unfair, they believe the worst of her anyway ?
It is just so silly.
I don't begrudge him the fact he tries (because he also says in the interview something I had not heard any Clintonista say out loud before "We all know Obama does not believe any of that stuff Wright says") but it is just really really a dumb argument.

The easier road ahead for Obama? (0.00 / 0)
I would love to think you folks are correct, but we need to remember how strong Gore and Kerry were, with incredible credentials and enthusiastic backing.  The Republican slime machine went to work and Kerry became a war cheater and liar; Gore became a joke and a dissembler and a waffler.  Spend enough money, put it on television enough, spread it through right-wing media enough, and by God the American people start believing it.  There will be endless loops of Reverend Wright's most inflammatory comments playing on television commercials, with darkened photographs of Obama along side.  Let's not fool ourselves; we need to be prepared to strike back every time the Republicans try this, and with twice the force.  I would love to see our nominee organise a rapid response team of well respected Americans who can be deployed to immediately denounce Republican smear tactics as they are used.  These Republicans are playing for keeps; they will do anything, anything, to maintain control of the White House.

[ Parent ]
You are missing my point (4.00 / 1)
My point is not that it won't happen (although the Wright clips have been played to death and look at Obama now. Reusing them later would feel like a bigoted retread and would not get the same free media play than SwiftBoat did).
The problem is what two fold 1) What you say about rapid response. And sorry to say but Obama masterfully killed the controversy within a week. Sure, concerns linger. But clearly he killed that meme right in the bud and has probably shamed the media into not overplaying that side of it by making it about race. No reason to believe he would not handle that as beautifully later on. Inversely, Clinton did not handle the Bosnia story very well.

2) My main point is not that it won't happen. It is that it will happen with ANY of our nominees. Clinton or Obama. For God's sake, they MADE UP stuff about Kerry when they could not find anything. So the fact Wright exists is really not a reason not to nominate Obama. They would do the same thing with Clinton and arguably it would be much easier for her to be smeared since people are inclined to believe the worst of her anyway.


[ Parent ]
My warning (0.00 / 0)
I am not suggesting that Obama should be rejected as nominee because of what the Republicans may do.  Think of me as Noah.  I want to save all the animals, and I want y'all to build the biggest damn Ark you can, because trust me, apres the Republican deluge this fall we are going to need all the protection we can get.  I just want us to be ready and above all else, to never underestimate what is going to be coming at us.

[ Parent ]
We all agree on that (0.00 / 0)
Both campaigns. The point of Ickes, though, is to argue those attacks are a reason to choose Hillary over Barack. Thats what Chris and me (hihi) both are arguing against here.

But you are right we need to be prepared. We are ::)


[ Parent ]
Indeed: thank you, and well said! (0.00 / 0)
I'm really glad to see a voice of sanity on this ...

jon


Wright may be beneficial (0.00 / 0)
Republicans will attack whichever candidate - they rely on negative campaigning. And in a strange way, I think that the after-effects of Wright may be beneficial.

Obama will certainly have been harmed to some extent by the scandal, but mostly in deep red areas where he is at best likely to challenge but not to win. That said, it's pushed the meme of Obama as scary black man into the mainstream.

A decade ago, that would have been catastrophic. But America is now much more non-white and non-Christian and there is much more overwatch of attacks. Put simply, Wright has vastly increased the chances of a Macaca moment. And if that occurs, it will be vastly more damaging to the GOP than Wright was to the Dems.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


Sounds about right to me (0.00 / 0)
As I wrote on my blog Old Man McCain, McCain is in big trouble right now. He's had a free ride for the past two months, while Obama has had the worst month of his entire campaign.

You'd expect McCain to be up by double-digits at this point, but instead he is virtually tied with Obama in the polls.  Obama will get a permanent 5% bounce once the Democratic party unites, plus other bounces with VP, convention speech, etc.

This is not to say that anything is a given. But Obama is looking fairly resilient so far.


Except For One (0.00 / 0)
No, it won't be any worse. In fact, Obama will actually have a much easier time in the general election, media wise, than he has had in the primary. The reason for this is simple: in the general election, the most prominent Democrats in the entire country, the Clintons, will not be reifying every single right-wing attack against Obama.
Qualifications for Commander-in-Chief.  They will trot out that Clinton quote over and over again.  

Easily countered (0.00 / 0)
Clinton was praising McCain and asking questions about Obama. After the convention, she can endorse him and claim he answered those questions, whilst Obama can skewer him on Iraq.

It'll hurt, no doubt about that, but I don't think it's such a killer soundbite in the general.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
Tuzla exceeds Wright as a negative (4.00 / 2)
Tuzla is fodder for jokes, and underscores a weakness, perceptions of trustworthiness.

I can't believe this hasn't become CW by now.


not just Tuzla (4.00 / 1)
Tuzla... and NAFTA, the family leave act, S-Chip, Northern Ireland, the China speech, knowing that the AUMF for Iraq was an authorization to use military force,.... The fact is if Clinton became the nominee there is a ready made narrative for McCain and the media to use against her that she is a serial liar and for once that narrative even has a basis in fact.

[ Parent ]
Three points why you're wrong...ok 5 points (0.00 / 0)
1.  Same attacks...maybe..but I expect new and different ones as well... but they will really be carried out....overtly and ccovertly.  Shouting race will not get them to back off.  They won't need race...they'll have national security and patriotism.  McCain's bio ad was an attack ad at Obama in terms of race and patriotism....a double whammy and it doesn't leave any fingerprints

2. Different audience.  The negatives that Obama has don't have the same traction in a Democratic primary electorate.
But in a general elelction electorate....after all they're not Democrats for a reason....issues like Wright, Muslim, lack of patriotism, too liberal, wife is a little too "strong" you know, effeminate.  These attacks will penetrate to a different audience.  

3. Reagan Democrats...Obama has lost them.  2 days Chuck Todd of pro Obama MSNBC even said that because of Wright he no longer expands the map...It's the same map...so the states where he vetoed revotes will matter as much in 2008 as they did in 2004

4. How do win without Florida and/or Michigan?  there may be campaign staff left behind in these states which I don't believe...Why hire them and do that.  Move campaign field staff from state to state...it's cheaper...Obama is not that rich.  Florida and Michigan without revotes will have no one there until after the convention.  Disaster.

5.  The field staff situation is much worse than you think.  Zack Exley posted a fabulous post here on Open Left about field staff and having the DNC start now.    

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


PS the idea that HRC is attacking him like Republicans will is (0.00 / 0)
a subconscious smear  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
Attacking from the Right (0.00 / 0)
is wrong.

She's done this consistently - most clearly when she praised McCain's potential as Commander in Chief, while demeaning Obama's.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
then why are supporting him? (0.00 / 0)
On every single policy proposal he attacks her from the right and in addition lies about his own position

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
Got an example? (0.00 / 0)
Or am I just supposed to take you at your word?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
Your points (0.00 / 0)
3. He's lost Reagan Democrats -- you conclude this based on what? The poll numbers for all candidates have gone up and down wildly for months, but now we are supposed to conclude that one particular group of people are going to make up their minds en masse right now and won't pay attention to the campaign from here on? It's one thing to say he's been hurt in certain swing states, but to say they are now lost and we should give up -- huh?
4. Florida and Michigan can only be won if they have field staff there in large numbers before the convention: again this is based on what? Most states in most contests in most elections never have competitive primaries so they never see anybody till after things are long decided. We've won both states before in 2000, Mich in 2004.
5. Remember McCain has no money and no staff to speak of in most states, and there is still an open question whether the Republican foot soldiers are going to be signing up in large numbers to help him. We don't have to have the greatest field operation in history, it just has to be better than theirs is. In fact, with our enthusiasm advantage, it probably only has to come close.

[ Parent ]
#4 I base on personal esperience (0.00 / 0)
In 2004 Johm kerry won the nomination in early March.  because he was broke he fired the entire field staff that started with him in Iowa and went from state to state.  My daughter was one of the,

He furioulsy raised money. In early may they had money to rehire the field staff.  My daughter was one of the first 10 people to be rehired.  She was sent to Florida in mid May to run palm Beach county.  She was the only staff person till late the summer.  Florida's Democratic party is not in good shape. It needs a very strong external prescence and it won't have anyone until after the convention in late August.  yes that's a disater.

The Republicans will get monay as it looks likelier that they might win.

This nomination contest would be OVER in June if obama agrees to revotes inMichigan and Florida...everything would be decide and done.

He and only he is standing in the way of coming to a resolution by sometime in June...he and only he is the reason it will go to the convention.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
4 is dead wrong (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure I agree with your other points, but 4 is wrong to a certainty. Why do I know this?

Because Obama polled better in Florida than Hillary in the most recent poll, and about the same as her in Michigan.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
Me and my big mouth (0.00 / 0)
I notice polls out today have proved me wrong. Clinton's outpolling Obama vs McCain in FL, OH and PA.

That said, neither of them is out of the woods in these states, nor are they leading by miles. And I suspect the picture is significantly more complicated than just their stances on revotes.

I'd suggest that right now it looks like either of them could win or lose these states and the differences between them aren't big enough to make a strong electability argument, as they're the sort of numbers that could be changed by one good or bad news cycle.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
What attacks will he have to face? (4.00 / 1)
Chris, with all due respect, this post rests heavily on optimism rather than fact. Hope is a good thing, but, as they teach us in campaign camp, hope is not a plan.

FWIW, the Rezko thing has definitely NOT played out yet, as anyone knows who is actually following the news from Chicago and following the moves of Pat Fitzgerald on the case. And it's not about somethings as minor as favors-done, like the housing deal.  It's about the possible involvement of a future presidential candidate in an indictable housing fraud scheme involving federal funding. And the unstoppable Pat Fitzgerald is already on the case. (As a start, check out the links provided in this post: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2...
Consider: what happens if (and, more probably, when) Rezko (who is currently on trial on one set of charges and under another indictment for further charges involving more recent transactions) is convicted sometime before the convention? And the conviction is followed by even further indictments, on more recent transactions still, as seems right now likely.  
There is little doubt that among the charges Rezko will be facing will be counts relating to a scheme to fraudulently secure and then misapply federal funds for a dubious housing project, all of which was fronted by a created-for-the-purpose "not for profit" entity, created, as it happens, by you-know-who. Yes, the attorney who created and represented the not for profit (on whose board representatives of the developer also sat) was our candidate, who has already admitted understating the scope of his relationship with Rezko.  If that attorney didn't know what was going on, in transactions in which most of the principals stand to be indicted, that'll be at least an embarrassing distraction. (Think Whitewater). If he did know, or should have known, then his own participation could well turn out to be indictable.  We've been down that road before, with far less merit. Now, those facts are out there, even if not reported nationally; this is not idle speculation. The Chicago papers are continuing to dig and develop, even though the national MSM are strictly hands off, for now, as fascinated as they are trivia.

What happens, though, when this becomes, as it will, an ISSUE?  
At that point, there is a distinct possibility that Mr. Hope will be perceived as less noble than his currently marketed image.  And that is one big risk of rushing to nominate this wonderfully inspirational newcomer who hasn't really been vetted.

On this example alone, I respectfully submit, your projection that he will be facing an "easier media environment", whatever that means, is just wishful thinking.    


I agree with NY Spotlight here (4.00 / 1)
and have to say that if Chris thinks Obama is already vetted, I need to say, Just hold on a darn minute.

The right has spent millions digging up stuff on Hillary ever since 1992, and I am tired of relying on hope from the Democratic party.

Obama supporters are sending threatening emails to CBC members of congress about their support of Hillary. Stop it. Both candidates are flawed, and both have crossed the line this election cycle.

I am excited by Obama, but I cannot just go along for the ride by saying what has happened is a proper vetting, and the Rezko thing is certainly a potential downside.

I was for Gore, then Kucinich, then Edwards. This thing is crazy.  Look at what is coming without rose colored glasses, and realize just how powerful the smears are going to be for Obama, who still doesn't get it about healthcare.

At least today was good in that they both tackled McCain. Lets us see a month of double barreled attacks on McCain form both candidates, and then we can re-assess.

To quote Big Dog, Chill!


Facts are unimportant for spin (0.00 / 0)
The Right spent a decade and more digging up dirt on Hillary. They found very little indeed. But you wouldn't know it from the popular conception of what Whitewater involves.

The big difference between Clinton and Obama in the general is that the attacks made upon Clinton have already been dug up (and discredited, although you wouldn't know that from the CW.)

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
Republican attacks (0.00 / 0)
Ickes said, "Look what the Republicans did to a genuine war hero," Ickes said, in a reference to John Kerry."

How stupid are these consultants?!!!
The Republicans didn't do anything to Kerry.  Kerry let them do those things.  It's not our candidate's job to be noble.  His/Her job is to win and then govern as our representatives.
Ickes is essentially admitting that he fears similar Republican attacks and, more importantly, he doesn't know how to counter them.
When a genuine, decorated war hero loses an election against a lying draft dodger it's not the draft dodger's fault.

When your point guard starts whining about how mean the other team is, seems to me that's time to cut him from the team.
Who are these losers and how do they rise so high in political  culture?

Hey Ickes, you idiot, if you're so worried about Republican attacks and don't know how to fight them, then find another line of work.  I'm sure there's a schoolyard bully somewhere looking for a target.
Loser.


On Hand-wringing | 25 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search