Constructive Criticism Towards the Obama Campaign

by: Matt Stoller

Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 13:28


Today, I went on the record in a Washington Post piece about the Obama campaign, mostly because a lot of other people can't and because the Obama campaign seems completely and utterly uninterested in feedback (it changed briefly for a few weeks, but they seem to be back in their bunker).  The commercials are boring and stale, the messaging towards McCain's attacks just isn't sharp, labor blew a bunch of money in the primary, and they've defunded the additional groups that could really go after McCain for his own corruption.  The Republicans might actually be able to outspend Obama, with outside groups and the RNC added in to the total.  Moreover, and this I did not expect, mainstream journalists are getting angry with the Obama campaign, because they are getting complaints from the leadership of the campaign even as they aggressively fact-checked McCain's latest salvo of ads.  Now I want the traditional media destroyed, but they actually have done a good job proving McCain's ads false this past week (which is what Obama's people wanted).  Of course, having the media participate in a liberal-wide hissy-fit was exactly what the McCain campaign sought, so I don't know exactly what the game plan is here.

Regardless, here's what I said in the paper.

"It literally is the same old Democratic, consultant-driven politics," said Matt Stoller, a Democratic political consultant and blogger. "It's the same attempt not to tell a story about the country and the other guy, but to prove you're right, like an academic debating seminar."

The Obama campaign is heavily resistant to feedback, and more than that, it is angrily dismissive of the concerns of the people who voted for Obama over Clinton in the primary.  Here's Plouffe.

"We have a game plan and a strategy, and we're going to continue to execute it. We're not going to be terribly worried about people playing armchair quarterback," Plouffe said. "By November 4, there are character dimensions to John McCain that are going to be clear."
Matt Stoller :: Constructive Criticism Towards the Obama Campaign
Now, I made sure to tell the journalist that I think that Obama is going to win, and when he asked me what I would do differently, I said that I didn't know.  I've never run a Presidential campaign and I'm not going to pretend like I have access to all the data and strategic insights that they have had years to build.  But I wasn't speaking up because I think the Obama campaign should change their strategy, but because I'm ashamed of the person who I voted for to be the leader of my party.

When John Kerry goes on a Sunday show and says that he's 'in awe' of John McCain's service, but feels free to undermine Wes Clark's, and the Obama campaign thinks of Kerry as their top surrogate, it's shameful.  When John McCain's economic advisor calls America a nation of whiners, and we don't hear anything more about that in ads or anywhere else, it's shameful.  When the Iraqi PM endorses Obama's call for withdrawal, and McCain still leads on the issue of Iraq by double-digits, it's shameful.

We all know that winning this election is not enough.  It's just not.  It's not even close.  This is the most unpopular President we've ever had and our opponent is a crazy cancer-ridden dishonest madman.  Our nominee should crush this guy.  And if he doesn't, then next year, the Generals are going to come out and undermine Obama unless he pursues neoconservative policies, and he's not going to have set himself up for establishing civilian control of the military because he's continued the ridiculous tradition of criticism of our militaristic political system being off-limits (check out this list from Steve Clemons and you'll see that the conservative tilt of the Obama administration is becoming clear).  

If Obama wins, and I think he will, he will win like Jimmy Carter won.  He'll win as an operational conservative, because that's what his campaign believes.  Plouffe basically said 'Shut the fuck up, you little people, you have no idea what it takes to win.'  That may or may not be true, but Obama and his inner circle are completely unconcerned with their responsibility to the people who voted him the nomination, so much so that they think nothing of openly lying on core Constitutional issues.

There's an issue of public trust.  Now in terms of electoral strategy, I can think of a lot of stuff he could do differently, but honestly, ideas are not hard, what's hard is bringing in new people and empowering them to be creative.  What's hard is standing up to powerful interests, starting with the Democratic consultant class which is begging everyone to worship McCain's military service and integrity.  That is something the Obama campaign just isn't doing.  It's never done it, that was always obvious.  I hope they start, but I don't think they will.  Some of my savvier friends are more optimistic than I am, so I hope to be proven wrong.  But I expect this article, if it's read at all, will be read inside the campaign with the same mixture of loathing and bitterness that characterizes all thin-skinned insiders who consider themselves liberal while acting like conservatives and resenting all feedback that does not comport with their message that they are running the most grassroots and inclusive campaign in history.


Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
It is important, (4.00 / 9)
critical even to disinguish the "consultant media driven politics" from the enourmous investment in a grass roots campaign, which represents a fundemental departure from recent Democratic Campaigns.

I think the Obama advertising is boring - and a worse criticism you can't make with respect to advertising.  I think the Obama focus on the grass roots is one of the most significant developments in Democratic Politics in the last 30 years.  They are putting there money where there mouth is.  

To the extent you have failed to make this distinction, or failed to credit the Obama campaign with attempting to significantly enlarge the battle field, I think you have conveyed an incorrect portrayal of the Obama campaign.  


but it's not (4.00 / 3)
I think the Obama focus on the grass roots is one of the most significant developments in Democratic Politics in the last 30 years.  They are putting there money where there mouth is.  

What's different are the tools and the organizers.  These were not built by the Obama campaign and they are given fairly short shrift by the Obama campaign.  Most of the money is going into TV, which of course the top people at the campaign are getting their 10 or 15 percent slice of.

The grassroots piece is the work of others from 2003-2007, and the overall environment is encouraging millions to be involved.  Obama does not deserve credit for people hating George Bush, and he has done only one innovative thing online, and that is to run a Presidential campaign in the age of the internet.  

Operationally, I'm sure the people in his campaign have made a bunch of incremental improvements, but this would have happened regardless.  Connecting voter file to internet volunteer sign-ups is a difficult task, but it's also an obvious task that was in the works in the party at large, regardless of the nominee.


[ Parent ]
Further to my eariler post (4.00 / 1)
How about a "My America" campaign that hits the republican attack machine where it hurts (in the TRUTH?)

I mean - doesn't anyone but me get pissed off that we are being sold lies in order to win elections?  What's wrong with asserting MY AMERICA where truth prevails and people aren't sold lies to serve the power interests of ambitious men?  

I'd even like to see a viral email campaign hitting hard on the theft of America - the way that lies are promoted LOUDLY and then retracted (quietly).  Seriously - isn't this sinister, high drama stuff - the stuff viral campaigns are made of?

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net




[ Parent ]
Sorry, fladem, but I agree with Matt (4.00 / 2)
When you get back to Florida, you'll see firsthand.  For all the talk about grassroots, I don't see it.  I think we can change that if we keep pushing, but I get the strong feeling that the leash is so short between here and Chicago (and probably then to Washington) that no decisions are being made locally.  Those of us on the ground here are concerned.

[ Parent ]
To strengthen the point - it isn't grassroots when decisions (4.00 / 2)
about where to canvass - whether locally where local activists really think it's necessary as opposed to crossing state lines - is at level so far removed from local activists that they don't even know who made the decision - that's not grassroots.

That's just a big volunteer canvassing team being shuttled where they are told.

That's not grassroots.

I'm seeing it too.


[ Parent ]
It's more than that... (4.00 / 3)
It's about not being responsive to criticism.  It's about not trusting and consulting local people in order to save time and effort.  

Many of our staffers are Floridians, and we don't think they are being allowed much, if any, input into decision-making.  I could be wrong, but that's the sense I get.  


[ Parent ]
How many times can I write .....me too? (4.00 / 3)
There seems to be a level in this campaign that just shuts down about taking suggestions or constructive criticism ....and thosepeople are at the level where they get the earliest paid position kind of like a G5 or G6, just one step removed from grassroots activist in a local level and it just continues in that same vein from there.

And it does waste time and effort


[ Parent ]
Consultant Shares (4.00 / 2)
I recall reading last year that Obama had set up a cap for how much Axelrod et al could earn via media buys.  Is that not the case?

I think we've got a potential post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy here, Matt -- even if it's the case that consultants make more based on placing more on tv than other spending, that doesn't mean that large ad buys exist because of the profit motive.

My issues with the campaign stem more from their being reactive rather than pro-active than with the particular means by which they're pushing message.


[ Parent ]
where've you been (4.00 / 2)
The grassroots piece is the work of others from 2003-2007, and the overall environment is encouraging millions to be involved.  Obama does not deserve credit for people hating George Bush, and he has done only one innovative thing online, and that is to run a Presidential campaign in the age of the internet.  

those things would have benefited any candidate. The fact is that Obama has run a superior ground game. Many people who are very active in the Obama campaign don't go online very much.


[ Parent ]
Most of them actually do (4.00 / 1)
They may not always be responsive, but I can assure you that a great many not only go online but read DailyKos, OpenLeft, and other blogs.

That said, however, far more of their time is spent on the ground, so to speak.  I hate to demonize the Netroots, because I hate when other people do that, but at a certain level, it makes more sense for them to do that then preach to us in the choir of the blogosphere.

Feel free to discount me as a partisan staffer (though I no longer work for the Obama campaign--I have many friends in various states, however), but if you want to really get involved in the campaign, pick up the phone, go out and organize your area to make a difference in this election.  You might not always like the campaign's priorities, but if you get other local Obama supporters together, I guarantee you, you can have an impact on the campaign's direction.


[ Parent ]
No, no, no (0.00 / 0)
> I think the Obama focus on the grass roots is one of the most significant developments in Democratic Politics in the last 30 years...

These were not built by the Obama campaign and they are given fairly short shrift by the Obama campaign.

The grass roots movement the Obama campaign has built is not the same grass roots movement you helped build. There is overlap in goals and some but not as much as you might think overlap in members. They are not the same movement. You've as much as complained about this yourself, over and over-- that the Obama campaign tried to build their own grassroots movement, rather than using the movement that was already there? Remember?

I guess you're trying here to make some kind of distinction between a grassroots "movement" and grassroots "infrastructure" (in other words "tools and organizers"), and assume that the Obama campaign has been building "infrastructure" but has not been building a "movement" because the movement was already there waiting for their infrastructure to take advantage of it. Of course, if that's what you're trying to say it's kind of weird you imply that the existing movement was given "short shrift" by the Obama campaign when what you really mean is that the existing infrastructure (i.e.: your movement infrastructure) was given short shrift.


[ Parent ]
Fair point BUT (4.00 / 6)
I have to raise red flags here, and I do so as a 100% in Obama's corner person.  

First - Grassroots organization needs to actually be able to have an effect on the top in order to be considered genuine grassroots organizing.  IF indeed the grassroots finds the advertising boring - the campaign needs to have effective means of responding to that concern.  That's different from responding to armchair quarterbacks - that's responding to the very people you seek to lead.

Second - the promise to integrate the platform meetings into the platform has thus far been quite muted on the back end.  Said another way - we got a LOT of amplification on the subject of HAVING platform meetings, but not a lot of amplification on HOW the results of those meetings got integrated into the platform.  In short - we are seeing a lot of promise of grassroots effectiveness, and not seeing a lot of proof.

That there's a great ground game going on, no doubt.  That the ground game is actively engaging people in the process more than ever before - also no doubt.  And both are VERY GOOD.  But we have yet to see evidence that this is a truly grassroots campaign.

*************************

While SaysMeTV has currently allowed specific groups like Get FISA Right to use their model to get advertising on telvision, it seems that we ought to similarly move forward with this kind of effort.  Those who can create really great ads for Obama should create them - a bunch of them, and then have it open to the public to pay to have the ads air.  It would be good to have a narrative series of ads that people can sign on to and have air.  No 527s - just average Americans wanting to tell THEIR story about why they support Obama.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net




[ Parent ]
Excellent idea (0.00 / 0)
How would I go about that?

[ Parent ]
The url is (0.00 / 0)

http://www.saysme.tv/



John McCain thinks we haven't spent enough time in Iraq

[ Parent ]
Grassroots Empowerment? (4.00 / 1)
As I noted here:

http://openleft.com/showDiary....

Obama is NOT running a campaign that is really preparing people to generate grassroots empowerment.  Of course, doing a lot of campaign work in the community will likely generate new leaders.  But his approach does little to teach any skills for creating independent groups.  In fact, it seems mostly designed to do the opposite.

I had some hopes for the "Fellows" program, but apparently the fellows aren't getting training any different than what I initially described.  They are being trained to evangelize for Obama and not much else.  The few organizing skills they seem to be learning don't at least appear to be contextualized within any larger framework that would allow them to actually be used for independent grassroots organizing.  

The lack of a "grassroots"-driven vision seems magnified by reports like Matt's.  A grassroots movement run from the top isn't very grassroots, and doesn't teach people how to be "grassroots."  


--Aaron Schutz (Core Dilemmas of Community Organizing)


[ Parent ]
Excellent (0.00 / 0)
I was at a meeting with the Florida party leaders on Saturday (including the state director of the Obama campaign), and I told them that if they didn't find a way to broaden the campaign beyond Obama, then this "party building" operation we've been promised would not happen.  You can't push one candidate at the top of the ticket while downplaying his party affiliation and separating him from down-ballot candidates, and expect any kind of long-lasting infrastructure building.


[ Parent ]
Bravo. (4.00 / 2)
Best piece I've read in weeks.

And I read a lot.


Happy to see you here. (0.00 / 0)
n/t

[ Parent ]
Their positive ads are good (4.00 / 7)
I think the "Hands" ad was excellent.

The problem, really, is when it comes to the negative ads. They just aren't hard-hitting enough. We all know that there is enough material on McCain that we don't have to make up facts like he does. The "nation of whiners" remark is just one example, or McCain's statement that U.S. workers wouldn't do hard farm labor even if paid $50/hour.

Or -- why not a "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" ad about McCain's incredible wealth and privilege? He owns 8 houses, private jet, his wife bought a "drift car" while in Japan, $500 shoes, and yet he calls Obama an elitist?  McCain was hosting SNL while Obama was a state senator paying off his student loans.

We know there are Dems capable of making these ads. The DNC's "100 years" ad was pretty hard-hitting.

But I do notice, Kerry aside, that Obama doesn't talk as much about McCain's heroism anymore. One step in the right direction.


If Obama gets inthe gutter with McCain... (0.00 / 0)
...he's toast, and he knows that... he has to keep the punches clean, and I think he's doing a good job at that!

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!


[ Parent ]
There is a difference between getting in the gutter by making shit up (4.00 / 9)
as McCain is doing, and negative branding to define your oponent like Stoller and existenz  advocate.  The later is defining the oponent for the voters. The later can and should happen with extreme force in a society overwhelmed by information and tending toward  apathy.

Kerry did exactly as you advocated. It hurt him alot with the crucial swing voters. At some point, you should be able to prove that the strategy you advocated actually has won an election in recent cycles in the last decade. Can you? I am amazed that after 2004 anyone would write keep your punchs clean.

The thing that really shocks me is how many times this same conversation happens over and over again. It really is the character stupid, but in every case there are apologists who say 'this is the way things have to be done." Its like a predetermined dance that happens every 4 years now. The GOP does whatever they want. The Democrats respond with hostility to their own people for pointing out the dance than to the Republicans who are attacking them.  


[ Parent ]
you're right on target. And, frankly, I am so sick of this pussy-ass Dem Party. (0.00 / 0)
My money spigot has just turned off.  I've given a lot of money to Obama, the DNC, Moveon.org, and the two congressional arms.  But no more.  I'm tired of the same old song and dance every goddam motherfucking four years.

I'M SICK OF IT!!!

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.


[ Parent ]
Rules are different for Obama (4.00 / 3)
Because he's young, he's new, he is urban, hip and multicultural, he hasn't built up years of good will with the trad media (or, for that matter, the netroots movers and shakers) and did I mention he's black and a good portion of the country is predisposed against him because of that?  Mark Penn wanted Hillary to paint him as "the other" in a scurrilous, divisive campaign which she, to her eternal credit, rejected.  But that's why Obama isn't crushing McCain and those of us who backed him knew that was likely.  (And I don't for a minute think Hillary would be crushing him either, or that she would be running a more visionary, innovative campaign.)

I agree his ads could be better and he should do more narration himself.  But the "hands" ad is so, so much better than the grating, jarring McCain attack ad they are running.  I expect there will be more hard-hitting ads closer to the election, but Obama above all has to make enough people comfortable with him first, so he doesn't look like he's beating up on old man McCain.  His humorous attacks  strike the right pitch, IMHO.  Their not wanting true "independent" expenditures may stem from these kinds of fears of a backlash, as they are well aware of the issues that Obama has with many voters.  This is a gamble on their part, but so was McCain personally going negative.

Their field operation is terrific and there does not seem to be any diminution in enthusiasm among most young people, who would most of all be turned off by excessively negative campaigning.  Their use of technology is impresive and way beyond what any Dem candidate has had.

