home

Does Obama Do Negative Branding?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:13:51 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Matt Stoller is chock full of ideas for negatively branding John McCain:

I've been doing some calling around to political insiders I know, many of whom are doing serious research on the 2008 election, to figure out how to brand McCain. . . . Everyone I've spoken with believes that the holy grail of branding seems to be associating McCain strongly with Bush. . . . A backdoor way to frame McCain as a Bush-like candidate is to portray him as old, part of the politics of the past, and angry. He's quite vulnerable on his temper and age, and women in particular revolt against his treatment of his first wife (whom he left for a younger wealthy woman after she got into an accident). McCain is definitely open to attack on the economy, and voters are quite willing to believe he is going to continue the Bush economic legacy of tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. So old, angry, addicted to war, and part of the past seems to be the consensus narrative on McCain.

This begs the question - does Barack Obama do negative branding? And if so, can he also work on negatively branding the entire GOP?

< Former Chief Gitmo Prosecutor Alleges Trials Are Rigged | Teamsters to Endorse Barack Obama >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Does Obama Do Negative Branding? | 89 comments (89 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Of course he does negative branding (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by litigatormom on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:21:28 PM EST
    What was calling Hillary Clinton "Bush-lite"?  If Clinton was Bush-lite -- which was totally false, by the way -- then McCain is Bush on Steroids.  More tax cuts for the wealthy (a flip flop, BTW).  More war in Iraq.  Bomb bomb bomb Iran. Against torture before he was for it.  More warrantless surveillance. You want a guy who thinks all the president has to do is say "commander in chief" and he can do whatever he wants?  Elect McCain.

    Actually, he should always be called John Bush McCain.

    Or just John McBush ... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Meteor Blades on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:23:04 PM EST
    ...always with one of the suck-up photos - particularly the infamous hug.

    Parent
    Will Obama do that? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:28:28 PM EST
    Don't expect the Media to do it for him as they did with Clinton.

    Parent
    Glad to see you around (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:25:15 PM EST
    another partial refugee from orange?

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by litigatormom on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:33:37 PM EST
    It is getting harder and harder to post even a reasonably worded, flame-free positive comment about Clinton -- let alone a reasonably worded, flame-free less-than-totally positive comment about Obama -- without being personally attacked.

    I don't dislike Obama, I just like Clinton better. Obama is not being well-served by many of his supporters on DKos.  For some people, you can't even suggest how Obama might respond or pre-empt Republican attacks in the general because you are implying that he is susceptible to attack.

    Sigh. Never underestimate the power of the Democrats to sabotage themselves.

    This place is refreshing, in that Obama and Clinton supporters seem to be capable of debating without flaming. I like it.

    Parent

    Well, BTD and Jeralyn are good (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:43:35 PM EST
    at deleting the attacks.

    Parent
    I look forward to your comments, again (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:47:44 PM EST
    l-mom.  You were one of those whom I missed when I had to, um, alter my blog color scheme, too.

    Parent
    The Media did the dirty work (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:26:44 PM EST
    not Obama.

    It won't be THAT easy with McCain.

    And as I ask above, what of the GOP?

    Parent

    Two things: (none / 0) (#13)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:30:46 PM EST
    First: does he need to negatively brand the whole GOP, and if he does, will he lose crossover appeal or gain true converts?

    Second: I have heard him talk about believing in the good that government can do as a contrast to disliking government and thus screwing it up (e.g. Katrina response). That is a very good negative frame that he can use.

    Parent

    For himself? No (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:32:14 PM EST
    For the Democratic Party? Yes. For Democratic values? Yes.

    I refer you to my post from earlier today "Will Obama Fight For the Democratic Party?"

    Parent

    jeez i am getting a lot of (none / 0) (#36)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:45:32 PM EST
    homework today.

    i am glad most of your posts are short

    Parent

    OK three things (none / 0) (#16)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:31:39 PM EST
    Obama actually did call Hillary "Bush-Lite"

    It pissed me off when he did, but he did.

    Parent

    Our Democratic politicians (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by rebecca on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:36:39 PM EST
    have always been willing to fight more fiercely between each other but when it comes to fighting the Republicans they fall for the idea that the public wants bipartisanship and "positive" campaigning.  So we have our politicians willing to play hardball within the party, think of Harry Reid refusing to honor Chris Dodd's hold, while acting like their at their great aunt's tea party when dealing with the Republicans, think of Harry Reid honoring the Republican's holds.  Obama seems to follow this pattern very well.  Where has he gone after the Republicans or his Republican opponent with the same energy he has in his campaign against Hillary?

    Parent
    A few times (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:36:44 PM EST
    Then he let the Media do the work.

    Again, an obvious point, McCain is a Media Darling. It will require a lot more than what he did with Clinton.

    Parent

    kind of shows he will if he needs to (none / 0) (#37)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:45:59 PM EST


    Parent
    If he needs to . . (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:49:26 PM EST
    will he be ABLE to after running on the Unity Schtick?

    And what of the Democratic Party? They need it. Or does that not matter?

    Parent

    Does it matter? (none / 0) (#56)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:04:46 PM EST
    Depends: Do you distinguish between the Democratic Party and Democratic values?

    It matters if you are talking about the values, which Obama has a history of standing up for. He WILL use the bully-pulpit, and be effective.

    The party.....they will follow him if he makes bold moves. If he does not, then he really is all talk.

    Parent

    Obama does NOT have a history of (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:07:54 PM EST
    fighting for Dem values.

    He VOTES the right way mostly ,but he has never fought for anything in his political career.

    Parent

    I assume (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:23:28 PM EST
    you are discarding his time as a civil rights activist and organizer for poor inner city communities?

    Opposing the Iraq war?

    Supporting immigrant rights?

    I agree that he isn't Dennis Kucinich or Russ Feingold.  But to say that he hasn't fought for liberal beliefs seems a little unreasonable.

    Parent

    By your definition (none / 0) (#65)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:15:42 PM EST
    when did his "political career" start?

    Parent
    Indonesia. (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:16:32 PM EST


    Parent
    I think protesting the war (none / 0) (#67)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:17:57 PM EST
    and marching in the pro-immigration rallys is impressive.

    Parent
    Me too (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:24:16 PM EST


    Parent
    So his politcial career, by your account started?? (none / 0) (#76)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:32:32 PM EST
    The speech he gave at the immigration ralley was less than 2 years ago.

    Parent
    Speaking out in favor of (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:33:12 PM EST
    permitting undocumented persons to apply for driver licenses, is, I gather, an example of leadership by Obama.  

    Parent
    at a pro-immigration ralley? (none / 0) (#78)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:34:53 PM EST
    you bet it is.

    Speaking there at all is.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:36:18 PM EST
    It is.

    Parent
    One stand-change Cuba policies (none / 0) (#73)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:25:21 PM EST
    When the Senate has debated proposals to strip funding for TV Marti -- the always-troubled initiative to beam U.S. produced television programming into Cuba, which in turn jams the signal -- Obama has sided with those who argue that the $200-million propaganda campaign wastes money and good will.

    Breaking with the powerful anti-Castro lobby in the Cuban-American community, the senator from Illinois voted twice to cut off TV Marti funding.

    [Clinton voted to keep the funding]

    Last year, The Washington Post wrote that, "Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said the senator's opposition to TV Marti was primarily about cost. But within Florida's large Cuban exile population, one of the most powerful voting blocs in the state, Clinton's and Obama's stances ally them with distinct groups: the older hard-liners and a younger, more progressive group of second-generation Cuban Americans and more recent immigrants whose numbers are growing."



    Parent
    Sorry, the above is from (none / 0) (#74)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:27:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Try this again (none / 0) (#75)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:28:23 PM EST
    http://www.alternet.org/election08/77345/

    Parent
    asdf (none / 0) (#68)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:18:55 PM EST
    He VOTES the right way mostly

    That describes most senators.

    Parent

    McCain is indeed a media darling (none / 0) (#49)
    by litigatormom on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:56:10 PM EST
    They give him such a free ride on his flip-flops, his hypocrisy -- all because he treats them like chums at the back of the campaign bus.

    In a head to head, Obama is going to have to do more of the heavy-lifting in negative branding.  And he is going to have to talk about the Democrats' principles, not just his "movement."

    I think he will (at least I hope he will). He's got a pretty good sense of self-preservation.

    Parent

    I think he can do negative branding just fine... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by mike in dc on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:32:07 PM EST
    ...he did a pretty good number on Clinton, and he's starting to do it to McCain("somewhere along the way, the wheels came off the Straight Talk Express").  
    I really think the best way to rebut the "no substance" meme is to actually challenge McCain to a series of debates before the conventions.  McCain is actually the least substantive of the three major candidates, policy-wise, and a debate focused on domestic policy issues would highlight this to his detriment.

    As for branding the GOP, I think this is a little bit trickier, but my guess is that it could be done, too, by talking about how the GOP has let down some Republican voters, and how it has proved incompetent and corrupt at governance, and is very much the embodiment of the "politics of yesterday".

    Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:35:29 PM EST
    was actually one where he did not even need to - the Media did it for him.

    McCain is a different kettle of fish. As I have stated throughout this thread.

    And my supplemental query, what of the GOP? How about negatively branding THEM?

    Parent

    Obama reaches to Republicans and independents (none / 0) (#28)
    by Prabhata on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:41:33 PM EST
    Obama will have a difficult task of not offending those who believe that there is too much party politics and have voted for him.

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:43:11 PM EST
    No negative branding then? That's the "old politics?"

    McCain will have no such compunction.

    Parent

    A new version of Kerry v. Bush. (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:49:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Not really (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:49:58 PM EST
    Kerry tried, he just stinks.

    Parent
    Kerry was tentative on (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:54:51 PM EST
    attacking Bush and the GOP on war in Iraq.  Didn't seem like he wanted to alienate any potential voter who might possibly support the war.  Obama srikes me as having the same type of sensibilities, although on other issues.  Tax cuts, SS, universal health care, gay and lesbian rights to non-discrimination, etc.

    Parent
    Not after Labor Day (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:06:43 PM EST


    Parent
    Not after Labor Day, applies to (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:11:10 PM EST
    white shoes.  Does it apply to Kerry here?  

    Parent
    Reagan DID do that (none / 0) (#41)
    by litigatormom on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:48:54 PM EST
    enticing traditional Democratic supporters to become "Reagan Democrats." A big element of that was portraying the Democrats as weak on defense, and too solicitous of minorities and poor people.

    Obama has to do the reverse: convince erstwhile Republicans that they've been betrayed by a party bent on prolonging a foreign policy disaster that is only weakening America, that they've been forgotten in the GOP's solicitous toward the rich (not to mention oil companies and military contractors), and that their interests will be served by the Democrats.

    I think Clinton would do a better job of branding the Republicans, but there is no reason why Obama can't do it. He'd have to sing a little less Kumbayah, but if he doesn't do it, he may lose to the false maverick John McBush.

    Parent

    How can Obama neg brand the GOP? (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:39:08 PM EST
    Aren't they all supposed to vote for him?
    Isn't Obama supposed to work with them
    when he's the President?
    Nah--he can't negatively brand the GOP.

    Best be careful with that age thing (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:44:02 PM EST
    Cause us old fogies don't like it when we think people are using a persons age in a discriminatory manner. At least this old fogey doesn't.

    There are plenty of things to use against McCain without attacking his age and alienating millions of seniors. There must be enough film on him to make a whole negative documentary condemning him out of his own mouth. He's been on Sunday morning talk shows so often he should be drawing a paycheck. Gotcha film clips work for people other than Tim Russert and against Democrats.

    The Age thingy (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by wasabi on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:02:26 PM EST
    I can agree with all the attacks except for going against McCain on the basis of age.  I do not think Clinton wrapped up that category in EVERY STATE based on racism (you know all those old folks are just racists and that's why they'd never vote for a black man... yada yada), but actually on the experience difference.  It doesn't help when his supporters like to remind the seniors that they are useless and need to get out of the way of the younger generation. (Remember those tired old battles of the 60's)

    Parent
    I agree with (none / 0) (#46)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:52:40 PM EST
    kenosha Marge.
    Ageism not the way to go.

    Parent
    Older people won't mind using age (none / 0) (#50)
    by Prabhata on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:56:31 PM EST
    Going after McMaverick's age is problematic in that it will look abusive.  Most people recognize that age can slow most anyone.

    Parent
    there you go again....... (none / 0) (#1)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:16:51 PM EST
    Is Obama the Reagan of the left?

    No (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:19:26 PM EST
    Have you read my piece taking on that precise question?

    Parent
    It is appropirately titled (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:21:02 PM EST
    Senator Obama, You Are No Ronald Reagan

    Parent
    wiow, just reread that old post (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:19:43 PM EST
    and I gotta say - I agree with one part, and am just dumbstruck as to how you can say the other.

    I agree that his approach is not exactly like Reagan's. But when you charge him with not advocating for core Democratic principles????

    His entire campaign has been built upon a vision of democracy which is extremely rare in our recent history, and is resonant with the most core Democratic value of all - citizen ownership of the political process.

    Unlike almost all other candidates, who stand up and wave their resumes, or their laundry list of promises to claim that they are the best candidate, the one that should be chosen, Obama directly asks and invites the citizens to assume an ownership stance, to become invested - yes, even emotionally - in the process. He raises their hopes and expectations - that is taking upon his shoulders an enormous burden - but it is also a pressure that will not only insure that his supporters hold his own feet to the fire while in office, but will be a pressure that will come to bear on Congresscritters, the media, and everyone involved in the political process. He wants to use that pressure.

    He is building a political movement - which upon his taking office will translate into a mandate. A deep and powerful mandate. Imagine Obama sweeping past McCain and taking office with this hopped-up, excited band of citizens behind him, demanding change - citizens from every state, every walk of life. Then imagine the poor little Congresspeople trying to decide whether to block his initiatives. Imagine the lobbyist trying to argue with that representative, offering some campaign dollars to offset the demands of the howling mob outside the window.

    Corruption fluorishes when the citizenry is disengaged and cynical.

    You can't get special interest money out of politics - its like trying to keep the flood waters away from your house once the levee has breached. The ONLY way to counteract that force is to oppose it with a more powerful force. And that force is citizen awareness and citizen pressure. From people with high expectations, real demands, who have been shown that it is not only their right, but their responsibility to make their voices heard, to make demands on their government, and to take it personally when those demands are not met.

    Citizen involvement, leading to citizen pressure on the government. What could possibly be more Democratic than that?

    Hillary is failing because her campaign is all about how wonderfully qualified she is, and what she will do for you. Obama is succeeding because his campaign is all about you standing up and making demands on him, on the Congress, on the whole political process. She wants to be seen as the most qualified choice of a passive citizenry. He want to lead a movement. Thats why he is the only real democrat (small d) that we have seen in a long time.

    Parent

    HA ha (none / 0) (#9)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:26:37 PM EST
    that's hilarious. Clearly I have not read it.

    Still, my point stands. If he is trying to attract crossovers like Reagan did, will it work to emulate Reagan's campaign. (Did Reagan's campaign do negative framing...yes, I believe it did)

    Parent

    But your point does not stand (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:27:48 PM EST
    Everyone tries to attract the most voters.

    Obama does it the High Broderism way.

    Reagan and FDR did it the tough partisan way.

    Big difference.

    Parent

    OK I read your piece (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:42:17 PM EST
    I am not sure I agree with parts of it (the video link was no longer available). Reagan was definitely  partisan, but in an underhanded way that did not turn off enough people.

    The thing that is difficult for me here, is that we are in a time of partisanship on steroids....so more partisanship is not all that transformational.

    The goal is to make people realize that they want the values that Democrats want. The path to this realization is not through partisan rhetoric, but through discussing problems and solutions. Then you speak about how the other side is messing it up.

    Feh, I don't know the best answer. I think Obama is doing pretty well for himself.

    Parent

    Not sure I follow you (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:47:07 PM EST
    The path to this realization is not through partisan rhetoric, but through discussing problems and solutions. Then you speak about how the other side is messing it up.

    (Emphasis supplied.) What you describe is the Politics of Contrast and Negative Branding.

    What makes that different than "politics as usual." Just SAYING it is "different" and "change" usually does not make it so.

    But Obama has been real change, he does not argue for Dem values or AGAINST GOP values. He is a unity candidate where no one is wrong and the blame falls equally on Dems and Republicans.

    Parent

    Sure, but the groundwork has to be layed first (none / 0) (#53)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    to get everyone nodding together. The difference is getting people excited and involved. Lots of people. I don't think that should be discounted.

    Obama is ALSO counteractibg a negative frame of Democrats with a positive frame. How? The "Yes we can" theme is inclusive. It demands work from people to make things right. The GOP tries to paint liberals as people who want government to do everything for them. This completely flys in the face of that. Obama demands people get involved. In this case he is taking a republican "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" theme and rearranging it into a Democratic strength...participatory government (We can work together to fix our country)

    It's subtle, but it works for many people on many levels.  

    PS. I don't think Obama's record shows high-Broderism.

    He protested the war. Hillary Clinton, as much as I love her, came to the right on the war.

    Parent

    I don't know (none / 0) (#20)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:33:42 PM EST
    what "high Borderism" is, but my point was that Obama is trying to do it the Reagan way (according to him) I don't have enough of a political science background to know if he is succeeding.

    Parent
    High Broderism (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by litigatormom on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:42:43 PM EST
    named for David Broder of the Washington Post, the so-called Dean of the DC Beltway pundits, who advocates "bipartisanship" in the form of Democrats reaching "compromises" with the Republicans in the "middle," which is generally actually far, far to the right. In Broder's view, the center is always right, even when the center dissolves into meaningless.

    In High Broderism, Democrats are too partisan but Republicans are not.  He doesn't actually say that, but in almost any particular case that's how it works out.

    Of course, this may not be what BTD meant by High Broderism. I didn't view Obama's post-partisan theme is equivalent to High Broderism -- I sure hope its not.

    Parent

    Why is it different? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:48:09 PM EST
    What has Obama said about it that makes you think it is different?

    Parent
    Why is Obama different than (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by litigatormom on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:02:44 PM EST
    High Broderism?  Because he's made his initial opposition to the war a centerpiece of his campaign, and argued that this makes him the best candidate to counter the GOP's continued, unquestioning support of Bush's failed policies. A more High Broderistic stance would be the "failed execution" position. Indeed, he has falsely potraying Clinton's position as mere "failed execution," even though she's had a more aggressive position on exiting Iraq.

    In addition, even though I think Clinton's healthcare plan is more progressive than his, it's still a pretty sharp contrast with the Republicans' laissez faire position (not to mention Bush's "there is universal health care because anybody can go to an emergency room" idiocy).

    I hope you are not right, BTD, because I have had enough of High Broderism.

    Parent

    I see it differently (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:37:39 PM EST
    He has used his opposition to the IRaq Debacle as his emblem of progressivism while playing footsie with Broder on everything else.

    Parent
    thank you (none / 0) (#40)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:48:10 PM EST
    I hope Obama isn't either

    Parent
    High Broderism? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:41:49 PM EST
    An essential phrase for discussing Obama and his political style.

    Parent
    got it (none / 0) (#35)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:44:21 PM EST
    bipartsanship for its own sake.


    Parent
    Reagan certainly did negative framing (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by litigatormom on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:38:10 PM EST
    Remember the Welfare Queen and her Cadillac?

    Remember the paean to states' rights -- delivered in the Mississippi town where three civil rights workers were killed in 1964 -- with which he launched his 1980 campaign?

    He branded the Democrats as weak on defense, as having "lost" the Vietnam war.

    The shining city on the hill was a gated community in the Hollywood hills.

    Parent

    Yes indeedy (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by litigatormom on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:07:11 PM EST
    That was St. Ronnie. Reagan had a way of telling "anecdotes" that became universal facts.  That was one of them. Social programs weren't helping poor people; they were making hard working Americans subsidize black women having out of wedlock babies in big cars.

    It's one of the many reasons I get angry when I hear people (including Obama) talk about how Reagan appealed to "optimism."

    I know Obama wasn't saying that he approved of Reagan's policies. It may also be fair to call Reagan a transformational president. I would call Reagan a "reversionary" president; someone who made economic selfishness socially acceptable again. I thought it was an unfortunate metaphor for Obama to use, but his supporters defended it, and it probably appealed to some Republicans who are sick of Bush but still venerate St. Ronnie.

    Parent

    He did a pretty good job of branding (none / 0) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:24:44 PM EST
    Clinton. I think he'll do okay in that respect against McCain. Though I don't think Stoller is right when he says attack along age lines. That just allows McCain to highlight his years in the military, his sacrifice in Vietnam and his decades in the Senate when he's running against a guy who was a state senator a few years ago.

    The MEDIA (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:25:52 PM EST
    did the branding.

    It won't be so easy with McCain.

    And what of the GOP?

    Parent

    Yes, it all depends upon how much the (none / 0) (#14)
    by tigercourse on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:30:52 PM EST
    media is willing to play along. They haven't been, historically. And the the winds have shifted somewhat in the past 72 hours. Even Clinton hater Matthews has started getting hard on Obama.

    Parent
    Mathews got down on an Obama backer (none / 0) (#23)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:35:52 PM EST
    but I bet that is as far as it goes.  Tweety still likes to feel that "tingle up his leg" when Obama talks.

    Parent
    If Obama goes after McCain (none / 0) (#21)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:33:46 PM EST
    which is going after the GOP, that will contradict his unity message about being all bipartisan.  That would be a problem if that really was substance that mattered to a lot of Obama voters.  But I don't think that really is the reason for much of his support, at least with the sort of Dems (i.e., a lot of the crossovers were only Dems for a day, anyway).

    So it won't matter to his base -- they actually seem to like him going after another candidate, in his own way.  As to whether he will go after the other party, not just the person, nothing so far suggests that will happen.

    Parent

    Can McCain be rebranded? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Prabhata on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:31:24 PM EST
    It's possible to change McCain's image, but I don't think it will work.  McCain has a huge brand of being a maverick.  Coca Cola is a good example.  It would take time and lots of money to re-brand Coke as a poisonous sugar drink.  It's true that's is poison, but most people have made up their mind that they like the drink and will ignore new information. The same holds for Hillary haters.  I've asked these people why they hate her, and most respond with the Republican talking points.  When I show that they are not true, they still hold to their beliefs.

    A couple suggestions: (none / 0) (#48)
    by scribe on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:55:53 PM EST
    Do like some of the Euro media have done (to help their readers/listeners distinguish):  They call McCain "the 71 year-old John McCain".

    Rolls off the tongue.

    Start using words like "dotage" to describe the ideas/philosophy of the Republicans.  E.g., "We should not remain bound to Republican ideas already in their dotage."

    Or words like "doddering" both for him and for his ideas.

    Put the Bush-McCain hug out there.  Where's the guy who made the Lieberman kiss float?

    "Grandpa"

    The old fogies have made a mess of things, and now it's time for the youth, who will be around to see the results of their grandparents mess-making, to clean it up.

    "Old people hate change."

    And, at every opportunity, raise how thoroughly involved in bringing the current was he was - him and his silver-haired buddy Lieberman.

    You get the idea.

    Re: a Couple suggestions (none / 0) (#59)
    by wasabi on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:06:54 PM EST
    ""Grandpa":

    "The old fogies have made a mess of things, and now it's time for the youth, who will be around to see the results of their grandparents mess-making, to clean it up."

    You really think this is good strategy?  Start an age war?


    Parent

    Use code (none / 0) (#64)
    by litigatormom on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:11:30 PM EST
    Don't call McCain old.

    Call his ideas "tired, old ideas." Tell people he is living in the past, trying to justify the failures of the past.

    People don't need to be told that McBush is physically old. All they have to do is look.

    The one "age" issue that may be useful is in relation to McBush's choice of a running mate. That person will have a higher than normal chance of succeeding to the presidency, and therefore should be held to higher standard in terms of qualifications and political radicalism. "So and so a heartbeat from the presidency?"  Again, you don't need to call McBush a decrepit old man. People will get the point.

    Parent

    There's a "blockage" (none / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:19:16 PM EST
    in his thinking process; a perpetuation of Republican "disfunctions"; numerous "irregularities"; ideological "sclerosis" etc etc

    Parent
    I like that "McBush" (none / 0) (#80)
    by scribe on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:36:34 PM EST
    because it ties in a couple things:
    McCain.
    Bush.
    And the whole diminution that a person or thing gets by adding the "Mc", which the younger (under 50) generations recognize as having been appropriated from McDonalds, e.g.,  "McMansion", "McJob", "McPaycheck", McCain, McBush.

    Parent
    Bye now, I'll just head to the (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:00:46 PM EST
    senior citizens home.  And I'm not even as old as Hillary, but I know when I hear the anti-boomer code.  It won't make me want to vote for your boomer candidate -- but it will give me a good laugh about that.

    Parent
    Cream I am (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:51:03 PM EST
    hobbling over to join you for this journey to the old age home....These Obama supporters don't realize the damage they are doing with each stroke of their keyboard to alienate me more and more from their candidate...

    Parent
    McCain = Bush, Obama = Change (none / 0) (#51)
    by AF on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:58:58 PM EST
    That will be the message. In fact, it already is:

    Now, John McCain is a good man, an American hero, and we honor his half century of service to this nation. But in this campaign, he has made the decision to embrace the failed policies [of] George Bush's Washington.

    Plenty more where that came from.

    You wanna piss off older Dem voters (none / 0) (#52)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:59:06 PM EST
    be my guest ;)

    "Branding" (none / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:05:27 PM EST
    Yes of course, everyone knows black men want to wreck violence upon women.

    I suppose the "brand" would be to distinguish her from the women out there working for other men.

    Parent

    The above was satirical, btw (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:07:04 PM EST


    Parent
    McCain has so many easy targets (none / 0) (#70)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:20:15 PM EST
    I don't know where to begin.

    First off let's remember that Bomb Bomb Iran McCain didn't win the GOP nomination because he is so strongly supported.  He won primarily because everyone else was more unpalatable for Republicans.

    Obama should absolutely pummel McCain on domestic issues.  On issues such as immigration, where Obama's views are more Liberal than the status quo, make sure to point out how McCain was just as liberal.  On issues where Obama is right in line with the mainstream, such as health care, point out how McCain thinks there is nothing wrong with our health care plans.

    The age debate is going to be unavoidable.  If McCain is going to say that Obama is naive and inexperienced, he should point out that McCain is out of touch with the needs of Americans and doesn't understand what Americans TODAY need.

    Push McCain's liberal positions.  Make him go completely nutty on these issues to placate his base.  

    And most definitely tie him to the Bush Administration.  If McCain wishes to be a Bush apologist he deserves the consequences.

    Funny how the Media missed all of those too (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:18:07 PM EST
    Subtle indeed.

    hahahahahahahaha! (none / 0) (#90)
    by cpinva on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:54:19 PM EST
    who is matt stoller, and i hope no one's paying him for his mighty insights? geez, what a waste of good cyberspace!

    negatively brand mccain and the entire republican party? yeah, right, good luck with that. mccain's been around far longer than young sen. obama, in national politics. not much to be said about him that hasn't already come out before, unless you discover he was diddling young boys in hanoi, while pretending to be a POW.

    ex-wife? so what, that isn't a problem for the white males who'll elect mccain president.

    economy? again, so what? mccain is, um, well, tragically white and male. this resonates well with the white males who will be voting for him.

    the war in iraq, and mccain's continued support for it? not an issue. mccain is a genuine war hero. did i mention he's also white and male? the white males who will elect him appreciate that.

    the bottom line: sen. obama will be spending 75% of his time responding to the attacks of the right-wing smear machine, he won't have time to be "negatively branding" anyone.

    unless and until the democratic left creates it's own "smear machine", every democrat is going to be shredded. sen. clinton's advantage is that she's been under attack for going on 20 years, she actually knows how to deal with it. sen. obama will be the the proverbial "deer in the headlites" come the GE.

    I agree that he has been far too subtle (none / 0) (#91)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:26:34 PM EST
    and needs to stop going under the radar of the media with these points.

    But he needs to take care not to negatively attack others who could be with us, with such comments as calling immigrants and gays not "people like us."  (For an orator, he's got a surprising problem with such slips and phrases -- unless that's not the problem that causes them.)

    mandatory title (none / 0) (#92)
    by chemoelectric on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:54:05 PM EST
    Obama seems to be doing a good job of negatively branding Hillary Clinton, by the method of getting her to do it to herself. I think McCain is susceptible to similar methods; for instance constant talk about supporting your family ought to give McCain something to work with.

    For labeling the Bushist Party as a whole, I haven't thought about it too much.

    They brand - but usually by borrowing from the GOP (none / 0) (#97)
    by esmense on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    My, lord, "calculating" "vicious" "will do or say anything to get elected" -- of course the Obama campaign does branding. Or, at least, they borrow it from the Republicans. Can they come up with some negative branding of a Republican? I guess we will have to wait and see.

    Does Obama Do Negative Branding? | 89 comments (89 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment