The Message That Will Win This Campaign

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 16:26


Barack Obama is getting very close to hitting the messaging that will win this campaign: Iraq hurts the economy. Check out his remarks on McCain, Iraq, the economy, and transportation costs today:

"John McCain, just yesterday, on the Today Show said that he didn't think it was that important how long troops are there as long as we are not suffering casualties," Obama said. "I agree that obviously the most important thing is making sure that our young men and women aren't killed, but the notion that if they are not being killed that we can leave them there in perpetuity -- 100 years, John McCain says.(...)

First of all, that means he's not thinking about the extraordinary burden that families are under on two or three or four tours of duty. But he's also not thinking about taxpayers who are spending $10- to $12 billion a month in Iraq. And that's money that could go to rebuilding Wisconsin and putting people back to work right here in the United States of America."

The simple message, "Iraq hurts the economy," will win this campaign. Obama is not getting close to refining this message. It succeeds for several reasons:

  1. It combines the two top issues in the minds of Americans, Iraq and the economy. Even though there is a pundit push to marginalize Iraq in this election, it was decisive in both nomination campaigns. Also, given the huge amount of money we have spent on Iraq that has delivered virtually no economic return for the vast majority of Americans, there is no justification for viewing them as separate issues.
  2. It is a widely held view. Over 60% of Americans are opposed to the Iraq war, and over 70% of Americans believe we are in a recessions. As such, it is no surprise that 70% of Americans believe that Iraq hurts the economy.
  3. It is a long-term progressive message. Hammering home the notion that excessive military spending and elective wars like Iraq are fundamentally damaging to the American economy has the potential to shift national opinion on one of the "untouchable symptoms": the value of military spending. Winning an election on a message that the Iraq war is bad for the economy is the first step, over the long-term, of redirecting the spending of the federal government away from the military-industrial complex.
  4. John McCain reinforces it. Recently, McCain's top economic advisor suggested that in order to pay for corporate tax cuts, McCain will cut military spending. So, with the McCain campaign agreeing that military spending needs to be reduced, this will be an easy point to hammer home.

Obama is getting close to nailing the winning message, which goes something like this:

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years, even though Americans are spending $10-12B in Iraq every month. Now, to pay for a corporate tax cut, McCain's top economic advisor says he will cut defense spending. By contrast, Barack Obama will end the Iraq war and use that money to invest in American jobs, transportation, health care and a new energy economy. Senator Obama will put the peace dividend to work for you.

That is probably a bit wordy and dry, but I feel confident that a great speaker like Obama can eventually hit it on the head. This is the message we need to win the election, and also to govern like progressives in the future. It is great to see Obama already close to sticking the landing on this one.

Update: I meant to say that Obama is getting close to nailing this message. Damn typos.  

Chris Bowers :: The Message That Will Win This Campaign

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Message That Will Win This Campaign | 26 comments
I Don't Think... (4.00 / 1)
this is a one-time thing. Obama's brought this up several times before, including his speech on the economy back in March:

The policies of the Bush Administration threw the economy further out of balance.... A trillion dollar war in Iraq that didn't need to be fought, paid for with deficit spending and borrowing from foreign creditors like China... The American economy was bound to suffer a painful correction, and policymakers found themselves with fewer resources to deal with the consequences.

I'll be money that this is being developed as a talking point as we speak, evidenced by his recurrent use of this connection between Iraq and the economy. Looks like we won't be disappointed this election cycle, Mr. Bowers.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

Really, that's the message? (0.00 / 0)
There's nothing wrong with it as a point of fact, but if this is supposed to be the message of the campaign, it embodies everything that's wrong with the way Democrats position themselves on foreign affairs.  It's tailor-made for Republicans to come back with "Well, obviously, it's painful for our economy, but we have to be willing to pay any cost necessary to keep the American people safe."  Obviously, this is total nonsense, but it's exactly the kind of total nonsense that the median voter falls for again and again.

Obama needs to attack staying in Iraq because it won't make us safer.  Anything else just reinforces the claim that Democrats are weak on foreign policy and want to turn every issue back to the economy.

Multi-prong attack... (4.00 / 4)
The first attack is what Chris is saying, because honestly, the economy is the #1 issue.  Add to this the fact that people  don't seem to really be paying attention to the Iraq war any more, and that's the most important thing.

The second attack, of course, is that the Iraq war is making us less safe, and that John McCain's foreign policy would actually make us even less safe.