And I take David Plouffe's remarks to mean that they have a pretty good read now on McCain, particularly his weaknesses, what sets him off and how he can be provoked into serious mistakes.  So be patient.  It is over a month to the first debate.  This is much more 1980 than 1976 and Obama is more like Reagan (the unfamiliar underdog celebrity with a facility with language) than Carter in many ways, though his politics are obviously much closer to Carter.  And he's 5 points ahead in the Gallup poll.

The last two crushing defeats were LBJ over Goldwater (1964) and Nixon over McGovern (1972) and in two years both were on the ropes, LBJ declining the next year to run again and Nixon soon to resign in disgrace.  It's something to contemplate.  So be careful what you wish for.  Maybe there's something to karma after all.
 

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


[ Parent ]
Agree partially (4.00 / 2)
I totally understand part of your argument -- that Obama has been trying to address his own "weaknesses" and introduce himself to the public before going negative. But there is no reason he can't do both at the same time.

Picture John McCain as a belligerent drunk. Stumbling, swinging wildly, making a fool of himself.  An easy target. Does sober Obama try to grab McCain's arms to keep him from swinging, does he try to talk sense into him, and risk getting spit on and sucker-punched? Or does he say "fuck it" and just clobber the guy?

I say we clobber the guy.

2004 was very instructive. We saw Kerry get almost zero bounce out of his feel-good convention, while Bush got an 8-point bounce out of his swiftboating smearfest of a convention. Obama better allow his speakers to take the gloves off and go full-bore into McCain. None of this "we respectfully disagree with war hero McCain" crap. Just lay out that McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time and that all of his policies will lead to more wars, higher gas prices, and less jobs.


[ Parent ]
Short responses (4.00 / 2)
1) Your first paragraph argues we have a candidate who will always have to be weaker on the attack and must always play strong defense.

2) Re Other and the primaries. You aren't in the primaries.

3) People know who Obama is now. They are oversaturated with Obama.

4) The real issue is why they should vote for Obama over McCain. Fla Dem had this post up recently about how elections are won now rather than in the fall. You are advocating hold the powder keg dry or believe in him- I am not sure which. Either way, if I understand Fla Dem's analysis, that's the smartest move. Essentially whatever dynamics you see now become harder to impossible to change later.

5) There is no gamble in going negative. I think like mike above you confuse negative branding with smearing. I saw that a lot doing the primaries. It's a function of people misusing terms ot suit their spin. If Obama comes out with a clear hard hitting negative campaign against McCain- he can bark, but there ist just too much that we can throw back at him to say "here's a clip of your own words against you."

6) You are cherry picking the polls. I dont like it with the sky is falling types,a nd I don't like it when it comes to analyzing where Obama really is. Probably a slight lead, but that shouldn't be good enough. It maybe that this is all he can get, but we don't know that because he's withholding fire that could be making McCain stay on the defensive.

7) I have no idea what your end analysis is about. There have been several crushing defeats- including Reagan over Mondale and Carter. Bush 1 over Dukaikais. The strategy that Obama is following- "keep it clean" was theirs. Meanwhile Reaagan perfected the modern dance that we are seeing now. GOP say anything. Democrats try to be above the fray.

8) The field operation is in context of campaign branding strategy an irrelevant argument. Its a change of subject rather than a way to understand negative branding. Its a subject that assumes a squeaker of an election in which the ground is the final force to hold back defeat.


[ Parent ]
Disagree some (0.00 / 0)
I'm not saying Obama is iredeemably weak or can't attack. I'm saying he has to tread mroe carefully and build up good wioll before attacking harshly.  And my point about Penn was he thought it would work in the primary and Obama is even more vulnerable in the general to the "he's not one of us" theme.

I don't think all campaigns are won in the summer, although the summer is undeniably important.  See 1980.

Field is part of a campaign and may indicate strengths where just looking at the ads or summer polls do not necessarily.  See Paul's post below about the electoral college.  It is hard to win the presidency without the popular vote, but the relationship between the popular vote and the electoral vote isn't linear.  Obama's campaign demonstrated in the primaries that they had a very good sense of where the votes were and how to maximize that, and I expect the same in plotting a strategy to win an electoral college mandate.  This means a 5% margin can be pretty impressive in the end.

I'm not excusing the Obama campaign or arguing it is above criticism, I just don't think things are as dire as some here do.  But that may be temperament and background as much as anything, as we are all looking at the same reality.

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


[ Parent ]
responses (4.00 / 2)
a) 1980- That too was probably won in the summer. People didn't want Carter , the incumbent. They were simply deciding whether they would buy the other guys , Reagan's, product or not. we are also not dealing with an incumbent.

b) my point about field is that it's not a response to criticism over negative branding. its not that it doesn't matter in the context of a campaign. it's that its not a response to this specific criticism.

c) he won't build up good will if mccain isn't on the defensive. that's a fact. the more obama has to respond to attacks rather than have mccain respond to attackes- the more it is likely that the very thing you won't will not happen. simple binary calculus.

d) No one has to my mind said things are dire. The point is to not wait until that point. I think you are projecting when you say stuff like dire because matt point blank says and if you look at my comment history i say the same thing that obama will win. the quesiton is a) what kind of win and b) what will it mean for him governing? will he squeak out a win and be weak given his tendency toward caution or will he win a mandate and lead because he has won decisively? more importantly, which is a narrative changer?  blowout or a squeaker?


[ Parent ]
"People know who Obama is now. They are oversaturated with Obama" (0.00 / 0)
I'm not an expert on this, but I thought most people don't start paying attention to the Presidential campaign until after labor day.  At least in some detail.  Laying groundwork for defining doesn't seem like a terrible strategy.

I honestly don't understand this celebrity nonsense - and I don't think it will carry much weight later on, if and when Obama finally starts defining John McCain more thoroughly.  Americans love celebrities - and if you want to help Obama, i always think attack him from the left on  policy to make him look like a pragmatist (which he is :)  Americans love those too now.

I would rather have seen a "Obama is selling out Muslims" critique that's in the post linked to rather than a "Obama is using the same old politics" which ties him to Kerry, Gore, Shrum (who no one voting has ever heard of), etc.


[ Parent ]
And there was 1984 (0.00 / 0)
Actually the most recent landslide was Reagan, and two years later the GOP lost the Senate and then lost Bork and there was Iran Contra.  And Reagan in 1984 ran a pretty positive campaign ("Morning in America") so it is the exception that proves the rule.  

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

[ Parent ]
Reagan 1984 campaingn wasn't positive (4.00 / 1)
no more than his 1980 campaign. It was partially positive, and partially negative. You only remember or have been taught it one or the other. Reagan perfected negative branding of your oponent.  

[ Parent ]
actually i take that back (4.00 / 1)
he perfected branding of both your oponent and the branding of their entire party. he did it with a smile,b ut that's change what he was doing.

[ Parent ]
I remember it well (4.00 / 1)
I remember the "Morning in America" commercials especially, and that one about the bear in the woods.  Reagan had already done his negative branding in his first election and first term, and the second campaign was pretty positive for a GOP campaign, and compared to his two campaigns for Governor of California.  And it was a picnic compared to Bush I in 1988 against Dukakis.  

I hated Reagan from 1964, when he bagan running for Governor and I was a senior at UC Berkeley, until 1992, when we finally won again.  I hated him almost more than anything else for his ability to smile and seem so genial and above it all while he screwed the poor and the mentally ill and minorities and practically everyone else before it was over.  But compared to GW Bush he was a statesman and a fiscal scrooge.  

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


[ Parent ]
I don't see how overall this changes my thesis about the importance (4.00 / 1)
of early negative branding to open up the possibility of doing the positive campaign. In a way, I think as I read what you write and what I am thin,king theproblem is when one thinks its important to do what type of branding. I think it maybe that the evidence shows that early negative branding is as important to aiding the candidate to positively brand himself as just doing positive branding. For one thing, it keeps the other side on the defensive. Perhaps the real issue is the ability pivot properly rather than waiting to hold ones fire until later. Waiting only invites the chance for offense from the opponent.

[ Parent ]
I think you are right in many respects (0.00 / 0)
I just think it is harder for Obama to do the negative for the reasons I've said, although I think it is coming.  They have done a good job in the Yucca Mtn ad and the DHL ads in Ohio.  They may fly under the radar with some local, targeted contrast ads, which would be very effective.

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

[ Parent ]
Thats true and if they can hone that sort of attack (0.00 / 0)
I am okay with that. These aren't death knell criticisms. They are trying to capture where things need to move sooner rather than later.  

[ Parent ]
ads that define your opponent, i.e., contrast/negative ads are run FIRST, NOT (4.00 / 1)
closer to the election.  By that time, it will be OBAMA who will be defined in a negative light by McCain's superior campaign tactics.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

[ Parent ]
I'm fine with this as long as he does it (0.00 / 0)
strongly at some point. I assume he will. You assume he will. How mad will you be when, come October, he still hasn't gotten around to it?

I'm looking for it after the Republican convention, which will of course be an Obama hatefest. That would make a good point at which to fight back with impunity when a lot of undecided and/or low information voters are starting to tune in.


[ Parent ]
I keep hearing various versions of your "Lifestyles of the Rich and (0.00 / 0)
Famous" ad suggested in the netroots. What evidence is there that Americans resent wealth in its own right? Wouldn't our pop culture and our legislative and executive branches look a lot different if that were the case?

         


[ Parent ]
I'd say there is some evidence they resent it (4.00 / 2)
In highly paid (black) sports stars and supposed welfare queens, and not so much in older white celebrities.

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

[ Parent ]
yeah that's a race thing (0.00 / 0)
though i agree that race and class are pretty inseperable in this context (David Roediger's book Wages of Whiteness is pretty instructive).  But I think you can see the resentment of wealth in the anger towards banks, Oil companies, etc., once it hits closer to home.  There really is space for some class solidarity, and that begins with greater unionization, for better or for worse.  Rebuilding the labor movement is the BEST way to stem the racial divisiveness.

[ Parent ]
have you not noticed (4.00 / 1)
that Obama has been tarnished over and over again as an out-of-touch elitist?

I think this attack is laughable, but we might as well turn it around. Obama pulled himself up from his bootstraps, McCain has been a child of privilege his whole life.

Of course, we don't need to get too fancy. McCain = Bush = Fail. If I was a top strategist, then I'd make sure every attack ad is based on the theme that McCain is Bush's third term. That would be the "story" I'd push in my negative ads.


[ Parent ]
Oh that Kerry never learns (0.00 / 0)
Hillary sure showed him what he should have done.

[ Parent ]
Good Job. (4.00 / 5)
ITA w/your comment. I personally don't know if Obama is going to win this one. I think the McCain camp is going to be pushing the "other" button harder come the convention and they've laid the groundwork for this meme with the celebrity ad.

Fundamentally, I'm shocked reading the Obama team thinks they've linked McCain to Bush. PLEASE. The convention the Republicans throw will destroy that tie. The McCain camp was in a Bush box and can be put there: but having shut down the 527s the Obama camp HAS to take the step of defining McCain that Clinton did defining Dole. That's the way it is.

I think the Obama team, going as they have, has a 60% shot at winning because they run a great ground game. But the fight that needs to happen. I don't see it. And the ideological fight that needs to happen IMO has not.

I actually think Obama will govern farther to the left than Clinton and with a democratic majority and his popularity will do a lot for progressives. I am glad to have supported him. I think his candidacy means a phenomenal amount to America because of his race and his support for a new kind of diplomacy. I think it would be a valuebable democratic presidency that would govern progressivly.

But I too am frustrated by the fact that the Obama team seems to think the media is going to do their job. The media hated HRC, that's why they did cross the line in that campaign. It's not going to happen again because there isn't another candidate that is so disdained and illogically calls up such emotions as the Clintons do with the MSM. The Obama camp has to step up and when the McCain camp lies, SAY it is a lie. Don't wait for the MSM to do that because they won't and shouldn't have too.

It's frustrating, ITA and I think you conveyed this message in a helpful matter that didn't hurt the candidate so thank you.


Why would the convention destroy that tie? (4.00 / 1)
Bush and Cheney are speaking at the Republican convention. Seems like a fairly strong connection to me.

If McCain wanted to distance himself, he wouldn't invite them at all. But I guess that would upset some conservatives, so he is stuck with Bush like an albatross.


[ Parent ]
If this campaign truly welcomes the grassroots (4.00 / 4)
and if this campaign has paid the slightest bit of attention to the work done ( analyzed and written about how we've managed to lose too many elections) by Lakoff, Westen, and Schaller to name a few,then what you've said should come as no surprise to them.

But instead what we've seen is the same old, same old. A closed off group, with, as Mike Lux called it: an abundance of Capital Hill caution.

A top down group with a message and a plan that only fulfills half the equation necessary to win voters.Forgetting to define McSame or defining him so poorly that maybe I've missed it. An incomplete narrative with  an attitude that the calendar benefits them. They are wasting time  when the month of August is the month when all the 'heavy lifting is done' to set the stage for the full production that is coming. We have witnessed the Republicans doing that with recent ad after recent ad, and we hear from our side "it's coming, it's coming" or a  verbal response akin to 'brushing off the shoulders' as if McSame's effort is not worth noticing.

I'm glad you spoke out.


That's the thing (4.00 / 3)

  The Democrats have operated under a massive media deficit at least since Mondale's candidacy in 1984. And it's gotten worse and worse every election cycle.

   And yet not only has the Democratic establishment done nothing to overcome this (all of the progress on this front has come from outside groups, blogs, etc.), there's virtually no realization in the Dem establishment that there's a problem AT ALL.  And thus we see spectacles like John Kerry falling all over himself praising John McCain's (questionable enough) military service, with no evidence that he understands how damaging this is to the party in the fall election.

  Many, many outside observers, like the ones you mentioned, have been alerting the Democrats that they're getting their clocks cleaned in messaging. And yet NOTHING IMPROVES. It's like Iraq -- they'd rather lose elections than admit the DFH's were right.  

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


[ Parent ]
Too many good cops (4.00 / 4)
We need some more "bad cops", as it were. That's why I think Biden would be a damn good VP pick.

[ Parent ]
Agree with you on this (4.00 / 1)
He's especially credible on foreign policy and national security.  And he has the media experience.

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

[ Parent ]
liking Biden more than before (4.00 / 3)
I am starting to think the same thing.

We'll just have to ignore the D-MBNA stuff.  Every pick would have a downside.

And he won't run for Prez in 2016.  I think I want a pick of this type.  Hardball, age/experience, and won't run for P.


[ Parent ]
Where the hell is Wes Clark? (4.00 / 4)
The only democrat willing to question mccain's executive experience has been silenced.  when he said that getting shot down in a fighter jet does not qualify you for president i thought i was hearing a new party talking point.  oh how disappointed i was yet again.

drew westen is right.  the democrats have no idea how to sell themselves to the public. it doesn't matter how right you are if no one hears you.

This comment is under surveillance


[ Parent ]
The dems are silencing Wes (0.00 / 0)
because the repugs started shrieking. I want Wes Clark for VP and I still want JE for attorney general and now I'm not going to get either one of them. And I am not going to bust my ass for O either.

[ Parent ]
Great piece (4.00 / 6)

 Don't have anything much to add. I just want to share a little anecdote that suggests what we're still up against.

 One of the things I do in my county is take the best blog posts from various progessive sites and forward them to our local listserv, in part to try to get more Dems in the habit of reading the blogs, in part to expose things that the trad media, er, "misses". I add a little commentary of my own to provide a little context to what I'm forwarding.

 Well, a few weeks ago I sent along someone's damning piece about the media coverage of Democrats -- think it was from Aravosis -- and added a little remark of my own about how as bad as the media is, we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot by sending right-wing "Democrats" like Dianne Feinstein to speak for us in the talkshows.

 A week later, at a local Dem social-club meeting, one of the local Dem bigwigs got all huffy with me for describing Feinstein in that manner. We're on the east coast, so I can't imagine why a Marylander would have any emotional attachment to Feinstein, but I stood my ground and described all the ways she's a west coast Joe Lieberman. The bigwig just got madder and madder and said I had no credibility (even though he didn't have a counterargument handy). And that just revealed to me the vastly different value system that old-school Dems operate under -- the "D" is all that matters to them, while we want actual performance from our elected officials.

  I suspect a lot of this still permeates the Obama campaign. He's a "D", and that's what we want, no?  

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


You are right about DiFi (4.00 / 4)
We in the Bay Area have known that about her since the '70s.  She's very conservative in many ways and utterly tied into money.  If she weren't from SF she'd be a Republican.

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

[ Parent ]
We all need to calm down (4.00 / 3)
Its still august and the convention hasnt happened yet.  Hell, Obama hasnt even picked his VP yet and thats important.  In order for the campaign to be hard-hitting on the attack the VP needs to be doing it because the sad truth is that as a black man Obama cant.  If you dont think the Republicans would use a hard hitting/ attacking Barack Obama to muster up the racist vote you're kidding yourself.

As far as focusing in the message, getting the story strait, and zooming away from the ridicules McSame campaign for a blowout victory its going to happen after Labor Day if it happens at all.  The summer is all about building familiarity and infrastructure.  Basically, Obama just needed to frame the election correctly over the last couple months and I think he did a decent job.

Examples:
-We've moved on from blindly accepting the surge as a success
-Everyone agrees with Obama's plan for Iraq/ Afghanistan
-If the election comes down to the war, McCain is in a corner
-Obama sidestepped the drilling issue by agreeing to the gang of 10 compromise
-People really, really, really distrust McCain on the economy
-Women, latinos, youth, poor whites, and african americans overwhelmingly support Obama.  Like by at least 2:1 margins and the trend for these is growing.

So basically the summer session of the campaign was a smashing success.  Next is the convention, and then the debates (which Obama will destroy McCain because of all the frames) and then the final few weeks.  After the convention I expect Obama to gear up into hyperdrive and McCain to break down like the old jalopy he is.

This comment is under surveillance


If It Ain't Broke (4.00 / 2)
I understand the ideological reasons to dislike the Obama campaign defunding smaller issue-advocacy organizations, but then again, Obama is five points ahead.

I realize how anti-democratic it is to say this but, just let the experts do their job. They're doing it pretty well for a change. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If running a decentralized, anarchist/populist campaign is such a surefire winner, then go ahead and run your own. See how it goes. I bet it doesn't appeal to as many people as you think it would. Don't forget, half of our country thinks that evolution isn't real, and most people think that John McCain is better than Obama at foreign policy.

I know that you'd like to believe that if the people in our country could only hear your ideal campaign message, that they'd jump on it like a fly on shit, but the fact is, it's been tried before, and people were scared of Emma Goldman. People pee their pants when they hear the word Marxist. People made fun of Ralph Nader.


You must have found a huge hay baler (4.00 / 3)
for all the straw you needed to make those straw man arguments.

[ Parent ]
Nice strawman (4.00 / 6)

  Matt's not calling for "anarchy", or Marxism (????), or for Ralph Nader to advise the campaign. He's basically observing that (a) Obama's running a cautious, diffident, unaggressive campiagn, and (b) the Democrats have a long history of losing presidential campiagns when they do that.

  If "most people" think McCain's better than Obama in foreign policy, then that indicates a MASSIVE failure in Democratic messaging. And apparently you think that we should just accept that misperception and work around it, instead of FIXING it.

  Which is why we lose elections we should win.
 

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


[ Parent ]
Who's Cautious? (4.00 / 1)
I don't see what's cautious and unaggressive about opening campaign offices deep in Republican territory. That seems pretty aggressive and bold to me.

Maybe I'm misreading, but what seems to be being called caution is "not enough attack ads" and "not populist enough."

I'd might believe that these things were a problem of Obama didn't have a meaningful lead, but he does.

Sure, Democrats have lost campaigns before when they didn't run a lot of attack ads. Then again, Democrats have lost campaigns before when they wore nice ties. Oh no! Nice ties are the culprit!

You think that most people preferring McCain on foreign policy is due to a flaw in Democratic messaging. I'm much more apt to believe that it's due to a flaw in the American people.


[ Parent ]
Ok (4.00 / 1)
You think that most people preferring McCain on foreign policy is due to a flaw in Democratic messaging. I'm much more apt to believe that it's due to a flaw in the American people.

I'll just say that I hope to God that that attitude isn't prevalent inside the Obama campaign because that's the type of thinking that will ALWAYS lose you an election.


[ Parent ]
I Hope It Is (0.00 / 0)
And I believe it actually is part of their strategy.

To hear the liberal blogovators talk, all that Obama needs to do is point out how he was right on the war from day one and then he wins. The problem is that the public has already decided that McCain is a war winning genius. And it's very hard to change people's minds on something like that once they're made up.

There's a reason why Obama has been nearly silent on the war. He's on the right side of the issue, but the problem is, nobody cares, so it's not gonna win him any elections.


[ Parent ]
Who's The Expert Here (4.00 / 1)
A lot of people seem to know all about what will "ALWAYS lose you an election." How many of these people have ever actually run an campaign, even a small one?

We have very little information about what will and wont "ALWAYS" win or lose you an election. The people running this campaign seem to be winning one, so I'm probably apt to believe them just a little bit more than someone who has Opinions On The Internet.


[ Parent ]
no one is an expert because there haven't been that many democratic wins (4.00 / 1)
the question  is looki ng at why there haven't been. on that front, ther eare some clear reasons to be concerned when comparing obama's choice of actions to losing campaigns of the past. no one denies obama has the best shoot in 15 years, but they question a) the quality of the win and b) its impact on his ability to govern as anything other than a centrist beholden to the conservative wing of the party. this stuff isn't theory. it's the clinton administration in the 1990s.

[ Parent ]
Small Sample Size (0.00 / 0)
Elections are such clusterfucks of memes though. I mean, you can point to all manner of patterns if you want to find them.

Combine that with the very small sample size we're talking about here (22 presidential elections in which TV really mattered, only one in which the Internet really mattered) we're at a loss for data in a big way.

Based on the ads we're seeing, notably McCain's ads talking about how he loves alternative energy and the environment, I'm less apt to doubt Obama's ability to govern as a Progressive, and more apt to doubt McCain's ability to govern as a Conservative.


[ Parent ]
But you can (0.00 / 0)
draw conclusions from the thousands of individual races that are run every year or every other year. They even have a whole academic field called "political science" devoted to it.

That's where these observations come from.


[ Parent ]
Are You A Political Scientist? (0.00 / 0)
Is anybody who posts here one?

Having an opinion on what the Obama campaign should be doing does not make one a political scientist.


[ Parent ]
I have a degree in politics, but not that it should matter (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Degrees Are Nice But (0.00 / 0)
Is anyone performing political science here? Or is it just a bunch of wanking?

Sorry, but I think that people who study the issue and work on it all day long have better ideas about how to win elections than some dude who posts to blogs.

I mean, seriously guys. You don't honestly think that you know how to win elections better than the actual professionals do you?


[ Parent ]
Is this snark? n/t (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
go to 538 (0.00 / 0)
you'll see plenty of hardcore statistical analysis there, which is ONE piece of a rigorous analysis.

[ Parent ]
Yup. (0.00 / 0)
I love his site. I was a fan of PECOTA for years, and was very enthused when he got into politics.

That's real science. Saying that your gut tells you that Obama should run more negative ads is not.


[ Parent ]
the trouble with "real science" (0.00 / 0)
is that analysis doesn't always give you predictive ability :)  c.f. Marx :)

[ Parent ]
I think maybe your standard of evidence is the problem (4.00 / 1)
a) I think we have enough eleections to know whether a strategy is working or not. We aren't talking all strategies. Just the clear mating dance  with the American people that's been going on for quite a while with the democrats and republicans.

b) I don't know what your last paragraph means. I will clarify what I meant. I mean that if Obama wins based on the narratives now, he will be stuck with the narratives later. You seem to respond with candidate position on issues rather than overarching narratives about leadership.

There is no equivalency on the right for the straightjacket progressives place on their ability govern from their idealogical perspective. Perhaps, that's where you and I differ.

Bush didn't run as a neocon in 2001, and yet, he governed as one. I don't believe Democrats have this level of flexibility. If Obama runs as a centrist, he will have to govern that way because of the structure of his own party and how they view "winning.' The only way this changes is a landslide or at least a mandate rather than a squeaker and a shift to push Congress to be more progressive. The battle to change policies is both inside the party and outside the party.


[ Parent ]
History Disagrees (0.00 / 0)
"I will clarify what I meant. I mean that if Obama wins based on the narratives now, he will be stuck with the narratives later."

George W. Bush won an election on a platform of disentanglement in foreign wars. His presidency is defined by entanglement in foreign wars.

Bill Clinton won a campaign on a platform of economic populism. His presidency is defined by iron-fisted Capitalism.


[ Parent ]
Clinton didn't win on being an economic populism (4.00 / 2)
the way you are trying to describe it.

I was there at the time. It was my first election in fact. So I remember it well. He won as a new democrat who was unlike any other. Conservative/liberal all at the same time. ie, the Sister Soulja moment.

He also barely won  because his race was influence by the real economic populist of that race- Ross Perot. In fact the history you are talking about is used by centrist to justify the idea that centrism works. Clinton triangulated between Perots populism and Bush I's inneptitude.

I am not exactly certain how you think your point about Bush disagrees with my point that Democrats operate in a different structure than the GOP?  Hence my point about no equivalency. There is no centrist force on the right in which one thinks one can only win by being a centrist. There is no open distain for the right. In fact it's embraced. I am not even advocating that Obama embrace everything from th eleft, but I do have a problem with the same strategies that failed us in the past being repeated as if they have worked.

We are in a great environment to win right now,b ut we shouldn't confuse this with the public favors us. The reason they don't favor us is because they see us as weak.


[ Parent ]
Clinton didn't win on being an economic populism (0.00 / 0)
the way you are trying to describe it.

I was there at the time. It was my first election in fact. So I remember it well. He won as a new democrat who was unlike any other. Conservative/liberal all at the same time. ie, the Sister Soulja moment.

He also barely won  because his race was influence by the real economic populist of that race- Ross Perot. In fact the history you are talking about is used by centrist to justify the idea that centrism works. Clinton triangulated between Perots populism and Bush I's inneptitude.

I am not exactly certain how you think your point about Bush disagrees with my point that Democrats operate in a different structure than the GOP?  Hence my point about no equivalency. There is no centrist force on the right in which one thinks one can only win by being a centrist. There is no open distain for the right. In fact it's embraced. I am not even advocating that Obama embrace everything from th eleft, but I do have a problem with the same strategies that failed us in the past being repeated as if they have worked.

We are in a great environment to win right now,b ut we shouldn't confuse this with the public favors us. The reason they don't favor us is because they see us as weak.


[ Parent ]
As For (0.00 / 0)
Your point that Conservatives always get pulled to the right, and Centrists Democrats also get pulled further to the right, all I can say to that is, one more time, small sample size.

FDR campaigned as a vapid centrist, and is the most left-wing President we've ever had. LBJ did not campaign on uprooting the Democratic party, but that's exactly what he did.

You're only considering the last 15 years.


[ Parent ]
you are using faulty logic (4.00 / 2)
This is really your argument in a nutshell-  Let's ignore the last 30 (not 15) years because our data point can include other information that predates it. The modern political era begain with Reagan. That era began because you had a GOP leadership that was forceful in its effort to commit to the reallignment that started with Nixon. There is no guarantee of change just because the conditions are right. The change can stall if the narrative remains the same.

[ Parent ]
I Dunno (0.00 / 0)
"Narritive" "era" -- all these words -- I'm just unconvinced that these things matter in the ways that the C.W. says they do.

[ Parent ]
FDR had the flexibility (4.00 / 1)
Obama could govern differently if he wanted to and had enough support.  What he wants may be the issue.  That will become apparent only after he wins, if he does.  Also events may propel him in one way or another, the way Bush capitalized on 9/11 in an ultimately destructive (for the country) way. I think a Pres Obama confronted with a similar situation would behave very differently.

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

[ Parent ]
I think FDR is not relevant because the choices that Obama is already making (4.00 / 2)
My central issue iwth the critique is one of its relevancy to the last 30 years and how Obama plays into the last 30 rather than to Depression era politics. How is Obama beating the narrative rather than having the narrative beat him? He's dancing the same as other democrats of ht elast 30, not the way FDR danced. Yes, things can change. but we are talking about what his strategies are now.  

[ Parent ]
I have ran many campaigns. Won some, lost some. But what is consistent (4.00 / 2)
in ANY winning campaign is DEFINING YOUR OPPONENT AT THE VERY VERY BEGINNING BEFORE HE DEFINES YOU."

Obama has not done that.  Not even close.  And, contrary to popular opinion, it IS indeed kinda gettin late in the game.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.


[ Parent ]
Yes they are winning (4.00 / 1)
but they should be running away with it. O's TV ads are very mainstream and boring. So Paris Hilton's youtube gets 3 mil hits right away. She must know something. Don't forget all those TV couch potatoes have children and grandkids that use the internet. Do you think they weren't laughing at McCain over the PH ad? Do you think they are quiet around the house when an ad is bitingly funny?

[ Parent ]
well, (0.00 / 0)
Eugene debs got almost a million votes and about 6% of the vote FROM JAIL in the 1912 election on the Socialist ticket, but that's besides the point :)

As an admirer of Emma Goldman and many Marxists, I can tell you that I'm  well aware that if I went around trying to convince the White working class Republicans from Michigan and the liberal Democrats from New York that they need to have a class revolt and support an anarcho-socialist state and oppose imperialism, I wouldn't get very far :)  on the other hand, as most of these people (like Debs and many Marxists) would tell you, and as I know from being a former organizer, that doesn't mean that you wholly abandon the attempt to move people in their ideas during a campaign - whether its issue based organizing or an electoral campaign.

You always have two aims as a decent person in politics at whatever level- to win, and to positively affect the world, starting with the ideas and messages that you put out (i.e. move the discourse).  And you have to balance these two.  I think the post is questioning the way in which Obama's campaign has balanced these two, not arguing for a wholesale abandonment of any attempt to win by citing Lenin (the plausibility of which is a day I look forward to in Amerian politics :)  


[ Parent ]
Most damning criticism (4.00 / 7)

When John McCain's economic advisor calls America a nation of whiners, and we don't hear anything more about that in ads or anywhere else, it's shameful.  When the Iraqi PM endorses Obama's call for withdrawal, and McCain still leads on the issue of Iraq by double-digits, it's shameful.

The Obama campaign should have used the summer to use these types of incidents to make McCain the unacceptable choice. They could have defined him by now as totally out of touch with working Americans (remember how Bush Sr. looking at his watch in a 1992 town hall debate totally destroyed him?) and out-of-the loop on foreign policy.

They may have a plan, but I also wonder why they don't take better advantage of these opportunities when they present themselves.  


Americans are dumb (4.00 / 1)
They almost always prefer the Republican on foreign policy, and military men on foreign policy, and facts be damned.

McCain is a Republican with 25 years of military experience, so for Obama to just get parity with him on Iraq and other war-related issues would be a victory.

I'm hoping Obama clobbers McCain in the debates ala Kerry in 2004. McCain can be a slick talker sometimes, so Obama needs to do his homework and be able to catch him on his lies and inconsistencies.


[ Parent ]
The debate audience won't hear him (4.00 / 1)
unless he is funny, sit-com funny. Kerry was very good but they can't follow non-restrictive clauses.

[ Parent ]
If Americans are unthoughtful (0.00 / 0)
it's for a reason.  It's called hegemony.  I don't  believe that any group of people is inherently dumb, unless they're led to be so through a lifetime of indoctrination, being bought off, being fed false expectations, being fed real expectations, and all else.  And there are institutons, laws, ideas which create this situation.

[ Parent ]
I sometimes wonder if I'm in a different dimension and... (4.00 / 1)
...watching a different campaign. There are always things that happen that as individuals we would have done something different and constructive criticism is fine and I would argue necessary. But overblown negativity like this is just not warranted. I believe the successful way the campaign executed their strategy in the primary means we should give them the benefit of the doubt here. So I kinda agree with Plouffe about the "playing armchair quarterback".

Like I said (4.00 / 3)
they may have a plan, and it seems to be a good one, but why not take advantage of the numerous opportunities that have presented themselves over this past summer to absolutely bury McCain? A 3-4 point lead is nice, but wouldn't a 10 point lead at this point and the possibilities that opens up in terms of a filibuster-proof senate be better?

I don't particularly buy the "they won the primary so don't criticize them" line. They won the primary because they were great organizers and they played the delegates and the demographics perfectly. But they didn't run a flawless campaign (KY and WV were disasters, it was just too late to matter). You could say that we should cut some slack to every candidate that won a primary because that proves they know how to win. Yes this was an extraordinary primary, but we've had really tough primaries before and the nominee ended up running a less than stellar campaign (McGovern 1972 comes to mind).

All I'd like is for the campaign to take better advantages of the economic train-wreck that is the McCain campaign. That's how Clinton won and blew the race open in the summer of 1992. Obama should be doing that now.


[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
Like I said, criticism is fine and often necessary. The point I was making was in relation to what I saw as over the top negativity in the article cited.

