home

Bush's Third Term

Chris Bowers discusses Obama new ad against McCain:

Chris writes:

If used with the proper level of rhetoric, the "McCain has been in D.C." for too long, could change the narrative, and start directing the balance of attacks toward McCain. . . .It is better than the "McCain is a flip-flopper" attack, which doesn't make any sense if you want to tie McCain to Bush.

Chris' critique makes sense but does not go far enough imo. McCain's 26 years in Congress is not the issue - Bush's 7 years as President and McCain's embrace of it is. In short, I think every Obama ad or discussion of McCain should be about George Bush and McCain's ties to him - that McCain will be Bush's third term.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< The Fairy Tale Revisited Part 3 | McCain Courts Bikers at Sturgis Rally >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    We don't want to see (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Lahdee on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:55:09 AM EST
    that distinction lost in the shuffle. McCain embraced dubya's policies to the detriment of the country. Vote for McCain and you'll get more of the same.
    And where is that hug? We need to see that hug!

    The hug (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CST on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:01:47 AM EST
    Needs to be plastered on giant posters anywhere they can fit them.

    Along with a quote from 2003 that says the war will be over in a few weeks.

    Next to the picture of him in a golf cart with Bush 1.

    Parent

    Wouldn't you say (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:56:33 AM EST
    that "McCain has been in DC too long" only highlights another narrative and invites a response like:  "Long enough to know that Obama hasn't been there long enough and doesn't know siccum."

    Excellent point (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:00:41 AM EST
    The reverse is Obama has been there 3 years, been running for POTUS that long, has a short record, and is amazingly backed by DC's most inside-baseball backers.

    Parent
    And he probably doesn't (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:02:18 AM EST
    know Sikkim, either.

    Parent
    Ted Kennedy Has Been in DC Too Long (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by bmc on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:12:53 PM EST
    As has Robert Byrd.

    Those aren't MY thoughts, but they certainly would be a credible response from the right, should Barack Obama try that tactic, wouldn't it?

    In a question-and-answer session, Obama was asked if he would support term limits for members of Congress by a questioner who noted that many senators were elderly.

    "I've got colleagues in the Senate who are doing absolutely outstanding work, and they're well into their 70s," Obama said. He praised ailing Sen. Edward M. Kennedy as one.

    "I'm generally not in favor of term limits," he said. "Nobody is term-limiting the lobbyists or the slick operators walking around the halls of Congress. I believe in one form of term limits. They're called elections."

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama&printer=1;_ylt=Aphn5ZuGhiUDndlXM5W5epFh24cA

    Parent

    The only ad Obama needs... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Little Fish on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:57:22 AM EST
    is this one.

    Wow (none / 0) (#9)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:03:12 AM EST
    You can really see a huge difference between McCain's manner and delivery in that ad and how he presents himself now.  Four years is a long time.

    Parent
    Brilliant (none / 0) (#13)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:04:55 AM EST
    Interestingly, it's a style of ad (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:08:53 AM EST
    that I very much endorse. Obama needs one like it featuring Hillary Clinton.

    My view that Republican ads are generally leagues better than dem ones is reinforced.

    Parent

    Totally agree with andgarden (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:18:50 AM EST
    The GOP ad was forceful, commanding and the script was straight-on "we are at war" rhetoric. We didn't have to wonder what the message was.

    The Obama ad is soft, weak and boring, imo. It doesn't give the sense of imminence. In fact, it strikes me as more of an ad by a newbie running for Congress, not someone running for POTUS.

    And that silly music has got to go.

    Parent

    Interesting that Obama lists the things (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:31:10 AM EST
    McCain voted against (a fair thing to do) but then switches to what Obama will do.

    I was temporarily out of this particular election in watching the ad, so I was expecting 'McCain voted against blah, blah and blah' while I voted for 'otherblah, otherblah and otherblah'.  That's the standard template for this sort of ad, so to speak -- the bad voted for this but I voted for that.

    But this ad says, yeah, I haven't done anything yet, but I will, I promise.

    It's in the right direction, but hard-hitting it's not.  Wait until 5-10 minutes after viewing the ad, do you remember any specifics?  Any phrases sticking in your head?

    Republicans are so much better at this sort of thing.  I can't understand why the campaign was so happy to embrace Republican attack & smear tactics against Clinton during the primaries but can't manage to just copy their ads style.

    Parent

    McCain's ad man (none / 0) (#19)
    by RalphB on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:25:01 AM EST
    made that ad for Bush.  I think Mark McKinnon is still advising the McCain campaign on media.


    Parent
    And that's without taking into account (none / 0) (#37)
    by BrianJ on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:06:07 PM EST
    The wear and tear of just being President.  Look at how much Bill Clinton appeared to age in eight years.  Now apply that to McCain starting now.

    Parent
    GWB ad, is a good ad, strong whether (none / 0) (#29)
    by zfran on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:46:40 AM EST
    you agree with it or not. But back in 2004 this message worked. Obama's current ad shown above is kinda whimpy with no ooomph, and no real current solution to the problem. Whatever one thinks of the GWB ad, he won.

    Parent
    Pretty ineffective ad (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:01:02 AM EST
    The way Obama brought this same argument up in his energy speech was far more effective.  Note how he seems to praise McCain (making progressives everywhere groan) before slipping in the shiv.

    You won't hear me say this too often, but I couldn't agree more with the explanation that Senator McCain offered a few weeks ago. He said, "Our dangerous dependence on foreign oil has been thirty years in the making, and was caused by the failure of politicians in Washington to think long-term about the future of the country."

    What Senator McCain neglected to mention was that during those thirty years, he was in Washington for twenty-six of them. And in all that time, he did little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. He voted against increased fuel efficiency standards and opposed legislation that included tax credits for more efficient cars. He voted against renewable sources of energy. Against clean biofuels. Against solar power. Against wind power. Against an energy bill that - while far from perfect - represented the largest investment in renewable sources of energy in the history of this country. So when Senator McCain talks about the failure of politicians in Washington to do anything about our energy crisis, it's important to remember that he's been a part of that failure. Now, after years of inaction, and in the face of public frustration over rising gas prices, the only energy proposal he's really promoting is more offshore drilling - a position he recently adopted that has become the centerpiece of his plan, and one that will not make a real dent in current gas prices or meet the long-term challenge of energy independence.

    I'll leave aside the attempt to praise the Cheney energy bill as a positive, even though it's a ridiculous argument.  Later he returned to attacking McCain, this time linking him to Bush and Cheney:

    Senator McCain would not take the steps or achieve the goals that I outlined today. His plan invests very little in renewable sources of energy and he's opposed helping the auto industry re-tool. Like George Bush and Dick Cheney before him, he sees more drilling as the answer to all of our energy problems, and like them, he's found a receptive audience in the very same oil companies that have blocked our progress for so long. In fact, he raised more than one million dollars from big oil just last month, most of which came after he announced his plan for offshore drilling in a room full of cheering oil executives. His initial reaction to the bipartisan energy compromise was to reject it because it took away tax breaks for oil companies. And even though he doesn't want to spend much on renewable energy, he's actually proposed giving $4 billion more in tax breaks to the biggest oil companies in America - including $1.2 billion to Exxon-Mobil.

    I think it's very effective just to look at where gas prices were at the end of the Clinton Administration (if he can bring himself to say Clinton Administration) and where they are now, after we let the Republicans run the show for all those years.  Why would we ever trust the Republicans to solve this problem when they're the ones who got us into it?

    Obama's kow tow on off shore drilling (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:19:55 AM EST
    weakens these arguments, however.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#21)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:31:54 AM EST
    I'm not a big fan of the decision, but I think "our solutions are good" is going to trump "the other guy's solutions are evil" anyway.  We can still win the debate by pointing out that offshore drilling doesn't accomplish very much.  We don't have to prove that it's the most harmful idea ever.

    The GOP wanted to make this issue into a binary choice - either you're for offshore drilling or against it, and that's all that matters.  Obama might, and I'm not making any guarantees yet, be moving the debate onto much friendlier turf by getting us away from that dumb binary choice.  We'll see.

    Parent

    He didn't kowtow (none / 0) (#30)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:47:10 AM EST
    He simply went from an position of absolute opposition to one of almost certainly not.  

    Saying that he would not even consider off shore drilling is a politically disastrous position.  

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:53:44 PM EST
    So by supposedly changing his position one millimeter from a "politically disastrous" position, now he's fine?

    From where I sit, his position is not "almost certainly not," his position is "I still don't like it, but I'll take it if I get enough good stuff in return."  If you'd prefer to spin, okay.

    Parent

    isn't it the same (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:36:38 PM EST
    exact reason (excuse) Obama gave for voting for the Cheney Energy Bill?

    Anf for the FISA vote?

    When your positions all start in the center and you announce you are willing to participate in bi-partisan compromise, you can't end up anyplace but right of center.

    If you want to promote bi-partisan compromise, it would be better to start your position on the left.

    Parent

    Of course ... (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:24:34 PM EST
    don't know why most people don't seem to get this.

    Parent
    According to Huff Post headline (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:18:52 PM EST
    [often unreliable], Pelosi is advising Dems. in close Congressional races to support off shore drilling.  

    Parent
    That's the spirit (none / 0) (#51)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:31:02 PM EST
    My instinct was always that Obama was doing this particular flip-flop not for his own benefit, but at the behest of Congressional leaders who, in turn, are feeling lots of pressure from vulnerable members of the caucus.  Obama's shift gives individual Democrats permission to be more flexible as they feel necessary.  Now, I'm not making a judgment about whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but that's the way I believe things are.

    I think the next step ought to be for Obama's impressive energy plan to be distilled down into a soundbite or some other readily accessible form, so that individual Democrats can run on that as well.  I like Obama's plan and I would really like to get a mandate for it.

    Parent

    You are such a pragmatist--a good (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:46:04 PM EST
    quality, I might add.  

    Obama says it, followed by Nancy Pelosi (who is in a safe seat in a coastal, environomentally-conscious state that is becoming more accepting of off shore drilling),  Brilliant.  

    Parent

    Bippity boppity ... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:19:22 PM EST
    flippity floppity.

    I don't know how it's disastrous to oppose offshore drilling.  (What disaster would it cause?)  But I know it's pretty stupid to flip-flop on one major issue after another.

    Parent

    Recent poll in CA indicates, even in CA, (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:41:15 PM EST
    scene of the Santa Barbara spill disaster majority of those polled favored increased off shore leases.  Surprising. Got to fill up that Hummer tank somehow, I guess.  

    Parent
    Agreed... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Thanin on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:41:45 PM EST
    which is why McSame would make such a horrible president.

    Parent
    Last line best line! (none / 0) (#11)
    by oldpro on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:03:53 AM EST
    Bravo!

    Parent
    I agree with the comment (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:03:32 AM EST
    that said something like after McCain finishes with Obama he will start running against Bush.
    he is the only republican who could even have a shot at doing that.


    How does he run against Bush (none / 0) (#64)
    by litigatormom on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:04:43 PM EST
    when he's been kissing his ass for the last 6 years?  He thinks that advocating for the Surge is enough to distinguish him from Bush?  He supported this wrongheaded war long after it became clear it was a debacle; he's embraced the Bush tax cuts and wants to extend them (if not increase them) and now thinks deficits aren't a real problem; he's pandered to the religious right; and he's making threatening noises about Iran.  Where's the difference?  The fact that he believes in global warming?  Even Bush admits that now. The fact that he served in Vietnam?  With all due respect to McCain's war record, how does that make him a more credible commander-in chief?  He's still fixated on America's "defeat" in Vietnam, and thinks that the only mistake we made there was to leave too soon.  No wonder he thinks we should stay in Iraq for a 100 years.

    McCain is running on an image that no longer reflects who he is -- if it ever did.  He's pretending that he's still The Maverick, the man who speaks truth to power, the man with principle and integrity. And the press continues to indulge this fantasy. Obama needs to turn that "Chosen One" ad on its head: he needs to make an ad that focuses on the MSM's collective mancrush on McCain and busts the Myth of the Maverick.

    Parent

    The reason imo that (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by DaytonDem on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:04:41 AM EST
    the Obama camp does not highlight how bad Bush's economic record is and how much McCain has embraced it is because he would have to contrast it to how good things were during the Clinton administration and that is something they are obviously loathe to do. It's how we can still lose this thing.

    Painting McCain as Bush (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Green26 on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:16:44 AM EST
    is certainly a main strategy, and probably a good one, but do you really think that McCain would be like Bush?

    I suppose any republican is going to have a number,  or large number, of similar positions on issues--compared to a dem. However, I have thought that McCain is one of the repub senators most unlike Bush--both in terms of positions, personality and style. While McCain has supported a good number of Bush positions, he has also disagreed with Bush on various things and done some bi-partisan things that Bush didn't like.

    I find the assertion and strategy to be a bit inconsistent with the facts.

    The facts (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Lahdee on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:20:41 AM EST
    aren't nearly as important as the perception. Tie him to dubya's disastrous policies wherever and whenever possible and the perception of failure will prevail.

    Parent
    actually (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:23:28 PM EST
    an ad this weak opens the door for McCain to rebut with his own response detailing the amount of money the Big Oil Companies will receive from the Bush Energy Bill Obama voted for and he didn't.

    Easy enough to paint McCain as on the side of "the people" with Obama on the side of the Oil Companies with a vote as bad as that despite any facts to the contrary.  

    And any response Obama has about the amount of attention or money being offered for Alternative Energy in the Bill (his reason, I understand, for voting for it) will easily be drowned out by the BILLIONS being given to the already rich Oil Companies at the expense of the average Voter filling his or her tank.

    Parent

    To be effective it has to ring true (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:39:54 AM EST
    Even though McCain has supported Bush so fiercely on most issues, I still don't think the comparison rings true to people.  One reason is that the GOP itself has spent so much effort denigrating McCain for not marching lockstep. The other of couse is the "maverick" image crafted by the media.  

    I think it would take a lot of advertising to make the McCain = Bush equation stick. It is the best strategy though, and they should go for it. Lord knows they have the money.

    McCain's ad guys are good - I wouldn't be surprised if they come up with an ad featureing all the bad things Republicans have said about McCain over the years.

    Parent

    The problem being (none / 0) (#28)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:43:15 AM EST
    that he supports most of Bush's policies and he will continue to do so if he wishes to maintain support among his own party.

    Parent
    And didn't Obama say he supports (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by zfran on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:51:08 AM EST
    GWB's position in Iraq at one time? Isn't FISA a GWB idea and didn't Obama vote for it? The repubs have ammo to use against Obama, maybe not as much as dems have to use, but the counter argument is there. I agree, however, that tying McCain to Bush is a better angle then race.

    Parent
    As I said downthread (none / 0) (#34)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:59:22 AM EST
    I really hope that the Republicans decide to use George Bush as a whipping post.  

    Parent
    See my post above (none / 0) (#65)
    by litigatormom on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:05:44 PM EST
    To the extent that McCain ever took serious issue with Bush's policies, he doesn't anymore. He's no maverick, and hasn't been one for a very long time.  

    Parent
    Also, he spent a lot of paint ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 05:45:45 PM EST
    ... painting Hillary as Bush.

    There's only so much paint to go around.

    Parent

    Vice versa (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by waldenpond on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:34:17 AM EST
    What will be interesting is to see to what degree McCain ties Obama to Bush.  Inexperienced, personality, controlling of the media, Obama's earmark requests when the Repubs came to be known as the big spenders ??  I am not curious enough to know what other items McCain voted against that Obama voted for like Cheney's energy bill  (Obama's vote was brought up in response to Obama's ad in a teebee panel discussion) but if there are more, I imagine they will be used against Obama.

    Oh please let them use that attack (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:41:58 AM EST
    Talk about a surefire way to a landslide victory.

    Nothing would be more wonderful than the Republican nominee attacking the other candidate for being too much like the current sitting Republican President.  

    That would be......  AWESOME!

    They could possibly destroy the entire party doing that.

    Parent

    I didn't say attack (none / 0) (#53)
    by waldenpond on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:41:40 PM EST
    He won't attack the Repubs (except for spending) or Bush.  You can think of nothing that can be used to weaken Obama in the middle?  Nothing at all?  Nothing that shows Obama is not 'new'?  

    You don't think McCain can use his openness with the media as a comparison to Bush/Obama as something he wants to do different?  Why wouldn't that appeal to the middle?  Why would that lose votes on the right?

    You don't think referencing Obama's vote for Cheney's energy bill is a legitimate response/swipe to Obama's ad targeting McCain to get the attention of the middle that Obama is not new?  I don't think the energy bill is a vote that would work with the middle for Obama as a demonstration of his ability to work across the aisle.

    McCain can make comparisons to the campaigns.  Some on the right did not like the way the Bush campaign treated McCain.  You don't think linking similarities in negative campaigning might have an effect on Obama's 'newness'?

    You don't think Obama's earmark requests can be used by McCain going after Obama and his own party for spending?  I think that wasteful spending is a good talking pt.

    We'll just have to disagree.  I think there are some issues (politics as usual) that can be hinted at and framed to effect.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#57)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:04:36 PM EST
    the moment that McCain were to criticize Obama for being like Bush or Cheney, the Obama camp would immediately put out an ad saying that even McCain sees that Republican leadership has been horribly flawed and how can we trust another Republican.

    It is a loser of a campaign strategy.   While McCain made be viewed as a moderate Republican he is still a Republican.  Criticizing your own brand isn't going to help much.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#59)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:22:14 PM EST
    McCain has already criticized Obama for voting for Cheney's energy bill, many times.  Where is that immediate ad you envision?

    Parent
    swimming in the kool-aid (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:32:35 PM EST
    is my guess.

    Listen, tying Obama to Bush is actually doable with his FISA vote, his Energy Bill Vote and, most notably, his votes to continue the War in Iraq despite that much vaunted speech in 2002 or 2003 or 2004 or whatever.

    For those anti-war voters still continuing their support of Obama with no knowledge of the reality of his war stance, this charge could be devastating.

    To be someone the voters are just getting to know and be caught red-handed playing the Race Card is bad.  But then get busted having voted for Bush's Energy Bill (giving millions if not billions to the Evil Oil Companies) after running an ad blasting McCain for the support of the Oil Companies that bill benefited (and McCain voted against) and it gets a little worse.  

    THEN have the voters learn that despite all your I'm Against This Iraq War Rhetoric, you then turned around and voted continuously to fund it and offered nothing during your time as Senator -- no matter how fruitless it would have been -- to stop it while still claiming to be vociferously against it (and that's why you should vote for me) could be one of the last straws for people to go "ugh" and just tune Obama out.

    Doesn't matter if McCain voted for the war or whatever.  He's not painting himself as anti-war and having that as a cornerstone of his campaign.  If the Voters begin believing they can't trust a word that comes out of your mouth, you're a goner.  And the mistrust of Obama is growing after that race card playing.

    Parent

    thing is -- (none / 0) (#66)
    by inkybod on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:07:30 PM EST
    it would have been more trouble for Obama to remain committed to an absolute withdrawal in 16 months, regardless of conditions on the ground.  This position was a neu-stay-the-course mentality that never would have worked in the general election.

    Parent
    McCain has said (none / 0) (#80)
    by waldenpond on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 06:15:30 PM EST
    the US is not better off than 8 years ago and now has a commercial stating the US is worse off than four years ago.  That's a smack at Bush.  Govt is unpopular, duh.  Obama has dissed his own party.  McCain will too.

    Parent
    How about (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by sarahfdavis on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:17:28 PM EST
    Obama ties McCain to Bill Clinton and those disastrous Clinton years. That's what he did to his primary opponent. Maybe that'll work better than the racist smear.

    Parent
    Finally, something genuinely smart (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by esmense on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:39:13 AM EST
    and specific from the Obama campaign. "A new energy for America" is a great line and terrific positioning.

    Yes that is a great slogan (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:41:42 AM EST
    That should be the bumper sticker.  Also hits the McCain age issue.

    Parent
    Don't really want to hit the age question (none / 0) (#32)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:52:44 AM EST
    The most consistent people who vote are in the "old" category - do you want to tick them off?

    Parent
    Besides (none / 0) (#33)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:54:22 AM EST
    CNN is now reporting that Obama's hair is going gray>

    LINK

    Think it's stress or coloring to make him appear wiser and more (ahem) "mature" and experienced?

    Parent

    Gee, maybe we should track his (none / 0) (#35)
    by zfran on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:02:47 PM EST
    hair color over the past 2 weeks or so and see if it's natural or not. This campaign season has turned probably many a hair grey.

    Parent
    they showed a clip (none / 0) (#55)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:48:29 PM EST
    of him speaking on French news -- where they play McCain's "The One" commercial a lot, it seems -- and Obama looked absolutely beat!  Tired, washed out, exhausted, no fire.

    I understand this is a tough road he's on.  But how are people supposed to believe he can handle the stress of the Presidency when the stress of the CAMPAIGN appears to be killing him?!

    P.S.  Europe is not as in love with Obama as people say they are.  My French friends see him as another Segolene Royal:  a lot of talk, but little specifics and in way over his head.

    Parent

    The French and Obama (none / 0) (#75)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 05:21:30 PM EST
    Obama gets very good press in France.
    They follow the lead of CNN.
    They focused on Obama to the virtual exclusion of Hillary.
    They glamorize Obama. They print flattering photos.

    The connection to Royal is not accurate in my view.
    Obama is in way over his head, but Royal wasn't.

    She was much more qualified that Sarkozy. Far more intelligent.
    The association I feel is between Royal and Hillary Clinton.

    Parent

    I think this makes a virtue (none / 0) (#41)
    by esmense on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:20:03 PM EST
    of Obama's newness on the scene without making an ugly comment on McCain's age (which most often seems like just a cheap shot, not only to people McCain's own age but to many people much younger). The line, in the context of specific ideas, conveys the idea of "new" (rather than young) energy in the sense of new ideas and a new party in power -- rather than a comment on the personal fact of the candidates' age.

    Parent
    It's so obvious a move (none / 0) (#38)
    by BrianJ on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:07:56 PM EST
    That I marvel that he didn't think of it before.  He can win this way if he keeps it up, but his campaign has been kinds spastic since the primaries ended.  (So has McCain's.)

    Parent
    The Problem Is (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by facta non verba on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:04:47 PM EST
    Obama voted for the Bush-Cheney Energy Policies but McCain did not. So who is kidding whom?

    Obama is the one in the pocket of oil companies, not McCain. Apart from Iraq, nothing is more central to the Bush legacy than those Energy Policies, legislation that was written on in secret and passed with the votes of Obama and Durbin.

    Thomas Friedman referred to the bill as "the sum of all lobbies." U.S. PIRG noted that the bill's "heavy tilt toward big oil companies reflects the influence of Exxon Mobil and other oil companies on policy-makers in Washington, DC."

    The Washington Post editorialized that the bill was a "piñata of perks for energy industries." Indeed, the bill contained $6 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry and $12 billion to the nuclear power industry.And contrary to the ad, Obama has received more money from oil companies than McCain overall. Obama excludes monies recd last year and double counts monies given to the RNC as money given to McCain.

    When it comes to Bush's Third Term on energy, that would be an Obama Presidency. On Energy Obama can't touch McCain and Energy is the issue so far that this election is turning on.

    But, but, but (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by RalphB on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:25:50 PM EST
    Obama tried to spin the Bush-Cheney Energy Policies as a good thing because there was probably about $3 for alternative energy in it.  Such a shame that McCain voted against that great bill.  :-)

    Parent
    just wait for McCain's (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:34:43 PM EST
    response ad touting all those perks you listed and then watch Obama play his hapless game of disorganized defense for the following week or so as his poll numbers drop and his "I don't believe a word he says" numbers climb higher and higher.

    Parent
    Not a great ad ... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:09:31 PM EST
    the text goes from saying what McCain didn't do to what Obama WILL do. Leaving the big question in the middle:  What HAS Obama done?

    If you're going to make the argument that McCain has been wrong when it mattered, you have to show how Obama has been right when it mattered.

    I agree with BTD, tying McCain to Bush is a much better strategy.  For one simple fact:  More people oppose Bush than support Obama.  So this is the obvious group from which Obama can gain additional support.

    maybe not (none / 0) (#56)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:52:24 PM EST
    as I believe the majority of the Voters voted against Bush in the 2006 Midterms, giving the House and Senate to the Dems who then squandered the very mandate they were given.

    And now this Party of strongly worded letters and capitulation wants us to vote for a first term Senator with little legislative accomplishment just because he has a (D) after his name?

    The above energy issue is a land mine for Obama as he voted for the Bush Energy Bill and McCain didn't.  So McCain will have little trouble tying Obama to Bush via his vote for the Bill which gave enormous amounts of money to the Oil Companies.

    Which, in light of the above ad, will make Obama look dishonest.  Not the best thing to have happen following a week of being publicly called out for playing the race card.

    Parent

    In current polls .... (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:02:21 PM EST
    more people disapprove of Bush than support Obama.

    The group that represents that discrepancy seems like a good group for Obama to appeal to.

    That's all I was saying.

    Parent

    Chicago politics are worse than Washington's (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by OxyCon on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:21:32 PM EST
    Obama is a product, a creation of the highly corrupt Chicago machine.
    Not wise to go there, IMO.

    I can't watch these ads on this (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Grace on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:09:50 PM EST
    computer because it doesn't have speakers...

    But, the one thing I'm noticing lately is that the Democrats are looking like a pretty humorless bunch.  

    McCain is doing funny ads (like the Moses one).  Rather than laugh, like everyone else is doing, the Democrats are hand-wringing and trying to psychoanalyze the real meaning behind the ad.  

    Please!  The Democrats need to hit back with some lighter stuff!  Show us some humor!  All these slogans ("A new energy for America") just aren't cutting it.  They aren't memorable.  They are just more words.  This is "old politics" again!        

    They are giving new life (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by RalphB on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 02:53:30 PM EST
    to the old saw that liberals have no sense of humor.  I find them hopelessly boring and really stupid in all their breathless analysis.

    Parent
    how does humor help? (none / 0) (#68)
    by inkybod on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:20:21 PM EST
    I think that the Hilton/Moses fiasco illustrates the fact that it won't work.  Making light of religion isn't going to win you any votes in the South.

    If Obama stays with his issues-centered message, he can claim that McCain isn't taking people's problems seriously w/those ridiculous ads.

    Parent

    Hilton/Moses fiasco? (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Grace on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 03:57:44 PM EST
    Have you checked McCain's ratings lately?  I don't see the fiasco.  

    Those ads were funny.

    Parent

    And if the Obama campaign ... (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:06:56 PM EST
    were smart about it, they'd acknowledge the humor, and then move back to the issues.

    The Obama campaign needs a healthy injection of self-deprecation.

    Parent

    Tactics (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 05:10:53 PM EST
    So this is becoming a discussion of tactics.

    We can't say that McCain has flip-flopped because then we can't say that he is the same as Bush?  Whatever.

    The real reason we can't say that McCain has flip-flopped is because our candidate has done a couple of whoppers. FISA, public financing, offshore oil drilling... ring a bell?

    From the point of view of someone on the left, the sad fact is that our candidate is short of plusses. And getting shorter each passing day.

    So we wind up talking about tactics.

    Congress and Bush (none / 0) (#8)
    by thentro on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:02:19 AM EST
    I think this is Obama's way of running against John McCain, Congress, and George Bush at the same time. Good move if you ask me.

    Obama is running hard against Washington (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 05:41:54 PM EST
    That's standard Republican shtick.

    Parent
    I don't think that's tough enough. He should (none / 0) (#23)
    by tigercourse on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:38:53 AM EST
    certainly make that connection because it's a valid line of attack, but it isn't in the gutter enough. In 04 Kerry ran on the "I'm not like this imbecile over here" platform and he lost. In 2008, Obama needs to do more then say "McCain is like that imbecile over there".

    Call McCain corrupt (bring up Keating) call him angry and unstable (his various outbursts, the stuff that might or might not be true about what he called his wife) call him someone who doesn't know anything about the issues (play that "I don't know economics" statement in a loop) call him a flip flopper. Just don't say, "he's as bad as that guy you nontheless elected twice".

    I think running against Bush is a mistake (none / 0) (#45)
    by dianem on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:47:18 PM EST
    Yes, Bush is unpopular, but McCain has a well established reputation as a "maverick" who has not gotten along very well with Bush for people to suddenly start seeing him as "The New Bush". Obama needs to run on his own credentials. When he runs on his hope/unity message he gains, when he starts attacking he loses. He has already lost a lot of his teflon "nice guy" protection, but it's not too late - he could get some of it back if he leaves the McCain attacks to Axelrod's Army of Astroturfer's and works to convince Americans that he is not only charismatic, but also qualified to be President.

    From a purely tactical standpoint ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:21:37 PM EST
    ... McCain IS a flip-flopper, and you can't prevent observers (on-air or at-large) from remarking on that.

    "McCain = Bush" themes reinforce Republican base votes.  "Flip-flop" themes remind Republicans why they never felt secure with McCain, and alienate unaligned voters.

    "McSame" only plays to disaffected strong Democrats, and we don't exist (or so I'm told).

    Bush's third term? (none / 0) (#73)
    by VicfromOregon on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:26:57 PM EST
    Maybe, but not likely. Especially not without Dick Cheney, et al (and neither will be invited to the administration). McCain is embracing Bush now but so is Obama.  There's not a lot of light between McCain and Obama right now except some social issues and whether to call the withdrawal from Iraq and the build up in Afghanistan a victory or a redeployment.  They are both pro-war, cring having to give a woman a right to choose an abortion, Obama is less protectionist, but that can change (hee hee), neither like queers, both want to give religion a bigger say in politics...both are waffling all over the place right now, but historically, McCain has shown more backbone that Obama. Obhama's idea of compromise is the same as what the democrats have been doing in congress since Newt Gingrich.  (We don't need to compromise with what is wrong but have the temerity to face the challenges and turn things in a different direction.  Compromising with the extreme will not get us there). Obama may follow Hillary's lead economically, but he's showing signs of veering away from something so sensical. McCain can be a bigger sexist jerk, but Obama has his own ways to charmingly dismiss and denigrate women of power.  He lets others call them bi--h on his behalf.  He prefers calling them sweetie while ignoring their questions or flipping them off sereptitiously.

    As an Independent, Hillary is still my first vote.  Nader is my second.

    The only good reason I can find to vote for Obama is that he is black -(I am immune to political correctness as a diversity trainer, so don't even try to turn that into a negative. The goal is not a color blind society, but a color inclusive one.  As a white/first nation lesbian woman, that's how i see it and live it. How we get there is the question.) - purely for the uplifting effect it can have on all people of color in this country.  Breaking the racial ceiling is vital to our future as a whole and healing nation.  He can only be so inept. I think more good than harm can come from it.  Of course, I would have loved to have had Hillary break through the gender ceiling.  But, she is right when she says that we have all put 18 million cracks in it.  If she became VP, there would be little left to support either bias save for class.  They will dwindle away as they are fed less and less of our fears and ignorance.

    McCain won't get my vote, and I'm shocked he's even close to winning this thing.  Dumbfounded actually. But, I think he deserves more than being cast as a Bush clone.

    Doesn't appear Sen. Obama is following (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 05:51:21 PM EST
    BTD's advice.  Today he is obsessing about GOP handing out tire gauges:

    ABC

    Saw him on CNN (none / 0) (#79)
    by RalphB on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 06:01:29 PM EST
    sounded kind of whiny about it.

    Parent
    Old Dogs Don't Learn New Tricks (none / 0) (#82)
    by kaleidescope on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 09:57:36 PM EST
    It could be effective to tie McCain's recent waltz with oil industry money to his dalliance with Charles Keating -- a pattern of cash and carry government.  "Some dogs never learn new tricks!"