Ohio and Nevada (0.00 / 0)

In your swing state overview you have the margin listed as 1.0% and .5% for Ohio and NV respectively. But your poll numbers show Obama up 1% and down 1% in those respective states. Down in the actual states you have Obama even with McCain in OH and down 1% in NV.

I'm guessing the latter numbers are correct, but might want to update the swing state numbers.  

---

by: adamterando @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:12:00 AM CDT

Denial Is Deep (4.00 / 9)

There are some plausible arguments why we shouldn't panic.  After all, McCain's attack has been pretty intense, but it hasn't dislodged Obama's lead.  So, okay, I'm not panicking.

But what's the argument that we shouldn't be concerned?  DDay put up a post, saying, essentially, "Don't worry folks, Obama's got ground game."  But, as you point out, that ground game hasn't stemmed the shifting tide so far.

Worse, I remember the same sort of "don't worry" narrative from last time.  The insiders are never wrong.  The DFHs always are.  But according to the numbers on the maps, not so much.

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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:15:47 AM CDT

No argument against "concern" (4.00 / 1)

But I also don't think there's enough evidence to conclude that, whatever Obama is doing, isn't "working."

Sure, in the short term one can say that things are going badly.  But I assume that Obama's very competent campaign team has a long-term plan, involving decisions about how and when to proceed.

For example, I could understand Obama using the past month or so - as he evidently has been doing - to concentrate on getting the ground game in order and arranging an effective convention, intending on a more vigorous air war post-convention.  Contrary to what some say here, I don't believe that Obama had to use every rhetorical weapon pre-convention.  

---

by: ThomasPaine @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:27:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No argument against "concern" ??? (0.00 / 0)

Then what's this?

Sure, in the short term one can say that things are going badly.  But I assume that Obama's very competent campaign team has a long-term plan, involving decisions about how and when to proceed.

Chopped liver?

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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:33:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, chopped liver (0.00 / 0)

Or maybe not.  Let's not quibble over what we mean by "panic," "concern" and "chopped liver."

Of course, I'm worried when I see polls going in the wrong direction.  But my view is that we don't have enough information to condemn the campaign's long-term strategy, simply because we don't know what that strategy really is.

If it makes you happier, I'll posit that I'd be very concerned if the campaign doesn't plan anything differently in the coming weeks and months.

---

by: ThomasPaine @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:37:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pls quibble! (0.00 / 0)

For the sake of the foreign readers here, for those whose native language isn't english: What do you mean by "chopped liver"??? What's got minced meat to do with the convention? Barbecue?

---

by: Gray @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:41:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

lol (0.00 / 0)

It comes from an idiom, "What am I, chopped liver?"  meaning "Am I insignificant?"

Paul Rosenberg was asking, "Is this quote meaningless?"

At least, I think so.  It's wasn't the best deployment of an idiom I've ever read.

---

by: TValley @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 13:08:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thx! (0.00 / 0)

Now I get the picture. Well, there's sometimes a problem with phrases whose meaning isn't obvious and who can't be found in the dictionary. I appreciate your help and, again, thx!

---

by: Gray @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 13:11:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where are you reading from? (0.00 / 0)

And what draws you to this site?

---

by: TValley @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 13:12:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I zought it'z obvious (0.00 / 0)

I know I can be smartassed loundmouth sometimes, so what does this make me? German, of course. Sry.

And what draws me to liberal blogs should be obvious, too: Concern about who's to become the next the next president, and about the future course of the US in general (these issues affect not only the US, but the whole world). Not to speak of a widespread interest in the US. If there would be universal healthcare and a law that's more sympathetic towards the average Joe, I would even like to live there. Well, maybe in a few years.

---

by: Gray @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 13:23:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right on (0.00 / 0)

I spent a week in Potsdam once.

---

by: TValley @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 13:33:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, he's spending (4.00 / 5)

a lot of money on TV, and all of it is utterly conventional.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Team Obama, despite spending more money at this point on TV than any other candidate in history, has yet to produce a single memorable ad.

TV, of course, isn't everything, but, in any case, he's lagging well behind the Democratic brand.

All that said, I'm one of those people who's been saying forever that Obama wasn't a strong GE candidate. Against McCain, the best GOP candidate, this was destined to be a nail-biter.

All the Dkos predictions of an Obama realignment look especially silly now.

---

by: david mizner @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:34:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

also silly: the need for "memorable" ads (4.00 / 2)

Do you think Bush had memorable ads in 2000?  Clinton in 92?
Carter in 76?  I think breakthrough ads are very rare.  

Do you think that perhaps your analysis of Obama's ads (i.e. ones from the last week) might be a little subjective and suffer from a small sample size?  

Thanks for reminding us that you knew Obama wasn't strong.  "I told you so's" are always good practice.   As is sarcasm.  

---

by: Crab Nebula @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:40:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

A different time (4.00 / 3)

now, with the importance of cable news and Youtube.

Given the glut of TV, you'd probably be wise spending your money on organizing rather than another forgettable ad.

Plus memorable ads aren't rare. McCain's done then, Hillary (3 Am) did them. Hell, even Richardson and Biden had ads that rose above the genre. Obama isn't even trying to be different.

---

by: david mizner @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:57:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

it's subjective (4.00 / 1)

Obama is spending much money on organizing.  

You and I have different definitions of what constitutes a memorable ad.  I think some of Obama's ads meet that standard.  TRULY memorable, like Bear in the Woods, Nancy Reagan attacking or Daisy? No.  But 3AM or McCain
s current aren't in that league, either.  IMO.

Ordinary ads can be very effective at getting a message across.  All the creative ads in the world didn't get Lamont elected, and he was very outside the box.  

---

by: Crab Nebula @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:34:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My thoughts (4.00 / 3)

are here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

They can be summed up as the following.  Fight back, show anger when McCain calls you unpatriotic, and emphacize economic populism using the rhetorical device of the American Dream.

---

by: Tom Wells @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:21:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree and... (4.00 / 1)

want to add that I want a scrapper in there too.

The one quality about Obama I really like is his tendency towads calculation and/or pragmatism. But at this moment in time, I am of the belief that Obama could do all the things you outlined in your diary, but would also have to add the element of scrappy fighter willing to go to the mat for us. Thats the visceral part of the equation that feels missing, for me at least, right now.  

Laugh hard. Its a long ways to the bank.  

---

by: JerryColorado23 @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 13:37:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But (4.00 / 2)

every losing candidate has a long-term plan, just like the winning candidates. Just having a plan isn't the same as having an effective plan.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:58:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lets wait a week or 2 or 3 (4.00 / 6)

Concern is fine.  But let's consider that Obama's been on vacation for a week.  He came back and immediately went on the attack, something people have been wanting.  The new ads on taxes and the DNC ad on McCain's elitism are very good.  McCain, who started his own vacation this week, is getting increased a scrutiny for the falsehoods and possible cheating at Saddleback, and a new narrative ("John McCain:  He'll say anything to win") that sidesteps his POW past is starting to gain traction.  Obama has all the excitement building over his VP pick, while for McCain it looks like the dynamic trio of Lieberman, Pawlenty or Rob Portman, none of whom could fill the venue McCain has chosen for his August 29 roll-out.  If Obama picks Biden, it is the start of an even more vigorous campaign to define McCain as confused and out of touch, maybe even dangerously bellicose, with a weak stand-in.

Plus, "Rich starts at $5 million" isn't the only killer line to come out of Saddleback.  There is the "I'm pro-life and I will have a pro-life Administration with more Scalias and Alitos."  There are going to be ads from pro-choice groups on that theme just as single women are tuning into the race.  Biden will also help solidify older white voters, particularly in PA.  

Then comes the GOP covention.  Can't you just wait for the speeches by Bush, Cheney and Lieberman on night 1?  Would anyone tune in for the rest?  And the acceptance speech, a reprise of the Lime Jello speech with better backgrounds?  The debates won't be as friendly or McCain-slanted as Saddleback, and Obama will do better.  

If things are still this close the week of Sept 8 I will start to worry.  Now I think we are just getting started.

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

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:44:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm hopeful (4.00 / 4)

I keep thinking the Obama campaign is socking away all these priceless quotes and waiting to unleash them in September and October when they know people are paying attention.

But of course, I have no idea if they are.

How long did the Bush administration wait to unleash the windsurfing ad in 2004? Was that a month after it happened?

---

by: adamterando @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:00:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Please tell me they have a Phil Gramm (4.00 / 4)

ad stored away.

John McCain's top advisor says the economic struggles of Americans are all in our heads.

And John McCain agrees.

But our heads are just fine. It's John McCain who's confused.

---

by: david mizner @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:05:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's exactly what I mean (4.00 / 2)

Just like Carly Fiorina calling outsourcing "right-sourcing".

Obama talked about the whiners comment in Raleigh yesterday. Didn't hear him talk about it in VA just now (if he did, it was at the beginning and I missed it).

If they don't put an ad out about that then I can't imagine what the hell their problem is.  

---

by: adamterando @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:11:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's a DNC ad and its running (4.00 / 1)

Someone linked to it today--Josh Marshall?  It joins the "rich is an income of $5 million" and Gramm.  It ends with "What about the rest of us?"  I'll look for the link.

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

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:20:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's the link (0.00 / 0)

It's at Huffpost

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

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:31:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why the hell aren't they putting something like that up on paid media? (4.00 / 2)

Stop with this web ad crap--hit him hard, and in every swing state.  Make the real McCain stand up.

---

by: Valatan @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:46:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's another example (4.00 / 1)

here, again from Huffpo.

And they also report that the ad that some outside group made ("How can McCain fix the economy if he doesn't think it'as broken?") is now an Obama ad.

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

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:45:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We are 4 weeks late getting 'started' n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Susan H @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 13:21:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The problem with the "don't worry" narrative (4.00 / 10)

Is that ground games can be neutralized by bad messaging.

This was revealed brutally in the course of my canvassing for Kerry in 2004, in the same Eastside suburbs where Stoller was out canvassing for Darcy Burner this week. By September and October, door after door, I found myself having to defend Kerry against the charges of being a flip-flopper, being weak on national security, being a liar about his medals.

When you have to defend a candidate from those attacks in your contacts with voters, you've already lost.

Ground game isn't the same as messaging, but it is fundamentally linked. Obama's team seems to be overemphasizing the ground game at the expense of messaging.

---

by: Robert in Monterey @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:45:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

When you have to defend your candidate while going door to door - and (4.00 / 2)

remember, the names on your list are considered 'persuadable' - headquaters is not sending you to known Republican households the race can be considered tooo close to call OR already lost.

---

by: Susan H @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 13:25:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's right (0.00 / 0)

This wasn't random canvassing. It was hitting union members who were identified as leaners or undecideds.

---

by: Robert in Monterey @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 14:27:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

From what I hear (0.00 / 0)

that's already happening.  

---

by: nrafter53084 @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 14:47:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ground game and the shifting tide (4.00 / 3)

not sure I follow your point on that one.  The ground game advantage mostly shows up in voter registration and in GOTV. Voter education/persuasion is a combination of ground and air, but really it's mostly dictated by the media.  So if Obama has a great ground game, that's not going to show up in the polls.

Putting that aside, I agree with you about last time and so I'll put myself in the "concerned" camp.  In '04, I was sure Kerry was going to win because the America Coming Together field program was going to produce massive turnout that wasn't being detected in the polls.  I was wrong (and lost ten bucks!) then, we could be wrong now.

---

by: sierradave @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:48:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Panic might not be warrented (4.00 / 4)

but we're getting pretty damn close to the 'panic' point.  It seems like no one in the Obama campaign has considered McCain to be a real threat this whole time (i.e., polling indicates that McCain is seen as more favorable to deal with the Russia/Georgia crisis!  That should be almost a gimme).  And if they just sit around and let them undermine his credibility, and THEN try start really hitting back, but from behind...

I just don't even see what the plan could be at this point, given the past behavior by his campaign team.  I hope I'm wrong, that a lot of this has just been some sort of head fake to get McCain to overcommit.  

---

by: Valatan @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:21:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not a real threat? (0.00 / 0)

It seemed to me no one on the blogsphere considered McCain a real threat this whole time.  

---

by: nrafter53084 @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 14:48:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We Consider Him EASILY Beatable (0.00 / 0)

Which is not the same thing as not being a real threat.

The difference is, being "easily beatable" is a judgment completely independent of the campaign being run against him.  Being "a real threat" is not.

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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 18:48:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Denial and a myopic vision that seemingly refuses to see patterns or trends (4.00 / 7)

in the defeats of Carter, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry

My God, I feel as if Democrats have been handed a map which practically states this is how Republicans chip away at leads, this is how republicans can steal elections, this is how to get an emotional response from voters,and the following things do not work: laundry lists, staying aboove the fray, using DLC rhetoric.....

And the Obama campaign just ignores all that evidence in favor of a ground game.

A ground game isn't enough if all the rest I wrote about is ignored.

Once, just once, can't we do both?

Namely,fight Republicans and do what has to be done to win and have a good ground game?

---

by: Susan H @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:44:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm concerned (4.00 / 1)

I'm concerned, but I'm not in full panic mode yet because it is still early, its summer, its pre-convention and so on. But i wouldn't wait for debates to wipe out any deficit nor would I wait too much longer to introduce and hammer away at a core message that makes McCain toxic to the electorate. This point being much different than responding to or whining about negative campaigning from McCain.  

What concerns me is that Obama is losing ground with Dems and that his message is muddled to us right now. Where he once excited us he now makes us scratch our heads. Plus, could there be a bit of buyer's remorse happening now that the convention could wash away?

Also, his performance in debates is historically underwhelming (in the primaries and that Saddleback crap he did) so I wouldn't expect much of a bump from them. I remember how much Gore and Kerry was expected to gain from their debates with Bush and it didn't really materialize. Plus I think McCain is sharper in that capacity, all frantic eye blinking aside.

Not panicking, but hoping the Obama campaign strategy for winning is initiated this week.

Laugh hard. Its a long ways to the bank.  

---

by: JerryColorado23 @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:48:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's the economy, stupid (4.00 / 4)

From Josh Marshall:

Zogby's latest shows Obama trailing McCain nationally by 5 points but even more ominously is the first national poll to give McCain the upper hand on dealing with the economy, which the survey found was voters' No. 1 issue.

It's been painfully obvious to me since March when the economy started going south (and Clinton's campaign started catching on) that this is what the electorate is focusing on like a laser.

Obama has to do 3 things, in no particular order, they all actually go hand in hand.

1. Unite the Dem party.
2. Focus his campaign on the economy/universal health care.  
3. Tie McCain to Bush. And, via surrogates, hit back in kind, hard, when McCain's team attacks his character.

---

by: JohnS @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:23:52 AM CDT

McCain to Bush AND REPUBLICANS (4.00 / 3)

Tieing McCain just to Bush is not having much of an effect.  The fact is that McCain needs to be tied to Republicans and failed Republican policies.  McCain may not actually be Bush, but McCain is a Republican.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:35:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

exactly (4.00 / 2)

Republicans picked the candidate that would be the hardest to make voters believe is the same as Bush- I don't know why people are so surprised that idea hasn't gotten any traction. But there are plenty of republican policies that McCain supported that have gone south and thats where they need to take their shots. So many dems want McCain to pay for the sins of Bush but McCain's reputation has made that difficult. Better to just make him pay for the sins of the party he belongs to.  

---

by: spot @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:40:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

tying McCain to failed GOP policies is a given. (0.00 / 0)

But we're talking about one of the most unpopular presidents in our history, and this guy voted with Bush something like 99% of the time in the last two-three years?!!  C'mon. This Obama campaign disdain for taking the obvious path is getting old already. Hammer it home every day over the next 70+ days that   McCain = Bush and watch those numbers rise!

---

by: JohnS @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:47:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why not both? (0.00 / 0)

"Republican John McCain wants to continue the failed policies of Republican George Bush."

Obviously, he should be tied to Bush... but people are not believing that either.  The Republican brand is in the shitter right now as well, so why not tie him to something people hate that John McCain acknowledges himself.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:09:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Anticipating "Tax and Spend Democrats" (4.00 / 1)

Why not preempt with "Borrow and Steal Republicans"? Or "Borrow, Steal, and Tax Your Children Republicans"?

Unfortunately, I'm busy now and don't have time to develop the thought. As far as "Borrow" and "Tax Your Children", see my diary http://openleft.com/showDiary....

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

---

by: metamars @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:03:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Borrow and Waste Republicans (4.00 / 1)

Just think of all the billions that simply vanished, without at least a receipt in return.  

---

by: Gray @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 14:04:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Blow it right back at them (4.00 / 2)

"And they have the NERVE to say we spend money?  At least some good comes from what we spend it on"

cue b-roll of students learning, healthy kids playing, a happy employee at work, a smiling family on the front porch with an American flag (cause apparently people like that)

"We know paying taxes suck, but Democrats are using them to help YOU. Better schools, healthy children, more jobs for you here."

cue b-roll of warzones, charred bodies and fires, flag-draped coffins and OIL

"Republicans spend money on wars for bigger profits"

"Democrats, we work to better your children's lives. Republicans, they work to end them"

---

by: nrafter53084 @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 16:49:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

It also hasn't been done very well, so sticking with Bush could work, we just don't know.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 13:18:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not only the economy (0.00 / 0)

That's a major part of people's sorrows, sure, but imho it goes beyond that. Like in the 30s, people have very basic, existential fears about their homes, their health, the means for living and security today. Not as dire as in the great depression, but the constant worries are already depressing enough. Dems need to find an answer to that in order to outmaneuver "more of the same" McCain.  

---

by: Gray @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:49:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I really don't understand (4.00 / 8)

this strategy of going negative while pretending not to go negative. I mean, I understand it in theory: by "hiding" his negative ads, Obama is trying to get the benefits of attack ads while maintain his "new politics" reputation.

But the most important purpose of negative ads is to influence the national conversation, to shape the narrative. To do this, you need cable news to replay your ads again and again.

The Indiana ad juxtaposing McCain's words on the economy with those of real people is pretty good, and should be run in every swing state. But even that lacks the provocative punch and humor required to alter the conversation. It's less important that an ad be skillful and funny than that it be memorable. All you have to do is go for it, and CNN and MSNBC will respond accordingly. I can think of three ads off the top of my head that would get attention.

Moreover, this attempt not to get pulled into a mudfight is futile. He's already in one, he just doesn't seem to realize it.

---

by: david mizner @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:23:57 AM CDT

Exactly (4.00 / 3)

You want the evening shows to be playing those ads and then having bullshit little roundtables on subjects like "Is John McCain not taking our economic troubles seriously enough?" and  "Is John McCain really out of touch with ordinary Americans, or is that just a negative attack by Obama?" the same way that they have been having dumb little conversations about whether Obama was indeed too much of a celebrity or whether Obama was indeed ready to lead the country.

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

---

by: FuzzyDunlop @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:47:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And they should have bullshit roundtable (4.00 / 4)

about whether McCain has the temperment to be president.

I favor a strategy that combines populism with jabs at his well-documented rage problem.

I don't know why he throws so many temper tantrums: he's got eight homes, 500 dollar shoes, and great health care coverage.

---

by: david mizner @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:53:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry, just this part was from marshall (4.00 / 1)

Zogby's latest shows Obama trailing McCain nationally by 5 points but even more ominously is the first national poll to give McCain the upper hand on dealing with the economy, which the survey found was voters' No. 1 issue.

---

by: JohnS @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:25:14 AM CDT

I saw this on another blog recently (4.00 / 7)

and it's true - the High Road Fairy isn't going to show up on November 4th and leave votes under Obama's pillow.

The Obama Camp -- in an obsession to be "nice guys" about everything -- are going to piss away what should be the most winnable election Democrats have had since... well, maybe ever.

Do you know how much of a wimp you look like when your opponent calls you a traitor and you respond by saying that your opponent is a man of honor and an American hero?

Obama is getting bitch-slapped left and right by McCain, and he keeps thinking in a Shrum-like way that he'll somehow be rewarded if he doesn't fight back.

He's basically taking the worst parts of the Gore and Kerry campaigns and running with them.

He'd better start blasting the hell out of McCain now. Keating Five. Cheating on his first wife. His senior moments. His idiot moments. His outright lies. And on and on. The Obama campaign's new motto had better be "Nothing is off limits." Otherwise, they are going to lose this election.

---

by: NR @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:36:33 AM CDT

Exactly! (4.00 / 1)

"Do you know how much of a wimp you look like when your opponent calls you a traitor and you respond by saying that your opponent is a man of honor and an American hero?"
Of all possible answers, one of the worst.
Wish they was more self esteem and integrity among Dems today. Why not simply answer: "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

---

by: Gray @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 13:04:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can't blame him (0.00 / 0)

for thinking the American people were, you know, above that  

---

by: nrafter53084 @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 14:37:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama's negatives up, favorables down... McCain's... the same (4.00 / 3)

Who would've thought that praising McCain as a war hero at every turn would keep his favorables over 60%, while Obama's, under the bombardment he's been taking, would actually be plummeting.  That's the worst trend I've been seeing in the state polling... Obama's negatives are way up, typically over 40%, favorables down to below 50%, and McCain's just sitting there over 60%, not budging.

Time to start dropping those numbers, huh?

---

by: leshrac55 @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:43:04 AM CDT

Vote McCain (0.00 / 0)

and he will get your children, your family and then you KILLED

Where's that little girl and atom bomb when you need it?

Vote Obama, because you don't want this to be this LAST Presidential election

---

by: nrafter53084 @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 14:41:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't think that having muddy polls is necessarily a bad thing (0.00 / 0)

This election will probably be decided by people who like divided government.  So if they hear that democrats are going to get 60 seats and Obama's gonna win they are going to move to McCain and possibly lose interest.

Sure 5 points up till election day would be better, but 5 points ahead until the final week would be utterly terrible.

McCain has to be cast as someone who could continue Bush's third term.  If democrats are saying we are going to get 60 senate seats that criticism dissapears.

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

---

by: TerraFF @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:44:21 AM CDT

Disagree... (4.00 / 4)

I just don't think that there's a massive swing group out there that just wants a divided government.  People vote the way they want for President... they vote on who they trust and who they like.  I feel like the "issues" are almost secondary.  More people trusting McCain on the economy now is a side-effect of McCain pushing hard to make people mistrust Obama in general.  After all, why would you trust Obama to do anything if he's just a stupid celebrity not ready to lead anything?

Obama has been pushing negative ads on specific issues... Fine, that's one part of it... but nothing is basically questioning people's basic trust in McCain.  A lot more can and should be done in this regard.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:14:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There comes a point though (0.00 / 0)

where that image is forever burned into a person's brain and nothing can change it.

If a majority of the country has personal doubts of Obama, no matter what ads he runs, they will roll their eyes.

Obama's image needs repairing and McCain's need destroying.

Then he can focus on issues.  

---

by: nrafter53084 @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 14:51:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

as usual (4.00 / 1)

the dem nominee will take the high road to defeat, nice guys do finish last as we have seen recently.

obama gives the electorate too much credit by trying to win focusing on the issues when simple attack ads and getting down in the dirt is what the voters love, no time for any deep thought here, american idol, nfl and other intellectual things to do.

also, its easy for the gop to attack because the dem nominee is never left of center but gop light in reality, if both are right of center why vote for the imitation when you can have the real deal.

when you are dealing with an electorate that thinks iq is a dirty word you must campaign on a level they are comfortable with, don't confuse this electorate with the facts they just get in the way of a good ole time. in america hate is an easier sell then love, obviously

---

by: pc @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:55:09 AM CDT

The irony (0.00 / 0)

is what people tell pollster is that they hate the negative ads and the mudslinging.

Except, you know, they don't.  

---

by: nrafter53084 @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 14:42:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i'm not concerned yet, but Obama's "new politics" (4.00 / 3)

is a pretty old concept. Kerry took the bait: the GOP challenged him to run a "positive" campaign. Gore picked Lieberman to run against partisanship. Clinton won because of Perot. Dukakis took the high road to presidential obscurity.

It's time to remember that this is an all-out fight. It doesn't mean you have to be dishonest. But it means you have to state the truth forcefully, and stop making concessions to your opponent.

---

by: danthrax @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:00:41 PM CDT

Obama / McCain (4.00 / 1)

"Given that McCain continues to close despite all this is a clear indication that McCain and his surrogates / affiliated organizations are doing a better job of messaging than Obama and his surrogates / affiliated organizations."

Chris,

IMHO, the entire corporate media apparatus acts as a surrogate for McCain.  The TV bloviators are high net-worth individuals, and their bosses are even higher on the economic food chain.  They buy into the notion that keeping government in the hands of the Republicans serves their best interests.  The privileged classes are scared shitless about Obama for two reasons-  he's black, and his campaign looks to them like the barbarians are at the gates.  We know that ideologically, Obama is pretty much a centrist, but the assumption in the gated communities is that he is a threat to their way of life.  Thus, there is no way that Obama will get a fair shake from the MSM-- we're going to have to get this done in spite of Big Media.

---

by: global yokel @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:07:04 PM CDT

wow (0.00 / 0)

seriously? You think that the mainstream media has been against Obama?

---

by: spot @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:56:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is reminding me alot of the Iowa caucus (0.00 / 0)

for weeks even after Hillary's downturn, I was WAITING for Obama to make his move.  He finally did.  It seemed like the campaign wanted to keep it close, and then unleash a last minute flood of resources.

It worked in Iowa.  I'm a little more concerned now.  We simply HAVE to get McCain out of the headlines.  Or get him IN them in a negative fashion.  This kind of brinksmanship is hell on my nerves.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.

---

by: ArkansasLiberal @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:08:31 PM CDT

Surrogates (4.00 / 2)

My two bit contribution is about surrogates. Gary Hart was on a local public affairs show, debating former R governor Owens. Hart was pathetic. He started out by saying that McCain was too old to be president, and when challenged on the relevance, drifted into incoherent non-sequiturs about how it's time for change.

The "old" idea should lead into McCain's complete lack of understanding of how transnational terrorism and a chaotic, unstable geopolitical world funtions This isn't just campaign rhetoric, the man is clueless and dangerous. Besides not understanding the difference between Sunni and Shi'a, and the roles played by Iran and Saudi Arabia in the ME, he thinks Iraq is Occupied France, and we just have to drive the Bad Guys out. He wants to "get tough" with Russia. With our military bogged down in Iraq (a situation he wants to maintain indefinitely) and western Europe totally dependent on Russian gas, McCain thinks we have leverage. This is the message people like Biden and Dodd (and Wes Clark... major cock up on Obama's part there) should be hitting every day. Our surrogates are pathetic. Graham and Lieberman may be nasty little liars, but they never go off message and don't give a fiddler's fart about how this campaign affects their social relationships. And John Kerry, bless his heart... keep him away from the TV cameras.

And Bill "Love my enemies, screw my friends" Clinton might want to pull his head out of his ass and use a discussion of McCain's environmental record to point out that 'drill here, drill now' is not only bad for the environment, but a lousy, demogogic non-solution to energy prices, instead of using it to fellate McCain because his feelings are hurt because primary voters rejected him I mean his wife. (Note to Bubba: Showing that you care more about the party and the country than about your own legacy just might be a way to polish that legacy. Just a thought. /rant over).

---

by: BlueinColorado @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:10:13 PM CDT

russia (0.00 / 0)

McCain wants to get tough with Russia... thats a plan that at least some segment of the voters will get behind whole heartedly. What is Obama proposing to do differently?  Thats the major issue with Obama's campaign in my opinion, he is the candidate of change but voters don't have concrete ideas of what those changes are. Thats why he is vulnerable to the paris hilton ad- he isn't backing up his speeches with actual concrete changes that can rally nonbelievers behind him.

---

by: spot @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:59:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As far as Russia/Georgia (0.00 / 0)

I think people don't know his plan because no one has talked about it, but I do and when I do mention that Obama is pushing the two sides to cool it, that's not strong enough for them. They want consequences if the Russians, who were randomly chosen to be the enemy here, don't pull out of Georgia.

McCain threatens consequences. Americans like war, so long as they think they can win it.

and don't bother sending Obama out there to say it would be a mistake to render Russia the enemy. Why? Because we can't beat them? Why do you hate America?

---

by: nrafter53084 @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 21:39:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ugh (0.00 / 0)

What consequences? What the hell do they think we can do? Our military is trapped in the sand, our economy sucks, they are Europe's gasman....

(Rhetorical, frustrated questions)

---

by: BlueinColorado @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 22:20:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Frustrating? (0.00 / 0)

Yeah...I say the truth "If we can't stabilize Iraq, how the hell are we going to face the Russians?"

Suddenly I'm unpatriotic. McCain's preferred on the issue because he made threats and that makes him strong. Obama isn't because he was everyone to get along and that's weakness.

If I knew why, I'd be running Obama's campaign.  

---

by: nrafter53084 @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 23:44:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Democrats don't aggressively argue for peace (0.00 / 0)

How hard is it to point out that the so-called "success" of the surge is due largely to the fact that ethnic cleansing of mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad had largely already been completed by the time the surge began, and that the tall, concrete walls did much of the rest? And that what Russia is doing in those S. Ossetia and Abkhazia ain't all that different?

If Obama hadn't already blabbered on, quite in unison with the dominant, pro-empire ethos in Washington, he could have taunted McCain, as follows:

You wanted a confrontation with Russia - well, OK, here it is. Explain to us why, if you were President, you would not attack Russia with, say, a few tactical nuclear bombs to "teach them a lesson"? Not chickening out, now, are you? No, you're not afraid of nuclear war with Russia - after all, the essential interests of the US involve sticking up for a regime which shelled it's own citizens and killed Russian peacekeepers, and whose President violently suppresses protests by his own citizens. (BTW, it's part of Russian military doctrine to respond with tactical nukes if their military is attacked with American precision guided weapons.)

After taunting McCain for his chest-thumping, Obama could have laid out a rational argument for solving the matter peacefully, not least of which is that we need Russia's help to solve the Iraq and Iran issues, peacefully. Obama could also have pointed out that Russia could reciprocate the facilitation of guerrilla war against the Russian troops which the US helped pay for, which would certainly cost American lives, not to mention treasure.

Obama could then ask questions like "How much war is enough for you, John McCain?"

Unfortunately, the only statement I've read from Obama mentioned only one side of the argument, viz., the territorial integrity of Georgia. John McCain is definitely the war candidate - IMO, Obama cannot even draw even by trying to out-growl and out-chest-thump him.

(I'm well aware that the Democrats have pretty much always been on board with empire - at least during my lifetime. But, it turns out that if they want to preserve whatever empire has already accumulated, they have to run the empire intelligently. And that means not being prone to using force, and getting bogged down in actual fighting. The arguments against belligerency can be quite similar, even if the real intentions have nothing to do with aggressively seeking a peaceful, prosperous, cooperative and fair new world order.)

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

---

by: metamars @ Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 09:23:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nobody trusts the Russians (0.00 / 0)

that's the problem. I think if Obama had a "let's trust the Russians" policy, it wouldn't fly. We've been programmed to not trust the Russians.

It's very simple, when there's a war, our enemy is always the side we don't trust, even if they're not the instigators.  

---

by: nrafter53084 @ Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 07:24:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Are we really believing (0.00 / 0)

that the candidate who figured out a way to beat Hillary Clinton, who had all the advantages, is suddenly becoming dumb and stupid in its messaging, now?

Are we really to believe that, always, the strategists in charge are wrong?

The thing is -

a. Obama HAS been hitting back - and has had great ads.
b. He has made no mistakes, no huge blunders.
c. The essential reason we voted for him was this idea of a "change" candidate.
d. He can't hit back too hard, becoming the "scary black man".  That's a limitation we know about.

How much of this is simply the Republican base coming back, and using the negative ads to do so?

I'll tell you the only thing that I see - the candidate who excited me, isn't quite there anymore.  The words are the same, but the spirit of it, is missing a bit.

In that sense, I'm a bit de-motivated.  

I don't know how not "turning out his base" - being less the inspiring candidate - is doing.  

But we can't blame the strategy for what is most likely demographics

 

---

by: JC @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:10:34 PM CDT

Famous last words? (4.00 / 1)

"a. Obama HAS been hitting back - and has had great ads. "

They've clearly been effective, since Obama has been losing steadily in both state and national polls since July.

"b. He has made no mistakes, no huge blunders."

Wow, really? If so then we could be in deep trouble since Obama keeps losing support.

"c. The essential reason we voted for him was this idea of a "change" candidate."

Well, he hasn't been showing a lot of that recently, apparently, as a lot of people apparently don't believe it any more.

"d. He can't hit back too hard, becoming the "scary black man".  That's a limitation we know about."

Surrogates, 3rd parties, etc... Someone needs to create some ads that start getting "buzz" like the "Celebrity" ads that McCain created.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:22:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clearly, we can see the loss of support (0.00 / 0)

Again, I'm not saying it's not there, I'm not putting on rose colored glasses.

But really - POINT to a huge blunder.  Has there been one?  

I bet there is an equally strong argument against that.

As far as the "change you can believe in", yes I agree with you.  He has been less inspiring, there is no doubt.  But the ads have been good.

I also agree on 3rd party ads.

---

by: JC @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:39:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

His inaction since gettting back from Europe is rapidly approaching a huge blunder (0.00 / 0)

I know that he's been on vacation, but dammit, if he's let this vacation completely alter the narratives of the campaign, then, dammit, he shouldn't have been on vacation.

---

by: Valatan @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:48:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Soon as he got back (0.00 / 0)

Out of the gate, he hit McCain hard - both on McCain's tactics, and in general, on the economy.

And - one week? - c'mon.  The man has a family that he has spent very little time with, since at least January.

You can disagree - but it isn't "absolutely clear" that he "shouldn't have been on vacation - you may be correct, but it isn't obvious - there is validity on both sides.

---

by: JC @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 13:30:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The election isn't over yet (0.00 / 0)

it's hard to see what has gone on, or whether the campaign narratives have been irrevocably changed.  But, if this week was the turning point of the campaign, then it will have been a mistake.  We've heard that he has had a plan all along for this point.  Let's see it--maybe I'm just a moviegoer wincing when the T-1000 gets his arm stuck in the big metal thing, only to go and save John Connor at the last possible second.

But things are moving toward 'dire' right now.

---

by: Valatan @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 13:38:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Possible blunders... (4.00 / 2)

-Shutting down the 527s
-FISA (and no, I don't believe this has effected his polls that much, but it certainly has effected his base enthusiasm).

And do we really think he ran a perfect primary?  He got cocky and lost New Hampshire. He could've finished it with a primary win in TX (and a closer OH) had he shut his advisors up and not caused the NAFTA flare-up. He also lost South Dakota, which he should've won, and Indiana (which he probably could've won).

Yes, Obama ran a pretty good Primary campaign, but it still had it's share of mistakes.  So far, Obama's general campaign hasn't been something worth celebrating too much about.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 13:00:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Blunders (0.00 / 0)

I don't know much about shutting down the 527's.  I think the reaction was, an ad put out that would be on the scale of "Senator Betrayus", which caused such blowback from MoveOn, and that WOULD get blamed on Obama - even if he had nothing to do with it.

So, you may be right - I would even agree you are - but the thinking may be to have a unified message going forward.

I didn't say he had a perfect campaign - but you really can't look at Texas as a mistake, the Obama team did everything it could in Texas - and won the most delegates, at that.

---

by: JC @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 13:33:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Even I (0.00 / 0)

thought Betrayus was a little much.

My problem with that ad is that they ran it BEFORE he went before Congress. I think blowback would've been less if they had run it AFTER.

Still, Americans don't like when you go after their soldiers.

---

by: nrafter53084 @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 16:44:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

FISA is overrated (0.00 / 0)

I've talked to plenty of his core supporters for whom that doesn't even register as an issue. My brother is down in Virginia on the campaign and he says there isn't any less enthusiasm in the campaign or with his supporters and if there is, it's because the polls suck.

But you're right about the primaries. There was a certain cockiness about his campaign. South Dakota was ridiculous and I remember everyone assuring me he was going to win South Dakota by double digits the day of the primary.

This is starting to remind me of the Ned Lamont campaign. I volunteered for him, but canvassing and phonebanking turned up a lot of disaffected Democrats and Independents who were angrily voting for Lieberman because of his "experience" and because he's "always been a Democrat." The Lamont campaign did nothing to counter that, instead focusing only on the war. As it turned out, not everyone cared about the war. Lamont did not talk about the economy or security or anything, just the war and a campaign official told me; "The war is all we need"

I stopped volunteering for him at the end because it just got so frustrating. It was heartbreaking because I adored Lamont. He was one of the greatest men I've ever met. He should be in the Senate and everyday he's not is heartbreaking.  

---

by: nrafter53084 @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 16:42:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Constantly saying he respects McSame's service, that he believes McSame to be (4.00 / 2)

an honorable man, is a HUGE blunder

Not standing up for himself with rightoeus indignation when his very patriotism is called into question is a HUGE blunder....

Obama needs to say nothing that could be remotley taken as a compliment about McSame from now until after Nov 4th

---

by: Susan H @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 13:07:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So what should he do? (0.00 / 0)

Say he DOESN'T respect McSame's service?  Not mention it at all?

As far as "not standing up for himself" - he JUST DID.  The most recent speech was all about that.  So that's not true.

As far as "never saying anything positive", it's a debating tactic to acknowledge something, then to de-legitimize that same acknowledgment, thus making it more powerful.

At any rate - my essential point, in my comment - was point to a 'BLUNDER' that was obvious, accepted by all.  There are now three separate comments, all listing SEPARATE BLUNDERS.

You all have proved my point.  

If this room full of smart people can't agree on HOW Obama has messed up - you then can't go ahead and leap to the conclusion, he has DEFINITELY messed up.

You need a cause - otherwise, it again, may simply be events or demographics outside of his control.

---

by: JC @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 13:38:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The correct answer is 'not mention it at all' (4.00 / 3)

he doesn't need to attack McCain's service.  He just needs to not mention it.  Alternately, he could make an argument along the lines of what Wesley Clark did, but he's clearly unwilling to do that.  So he should just not mention it, or mention it as little as he possibly can.

---

by: Valatan @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 13:41:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This isn't a debate in a rarefied atmosphere....this is a campaign (0.00 / 0)

which technically is a military term suggesting a battle.

Is it really too much to expect our candidate to not say anything positive about his opponent???

If you insist on mentioning his military service, you could say something about how with the grades he received at Annapolis it's was probably a good thing for McSame that his grandfather and father were Admirals - he, like Bush, has been an 'insider' since he was born and he certainly didn't exert himsef there did he? Or, isn't it interesting to consider how his Navy career really didn't go anywhere despite the "juice' behind him AND his professed claim AFTER he came home from Vietnam to make the Navy his career????

His conduct in the Navy - bad enough that advancement was impossible despite his insder status should be discussed

That's how you talk about his service: gave the honest negative information that's out there or say nothing at all

---

by: Susan H @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 14:53:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's possible (0.00 / 0)

"Are we really believing to beat Hillary Clinton, who had all the advantages, is suddenly becoming dumb and stupid in its messaging, now?"

Maybe he can only beat women, or fellow Dems, who knows?
:-/

---

by: Gray @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:53:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If this is the Republican base coming back (0.00 / 0)

then we need to stop wasting money running for President, because we can never win.  

---

by: nrafter53084 @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 14:46:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A man is only as good as his word (4.00 / 2)

To 90% of the electorate, they aren't really issues people.

But when someone says "I believe in this so much I'll filibuster" they look at the person and based on their feelings about that persons integrity will support or not support them.

Later when that same person says "Yeah, now I don't care about that any more and I'll vote for it" that's a clear signal that the person doesn't have integrity.

The candidate made a choice.  I have no idea why he decided to kill the brand that way.  But when he loses, it's not the base's fault - it's his.

---

by: jello5929 @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 14:04:18 PM CDT

Obviously (0.00 / 0)

you don't canvass voters or even talk to them.

Walk up and down a street in a swing district and knock on doors, ask them what does FISA anad Filibuster mean and I guarantee you the answer will be something like "Aren't they characters on a PBSKids show?"

You're projection your own disappointment onto millions of people who have no fucking clue what you're talking about.  

---

by: nrafter53084 @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 14:44:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama's Slide (0.00 / 0)

The Republican Party has figured something out a long time ago, starting with Lee Atwater.  Negative campaigning works and works every time.  When you think about it, how do you answer unwarrented charges made against you?  You can't.  Someone calls Obama a Muslim - how does he prove to people that he isn't?  Difficult if not impossible.  The big problem with fighting negative campaigning is that the MSM plays the negative ads over and over in prime time and goes through their numbskulled analysis endlessly.  You can't fight that.  They help the negative  campaigner all the time, in fact every time.  You don't see them playing positive ads and analyzing them, do you?  No, of course not.  This is how we got George Bush the first time. And Swift Boaters are just a part of their game and a very effective on at that.  God help us all, but it's happening again and I don't have a bit of faith that the American people are tired of this kind of campaigning and will reject it.  Democrats did in the primaries, but the general population, not going to happen, folks, and I say that with a very heavy heart.  We have an electorate that has been proprammed for 20 years to react to negative ads and they will not change now.

---

by: mouthofthesouth @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 15:25:16 PM CDT

So then we give in (0.00 / 0)

and go negative too.

McCain is unstable, mean tempered and bloodthirsty. Do you want this mean vindictive jerk representing you overseas? Hell, at least Bush put on a pleasant disposition.

How about ads morphing McCain into Cheney? They do resemble each other, don't they

---

by: nrafter53084 @ Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 16:30:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]