Are McCain Attacks Failing?

by: Matt Stoller

Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 20:39


Digby has a post up called 'Jackie Robinson Rules' about the way the McCain campaign is throwing around racial charged imagery and then blaming Obama for racism.  She quotes Rasmussen.

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the nation's voters say they've seen news coverage of the McCain campaign commercial that includes images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and suggests that Barack Obama is a celebrity just like them. Of those, just 22% say the ad was racist while 63% say it was not.

However, Obama's comment that his Republican opponent will try to scare people because Obama does not look like all the other presidents on dollar bills was seen as racist by 53%. Thirty-eight percent (38%) disagree.
Matt Stoller :: Are McCain Attacks Failing?
In other words, when McCain attacks based on identity and then turns around and calls Obama a racist, the public basically buys his story.  That strikes me as bad news.  I'm not sure how to rebut racist attacks, but it does seem to me like McCain is controlling the national conversation and keeping himself in the game.  This is a historically awful time to be a Republican, so he should be getting blown out.  Now, there's ample hand-wringing among various Obama boosters that America is just racist and can't stomach the thought of this remarkable man in office.  Aside from the fact that Obama is leading in the polls, there are other reasons to think that this formulation isn't true.

In politics, you can never really draw a straight line or apply one single cause to an event, but it does seem to me that this whole scenario is just another example of a Democrat being on defense and a Republican being on offense.  I mean, it's a little weird that George W. Bush is nowhere to be found this election season, that Iraq is off the table, and that Villager moo moos like John Kerry are kneecapping the only surrogate who actually criticized McCain on substantive grounds.  In polling, the majority of the country is still willing to vote for Obama, so it's not like Americans are unwilling to choose an African-American for President.  

Still, if you don't define your opponent, and don't respond with an attack of your own, you lose the debate.  I don't care what debate it is, you lose it...

Adding that Obama is still up substantially in the polls, so the answer to the question in the title should be 'yes'.  

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Are McCain Attacks Failing? | 49 comments
More and more (4.00 / 6)
it looks like Obama is rerunning John Kerry's 2004 campaign. Obama and his campaign managers seem to buy into the idea that since the public wants to see a Democrat elected, all he has to do is prove that he's an acceptable choice and he'll win.

Well, that's exactly what happened in 2004. The Kerry campaign believed that people wanted to vote Bush out, so all he had to do was prove that he was an acceptable alternative. So the Democratic convention was totally positive, highlighting Kerry's strengths, and no one was allowed to say anything bad about Bush. The Republican convention, on the other hand, was a nonstop attack on John Kerry.

I'm sure we all know how that election turned out.

I just don't get the passivity (4.00 / 1)
Yeah, the thing that disappoints me most isn't the tacking to the center so much as it is them totally taking the foot off the gas. At the end of the primaries Obama was having success taking it directly to McCain on what was supposed to be his strongest issue, foreign policy. He was offering a clear alternative to the GOP worldview and refusing to back down from it. Now McCain is attacking Obama's strengths, and our response is essentially a shrug? And we're doing crap like giving in on offshore drilling instead of strongly making a case for our own vision on energy, which even has the advantage of at least having some practical chance of working? Hillary panders on a gas tax holiday and Obama stands and fights and wins. McCain panders on drilling and he just gives in and goes along? What the hell?

Why are we ceding the narrative to him and just playing defense here? We have more resources and more energy and more everything, and the campaign is just not using it. Tack to the center if you want, but do it to take an issue away from McCain, not to run away from a fight where we're right and have a decent chance of winning.

The Mideast/Europe trip was a great idea, but since they've just ceded the field to McCain and let him undo most of the goodwill built up by that. They need to be coming out fighting and setting the agenda every damned day. I thought that was what they would do based on the transitional period at the end of the primaries, but evidently I was sadly mistaken. I hope they get their shit together during and after the convention, or this is going to be a lot closer than it should be.

[ Parent ]
You don't 'get the passivity'... that's the result of bemoaning 'partisanship' (0.00 / 0)
Obama is 'tsk tsking' the tactics of McSame, the more he 'tsks tsks' without hitting back he  reinforces the "Democrats are wimps' meme

He should be hitting back calling into question McSame's character and actually /state rhetorically: we can launch all these personal ads and say, actually say - here is one for example   - and show it and make it about McSame, and then state that's a sample of what the public will see for the next 90+ days or we can have ads about YOU, the American people and about the State of our Union but to also know this: that he cannot stand by and allow the same campaign strategists that swiftboated John Kerry  to do it to him and his campaign and to urge his supporters and those Americans who want an election to be a time when issues are discussed to email the McSame campaign to stop these ads... kind of like a 'ads race' that is modelled on an 'arms race' ...call for 'disarming those ads'

But right now we are getting just a weak response that will prove deadly in the long run....the longer one waits to address these ads which are directly questioning his character the harder it will be to stop them.

[ Parent ]
Kerry and Obama are not at all close (4.00 / 6)
There just isn't any realistic similarity between the two races.

1. Obama is not Kerry
John Kerry was a relatively unknown politician before becoming our candidate. He became our candidate because Dean and Dick attacked the hell out of each other and Kerry managed to sneak  in with a win in Iowa. Then he managed to win New Hampshire and catapulted to the nomination without building a national campaign structure or facing a tough opponent who relentlessly attacked him.

Barack Obama was already well known nationally before he started running. He faced the wife of the most popular Democratic President since Kennedy: Hillary Clinton. Probably the most established and well known Democrat not named Bill Clinton, one of the best politicians alive who put together one of the most powerful campaign teams yet. The race went on in every state and territory in the nation. Obama built up a HUGE national organization. He faced relentless attacks by his opponents and the media and got massive media coverage. Despite being disgusted with some of the things that Camp Clinton did Hillary Clinton clearly improved Barack Obama the candidate and allowed his campaign to build up a strong organization and I'm glad of that.

2. 2008 is not 2004
In 2004 George Bush was twice as popular as he is now. He had just launched a war and the economy was not in nearly as bad of shape. Bush was also the incumbent president and the Republican brand was much better. It's 2008 now though. John McCain is not the incumbent president but the incumbent president is Bush who is a member of his party and who has approval ratings of about 25 percent. The economy is in recession. The Republican brand is shot. Democrats are on the rise everywhere, demographics have shifted in our favor.

Our candidate is better, the political climate is better.

Obama ISN'T Kerry.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Kerry won because Dean couldn't organize a campaign (4.00 / 1)
He won on the ground game rather than anything to do with the media in my opinion

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com
[ Parent ]
True, Obama is not Kerry (4.00 / 5)
He's just rerunning Kerry's campaign.

He seems to think he can win by taking the high road while McCain slimes him at every opportunity. Well, we know from 2004 that he can't. We've seen this show before, and we know how it ends.

The image of McCain as a cross between George W. Bush and Abe Simpson should have been cemented in the public's minds by now. That Obama has not defined McCain by now is a major failure of his campaign, and I don't know if it's one they can come back from.

[ Parent ]
And despite all that... (4.00 / 3)

  ...the race remains very close.

  Think about it -- this should be a golden year for Democrats. The Dems have ALL the advantages.

  And all our presidential candidate can do is eke out a precarious three-point lead.

  Obama might not be Kerry. But he's getting the same results -- with far less excuse.

   

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

[ Parent ]
The politics of personal destruction works (4.00 / 3)
The way this campaign has unfold so far has been completely predictable. The Obama campaign has decided to "play it safe" because they had the lead; that lead has now all but evaporated, because while Obama was playing it safe, McCain was aggressively defining his opponent. This is what Obama should have been doing from the moment he clinched the nomination. By this point he should have established in the public's mind that McCain is a senile, blood thirsty, misogynistic, out of touch Washington insider who wears $500 shoes and doesn't care about the price of gas.

And the kicker is: Obama will go negative. He will. There will just be another month of hand wringing first. And by that point it will be too late.  

not really (4.00 / 1)
Obama is still up in the polls, actually.
[ Parent ]
Not according to Gallup and Rasmussen (0.00 / 0)
And they have the most current data.
[ Parent ]
Tracking Polls are notoriously bad... (4.00 / 2)
Putting all your eggs in tracking poll baskets is pur idiocy.  They are not known to be the most accurate things in the world.  THAT'S WHY WE USE THE AVERAGES!!! Pollster and RCP.  
[ Parent ]
And 538 (0.00 / 0)
which shows a slight downtick in tracking, as a result of the persistent low numbers.  

This Rasmussen poll is more distressing than anything, and I think we and the Obama campaign would do well to note it.  All it says is that a lie, well packaged, will do better than the truth lamely trailing.  Obama went out there with the dollar bill story - he ought to have stuck to his guns and called McCain on it. Instead, he backs down and says "McCain isn't racist."  

Maybe not.  But the ad was, and McCain knows that lots of voters are - and he's found a way to make it fun for those voters to exercise their racism.  

So - yeah.  Obama says he hits back - but the fact is - he DIDN'T hit back this time.  He took the punch, and since I'm funding this campaign, I'm pissed.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
Slight downtick... (4.00 / 1)
That is the key... and 538 is ok, but not in the same league as the other two.
[ Parent ]
Sorry to be off-topic but (0.00 / 0)
what was their track record this cycle?  538 was pretty on the money during the primaries, so I've become a loyal supporter (it makes all the difference in the world to watch the long game rather than the occasional poll!), and my impression was that the weird dynamics of this cycle have made most pollsters really off target.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
I agree Obama has to quit.... (4.00 / 1)
...this "rope-a-dope" stuff.

But calling an opponent racist will just kill an African-American candidate, even if it's true.

[ Parent ]
This is classic rope-a-dope (0.00 / 0)
Remember, the rope-a-dope worked for two reasons: one, Ali was good enough to get away with it. He could take the pounding by avoiding the big hit and absorbing a bunch of minor hits. Which brings us to the 2nd reason: when the timing was right, Ali would bounce off the ropes and fight back.

If Obama fights back now (or soon), he will be employing the rope-a-dope, not abandoning it.

[ Parent ]
We can quibble over the polls (4.00 / 1)
but I think it's obvious that the race has tightened quite a bit. Whether the polling averages show a dead heat or a 1-2 point lead for Obama, the point is that he's hardly in a position to rest on his laurels.  
[ Parent ]
Drew Westen has an excellent (0.00 / 0)
response sen. Obama should give over at Huffpo -- wish the Obama camp would call bs on the McLame camp...
[ Parent ]
I Have To Admit, I Don't Know What To Make Of This (4.00 / 4)
I was thinking about writing a diary on it, but I was completely flummoxed.  It's not just that 53% of all Americans think that Obama's statement was racist, but that included 44% of African-Americans.

Now, here's what Obama said:

"They're going to try to scare you. You know, 'He's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name.' You know, 'He doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills,'"

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how 44% of African-Americans think that is a racist statement.

Of course, I completely agree with what you're saying about the Obama campaign, and this was always a fear I shared, that Obama would not fight back effectively.

But I'm still just utterly floored at the black response to this.

"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

Maybe (4.00 / 4)
Because it was a crap poll, or poorly phrased. That seems most likely to me.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.
[ Parent ]
Exactly! (4.00 / 3)
The way the poll is worded I could easily see many people saying yes when they actually think McCain is being racist (for doing what Obama says they are going to do) and not Obama.  Confused?  Well you should be given the way this "poll" is worded:

"Barack Obama said his opponent will try to scare people because Obama does not look like the other Presidents on dollar bills. Is that a racist comment?

Also, I cannot access the crosstabs.  Does anyone know what the voting preferences are for the sample?

[ Parent ]
I've long perceived a Republican bias (0.00 / 0)
with Rasmussen. The owner, Scott Rasmussen, is a Christian conservative who has a regular gig on Faux News. The political commentary on his site indisputably leans Republican, much like Real Clear Politics. This doesn't mean Rasmussen's polling itself is biased but I've often found that the way he frames the questions and reports on the results is slanted. This latest one is a clear example, as you point out, and it's hard to believe it was accidental.

The fact that there's such little racial disparity on this question - 53% of whites saying the comment was racist and 44% of blacks - should ring alarm bells. It strongly suggests that people were confused.

Further, Rasmussen asks how many have been exposed to coverage of McCain's ad but doesn't ask how many have actually heard or read Obama's comment. He thinks it's enough to just cut Obama's comment down to a paraphrased snippet. So for McCain it's "are you aware of his ad?" and for Obama it's "let me briefly paraphrase what he said, with no context whatsoever, and frame the question in an ambiguous fashion." That's fair representation to Rasmussen, and that speaks volumes to me.

However, Obama gets no slack from me because, politically, it was a dumb thing to say, and the least he could have done after saying it was point out that McCain has in fact run an ad putting Obama on the dollar bill. It's 2000/2004 all over again.

[ Parent ]
I won't defend (0.00 / 0)
this particular poll nor Scott Rasmussen's GOP leanings.  But he had an incredible record in the 2004 general that should be acknowledged.  The last Ras tracker in 2004 had the race 50.2% to 48.5% for Bush, and the popular vote ended up 50.7% to 48.3%.  Further, the final Rasmussen state polls correctly predicted the winner in all 24 states in which they were conducted (one might have been a tie in the poll), including several that were very close.  Rasmussen has as good a record as anybody.  If anything, the question really should be why people put so much faith in these other polling outfits that do national polls irregularly.


John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the info (0.00 / 0)
I didn't make any claim about Rasmussen's national or state polls, just that his issue polls often seem slanted. Also, Rasmussen's approval ratings are often very strange and more favorable to Republicans.
[ Parent ]
agreed... (4.00 / 1)
One poll... not the gospel.
[ Parent ]
That 44% actually kinda gives me hope. (4.00 / 1)
I imagine people were told something like, "Was Obama's comment that his Republican opponent will try to scare people because Obama does not look like all the other presidents on dollar bills racist."

And they heard "blah blah blah saying that Obama doesn't look like the other presidents is blah blah racist?"

And anyone who thinks there have been racist attacks on Obama will say "yes".

[ Parent ]
I'm African-American (0.00 / 0)
and I suspect had I been polled when the story first broke I'd have been in that 44 percent.  Here's what I wrote on my site:

Last night I was hearing everyone talk about how Obama made a mistake - that McCain "himself" never played the race card, even if some fringe periphery groups might have.  I thought that argument was sound, and then I saw this, from 2 months ago... (cue the race-baiting video)

What that means is that when the story first broke - it sounded like Obama was out of the blue accusing McCain of race-baiting.  The structure of the polling makes it sound like a judgment of who's at fault in this dispute - I would have said Obama.  So no - Obama isn't "racist" to have said it, but he was seen as at fault, and given the structure of the comparison, that might have been the resultant response.

Obama should have, when pushed, called McCain on the racist ads that proved his point, instead of backing down.  Then the public would KNOW - hey - McCain (or someone in his camp) really is doing some race-baiting.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
Why they think it was "racist" -- (4.00 / 3)
because, without even using the word, he pointed out he was Black. And in US political discourse, mentioning the effect of race is "racist."

White supremacy is the country's original sin and we are warped and rendered moronic by its residues.

Can it happen here?

[ Parent ]
Yes, But (4.00 / 1)
Why do 44% of blacks say this?

I know very well that blacks internalize a great deal of dominant ideology, they underestimate the impacts of racism even in contradiction to their own experience, and all that.  But this really seems like one of those areas where this sort of thinking would not penetrate.  In fact, I have a damn hard time coming up with a model of how/why a black person might say such a thing.

"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

[ Parent ]
See above. (0.00 / 0)
Given the way the question was phrased, it seems probable that most of the black respondents, and maybe most of the white ones as well, who said that Obama's comment was racist actually meant that the position Obama attributed to McCain was racist: that Obama is scary because "Obama does not look like the other Presidents on dollar bills."  Basically, the ambiguous phrasing makes this a garbage poll; analyzing the results is useless because it's unclear what the respondents were actually responding to.

"A fantasy is not even a wish, much less an act.  There is no such thing as a culpable or shameful fantasy."  -----Lady Sally McGee
[ Parent ]
Apparently... (3.43 / 7)

 ...when the McCain campaign brought in Karl Rove, the Obama campaign must have brought in Bob Shrum.

 Once a battered spouse, always a battered spouse.

 

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

That hurts. (4.00 / 1)
Because it sounds too true.
[ Parent ]
so what's the solution to define McCain on the race card/indentity issue that he will use (0.00 / 0)
until the election in Nov?
Famous Democratic Fighting Words (4.00 / 3)

 "No more blank checks for Iraq."

 "We're going to drain the swamp."

 "The president will be held accountable."

 "The gloves are off."

 "I'm ready for the Republicans. I know what they did to Max Cleland."

 "I'm ready for the Republicans. I know what they did to John Kerry."

  Plus les choses changent, plus elles restent les memes.

  I just can't fathom why the Democrats are perceived as "weak". I just can't. It's a just a complete mystery.

 

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

Recall The Bradley Effect (0.00 / 0)
The on-going lead in the polls for Obama is often mentioned as proof that whites are accepting of an African-American as President, as in Matt's post, yet it is unfortunately necessary to recall the so-called Bradley Effect, named for former LA Mayor Tom Bradley.

First noted in the 1982 race for Governor of California, where Tom Bradley was up in the final polls and led in all exit polls, he lost due to a significant drop in actual support among white voters versus what they told pollsters in early November and exit pollsters.

This "Bradley Effect" was further witnessed in many future races, some where the minority candidate won but by smaller than expected margins (Wilder, 1989), and others where the poll-leading minority candidate lost (Gantt, 1990).

Today, long-time Dem pollster Peter Hart said that he believes that about 10% of the white Dems and Independents who are saying that they support Barack, do not in fact support him.

My point is to simply reference history that requires us, I believe, to be particularly skeptical of what the polls are telling us, be it at the state or national level.


Hi noob (4.00 / 2)
Welcome to the site... That's been debunked many many many many times on here. It's called Google... learn how to use it.
[ Parent ]
Sales vs engineering (4.00 / 1)
This is somewhat off topic but it is actually fairly relevant.

Generally I feel like the media is the sales aspect of the campaign business while organizing is the engineering aspect.

Because organizing is rather invisible it is ignored unless something just isn't working even though is the most crucial aspect of the campaign.

Sales (and the media) gets a lot of attention because the results are immediate and short term.  But fundamentally it is almost always a short term phenomenon.  Campaigns focused too much on the media aspects will not understand that they are winning in the short term, but ignoring the long term.

The point of all of this?  Bush's attacks were pretty unremarkable as far as Republican campaigns go.  But Karl Rove also spent a lot of the time organizing new groups.  That is what brought it close enough to steal.

So while focusing on the media aspects of a campaign is easy and the organizing aspects is hard ultimately not even the Reverend Wright video had any long term effect.  If it didn't have any effect then why would you expect some attack like this to have any effect?

McCain is not a good organizer as far as I can tell and Barack Obama is.  The election will be decided on organizational ability, but the media attacks will get all the credit.

This is a historically awful time to be a Republican, so he should be getting blown out.

Also history shows this not to be true.  People made recent comparisons to Reagan and carter and that election would suggest that the race should be fairly close until much closer to the election time.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com
True. (0.00 / 0)

Although the history of business is littered with examples of marketing sabotaging engineering and vice versa.

[ Parent ]
Somebody tell me again... (4.00 / 2)
...why John McCain was allowed to browbeat Wes Clark for saying the obvious truth that getting shot down and captured is not indicative of leadership ability.  Tell me why Obama called McCain "as honorable man" just the other day in his response to the barrage of filthy demagoguery unleashed by his campaign.

Democrats lose when they act like losers--and they so often do.

Show me a good loser..... (0.00 / 0)
...and I'll show you a loser.

[ Parent ]
Doesn't surprise me (4.00 / 3)
People constantly want to believe that racism is a dead issue in this day and age. Is it time to swing away from race and towards triviality? e.g.

"While the Prime Minister of Iraq is endorsing Obama's plan to handle the situation, John McCain is running on Paris Hilton."

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

Not taking on "Straight Talk" (4.00 / 1)
Why hasn't there been one paid ad (let alone a developed theme) from any entity -- the Obama campaign, the DNC, MoveOn, any 527, etc. -- attacking directly the concept of "Straight Talk" from McCain?  There are many examples of McCain saying things that are flat out false, yet the ads and theme development are left begging. DFH blog posts and Youtube vids are not enough -- it requires concerted, paid media theme development from the candidate to mainstream it into the media/public discourse.

"Straight Talk" should be used as a cudgel. It should be converted to be public ridicule of McCain; Should be the butt of Letterman/Leno jokes; Should make McCain's travel on the ST Express disqualify of his credibility; Should force McCain to be careful speaking for fear of adding to the problem; Should force the media to scrutinize McCain statements for lack of straight talk.

When the Bush, Rove and the GOP ran against a "War Hero" they tore that image down and ruined Kerry's foundation. Now we're running against a "Straight Talker" who speaks BS. Why isn't the Obama campaign tearing that image and foundation down? Directly. By its name. All the time.

If Obama thinks positive themes and his awesomeness are all that's required to win then McCain's cracks about Obama's ego are spot on correct and we're going to lose again...

"Don't take much, does it, elected Democrats, to get your balls tucked up." Cf.

Best Evidence (0.00 / 0)
What topic was discussed on every Sunday talk show? Paris and Britney. Did that ad or "The One" ad actually run? Pretty good tactic for an incompetent campaign.

McCain needs to keep things close until Labor day and attack ads will keep a worn out Obama on his heels. The race will change significantly after the conventions. Obama will shed the extreme Left(already started to) and McCain the extreme Right. Neither base is going anywhere. By November 1st it will hard to tell them apart.

All Part of Obama's Strategy? (0.00 / 0)
I know this may seem far-fetched at first glance, but maybe Obama's 'passivity' of late is part of the strategic or tactical gameplan. Hear me out:

I believe there is a such thing as "Obama-fatigue", whereby voters start to get more cynical the more and more Obama whips out the inspirational rhetoric, or the more he attacks the Republicans in a (relatively) aggressive way. Therefore, it makes sense for Obama to 'lay low' for a while at the very time (the summer) when the 'daily news' impact has the least effect on the actual election.

Moreover, by laying low now, it may very well put McCain off-balance. If you don't see this, think of what the converse would do -- if Obama went all out this summer to sell himself and his platform, in a more aggressive manner, McCain and his team would know exactly what kind of counterattack to launch. By putting the impetus on McCain, it forces McCain to act 'first' if he wants to improve his poll numbers (which is what he has been trying to do for the past week, with perhaps some success).

There is another, perhaps more controversial, idea for why Obama isn't selling himself that well this summer, and it is this: by giving McCain some rope, allowing him to improve his poll numbers vs. Obama, it improves Obama's chances to win the election in the long-run. There are a number of reasons for this. First, it moves many Obama supporters away from complacency, giving more of a reason for them to donate money (!). It also gives people more of an impetus for voting in the Fall (the concept of "my one vote doesn't really matter" seems less valid the closer the two candidates have come in polling at some point). It shows his supporters and undecideds that he is indeed not going to be able to waltz to the White House, which is an important thing if you want big turnout on election day (and Obama does).

Now, according to this kind of strategy, about a month before the election in November, Obama will ramp up the aggressiveness as well as the hope rhetoric. He'll sell himself and his platform in a much, much more effective manner. For example, he'll hammer home why his economic policies are better than McCain's for the average American. He'll reiterate why the country needs change with regards to foreign policy, health care, education, infrastructure, energy, and jobs. After all, McCain knows jack shit about the economy, as he's said before. This is a weakness Obama, it seems clear, will readily exploit as the election draws nearer. If he were to do all this now, it makes it easier for votes to 'forget' these sorts of arguments by election day, and instead focus on the issues of the moment. By waiting until the election draws closer, he forces the media to cover the "fierce" debate the Obama will push into the forefront, and so it will thus be in the forefront of many more voters minds. This 'recency effect' is a powerful concept, as all students of psychology know.

In sum, why isn't he doing all that now? To reduce long-term Obama-fatigue, to force McCain to lay out his hands now, and to make sure his supporters and others don't go into a mode of complacency in November.

Politically suave? Certainly. There's no reason to think that Obama or his staff would reject such a strategy -- it is not low-road. The question is, do the benefits listed above outway the negatives that we are seeing? I think so, and that's why I think it's very possible that he is sticking this strategy for some of the reasons described.

I don't get it either (0.00 / 0)
The only explanation I can come up with for the passivity is that he's really, really, really trying to walk the walk about a new kind of politics or whatever. That's admirable, but it seems to me that there is a lot of ground on which to criticize McCain without losing the high ground.

There are two routes for this -- go negative on John McCain for going negative. The straight talk express has gone off the rails, or some such.

The other route, in my mind, would be to scare people about McCain -- and turn the whole "Is He Ready to Lead?" thing on its head.

Something like . . .

John McCain doesn't know who's fighting who in Iraq. (Sunni Shia mistakes). John McCain doesn't know where Iraq is. (Iraq/Pakistan mistake.) John McCain doesn't know where he stands on birth control. (Shot of him figuring out who to respnd about birth control vs. viagra.) John McCain's advisor's think the struggling economy is all in your heads.(Phil Gram). John McCain thinks bombing people is funny. (Bomb Iran clip.) John McCain doesn't tell the truth about his political opponents. (Newspaper quotes about wounded soldier visits.) John McCain wants to have it both ways. (Bit about the ads they had prepped in case Obama did visit the soldiers.)

John McCain asks whether Barack Obama is ready to lead. Maybe, for John McCain, it's already too late.

I actually wouldn't put in the dig at him for being old at the end  and would instead use something like "Does John McCain have the knowledge to lead?"

And I realize that's a lot of points -- break it into two commercials!

What's interesting to me is that Barack has shown good jujitsu or whatever in his speeches. They're just not running any commercials and they're not doing a good job on the talk shows.

I can imagine them simply weathering the storm and its almost already too late to start hitting back, because it'll look like he's reacting not to the punches but the perception that the punches landed, but I still hope they make some kind of positive move next week. With a few wins, Obama could produce the impression that McCain's negative attacks don't work. Implanting that perception in the minds of the media and in McCain's campaign puts Obama back on solid ground.

here is the deal (0.00 / 0)
race is the ONLY issue that McCain can win on - not win by 0.1% and a recount - win as in win by an uncontestable percentage (as opposed to something like oil drilling, which will affect how many votes?).

Here's how it works - McCain runs a racist ad.
Obama responds - the dialogue becomes even more about the fact that Obama is Black.
Obama doesn't respond - the racist charge is allowed to stay and the racist ad gets embedded in people's minds.

Obama has two strategies that I can think of - try to deflect to actual issues - economy, Iraq, etc. - which is what Democrats have  been doing up to this election and which is more plausible in this election than it was in 2004 because we've simply waited, as Chris pointed dout earlier, until the Republicans enact horrible policies and watch their results (like flooded cities, costly wars that destroy societies and like most wars are violent beyond belief in addition to being imperialist and threaten regional stability, collapsed bridges, cranes collapsing in new york, increasing danger from greenhouse gases, etc., etc.).

The other solution is to go negative on McCain's weak points - he's old, he's out of touch, he self-professedly understands nothing about economics - he self-professedly doesn't understand how to use the computer.  The reason why Obama couldn't "Close the deal" against Clinton is because he wasn't willing to PUBLICLY sink to the 90s style politics and the reason he might lose this election (which he shouldn't) maybe that he isn't willing to do so here.

a third option would be to consistently and constantly reinforce the idea that McCain and the Republicans are racists or call them out on all kinds of things (lilke the economy--the guy was a member of the fucking Keating 5 for god's sake - that makes the subprime mortgage scandal look like angels playing in a field).  This has the advantage of being 1) true 2) progressive 3) potentially useful in broader terms (i.e. if successful it would be a lesson that the Southern strategy doesn't work anymore).  The danger is that it's a high risk strategy - if it went wrong, it would go disastrously wrong (see potential conundrum above).  Whether or not you think it's a good idea probably rests on what you think of the American voter and whether you think the discourse has moved far enough for this public type of call out.

a fourth option, i guess, would be for them to wait for the rest of us to do this, but not among ourselves, but where the blogosphere meets the real world - in the media :)  this would also give us more leverage right now, because he could get destroyed on this issue the way that kerry got destroyed in the media narrative on "flip flopper" and "unpatriotic" and just generally because half of american voters seemed unable to get beyond basic untruths (whether or not Kerry won).  This would point to why it's a really bad idea to alienate your base by moving to the right ;)

these are just analytical points - in real life - there's may be a more creative solution to come up that balances the campaign's values, its needs, its ethics, its will to power, etc., and that's probably what they're trying to figure out.  HOpe they succeed, but I have no better ideas.  But they can clear run circles around mccain on campaigning alone (hello green curtains?)

McCain getting blown out is a fantasy (0.00 / 0)
He shouldn't be getting blown out.

You WANT McCain to get blown out.  

All of the last 15 Prez elections should have been D blow outs.

But most of the country doesn't think like you or I.  

Too early to be too worried (0.00 / 0)
Until recently, McCain was been criticized by Republicans for wasting the primary months by not giving Obama an identity before Obama could identify himself.  McCain still has not done that, I wonder if it's possible for him to do so.

I'd be worried if McCain was launching that identity campaign and Obama was not responding.

Other elements being discussed recently (like "who played the racial card first") seem ephemeral in the scheme of a political campaign, especially since today is only August 4.  If this was mid-October, then I'd be worried about their effect.

But we still have the VP announcements and the conventions; my sense is that independent voters begin to really pay attention to the race about then. The primary season demonstrated that Obama's campaign and his polling numbers are strongest in the home stretch of the campaign.  

If Obama is remains in the lead just before the conventions and McCain hasn't negatively branded Obama yet, McCain will likely become more desparate, to his own disadvantage.  

We'll see.

Why not deal with the Ad? (0.00 / 0)
Why won't the left deal with the Britney ad on its terms?

I read posts about 'dogwhistles'- as if a very strained interpretation of the imagery overrides the import of the ad.  To most people, the ad is about whether Obama is a lightweight fad, or a serious politician with the experience to lead.  This isn't bad news, because in fact that is what the ad is about.  We haven't descended into a racial sewer, no matter how badly some would like to believe we have.  

There is an anti-youth message in the ad, perhaps, but it is just a line of attack to portray Obama as elitist and insubstantial.    

The mistake is taking bait that isn't there.  Calling the Britney ad racist is not going to help Obama - because the racial element, if it exists at all, isn't the focus of the ad.  Defending Obama's "currency" comment based on the Britney ad is also going to fail.  

Democrats are on the defensive because they play offense so badly.  A sensible response to the attack would be to counter the "elitist" message.  A sensible defense of the currency comment would be to point to the actual racist attacks on Obama, which do not bear McCain's fingerprints, and ask McCain to more forcefully denounce them.  Insisting that McCain is racist - when most people, including me, think the racist element is minimal to nonexistent - is a bad idea.  Being a bad idea, naturally Democrats will rush to embrace it, and then wonder why they find themselves out of step with the "ordinary people" that the Republicans seem to court so well.

Are McCain Attacks Failing? | 49 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.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox