Obama/Biden Are On Message and Are Going Negative

by: Matt Stoller

Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 14:53



I find current discussions about the campaign sort of strange.  There are lots of people saying Obama isn’t ‘going after McCain’ or ‘going negative’ or isn’t ‘on message’.  I’ve seen this piece on HuffPo passed around at least five times, which emphasizes that he must go negative and stay on message.  I hear that he must ‘fight back’ against McCain’s sleaze with a consistent theme.

What’s odd about these conversations is that they don’t acknowledge that Obama is doing just that.  I blogged earlier about the attack ads Obama ran against McCain, all on economic themes.  Why ignore them?  Why assume he’s not making criticisms when he is?
Matt Stoller :: Obama/Biden Are On Message and Are Going Negative
I’m seeing consistent themes coming from the Obama campaign.  McCain is the same as Bush.  McCain is hiding from the issues.  McCain is lying.  McCain’s campaign is run by lobbyists.  Obama will bring change from eight years of bad policies.  Seriously, go through his youtube channel and check out his speeches.  They are thematically unified.  And whatever you think of what he’s saying, Obama is on message.  And he’s also going incredibly ‘negative’, critical of McCain’s policy ideas and his dirty campaign.

I just got this email from a friend.

According to CNN, Biden is about to start ‘hitting’ McCain by saying that he has good character but is wrong on the issues.

This is similar to what Obama is saying in his appearances around the country, as he did in Concord, NH on Friday.

“You’ve seen the other side not want to spend any time talking about the issues,” Obama said. “I mean, what have they been talking about? They’ve been talking about lipstick. They’ve been talking about pigs. They’ve been talking about Britney. They’ve been talking about Paris.”

And this.

“Here’s what I can guarantee you: We are going to be hitting back hard. We have been hitting back hard. We have been hitting back hard but we’re hitting back on the issues that matter to families,” Obama said earlier in the day at an event in Dover, N.H.

And this, from David Axelrod, the architect of the Obama campaign.

When it was all over, I asked if Axelrod believed the convention had framed the election in as dead-simple, crystal-clear terms as the Republicans’ country-first/Obama-first dichotomy. “I do,” Axelrod said. “Our frame is this: McCain offers more of the same, and Obama offers the change that we need.”

There are plenty of Democratic leaders encouraging this line of attack.  The New Republic has gathered some party luminaries to discuss what Obama should do.  

Here’s Michael Dukakis.

Obama should continue to do what he has been doing for the past few days, which is to address major issues in ways that obviously make the difference for people between him and McCain…

I think it’s important that he emphasizes that McCain has never voted for the working guy in his life. It’s not just minimum wage votes; it’s everything: Privatizing Social Security and Medicare, he’s anti-union, he hasn’t lifted a finger for public education, his health plan is a joke. I mean, this guy–he doesn’t really believe that working people and their families in this country ought to be guaranteed basic health insurance. So, I think you want to draw those contrasts, and I think he will do so and has already begun to do so.”

And Governor Ed Rendell.

And I think Senator Obama has a real opportunity in those debates to focus on the issues. You can’t hide behind 30-second ads; you’ve got to talk about the issues. And I think Obama can win the debates significantly, and if he does so, I think he’ll become president…

But I want Senator Obama talking about important things. I don’t want him talking about lipstick on a pig or responding to their lipstick ad. I want him to say, “Hey folks, they’re trying to put up every smokescreen, to do everything they can to take your eye off the ball. The ball is, who can best improve the quality of your life, and that’s us and here’s why. Boom–healthcare. Boom–home mortgages. Boom–economic plan. Boom–taxes.” Just boom, boom, boom.

Joe Trippi and Dee Dee Myers argue differently (and to my mind more persuasively).  But don’t assume that Obama isn’t ‘fighting back’ or ‘going negative’ or ‘isn’t on message’.  He is.  He’s saying that McCain’s policy ideas are bad, that the American people want to hear about the issues, and that his campaign of lies shows that his campaign is about distraction rather than substance.  And many top Democrats who have won a lot of elections agree with this line of attack.

I’m not trying to second guess the decisions here, I’m more puzzled at the weird disconnect between what it means to ‘attack’ among Democratic leaders like Obama and his crew and what it means to ‘attack’ among his ‘bedwetting’ critics.  Is this just a strategic disagreement?  Or is there something more going on?
');
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Obama/Biden Are On Message and Are Going Negative | 49 comments
THANK YOU (4.00 / 1)
Frankly, for a while I’ve been thinking that this disconnect is nothing more than people not paying attention.

 
To play devil's advocate (0.00 / 0)
A lot of voters aren’t paying attention. Voters who aren’t paying attention are, in fact, the critical swing vote which the McCain campaign is playing to with their current electoral strategy.

What good is an attack that you have to be paying attention to be aware of?

[ Parent ]  
The problem (4.00 / 2)
the problem is as long as all of us AND all of them are talking about attacking or spot ads or imagined sexism or racism the media will focus on the back and forth tit for tat.

I guarantee you if the entire blogosphere were to unite and talk issues, the MSM would be driven to do the same.  Sure there would be some flailing about ‘did you see this new McCain ad?’ but the majority of the discussion would shift back to real issues.

This is tactics v strategy just like the surge v the war.  We can all get caught up in the daily shifting of chess pieces but then the overall game plan is lost in the shuffle.

It is absolutely incumbent on all of us that don’t want to see McCain elected to join forces and insist this campaign be about how to turn this country around.

If we don’t do that, if we succumb to the tit for tat, we deserve the American Idol politics we have suffered through for the last couple decades.

The war in this election is about changing our politics, the DC mentality, and solving the very serious problems that are facing this country right now.

The tactics are about which ad to run to respond to the other guy’s ad.

The blogs can get this back on issues and very much help force the MSM do the same.  Or they can engage in a tactics skirmish.  It’s our choice.

[ Parent ]  
I think (4.00 / 13)
I’m not trying to second guess the decisions here, I’m more puzzled at the weird disconnect between what it means to ‘attack’ among Democratic leaders like Obama and his crew and what it means to ‘attack’ among his ‘bedwetting’ critics.  Is this just a strategic disagreement?

I think when people make this complaint, they’re really saying that Obama’s attacks aren’t managing to penetrate the media narrative. McCain makes some ridiculous attack about lipstick on a pig and it dominates the media for one full week. The Obama campaign makes a series of carefully structured, message-coordinated attacks on McCain’s character, and the result is a video on youtube which is well-watched by the readers of the OpenLeft.com “Quick Hits”. Meanwhile the media’s obsessing about other things.

To the people making this complaint, an attack they don’t hear about or have to specifically look for in able to find doesn’t exist. They’re making the assumption, when McCain attacks I hear about it, therefore if Obama were attacking I would have heard about it. (Or, they’re acknowledging such attacks work, but assuming that any attacking that doesn’t penetrate the media narrative is– by definition– “weak”.)

 
Typo (0.00 / 0)
“Or, they’re acknowledging such attacks work”
in the last sentence should have been
“Or, they’re acknowledging such attacks exist”
you probably get what I meant.
[ Parent ]  
Spot on (4.00 / 1)
Maybe any attack that doesn’t penetrate the media is weak? The “lie” theme is not weak and is working. But hitting hard on the issues and staying “on message” will never win a media cycle. Saying something outlandish will. I think the Obama campaign is right to not resort to name calling or false allegations or other media-pleasing attacks (unless he loses, in which case I will think he was wrong). Obama’s attacks are legitimate, if not headline-grabbing, because they are justified responses to McCain’s lies and character attacks. The consensus, in both the new and traditional media, seems to be that this is simply not enough. And like you say, it isn’t enough because it isn’t driving the narrative.

So, what does Obama need to do to get back in the driver’s seat? He could get angry and deal with the likely repercussions. Or he could come up with an attack so spectacular that the media can’t help but cover it, even though this likely means resorting to lies or character attacks. Or he can do what he has been doing – respond quickly and forcefully while trying to push for an issue-oriented debate.

If there is some other option, I dare the naysayers to lay it out for me in detail.


“Don’t hate the media, become the media” -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]  
Catch 22 (4.00 / 1)
If Obama himself gets angry it feeds the angry black man trap that the Rovarians will jump on with both feet.

He needs to continue what he has been doing all along, drawing sharp policy differences along with a vision for the future as opposed to reliving the past.

His surrogates, though, need to hit the trail and media hard and start calling a spade a spade.  The Clintons should be in full force anti-McCain mode.  Rendell should be in full force anti-McCain mode.

Start calling lies just that-lies.  It’s not a dirty word.

Start defining country first as just that-country over politics, the well being of the citizens over winning an election with sideshows.

Tell the truth and don’t back down.  They don’t have to sink to McCain’s despicable level of lying and diverting, just tell the truth.

Angry black man won’t do it though.

50 days.

[ Parent ]  
Angry white man, on the other hand (0.00 / 0)
is America’s most beloved archetype.

ENTER JOE BIDEN.

Listen to Mama Biden, Joe! Bloody their nose so you can walk down the street the next day!  

[ Parent ]  
Depends on who is doing the complaining (0.00 / 0)
At a neighborhood picnic, for example, I hear the complaint that Obama isn’t going negative.  These non-professional politicians, I believe, simply aren’t paying attention.  Or they assume that, if Obama were going negative, he’d be ahead.

Pundits may have other reasons/explanations for their complaints.

 
Tentative answer (4.00 / 4)
After watching Gore and Kerry get pushed around without an effective push back, many may believe this was the only difference between defeat and victory for their campaigns.

Of course we don’t know any such thing with any certainty.  How would the media have portrayed aggressive push back by Gore or Kerry?  Dukakis did come out swinging and it didn’t seem to matter once the media triangle closes and the narrative is set.

Other possibility:  Obama hasn’t put McCain on the defensive since the houses gaffe pre-convention.  That’s an important sign that attacks are effective.


John McCain is anti-choice

 
Can everyone please… (0.00 / 0)
…stop second-guessing Al Gore’s campaign? If I remember correctly, he actually won the election in 2000. Some think Kerry did, too, though there’s less proof to back it up.

I dunno…I see staying on message as a good long-term strategy. McCain’s fabulized attacks are bound run out of road. I realized while watching McCain’s exchanges on “The View” that if his campaign keeps this up he won’t be able to do any non-right-wing TV without being questioned about tactics or called an outright “liar.” And that means folks will be watching his remarks pretty close by the time of the debates. All Barack has to do is stay on-message.

[ Parent ]  
The big benefit of staying on message (0.00 / 0)
Maintaining message discipline and pushing hard for an issue-oriented campaign will work well once we reach the debates. The strategy, tactics and narratives of the McCain campaign can not translate to the debate format. It works well in ads and sound bites, but he can’t stand on stage trying to look presidential while whining about ‘celebrity’ and ‘lipstick’ and whatnot while 40 million Americans are paying close attention for 90 minutes. Obama, on the other hand, can stand up there and keep pushing the same message he has been pushing all along. If the audience makes the connection that Obama has been singing the same, agreeable tune for 4 months while McCain has been flailing widely trying to destroy Obama’s character, Obama will be in a strong position to win those debates.

I know everyone says the debates are lame and basically cut-up versions of stump speeches – but in an election like this they may really be the only time the issues get their proper time in the spotlight.  

“Don’t hate the media, become the media” -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]  
Yup… (0.00 / 0)
…so glad someone else used the term “flailing” to describe McCain’s campaign. And let’s face it, as far as polls are concerned, he’s not building up a big lead over Obama, either–certainly not insurmountable given the domestic negatives that play to Obama’s strengths.
[ Parent ]  
Sorry, but Al Gore ran one of the worst campaigns ever (0.00 / 0)
Yes, he actually won – but barely, in a race that had no business even being close.

I mean, come on, the guy picked Lieberman as his VP.

[ Parent ]  
Really? (0.00 / 0)
“If I remember correctly, he actually won the election in 2000.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t George W. Bush inaugurated in January 2001?  The election is “won” until you take the oath.


McCain Has a Republican Healthcare Plan for the 21st Century

[ Parent ]  
McCain is controlling the narrative (4.00 / 3)
This isn’t hard.  The Obama campaign has lost control of the narrative.  The McCain campaign comes out with new attacks every 24-48 hours.  Who cares if they’re true or not?  They have to be discussed by the media bobbleheads, and that drowns out everything else.

I’m starting to wonder if the continuing revelations about Palin cronyism and vindictiveness do McCain more good than harm.  In this society that has become defined by television entertainment, people are switching off the Obama channel to see what’s new on the McCain channel.  I mean, if there are two quick hits on OL, one a new Obama ad, one a new revelation about Palin, which one do people go to first?

It would be nice if the Obama campaign could come out with a sustained and on-target (and God forbid well crafted) ad campaign that got people interested and talking.  But instead we get the same tired consultant crap.

I remember in the dark days of the Dukakis campaign, they had an ad with actors playing the Bush campaign, planning their negative campaign.  It was sad, they clearly had no idea what to do, the ad was an embarrassment.  That’s what the “internet” ad last week reminded me of.

 
Right, I dont think negative is the key – its controlling the subject matter (4.00 / 2)
here is a repost of a quick hit comment I left earlier, in which I wonder why Obama has not used his great speech making power to dominate the media narrative when it has been so dominating in the past. I dont think being negative is the key:

I think the Obama team has frankly been stupid not to make better use of Obama’s speech making power more. His speech on race had awesome ratings and coverage. He blew Hillary off the front page for a week – she had zero out of that event. So why hasn’t Obama done more of those? Where is his national speech on the economy, on health care, on sexism, on the future of energy. Seriously, every time I think about this I get so fucking frustrated with the Obama camp. The race speech was completely reactionary, but it was a grand slam. Why didn’t they learn from that and go proactive and exploit the news media for all its worth! The networks would be lining up to cover each one of these speeches, he could do one every three weeks and blown McCain off the map.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]  
Hell, I'd be happy (4.00 / 2)
If they just exploited the speech they already gave. His convention acceptance speech seemed to have helped him more than anything he did, and he got buried. I saw someone once suggest a series of ads snippeting that convention speech and then expanding on it– an ad expanding on his “ownership society = you’re on your own” crack, an ad expanding on his “foreign oil independence in 10 years” moonshot. I’m not in a position to suggest ads, but I can’t think of a better idea than this.

Obama dominated the media coverage of this election before the Republican convention. It wasn’t because he was going negative. It was because he went positive in an interesting way. The McCain campaign has been dominating the coverage since the Republican convention. It wasn’t because they went negative. It’s because they did something positive (nominated Sarah Palin) which was interesting.

[ Parent ]  
I mentioned once before… (4.00 / 2)
…it is time for a big Obama ethics speech. And you’re right, he could fit in 2 or 3 significant, high-profile speeches between now and November. But not every topic works – people could give a shit about a major healthcare speech, no matter how good it is. But a major speech calling McCain out as a lying opportunist would dot he trick.  

“Don’t hate the media, become the media” -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]  
It's about controlling the national discussion… (4.00 / 4)
Ever since McCain’s ridiculous “celebrity” ads, he’s been dictating the national discussion.  The media may say “Well, this is a ridiculous line of attack” (as even they did when the ads came out), but the discussion in the media becomes “Is Obama really just an empty celebrity or not?”

Obama has been pushing back negatively on issues… and that’s good, but it’s not really capturing the media’s attention.  I don’t know what the answer is because obviously you don’t want to sink to the same level as McCain and just start lying with impunity… but something needs to be done to recapture the narrative.

 
negative (0.00 / 0)
I think the problem is is that Obama isn’t going as negative as McCain has gone against Obama. There are good arguments that he shouldn’t do this. But what the media is doing is comparing Obama’s negativity against McCain, and by that measure McCain is going more negative than Obama.  
 
and McCain is winning (0.00 / 0)
so what does that tell you?

It tells you that when the American people say they hate negatively and don’t respond to it, THEY’RE FUCKING LYING!  

[ Parent ]  
That's playing pattycakes! (4.00 / 8)
“Negative” would mean talking about how numerous Republicans say McCain has a mean temper. It would be saying that McCain is old and saying directly that Palin is not qualified to be President. It would be bringing on community organizers to shame Palin into apologizing about her remarks. It would be using the statements of right-wing hate radio to tie that albatross around McCain’s neck. It would be directly attacking Lou Dobbs for his comments on that racist waffle shit and demanding that he resign or apologize. Force the press back on their heels.

THAT’S negative, not the bullshit you mention.

 
Right! (4.00 / 2)
It’s not really negative until Karl Rove freaks out.

“Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition”
[ Parent ]  
No (0.00 / 0)
It’s not really negative until Cindy McCain is in tears.
[ Parent ]  
i think its a mistake (4.00 / 2)
to start every criticism of mccain by saying how honorable, patriotic, and out of touch he is or he doesn’t get it, he isn’t out of touch and he does get it, he is a rw wingnut and he doesn’t deserve any compliments from those that he trashes everyday with lies and misinformation, obama loves america (majority of the citizens) and mccain doesn’t its really that simple.

tell america the truth obama and as truman said the opposition will think its hell.

 
The complaint is that they don't see the attacks. (0.00 / 0)
The complaint is that they don’t see the attacks.

The media doesn’t like the old.  They want new and fresh criticisms regardless of their substance.

For example Obama could challenge McCain to go on Keith Olberman the same way he went on Bill O’Rielly.  That would be new and probably make news.

That being said I am not convinced a short term popularity contest is the best thing to be focusing on except in the final 3 weeks.
 

The liberal wiki
Send an email to [email protected]

 
excellent post (4.00 / 3)
Matt raises a point that needs making.  We are, in fact, bringing the fight.  And we are, in fact, holding our own against the GOP at what is its hide tide for the campaign.  

The polls have rightfully scared Dems, but the difference this time around is that the press corps has gone from solidly pro-Republican to down the middle. They are calling McCain’s campaign on its lies and fact-checking Plain. They are also photocopying McCain press releases, too, but this is an improvement.

I like the panic among Dems nonetheless. It’s lit a fire under the Obama campaign to get aggressive and spurred activism on the media.  It probably also helped Obama’s massive August haul and will be generally a spur to more work in what all of want to be the end of the Bush era.  

Now is the time to take the wind out of McCain’s sails and win this.  


 
Not very complicated (4.00 / 6)
The Obama ads are negative in the sense that they attack McCain on the issues. They dont really look terribly different from thousands of ads by consultants in the past decade. They are not memorable. They are by and large a waste of money. Nobody passes them around and the media does not talk about them.

While Bill Burton attacks McCain for lying, the ads dont go straight to the character issue, and they should. If we run ads on issues, and they run ads on character, they win.

Josh Marshall hit the nail on the head the other day pointing out the Naval Academy Honor Concept on truth. An ad, narrated by a fellow graduate, challenging McCain simply to live up to the Honor Code he once swore to live by, and saying that he should not give up honor to win an election, would hit home.

 
Recommended And Transmogrified Into A Quick Hit (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]  
several reasons (4.00 / 1)
Good post, Matt. There are a bunch of different things at play but mainly its:

– a mistaken belief that negative campaigning was the sole or main reason for past election results
– panic over the convention bounce McCain has gotten in the polls
– the fact that a lot of the Obama strategy is predicated on new voter registration and turnout, the effectiveness of which can only be measured in hindsight after the election
– frustration at the media deliberately or negligently playing into McCain’s hands every time he comes up with a new bullshit line of attack

 
Going negative (0.00 / 0)
 doesn’t just mean telling voters how terrible the other guy is but also the ability to make something negative out trivia. Republicans have this unique ability to make something out of trivia or nothing; be it Gore’s sighing during the debates, Kerry’s match stick legs, Swift boat veterans or lipstick on a pig. I can’t quantify the effect of these tactics but they certainly have some effect otherwise the GOP would not employ them at every election. Democrats can use these tactics in a more appropriate way. I just think stating your case in calm and logical manner doesn’t cut it for some voters.
 
from scheiber at tnr.com (4.00 / 1)
I suugest this approach….

Start with McCain in a good light, both literally and figuratively. The narrator says something like: “Before 2007, John McCain was an honorable man. He stood up to his party on tax cuts for the rich, on global warming, on immigration.” [Now the clouds roll in, ominous music starts playing…] “But when being honorable threatened his shot at the presidency [flash headline from summer of 2007 declaring McCain campaign dead] John McCain didn’t put country first, he put his ambition first. To curry favor with his party’s right-wing, he embraced the Bush tax cuts he once called “irresponsible” and renounced his own immigration plan. Later, he flip-flopped on offshore drilling. Now, in the biggest reversal of all, he’s embracing the same Bush-Rove politics he condemned eight years ago [flash Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, a quote from neutral organization citing McCain’s “Rove-style” tactics]. Why? Because, to John McCain, some things are more important than honor [grainy footage of McCain and Bush waving together from the White House].”

 
Surrogates (0.00 / 0)
To your entry I do think this handwringing over what ad to run and what it should say is tactics just as the surge is a tactice and both are minor to the overall war(s).

I think Obama and his campaign believe if they treat us like adults and tell us the truth about the shape of the country and the policies proposed to fix it, they will win the overall war.

I don’t disagree with that approach.

If there are skirmishes going on in some states, the surrogates of the anti-McCain campaign need to step up and go after McCain on his tactics in a down and dirty way.  But Obama doing it would not win those individual state skirmishes and might just damage his overall strategy of winning the war.

Why the hell aren’t the Clintons out there living in Ohio and Florida?  If they’re still cool on Obama, fine, but they don’t have to mention Obama, they can spend their day eviscerating McCain and Bush and their policies.

Why the hell isn’t Rendell pounding PA every day with an anti-McCain message?

They might say Obama hasn’t asked them.  BS.  It’s time to drop their pride and start fighting against what this country would go through if we continue the irresponsible and short sighted leadership we’ve been through the last 7 years.

We have 3 weeks to get people registered.  We have 7 weeks to give this country a chance to right the ship.  Egos need to take a back seat, we all need to get on the ground and pound any way we can to change the conversation off of tactics and tit for tat and onto the issues.

We all know blogs can shift the MSM.  There is a fabulous tool here at our disposal and for the last week it’s been used to worry and fret.

Time is short.  The conversation won’t change until we make it change.  It’s what the blogosphere does best and it’s sorely missing in action.  

 
Arguing why (0.00 / 0)
the Clintons aren’t doing enough are counterproductive. Basically half the party is not to thrilled with Obama, and doesn’t have the passion we have to get him elected. There are more than a few who think Obama losing may be better for the country and party long term. The passion just isn’t there for them.

One of my ex co-workers works for the Democratic Party in Nassau County, New York and she tells me at every meeting they have, all it has been since June is “God, we nominated such a weak candidate who can’t win”

That’s the problem, the passion isn’t there for Obama among those who need for it to be.  

[ Parent ]  
I think we DO have to talk about character (4.00 / 3)
Because if Obama’s character is trashed, then nothing he says will be credible, including his assessment of McCain’s voting record.

If McCain’s character is trashed, then nothing he says will be credible — including attacks on Obama.

We don’t have to become Karl Rove. But why not call McCain a flat out liar, who will say anything to win? It’s 100% true, and 100% necessary in order to discredit his attacks on Obama.

 
oh, and for the record… (0.00 / 0)
I think the Obama campaign has finally seized on this message. Maybe they were too late for their liking. But I know Obama is smarter than me, and was waiting for McCain to open his mouth and remove all doubt rather than attack too soon.  
[ Parent ]  
Obama's trying to use both character and issues. (4.00 / 1)
Bush won largely by defining his opponents’ character. I think it’s harder for McCain to define Obama’s character this time around (aside from the Muslim smear email) but McCain’s path to victory lies in destroying Obama’s character and, as you say, credibility.

It appears that Obama’s method of hitting back is to go after character and issues as a one-two punch. I think it’s better than what was going on before the conventions, I’m just not totally sure how well the combination is resonating in the news cycle. McCain still seems to have an upper hand in that department, by clogging up the works with pigs and silliness… hopefully that will not continue to be the case.  

John McCain John McCain John McCain

[ Parent ]  
When the Media is owned (0.00 / 0)
by corporate entities I think it is the purest fantasy to assume that the non-corporate candidate can have any real control over the media narrative.  Ultimately, what the general population sees is what it is permitted to see.  The real question is whether alternative media can seriously impact the canned narrative.  I suspect that this is the only election cycle where the experiment will be possible.  The technology lockbox of a McCain presidency will be swift and thorough.
 
I said it before but I'll say it again (4.00 / 2)
I know I’m repeating myself but if they don’t make these points centerpieces, they won’t stick.  The media are still more against us than for us.  They won’t pick up “solid” or “boring” points, they have to have some zing.  “Sex education for kindergarteners” may be bullshit but it isn’t boring.

They need a Rovian strategy of attacking the opposition at their strong points.

Attack “Country First” and attack it hard enough so people will notice.  If “Country First” doesn’t include the working people of this country it’s meaningless.  Keep hitting that damned pinata until it breaks.

It’s not so much what Obama’s saying, it’s that it appears diffuse and unclear.  Unless they sharpen it up, it won’t penetrate the media fog.


sTiVo’s rule: Just because YOU “wouldn’t put it past ’em” doesn’t prove that THEY did it.

 
Why be surpised at the perception of timidity by left bloggers? (0.00 / 0)
   Leftist bloggers, being w/o responsibilities in the official Obama campaign (worried about attracting center-right voters to get the 270, rather than left bloggers ….more attuned to the opinions of those who cancel subscription to The Nation for not being “progressive” enough, to exaggerate only slightly) will always kvetch.

Matt>…I’m not trying to second guess the decisions here, I’m more puzzled at the weird disconnect between what it means to ‘attack’ among Democratic leaders like Obama and his crew and what it means to ‘attack’ among his ‘bedwetting’ critics.  Is this just a strategic disagreement?  Or is there something more going on?

 
Narratives (4.00 / 2)
From the get-go of the Obama campaign, much of the media has seen the events of the day through the prism of how those events are somehow a problem for Obama.  This media narrative follows Obama like a shadow on a summer’s day.

The latest edition of this narrative involves the constant lying of McCain and Palin.  The talking-heads of the 24hour news culture picks up a story which reports that McCain and Palin have have lied repeatedly.  Rather than focus on what this says about McCain’s straight-talk image or his honor or how the lying of his campaign has become a serious problem, the talking-heads magically morph it into a problem for Obama.  What is Obama going to do, they ask.  Why doesn’t he fight back?  His inability to fight back is yet another example of why he is like Dukakis or Kerry or Gore or any other Democratic candidate who didn’t become president.  He’s not a fighter.  He wont fight for you.  Etcetera, etc, etc.

Not only does such rhetoric divert the focus from what the original story was all about and feeds the undying narrative that Obama has a problem, it also plays into the anxieties and fears of some loyal, albeit weak-kneed democrats.  They absorb the spin, and soon the snowflakes of doubt build into a giant snowball and suddenly we hear, “For God’s Sake, do something!”

* A note of observation: It is my experience that the more involved someone is in actually working with the Obama campaign, the less likely they are to be worried about the outcome in November. Show me someone who is preaching doom and gloom for democrats in this election, or someone insisting that the sky is falling on the Obama campaign, and I’ll show you someone who isn’t involved in the campaign. If you have doubts about where the campaign stands at this very moment, I highly recommend a visit to the local Obama campaign headquarters and see what’s happening first-hand.  The people there are welcoming and friendly and more than happy to answer any questions or concerns.

 

 
Ah, yes! The 'He's a good guy' negative campaigning… (4.00 / 2)

According to CNN, Biden is about to start ‘hitting’ McCain by saying that he has good character but is wrong on the issues.

Jeez, if you’re starting your attack with ‘He’s a good guy, but…’ why bother…?

When your opponent is hammering you with endless despicable, dishonorable slanders, continuing to vouch for his character reflects negatively on you. It’s weak and spineless, and that’s the ultimate takeaway. Who wants to vote for someone who allows himself to be repeatedly bitchslapped? And it demoralizes the base.

And all the actual ads? Entirely forgettable. No hooks. No humor. No bite. Nothing that will make Chris Matthew’s leg tingle and the TV gasbags twitter. Nothing that will make people talk around the water cooler. Zero impact on the public political discourse. Packaged mush.

Negative is punching the other guy in the mouth and knocking him back on his heels, while the voting public takes affirmative, positive notice of the points made. Flinging oatmeal will not get that job done…

 
We Are At A Crucial Point (4.00 / 1)
I sense that we may be at a tipping point with McCain’s lies.  They are so ridiculous that the media, for the most part, is calling McCain out on it and the McCain campaign seems to be feeling the heat.  Cindy McCain went after The View today.

In case Cindy hasn’t noticed, Barbra Walters is a beloved figure in this country who does softball celebrity interviews for the most part so I don’t see how this helps McCain with anyone but his base.

We need to keep up the heat on this stuff for the next week or so and I think we have a real chance to destroy McCain’s credibility once and for all.  

We are either about to watch the implosion of the McCain campaign or the Rs, again, are going to pull a Houdini act.  I can’t figure out which yet but we will soon know.

 
I think we're waiting (0.00 / 0)
for the “Have you no sense of decency, Senator?” moment.  “You’re wrong on the issues” isn’t the kind of attack that is going to win this election.  Obama needs to shame McCain the way Mario Cuomo shamed Ronald Reagan in his 1984 DNC keynote address — and the way McCain himself shamed Hillary Clinton in his Jeremiah Wright speech in March.

ProgressiveHistorians: History For Our Future
 
Should read: (0.00 / 0)
The way OBAMA himself.  But you all knew that.

ProgressiveHistorians: History For Our Future
[ Parent ]  
Narrative and media bias (4.00 / 1)

 Obama’s going negative, but he’s doing it with qualifiers (though at least it seems he’s finally stopped praising McCain). But the surrogate operation hasn’t been backing him up well. They’re uneven — there are a few strong appearances, along with a few embarrassing ones.

 And they stuffed Wes Clark, one of their best surrogates, in a trunk. That was a completely self-inflicted gunshot.

 Part of the problem is that McCain releases his outrageous ads, and they get played for free in the media. We know that’s SOP. But when Obama supporters release their strong, eye-catching, gut-wrenching ads (like that “wolves” ad), they don’t get the same free media exposure. That’s been a problem.

 Obama could do much more to work the refs. That’s probably where the frustration is coming from — that after decades of the Republicans manipulating the media, the Democrats STILL haven’t caught on.  

“We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience.” — Howard Zinn

 
The problem with going negative at the eleventh hour… (0.00 / 0)
The sense that Obama is not going negative is partially due to Obama, like legions of Democrats before him, has waited for the eleventh hour to try and define his oppopent.

I do think that there has been a sea-change in the media’s treatment of McCain’s lies. I also think that the Obama campaign has ramped up the quality of its attacks in the past week or so.

The GOP constantly lays the foundation for future attacks.  Do you realize how difficult it would be to paint Obama as an elitist from scratch?  But the GOP has spent years — not just during elections, but 24/7/365 — painting all Democrats as elitists.  So it is fairly easy to plug Obama into that narrative, no matter how absurd it is.

OTOH, Democrats spend little or no time painting narratives of the GOP until 2-3 months before an election.  Suddenly, the public is expected to believe the guy that for years Democrats have themselves been praising as an honorable, independent “maverick” is a sleazy, do-anything-to-win, Bush clone.  Is there any wonder why this perception might take a while to kick in.

 
Attacking whom? (0.00 / 0)
The word you quote (that was either used by Thing 1 — Plouffe, or Thing 2 — Axelrod, I forget which), “bedwetters”, is a good indication of where the sharpest attacks are directed. The critics of Obama’s attack would prefer that he direct it towards McCain.

This is an argument:

He’s saying that McCain’s policy ideas are bad, that the American people want to hear about the issues, and that his campaign of lies shows that his campaign is about distraction rather than substance.

This — turns out it is Thing 1 — is an attack:

“We’re sensitive to the fluid dynamics of the campaign, but we have a game plan and a strategy,” said Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe. “We’re familiar with this. And I’m sure between now and Nov. 4 there will be another period of hand-wringing and bed-wetting. It comes with the territory.”

You and others might debate which is more effective, which is another matter, and I am happy (for now, on this thread) to just listen in on that debate.

 
Obama/Biden Are On Message and Are Going Negative | 49 comments
Donate to Open Left
ELECTION 2008 Presidential Forecast
Senate Forecast
House Forecast
PREMIUM AD

ADVERTISEMENTS

');

MENU

OpenLeft in your inbox!

 

Or, subscribe to each author individually.
OPTIMIZE MCCAIN About
Tips
McCain
John McCain
QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

OPENLEFT VIDEO WALL
Donna Edwards Thanks OpenLeft


Russ Feingold on the New FISA Legislation


Jon Conyers on Impeachment


Al Franken Thanks Blue Majority


FCC Commissioner Michael Copps on Pearl Jam, Net Neutrality


Darcy Burner on the FISA Legislation

More OpenLeft video…

LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
BUSH DOGS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2024