Obama Down by Double Digits on Iraq

by: Matt Stoller

Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 22:53


Sam Stein is a good journalist, and he reports a story that the Obama camp apparently thinks John Kerry is their best surrogate.
Matt Stoller :: Obama Down by Double Digits on Iraq
In the past week alone, Kerry delivered a major address on counterterrorism in which he systematically ripped apart John McCain's foreign policy depth and understanding. He took to the airwaves to defend Obama against charges of celebrity, before turning in a highly praised performance on Meet the Press against Democrat turned Democratic-thorn Joseph Lieberman...

"He really is doing a great job," said Hari Sevugan, a spokesman for the Illinois Democrat. Added an aide who had worked on the 2004 campaign: "Kerry is a content and happy warrior for Obama. He's been an extraordinarily effective surrogate, on everything from finding an end to the war to beating the Republican attack machine. He's hit his stride on many levels."

Since June, and despite Obama's foreign policy trip and McCain's ridiculous posturing on Iraq (and the Republican strategist who said that 'we're fucked' in response to the Iraqi Prime Minister's endorsement of Obama's withdrawal plan), Obama has lost five points on Iraq, with McCain seen as being better able to manage the war by
51%-36% of the public, acccording to Time.  According to Rasmussen, it's much worse.  McCain's up 51%-39% on Iraq, but he's also up on immigration by nine points, balancing the Federal budget by three points, and he's even pulled ahead of Obama on Social Security by 44-38, a remarkable six points.  Obama's even lost substantial ground on health care and the environment, and of course, McCain leads Obama by twelve on national security.

That's just a few polls, and Obama's clearly going to win this thing.  I mean, George Bush is the worst President we've ever had and John McCain is an old, crazy and cancer-stricken lunatic running a sloppy and undisciplined campaign.  

But John Kerry as a good surrogate?  Come on.  Seriously, this is a messed up messaging operation, if they think that Kerry's stuff is sticking.

Some days I wish I hadn't stopped sniffing glue and all that.

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Obama Down by Double Digits on Iraq | 22 comments
Do you ever have anything positive to say, Matt? (3.33 / 6)
Man... you are always so negative...

Who cares how Obama polls in individual stuff.  Kerry polled higher in almost ever subcategory and Bush still won...  Democrats as a whole have always polled higher on issues and yet, until recently, have always lost big.

What matters is that people are still choosing Obama despite their concerns...  assuming that these polling numbers are even accurate... we don't know what questions they asked, or how they asked them...

Kerry has been a good surrogate... one of the few surrogates out there really willing to put it out on the line... we need more like him.

Maybe he hasn't been as "effective" as one would like, but he's pretty much out there alone!  We could use a few more...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

Why do we "always lose big?" (4.00 / 1)
Bob Somerby and Rick Pearlstein have an idea why. Here's Somerby's take on Kerry's surrogate performance last week, and of the Dems performance in genedral, in this post called, HOW OUR SIDE LOSES ELECTIONS.

Rick Pearlstein makes a very similar point in his post, FNB Politics.

Their basic idea is that the GOP excels at smearing Democratic presidential candidates (in particular) by making their image unpalatable to the general public. And furthermore, that in their responses to these GOP smears,  liberal Dems often come off as shrieking and hypersensitive. And that turns off voters.

Both posts are good reading and instructive as to how Dems should respond to these attacks. And as Pearlstein has noted, this year the GOP got nuthin', so these attacks are only gonna intensify. As a friend of Josh Marshall's "in DC Republican circles" noted yesterday:

I think you may be missing a key element of McCain's strategy. Remember, he has NO national ground game to counter Obama's vaunted field organization. No Bush-style 72 hour GOTV operation, no large and disciplined staff -- just a small core staff and media operation. In order to win without a ground game he literally has to destroy Obama as a viable alternative -- it isn't enough to just get close. That means the ads will be harder edged, more plentiful and more relentless than we've ever seen. I think Mark McKinnon realized that early on, and didn't want to be the guy to do to Obama what has to be done to win, as that person will become a political scourge (a la Atwater) when all is said and done, even if it works.


[ Parent ]
Gore won 55%-40% on all issues (4.00 / 9)
It's true. Among the 62% of the electorate that claimed isues where more importnat to them than character, Gore won 55%-40% over Bush in 2000.

I can see the argument about Kerry being a bad surrogate, but it isn't because of the issues. Obama actually gained a point on McCain since the June Time (47-43) poll, even though he dropped in all those issues. Time seems to have brought them up because they needed a negative hook on Obama. Otherwise, the story is boring, because the poll didn't really change from last time.

My point is that issues aren't the key here. Gore and Kerry didn't lose because of issues. Or, at least they didn't lose becasue of the way issues have been defined by pollsters and interests groups.

By the same logic, Kerry isn't a bad surrogate because of his lack of understanding on the issues, but rather because he isn't a very good speaker, and that people just don't seem to like him very much. Then again, maybe I am just projecting my own feelings onto the country in that last bit.

He did get a few good digs in (4.00 / 5)
at Joe Lieberman. But as usual, couldn't finish the job and completely rip him apart and expose him as the fraud he is (like how about directly asking him how the Paris Hilton ad does not 'cheapen the political discourse' as Liberman had moaned about in 1998).
[ Parent ]
well... (0.00 / 0)
Isn't that sort of the problem?  I mean when it comes to character, McCain is going to poll pretty damn high. Obama is here to win it on better policy ideas...  
[ Parent ]
no way (0.00 / 0)
No one wins on issues. Gore and Kerry both led on the issues that "mattered most to most Americans" and lost-- which lead to all the What's The Matter With Kansas why-don't-people-vote-their-interests soul searching, then the Rockridge Institute/"framing" ideas. Issues are not ultimately why we picked Obama over the other primary candidates. We did it  because he has the ineffable "It" quality that will, barring unforeseen events, win him the election, imho.  
[ Parent ]
Strange reply, Chris (0.00 / 0)
Among the 62% of the electorate that claimed isues where more importnat to them than character, Gore won 55%-40% over Bush in 2000.

Well, okay, but that's an off-point point. The fact is that in every election there are one or two or three defining issues. Right now the economy is overshadowing everything, hence Obama's lead, but if Israel attacks Iran or there's a big upsurge of violence or there's a terrorist attack in this country, Obama's disadvantage on Iraq and terrorism could cost him the election--and the decision to rely on Kerry will look even worse. We have to hope that the economy and energy stay forefront; otherwise all bets are off.

[ Parent ]
just when i was thinking (2.00 / 4)
how you hadn't trashed a dem today, you snuck one in under the wire.


Politics is not like a football game... (4.00 / 2)
I wish you would stop looking at it that way.
[ Parent ]
90 days prior to the biggest election (4.00 / 1)
in recent memory....demands loyalty to the team.

Its 90 days out of a life time. It is a reasonable request.

[ Parent ]
it's just a silly VP story plus a payback to Kerry (4.00 / 5)
Look, they've run out of things to write, so we get some aides praising Kerry -- a nice payback to him -- and then saying he'd be a good VP.  

What, you want stories about how the Obama camp is divided and off message?



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

Oops! You mean Sam Stein (0.00 / 0)
But you're right.  Sam Smith is a great journalist.
as i said elsewhere, who in the f*ck is talking about kerry? now, that is? (4.00 / 1)
no one i know, not me, not anyone 'on the ground' in my area, certainly not my local papers or people with a small to medium level of political involvement. i can't think of the last time a mass of commenters or fellow bloggers repeatedly brought him up. sure, he's on teevee and is acting like a 'fighting dem' or somesuch, according to sam. yawn that's nice. what were you saying again, about some guy named john?

seriously, there's only one thing on people's minds out here: the economy/energy prices. the war hovers close too, people are starting to remember "gas will be cheaper and the war will pay for itself." so i tend to agree with matt that between the stupid campaign mcshame is running, and the fact that people are often not too critical and seem to accept that obama = change, obama's got a fairly decent shot at winning, national and issue polls be damned. heh, it's funny to see you arguing against a poll's value, chris. (good natured) snicker.

anyway, this is for the Village. it has no practical value to me as an on the ground organizer, or writer. i really don't give a flying pig about what kerry says anymore. there's plenty for him to do in the senate; he could start using his senate 'hold' privs and start making it impossible for the DINOs/rethugs to get anything done. that would impress me. this? feh. say, what ever happened to that $14m 'count all the votes' fund, anyway? i suppose it bought someone a nice windsufing thingee.

It's not about the issues (0.00 / 0)
Because no one in the media is talking issues. It's ALL about the ads. The McCain ads. First the ad about Obama not visiting the troops in Germany, and then on to the celebrity series...Listen, the GOP got nuthin' issue-wise or groundgame-wise, so it's just gonna be a media onslaught from here on in with them  trying to turn our candidate into Brother from Another Planet. The Obama camp would be wise to handle the smeary crap better than they have to date. Sadly, the most effective response thusfar is a video starring Paris Hilton from the co-founder of the website  Funny or Die, Adam McKay.

C'mon Dems. Get a freaking clue...

[ Parent ]
McCain better on Social Security? (4.00 / 1)
Still having trouble getting my mind around that.
Cause he's on it (4.00 / 1)
so he must know better how to fix it?
[ Parent ]
you and me both (4.00 / 3)
McCain wants to privatize Social Security, McSame as Bush. If Obama started pointing this out, McCain's numbers among seniors would crater and that would be the end of John McCain. Why Obama isn't doing so is a complete mystery to me.  
[ Parent ]
people misheard the question (4.00 / 1)
they thought it was "who is more likely to be receiving Social Security"
[ Parent ]
Is there actually evidence Kerry's causing the numbers? (4.00 / 1)
I'm kind of neutral about Kerry.  He sounds good to me, but I recognize he has some baggage.

But in any event, I don't follow how any downturn on the numbers could conceivably be attributed to Kerry.

So who do we have without baggage? (0.00 / 0)
Republicans are good at hanging baggage on prominent Democrats. That's just how it goes. Kerry is a pretty good foil against McCain for several reasons: One is their former collegiality which McCain had to get rid of in order to appease the right wing. Another is the fact that Kerry reminds us of the buyer's remorse of re-electing Bush. But more importantly, Kerry is more focused and on topic on behalf of Obama than he ever was campaigning for himself.

I never loved Kerry (though I loved the documentary movie Going Upriver, which made me realize how awesome Kerry used to be in the 70s), but I thought he'd make a decent president. It was good for Obama to have Kerry on his side in the primaries. And he's still doing a good job.

And let's face it, Hillary is just not willing to go to bat for her party like Kerry is.

[ Parent ]
Kerry has been 'extremely' loyal (0.00 / 0)
So I can understand why they are going a little over the top.
If this drop is real (4.00 / 1)
it likely has nothing to do with Kerry.
Obama Down by Double Digits on Iraq | 22 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