[ Parent ]
Twofold Problem (0.00 / 0)
#1 is that Obama will not be able to get us out of Iraq. Not unless you want to see gas ramp up to $10+ a gallon. And at that price not only would getting out of Iraq not help the economy, it would make the economy worse. That is just the reality of the further instability in Iraq and most importantly the region that would be caused by us leaving.

I know most anti-Iraq people, and I am one, don't want to hear this but it is the truth. And if Obama has a brain cell in his head he knows it too. And by knowing it all his Economy/Iraq talk is just that - talk. It is just sucking in voters and then letting them down once he is in office.

And the second problem is the 'less safe' argument. Nice bumper sticker but show that it is true. You can't. A better argument would be McCain's that it is keeping us safer and the proof of that is we have not been attacked. False argument? Yeah I think so but it is not me or you that matters. It is what the majority of Americans think is what matters. One just cannot argue with a straight face that leaving Iraq in further chaos is going to make us safer in anyway. One cannot argue that purposely spiking the cost of gas is going to make us safer either. You see if you leave Iraq and double the price of gas then 'safety' is no longer a terrorist problem - it becomes a domestic problem of how safe is your family in an economy that keeps spiraling downwards with energy inflation and you don't have enough money to drive to work or make ends meet.

So the dove argument is a 100% loser and people who don't think about what I just wrote above are not doing Obama any favors by encouraging him to adopt a position that even I can tear apart little on the GOP Machine.

[ Parent ]
Before the Iraq War (4.00 / 2)
gas was a buck something, now it's 4 bucks a gallon.  It goes to 10 if the US invades Iran, not if the US leaves.  The US presence in Iraq causes the instability, which is why Iraqis want us out. It's not because they want further instability, it's because they, unlike you, understand its cause.  

The majority of Americans want to leave Iraq. Are you saying they are doing so despite thinking that being there makes us less safe?  Or maybe they correctly understand that keeping our military in a situation that our own intelligence people says contributes to terrorism, when our military will not be able to sustain these levels of commitment much longer, is done despite our safety, not for it.

How is ending an occupation a "dove argument"? All the reasons on which this war was sold were false.  Unless you think war is good for its own sake, or you agree with the reasons that the Bush Administration was unwilling to mention because they knew the public would reject them, there are therefore no reasons for it. If that's true, then the only logical thing to do it to end it.

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel

[ Parent ]
We are in Irq and it is $4+ (0.00 / 0)
not $10!

Yeah the problem is we invaded. But we are there and the present point is what are the ramifications of us leaving?

Higher gas prices are just one. Quit making the silly argument that gas would go to $10 because we went there. That is not happening. Gas will go to $10 if we Leave! I know that and so does Obama which is why he won't get all of the troops out. What he will do, hopefully, if he wins, is protect our carbon energy based economy from unsustainable energy inflation.

How is ending an occupation a "dove argument"? Because the GOP will say so, where have you been? If people get the hint that gas will double you will see them change their tune real fast as to getting all the troops out. Real fast.

[ Parent ]
This is not clear at all... (4.00 / 3)
"And the second problem is the 'less safe' argument. Nice bumper sticker but show that it is true. You can't. A better argument would be McCain's that it is keeping us safer and the proof of that is we have not been attacked. False argument? Yeah I think so but it is not me or you that matters. It is what the majority of Americans think is what matters."

Fortunately, you're wrong about what the "majority of Americans" think... or, at the very least, it's not completely clear.  For instance:

http://www.harrisinteractive.c...

Yeah, that shows that 55% of respondents thought that the Iraq war has made us less safe.  What a total loser of an argument!

Now, granted, there's some variation on this question from poll to poll (maybe based on the wording?)... It's sort of hard to gauge, but I don't think the argument is an automatic loser, especially considering that some polls seem to show that a lot of people already believe it.  This is an argument that can be won in a variety of ways.

As for $10 gasoline, you fail to sort of connect the dots on this and show why gasoline would shoot up to $10/gallon.  Here's an interesting link:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil...

So yeah, we get some oil from Iraq, but it's far below Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico.  It's also unclear as to why we'd suddenly lose our imports from there if we left militarily.  Would they stop trading with us because we left the country?  Do you think it would just devolve into an even bigger warzone that would make it impossible for them to export anything?  Where are you getting this, as when I just did a quick search for something along those lines, I was hard-pressed to find any analysis that agreed with your assessment here.

[ Parent ]
It's not clear to you because (0.00 / 0)
you chopped of the rest of what I said, so I won't even bother to comment on it. T=You can read the rest if you care to comment on it again.

