Dukakis, Clinton, Kerry and Obama

by: tremayne

Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 20:48


Earlier today Matt proposed that when it comes to message control the Obama campaign has some things in common with the Dukakis campaign of 20 years ago. Many readers found the comparison bothersome. Some were a little peaved. Others were even irked.

Since the comparison was entirely about strategy and not how they were separated at birth or something I'm not sure what all the fuss is about and I don't buy, and never have, that pointing out possible strategic errors when the most important 8 weeks of the campaign have yet to play out is some sort of political treason.

But I digress because that's not the point of this post. While many of us agree that "more offense, less defense" is a good idea there are times when responding is necessary and useful. But it's how you respond that can make all the difference. In terms of the evolution of campaign messaging it looks like this:

1988, Dukakis: Stay above it all, launch earnest, belated responses

1992, Clinton: Respond fast and, at times, aggressively

2004, Kerry: Wait and see if media goes with a story, respond if necessary

2008, Obama: Respond, laugh it off, mock opponents

I know I have skipped Gore but that's only because I don't recall what the Gore campaign did when, for example, he was accused of being a serial liar. Someone add that in comments. 

I want to expand on Clinton and Kerry in the extended entry but here is a teaser on how I think you respond to the more outrageous attacks:

A response can sometimes be an effective attack as well. Follow along.

 
tremayne :: Dukakis, Clinton, Kerry and Obama

Far from avoiding being defensive, the 1992 Clinton campaign was constantly responding to charges. Most of them were true. Clinton did have sex with that woman, he did smoke that pot and he did try, at least initially, to avoid the draft. He admitted all this. He admitted on 60 minutes to "causing pain" in his marriage after the Gennifer Flowers bouhaha. He admitted trying marijuana but "not inhaling" (talk about being defensive!). And Nightline did a 3-parter with him mostly so he could respond to the draft dodging charge:

You'll note at the beginning he sounded a bit like that Dukakis clip Matt used earlier: "Republicans and their dirty tricks." At about 3:30 he's just explaining himself, no attacks there. And at 5:00 he talks about how they should have put an ad on the air right away but he was sick....

The point here is that some problems aren't going to go away until you respond and so responding, even in a big way like on 60 minutes or Nightline, can serve to put a period on things and also allow you to put your best spin on things. Clinton was pretty good at this, obviously. But he was even better when he used an attack to launch an even stronger counterattack:

See. In addition to refuting the charge, "I never...," he also called Jerry Brown a liar and a hypocrite wearing fancy clothes. Good stuff.

Now for John Kerry. Listen, the standard complaint is that Kerry lost because he didn't do what Clinton campaign always advocated: respond fast and hard. This may well be true but it's not always easy knowing the best way to respond. In February of 2004 Drudge ran with a story that I noticed and felt sure Kerry would be hampered by either during what remained of the primaries or, for sure, during the general election. It was a story alleging an affair (a la Lewinsky) with an intern. The Kerry campaign, for the most part, ignored the story and (I bet) hoped it would go away. It did. When the equally ridiculous Swiftboat charges came out, they hoped it would blow over. And they hoped, and they hoped. And they responded, belatedly. If they had responded right away, they would argue, they would be giving oxygen to a ridiculous story that might just go away on its own

At any rate, the Obama campaign seems to have adopted part of the Bill Clinton approach, responding right away. What we're urging them to do, I believe, is 1) Turn these responses into attacks, a la Bill Clinton and 2) Create more of their own pithy attacks (like the Houses one).

 

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Dukakis, Clinton, Kerry and Obama | 64 comments
The only thing I would add is that the attack-back should (4.00 / 6)
be generic, so that it can be used like a campaign slogan and act as defense against any future attack.

For example:

"This is just another example of John McCain lying about me.  It's not enough that he votes with Bush 95% of the time, now he campaigns like him 100% of the time too."

Then he can meet any future attack with "He's campaigning like Bush again!"

I assume that 70% of the country hates anything Bush does--governs, campaigns, smirks, etc.

I am disappointed (0.00 / 0)
this education ad would have been the perfect excuse to go after McCain hard for being soft on those who would harm our children.  It should have been an ad on tv today.  Instead, we get one statement than then nothing.  The campaign has failed to respond aggressively.  Its what I feared with Plouffe and Axelrod running the show.  These are the same people that ran Mark Shriver's congressional campaign in Maryland.  Shriver had a huge primary lead and lost to Van Hollen because they allowed him to control the tone of the entire election.  Its like a bad rerun with much more at stake.
IIRC, Gore was mostly Dukakis (0.00 / 0)
I don't recall any pushback. Certainly there was no effective pushback.
I think we all know the reason (4.00 / 7)
Obama can't get angry. Black people aren't allowed to be angry in this country.
this is part of ther eason why I believe he's not being as (4.00 / 3)
forceful as he clearly seems capable of being. For example, he needs to keep calling mccain a liar- he's actually suggested it, but never says it.

Or during his convention speech, he did nothing to respond to the lies that we all knew were going to come up during the GOP convention. How much better would it have been if he had said that contrary to the lies you will here next week- here is what the Democrats are? If you want more of the same, vote for the lies. if you want change, I hope you will listen and vote for me.This would probably been seen as angry.

[ Parent ]
We need to be forceful for him (4.00 / 6)
... and by we I mean you, me, the blogosphere, all his surrogates, Bill Clinton, my cat, everyone.  He can't be an Angry Black Man, fine -- all the rest of us need to be angry and allow the cool, presidential Obama to hear our anger and offer a solution.

This anger about these lies and about the Republican's assumption of our collective stupidity and their complete lack of ethics needs to be expressed loudly by many -- Obama can't do it himself.

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

[ Parent ]
BRAVO! (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
But I wonder if Obama is well known enough now that he could get angry without creating a race-fueled backlash.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
I'd like to think so. But then the McCain campaign would combine that footage with the Jeremiah Wright footage... and it would get played my the media constantly.
[ Parent ]
that's not the way race works (4.00 / 2)
there is no knowing someone well enough for race unless they are you close friend, especially in politics.
[ Parent ]
No. I don't think he is. I wish that ... (0.00 / 0)
...were not the case. I'm lousy at finding YouTube videos, but there was a recent skit with the actors playing Palin and Obama in which, for 90 seconds or so, Palin goads Obama until he finally starts yelling at her and she does the Aha! After he's president, but until then, unless they slander his wife or kids, he will get cut no slack for coming across angry.  
[ Parent ]
"unless they slander his wife or kids" (4.00 / 1)
I guess accusations of sexually perverting kindergartners just doesn't cut it these days.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
I though Michelle had already been slandered (0.00 / 0)
by that whole "terrorist fist bump" and "I've never been proud of my country" smear campaign, but maybe you consider that acceptable.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
I doubt it (0.00 / 0)
since I heard from a likely Ohio voter this weekend: "I don't want a nigger in the White House.  That's how I was raised."  And from another that Obama winning would just make "blacks act even more entitled than they are now". And this is just the tip of the iceberg.  

Don't give people too much credit when it comes to moving beyond racism.  If the sort of thing I described above is as maddeningly widespread as it's looking from my vantage point, then I doubt people are going to be versed enough in cultural anthropology to understand their racist compliance in invoking the angry black male stereotype.

You owe it to yourself to listen to This American Life's fantastic and common-sense explanation of the economic crisis.

[ Parent ]
They're going to portray him as angry anyway (0.00 / 0)
If the election is close or if Obama is likely to win, the "October surprise" will be 'angry coked-up negro' pushed as a major theme by the RNC and McCain's campaign. It will only be a surprise for Obama and his staff, who will be very disappointed in John McCain. Disappointment does not win an election, but that's OK, because Obama will have lost with dignity.

Why have we not learned this lesson already? Defensiveness doesn't work, GOPs are going to screw you into the ground anyway. They are capable of twisting any innocent words in any innocent context into a media firestorm.

[ Parent ]
He's trying to do it (4.00 / 5)
but still hasn't quite got there.

Obama does do what you are referring to as using the response as means of attack, but it hasn't quite mastered the pivot yet.

When he says this is dishonor or perverted , he's trying to do as you describe but this all needs to show up a) in his ads and b) become a theme throughout.

I look at his thesis as: McCain is running a freak show circus, and this says something about his personality and how he will govern. He then tries to pivot this back to his narrative by saying he, Obama, is the serious one not running a freakshow

However, he needs to become forcefula bout it. It's a good approach.

538 discusses this as well. You should check it out.

Link for what you would like us to check out (0.00 / 0)
please?
[ Parent ]
here you go (4.00 / 1)
[ Parent ]
Thanks n/t (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Exactly (4.00 / 3)
There seems to be a bit of panic out of Stoller and Jerome Armstrong, among many others for Obama's perceived failure to hit back.  I think he's on his way to finding his winning formula.  In the past week, the political world was blindsided by Sarah Palin and an effective RNC.  It seems that all those grousing right now throwing around Dukakis comparisons forget who was riding high just 2 weeks ago with a flawless VP rollout and successful convention.  The Obama campaign is in the process of adjusting, and they're almost there.  Here's what it needs to be:

- Continue Obama's style of mocking and dismissing the McCain circus.  Continue calling them out for lies, and calling the media out for complicity.
- Keep pivoting to the issues.  Obama needs to do this more forcefully.  Sirota was on Maddow's show last night arguing for Obama to counter cultural populism with economic populism.  Fight McCain on health care, taxes, trade, and the Iraq War and make his positions sound as shameful in soundbite as they really are.  It's not enough to just say they are same, call them out individually as rotten for American families.
- Keep your surrogates on message.  We don't need Joe Biden going around praising John McCain, and then saying Hillary would be a better vice president than he would be.  Keep Biden on attack 100% of the time, no qualifications.  Every other surrogate from Ed Rendell to Hillary Clinton should be doing the same.
- Have trusted allies coordinate with the 527s.  This way, the campaign can hope to minimize any embarrassing ads while also maximizing opportunity to hit McCain.

Obama seems to be getting there.  I've doubted him many times before, he's always regrouped while being consistent.  He can do it now.

[ Parent ]
that's my one critique (4.00 / 4)
you can't call someone dishonorable one day, and a honorable man the next. Its' off message. If they kept on this message like the swiftboating of 2004 with Kerry- it sows doubts. The goal is to make it so that McCain's every word is seen through the lense of him lying. That way it doesn't matter if he swiftboats. No one will believe him.  
[ Parent ]
If you HAVE to do it (4.00 / 1)
If for some reason the Obama campaign feels compelled to continue to praise McCain, it has to at least be in the past tense.

Which, if done correctly, can actually serve to strengthen the narrative that McCain has sold his soul to get to the White House, and that he's so desperate that he'll abandon all his principles for political gain.

Which, by the way, also has the advantage of being true.

My point is, though, that if they have to make any reference to McCain's "honor" it MUST be in the past tense, followed by "WTF has happened to this guy?"

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

[ Parent ]
Just because it's fun (4.00 / 7)
I'll reiterate a comment I made earlier today.  

LIARS.  McCain, Palin, and the Republican presidential campaign are all LIARS who tell bald-faced LIES about things they know can be debunked.  They will LIE about anything if they think it will get them elected.  They will LIE about their opponents and they will LIE about their own records.  They are unethical LIARS.

This needs to be repeated over and over until people believe it, kind of like Iraq=9-11, except true.

We might also want to add the rallying cry, "... and we've had ENOUGH of it."

LIARS -- ENOUGH!

We all need to get on message about it.

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

I'll keep recommending it, then! (4.00 / 2)
"John McCain: as honest as Bush, and as honorable as Cheney."

Maybe "John McCain lies like Bush and sneers like Cheney."

I like how stevie314 suggested, above, making a 'generic' reply: "He's campaigning like Bush again!" That strikes me as a fantastic suggestion, and v. valuable.

[ Parent ]
Your Clinton on Nightline video (0.00 / 0)
was a weaker response then Obama has been giving.


John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


True (0.00 / 0)
But the stakes are also higher now that it's a general election compared to before the first primary.
[ Parent ]
I just posted the following comment on another thread but I think it fits here as well: (4.00 / 7)
The best response that Obama could make, in my view, which seems to fit into you thesis of attacking is this:

"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.

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."

That's an attack that would blow this race wide open IMO


THIS HAS THE WORD "LIE" in it! (4.00 / 4)
... (2x) so I like it.  Sorry, I've been obsessed with this all day today.  McCain is a LIAR.  He LIES.  Palin LIES. Republicans LIE.  Let's all repeat this over and over.  It's therapeutic as well as strategically sound -- a Rovian "go for your opponent's strength" type of Straight-Talk-exploding tactic.

Those LYING LIARS and the LIES they tell really P*** me off, and I've had ENOUGH!

Even typing this feels good.  Saying it out loud, to one's Republican neighbors, feels even better -- trust me.

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

[ Parent ]
Total agreement. n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Problem is (4.00 / 1)
the media decides what is and what isn't a lie.

Remember Al Gore lying about something new every day in the 2000 election?  OK, I don't either, but I do recall the media deciding he was the king of prevarication.

The media will not pass Gore's crown to McCain, no matter what the facts and no matter how many times you or Obama protest.

[ Parent ]
Yes, but (0.00 / 0)
The media totally debunked the "Obama is a Muslim" lie too, but it got repeated so much that people still believe it.  

Iraq=9-11 is totally unfounded, but again, through repetition, it lodged in people's minds.

If all surrogates are saying this all the time, it can penetrate.

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

[ Parent ]
What I've been thinking too (4.00 / 1)
They've built up McCain all this time now as an "honorable" person. There was that sign at a McCain rally "America Respects John McCain."

So what better attack now than to tear down that hard-fought branding? And with plenty of evidence to back it up?

So not only is John McCain Bush's third term, he's also a lying sleazeball to boot.

Seems pretty effective to me. It also has the added advantage that it will get under McCain's notoriously thin skin.

[ Parent ]
It fits perfectly - all that talk about honor,putting country first and THIS is the campaign (4.00 / 1)
 the American people are getting from a so called 'honorable man'?

Lying, distorting,and distracting there is no honor in any of that.

The use of the word 'maverick' to describe himself?

What's so'maverick' about continuing a despicable campaign tradition that Republican campaign operatives have perfected?

Go right at his 'perceived' strength

Have Biden pick up the thread with the no vetting of Palin and how she has been foisted onto this stage for craven political reasons ...there is no honor in that.... have Biden name more experienced republican women that deserved this honor before Palin.

Go right at them

Honor and intregrity...it isn't on display on the Republican side and that shows a stunning disrespect to the American voter

[ Parent ]
this is why the pivot is important (4.00 / 2)
use the attacks to attack the attacker by going after their perceived strenght. use the very thing the gop is good at, which mccain is replicating, to then attack mccain as typical of the gop. agree completely. don't try to change obama, but instead us his strength's a pivot for defining mccain's character as dishonorable and a liar.
[ Parent ]
Oh (0.00 / 0)
And my only thought about the Obama-Dukakis mashup is that Obama is clearly ten times the politician Dukakis was.
True (0.00 / 0)

 But he's getting the same results Dukakis did.

 When the presidency is awarded to Best Politician, rather than Biggest Votegetter, that might matter.  

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

[ Parent ]
he's clearly (0.00 / 0)
more charismatic and clearly a better speaker. And, given the obvious hurdles he has faced (his name, his race, etc.)and overcome so far, probably a better politician.
[ Parent ]
Is attacking first an option? (4.00 / 4)

 When was the last time a Democratic presidential candidate tried that? 1964?

 Part of the reason behind all the frustration is that we've been through plenty of election cycles dealing with Republican smears and dirty tricks, and the Democratic candidate STILL acts like these things are totally unexpected and out of the blue. And hitting first, apparently, never crosses anyone's mind. So we just keep losing elections we should win.

 After Max Cleland, the Democrats slapped their foreheads and vowed "never again!" After John Kerry, the Democrats slapped their foreheads and vowed "never again!" And now Barack Obama's been saying "not this time". But it's become yet another rerun...

 Had dinner with my brother today. He's a Republican who sort of likes Obama (but he'll be voting for McCain). He's a medium-info voter -- not clueless, but not particularly tuned in. He asked me, "What's Obama's problem? Why is he sounding so WEAK lately?"  

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

Yeah (0.00 / 0)
What I want to know is, do Axelrod and co. even have a nuclear option? Do they even have a way to blindside McCain with some blistering offensive attack to completely take him and his campaign off message?
[ Parent ]
I doubt it, but I'll be happy to be proven wrong n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
yes (0.00 / 0)
I keep hoping they have a file drawer labeled "whoop ass" that they put all their nastiest ideas in just waiting for when to use them. Open it!
[ Parent ]
That is always a possibility (4.00 / 2)
I think we can be certain McCain is saving Rev Wright and the Ayers connection for just the right occasion. We can only hope that Obama has a similar arsenal. With four debates still coming up, neither side is in a rush to play their hand.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
The opening statement at the 1st debate would be ideal (0.00 / 0)
for unleashing such a surprise attack. It would completely throw McCain off his guard. I hope they are planning something like that....

Howard Dean in 2016
[ Parent ]
But but but (0.00 / 0)
Clinton is DLC, a trianglelator, not a real Democrat!
Moderate to a fault, but a fantastic campaigner (0.00 / 0)


"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
Didn't the 2008 primary campaign pretty much undermine that (0.00 / 0)
whole "Clinton is a fanatstic campaigner" story?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Why'd we let the house thing drop? (4.00 / 2)
Here's a funny homemade "3 a.m." ad on the subject:

http://snipurl.com/3p2tj

They showed Dukakis in the tank over and over again, we should keep repeating McCain's house gaffe.

you know you can embed the video and save people the click through (4.00 / 1)
just paste the embed stuff into the comment.

great funny video btw - thanks!

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Gore was sad. (0.00 / 0)
He even started making fun of himself over that fictitious "invented the internet" quote.

Gore himself has mined it for comic value, saying once, "I was pretty tired when I made that comment because I had been up very late the night before inventing the camcorder."

http://blogs.chicagotribune.co...

When people are trying to laugh at you, don't join in.

The Kerry campaign did not ignore the intern affair scandal (4.00 / 2)
They killed it, because it was completely false and easily refutable since nothing corroborated it.  I guess you never read the story written by the intern after the fact:

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/...

Drudge had to ultimately back off she story, and was the only one who expressed regret to the intern who was needlessly humiliated by a false story.

The Kerry campaign similarly went very aggressively against the SBVT, behind the scenes, by a massive data dump to the print press.  They fed the press hundreds of naval documents to refute the lies.  The truth, btw, was indeed in the newspapers, which I read.  The lies, unfortunately, continued to air on cable TV and right wing media, which I ignored.  They Kerry campaign was also seriously hampered by public financing rules:  they had 5 weeks more of the campaign to survive on the public financing than Bush did.   Time line for the Kerry campaign's response to the SBVT:

http://www.democraticundergrou...

problem too though (0.00 / 0)
was that one smear fed into a narrative the GOP was pushing (lying flip-flopping wimp) and the other didn't (philanderer). So the one the GOP wanted to push stayed in the ether even with all the push-back.
[ Parent ]
Righteous Indignation (4.00 / 3)
What you saw in the first Clinton clip is what is often missing from Democratic campaigns: righteous indignation. Every once in a while, you've just got to get tough and not be afraid to yell and spit a little. Not all the time. Rarely, in fact. But, the American people need to know you're capable of it. They need to know you have the visceral toughness to fight for your legislation, or to stare a dictator in the eye at the bargaining table and tell them to go to hell.

I'm still waiting for Obama to have that one big moment of righteous indignation. He only needs one or two to get over. I think this education ad that McCain put out was a perfect opportunity for him to show it, and I'm kind of surprised he didn't take it. I agree there's an added danger because of Obama's race that if he shows righteous indignation it could cause a backlash among white voters, but McCain's basically calling him a pervert. I don't think anyone would blame Obama, who still has solid favorables in all the polls everyone here is wringing their hands about, for blowing a gasket and calling out McCain and his campaign for being a bunch of lying slimeballs and pointing out that they're no better than Bush or any of the other slimeball politicians who slithered into Washington DC on their bellies through gutter politics.

The thing is, in 2000 and 2004, we didn't lose those elections by landslides. If Gore had a couple of moments of righteous indignation over the internet lie, for instance, he probably would've won that election going away. Same thing with Kerry. If he had shown righteous indignation and called out the Swiftboat pond scum and their enablers in the media for what they were, and did it in the kind of blunt terms that would get your mouth washed out with soap as a kid, he might well have won Ohio and the election.

There's still time for Obama, but he's got to take the next opportunity McCain gives him to strike. And, he'll get that opportunity. Right now the McCain campaign knows the permanence of this bounce they've gotten depends on driving down Obama's favorables. That's why they're throwing the kitchen sink at him right now. If they don't kill Obama's favorables now, and the election turns back to issues in the debates and people remember that they agree with Obama and the Democrats on 85% of the issues, then things will start trending back to Obama and we probably win this election. So Obama's got to pick out the right moment to absolutely rain down an angry tirade, and he can't do it mockingly or with flowery language. It has to be short, sweet, to the point, and he's got to show he's pissed off, just like Clinton did in that clip.

They also need to let Biden out of the tiger cage. Biden should've taken the opportunity they gave him on stem cells and ripped the GOP's face off with it yesterday, and I'm shocked they didn't take that opportunity. Anything that puts stem cells in the spotlight is a win for Democrats. Joe Biden's got to be Joe Biden or he adds nothing to this ticket. Joe Biden's got to be a strident, partisan a-hole.

Finally, I'm waiting for some of these so-called Chicago politicians in the Obama campaign to wield the black hand and formulate some controversies and ads of their own to drive down McCain's favorables. I figured, being from Chicago, Obama had some gangsters in his campaign watching his back. Unfortunately, lately they've been looking more like the Sharks or Jets than they have the Capones or Corleones.

righteous indignation (0.00 / 0)
yes, that's it. The right tends to go there more naturally. I do recall this from Kerry by the way. But too late.
[ Parent ]
Bingo (0.00 / 0)
Obama should not get angry.

He should draw a line in the sand.

Look, this is not hard.  All he has to do is borrow copy from Andrew Sullivan.

If he's too much of a fucking wimp to do this, voters will walk away from him in disgust.

[ Parent ]
yes, absolutely ... (0.00 / 0)
These blogposts are both true and excellent.

I hope someone is quoting Sean Connery from the Untouchables to Obama:

"They pull a knife, you pull a gun. They put one of yours in the hospital, you put one of theirs in the morgue. That's the Chicago way."

Obama should up the ante every time. They attack him ... he responds with an added venomous attack on McCain's economic plan, or big oil, or healthcare.... a nice soundbite for the evening news, or the morning tabloids.

[ Parent ]
Thx for writing about this relevant, interesting topic (0.00 / 0)
This is an issue that obviously is becoming increasingly important. Good idea, Tremayne, and thx for the infos.
couple things (4.00 / 2)
1. This point:
When the equally ridiculous Swiftboat charges came out, they hoped it would blow over. And they hoped, and they hoped. And they responded, belatedly.

The 20/20 hindsight on this would be, yes, but they should never have ignored it. It was a full-bore assault on the central pillar of Kerry's newly burnished, convention-filling bio as a principled and heroic Vietnam veteran. It had to be defended, at all costs. It was integral to his identity. His marital fidelity and morality, on the other hand, were NOT integral to his identity--they were simply taken for granted, by his people and the electorate. They made the right decision then, and obviously the fatal decision 6 months later. Their judgment was not deep and insightful enough to know better.

2. Yes, Obama needs to "Turn these responses into attacks." But I think he has been ill-served by his advisers, and many of us, focusing on his deft and effective counterpunching as "jujitsu."

Jujitsu is not what he needs anymore. Yes it can be effective in turning the faux-outrage lipstick attacks back on McCain, but the problem is, it doesn't really score any points. As you and many others point out, it's reactive, which means it's defensive, which means it doesn't draw serious blood, which means it's at best a wash.  In basketball, it's winning a jump ball, or at best, forcing a turnover. He's got to take the ball to the damn basket. Every day.

To get back to the martial arts, Obama needs to drop the jujitsu and bring out the nunchucks. Or whatever. Rather than worrying about turning a specific attack around, he simply needs to answer the attack, then LET IT GO, drop all whining about lying and dishonor, pivot and open fire with his biggest weapons: McCain has no plan to end the war, no idea how to fix the economy, no respect for a woman's right to choose, and no blueprint for change whatsoever. And stop talking about McCain talking about it! Just assert it: THE MAN HAS NOTHING.

But it can't end there. Obama then also must reiterate in well-polished sound bites his positive plans to address each of those issues.

Parry; Attack; Advance. Parry; Attack; Advance.

Now, he obviously can't do all of this every time. But they've got to work out a game plan where he can attack and advance on at least one key issue EVERY SINGLE DAY. And I'm not talking here about simply having a daily message to hit. That is just basic planning. This is on top of that, in response to every single attack of the day. Begala has it right: Attack, Attack, Attack. Forget jujitsu, this is Long Fist Kung Fu. I had imagined they had a game plan like this, but I'm increasingly worried that they don't.

This is very good ... (0.00 / 0)
Obama must hone some good generic soundbites he can use at every attack e.g.

"McCain has no economic plan, so he wants to talk about lipstick on a pig!"

I hope someone from Obama's campaign is reading these blogposts.

[ Parent ]
We need more coordination on defense!! (4.00 / 2)
I think in general Obama is doing a good job of responding to attacks, and much of the time he and his campaign spokespeople do manage to pivot to hit back.  But where I think Dems continue to be dramatically less effective than the Republicans is in having a consistent, simple response that is echoed by every surrogate.

Look, for several cycles now they've been better than us on sticking to talking points, whether on policy issues, on attacks, or on defense.  It's a huge deficit on our part!  When you see five different left-leaning pundits give five different responses to an attack, you remember the attack but not the response.  The Republicans have coherent, disciplined messaging even when they're playing defense.

How long would the "lipstick" thing have lasted if EVERY DEM on EVERY SHOW said:  

"First, Obama wasn't talking about Palin, he was talking about the Republican party's policies over the last 8 years.  Anyone who says otherwise is deliberately misreading his comment.  And second, McCain used the very phrase 'lipstick on a pig' six months ago in talking about Hillary, so any outrage here is both fake and hypocritical."

Two points: one a defense, and one an attack.  If EVERY DEM stuck to JUST EXACTLY THESE TWO POINTS, we could control the debate.  But instead every surrogate is freelancing, and the Republicans win another round.

Amen to that .... (0.00 / 0)
In general, Obama has been good on the defensive.

Its an old saying "Every problem is an opportunity", and he needs to use Republican smears to attack, and also put in a few attacks of his own.

[ Parent ]
The missing Gore example argues against your point (0.00 / 0)
When Gore menacingly slid up to GW during one of the debates, the first thing I thought about was Clinton-Brown. To me, the move seemed calculated and based on what Clinton had done. If you remember correctly, it was that moment that allowed Clinton to pull away from the pack. For Gore, a similar show of belligerence ruined him. Obama has to follow his own style. BTW, how sleezy is Clinton? Always thought so, even when I was voting for him. I'm so happy at his fall.
Kerry almost won (0.00 / 0)
There is a tendency to overlearn the lessons of the last election. The Swift Boat attacks were only a small part of why Kerry lost. There was also him saying he was for the war appropriations bill before he was against it, the GOP base turnout strategy with gay marriage referendums, the attacks on him as a French-loving wind surfing elitist, GOP voter suppression tactics, etc. And despite all that, he would have been President if he had gotten roughly 100,000 more votes in Ohio or had won a combination of 2 other states that he very narrowly lost.
If Obama did what B. Clinton did, headlines would say: (0.00 / 0)
"Angry Black Man Obama Loses His Temper After Relentless McCain Attacks"

I just wanted to remind everyone here of how the media works, in case you're entertaining fantasies about how great it would be to launch on a rant of this sort.

The narrative that Obama's mild-mannered Dr. Jeckyl persona might mask the spirit of Mr. Hyde would do great damage, and fit well with the "we don't really know him" line that's already working.

Yes, racism sucks, but Obama can win this election despite it. He just can't do it in the manner that we'd all like to see.

He Has to Pick His Spot (0.00 / 0)
If the McCain campaign trigger is terrible enough, Obama will have some license to hit back without triggering a backlash. His favorables are still well up over 50% in most of the swing state polling I've looked at, so a majority of people still like Barack. He has some leeway. If what McCain does is slimey enough, they won't turn on him if he hits back. They'll empathize with him and rally around him, in fact. For instance, the education ads basically calling Obama a pervert would've been a perfect excuse for Obama to have a moment of righteous indignation.
[ Parent ]
Dukakis, Clinton, Kerry and Obama | 64 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