The Current Nominee is Always Tougher/Smarter than the Previous Losers

by: tremayne

Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:10


Call it "myopia of the present" or just optimism but I've noticed a pattern in the netroots over the last 8 years. Temporally, it looks like this:

NOW = "My candidate is tough and smart"

4 YEARS AFTER LOSS = "What a weak and stupid dumb ass he was"

The explanation follows.
tremayne :: The Current Nominee is Always Tougher/Smarter than the Previous Losers

For example, in 2004 I heard over and over how smart and tough John Kerry was and I, of course, hopefully believed this. Here's an example from a DailyKos diary called "Kerry Fights Back":

You have got to love it! This is what we need. A nominee willing to fight back, not one that will let himself be Gored. Sorry Al, but you needed to have an attitude that communicated to Karl Rove: don't screw with me boy.

First, notice the shot at Gore in there. You see, in 2004, Gore was in the "stupid dumb ass" zone from which he later emerged. But this was a common sentiment found on progressive blogs in 2004. You may be thinking "No, we knew Kerry was blowing it back then" but that's because as you read this it's 2008 and now Kerry is the "dumb ass" zone.  While there was some concern at the time (like now with Obama's responses or lack of responses) there was also a lot of "Kerry is Fighting Back!!!!!" stuff too. 

I believe Gore ran mostly a very good campaign. I believe Kerry ran mostly a very good campaign. I believe Obama is running mostly a good campaign. But let's not get carried away. The idea, in 2008, that Obama's "Not Going to Be Swiftboated!!!!!!" is mostly blind optimism. While I'm a big Obama supporter, I'm not sure why his 40-page response to the Corsi "publication" is seen as evidence of how tough the Obama campaign is compared to that idiot Kerry campaign of 2004. Voter's aren't going to read that and I'd be surprised if most reporters would even read that.

I believe offense is more important than defense in controlling the media narrative.  And Obama said something yesterday that may indicate his willingness to go on offense:

"The fact of the matter is, at a certain point, when government has not been serving the people for this long, people get cynical. They tune out. And they start saying to themselves, a plague on both your houses. They are willing to consume negative information more frequently than positive information, for good reason. They’ve seen how promises haven’t been kept," [Obama] said.

Obama has been running spots in local markets that qualify as offense-oriented issue attacks. These don't seem to have changed the national dialogue but may influence narratives at the state level. We can hope. But let's not stop all discussion of campaign tactics on the premise that the Obama campaign is "obviously smarter and tougher" than previous Democratic incarnations.

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Current Nominee is Always Tougher/Smarter than the Previous Losers | 46 comments
I think there are MANY posters here who have no illusions whatsover about what it takes (4.00 / 5)
to beat Republicans at the Presidential level.

In fact I'd say this site is a veritable hotbed of constructive criticism all designed to get the Obama campaign to hit back harder if not to hit first- I know this is a shock to people who like staying above the fray because politics can get so 'negative' - 'they' - some Democratic consultants and some partisans of the candidate who can never think to criticize the campaign or candidate - can't seem to distinguish aggressive campaigning for negative camapigning.

Looking at 'history'( Gore and Kerry)....Obama and his campaign aren't showing me a more aggressive campaign than the other 2 whose primary object and focus should be designed to define McSame( Bush in the case of the other 2) in terms that they instantly want the public to think of when they think of McSame

Neither of the 2 or Obama's has done/did that

Hit harder. (4.00 / 6)
It seems like a lot of us, myself included, are looking to take comfort in any small sign of aggressiveness on the part of the Obama campaign. But then you step back and think about how vulnerable McCain is from a lot of angles, knowing that Republicans would be going crazy on a Democrat with similar vulnerabilities.

Just one example that occurred to me yesterday:

Why don't Dems in Congress start looking more closely at McCain's Indian Affairs Committee investigation of Abramhoff. There are thousands of pages of documents that have not seen the light of day. Was there a coverup? A whitewash? Let's see those documents. Why don't Dems make a big loud stink about McCain hiding part of the Abramoff scandal evidence from the public?

Am I missing something here? This seems like low-hanging fruit. If the shoe were on the other foot, Republican's would be like sharks having a feeding frenzy.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
Or mocking McCain (4.00 / 6)
for claiming that people making $4.9 million a year are middle class.

Think that might deflate the whole republican "we're one of you" canard they've been blasting out for the past 8 years?

One reason Clinton one in 1992 was because George H.W. was seen as out of touch with the public (e.g. the infamous "looking at his watch" during a debate and him marveling at a electronic scanner at a supermarket). The republicans know that if a politician is successfully portrayed as "elitist" or "out-of-touch" it is very very difficult for them to win an election.

The AFL-CIO knows this as well as evidenced by their recent social security mailer (talking about how McCain would be fine if he lost his social security since he's worth $100 million and has 9 houses and $500 shoes).

So where is the Obama campaign on this?  

[ Parent ]
I question how many people here really know how to win, (4.00 / 4)
as opposed to thinking they know.  The last time a Dem won a majority of the votes cast (other than Gore) was 1976, and that was greatly influenced by Ford's pardon of Nixon.  How many people here personally or studied that campaign?  And if they have, hasn't the country, culture, technology, media changed so much that the lessons aren't necessarily relevant?

The fact is that Democrats haven't won at the federal level very much since 1952.  The GOP has a strategy they follow faithfuly since Nixon figured it out and honed it in the 1960's.  It's easier for them because the people  they run and who run their campaigns care only about power and not really about governing, at least not on the domestic level.  The Dems need to find their own strategy that combines a solid coalition, a very good candidate, very good messaging and very good use of technology.  If it were easy we'd all be President (or the Pres' campaign manager).

I'm not saying Obama is above criticism at all.  I think the job is so difficult they need constructive criticism. But let's acknowledge just how difficult it is to remain authentic, actually propose solutions and not fall into the gutter with the GOP.


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

[ Parent ]
Gore (4.00 / 2)
Didn't win a majority of voters either...he won 48.38% of the popular vote, which btw was almost exactly what Kerry got, and only about a point less than what Clinton got in 1996.

We have had a 49% ceiling.

[ Parent ]
Majority is arbitrary here (0.00 / 0)
Mimi, I think your general point is a good one.  However, it is very arbitrary when people cite this statistic about winning a majority.  Clinton certainly would have won a majority in 1996 had Perot not been in the race and probably would have won a majority in 1992 as well (the best analyses suggest that Perot voters broke relatively evenly in terms of their second choice, contrary to GOP claims).  

Like it or not, the Clinton team already showed one way to cobble together a winning democratic coalition and part of what they did, especially in 1996, involved jumping headlong into that gutter, defining Dole as an out-of-touch old codger.



John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

[ Parent ]
And Hillary showed that formula doesn't work any more (4.00 / 1)
I think you are right about Clinton, but again the lessons are limited, as Hillary's campaign proved.  There are different things that need to be done this year, and the Obama people certainly seem to be on the right track with their organizing and use of technology especially for fundraising and GOTV.  We need the coalition, the candidate, the message, the organization and the technology.  Obama has a good handle on most of these and in many ways on message as well.  But he is threading the needle on how to attack/defend.  Going below the radar with contrast ads in local markets that are seen before the national media or McCain campaign sees them and so have an effect before they are rebutted is a very clever idea.  I think we are getting better at this, but my fundalental point is that we shouldn't minimize the difficulties of the task.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
I don't think anyone is minimizing it ... (4.00 / 1)
and I think you are wrong about Hillary .. they misjudged Obama early on .. and it cost them ... but Obama doesn't seem to fully get the message part .. especially defining McCain in the national media .. McCain calls him a traitor .. and what does Obama do? .. hammer McCain on his lies and untrustworthy-ness .. there is plenty of truthful material to attack him with
[ Parent ]
Hmmnn (0.00 / 0)
I don't think Hillary's campaign showed that at all.  If anything, one of their mistakes was in not burying Obama with negative stuff before Iowa.  If they force the Wright story out in a big way in December, its probably over for him.

I have no doubt that Obama is doing lots of great and innovative things and I especially do like the below the radar contrast ad strategy that you mention.  But I think that overall there are several tendencies that worry me (toward taking the high ground and toward embracing rather than avoiding a fight about their candidate's persona), especially to the extent that it reflects a tendency towards overconfidence in the strategy that won them the primaries.  Remember, none of the key Obama people have ever run a general election campaign before.  Its a different beast and while I think they are correct to stay with some of the strengths that got them this far, I hope that they also perceive the limitations of that strategy when dealing with the broader electorate.    