As for the 55% - well only 5% going the other way makes it 50-50 so 55% is not that significant of a figure. And 5% may well be inside the margin for error. I wouldn't bank on your "2007" poll with such tight polling numbers. BTW you might look at some of the eternals which are prominent at Harris. things are more complex that you try to make them and a gain almost a 505-50 split bares that out.

As for $10 a gallon gas you are way off base with your argument. The price of gas to us has noting to do about which country we get it from. I guess you don't know that oil is priced on a world market basis not what country it is shipped from and I guess you also don't know that any interruption of supply anywhere, or even a perceived interruption of supply like has happened with Iran and already drove the price per barrel up, will spike the price per barrel particularly in the Middle East where a big portion of the worlds oil is located. Couple that with the enormous reserves that Iraq has which in a stable Iraq helps keep the price of oil down - and which with a unstable Iraq would skyrocket the price of oil and we have a big big potential problem.

Those are just some of the things that most people on the Left don't think about at all unfortunately because they are very real concerns.

So yeah - Obama can play the Dove but the people who vote in the General are not the people who vote in the Dem primaries so the same message of Iraq may not resonate if the other side is playing the price of gas angle which if I was them I would play it to the hilt. Again, a substantial increase in the price of gas because of a even more unstable Iraq as a result of our leaving could make a lot of people think twice about the wisdom of that.

I say this as a pragmatic and as a guy who would love to be out of Iraq but not at an unsustainable cost to our economy.

Think of it this way. If Obama were to pull us out of Iraq and the price of oil, and subsequently gas and all other products that are oil related including food, were to increase as a result then the public would be calling for his head and in the next off year election the Dems would pay the price at the polls. but us losing at the pols would be minuscule to the devastation of our ecomomy and the fact that we would probably have to go back into Iraq to try to tamp it down.

[ Parent ]
Not making us safer (4.00 / 1)
I agree that the point that Iraq is not making us safer is part of the big picture.  Perhaps Matt's message could be restructured more as:

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years.  America is spending $10-12B in Iraq every month in a war that not making us any safer, diverting resources away from the real threat in Afghanistan and the problems back here at home. Now, to pay for a corporate tax cut, McCain's top economic advisor says he will cut defense spending. By contrast, Barack Obama will end the Iraq war and use that money to invest in American jobs, transportation, health care and a new energy economy. Senator Obama will put the peace dividend to work for you.

Or is parallel thought too complex for people?  I'm guessing not as long as it sticks to the simple theme of Iraq is wasting our resources, both in our fight against terrorism and back in the USA.


[ Parent ]
Yes, but more aggressive (0.00 / 0)
Iraq has made your food more expensive.

Iraq has made your fuel more expensive.

Iraq has made your home less valuable.

Iraq is what's causing you to lose your small business.

Etc.

[ Parent ]
Remix (0.00 / 0)
Imagine Clark is the VP.  Then imagine a remix where Obama hits on how Iraq hurts the economy and Clark hits on how Iraq hurts foreign policy.
[ Parent ]
I agree. Tying it all (0.00 / 0)
together presents a powerful narrative.
Iraq is the key (4.00 / 5)
Senator Obama needs to pound this message home.  We as a nation can't afford to continue this failed policy.

The Iraq policy weakens our national security.
The Iraq policy weakens our military.
The Iraq policy weakens our economy.
The Iraq policy weakens our National Guard.
The Iraq policy weakens our image abroad.
The Iraq policy takes our focus off of Afghanistan.
The Iraq policy prevents us from rebuilding our infrastructure.
The Iraq policy prevents us from having national health care.
The Iraq policy damages our national pride.

McCain, by his own choosing has become the face of the Iraq war.  It should be made crystal clear that he represents the continuation of this failed war policy.  We can't afford this policy.  We can't afford McCain.

The iraq war is killing this country (0.00 / 0)
Invest in America, not the Iraq War (4.00 / 2)
Oh, the grand unified talking point.  I loved it from the first time I saw it a few months ago.  So strong and so true.


Saxby Chambliss  
This is the key (0.00 / 0)
It's not just that we are spending too much in Iraq, but that we need to be spending it here at home to truly make us safe.

We need to be investing in schools, higher education aid  and infrastructure; in a stronger safety net and more regulation to keep us safe from predatory lenders and speculators and unsafe products; and in public health and more accessible health care.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Agreed but I think there's a better way to put it (0.00 / 0)
No offense, of course. But, oddly enough, phrasing it as such doesn't do justice to the problems we're facing and the reality on the ground.

The way you're phrased it generally is the way Dems have always phrased it but we're arguably in a much more precarious situation than at anytime since the 70s.

We are in danger of sliding into a deep recession with a ginormous misery index rating. To avoid sounding like Dem business as usual he needs to phrase it in stark terms. We're not spending that money at home to make things better but rather to lessen misery and risk. No sense sugarcoating it for the 10s of millions of Americans who can mess a shithole of an economy from the inside.

[ Parent ]
Geez, my English skills... (0.00 / 0)
Should be:
No sense sugarcoating it for the 10s of millions of Americans who can recognize a shithole of an economy from the inside.
[ Parent ]
This argument works with moderates (0.00 / 0)
   I've use a variation of it for years, and I've found it to be persuasive with moderate Republicans.

  I used to work with a team of about seven Republicans. Most  were of the wingnut variety, and thus unreachable, but with the moderates I'd always ask, whenever Bush would punch through his latest round of tax cuts, "How are we going to pay for this war?" I wouldn't criticize the war -- I'd just ask people who call themselves "fiscal conservatives" how we expected to finance it. And not only did the non-wingnuts not get all defensive -- they'd agree with me.

  I agree that THIS is the message Obama needs to hammer home.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

Great Message, But... (0.00 / 0)
But I completely agree with jkenney that Obama must also say "All our intelligence agenices agree that the Iraq war makes us less safe (and so does threatening Iran)."

Some other messages I'd like to see:

"John McCain surrounds himself with lobbyists and fights for rich people and large corporations just like George Bush has done for the last 7 years. Barack Obama will fight for the common good, not for elite interests. Barack Obama will fight for fair trade agreements and tax policies that help regular people."

"John McCain wants to end women's choice to have an abortion. He supports appointing more judges to the Supreme Court like conservative John Roberts and Samuel Alito who are likely to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision."

"As a Senator, John McCain receives excellent healthcare from the federal government plan. Under John McCain's proposed healthcare program, he could probably not obtain healthcare since he has a pre-existing condition. Barack Obama will fight for affordable healthcare for everyone."

"John McCain wants more subsidies for big energy companies and to continue our reliance on fossil fuels from unstable and undemocratic countries. This will lead to even more global warming. Barack Obama wants to develop safe, renewable energy produced right here in the United States that will protect the environment and produce good jobs for Americans."

I believe that each of these messages is very appealing to a large segment of the population. Each challenges McCain's "maverick" and "just plain folks" image and each educates voters towards a more progressive policy perspective.

Good stuff, not central theme (0.00 / 0)
While I agree with the messages you suggest, it misses the point of what simple theme should be pushed.

My only suggestion is instead of "Iraq is hurting the economy" use "Iraq is a misuse of resources" which leads to both economic and foreign policy.

[ Parent ]
Common Sense Vs. Tough Guy Slogans (0.00 / 0)
As much as anything, I think the meta-message matters here, not least because Obama's got the resources to underscore the meta-messages as needed, at the appropriate time. And the meta-message is just what I put in the subject line.

Two things to note to flesh this out a tad:

(1) On the Obama side, he is talking common sense in two connected senses:  it's a very down-to-earth sort of argument AND it's reflects a widely-shared perspective.

(2) On the McSame side--the macho, disconnected tough-guy slogans and posturing underscores the Bush III message.

I'm not disagreeing with Chris here.  This is a complementary argument, not a contradictory one.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

This is half of a two-part checkmate. (4.00 / 1)
Part I: Iraq hurts the economy.

Part II: A hurting economy makes you LESS SAFE.

Dems MUST combine their arguments on national security and the economy.

Iraq hurts the economy... and because of Iraq, you or a friend of yours is more likely to lose your home and be forced to live on the streets or in a shelter.

Iraq hurts the economy... and because of Iraq, food prices have skyrocketed and you or a friend of yours might not be able to put enough food on the table.

Iraq hurts the economy... and because of Iraq, if you get sick, you're more likely to die.

This argument is extremely powerful. Remember that Wes Clark / VoteVets television ad with the repetition of "Because of Iraq"? Imagine running an ad like that, but incorporating the economy. Brutally effective.

And, importantly, it happens to be true.

National security is about a lot more than soldiers, guns and bombs.      

heh (0.00 / 0)
I just noticed that Mark posted that Wes Clark ad. Great minds and all... :)
[ Parent ]
I canvassed my neighborhood in January and (0.00 / 0)
EVERY person I spoke to was clear that the war and the economy were related.
It's a very important message to deliver.
typo (0.00 / 0)
Chris:

Obama is not getting close to refining this message. It succeeds for several reasons:

Pretty sure you meant "now."

Me | My Work | Future Majority

The Message That Will Win This Campaign | 26 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox