If You Are Explaining, You Are Losing

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:00


McCain has a new, stupid, false ad out about Obama where he claims that Obama has passed a law to mandate sex education for kindergarten. However, just because it is stupid and false doesn't mean it won't be effective. In fact, it might demonstrate a truism about contemporary American politics: if you are explaining, then you are losing.

More in the extended entry.
Chris Bowers :: If You Are Explaining, You Are Losing
Here is the ad:


The point, unfortunately, isn't that the ad is false. The problem will come in when the media repeats the charge without disputing it. The headlines will be something like "McCain Campaign Accuses Obama Of Sex-Ed For Tots," because I guess the attack itself is news. Then, more stories are written about how "Obama Denies Kindergarten Sex Charges." So the charge gets repeated over and over again, and never really debunked.

The campaign that is on the defensive, the one that is making explanations about charges sent your way, is invariably the campaign that is losing ground. One way to measure the effectiveness of Obama's attacks on McCain, or of Obama's response to McCain's attacks, is to see if they are explaining or forcing the other side to explain. For example, will Obama's response to this ad put McCain on the defensive?

"It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls - a position that his friend Mitt Romney also holds. Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn't define what honor was. Now we know why."

Seems doubtful. Obama is the one explaining here, and McCain won't need to respond. How about Obama's latest ad, the one everyone online seems to like so much?


Again, probably not. Hard for me to imagine McCain saying "no, I really am a maverick," and getting all defensive about that charge.

One aspect of the ad does seem promising, however: the bridge to nowhere lie. This is something that I bet the Obama campaign, and progressive media, can keep pushing on until it becomes a wider media narrative. It seems to have real potential to force McCain into explaining mode, since he has repeated the lie himself, on several occasions.

Still, even then, it might not be effective. The McCain campaign just declared at one point that it wouldn't take any more questions about the Palin selection process. Right on cue, the questions just stopped, the McCain campaign didn't have to do any more explaining, and McCain-Palin climbed out of the crater they had dug in the polls. They weren't explaining anymore, and they stopped losing.

I think a good rule of thumb for an effective attack, or a good response to an attack, is to try and figure out if it will force your opponent into explaining mode. If it will, then it is a good attack. If it won't, it is probably time to either stay positive, or to think of a different attack.  

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
If You Are Explaining, You Are Losing | 60 comments
The old LBJ story (4.00 / 3)
It's recounted best by Hunter Thompson, about how when LBJ was behind in one of his early campaigns, and told his manager to start a rumor campaign about how his opponent enjoyed - ah - animals on his farm.

His campaign manager replied to the effect - we can't call him a ($()#*!#!@#, nobody would believe it.

And LBJ told him - "I know, I know, but let's make the sonofab)#$%" deny it!"

It is said (0.00 / 0)
That LBJ beat his opponenets "like a drum".

Nowadays, we just call them "honorable men".

[ Parent ]
We all have said it repeatedly. (0.00 / 0)
When canddiates fail to respond forcefully to false attacks, people lose repect for them.  Your point also is correct.  The Obama campaign reacts, but does not often drive the debate.  7 houses was an exception.

Thomas Friedemann in the NY Times today:

I confess, I watch politics from afar, but here's what I've been feeling for a while: Whoever slipped that Valium into Barack Obama's coffee needs to be found and arrested by the Democrats because Obama has gone from cool to cold.

Somebody needs to tell Obama that if he wants the chance to calmly answer the phone at 3 a.m. in the White House, he is going to need to start slamming down some phones at 3 p.m. along the campaign trail. I like much of what he has to say, especially about energy, but I don't think people are feeling it in their guts, and I am a big believer that voters don't listen through their ears. They listen through their stomachs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09...

I've seen more life in Obama lately, but I'd like to see Obama just tell the truth: John McCain is running a dishonorable campaign.  Dishonorable people do dishonorable things.

Are there no Democrats with the courage to call out John McCain for what he is doing?  That ad is the worst ad I've ever seen, worse than Willie Horton.

It's time to hit McCain hard on many fronts.  For opposing attempts to protect children from sexual abuse.

Whatever "dirt" they have, needs to be used.  We need 527s.

Fight or lose.  We can't do it for the Obama campaign.

What I'd like to hear from Obama: (0.00 / 0)
John McCain is so angry about my work to protect schoolchildren from sexual predators that he's running ads about it all over America. John McCain, here is my question to you: What is it about empowering kids against child molesters that gets you in such a rage? Do you believe these predators should have a more level playing field?
[ Parent ]
Outraged at Democrats (0.00 / 0)
This is the problem with our side.  If a Democrat attacks a Republican, they get outraged at us.  If a Republican attacks a Democrat, we get outraged at our response!  No reason to get outraged at the Republicans, cause, it's just what they do, don't ya know.

It isn't just the insiders, it is each and every one of us.  We all agree -- attack the Democrat and blame him or her for everything.

[ Parent ]
They're liars who aren't good with money (4.00 / 2)
That's the message.

Both McCain and Palin, for all their talk, are from welfare states who get more money then they take in. McCain brags about not getting earmarks? Fuck earmarks. Arizona gets $1.30 for every tax dollar it pays, Illinois gets $0.73 cents. Alaska gets $1.87 for every dollar it kicks into the federal treasury. Delaware gets $0.79 cents.

The point isn't to get into these figures in a stump speech. It's to call McCain/Palin fiscal frauds who brag (and lie) about eliminating earmarks, all the while their states are living like trust fund babies (literally, the Social Security trust fund) sucking at the federal teat.

You can tie the "they're liars who aren't good with money" into every domestic issue, the war in Iraq, everything.  

John McCain

Too complex (4.00 / 1)
That message seems too complex to me.  
[ Parent ]
How about "They're liars"? (4.00 / 4)
McCain has abandoned the "experience" card and is now trying to play the "change" card. In order to play the change card, he has to convince people that a Republican is the best choice to fix problems caused by his own president and his own party. How can he possibly pull that off? The "character" card; he's the only one with the character to challenge his own party.

If the "liar" narrative can catch hold, McCain's "character" card is dead along with his change card.

I think Chris is right; we need to get Mccain in the position of having to explain. Specifically, explain why he's such a fucking liar. The examples are endless, but the two to emphasize should be his lies about Obama's tax policy and his lies about Palin's reformer status i.e. earmarks, bridge to nowhere, etc., because they are central to the campaign and because he continues to repeat them despite being corrected repeatedly by the media. It is pathological.

It is really up to the Obama campaign to start pushing this hard. But maybe we can help. I have set up a store on Cafe Press with shirts and stuff that say "Why does John McCain keep lying?" I have priced everything at no markup, so I won't make any money from any sales. If anyone wants to steal the idea and print your own stuff, please do.

I think this is one of those ideas that can make a difference if enough people do it. It's a conversation starter, a good way to get people to ask you about John McCain's pathological lying and flawed character. This was my bro's idea. I did the cafe press thing for a diary that he was thinking about posting on dailykos. Be a walking billboard for the narrative of "McCain is a liar!"

http://www.cafepress.com/miasmo

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
Hillary in Tampa Monday (4.00 / 1)
She wouldn't go after Palin.  Shouldn't the surrogates be hitting her hard?  Hillary is now a surrogate and that's her job.
I predict a difference here (0.00 / 0)
Occasionally, there is a backlash, though, that causes the aggressor to be on the defensive.

In my opinion, Obama has a good opportunity here to counterpunch strongly enough that he will not be on the defensive for long.  In fact, I think that will occur.

The lack of fire from Obama (0.00 / 0)
is undermining him.  Let's see what he does.  And where are Democrats like Kerry and Feingold?

Unless Democrats fight, they lose.  Obama is starting to, but we need much more.  

[ Parent ]
Kerry has been a mixed bag and Feingold has not helped (4.00 / 1)
Kerry notably undermined Wes Clark, who had one of the first and most effective pushbacks on McCain, you may recall. The GOPs played the refs and cowed Obama into quarantining Clark.
[ Parent ]
Kerry and Feingold are busy (0.00 / 0)
telling everyone that John McCain is a fine person and and American hero. How does that help anyone but McCain?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
I predict a difference here (0.00 / 0)
Occasionally, there is a backlash, though, that causes the aggressor to be on the defensive.

In my opinion, Obama has a good opportunity here to counterpunch strongly enough that he will not be on the defensive for long.  In fact, I think that will occur.

The explanation (4.00 / 4)
that they need to demand from McCain is why he thinks children should be victims of sexual predators?  

The bill that Obama passed was to protect children from sexual predators.  If McCain is criticizing this bill that means he does not want to protect children from sexual predators which must mean he actually WANTS children to be victims of sexual predators.

Of course, we know that's not true but that IS what his actions imply and he needs to be held accountable for that implication.  In other words, he needs to be asked to explain why he is for the sexual molestation of children.

If you live on Chicago's north side, get involved in Northside DFA.
www.northsidedfa.com

WaPo's E.J. Dionne: (4.00 / 1)
 "Is McCain against teaching little kids to beware of sexual predators?"

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

[ Parent ]
The first thing dems need to do (4.00 / 6)
is to stop calling McCain "honorable".

They need to call him a sleazebag, a scumbucket. A dangerous, psychopathic, bullying, not-so-bright, ethically challenged liar who will do anything for power.

They need to tell people he's George W. Bush channeling Richard M. Nixon.

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength; McCain/Palin 2008

It could be an opportunity for a turnaround (0.00 / 0)
All this "honorable" crap from Obama and the rest could become a very nice setup. At the ripest opening, such as the McCain sex ad: "I'm sorry to say that I misjudged John McCain. I've been calling him honorable because I hoped for a reasoned, substantive campaign. I was wrong. His shameless and repeated lies, like his attack on my work to protect schoolchildren from sexual predators, have gone way over the line. You can't sink this low and still pretend to be an honorable man."
[ Parent ]
100 years in Iraq time (0.00 / 0)
This seems like the perfect time to roll back out the McCain 100 years in Iraq quote since Iraq is back in the news. Plus nothing will piss off McCain and make him explain himself defensively than that quote.
Meanwhile, in MSM bizarro-land (4.00 / 1)
On the Today show this morning, the screeching headline was whether Obama really was calling Palin a pig.   Glad to see they have their priorities straight.
Because the Obama campaign lets it (4.00 / 2)
happen.

Until they start driving the narrative with attacks on McCain, this will happen.

The pattern seems set and it is sinking into people's minds.

I am so angry at McCain and also at Democrats for failing to stand up for themselves once again.

[ Parent ]
I disagree with some of this post (0.00 / 0)
I think the Obama ad is effective and he has just called McPALIN out  in 2 releases.....the pig issue is over-reaching and let's sit back and watch the backfire, it is coming, you could see it in the late night political bator and in the morning shows.
McPAlin is looking like a hypocrite(no news to us) ......I think Obama is on to something here.
Al Giordano speculates that the pig remark may have been genius (0.00 / 0)
by causing the McCain camp to over-reach.

He's only semi-kidding.

http://narcosphere.narconews.c...

[ Parent ]
Don't know him, (4.00 / 2)
but I think he may be delusional.

Everytime the Rs kick our ass someone on our side tells us how good we are doing.  Right up to November.

[ Parent ]
Every time (0.00 / 0)
you tell yourself your ass is getting kicked, you get a little weaker.

Stop complaining and start telling people about John McCain, the reckless and senile gambler with a record of whoring and adultery.

[ Parent ]
Don't know him, (0.00 / 0)
but I think he may be delusional.

Everytime the Rs kick our ass someone on our side tells us how good we are doing.  Right up to November.

[ Parent ]
McCain's Incredibly Long List of Flip Flops (0.00 / 0)
I don't know how the Obama campaign, or better yet, a 527, could go about driving home the long list of flip flops that "The Real Maverick McCain" has recorded for posterity but that could be an effective direction to go in order to put McCain on defense.

Perhaps a three ring circus (h/t Chris in DC http://insideoutthebeltway.blo... ) entertaining us on video as the narrator and the crawl ferret out a dozen of McCain's flops and flips.

Another h/t to these two guys for compiling a list:
http://open.salon.com/content....

The best response is a question (0.00 / 0)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=... (for a similar thing)

That being said I don't necessarily agree.  I think people are too often willing to believe that doing immoral things works even when the evidence is against it.  Thats why CEOs are often terrible human beings and run their company into the ground.

So is there any evidence for this argument?

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

I think (0.00 / 0)
...the whole flap about Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment is, unfortunately, a good line of attack. Eventually, Obama's going to have to explain that he wasn't calling Palin a pig (even if he refused to apologize last night).
I think if Obama is stupid enough to take your advice he should lose (4.00 / 3)
He needs to do exactly what he is doing. it will eventually go away, and people will respect him for not falling for the bullshit. The test here isn't whetehr McCain will try to smear- it's whether Obama will show the public that he "gets it." The It that Democrats never seem to get is perceived weakness. He's not going to have to explain anything other than calling McCain dishonorable and a liar. If he does that- then he doesn't need to do what you just did. Your approach is the attitude of a victim who want to continue to be one. "Please stop hitting me. Oh, Thanks. Thank you for being so kind for stop hitting me."
[ Parent ]
Pigs and lipstick (0.00 / 0)
You could probably find a 'lipstick on a pig' joke carved onto a cave wall from the BC days. Obama doesn't need to explain why he used it for the millionth time in the history of the existence of the planet earth. Only imbeciles who can be fooled by charlatans need an explanation from Obama about that line.
[ Parent ]
Nope, sorry. (4.00 / 1)
Obama should "explain" his Pig in lipstick comment only after Palin has apologized for implying that one cannot tell a hockey mom from a dog without lipstick.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
If he does explain (0.00 / 0)
or apologize instead of going on the attack, I may be done with him. But from the looks of it so far he's smarter than that.
[ Parent ]
Except Obama isn't defending he's defining McCain as dishonorable (4.00 / 1)
and perverted. Your maxim only works if one does say a Kerry an asks for an apology. Weakness is not using the attacks to pivot into your own attacks. Weakness is perceived where you ask the other side to play nice. Has Obama asked them or has he rather described them as dishonorable and perverted? Mybe i've missed something.
Palin (0.00 / 0)
The whole problem here is that Obama & Biden are letting Palin get inside their heads. They need to stop talking about her so much. The more they talk about her, the more the media covers Palin, and the more it gets women all worked up. Just stop talking about her and focus on McCain.
"Women all worked up"? (0.00 / 0)
You seem to be assuming that women in general are ignorant sheep and fall for the Palin clown show just because she happens to be a woman. Could you be more insulting?
[ Parent ]
I think we have seen... (0.00 / 0)
...that when the public perceive a female candidate as being unfairly targeted based on her gender, people do get worked up. It is valid to consider the best ways to target Palin without eliciting this reaction - and as boomersun said, the best way to do that may be to ignore her.


"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
Barack let Hillary… (4.00 / 1)
...get inside his head, too, and look how that turned out. I wish there was a different strategy, but I dunno...the campaign isn't behaving haplessly, so something tells me that the bullies are going to get lulled into a false sense of security and start overplaying their hands...big time. In the frenzy following the Republican Convention, the Obama campaign isn't getting much help from the media, which is currently fixated on Palin's rising star. It's kinda like the atmosphere before "7 houses," the trick is to be patient...then pounce. (And with a razor, not an ax.)

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams
[ Parent ]
The ad's horrible (0.00 / 0)
And I'm a McCain supporter.

But, there's no denying it. The ad's horrible. If McCain's going to get that far down in the dirt, I'd rather he bring up BAIPA and "infanticide". While that's just as dirty, and quite obviously a smear, at least it has some truth in it.

For the record, I think McCain should stay as far away from using the word "infanticide" as possible. I merely bring it up as an example, comparing it to this ad.

John McCain (4.00 / 1)
is obviously against protecting children from sexual preditors.
This post is so true (0.00 / 0)
This is it ... the Swiftboat/ Willie Horton moment.

If Obama does not call McCain on lies and smears within the next 24 hours, then I think he may have lost this election.

Chris is so, so right ... an anemic discussion about what the legislation was about will cause people to tune out. The statement should go out strong and aggressive from Obama himself that he is disappointed a man who wore his country's uniform with distinction should stoop so low.

Otherwise, all that will be left will be the negative impression of the ad. The campaign statement is too convoluted for ordinary people to pick up on.

Obama needs to change to the narrative to the story of systematic lies and smears being spread by the McCain campaign. It is the chance that was fumbled by Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.

He has to change a negative to a positive, and fast!

We were all hoping it would not come to this, but it has.

Agree completely (4.00 / 2)

I've concluded that Obama really does want to win this with some of his integrity intact - ie, without getting nasty. But there are several easy shots that could keep McCain on the defensive without stooping as low as the McCain ad

Liar
Flip Flopper
Elitist

I also think every attack on McCain should be under the heading

Campaign to Nowhere

to keep tying that lie to them. It resonates.

Lies to Nowhere (4.00 / 1)
I just saw a advertisement on Matthew Yglesias's blog at ThinkProgress that hits on what you are suggesting. I think it's a great approach.



McCain Favors Super Rich

[ Parent ]
Well, if the McCain campaign… (0.00 / 0)
...keeps running these bizarro, baseless ads, it's gonna be awful hard for McCain to seem "honorable" when he finally has to come before the American people (and look Obama in the face) and explain them. I see Obama alluding to McCain not being honorable as a bit of a shift...his campaign is well aware that an insinuation like that needs time to sink in. If you continue shoveling shit while people are applauding your character, once you're outed there's not a leg to stand on. Call me an optimist, but I think it's coming...

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams
[ Parent ]
How about this (0.00 / 0)
If McCain's against the legislation, he must be for the child molesters.  
[ Parent ]
So what are you saying? (0.00 / 0)
Obama shouldn't explain why McCain's ad is a lie?

Why do I have a feeling that if he did that, I'd see outraged posts demanding he explain why McCain is lying and has no honor?

So what are you saying? (0.00 / 0)
"Obama shouldn't explain why McCain's ad is a lie?"

No, he should not. Its a complex subject. An explanation by its nature would be long, complicated and defensive. Calling lies by their proper name should be sufficient.

Obama only needs to say that he is proud of his record as a legislator on sex education, and challenge McCain to explain at length what he finds  objectionable.

Obama has McCain cold on several lies - the bridge to nowhere, the plane "sold" on e-bay, this sex-ed ad, the flip-flops on defence, evolution ... and so on and so forth.

Obama should be making it clear that if the McCain campaign is going negative, then he will be bringing on ads stating some uncomfortable truths about John McCain... all the way back to Charles Keating, if needs be.

Some months ago, Obama declared "Lay off my wife". The hint was clear - if Michelle Obama was targetted, then Cindy McCain was also fair game. The McCain campaign backed off, now Obama needs to up the ante again, even stronger.

[ Parent ]
Funny (0.00 / 0)
because that doesn't reflect the title of this post, which is "if you are explaining, you are losing."

It is inescapable that Chris if Obama corrects McCain's lie, Obama is losing.

[ Parent ]
I think you can explain and counterpunch simultaneously (0.00 / 0)
John McCain is attacking Barack Obama's record on protecting our children.  
Barack Obama voted to protect Illinois children from child molesters.  
But John McCain doesn't believe in protecting our children.  
John McCain wants to question Barack Obama's record, but maybe we should ask John McCain why he doesn't want to protect our children?

That would be below the belt and is close enough to the truth.  :-)

[ Parent ]
no need to explain (4.00 / 1)
just run an ad accusing McCain is being against protecting children from sexual abuse with his as proof.  
Any pictures of McCain with Mark Foley? (4.00 / 2)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Child Molesting Easy to Explain (4.00 / 3)
I accept the premise that it's best to not be put in a position to explain. But when the lameness of the attack lends itself so easily to hitting the attacker right back the calculus isn't so clearcut.

In this case Obama has an easy opening to counter-attack. It's a one-liner.

The biggest opponents of that bill were child molesters.

Tack on a bonus dig at the end:

John McCain's is living in a different time if he doesn't understand in this day and age even kindergartners need to be wary of sexual predators. Apparently he prefers having our kids be ignorant of the danger instead of being educated about how to protect themselves.

I do think he needs to hit back on this. McCain has been specifically targeting mothers and in this case the counter-attack has the potential to make McCain look really out-of-touch to parents.

McCain Favors Super Rich

sorta along those lines (0.00 / 0)
The press release did call McCain's claim "perverse". However, I think it would have been a better counterpunch to use the similar word "perverted". And throw in "old" a bunch of times.

Chuck Todd made the point that both McCain's and Obama's negatives are a lot lower than Bush's and Kerry's at this point in 2004. The sex ed ad along with the lipstick thing is specifically designed to distract the media and bump up Obama's negatives, so now is the time to start on McCain's negatives. I'm no expert but I think the best attack is to use the L word... Liars.  

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
-Lawrence Summers

[ Parent ]
Obama is getting out You-Tubed! (0.00 / 0)
Think about it. Not a lot of people are seeing the sleaze ads McCain is slinging at him. I've seen nothing that shows how widely these are broadcast. But Obama, the candidate who  burst into  national consciousness last winter with "Yes We Can," is getting beat to shit in the viral definition arena.

Why aren't people on our side creating the equivalent of the Daisy ad against Goldwater? McCain is at least as dangerous (especially backed by his sidekick mooseshooter) and verging on cranky senility to boot.

Aren't we supposed to have the creatives on our side? Since the Obama campaign apparently still thinks the greater danger to his candidacy is getting pinned as an angry Black guy, our side has to take the dishonorable McCain down from below.


Can it happen here?

The Daliy Show (0.00 / 0)
I hope John Stewart's hits at McCain are getting good airtime on You Tube.

For his ads, Obama seems to have a bunch of retreads from the Kerry campaign.

Also, Obama is now encouraging assistance from outside his campaign .. but its a bit late. Who's going to leave their current job, or take leave of absence for 7 weeks?

[ Parent ]
Take a look at the quick hits (0.00 / 0)
(georgeg1011) has pointed to a great YouTube effort that should go everywhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Can it happen here?

[ Parent ]
Don't worry (0.00 / 0)
Hillary Clinton will have no problem dealing with this sort of attack in 2012.
wrong word as usual in Obama ad (0.00 / 0)
That Obama ad could be effective with one changed word. Instead of "Politicians lying about their records...that's more of the same" it should be "Republicans lying about their records....that's more of the same."

It's pretty dumb for a politician to say that it's typical for politicians to lie about their records.  

You can put lipstick on John McCain (0.00 / 0)
He is still John McCain
now is the time (0.00 / 0)
this could backfire badly on Senator McCain.  All someone has to do is set up a sleezy email forwarding campaign.  No links, falsely attributed to an authoritative source ("The Podunk Times-Herald") and a brief story:

NAMBLA Endorses John McCain

bs...bs...bs...bs...bs...John McCain forcefully came out against Senator Obama's votes to brainwash children and create an impression that adult/child love is inappropriate...bs...bs...bs...bs

The republicans would not hesitate.  

Yet I do, mostly because I don't know how these things really start up, and I don't want to be "that guy".

If You Are Explaining, You Are Losing | 60 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox