Dukakis/Obama Mashup

by: Matt Stoller

Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 17:03


The usual caveats apply, lots of time to win this thing, etc, but this mashup is worth watching.

Update:  Look, get mad at Obama, he's the one running a campaign that is entirely bent on weak reaction.  Here's Joe Biden.

John McCain is my friend," said the loquacious Blue Hen. "I admire John McCain. I know of no man or woman I have ever met that has more personal courage than John McCain. We have been friends for over 33 years. We have traveled together. When John was Navy liaison he staffed me for three or four years everywhere I traveled in the world."

Biden's the one campaigning for McCain, not me.  Incidentally, I do enjoy the character attack that I want McCain to win because then I will be able to look at more pictures of my crush, Sarah Palin.  That's a new one.

I guess I should be clear that the reason I'm putting this up is because I want to point out that Obama is running the playbook of the Dukakis campaign.  The incredible anger in the comments basically confirms that the criticism is on point.

Update:  Patrick Ruffini at the Next Right makes some really good points about the contours of an attack and response driven campaign.  I don't agree with Ruffini most of the time, but he seems on point here.
Matt Stoller :: Dukakis/Obama Mashup

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Dukakis/Obama Mashup | 134 comments
Yay! (4.00 / 6)
Who needs RedState, LGF, Fox News, and the WSJ editoral page when we've got Stoller!

Nice work spreading a ludicrious meme that Obama is like Dukakis. Pathetic.

Spreading the meme where? (4.00 / 5)
OpenLeft is not a focal point of online media. FOX and CNN aren't going to pick this up, and NYT and WaPo aren't going to publish OpEds about it.

So, are you suggesting that you and I are going to start running around talking about how Obama is like Dukakis? How to you spread a right-wing meme to a left-wing, activist audience?  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
Yeah (4.00 / 3)
Nobody ever finds youtube clips on the internet, especially when they get viewed a bunch of times. Totally secret. Never happened before.

And thank god an allegedly "progressive" site is posting what is essentially a republican manufactured youtube clip on the front page with approval.

[ Parent ]
Next time (4.00 / 6)
Matt should email you and the other members of the Propaganda Committee for approval prior to posting.
[ Parent ]
Matt is free to post what he wants (4.00 / 2)
but dont pretend like it is constructive or helping anyone but republicans.
[ Parent ]
Of course he is (4.00 / 2)
And we are free to respond.

Heck, even the right to free speech includes the right to say "shut up".

[ Parent ]
It helps OpenLeft. (2.67 / 3)
I was gonna give $75 because of Chris's earlier post. Now I'm gonna give $150, because of Matt's.

That video didn't scare you? They are Dukakis. Trying to rise above, betting that the American people aren't dumb enough to fall for this shit again. And again. And again.

Holy rosy Moses. What Matt's trying to do, I imagine, is wake the Obama campaign the fuck up. Nothing else seems to work, why not try this?  

[ Parent ]
I don't often say "I told you so," (4.00 / 1)
but I voted for Hillary because I thought she was a fighter.  I'm not sure Obama will do what it takes to win.

All I hear during the day on the cable chat shows is Democrats trying to be reasonable.  When will they ever learn?  This is not a "reasonable" business!

[ Parent ]
Well, between Clinton and Obama, (4.00 / 1)
we have empirical evidence that he fights better: he won.

But other than that, I completely agree. Obama seems wed to 'no drama'; but drama is precisely what sell newspapers and attracts eyeballs. And if he's betting on the innate intelligence and maturity of the American public to rise above, he's three kinds of naive idiot.

We're finally seeing the Obama campaign starting to hit back. Maybe in a few weeks we'll see them hit first. Could happen; in the primary I kept wondering at their passivity as they rolled to victory. So I kinda feel like I've been here before ...

[ Parent ]
He won because (4.00 / 1)
he had a better ground game, particularly in the caucus states.  That being said, I agree with your comment.

For all of their sophistication on the ground, the Obama campaign is weak on the political side.  I hope they wake up before it is too late.

[ Parent ]
Actually, Red State trolls are watching (4.00 / 1)
Just Google:

Stoller site:redstate.com

So some message discipline is in order, even here.

[ Parent ]
Then where can I go to discuss progressive politics... (4.00 / 3)
...without constantly worrying that THE REPUBLICANS ARE WATCHING OMG!!!  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
As Jean-Luc Picard said (4.00 / 4)
"We do exactly what we would do if this Q never existed. If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for who we really are."
[ Parent ]
Wow (0.00 / 0)
I didn't realize posting a youtube clip that could have come directly from the McCain campaing constituted "discussing progressive politics." Who knew?
[ Parent ]
pig (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
seriously, (4.00 / 2)
This reminds me of going on scout.com or rivals.com messageboards and when fans of a football team criticize their head coach's playcalling, some other fans tell them to pipe down because the opposing team's coaches might be reading and pick up weaknesses in playcalling tendancies. Whatever.

"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 ]
That comment is a little much (3.00 / 4)
Stoller is just pointing out the facts. Obama is using the same playbook Democrats keep losing with. ENOUGH!

I'm getting sick of watching this. I can't bare to watch another Democratic presidential candidate get flushed down the toilet. It's happening right before our eyes.

I'm sick of this 'be nice' type of campaigning. Republicans are scumbags and people like it. It's time to get down and dirty with them.

[ Parent ]
let's say I'm "sick of it" too (0.00 / 0)
What should I do?

Should I post a youtube clip comparing Obama to a short, loser, laughingstock on the front page of my blog?

[ Parent ]
It's the internet (0.00 / 0)
You can do what you want. "Short, Loser, Laughingstock." That's not very nice. He's a Democrat, why are you treating him with such disrespect.
[ Parent ]
Oh, right (0.00 / 0)
So you're saying it's a complement that Obama is being compared to Dukakis?

Phew! I though you and Matt were dissing Obama's campaigning, but really, since Dukakis was so wonderful, you are complimenting is campaign.

[ Parent ]
Matt, this is totally uncalled for ... (4.00 / 12)
You provide absolutely no context here between the timing of these campaigns.

I remember the Dukakis ad, and I remember saying "Thank GOD he's finally standing up to this bullshit."  But it was late October, and he had waited too long to respond.  The Dukakis ad was effective, he gained a lot of ground in those last two weeks -- but it was too little, too late.

Compare this with the Obama press conference.  It's SEPTEMBER 10TH, we still have two months to go, and Obama is responding to an attack ad that McCain ran ON THE VERY SAME MORNING!!!!

This is a completely different context.  This ain't the Dukakis campaign.  Not by a long shot.  Moreover, I don't call this defense -- I call this taking on the offense against the lies and distortions of the other side.

Not only that (4.00 / 2)
but who in their right mind could think that Obama is as uncharasmatic as Dukakis? Just insanely dumb. It isn't 1988. Obama isn't Dukakis.