It seems to me they are still likely to use the stuff you mentioned but that they have maybe fallen into the trap of assuming people are not paying attention yet which may or may not be true this year.

And Clinton didn't move significantly ahead until after the convention in 1992 so I don't think the comparison is very fair when Obama hasn't had his yet.


[ Parent ]
ok (0.00 / 0)
Fair point on the convention in 1992.

I guess I would have just liked to have seen Obama take a 25-point lead in the summer because of the likes of Phil Gramm, Carly Fiorina, Al-Maliki, and McCain himself. We're still in very very good shape. But I never liked close games involving my sports teams, and I don't like it in politics either.


[ Parent ]
A 25 point lead (0.00 / 0)
Yeah but as I have pointed out many times in similar discussions, the handringers would be whining that "Dukakis lead by 17 points and lost!". Thus Barack can't win whatever he does until he actually wins.

[ Parent ]
If it were 25 points and (0.00 / 0)
5% undecided, I think it would be less alarming.  But greater than 10% undecided is really cause for concern - cause to want to do everything in your power to reach and convince those undecideds.  That great a number deciding AGAINST you can turn the tide of the election.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net




[ Parent ]
what?? (0.00 / 0)
25 point lead?? you underestimate how Americans are divided atm, doesn't matter who the nominee's are they will fall in line for a while. heck Reagan was losing in the polls until his last debate which afterwards he went to win a landslide.

P.S. national polls means shit,look at state polls. Obama has the twice the number of solids than Mccain and has twice the chance of winning at every in trade site (including 538) because of this.


[ Parent ]
oh lord (0.00 / 0)
you take everything way too literally.  

[ Parent ]
i have come to the conclusion (0.00 / 0)
that a black dude running for president is going to have a hard time taking a 25% lead in 2008.

[ Parent ]
Convention was in July IIRC (0.00 / 0)


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

[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
Early July. And he was in third place behind Perot just the month before.

[ Parent ]
Yes he needs to blow them out of the water (0.00 / 0)
And he isn't doing it. HRC would be for sure. Wes Clark would be but shit, if I were treated the way O treated Clark, I'd do something else to occupy myself. Pearls before swine........

[ Parent ]
Does anyone (4.00 / 1)
have a breakdown of how effective 527's were in the media during the 2000,2004, and 2006 election?  Could this be an issue of wanting to wait until the electorate is more engaged or paying more attention?  

Matt's article (4.00 / 5)
I don't know if Matt is right or wrong about the Obama campaign, but I'm pretty sure that those of us who are pushing for a progressive agenda are best served by directing our resources and energies at Congressional races.  Electing better House and Senate members is what is going to turn things in a better direction.  Presidential elections tend to be more like the contest for Homecoming King or something-- they are all about personality and other bullshit, and not focused on substanctive issues.  I believe that we will acheive a progressive Congress before we elect a truly progressive President.

Matt is clueless (4.00 / 2)
When it comes to academic debating seminars these days.

Carry on.

Visit DebateScoop for political candidate debate news and analysis.


ha (0.00 / 0)
That's funny.  And true.

[ Parent ]
This is beyond the pale (0.00 / 0)
But I wasn't speaking up because I think the Obama campaign should change their strategy, but because I'm ashamed of the person who I voted for to be the leader of my party.


[ Parent ]
why? (0.00 / 0)
i'm pretty ashamed of how Obama has caved into the pro-Israeli agenda in the U.S. when I don't think he really believes in it, how he has promoted war-mongering with Iran, which is really dangerous, how quickly he caved on oil drilling, which even if it is a good idea, certainly concedes some ground.

People are entitled to their feelings - even people quoted in the Washington Post.  In fact, if more people went on the record, we would have a more vigorous debate.

I don't happen to agree with Matt's criticisms (too much strategy, not enough policy, maybe the language could have been chosen better), but in the context of the article, it reads fine, and it's not a big deal.  And this post is honest and it's frankly encouraging.  I woudln't come to this site if I didn't believe there would  be real people talking about real ideas.  I'm tired of mass politics as the realm of a top-down message that everyone is forced to parrot or to leave.

And yes, I hope that Matt one day leaves the Democratic Party and takes his skills to the far reaches of the progressive movement :)


[ Parent ]
ashamed (0.00 / 0)
He's ashamed of a person - you are ashamed of his stances.  That's a big difference


[ Parent ]
So..... (4.00 / 1)
On the one hand you are not complaining about strategy but then again you are. You don't know what could be done differently but you do. And, despite being all over the road on this you are really, really angry they are not listening to you.

I have absolutely no idea if they are playing their cards in the correct order. Some of the things they do/don't do make sense to me and others don't. It is scary to think of the consequences of losing such a winnable election. One thing that would convince me that we are going to lose is if they read this article or the WashPo piece and said, "damn, I never thought of that."

I agree wholeheartedly that winning the election is not enough. A point that matters only if we win the election.

I have thrown many pillows at the TV because an idiot coach took a certain player out of the game at a particular time.  Somehow, the Celtics won the championship anyway.  

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.



Please keep it up! (4.00 / 2)
Wow, Matt, YOU are the straight talk express! Please keep it up - I think you are both much smarter and more honest than whoever is advising Obama. You may save his campaign from mediocrity or even loss, yet.

-->> One way you may be able to do that is to have a formal debate, captured on video, with an Obama campaign apologist. <<-- Perhaps if Obama, or enough of his staffers, sees you taking apart their silly arguments for not fighting for the minds of the progressives, and the hearts of the low information voters, they will have an epiphany. I really believe that if Obama had been verbally and publicly slapped down earlier in his campaign, he would have been spared from some of his stupider moves since he became the expected nominee.

So, thank-you for being vocal. Someday, Obama may thank you, also, even if some of his obtuse advisors suffer from terminal cases of hubris. But that depends on people like you being vocal - maybe even strident - enough to get his attention, while there's still a window of opportunity for that to make a difference.

Finally, please address what I think should be a key feature of his campaign, and that is, attacking Republican Party policies of the last 30 years. Why isn't Obama utilizing his moment in the sun to drive a wedge between the Republican Party leadership, and the Republican base? Why is he not taking down the entire Republican Party leadership, and not just John McCain? (I think part of this is his whole "reach across the aisle" philosophy. Maybe he needs to evolve to a new philosophy where he lets them reach across to him?)

With  bruhrabbit, I am not talking about smearing anybody, I am talking about attacking bona fide stupidity and hypocrisy, AS SEEN THROUGH THE EYES OF FAIR MINDED REPUBLICAN VOTERS. Has excessive deregulation helped the Republican base? What about the extra 1.7 trillion dollars or so added to the federal debt under Bush - is that something that the Republican voters are proud of? And for all the extra money spent in defense, what is the condition of our army? There are Iraqi women, displaced in Syria, who have been reduced to prostitution to feed their families - is this the sort of freedom we've brought to the Middle East that Republicans can cheer about? Did the Republicans who wagged their purple fingers in the air before the 2005 State of the Union address ever apologize for the ineptness of their party's executive?

There is an abundance of 'riches' to attack, regarding not just John McCain, and not just President Bush, but just as importantly the record of the Republican Party's exercise of power during the last 7 1/2 years, and beyond. You know and I know that low information voters, independents, and yes, even the Republican base, need to be reminded of these. If Obama is so insulated that he can't see the obvious, well, then, maybe he deserves to lose.


DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org


Taking down the entire Republican party (0.00 / 0)
"Finally, please address what I think should be a key feature of his campaign, and that is, attacking Republican Party policies of the last 30 years. Why isn't Obama utilizing his moment in the sun to drive a wedge between the Republican Party leadership, and the Republican base?"

The sort of campaign ads to accomplish this would have a theme such as "Haven't you had enough?", and would end by Obama looking into the camera and asking voters to not only elect him, but a Democratic majority, so that he can pursue real change without being obstructed by Republicans. To emphasize the point, he can recite the statistics for filibustering by Republicans (and frankly, explain, for the benefit of low information voters, what filibustering is all about).

Obama should be less concerned about consolidating his power in the Democratic Party and more concerned about leading the Democratic Party to a smashing win in November, such that McCain is seen as just one more obstruction that was cast aside. (And such that the margin is not so small that the Republicans can easily turn defeats into victories, via electronic vote fraud.)

A "Haven't you had enough?" ad campaign would ideally do something neither Democrats nor Republicans seem to ever do during campaigns - and that is, compare America's standing in the world with that of other countries. Where do we rank in terms of standard of living, health, education, energy independence, public transportation systems, etc., compared to other modern countries, and also as compared to 30 years ago?

(I realize, of course, that much of the blame for this should go to the Democrats, also, but one happy byproduct of such an ad campaign would be to raise expectations on the part of the electorate such that a Democratically-controlled government should be more focussed on benefitting society, even at the expense of the military industrial comples.)

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org


[ Parent ]
Demoralizing... (4.00 / 4)
Plouffe said. "By November 4, there are character dimensions to John McCain that are going to be clear."

I hope so.  So far, there's not been much of this...

Fill in the thesis sentence "According to the Obama campaign messaging, John McCain is..." I bet every commenter here would fill it in differently...if they can fill it at all.

Re Shameful -- I'd add demoralizing. I'm tired of the GOP calling us unpatriotic and our leaders traitors. I'm even more tired of our leaders letting them get away with it. I'm tired of being bullied and the shameful acceptance of the bullying by our leaders is demoralizing...

Re McCain Lies -- evidently he can say anything he wants and we're going to let him keep using his "Straight Talk" brand. Demoralizing...

Re "the same old Democratic, consultant-driven politics" -- I've never been under no illusion that Obama would be a progressive president, however I supported him on the promise that his campaign would be different and aggressive. I just couldn't stomach another summer/fall of the same, bland, themeless, uninspired, play not to lose while getting hammered by the other side campaign. Yet, here we are again. Demoralizing...

Re Change -- Even this theme has been left wanting of late. You'd think by now there would've been some coordinated, day-after-day, week-after-week effort to message and define 'Change vs. More of the (Mc)Same.' Yet the themeless Obama paid messaging has even forgotten the change messaging, let alone defining McCain as more of the same (and, no, a response to McCain's "Maverick" ad is not sufficient). Bizarre...and demoralizing.

Re Themes -- McCain has multiple themes developed against Obama (elitist, uppity, not ready to lead, traitor/surrenderer, for self not country, to name a few), all repeated multiple times over multiple weeks by the candidate himself, surrogates and paid media. By contrast, Obama has developed against McCain...? The Obama campaign has no obligation to listen to me, but they do have an obligation to answer that question.

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


The problem is they see you as the enemy (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
Nice just delete unfavorable posts Matt (0.00 / 0)
So much for your whining to be heard, you cant event take any criticism yourself.

The hypocrisy.


[ Parent ]
Why are you reponding under my post? (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
you got troll-rated (0.00 / 0)
I didn't delete your comment, the community did.

[ Parent ]
someone ought to clue Plouffe in about early voting. Over half the states (4.00 / 2)
can start voting a month out from November 4.  So, in earnest, election "day" is a month in half the states and starts, again, in earnest, in October.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

[ Parent ]
Yup. (4.00 / 2)
Even if there was no early voting, isn't it pretty basic that you should define your opponent before he defines himself?  McCain's "Maverick" ad tries to portray him as change, not part of "the same." Only in response does Obama make a "more of the same" argument.

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

[ Parent ]
He has made the ''more of the same'' argument time and time again (0.00 / 0)
In speech after speech, in ad after ad, in appearance after appearance. Again I wonder sometimes if people are talking about the same campaign I see but maybe I'm just more easily pleased.

[ Parent ]
Its how he's doing it (0.00 / 0)
you are a part of the group that accepts his argument. becuase of that you don't get how its ineffective when talking to someon e who doesn't buy the party line to weaken your punch by trying to seem "fair" for example every time they critique mccain it's really annoying to hear the proviso before hand he's a really honorable man. Do you get how in a clear messaging sense, starting off with this weakens the attack?  this is just one. there are many. if you still dont get it. ia m not sure what to tell you.

[ Parent ]
Its how he's doing it (0.00 / 0)
you are a part of the group that accepts his argument. becuase of that you don't get how its ineffective when talking to someon e who doesn't buy the party line to weaken your punch by trying to seem "fair" for example every time they critique mccain it's really annoying to hear the proviso before hand he's a really honorable man. Do you get how in a clear messaging sense, starting off with this weakens the attack?  this is just one. there are many. if you still dont get it. ia m not sure what to tell you.

[ Parent ]
Umm, not really. (4.00 / 2)
Here are the most recent ads posted on the Barack Obama Youtube page, going back a month:

1) "Backyard" - A good Nevada ad on Yucca Mt.

2) "Hands" - Positive Obama, no contrast.

3) "Original" - A response to McCain's "Maverick" ad.

4) "Low Road Express" - A response to McCain's attacks; does include 'more of same old politics;' inexplicably does not compare/contrast/ridicule "straight talk express."

5) "Pocket" - Oil related; does tie McCain to Bush and big oil; contrasts with Obama; implies change vs same, but doesn't say it explicitly.

6) "America's Leadership" - Positive Obama, no contrast.

7) "New Energy" - Oil related; does tie McCain to Bush and big oil; contrasts with Obama; implies change vs same, but doesn't say it explicitly.

8) "Sand Dunes"  - Oil related; does tie McCain to Bush and big oil; contrasts with Obama; implies change vs same, but doesn't say it explicitly.

Only on the subject of oil have they made a change vs same argument, and even then not explicitly by name or theme. But look what's missing:

* Iraq, Afghanistan, Maliki's endorsement of the Obama plan, McCain's cave/incoherence on all of these, any pushback/ridicule of 'lose war to win election,' and/or paid messaging to compliment/capitalize on Obama's trip abroad. Instead, McCain's paid media is defining that trip.

* Anything on the economy other than oil, 'nation of whiners," trade, jobs, McCain's business/lobbyist ties.

* Any thematic definition of McCain whatsoever, any attempt to undercut McCain's positioning as a "Straight Talker," even after McCain's "elitism" type ads, no pushback/ridicule/bio definition about his eight homes, private plane, $500,000/mth credit card bills, etc., only dealing with "maverick" in a response form.

* Any thematic definition of what this election is about. They've even dropped the "change" theme, let alone framing a consistent 'change vs same' theme.

Other than failing to affirmatively define/win the foreign policy debate, the jobs/economy debate, the thematic bio debate and the thematic election debate these are an awesome set of political ads...

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


[ Parent ]
THANK YOU! (4.00 / 1)
Here in Florida, the party has a big push for Vote by Mail, and it never gets mentioned in organizing meetings by Obama staffers until we (the local party people) bring it up.  They talk about GOTV only in terms of early voting and Election Day.  It's another one of those clues that they aren't even informed about with what's going on locally, and/or that they aren't training their staff properly.

[ Parent ]
In states where they have early voting, successful candidates - (4.00 / 1)
no matter what the office - must have a comprehensive and strategic early-voting program.  In many many ways, an early voting program (I was an expert at it in Arizona) is the polar opposite and very different than the "election day" GOTV.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

[ Parent ]
Nice just delete unfavorable posts Matt (0.00 / 0)
So much for your whining to be heard, you cant event take any criticism yourself.

The hypocrisy.


troll-rating (0.00 / 0)
You got rated down by the community, actually.

[ Parent ]
The Best Obama Ad... (4.00 / 1)
...was still the mashup "Think Different" by Phil Develis way, way back in the beginning.  The Obama ads have been yawners.  So many of the ads are just sort of cut & pasted from his speeches, a format in which Obama is the master.  I do think the Obama Campaign is knee deep in caution these days but I don't expect it will drown.

Constructive Criticism (0.00 / 0)
I completely agree that the ads are BORING.

One of the reasons that the "Celebrity" ad got so much media attention is that it was creative and amusing. Why don't they hire some creative talent, say, for instance, someone from the Daily Show! I'm so SICK of those negative ads with the voice-overs with the creepy voices. I tune right out. Why can't they use Obama, or at least someone with a normal voice.

The Obama team has been in reactive mode, and hasn't gone after McCain, who is such an easy target.  And they're not on message- which should be "Change, not Same."

And I agree, if they don't hit McCain hard, they're doomed, just like Kerry and Gore. There is a difference between educating the public on where your opponent stands, and what his record is, vs. personal smears. And they can ask why is it that all McCain can do is make personal attacks, because his record is awful.

I worked hard during the primary, but I'm not going to do anything more until the campaign starts listening and changes course. GOTV alone is not going to do it. I was in NH and PA, and at a certain point, GOTV actually back-fires.

Anyway, I think your take is right on.


Donate to Open Left








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
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search