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

[ Parent ]
Did she? (0.00 / 0)
It seems Hillary did a hell of a lot better when she slimed Obama toward the end of the primary.

Remember that she didn't hit below the belt until Ohio and if the primary was Ohio/Texas and everything thereafter, Hillary would be the nominee.

[ Parent ]
Don't forget that was the same time the pugs finished up... (0.00 / 0)
Remember that she didn't hit below the belt until Ohio and if the primary was Ohio/Texas and everything thereafter, Hillary would be the nominee.

I suspect that the amount of crossover votes increased at this point. Also, had she hit below the belt earlier, the odds of a backlash would have been higher.
 

[ Parent ]
i liked bill clinton (4.00 / 1)
and don't want to minimize his victory in 1992 but it wasn't just that Perot stole more votes from Bush than Clinton (I agree that evidence seems to say it was roughly equal) it was the timing of Perot's in-out-in campaign. I recall Clinton being in the 3rd behind Perot and Bush shortly before the Democratic convention. Then Perot withdrew from the race just as the convention was starting and those voters had to reconsider Clinton vs. Bush. Clinton (and Gore) gave great speeches, reached out effectively to the Perot voters, and moved from 3rd to first and never relinquished it. Perot got back in the race but never recaptured all of his earlier support as many had gone to Clinton-Gore. At least that's my memory of it. So I think it's possible that Perot helped Clinton in that respect. He also primed the electorate for a message of "both sides suck and so does negative campaigning" which may have inoculated Clinton a bit from some personal attacks.
[ Parent ]
I do not equate 'falling into the gutter' with defining the Republican negatively (4.00 / 4)
I think you can take a charcteristic that the Republican nominee at the Presidential level has, and show the public that it is negative.

For instance, more should be made of McSame's casual approach to academics which has affected his whole career, that, at this point this country can ill afford the almost daily gaffes he makes and point out that the casual approach that led him to skate through Annapolis, is most likely the same one that let him tie himself to lobbyists which can provide an easy way for a politician to make decisions( it's laziness really); or his past actions with his reckless behavior that in effect stopped advancement in the Navy.

Casual appraoches to anything make a person insensitive to what others are going through....that's how you'd lead into 'McSame can't relate to  you'. It would all tie together.

When Democrats make the fundamental recognition that MOST people (not activitsts) vote for one  person over the other person to be POTUS and NOT because of a laundry list of issues guiding them - but because of personal charcteristics that have been highlighted which best fits the narrative  of the campaign that the candidate is running on and because one side has usually done a better job of making one of those people running unpalatable to be President..... we'll win.

That's how the Republicans beat us nearly every 4 years.

It's hard to argue with success.

I know we could be good at it if we'd only try.

[ Parent ]
The question is how to do it (4.00 / 2)
The GOP succeeds because they are totally shameless and relentless.  They will fund a nutjob like Corsi, they will lie over and over as McCain personally does about Obama's tax plan, or his love of country.  They work the refs like they are with the issue of whether McCain knew some of Rick Warren's questions in advance.  They shout and stamp their feet and bully.  They run cheesy and tawdry commercials like the Britney Spears ad.

Obama and his campaign can do contrast ads. He can hit them in his speeches.  He is doing that, more so than before.  But take for example the question whether McCain cribbed the cross in the dirt tale from Solzhenitsyn.  The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming (never appeared in accounts much closer to his release; didn't appear until ~1999 when he collabotated on the book in which it appears and ran for Pres the first time; he's an admitted Solzhenitsyn fan).  If it were Obama, he'd be out of the race over this.  But McCain gets a pass, the Dems can't and shouldn't attack with the same ferocity tthat the GOP would and they don't have Drudge and Mark Halperin and Mary Matalin and the rest of the GOP harpies.  So it's easy to say "attack more!" and damned hard to do it in a successful way.  The fact that the GOPers can do it has no relevance for the Dems, except to show how much harder it is for a Dem to do.

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

[ Parent ]
And that's the main problem (0.00 / 0)
the GOP campaign style is really dirty, and in many instances, really undermines your ability to govern.  It's amazing that Bush was able to do much more than the Iraq war in his seven years in office, considering the way in which he was totally willing to burn bridges, not only with Congressional Democrats, but also with almost everyone outside of his inner circle.  
[ Parent ]
I dont know (0.00 / 0)
John McCain for President is running ads directly describing Obama as a shallow celebrity who is unfit to lead.  I can only imagine what the 527 ads will look like in a few weeks, which no doubt will return to Wright, Ayers, etc in a huge way.

Right now, Obama for America could be running equally direct negative ads using a plethora of material (much of it out there on the internet already) but is choosing not to do so.  Their hands are not tied and there are plenty of people in the media who would gladly help them out.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

[ Parent ]
Huh? This cross story is perfect! It fits right in with the 'casual approach to (0.00 / 0)
everything" that I made about Mcsame earlier in this thread.

If we don't do it (raise this issue) it's just another example of the negative stereotype about Democrats:too wimpish to fight.

Jeez, this is like a slow pitch!!

Hit it!!

And use the words"casual appraoch to everything it seems":school, advancment in the Navy, his first marriage,possibly cribbing Solzhetsin's work, perhaps not being in the quiet zone at saddleback on Saturday, his addiction to lobbyists.

McSame's casual approach doesn't work and that attitude can lead to unethical behavior and an insensitivity to what other's are experiencing

How hard is that?

Develop it over time.

Because  the public wants to really KNOW these guys by Nov 4th and if we let Mcsame define himself and Obama too? we're toast.

[ Parent ]
you mean like this? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
EXACTLY, EXACTLY , like that n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
One thing I could add (0.00 / 0)
I am in complete agreement with this, but I would add that the GOP attacks on a candidate -- Gore, Kerry, and now Obama -- are so effective that they drive the Democrats' disappointment with these men. Democrats, in essence, internalize the GOP's attack ads as they pick through the bitter ashes of yet another devastating loss. I can't count the number of times I've read some anti-Kerry, anti-Gore post-election screed that is a cut-and-paste job of GOP talking points about them, and the writer is completely unaware of it.

It might not be that the GOP attacks are brilliantly effective in their own right. I don't think they are, really. What makes them so effective is that they don't get a response. Anyone remember a Gore response to a Bush attack? Or one of Kerry's? I don't, but I sure remember the attacks. It all ends up with really great candidates losing and then being forced to go back out and "rehabilitate their images," which I find so galling that I need to not go down that road because I have to go to work in twenty minutes.

And now, I'm going to post a comment I made over at the Steve Clemons' site about the veepstakes, so it's OT, but it does get into Obama's excrutiating-to-watch attack strategy. Apologies in advance.

"Remember all the excitement generated by the Clinton/Obama primary? How with every state's turn to vote the media breathlessly reported on all the thousands and thousands of new voters, the long lines to vote, the harried local/county registars talking about running out of ballots for people? How they'd "never seen such numbers," how the excitement was palpable and unprecedented, how the turn-out was like no other primary in recent memory?

That's all over now, isn't it. The zeitgeist is flat and stale. Bored, even.

With Clinton out of the mix, Obama now stands alone -- and he is in total free-fall against one of the most comprised presidential nominees in a very, very long time.

Pick Clinton. Bring back the vigor and excitement of the primary. She's been through the ringer for the past, oh, 30 years, and she can stand her own.

Talk about being seen as a sure bet on the economy. And of course she has down sides, but who doesn't? Hair-plug Biden? Please, talk about a Beltway Porcellian lifer. That choice would certainly support the BO theme of change, huh.

But for me, an Obama voter, a cost-benefit analysis of a Clinton VP shows far more upsides. She's such a known quantity, and that would really counter his problem of being the exact opposite.

She will also be one of the most effective fighters available -- in direct opposition to Obama's current offensive strategy (term used very loosely) of rainbows, unicorns, and sunny Shirley Temples sent out to fight the Wehrmacht.

If Obama is too prissy to get down in the dirt with McCain then for the love of god -- for the sake of our country -- choose someone who will."


This really highlights why it is twice as hard for Dems (4.00 / 3)
The Dem candidate actually has to think about winning in such a way that s/he can govern afterwards, because Dems care about governing, unlike the GOP.  If Obama did pick Clinton, it would create an inherently unstable Presidency because (1) the spotlight would always be on the drama, the Clintons, and (2) Bill would always be trying to run  things. It really, really wouldn't work and would encure failure.  Obama knows that, so he will pick someone else.  Hopefully someone a bit edgy who will provide some punch (Biden, for example) and hopefully he will get some more high-profile enmdorsers like Colin Powell who will generate excitement among those he has to persuade to vote for him.  

But let's be realsitic about the difficulties that face Democrats.  It isn't just insecurity or internalizing Broderism, although those are certainly factors.  It is primarily that the GOP and the Dems are engaged in fundamentally different enterprises.  I'd say they aren't playing the same game, except that to Dems and the Left generally, it really isn't a game.  it is a process of trying to win elections to be in a position to govern and make structural changes afterward to better the lot of ordinary people.  And that is very, very difficult, and NOT what the GOP is engaged in.

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

[ Parent ]
You say it isn't a game but I have to say that some sport analogy is very effective here (0.00 / 0)
We can't govern till we win.

It may not be a 'game' but it does have a military term - a campaign - which implies battle and Democrats have to stop being afraid to engage the 'other side' on the battlefield that voters respond to. It seems we keep asking voters to "Look over here on our issues campaign battlefield!!" and voters would rather watch the battlefield between 2 people - the 2 candidates who are running for President only we don't show up on that field and that let's the Republicans kick our "asses around( forgive the pun) and that's what the majority watch and respond to.

All the research done by Lakoff, Schaller, Westen and others show in hindsight how to win:better framing, better responses, what makes voters 'tick' and we ignore  all that evidence because some would rather 'win as they would govern'.

I say:play in the moment. Make the shot that is effective, don't get ahead of ourselves. Play to win. Because Democrats do recognize that governing is different and at the end people can say, after we win...."watch us excel" the other guy can't even begin to get near us at governing.

[ Parent ]
Positive message is fine (0.00 / 0)
I think the Dems need to get much better at connecting on the emotional level, and with conveying their message in a way that connects with voters on an emotional level.  You will get no argument with me on that at all.  I do think Obama has a kind of authenticity that Kerry and Gore of 2000 lacked.  He needs to get better at communicating with voters emotionally that conveys to them that the Dems can remove barriers and level the playing field and so make their lives better.  My concern is with expecting Dems to fight as negatively and underhandedly as the GOP does.  Maybe it worked for LBJ, but it won't in the current atmosphere/landscape.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Obama has a lock on his voters that he aquired through the primary and he needs to improve his (0.00 / 0)
standing with a small percentage of the voters that Hillary had that responded to her tough talk.

All he has to do is define McSame.

I'm not advocating lying about him.

I'm advocating highlighting why McSame would, because of personal charcteristics that he has, make a disasterous POTUS.

That's how we lock up the necessary Democrats and people who want to vote for change but are buying into McSame's developing meme about Obama.

If all we do is talk about issues, we are already on the well worn path that Gore, Kerry, and Dukakis were on.  

[ Parent ]
What if they found a nice role for Bill that kept him narrowly focused? (0.00 / 0)
Make him ambassador to the UN, or a special envoy to Israel or something.  He could be extremely useful in any number of roles, and if his job is narrowly defined enough, he could quickly go from 'liability' to 'asset'
[ Parent ]
Who ever runs in 2012 (4.00 / 3)
Will be tougher than Obama!

Snark aside, it just is the fate of bleeding-heart-liberal democrats not to fight as dirty as the repubs have since the Nixon years. Just read Rick Perlstein's "Nixonland" to refresh your memory of the art of "ratfucking' a candidate, to see what depths repubs will go to win one of the most powerful offices on Earth.

It seems that the last democrats that could play at that level were Senator and President Lyndon Johnson and Mayor Daley of Chicago from back in the 50s and 60s.  

learning is a real phenomenon (4.00 / 3)
I think this is a learning process.  Politicians in DC will always be behind the curve in seeing the real landscape; regular people will be ahead.

I don't think it's a joke at all to suggest that every campaign has lessons for future ones; I see evidence that Obama's team is much better than the last two teams, and learned lessons.

Republican operatives have until recently been much better than D's at this kind of experiential learning re: campaign strategies and tactics.

D's are building a whole new playbook over the last 2 cycles.  So our future nominees...unless they are so overconfident they ignore the past...will be better.

[ Parent ]
But we DON'T want to be ratf*ckers! (4.00 / 2)
This is the fundamental point.  The Dems are trying to do something different and yes, it puts us at a disadvantage that the trad media exacerbates because they are fundamentally lazy and lack the requisite knowledge, and they think it is just sports in another venue.  They can afford to think that way because they are upper middle class or better.  But gods help us if we think we have to be like the GOPers.  We need to do much, much better--win with some semblance of dignity and principle, and be in a position to govern afterwards.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
That's great (4.00 / 1)
but isn't it clear that the American people don't respnd to dignity and principle, they respond to who can tear their opponent apart better.

Toughness and stern wins the day in this country. It's why women have a hard time or at least had a hard time. For them to act that way means they're coniving unladylike bitches, for me it makes them warriors.

Only recently have women been able to do it and be called strong and stern.  

[ Parent ]
You can be tough about what you stand for( I personally hope that would (0.00 / 0)
be tough from a progressive perspective.

Tough about standing up for yourself.

Tough about saying "this is what the country will be like if it makes the mistake of voting for Mcsame"

Tough about saying why the other guy is not a good choice for this job:this must be said in personal terms. I'm at the point that I just don't see any way around that.

Consider:McSame's celebrity ad subliminally suggests that Obama is a light weight. Democrats must show evidence that McSame is an actual lightweight unqualified for this job - so, go back and point out that except for his time spent as a POW McSame is a lightweight who always took the easy route and that his temperment does not have the stability necessary for the job.

[ Parent ]
Yeah one problem (0.00 / 0)
I've tried to do that in convincing undecided friends and family and those who are wavering on Obama, and their response is basically "Don't tell me who I should vote for, stop being condescending"

I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, I think we need to swiftboat McCain. It may backfire and if it does then the hypocrisy in this country is too strong for us to win here, but it's the only thing we got left.  

[ Parent ]
Those on the other side in our daily lives all like to parrot Republican talking points (4.00 / 1)
about our guy.

I just say as declarative as I can when I am in coversations with the type of person you describe something along the order of this:

  • McSame is a lightweight.
  • McSame is addicted to lobbyists
  • The guy with 8 houses really doesn't, on any level, relate to anyone I know, and if you're honest you'll admit it as well.
  • McSame is a phoney
  • McSame is a gaffe machine with a sick sense of humor( Bomb Iran ditti story)

    Then I let them splutter, some will say "What?how?" then I get into brief details. Brief.

    I just leave them with something to think about.

    • [ Parent ]
    Obama is hitting/defining harder than Gore or Kerry (4.00 / 1)
    I would grade Gore's campaign as C- to C.  I would grade Kerry's campaign as a B-.  Both failed to define - to ANY degree - the opponent in an advantageous way that was consistently pursued and/or easily digested by the broad public.  Obama is doing this now with his targeted ad spots. He's doing better than both prior nominees a wide margin, IMO.  

    Nevertheless, Obama is not running in a vacuum, he has an opponent who is hitting him, and Obama cannot prevent that from happening; he can only seek to mitigate and counter.  

    That does not mean he can successfully eliminate ANY advantage McCain may get thru a particular line of attack. Nor can Obama undo years of messaging by the GOP.  This is why Obama nor anyone else would be crushing McCain.

    If the recession were worse (it isn't that bad now, nowhere near the early '80s - yet) Obama would have an easier time, and a crush might be possible.  We need high single digits inflation, we need double digit unemployment, etc, to get a real blowout.  Or, a movie of McCain in bed with a horse.

    We stuck our necks out (0.00 / 0)
    to nominate this guy. So many Democrats are standing by clearing their throats to prepare for the aria of "I Told You So"

    Obama's political career and legacy is not the only thing that depends on his victory, but the credibility of the netroots that supported him and the generation that helped carry him to this level.  

    Wow.... (4.00 / 4)
    I'm sickened by the readiness of left-bloggers to cave into such a ridiculously stupid and simplistic narrative.

    It's one week before the convention....everyone is eagerly waiting for his VP pick....and he's going to be deliver what will be one of the most important speeches of his political career on a historic night.  If this isn't exciting enough because John McCain said "this" or "that" in the previous two weeks when everyone else was watching Michael Phelps sweep the Olympics, then you need to get a vitamin-shot.  

    Seriously....get some balls.  This is politics.  You can't be easily swayed by the opposing side's narrative.  And if you are, you can't help them succeed by perpetuating it on your blog......they would like nothing more than to dampen excitement as the convention rolls around, and who do they have to help them out?  Oh, the left bloggers on Talk--er--OpenLeft!!

    "You can't be easily swayed by the opposing side's narrative. And if you are, you can't help them succeed by perpetuating it on your blog" (0.00 / 1)
    Yes comrade.  No problem comrade.  Whatever you say comrade.

    ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Well if you're going to do it (4.00 / 1)
    at least admit your opponent is right about the candidate. You can't echo GOP talking points then complain they're picking on your guy.  
    [ Parent ]
    how about if i critique him in ways that help him? (0.00 / 0)
    for example by arguing that he's not far enough to the left?  wouldn't you love to have him defined as the centre and mccain as the fringe right on a boatload of issues?

    you see, as much as people who can't see past the democratic party and electoral strategies for change disparage people to their left, we're actually quite useful to you in some ways ;)

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with you (0.00 / 0)
    I think holding Obama to some political purity test is self-defeating. Clinton's folk don't do that. Neither do the Republicans really or else they'd be running from McCain and instead they're running TOWARD him.

    But if those who are holding him to ideological purity do so, then admit to Clinton supporters they were right about him. They warned you he wouldn't be the progressive God you thought he was.

    [ Parent ]
    i dont think you understood what i said (0.00 / 0)
    i think obama is FAR too centrist in his public persona - and it doesn't matter all that much right now what he privately thinks.  What I am saying is that if I criticize him as "too centrist" this actually helps him - because it allows him to depict himself as centrist and redefines what left, right, and center mean to someone a little more coherent and in line with global politics in rich countries.

    But if those who are holding him to ideological purity do so, then admit to Clinton supporters they were right about him. They warned you he wouldn't be the progressive God you thought he was.

    Do you want a cookie? :)  I don't understand the point of this other than to say "I told you so" :)  Also, some of us were under less illusions than others and some illusions haven't really been dispelled yet ;)

    [ Parent ]
    We're smarter than them. (4.00 / 1)
    We are smarter than the beltway elites who run Democratic campaigns. Why are we smarter? Because no one is offering us six and seven-figure lobbying contracts. No one is whispering in our ears at Georgetown cocktail parties. No mega-donors are waving big contributions in our faces. These are just a few of the things that beltway insiders swim in day in and day out that gradually make them stupid.

    miasmo.com
    [ Parent ]
    What's Obama's narrative? (4.00 / 2)
    "You can't be easily swayed by the opposing side's narrative."

    I can when our side has no developed competing narrative to define McCain. 'Small ball,' state-based issue attacks (DHL, Yucca Mt.) are not a substitute for a well defined, national narrative of who McCain is.

    McCain's narrative: Obama has a celebrity ego (uppity), will sell out his country for advancement and isn't ready to lead. McCain is a maverick who will put country first.

    Every McCain ad repeats these themes, over and over and over...

    By contrast, Obama's ads convey no repeated theme about McCain. Frank Rich stated in his column yesterday that 'people don't know who John McCain really is.' That is Obama's fault and a glaring indictment of his campaign strategy.  

    Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

    [ Parent ]
    Organization (4.00 / 4)
    The primariy difference between Obama and Kerry and Gore is the level of organization.  Kerry and Clinton basically relied on the same organizers (and I think gore did too).  Clinton lost because of that.

    The media game isn't too different, but that is not where this campaign will be won or lost

    The liberal wiki
    Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

    yes (0.00 / 0)
    It would seem that the state-level organizing by Obama is superior to those of the past. If so, it's partly due to having to fight for the nomination in every state (neither Gore nor Kerry had to do that) and partly to Obama's community organizer background. The optimist in me says that even if the national polls remain close Obama could win it rather easily thanks to successful GOTV efforts and just greater enthusiasm.
    [ Parent ]
    That's what people said about Kerry last time (0.00 / 0)
    that the GOTV would save him.

    Oh, and young voters! Young voters who don't have land lines and are therefore underrepresented in the polls!

    Sometimes the sky really is falling.  

    [ Parent ]
    This Could Even Be True, But... (4.00 / 1)
    The Reps keep getting lower, meaner, and more vicious with every cycle, so being tough enough to have won last time just doesn't cut it.  So even if true, it would be beside the point.

    Here's a hint:  No matter how valuable it is to have a rear view mirror, it's not what you use to see where you're headed.  Otherwise, trees and lampposts ensue.

    "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

    The Current Nominee is Always Tougher/Smarter than the Previous Losers | 46 comments
    		USER MENU

    Open Left Campaigns

    SEARCH

       

    Advanced Search

    QUICK HITS
    STATE BLOGS

    Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

      © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

    Powered by: SoapBlox