Also, even if a progressive thinks it's a valid comparision, why the hell would a progressive help spread this kind of thing by helping make a youtube clip go viral?

[ Parent ]
It means Matt will get to see more photos of Sarah Palin (3.20 / 5)
She is "fantastic" you know.
[ Parent ]
There is a difference. (4.00 / 2)
Matt said she was a terrific speaker.
Biden is saying McCain is a good man.

If Obama and Biden keep saying McCain is a good man, and McCain says O and B are bad men--how does that look to most of the American voter-- i.e. uninformed voters. It makes McCain look strong and liked and the two of them weak for kissing his ass.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

[ Parent ]
She's a terrific speaker? (0.00 / 0)
She's a terrific speaker because she's willing and enjoying spitting empty, vile hatred to a crowd that resembles a lynch mob?

If that's the Dems cup of tea, I just resigned the party.

[ Parent ]
A Lot Of Truth to Your Point (0.00 / 0)
Dukakis waited way too long to hit back and he did gain some ground after that ad but the die was already cast.  Obama is doing it a lot earlier and the die is not cast yet.

I do agree that Obama needs to go on offense.  I like the fact that his campaign is not backing down on the lipstick on a pig remark and is in some ways embracing it.  Good!

One other thought - doesn't this whole Interior Dept energy scandal offer a huge offensive opportunity for Obama?  Energy, sex, money.  The ads write themselves.

[ Parent ]
A Lot Of Truth to Your Point (0.00 / 0)
Dukakis waited way too long to hit back and he did gain some ground after that ad but the die was already cast.  Obama is doing it a lot earlier and the die is not cast yet.

I do agree that Obama needs to go on offense.  I like the fact that his campaign is not backing down on the lipstick on a pig remark and is in some ways embracing it.  Good!

One other thought - doesn't this whole Interior Dept energy scandal offer a huge offensive opportunity for Obama?  Energy, sex, money.  The ads write themselves.

[ Parent ]
If he hadn't said anything you'd be whining that he wasn't defending himself (4.00 / 5)
Seriously, I'm coming to the point where I begin to absolve the Democratic party of all blame. It seems to me the American people (again, present company excepted) are in the process of getting ready to ask the GOP to give them another beating. They're the battered wives in all this. Sure the Dems could do some stuff better but I don't think it would make much difference.  
There's a third option. (4.00 / 2)
Not 'saying nothing'.
Not 'defending himself.'
The third one. That's what we want.
[ Parent ]
Pigs with lipstick was an attack... (4.00 / 1)
And it obviously got their attention.

At least he didn't apologize for it.  Still, it would've been nice to see him be a lot more upset with it rather than just kind of laugh it off, and basically reinforce it again.  Something like

"They know damn well what I was talking about... Their campaign and the failed policies they represent.  They want to dress up their failed polices in Maverick lipstick, but it's not gonna work.  They're no mavericks.  A pig in lipstick is still a pig."

That would've really set off the outrage-o-meter, huh?  Just what we need to, you know, change the subject.

"Pigs with lipstick was an attack..." (4.00 / 1)
Indeed it was. Forgive me, everyone on this thread who feels that only beltway consultants should dare offer an opinion on campaign strategery, but...

It seems to me like the best response to fabricated hissy fits like this is to use the media attention to push the attack even harder. Say something like,

What I said was that John McCain has picked a running mate who has used lobbyists connected with Jack Abramoff and the corrupt Alaskan GOP political machine to scam taxpayers for more earmarks and pork per capita than any other state in the union. The pig I was referring to is this cynical and corrupt Washington business as usual. John McCain and Sarah Palin are trying to put a little lipstick on this pig and sell it as change. It's a joke. As Harry Truman said, "I don't give 'em hell. I tell 'em the truth and they think it's hell." They need to stop whining and stop throwing fake hissy fits and stop lying to the American people. It's getting to be pathological. It's pathetic and the American people deserve better.

I agree with Matt that simply calling foul is not enough. If it comes across as a complaint, it looks weak. It has to come across as an unambiguous accusation about McCainPalin's character. Republicans are not going to stop lying. The narrative has to take hold that McCain is a pathological liar and nothing from his campaign should be believed. He has no honor. He has no character. He is a viscous liar.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
Did you watch Obama's full response? (4.00 / 3)
Not just the cherry picked clips in the mashup above? Because he basically said what you wrote, except he did not conflate the Abramoff issue with it.

Obama clearly called out the McCain camp for lying and creating diversions to distract from the real issues. And, he did so immediately after the McCain ad went up.

It was an effective response. He had to respond to this. So, to criticize him for being on the defensive really doesn't make any sense in this particular case.  

[ Parent ]
I thought his response was not bad. (0.00 / 0)
I was trying to make a general point about being aggressive and not backing down, about doubling the intensity of attacks in the face of fake hissy fits. Obama's response was not bad. I think it could have been a bit more targeted in a way to brand McCain as a liar with flawed character, which is what he needs to do.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
The best response by Obama would have been.... (4.00 / 1)
"I am now convinced that John McCain is running a dishonorable campaign. John McCain is running a campaign that disrespects Americans. He allowed his campaign to completely fabricate this tempest knowing full well I never referred to his running mate. He is allowing his running mate to stand beside him on a daily basis at rallies and LIE to the American people.

The  John McCain that his campaign would like the public to think exists?

He left the political stage in 2000.

We are left with a politician who wants the full support of the Republican base which turns out for their candidates when they leave all honor aside and do what it takes to win:lie and distort and distract.

That's the John McCain of 2008.

That's who I'm running against.

It's a shame."

[ Parent ]
There's more in my perfect prepared remarks for Obama: (4.00 / 1)
"Yes, a shame.

This could have been a discussion on issues: my positions and his positions and how they differ.

We are past that point I now recognize.

I now see my role as telling the American people that they are being insulted by my opponent, John McCain, a man who used to hold the highest regard for the American people.

The campaign he is giving the American people shows an utter lack of respect for those people, so disrespectful it nearly borders on contempt.

I will have to point this out at my rallies going forth and then I will get into my discussion on the issues.

The American people deserve to hear the truth about what McCain's type of campaign will result in and WHY they use these tactics."

[ Parent ]
Jeeez (3.00 / 4)
First you confess your love for Sarah Palin now this.  If thats what you like so much go vote Republican.

Go away you aren't a political strategist you don't know what Obama needs to do. Stop attacking our nominee.

This isn't constructive criticism its a charecter attack.

Your angry white liberal JE lost and if he had won we now know he would have lost.

So grow up, and stop making republicans memes.

They would like nothing more than for Obama to be Dukakis, clearly you would too.  Then you can say he lost for not being liberal enough, or however you would spin his failure.

Another crucial difference ... (0.00 / 0)
... besides those listed by commenters above, is that George H.W. Bush didn't make such a big freakin' deal of his "personal honor" as a reason to vote for him ....
Come on (4.00 / 3)
What Obama does here is damn near presidential.  He doesn't back down, and steers things to the issues.  Obama's big challenge is to ensure that the election is on the issues.  Sirota made good points on Maddow's show last night, telling Obama to get more heated on economic populism.  There's some of that here, and I'd like more. But on the whole, I think he does what's needed.  It also further's the brewing media narrative on McCain's dishonesty.

Kerry would've apologized.  Obama brushed it off and called McCain a liar.  McCain/Palin's lies could be their undoing if the press starts running with it.  Obama's doing his part, while also staying above the fray.

How long before (4.00 / 3)
republicans link to this?

It is the new idiot.  No one cares what matt says so he is going to attack them for not taking his advice.

Spend some time attacking republicans for once.

Don't Worry Matt... (0.00 / 0)
Obama has "confidence in the American people" to see through McCain's portrayal of him as a monster. And make no mistake, that's what team McCain is doing...

They're making the detestable Mark Penn look good right about now. His team at least had a set...

...Adding, they're allowing McCain to do all of this from the "Straight Talk Express."  Think about that for a moment...

Worst. Campaign. Ever.

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

Thanks for your hard work, Matt (4.00 / 4)
I know how valuable your time is.  Good to know you've put it to work.

The funny thing is Obama comes across looking pretty good in the compare and contrast.  Similar words, but the attitude is completely different.  Good to know.

This has been my problem with the Obama campaign straight along (3.33 / 6)
Like every winning Presidential campaign since time immemorial, they were hailed as brilliant, ground-breaking, etc., etc. when they beat Clinton. And of course they did some very good things, organizationally.

But the bottom line was that they took a charismatic candidate, overwhelmingly favored by the media, against a media-detested candidate whom they outspent nearly 2-1, and just hung on by the skin of their teeth. In fact, they might not have hung on at all but for pressure exerted by Party elders in the April-June time frame.

This campaign has never known how to seize the initiative. If you looked at their daily press releases throughout the spring, they were constantly all about picking on some little thing Clinton had said. It scored then, because the media wanted to blow up attacks against Clinton, but they're doing the same thing now and it just isn't resonating.

Even Obama's Convention speech was just a clever pastiche of a million and one defenses against every attack ever made on him. You could take almost any paragraph out of that speech at random and I could tell you what attack it was meant to parry.

Obama is still the favorite, but by now he is only a narrow favorite. If his team doesn't find a way to grab the initiative between now and November, he will probably lose, and the only reason I use the word "probably" is because it is possible the Republican team will spectacularly implode.

Hey, thanks jgarza (0.00 / 0)
for the first non-4 rating I've ever gotten here.

Now, if you could just kindly explain what the hell that was all about. . . .

[ Parent ]
The Stoller and the Obama (4.00 / 4)
"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"

"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.

"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"

"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"

"Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.

"Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"

The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.

"I could not help myself. It is my nature."

It's Matt's nature to hate on Obama. He's not ever going to change. He can't help himself.

John McCain

No, actually... (4.00 / 3)
It's Obama's nature to be the frog. You're just hatin' on Matt for pointing it out...

"Don't take much, does it, elected Democrats, to get your balls tucked up." Cf.
[ Parent ]
Matt HATES everyone who is running because they are not HIS perfect daddy! (4.00 / 3)
He is acting out, and can't come to terms with the fact that he can't have the perfect "daddy" as a progressive president. Al Giordano pegged Matt and his ilk to the tee, about their search for the perfect progressive daddy.....Matt likes to pile on when Obama is at his lowest....this post doesn't surprise me......Matt you would fit perfectly as a MSM analyst...BRAVO
[ Parent ]
LIARS. (4.00 / 5)
This is the message.  Repeat it over and over.  They are LIARS.   McCain, Palin, and the republicans LIE.  This is fair and verifiable.  The only way to hit back on all their lies is to penetrate the narrative with the fact that THEY ARE LIARS WHO WILL SAY ANYTHING TO WIN.  This must be the only talking point from here on in.

LIARS who LIE.  That's what they are.

There is no debunking each lie they make, there's only repeating this enough so that whatever they say is taken with skepticism.  No mincing words, they have to be LIARS!

They are LIARS who LIE and they LIE about everything!  LIARS! LIARS! LIARS!  Try it yourself; it's kind of fun.

Republicans can't fix our country; they're too busy saddlebacking.

No not from Matt (4.00 / 2)
The message is Obama Wimp
Obama Dukakis
Obama Wimp

[ Parent ]
Fuck You (2.91 / 11)
Now that I've given my reserved response I think a troll-rating worthy comment is in order.

Seriously, Matt.  Fuck you.

How often do we hear from you and others the importance of sticking together??  Yet, you seem to think you are the exception.  You may purposefully undermine our presidential candidate to your heart's content.
I'm not complaining about serious criticism and debate, I'm talking about purposefully going for an emotional tug against our candidate.  One that Republicans would love to play over and over to try and make Obama look weak.

I don't even curse.  Check out my comments and you'll see lots of "freak'n"s.  But for you...  Today...

FUCK YOU


Grow up. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
I'm Afraid This Comparison Is Too Optomistic (4.00 / 5)
After the 1988 campaign, the press actually felt that they'd done a bad job, and were relatively balanced in 1992, which is part of the reason that Clinton won.

But that's the last time they felt any shame for their rightwing shilling.

They're totally immune to any pangs of conscience now, as Glenn Greenwald's column yesterday so clearly demonstrated.

"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

Completely different today (4.00 / 3)
But today it is completely different.  We have the ability to mobilize support, spread memes and apply direct pressure on the media.  With the blogosphere, moveon and Web 2.0 infrastructure we can really make a difference in how the larger debate is being played out.

Which is why Matt's post is so sickening.  Here is one of the leaders of the blogosphere, one of the movement leaders, and he spends his time and effort undermining Obama and supporting Republican memes.  "Hey, look how weak Obama is!!"

If this anger was directed towards McCain and the media where it really belongs we might actually have a chance to make a difference in a positive way.

But no, we need to form the famous Democratic circular firing squad and help out McCain.  I can easily imagine some reporter checking out the blogs and using this post as an excuse to think he is doing his job.  "I'm reporting just fine, it is Obama that's messing up.  It's his fault, not mine."

There is a very real reason why so much anger is being directed towards Matt on this.  The anger is highly deserved.

[ Parent ]
I Disagree (0.00 / 0)
I think Matt is very right to point this out.  He's not saying that Obama is weak, he's saying that he's acting weak, and that he needs to change.

I certainly do agree with you that we have significantly more power to change things than we once did.  And some of that power needs to be directed toward changing the campaign.  Not that we should ignore the media.  That remains absolutely crucial.  But we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Matt's pretty discouraged about our power to change the campaign right now, which is the one place where I do disagree with him.  But I think he was quite right to raise this issue, and point to the problem.

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

[ Parent ]
Memes and schemes (4.00 / 1)
I submit that the reason "we" (whoever "we" are) have some small amount of power exactly because, in some small simple sense, "we" are speaking truth to power. The suggested alternative (unless I am getting it right) is to join the giant party machine and become foot soldiers -- which was Matt's (or someone else who is a majordomo around here... Chris Bowers?) lament in an earlier post, which I think is fairly accurate.

Speaking truth alone isn't enough, for sure. As we know, "power yields nothing without a demand" -- but it is self-delusion to consider that Obama is closer to "us" than to the power system. And if that claim of mine is true, then a demand of this critical magnitude seems entirely appropriate.

One cannot live on truth and demand alone. One needs day to day dirty work (a.k.a "tactics") for sustenance. Well, if the Right can openly publish their tactics as a Project for a New American Century, suggesting that large scale attacks on the USA might be a requirement to achieve this goal, are we, who are in the right and in possession of the truth, to hide and scheme? The truth may not set us free, but we will, I dare say, achieve nothing if we do not set truth free.

[ Parent ]
Well Said (0.00 / 0)
This is really quite simple when you just lay it out like that.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Thank you Paul (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
I don't mind him bring the problems up, either (0.00 / 0)
But I don't understand why some can't see the difference between bring up the problems and spending time making a video designed to emotionally suggest that Obama is weak.

He's not saying that Obama is weak, he's saying that he's acting weak, and that he needs to change.

Communication is about what is received, not what is intended.  As received, Matt is most certainly saying Obama is weak, and goes out of his way to demonstrate that to all in a video.  This helps push a meme that is already going through the press.

[ Parent ]
I Think He Was Simply Driving The Point Home (0.00 / 0)
I understand why it upset you.  But I can't fault Matt for doing what he did to get his point across.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Ridiculous update (4.00 / 3)
(1) You are the one deliberately spreading a repubican mashup that pretty much flatly declares: Obama=Dukakis. You are pushing it. No different than a republican operative.

(2) "Biden's the one campaigning for McCain, not me."  Translation of that quote: If Biden doesn't do exactly what I say, he's campaigning for McCain.

The basic problem here is (4.00 / 3)
A total lack of messaging leadership from the Obama campaign, which leaves his supporters looking at each other asking "gee, what now?" In the absence of leadership infighting is usually a result.

Basic human behavior, leadership theory, group dynamics. We centralized our movement on a single individual and when he fails to deliver, we don't have much to fall back on except frustration.

[ Parent ]
I don't think so (4.00 / 3)
A total lack of messaging leadership from the Obama campaign, which leaves his supporters looking at each other asking "gee, what now?"

that's just not true at all. There is no lack of messaging. Instead, there are a few people around these parts who are enraged because Obama isn't using their preferred messaging. So they (1) interpret it as "no" messaging; (2) say stupid things like "Biden is campaigning for McCain; and/or (3) decide to actively help the McCain campaign by pushing a stupid meme that Obama=Dukakis.

[ Parent ]
This isn't Daily Kos (3.50 / 8)
Where detailed discussions on politics can be silenced by demanding everyone shut up and fall quietly in line. Obama is on a very clear downward trend since June. You want us to pretend that's not happening and that if we all just STFU and let the Obama campaign do its thing, even though "its thing" flies in the face of what we all know to be true about smart and sound messaging.

When exactly should we demand change? Mid-October? November 2? December 12? January 20?

None of us want Obama to lose. But some of us prefer to take action to prevent that from happening instead of sitting on our hands telling ourselves all is well.

[ Parent ]
Yes (4.00 / 1)
If we dont just roll over and accept peronal attacks for no reason we are being Nazis.  
[ Parent ]
Silencing isn't conversing. (4.00 / 5)
If you think the advice is "roll over" you're not listening and are being deliberately obtuse. The advice is to not spend so much time defending and instead attack and put the other guy on the defensive.

I don't understand why so many people would rather have this conversation in mid-November, when it will be moot, rather than now when it might actually produce meaningful change.

[ Parent ]
Because the campaign ain't gonna listen whatever we say (0.00 / 0)
They are going to do it their way. Hence the reason to get behind them leave the post-mortem for when you actually have something to autopsy.
[ Parent ]
You don't know that for sure: (4.00 / 1)
http://www.new.facebook.com/gr...

If the Obama campaign is dumb enough to ignore the netroots, then they deserve to lose, but I like to think maybe they aren't that dumb.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
who is "silencing"? (0.00 / 0)
I love how people who hate "silencing" engage in the very behavior they complain about by labeling an opposing viewpoint as an attempt to "silence."
[ Parent ]
partially agree, but not a troll comment (4.00 / 1)
ratings abuse
[ Parent ]
I'm sure you'll get lots of recs (4.00 / 1)
For your "this isn't Daily Kos" line. Too bad it has nothing whatsoever to do with my comment.

First of all, nowhere in any of my comments in this story did I say that folks aren't permitted to have reasonable, measured, detailed discussions of policy or tactics, nor did I tell anyone to shut the fuck up. Nowhere.

Second, please explain how posting what is essentially a republican youtube clip slandering Obama as literally the same as Dukakis amounts to a detailed policy discussion, or how it is "taking action" to prevent Obama from losing.

[ Parent ]
Had a friend who got so hungry... (0.00 / 0)
I had a friend, a good artist, who got so hungry that he took a job editing video for Fox News for a while.  A typical assignment was "take this stack of tapes and give me 11 seconds that makes Clinton look like an idiot" (President Clinton - this was the 90s).  What is Obama's 11 second sound bite that makes him look brilliant, McCain like and idiot, and delivers the message?  That's all you get on TV these days, even on the "neutral" networks.

sPh

[ Parent ]
Change (4.00 / 2)
If Obama has total lack of messaging leadership, why did McCain abandon his "experience" for "change".

The fact is Obama has had control over the larger narrative for over a year now, with every candidate from every party trying to steal "change" from him.

This isn't to say Obama or his campaign has been perfect, but Matt isn't helping.

I don't know how this is going to end and I worry about the same stuff you do.  But Obama has consistently been at his best when he thinks he has been unfairly attacked.

Obama's very campaign from the beginning has been running against this kind of politics and campaigning.  His has the ability now to use McCain's tactics against him not as a weak response, but as an example of exactly what Obama has consistently been fighting against.

Will it work?  Will it be strong enough?  I don't know.  But I do know we need to help promote Obama's attacks back on McCain, not undermine his effort.

Matt is helping McCain with this post.  He is purposefully undermining Obama with this video.  The only rationale would be to get Obama to change tactics, but just yesterday Matt himself claimed that wasn't possible.  

[ Parent ]
Because It's A Realigning CHANGE Election? (0.00 / 0)
If Obama has total lack of messaging leadership, why did McCain abandon his "experience" for "change".

Like we have every 32-40 years?  That and the 80%+ "wrong track" numbers?  

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

[ Parent ]
I agree with Matt...Maybe it's something like this... (0.00 / 0)
that will shock democrats out there to prevent this from happening again.  Where is the outrage, where are the coordinated conference calls that we saw during the primary season.  If we continue to respond in this way then we will get our clocks cleaned again.
I take it you mean (0.00 / 0)
if democrats continue to attack our candidates?
[ Parent ]
Did you guys even watch the video? (0.00 / 0)
Honestly, if the outrage wasn't apparent, I don't know what else he could have said.
[ Parent ]
Pfft. (3.33 / 6)
The incredible anger in the comments basically confirms that the criticism is on point.

Or maybe it confirms that we think you are literally doing the work of Karl Rove.

christ (4.00 / 1)
How come every time somebody criticizes Obama they have to be compared to Rove? Is there a rule somewhere that I missed?

"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 ]
Answer: (4.00 / 2)
It's false that every time somebody criticizes Obama they are compared to Rove.

I've never done it before. So why am I doing it now? Well, let's see. Perhaps it's because Matt Stoller just approving posted a youtube clip that almost literally says Obama=Dukakis.  You know, the Dukakis who was a loser. The Dukakis who was a short, failed candidate, laughingstock who wouldn't stand up for his wife in a debate and who made a fool of himself in a tank.

The clip is like a less offensive version of the Dean morphs into Osama ads.

And here it is, posted lovingly on the front page of a supposedly progressive blog.  Why not just get it over with and call Obama a loser pansy?

[ Parent ]
I think here's the point Stoller's trying to make: having to constantly respond is a sign of a failing campaign (4.00 / 5)
Yes this particular point was made rather crudely, but the larger point remains: you don't gain ground when you have to spend your time responding to attacks.  No matter how quickly or forcefully you respond, you're not going to be gaining ground because you are just furthering discussion of an opponent's talking point.  That isn't to say you shouldn't respond to attacks, but a proper response only minimizes the effect of the original attack.

The proper way to win is to stay on your own message while creating attacks against your opponent that fit into a larger theme in an attempt to force your opponent into a series of increasingly off message responses.

NewsFlash: Obama Knew What He Was Doing (4.00 / 2)
Obama knew what he was doing when he said lipstick on a pig--it wasn't an accident--it was intentional to kill the media crush on palin. I am not the first person to think of this. See Nate at 528.


"The incredible anger in the comments basically confirms that the criticism is on point." (4.00 / 6)
Huh?  You know, I didn't really care for this post, but didn't really think it was as bad as a lot of people here were saying either... But that comment is unbelievably stupid.  So, anger confirms that criticism is valid now?

I suppose Obama really DID call Palin a pig then... just look at how angry they are.  And Clark really DID insult John McCain's military service... They sure got angry about that.

What other things can we confirm based on whether people got angry about it?

On that note (4.00 / 1)
By that logic, I suppose our anger at the slimy McCain attacks somehow vindicates them.
[ Parent ]
Matt's post (0.00 / 0)
is somewhat self-indulgent.  Self indulgence isn't really that high on my list of personal vices, though.  It might be a little destructive, but it's certainly not the same as treason.

The statement that the anger evoked proves that it's on point, though, has obviously been gestating in somebody's rectum.  There simply is no basis for that statement, and it's absurd on its face.  No biggie, but bogus.

[ Parent ]
Obama=Dukakis (3.33 / 6)
This was noted in the primary:

"But Dukakis was complicit in his own destruction, as were those of us in his campaign, who couldn't convince him to get in front of it. We knew Willie Horton was coming. We knew there would be attacks on his patriotism and his values because of vetos like the flag salute.

I spent hours trying to convince him to lead the pledge of allegiance at the Democratic Convention. No less a political sage than one Bill Clinton, then governor of Arkansas, came up with the lines to defuse the Willie Horton issue, by encouraging Dukakis to admit that it was a mistake, and to tell the story of his own family's victimizations at the hands of criminals.

Dukakis, to his credit or discredit, depending on how you want to look at it, didn't want to do it, to play those games, to play into their hands, to assume the worst and fight it and then fight back at the same level."

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

A major reason many supported Hillary: she knows how to fight.  But the Obama boosters whined the "3 AM" ad was monstrous and couldn't stand her old brand of politics.  They got what they wanted:  Michael Dukakis redux - maybe a little better spoken, but every bit the weak, principled, above the fray nice guy.  There's nothing to be done about it now.  

I didn't watch the video (3.43 / 7)
and won't.

I'm hoping that Matt's ill-conceived "teachable moment" sinks into oblivion, instead of giving McCain new talking points.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



Always my problem with Obama (2.67 / 3)
Never found his speaking compelling. Found him to be dull during the primaries and felt that, when attacked by Republicans, he would campaign in typical Democrat-mode, ie: weak parrying about lies and distortions, and that he wouldn't play offense, which he hasn't.

Why not run around the country attacking McCain for saying, IN HIS ACCEPTANCE SPEECH, that American jobs aren't coming back? You hear that Americans, John McCain, man of a million houses, won't create new jobs. Your jobs are lost, forever.

Also, of note, during the primaries it was Hillary Clinton who was consistently responding to bullshit stories about supporters saying things, or her saying things, that did not relate to policy in any way, but were used to frame a character attack launched by Obama against her. Whether it was bullshit or not, it worked.

How many times was Clinton forced to respond; saying that Obama is launching bad attacks, that she isn't racist, that lobbyists were people, etc... She was on the defensive and Obama won. Now, Obama is constantly saying that McCain is lying, that he is launching bad attacks, that he won't raise your taxes, blah blah blah. It's always Obama responding to a frame created by McCain. In the primaries Obama created frames that required Clinton to respond. He boxed her in and she lost.

Why can't he do that with McCain? Is it because he's never run against a Republican and only knows how to play offense in internal Democratic politics? I have no idea.

Yes Matt, this is like '88. Critics take note. Blame Obama and/or offer up ways that our candidate could go on offense.

And yet Clinton lost... (0.00 / 0)
maybe that didn't work like you remembered it working...
[ Parent ]
Things move so much faster now (3.20 / 5)
Gore and Kerry had to lose first before they became objects of scorn and ridicule -- now it's happening in real time.

I wonder if that isn't a part of what's happening now in terms of explaining the across-the-board Obama collapse -- it's a snowballing effect. The longer he goes without attacking the more scorn he inspires, the faster his nose dive, etc.

Who knows, maybe it will actually make Obama go for the jugular. Shame and humiliation are oftentimes great motivators -- just look at Kerry's awesome speech at the convention. Boy did he learn what it's all about the hard way!!

I wish (4.00 / 1)
 there was a smiley available for "rolling my eyes"
[ Parent ]
What is (2.00 / 2)
funny is this is probably the logic Matt has in his idiot head.

His chosen candidate was a douchey phony stop taking it out on everyone else.  Agry white man wasn't going to work

[ Parent ]
Gore didn't lose. n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
matt (4.00 / 3)
Matt, you can be frustrated, but there's no need to have your frustration spill out in a way that drags Obama to Dukakis's levle.
do you want to win? (4.00 / 4)
your behavior is beginning to suggest otherwise.
I like the video... (4.00 / 5)
as it shows the direction Obama COULD be heading in, if he doesn't change things up in a hurry.

Look at the big picture--McCain has been in Congress for the entire Bush administration, voted with Bush 90% of the time, the country is in ruins economically and in terms of foreign policy, yet, for the last week, the Obama campaign has been playing defense. What's up with that? They should be hammering McCain with everything they got--both factually and with innuendo, whatever it takes--yet you have Biden and Obama telling everyone what a lovely and honorable person McCain is, etc. I think the frustrating thing for many is that it is like Obama and company are surprised that this is the way that Republicans campaign. The minute they hired Schmidt, Obama should have known he was going to get hit hard and dirty, yet, when the hard and dirty hits came, they seem unprepared.

Matt (0.00 / 1)
always has stupid insults and the calls them constructive criticism.

Like when he whined to some reporter that Obama was running an inside beltway campaign.

Means nothing but its an insult on his brand.

Like this Obama = Dukakis = wimp loser

Its not anything constructive just more character attacks.

Matt just needs to feel that someone takes him seriously and clearly the Obama people don't suck up like Edwards staff did.  Now Matt is whining and throwing temper tantrums.

[ Parent ]
I'm not angry, but Matt, you're flatly wrong (4.00 / 5)
Obama's response, in my opinion, was timely and perfect in tone, content and execution.  It's one thing to repeat the point that Obama is playing defense, as a general matter.  But I cannot see any justification for complaining about this particular response.  
When I make you respond, you're (4.00 / 1)
dancing to my tune. How about instead of complaining about trivial and meaningless distractions, something like: "My question is, when did John McCain lose his honor? He's lying, distorting, and lying again. He's campaign is flat out dishonorable. When did that happen?"

And then when the newsmedia gasps: "Did Obama say McCain is dishonorable?" you say, "And now he's pro-child molester. He doesn't want your children to know how to protect themselves from predators. Apparently that's McCain's platform: making children vulnerable to abuse."

[ Parent ]
lipstick on a pig (4.00 / 1)
When the McCain campaign went into a tissy over the phrase "lipstick on a pig" they were:

A) Blazing a new trail

B) Responding to an Obama attack

???

Now look, I actually agree that Obama should be responding stronger.  But the real difference isn't the strength of the response it is the way the responses resonate.  I actually thought this would get more play:

Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn't define what honor was.  Now we know why," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

A large part of the reason McCain's responses resonate better is because they have a whole industry set up to support that resonance.

Our best chance to beat that is to provide our own resonance.  But Matt insists we work against Obama instead and go for the tried and true impedance mismatch strategy.

[ Parent ]
No, but look at what McCain (4.00 / 1)
did. Obama said that they're the same as Bush, they're just putting lipstick on a pig.

Instead of saying, 'We are not the same as Bush, boo hoo!' what'd they do?

They attacked: "You vile sexist!"

Are we talking about whether or not they're the same as Bush?

No. We're talking about pigs and lipstick.

Now, if Obama took the ball back and said: "You're objectively pro-child molester," that would've been meeting an attack with an attack.

And I completely agree on the 'doesn't know what honor means' thing. That's brilliant. I saw another Obama spokesperson saying the same. I'm hoping praying that we're gonna see more of this, and I actually think the leftblogs oughtta jump on the 'When exactly did McCain lose his honor?' bandwagon.

One blogger can say it's when he cheated on his wife. Another says that's bullshit--it's when he got involved with Keating Five--another says no way, it's when he started embracing the 'agents of intolerance'--another says it's when he chose Palin, etc., etc.

And I don't think Matt's working against Obama. He's trying to push Obama in what he (and I) sees as a more productive direction. He's motivated by precisely the same thing as you--love for country, and felt necessity of victory--he just thinks (I think) that sticking a spur in the side of the Obama campaign might be the best way to get there.

[ Parent ]
circular firing squad (4.00 / 6)
I love how Matt, nearly two months before election day, is already initiating the circuclar firing squad. It's great to be a Democrat!  
It might help somewhat if he had a sense of humor (4.00 / 3)

[ Parent ]
This election isn't a laughing matter (4.00 / 1)

 Nine Alitos on the court doesn't give me any chuckles.

 I want Obama to win. Matt wants Obama to win.

 But Obama's not acting like he wants Obama to win.  

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

[ Parent ]
Glenn Greenwald makes the Dukakis point too (4.00 / 1)
but he posts Obama's video and makes different suggestions for Obama than Matt does.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/g...

(Obama's) message, formed a bit more aggressively and offensively, and expressed repetitively, every day, would, in my view, work quite well in responding to this Freak Show muck:

(Dukakis) sounds not all that different from what Obama said today. So it isn't enough simply to respond this way when attacked with shallow, adolescent slime. It's a message that has to be delivered very aggressively, unapologetically and repetitively in order for it work.

The message is OK but the delivery's got to be much much better than Dukakis. Greenwald is the expert.

That Dukakis ad was actually credited with him closing in (4.00 / 1)
It was just too little too late.
[ Parent ]
Matt is correct (2.00 / 2)

 Obama might not be throwing the election, but he's not exactly providing any plausible deniability against such a  charge, either.

 His campaign is making John Kerry look like Mr. T.  

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

Dukakis was 4' 1 (4.00 / 2)
nobody realized he was even running for president.

anyway - why don't you put up some stuff that supports Obama too. you just come across as angry dude yelling at the clouds.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

contradictions (4.00 / 7)
Matt,

You can't keep arguing that "damn it, the Democrats need to punch back when they get hit or swift-boated...they need to respond more quickly!"  and then when they do exactly that say "you can't be on the defensive, stop focusing on responding to what they say and go on offense!"  

Make up your mind.  NOTE: You can do both, and Obama is...for the most part.

Also, you can't always think that because people are up in arms over what you say always means that it actually just validated you.  You ALWAYS make that argument.  It's called congitive dissonance and it's exactly how George Bush plows on without listening to the voices of the American people.  Gotta get out of the box.  

Wow... (0.00 / 0)
...word for word I wish I had written this.

...nicely done.

[ Parent ]
The Palin crush... (4.00 / 1)

... at least absolves you of the complaints from disgruntled feminists (like me!) that the blogistan/OpenLeft is callous towards older women. Clearly, you (a young whippersnapper) can't both have a crush on them and hate them... or perhaps that's some sort of perverse fetish thing... more analysis is needed.

I say, ignore the anger in the comments! If people want fall-behind-the-leader propaganda, there is a wing of humanity already awaiting with open handcuffs for them! ;-)

ha (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
French philosophy is the answer (4.00 / 3)
Too bad you don't know any...

No, seriously Stoller, I support your position. The idea that that little mashup is treason reflects very badly on those who express it.

We've had the sex ed ad, the wolf ad, and the "he called her a pig" flap in rapid succession. Really rapid. Rapid enough to show that the Repubs are effectively countering Democrats' mastery of rapid response.

So the attacks are lies. The Republicans are just using them as a jab. They are hip to the fact that Obama understands rapid response. A couple of days, the response comes, the press lifts its head - and pow, a different attack. They aren't defending their sallies. Only making more.

The idea of rapid response is to make you a counterpuncher. But right now the Repubs are floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee. There's no way the rapid response can be rapid enough. Meanwhile, all this is just covering fire for the VP lady.

I wrote a long diary - of course, since I'm Baudrillard - about this today.

I agree, they are in for a close shave if they don't adapt.

Maybe early voting will change something. There will be more volatility in this campaign because the world situation is getting volatile (especially the markets). Obama will be in front again, but I no longer have confidence that they understand the threat SP poses. She may well implode. BUt our comfort level is gone.

On another note, I thought it was great that you approved of the protesters at the Repub convention.

[ Parent ]
French? How about Nietzsche? (4.00 / 1)
(repeating from memory) "Whomsoever fights dragons, should take care not to become one in the process". Haters on this post should remember not to repeat the tactics of the right, whether it be cultishness or illogical attacks!

Or if we must ;-), let us recall the mother of all intellectual battles: Sartre vs Camus. On Algeria, Sartre's was the principled position while Camus' was an instinctive defence. At least Camus offered: "I believe in justice but I will defend my mother before justice". He was speaking of his mother. What do the Obama defenders on this thread have to offer?

At the height of Sartre spurred left revolt in France, Charles de Gaulle responded to calls for Sartre's arrest with: One does not arrest Voltaire!

Now, our young Stoller is not yet a Voltaire or Sartre (and he is still only on the way to join, and then instigate, the left), but nevertheless, it behoves the peanut gallery to give the man some room, in the spirit of de Gaulle.

Wouldn't you agree?

[ Parent ]
Matt, you long ago drifted (3.00 / 4)
into that unfortunate realm of unintentional self-parody.
This is too simplistic (4.00 / 4)
My problem with this post is that it attempts to boil down a complex issue--whether and how to attack and respond to attacks--to something simple and asinine (ironically, something this very blog criticized a few days ago).

Now, I haven't been in politics long, so I'll trust you that, generally speaking, you should be attacking instead of responding to attacks.  However, in the incredibly complex world of politics, I have a hard time believing that this is true all the time, no matter what.  It is intellectual laziness to criticize the Obama campaign's strategy as "not attacking enough"--you must also argue why, and in what way, it would be beneficial to attack.

Additionally, the comparison to Dukakis is pretty ridiculous.  Are there similarities?  Yes.  But Reagan was much more popular than George W Bush, the country's demographics were different, Obama is a better speaker, the economy is in much better safe, we're not in an unpopular war, and etc and etc.  Dukakis lost because of a number of factors, some (many?) of which he couldn't control, and to imply that he only lost because he "didn't attack," and that because Obama "doesn't attack" he will probably lose, is incredible sophistry designed to fit your point.  It's not fair, intelligent political analysis.

And finally, I think people wouldn't be as angry if you offered constructive criticism, as opposed to just plain old criticism.  You say Obama should attack more than he does; fair enough.  What should he attack on?  How should he attack--ads?  Stump speeches?  Press releases?  Some combination?  Why would this benefit him?  That's insightful, helpful analysis.  This post (and its update) is just complaining because Obama isn't doing what you would do.

Or, you could run for office and use your suggested techniques yourself.  Get back to us on how that goes, okay?

Obamabots make me sick. (0.00 / 0)
I can't stand them. The only thing that will be satisfying if he loses (and i really hope he doesn't) is that the Obamabots might get sad and go away.

Obama and his campaign can do no wrong -- bullshit!

lol (0.00 / 1)
Gee, what a surprise that this post would attract Obama haters / PUMAs / republican types.

Maybe if Matt keeps it up he can turn this place into TalkLeft.

[ Parent ]
Please don't compare me to a PUMA (0.00 / 0)
I was proud to support Hillary Clinton in the Primary, in fact, I was on her campaign staff. The day after the last Primary I joined Obama's Facebook group. That was before she even dropped out. I am proud to support Barack Obama for President. I know he would do a great job - I knew that while I was working for Hillary. The problem I have is with the way he's running his campaign. We need to fight! I speak out in hopes that he changes his strategy and we can finally win. Don't insult me by calling me a PUMA.

And I stand by my statement, I can't stand Obamabots.  

[ Parent ]
and I can stand (0.00 / 0)
bitter PUMA-types
[ Parent ]
Matt, this one was worthy of a Republican operative (4.00 / 1)
The incredible anger in the comments basically confirms that the criticism is on point.

In other words, if you are angry with me, I must be correct.

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


Matt is right (4.00 / 1)
If Obama does not show self-respect and attack the conservatives then he does not deserve to be president and that would be a disaster for us and the world. I know I can't respect a man who won't defend himself against republican scum. Dukakis, Gore, Kerry could have won if they went on the attack and were relentless. But they were not. Dukakis wanted to be a gentleman. As thou the wingnuts would ever regard him as anything other than a wog. Prince Albert wouldn't go populist until it was too late. I can only feel sorry for John Kerry when he still allows himself to be intimidated (re general Clark and on and on) and doesn't stand on principle.

The "lipstick on a pig" to describe McCain/Palin policies was great. He should add it to "more of the same" and use it every day. If he doesn't fight he will loose. The others left it too late. Obama must be spurred to fight before its too late. Even it it offends the Obamabots in the grip of their cult-of-personality. It is our duty to do everything we can to make this happen.

uhhhhm... (4.00 / 2)
...Kerry and Gore actually did win...

...It just wasn't reported in the Corporate Media that way.

[ Parent ]
You know, that does it for me (4.00 / 1)
I have been working my ass off and donating time and money to get Obama elected.  I've been doing it because I don't want John McCain in charge of decisions that will affect my children's future.  I have expressed my doubts, privately, about certain campaign tactics.  But I know this:  every single one of us is a messenger.  If you make a half dozen voters waver with your attacks on Obama for being weak, you have made a negative impact on this race.  If the news media picks it up -- as it did at Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13357_Page3.html) -- you get more points for hurting our chances.  There are people blogging and writing about this race who are attacking John McCain every damn day--John Cole, for example, or Steve Benen/Hilzoy, and now, even Jeralyn Merritt, who has executed a perfect swing from primary to general election and seems to have made every one of her recent posts either a kind word for the ticket or a slam on McCain/Palin.  You guys take valuable mindspace away from the people who actually are doing the things you demand more of.  

How can you call yourself a progressive when you can't direct nearly the enmity at a rightwing nut like Sarah Palin that you can at Barack Obama?  Please, for the sake of all of us who are working to get Obama elected, and for the sake of our kids and everyone on this planet who will suffer under four more years of Republican rule, either start laying into the circus act that is the McCain campaign, or put a goddamn sock in it for just two months.


Ah, yes, the usual reaction (0.00 / 0)
Shut the f*** up and send Obama more money. Well done. Who has ears to hear, let him hear.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
don't worry lambert (0.00 / 0)
maybe Hillary can still pull out a victory!!!!!!! one !!!!!
[ Parent ]
Its 12am... do you know where your voter is? (0.00 / 0)
I think I have lost my voter... the poor baby! ;-)

(It is 12am here in EST5EDT!)

[ Parent ]
Stuck pigs squeal (0.00 / 0)
Great post, Matt.

And if the reaction on this thread is any indication, they're about as likely to listen to you as to a racist like me. Good luck with it, though.  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

No. I won't get mad at Obama - (4.00 / 2)
I'll get mad at people who can't see strategy that's blatantly in front of them.

I hope no one hires you to run a campaign - because you'd run it into the ground.

I'll state it really simply for you -

Obama is the "change" candidate. He's the "new politics" candidate. The guy who is touting "new politics" can't pull old attack garbage every other week.

This is the rope a dope strategy. Obama's going to let McCain think he won't respond - McCain will keep pushing and pushing and getting even more out of control - and then when Obama does respond, it's not just warranted...it's necessary - and McCain has slandered his own name and has no one to blame but himself. Republicans are lost to us - Independents will not understand why McCain keeps getting more and more outlandish in his attacks - and they'll essentially give Obama permission to attack McCain loud and hard. McCain will harm himself the most in this process.

Also - it isn't 1988. We don't have the same electorate as we did in 1988. Obama is not Dukakis. There are no Delorians here.

Nice job - as usual - reinforcing those Republican memes about Democrats though! The Republicans don't even need to say, "Democrats are weak" anymore! Democrats do it for them! It's a convenient trick they've worked out!  

And - do yourself a damn favor and go (4.00 / 1)
take Logic 101. The logic displayed in your update is  equivalent to something a 4 year old might say.
[ Parent ]
Logic 101? (0.00 / 0)
So, what's Logic 101? Elise, how about you give us a basic result or two of the predicate calculus?

In the meantime, a couple of thoughts regarding your post: its not clear why McCain needs to keep attacking. What he has done in one week has him reverse the polling and take the lead. And yes, perhaps Obama too will give a fine speech about the 2012 candidate at the Democratic Convention about how we shall not be swift-boated yet again! ;-)

[ Parent ]
Elise is absolutely right (0.00 / 0)
about the level of logic involved in saying, "The incredible anger in the comments basically confirms that the criticism is on point." Namely, none.  I'd say the predicate calculus is overkill for this point.
[ Parent ]
Logic 101 and absolute right (0.00 / 0)
Querent, predicate calculus, without which there is no Logic 101, would yield absolute rights since it is formally consistent. Everything else, I am afraid, will require us to talk to each other (i.e., within the group, however poorly defined it is) as if we are human beings. I have made the same criticism about Chris Bowers and his post where he calls PUMAs, etc "idiots".

Regarding Stoller's "anger ... confirms that the criticism is on point", sure it doesn't pass formal logical muster in failing to lay out the inferences that lead to this conclusion. But such is the nature of informal reasoning. Perhaps Stoller found the anger of leftists like me, against Obama and his campaign, a verification of his feeling that Obama is repeating the typical losing Dem playbook. Or perhaps Stoller means that the anger directed against him (Stoller mentions that one of the commentors suggests that Stoller wants McCain to win because he has a crush on Palin) confirms the lack of a "logical" counterpoint to his, and therefore, his point stands unrefuted, etc. Or it is possible Matt is suggesting that the invective is a misdirected response to Obama's lily-livered responses and Biden's campaigning for McCain. Why not ask him, instead of asking for Logic 101?

If you ask me, all the motive mongering is out of place and counterproductive. One of the commentors writes threateningly of how we should all behave for the sake of the children and so on. But this is an exercise in question begging. It is exactly on the question of how to achieve this goal (the future of the children!) that Stoller and the commentor disagree. The latter believes that the sole tactic is uncritical support (until election day) of the chosen Democratic candidate. Stoller believes in critical support, where the criticism is directed towards enhancing the chances of victory. Someone further left, like me, believes in critical participation (since I suspect that electing Democrats perpetuates the current power arrangement). That then, should the question of the moment. Not some sort of Logic that we usually hear from the right: "support the troops" => support Bush, and the resulting modus tollens (not supporting Bush => no support for troops), etc.

[ Parent ]
Obama's secret plan (4.00 / 1)
Of course.
[ Parent ]
Matt is right to make this point. (4.00 / 1)
A defense, no matter how vigorous, is still a defense.  Obama needs to be the one attacking.  He needs to be on offense.  He needs to take the initiative.  Simply "responding" to attacks coming from the McCain campaign isn't going to cut it.  He's hemorrhaging support nationally at this point.  Perhaps this will serve as a wakeup call.

Can we please not learn this the hard way...again?

Obama's defense is far better than Dukakis' (0.00 / 0)
Comparing the two, Obama is by far the superior ... I would say that his defensive posture is far more effective in rebutting the attack than Dukakis. Dukakis is about as emotionally engaging as a tub of lard, Obama is lively, eloquent and draws the listener's sympathy.

But I take the point, Obama needs to go on the offensive. He has to break the cycle: McCain puts out an ad, and Obama responds with a speech. Millions get to see the first, thousands get to hear the second.

He needs to mix it up a bit, go onto the offensive, get McCain mad (a man with anger management issues like McCain should be an easy target).

Is anyone really surprised at these developments? Obama was winning on the issues, so the GOP have thrown out the script.

If Obama's team had no plan on how to respond to a Swiftboat type campaign, then he should shake up his advisers, and maybe try to get James Carville.

Is it a year of "Its the Economy, stupid"?

Dukakis/Obama Mashup | 134 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox