home

Obama On Offense: McCain = Bush's Third Term

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:15:38 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Discussing the Left blog teeth gnashing over the Obama response to Sarah Palin, Patrick Ruffini gets at the misguided nature of the complaints:

The netroots is engaged in some spirited discussion about the lameness of Obama's responses to Palin. But the problem, and what I believe this . . . gets at, is that Democrats look at everything about negative politics through the prism of response rather than attack, defense rather than offense.

Michael Dukakis's failure to respond in 1988 has become something of a creation myth, spawning the legendary Clinton war room in 1992. Their job? Leave no attack unanswered. Except the Clinton War Room was about something else too. Attack.

(Emphasis supplied.) And attack on narratives is the point too. The GOP's tactical attacks have always meshed with its strategic goal of negatively branding the Dems as otherworldly, socialist, America haters. The Politics of Paranoia is the GOP game. But in 2008, the game should belong to the Democrats. Because of GEORGE W. BUSH. McCain = Bush's Third Term has to be the underlying theme of everything the Obama campaign does. I would only discuss Sarah Palin if it helped feed that theme. Otherwise, ignore her. (See also Ezra Klein's smart take on this.)

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< McCain/Bush v. Palin On Preventive War | How The Media And The Left Blogs Are Allowing McCain To Escape The Bush's Third Term Label >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama On Offense: McCain = Bush's Third Term | 125 comments (125 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Obama should just read a new WSJ headline (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:36:31 AM EST
    out loud each day.

    In the 2 weeks since the end of the Democratic Convention:

    •  Unemployment hit 6.1%, a five year high
    •  Budget deficit revised up to over $400 billion
    •  Nationalization of the 2 largest mortgage lenders in the US
    •  Lehman Brothes in a death spiral
    •  Washington Mutual Bank ready to go under
    •  Mortgage and credit card defaults at new records

    And every ad should end with "Enough.  Make the Republicans own their failure".

    I thought that was the best part of his speech.

    Not a bad idea (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:37:28 AM EST


    Parent
    That's a terrible idea (none / 0) (#110)
    by fercryingoutloud on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:00:23 AM EST
    first of all it would be silly to stand up there and read 6+ bullet points of the headlines everyday. Plus MSM would never give that airtime, and isn't that the real tactical objective here is too have what you say be on the airwaves so your message gets out to more than the 100 or 300 people you are talking to at the time?

    Also 'Bush's third term' is not a good idea because (a) it is not working so far, and (b) McCain can easily counter that, and he has been, all without ever mentioning Bush's name!

    All he has to do is keep saying he is going to shake things up in DC and improve things and then give some non-complex easily understood examples like - No Pork, Drill drill drill, the world is a dangerous place, etc - just as he has been which is winning over many women and Independents and bringing back his base.

    Trying to tie him to Bush is futile and IMO Obama's messaging of this is counter productive. He is not running against Bush, he is running against McCain and he should address McCain directly without even bring up Bush. But he can't see that which makes him a weak and ineffective candidate.

    Instead of aiming at the target directly he is trying to make a bank shot. That isn't working - he knows it and you know it but yet you keep pushing a failed line of attack.

    Clinton got it at the end of the primaries which is why she was winning over key constituencies. She rarely if ever mentioned Bush. What she mentioned was issues and how she could fix them, not how Bush could not. Bush is old news and people are just waiting his exit out. Right now they are focused on what the new guy can do and what he can do vs his opponent - not what he can do vs Bush.

    This whole 'I'm not Bush and McCain is' is a loser. If it was a winner then you would see that reflected with Obama pulling away, not McCain rapidly making up ground in both the popular vote and the electoral vote.

    But once married to an idea it is difficult for people to change course no matter how much the dynamics shout out at them that they need to change course.

    Parent

    I think you have solid arguments (none / 0) (#117)
    by jeffhas on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:12:43 AM EST
    I believe the 'Bush's Third term' is tired.  Everyone expects this line from Obama.  Hitting McCain as a Republican and why Republican policies might be a way to dovetail off of this and yet still get the same message accross...

    Overall, when you say changing what is not working is difficult, you are spot on.  Obama looks to be going down in flames with the same exact message he has had since the primaries.

    You must give some credit to McCain... he was driving home the message of experience, and could see he was not going to win that way, so he made a tactical decision to change the message... and it seems to have worked.  Obama needs to grow a set and do the same thing - something bold.  Even just talking about SPECIFICS would be something bold.


    Parent

    Make the republicans own their failure... (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by wasabi on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:53:08 AM EST
    The other day, Obama said in his interview with K Olbermann said "I have to be fair on this one.  Republicans and Democrats, I think, in Congress did not pay enough attention to the structural problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

    I cringed when I heard that.  It steps on the message a little.

    Parent

    Bad answer (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:53:41 AM EST


    Parent
    Theoretically correct, politically wrong (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:00:33 AM EST
    He should focus on the last 2 years of this s**tstorm.

    "The Republican neglect of the housing and mortage disaster is as criminal as their neglect during the Katrina disaster."

    Parent

    Agreed (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by litigatormom on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:28:40 AM EST
    Obama seems to be confusing the running of a positive campaign with being on the defensive all the time. The point above about Clinton's War Room rebutting GOP attacks AND reinforcing the campaign's signal message -- it's the economy, stupid -- is dead on. The Republicans have had the WH for eight years and the Congress for six of those years -- and filibuster power even in the last 2 years in the Senate -- and Obama's being fair?  Puh-leese.

    It's time to walk and chew gum at the same time, Barack.

    Parent

    It's not only too late (none / 0) (#118)
    by fercryingoutloud on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:16:12 AM EST
    He's incapable.

    Obama is what he is - he does what he does - says what he says - and he is going to keep being and doing and saying as he has been - and nothing is going to change that.

    He is simply the wrong candidate for the times.

    Things are so screwed up in the world people are beginning to realize they want a pit bull not a professor.

    Obama recently said that a President needs many hours a day to just sit and think! Think? People want DO but yet that is the type of message he puts out there. What he ought to THINK about is how what he is saying and not saying is selling and so far in the last couple of weeks his selling is failing miserably.

    He let Clinton win the last 60 days of the primaries and he is on his way to letting McCain do the same thing.

    Parent

    Please (none / 0) (#130)
    by litigatormom on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:26:43 PM EST
    I'm not ready to get suicidally depressed yet.

    Parent
    Yes, too many of those admissions. (none / 0) (#111)
    by TomP on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:04:22 AM EST
    They other side kicks him in the teeth and below the belt, and he proases them as honorable and or says both sides are at fault.  It does not even matter that he does it on other issues.  It shows up as weakness.

    The two new ads are better but still not strong enough.

    People keep thinking, "If he won't fight for himself, how can I expect him to fight for me?"  He has lost the narrative.  

    The balloon of Obamamania has popped, and now we see if there is a second act.  I so want him to win.  McCain is so bad.  He can do it, but he must stop acting so diffident.  Show some damn fire about these real problems.  It's not a symposium.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:05:47 AM EST
    this is a huge problem of his. He simply can't seem to make the GOP responsible for the problems. Maybe he doesn't really believe they are. Or, imo, he sees everything through some academic prism which is a loser in politics.

    Parent
    It is worse than that I think... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:48:06 AM EST
    He doesn't take these opportunities to sell himself and his proposals at these moments.  He should skip that "to be fair" stuff about the history of the situation and go directly to his forward-thinking plans for the future.  

    Really - we are very late in this campaign to be spending much time on how we got here - we need to FOCUS on how we clean up the mess and sell the specific answers to our problems to the American people - and Barack Obama has to sell himself to the American people as the guy who will deliver for the American people.

    Parent

    This is a BIG point ... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:20:20 AM EST
    he doesn't seem to understand that at this stage in the game he has to make every answer a sales job.

    Because all that a lot of Americans will see is soundbites on the local or network news.

    Bottle your pitch, and pour it into every answer.

    Parent

    Obama's goal (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Lou Grinzo on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:10:59 AM EST
    I think it relates to his goal: He doesn't just want to win, he wants to win HIS WAY, which means forming this mythical coalition across the political spectrum.  In order to do that he can't go after the Republican brand with a chain saw--that would alienate too many of the very people he's trying to convince to vote for him.

    Obama needs to stop this BS, NOW.  He needs to fight just as hard (and, if needed, dirty) as McCain, Palin, and the Republicans are fighting, or he's in effect conceding the election.  This isn't softball, this isn't even hardball, it's a street fight and Obama needs to park his idealism and realize that an ugly victory is vastly better than a pretty loss.

    Where the heck is James Carville when we need him???


    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:18:15 AM EST
    I think it is his post-partisan perspective that gets in the way. He hesitates to make the Republicans own anything as a political group.  It is as if he wants to do away with the party system and that is his goal.

    Parent
    This is his biggest problem...well, among many.... (none / 0) (#70)
    by sallywally on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:48:53 AM EST
    Palin and McCain have made this a Keyser Soze rules campaign now, which means it is even more virulent than a street fight, in a way....almost a terrorist fight.

    You can't be postpartisan with the most extreme partisans there are, and that is really where the Repubs are and have been since about 1993.

    He has dropped resistance to the Clintons as campaigners for him; he has stopped smearing them and Bill Clinton's record; he has begun essentially begging the 527s to come back and help him after refusing to support fundraising for them.

    He had no problem trashing his base with FISA - why not trash them again for the GOOD reason that the Repubs are playing way below the belt and getting worse all the time??

    Maybe his youth and "elite" professional base didn't get it about how the Repubs are. They might and should support his playing hardball big-time.

    His whole premise was wrong from the beginning. If Dems are going to win, he has to be made to operate in reality. He needs the old guard to do this for him since he seems incapable of it.

    And where is Michelle in all this? Why isn't she speaking out about Palin? She has a stronger voice than he does.....

    Parent

    Axelrod (none / 0) (#103)
    by oldpro on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:45:26 AM EST
    is the new Carville.

    If he wants James' help, all he has to do is ask.

    Parent

    The new ads muff this opportunity (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by lambert on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:22:55 AM EST
    One of them mocks McCain as old. Let's alienate another constituency!

    And the other has some vaguely populist buzzwords on the economy with Obama trying to sound angry and serious. Totally out of touch.

    I think reading the headlines would be a great idea.

    Parent

    The one that attacks his lack of (none / 0) (#131)
    by litigatormom on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:30:03 PM EST
    emailing skills?  I mean really.  Sure, we know he's old.  But I'm much more worried about the fact that he still thinks he's fighting the Vietnam War than the fact that he doesn't use the Internets.

    Parent
    More Data on the Bush Economy (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by jsj20002 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:49:06 AM EST
    Excellent post.  Here are some additional data points and the sources to back them up.
    From January 19, 2001 until September 10, 2008:

    1.  The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose by only 5.8% from 10,588 to 11,203. (CNN.com)  That's far less than 1% per year. Any CD would have done much better.    

    2.  The U.S. National Debt increased 69% from $5.7 trillion to $9.7 trillion.  (U.S. Treasury).  

    3.  The projected budget deficit for next year, $407 billion, is nearly the highest in our nation's history.  (Congressional Budget Office)

    4.  The price of crude oil increased 435% from $23.73 to $103.53.  (NYMEX)

    5.  The value of the U.S. dollar fell 33% against the Euro, from €1.06 to €0.71.  (Federal Reserve Bank of New York)  

    6.  When devaluation of our currency is taken into account, the U.S. stock market has actually lost 28% of its international value in the last six years and ten months.

    7.  The U.S. unemployment rate rose from 4.2% to 6.1%.  As of today, 9.4 million U.S. citizens are unemployed and looking for work.   (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)  This figure doesn't include a few million or so who have stopped looking for work, nor does it include undocumented workers who have left jobs behind since the anti-immigration crusade began to take hold.  

    Since George Bush took the oath of office, the national debt has ballooned; the budget deficit has soared; the cost of oil has more than quadrupled; the dollar has lost a third of its value; the stock market has lost more than a fourth of its real value; and the unemployment rate has increased almost 50%.  

    Yes, some of us have benefitted from the Bush Tax Cuts, but while all of this was going on, the real estate market collapsed, many people have lost their homes, and most of the rest of us now have much less equity in our homes than we had when we bought them.  

    Since the first of the year, John McCain has voted with George Bush 100% of the time.  A third Bush term?  Just say NO!

    Parent

    Nobody in their (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by eric on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:59:52 AM EST
    right mind reads this and thinks it is a good idea to continue Bush's policies.  NOBODY.  Ok, maybe Halliburton...

    Anyway, the key is to tie McCain to this.  He is running almost as if he isn't a Republican and has no part in this.

    Parent

    Officials Warn Against Drug-Resistant 'Super Lice' (none / 0) (#17)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:19:34 AM EST
    That's a scary headline.  Not sure how to tie it to Bush-McCain though.

    Parent
    That might actually work out for McCain/Palin (none / 0) (#23)
    by tootired on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:24:47 AM EST
    Most "hockey moms" have had to deal with at least one outbreak of schoolhouse pediculosis.

    Parent
    Things on an economic level are (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:25:38 AM EST
    terrible......they are beyond terrible.  We are staring at the longest lasting economic downturn/recession in history since the Depression.  We are only at the start of it all really. During a House hearing a congresswoman claimed that a few Democrats took part in some detectable wrong doing alongside Republicans where Freddie and Fannie are concerned and that they ought to all be indicted, but the Dems run the hearings these days so she didn't get much further.  Who knows if there is any truth to it, but when Obama doesn't use the current economic crisis as part of his campaign I start to wonder.  When he comes forward with no solutions other than to say I'm better than those other guys cuz I'm not them, I start getting really worried.

    Parent
    He's been talking economics and solutions (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by joanneleon on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:38:28 AM EST
    but those messages aren't getting through the noise and hysteria.  Most of that problem can be blamed squarely on the media.  But the problem is also, IMHO, that we now have the new, reinvented Obama speaking.  The hope and change soaring rhetoric is gone, and he now sounds almost like a populist.  The free market stuff is gone, and now he's talking about doing away with breaks to companies who are giving away our jobs.  "Every state counts!" is muted and now we hear that the campaign will be placing more focus on swing states and less on the 50 state strategy.  And those are just a few examples, really.

    All of this is wonderful.  These are the things I strongly supported in the Clinton campaign.  But it's tough to switch, on a dime, from talking about people who cling to God and religion, to agreeing with what they've been yelling about for years.

    Let's hope they stick with the more populist message that emerged from the stadium in Denver, and that people start really associating Obama with this kind of message.  Yes, as much as it burns me up, let's hope he continues with the formerly maligned Clinton campaign that he has now hijacked.  And let's hope he really means it.

    Parent

    The media (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:07:23 AM EST
    is only part of the problem. His ads don't tell you where he stands on things. When his own campaign people can't tell you his stances on issues, Houston you have got a problem.

    Do you think people will now buy the "new and improved" Obama? The polls don't show it yet.

    Parent

    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by joanneleon on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:57:39 AM EST
    but I hope so, grudgingly, because if they don't, we're in deep...

    It's hard for Clinton supporters like me to buy it, but the truth is, for me anyway, that he is our best hope for implementing the things the Clinton campaign emphasized, and the things the new and improved Obama seems to have adopted.

    Here is one thing that I do know: McCain isn't going to keep my best interests in mind.  If elected, his populist stance will be long gone before he takes his hand off that Bible.  Sarah Palin will be relegated to PR and funerals.  Just like Cheney, he'll hold a meeting the day after they are installed in office and they'll openly throw all campaign promises out the White House window.

    (Invoking my daily mantra to make the best choice for my kids, myself, my country, even though I'm resentful and don't have a lot of faith in the new voice making these promises).

    I'm trying, GA6thDem.  I'm trying.  But it isn't easy.

    Parent

    I know (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:07:06 AM EST
    you are trying. And you're doing a good job.

    Frankly, I have no idea what either McCain or Obama will do if in office. The reports coming out now in places like the NY Daily News are saying that Obama really wants nothing to do with the Clintons or their policy. When Donna Brazille said that it's the "new dem party" she was speaking for Obama apparently.

    And as far as McCain goes which one would show up in the oval office? The maverick or the bush toady? I haven't a clue. The bush toady would keep the party together but relegate it to a southern fundamentalist party. The maverick would split the party because it would make the fundamentalists extremely angry.

    Parent

    The so-called left blogs aren't helping either (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by lambert on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:20:05 AM EST
    Although, presumably, they're acting as Tier Two surrogates for the Obama campaign, and so are doing only what they've been asked to do.

    As the last D president elected and allowed to take office said: "It's the economy, stupid!"

    All the prog yammering about Palin steps on what should be a D core message -- or should have been before all the constituencies that would respond to that message got thrown under the bus in the primary, with the progs cheering the whole process.

    I really don't care about Palin. I do care about my horrific fuel bill going into a bad winter. I do care about choosing between fuel, food, and medical care. And you know the only message getting through that's speaking to that? Drill now. Sure, it speak to the lizard backbrain, but that's a surprise?

    Parent

    It's a good idea (none / 0) (#57)
    by eric on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:26:33 AM EST
    because the truth is that many people don't actually tie the bad economy with political leadership.

    Parent
    The newspaper prop... (none / 0) (#59)
    by EL seattle on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:28:07 AM EST
    ...worked great for Will Rogers.

    If Obama sincerely wants to pursue a "post partisan" political image/identity, is there a better model for that than Rogers?

    I certainly don't think so.

    Parent

    Obama better come up with something (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by frankly0 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:56:52 AM EST
    awful fast if he wants Democratic politicians to line up with him.

    Look at the latest Gallup poll on party preferences for Congressional seats.

    Support for generic Democrats went from 11%+ all the way down to a mere 3%+.

    Obama's now damaging the entire Democratic brand.

    Wonder how many superdelegates feel happy with their choice now?

    Drill here, drill now (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:22:06 AM EST
    works better than trying to explain what little impact that would have even as a long term solution.  That's what's driving the congressional numbers down.

    Parent
    We should have owned that issue, (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:56:00 AM EST
    but no one in our leadership seemed to understand that you can't "just say no" - you must provide an alternative relief plan.

    I would have sold an updated "chicken in every pot" plan which would have been a "solar panel on every house" which could bring relief within a matter of months if it was done right.  If not that something had to be offered - that's what McCain did right - he offered the people something - sure it is a lie that it will help - but he appeared to be responsive something the Obama camp often fails to do.

    Parent

    Not really (none / 0) (#48)
    by Lou Grinzo on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:15:52 AM EST
    "I would have sold an updated "chicken in every pot" plan which would have been a "solar panel on every house" which could bring relief within a matter of months if it was done right."

    No one loves solar and power more than I do, but there's no chance this would have worked.  There's almost no connection in the US between oil and electricity generation over short time frames.  (The US generates less than 2% of its electricity with oil.)  A few years from now we'll start to see the electrification of transportation (electric cars, plug-in hybrids) that will let those early adopters shift from oil to electrons, but that's a tiny effect that's yet to happen.


    Parent

    The point being that getting some (none / 0) (#119)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:23:59 AM EST
    relief on energy bills wherever that can be achieved would help at the kitchen table.  Electricity is expensiven these days.  Furthermore, while 2% of our electricity may be generated from oil - the entire infrastructure still requires oil to produce it.  But I don't really want to get into a debate about the best way to solve the oil crisis as much as I was making a suggestion about a concrete offering that could help people ease the pain of the steeply rising cost of living on all fronts.  I don't know about you, but my electricity bill keeps going up even though I am using less and less of it.  I would love relief from that as I think a lot of other people would too.

    Parent
    Time for another vacation? (none / 0) (#108)
    by oldpro on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:57:02 AM EST
    Yes.  Snark.

    Parent
    The anvil of the 110th Congress (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by joanneleon on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:43:18 AM EST
    and the brilliant Democratic leadership in Congress has to shoulder some of that blame too.

    And let's not dismiss the stupidity of voters who would actually believe that McCain is suddenly a populist who is going to shake up Washington, and that his running mate would actually have one iota of influence on his administration once they finish using her to get elected.

    Parent

    The problem is that the Democrats (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:05:49 AM EST
    did dismiss the stupidity.

    I actually saw Howard Dean claim during our convention week that there was no need to explain to the American people how bad it is and how the Bush policies which would continue under McCain would make it worse.  I was so frustrated when I heard him say that.  

    The reality is that people are hurting, but very few percentage-wise understand what policies have contributed to that hurt and therefore have little ability to weigh the differences between a fake populist message from McCain and a high-minded "no blame" message from Obama.  The especially frustrating thing is that you don't have to "blame" people when you point out a problem if you really are afraid of that - you can just point out the problem and emphasize the benefits of your solution to that problem.  But you must identify the problem as bad and the change you propose as good - they often don't even go that far imo.  The Obama camp and Democrats need to get passionate about their proposals - McCain is passionate about power and it comes through neatly packaged in a faux-poplist message - but you feel McCain's desire - Obama is too dispassionate about the issues we face.  Obama needs to show some emotion - he just does - or he will lose this imo.

    Parent

    Howard Dean (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by litigatormom on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:30:35 AM EST
    once again shows his political genius.  

    Not.

    Parent

    Well, the Clintons reach those voters (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by sallywally on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:07:37 AM EST
    Why can't Obama? This bit about blaming the electorate is a genuinely stupid - and obviously elitist - attitude that the Obamabots had all the way through too.

    It's the politician's job to reach them. Both of the Clintons and McCain/Palin are doing that. Obama is not.

    I agree, he communicates no passion for the solutions. He never really wanted the ones that will work, imho.

    Very weak, right from the start - and with the misguided support of the Dem leadership.

    Meh.

    Parent

    Lack Passion (none / 0) (#106)
    by liberalone on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:55:42 AM EST
    I would say that Obama is high on empathy but low on emotion.  He has probably masked his emotions for so long he is incapable of expressing emotions like anger and frustration in a convincing manner.  He appears to go from gee to jolly gee-- never allowing anyone a glimpse at anything remotely unpleasant.

    Since I don't believe he can/will show a wide range of emotions, the best course of action is clear, concise, hard hitting offense.  The points mentioned upthread were perfect.  

    If he is going to win on the issues, then he needs to state them then offer the chicken in the pot as was also mentioned upthread.

    Parent

    Excuse me, (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by frankly0 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:20:49 AM EST
    if you're trying to create a winning Party -- and what is the point of politics if you don't have that goal? -- then there are no stupid voters.

    There are only stupid politicians.

    Parent

    The irony is that after all of this (none / 0) (#120)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:29:16 AM EST
    incessant talk of "low information voters" (a phrase I loathe) the Democrats still decided that they didn't have to explain anything to voters and assumed that everybody already understood how we got to where we are today.

    I completely agree that this problem is in the politicians' court.

    Parent

    I don't think you can blame the down turn (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by kimsaw on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:47:42 AM EST
    just on Obama. The Congress itself has a lot to do with it too... Pelosi, Reid, and the DNC have done the Dems no favors. The approval rating of Congress is testimony to that. 3 of the major candidates are members of Congress...geez rocket science it's not. They are members of the "do nothing" Congress why wouldn't down ticket Dems have trouble, they are the party in charge. Contrary to pundits speak, voters are not stupid and they are dissecting the message both parties are sending. I'd say this election is a toss up till Nov. 4th. Seat belts please its going to be a bumpy ride!

    Parent
    Time is running out (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:01:28 AM EST
    His reluctance to pin the problems facing the nation on the backs of the Republican's has always troubled me. I sometimes get the feeling that he's embarassed to admit that he's a Democrat. I admit there's times that I am too. But then I'm not running as the party leader.

    That's the post-partisan schtick (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by lambert on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:24:20 AM EST
    Dance with who brung ya.

    Parent
    Krugman disagrees (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Lahdee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:15:41 AM EST
    He thinks it'll be much worse than a third term.
    Heh

    John Harris at Politico (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by tootired on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:21:16 AM EST
    speculates about what advice Bill Clinton might have given Obama at their 2 hour lunch. I think that if Harris is correct, it would all be good advice, but there are a couple of points that I think Obama might have a difficult time with. Point #1 is "Don't make this about you."

    Excellent article (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Coral on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:30:14 AM EST
    Thanks for the tip.

    Parent
    I can see Obama nodding.... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Moishele on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:34:14 AM EST
    'Yes yes, Mr President', or maybe even 'Bill', and then going on his way running the campaign exactly as before, probably with an aside to himself as to how the Clintons 'just don't understand'.  

    Obama seems to believe that if he doesn't win 'his way' then he doesn't win at all. But if this is his idea of fighting for the Presidency, does he really think American people will believe he will fight for them?

    Parent

    Probably the best two (none / 0) (#81)
    by eric on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:02:04 AM EST
    hours he has ever spent in this campaign.  Like a visit to the Guru or something.

    Parent
    Absolutes (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by joanneleon on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:22:04 AM EST
    One of the things I like about Democrats is that they are smart and they understand grey areas, and nuance.  Or so I thought.  It really does look like they took the "Leave no attack unanswered" as an absolute.  

    Absolutes are for Republicans.  Sarah Palin is a clear case where "Leave no attack unanswered" needs to be applied with some intelligence, understanding that it's a guideline, not a law.

    To me, the way the campaign dealt with Sarah Palin was a sign of inexperience and insecurity.  The European tour and the spectacular convention did not produce the poll numbers that they expected.  The McCain campaign, a campaign that until recently has been like fish in a barrel, came up with a clever move.  And it had an effect on the polls.  

    Can we get a little Ford Prefectness around here and some  Hitchhiker "Don't Panic" t-shirts?  Okay, maybe that's a bad example.  After all, the planet was being demolished by Vogons.  I just wish some of that panic could be used constructively and thrown Al Gore's way, or toward the other real catastrophic issues at hand.

    I keep hearing things in the media about how the Obama campaign didn't know what to do when Palin was chosen as VP candidate.  They were caught off guard.  I say, "yes, so what?"  Instead of taking that as a blow to egos, why not just admit that yes, it was a surprise, and yes, the campaign will now take some time to contemplate the best way to respond and the best strategy to deal with this changed Republican ticket.  I would applaud that.   That's how I want my leadership to respond to situations.  I guess I'll never win any elections in this crazy country because I don't think it's the end of the world when someone else gets more attention in the media for awhile.  Heck, I'd think it would be a welcome relief sometimes.

    The real problem we have now, IMHO, is that the polls are being moved just as much by the reaction to Palin as by the choice of Palin as a candidate.  I wonder how well the Obama campaign can turn this around now, having gotten a bad start out of the gate in this situation.  

    Hopefully there is still plenty of time to get back to the real issues.  We win on the issues!  I've watched Democrat after Democrat appearing on the news shows, saying that we need to get back to the issues and the problems that are plaguing Americans every day.  Mary Landreiu was just on MSNBC saying it.  Even Mary Landreiu is giving good advice.  Axelrod, where are you?  Are you listening?

    God, it's so frustrating to watch this campaign, and even more frustrating to watch the factions in the left blogosphere, (some of them people whom I once had a lot of respect for, whom I thought had their heads on straight), forge blindly ahead on the wrong course.  It's also frustrating to hear on the news networks, day after day, about the left blogs, and not being able to defend it this time because a lot of what they're saying is true.

    If you take (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:28:45 AM EST
    a look at the news ads, they make the Obama campaign look completely clueless.

    Parent
    MSNBC headline (none / 0) (#40)
    by joanneleon on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:56:39 AM EST
    a little while ago said that the campaign has a new batch of personal attack ads today.

    However, I'm in the Phila. tv market and we get a slew of campaign ads, and the one I saw just a little while ago had a message about McCain being a Bush third term.

    So I don't know what's up.  I don't know how they plan to use these ads, or where, etc.  I also don't  know if the media is playing games with it.  

    I'm not seeing them yet here.  The populist message and the McCain = Bush third term is what will work here, IMHO.  You know why?  Because it's the truth.  I hope he continues them.  I'm biased, admittedly, but I believe that it's not easy to play people in PA and NJ for fools.  I think there is some evidence of that in how we've voted, including how we voted in the Dem primary.

    Parent

    One of them (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:13:47 AM EST
    was linked here or another thread. I watched it. It made fun of John McCain for not knowing how to use email. It was so stupid and worthless I couldn't believe it.

    I've been standing on my head screaming "compare and contrast". Obama is now down in every tracking poll. Bush=McCain is not working. It will get you 45% of the country but the other 10% isn't buying. He's is going to have to tell them what he is going to do IN HIS ADS!

    Parent

    It's the bipartisanship thing (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by wasabi on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:27:03 AM EST
    On the one hand, Obama wants to assure center and right/center voters that the only way to make progress in this country is to have the Republicans on board in crafting legislation.  You see, there are no bad Republicans.  They would do the right thing for the country if only Bush had not been the head of the party <snark>.

    Now he needs to convince the general public that Bush = McCain.  The McCain campaign only has to defend themselves against the charge that they are not Bush to win.  They do not need to defend against the charge that Republican policies in general are disasterous for our nation.

    Meanwhile, the McCain camp gets to slur Democrats in general and Obama specifically.  Obama needs to do more to tie in generic Republican ideology with the failed policies of Bush/McCain, but that might make some of those indie voters uncomfortable, and we can't have that.  It's a tightrope he is walking.

    Perhaps it's time to face the fact that (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Elporton on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:45:41 AM EST
    Sen. Obama appears to be neither talented nor savvy at the game of politics.

    There should be little disagreement that the Republicans are better at this than us.  We tend nominate superior candidates (as in this election) but they can get their candidates elected.

    Bill Clinton is the obvious exception to that rule.  Say what you will about his personal failings, but there haven't been many better at understanding and executing the retail politics that are necessary to get elected.

    Sen. Obama has yet to demonstrate a grasp or a real interest in this critical issue, which it at at our collective peril.

    I've seen Clinton in action (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by joanneleon on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:45:42 AM EST
    and I have to tell you, it was really a pretty amazing thing to watch.  It was during the 2006 Sestak campaign in PA, at a military academy, in a district which had an incumbent Republican congressman for some 18-20 years.  I can't remember the exact quote but I recall someone from the district telling me about some Repub. statistic "since the Civil War".  So it wasn't exactly a slam dunk territory.  There was an audience of about a thousand, and Clinton gave a speech, but he also held a conversation with that audience.  I can't emphasize enough that it was a conversation.  He had no notes and no teleprompter.  It was one of those "terrorist on every street corner" speeches where he carefully deconstructed the conservative movement, point by point.

    While he spoke, you could her a pin drop in the place, except for interchange between him and the audience.  At times, people would speak out, and he would respond and weave the person's comment into his speech.  He was watching the audience, watching the nods, the body language, and he was in tune with this whole group of people.

    I'm not a devotee of Bill Clinton, but I have respect for the man.  And after watching him in person, I have a whole new respect.  

    I gotta tell you, it was an amazing thing to watch.  And you know what else?  There were a number of witty jabs in the southern accent, but the speech was all about real things that affect all of our lives, and about pulling back the curtain on the whole neocon movement, etc.  He wasn't trying to sell anybody a bill of goods, and everybody knew it.  People believed him because the guy was telling the truth.  It was delivered by a master, true, but the message rang true and that's a big part of Clinton's advantage.  What a novel idea -- keep peoples interests and the truth at the forefront, know what you're talking about, and you too can be a great politician ;)

    Below is a link to the C-SPAN video of the speech, if you're interested.  It's 34 minutes long, but if you're feeling like me, it just might do your heart some good ;)
    Pennsylvania Democratic Party Event 10/05/2006

    Parent

    So impressive (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by eleanora on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:02:44 PM EST
    At about 11:55 minutes, WJC does the best job of separating the crazy neocons from regular Repubs I've ever seen.

    "...a narrow strip of the Republican Party, just a narrow strip of people who are improperly known as conservatives." And then he explains exactly why.

    Just awe-inspiring, thanks so much for linking that. I wish we could make every single so-called Dem who attacked him and Hillary watch that over and over.

    Parent

    Shorter version (none / 0) (#50)
    by Lou Grinzo on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:18:56 AM EST
    Barack Adlai Obama

    Parent
    Yup ... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:22:59 AM EST
    there's a lot of Ike vs. Adlai going on these days.

    Those races are before my time.  But a lot of voters remember them well.

    McCain even lucked into a hurricane Ike just to keep that under the radar message going.

    Parent

    Let me clarify a bit (none / 0) (#101)
    by Lou Grinzo on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:35:03 AM EST
    I think I should expand on my "Adlai" crack just a bit, so there's no misunderstanding.  (Not that RP said anything that implies I need to clarify anything; upon further reflection I'm just concerned that others might read too much into my one-liner.)

    I'm an Obama supporter.  I voted for Clinton in the NY primary, but now that both parties have their nominees, I see it as a very easy decision to support Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin.  In other words, I'm not taking a cheap shot at Obama or showing glee in his campaign's recent poltical ineptitude; if anything I'm more than a little upset that he's continuing to do his "Fraser Crane in a biker bar" impersonation, even as we're in the home stretch of this seemingly endless election cycle.

    The one piece of good news is that the polls have turned against him by just enough, and he has just enough time left, that he can fix this.  But dopey ads about McCain not knowing how to use e-mail, as others have reported on this site, are most definitely not the answer.  I can imagine the McCain camp laughing themselves hoarse over that ad as they prepare a response attacking Obama for being ageist.

    Parent

    Attack is important ... (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:49:27 AM EST
    but so is offering solutions.  That's the ultimate offense.

    You can even do this in attack ads.  You do you attack, then tag it with your plan or record.  Too many Obama ads fail to do this.

    Here's a classic example of this from the '92 Clinton campaign.

    This really isn't that hard.  

    I disagree, BTD (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by david mizner on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:57:58 AM EST
    I don't believe that McCain = Bush is sufficient as an umbrella message. For one thing, it doesn't go directly as McCain's character. In fact, it doesn't go at McCain directly at all. And it's not nearly attention-grabbing enough to dominate news cycles.

    Obama has, in fact, mostly done what you suggest--this has been their overriding message since the convention (albeit it's been muddled by the Palin-fixation on the left)--and it's not getting them anywhere.

    There are other much more potent messages:

    McCain is out-of-touch and unstable (read: old)

    McCain, having sold his soul in his quest for power, is dishonest and dishonorable.

    Well (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:59:20 AM EST
    Then we disagree. What can I tell you.

    Parent
    I think Republican=FAILURE would have been (none / 0) (#84)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:06:09 AM EST
    the way to go.

    It's harder for McCain to say he's not a Rep than he's not Bush.

    And I really think voters would like to be empowered to exact some revenge on the Republicans.  Bush will be gone anyway, but by voting for McCain you're actually REWARDING Republicans for their failure.

    Parent

    I think you're on the best track here... (none / 0) (#97)
    by jeffhas on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:29:01 AM EST
    McCain has already blunted 'Bush's Third Term'... Apart from the 'Maverick' image he has, the 'Change' tag he took back, there is Palin which is so-not Cheney that this is clearly not going to be Bush's third term.

    I think Bush's Third Term is old... and it's lost it's lustre and power to make people believe it's true.

    However, he's a Republican, and Republican's have failed, and they are corrupt, and LOOK at their policies!!... to me this is a nice extension of the Bush's third term theme, but with a new bow.

    Aside from that though, it's still a tough sell... Obama was all about new and fresh... and something newer and fresher has appeared... all you can do is hope she stumbles and it becomes scary - so I'd stay away from her and let her make her own mistakes if she's going to.

    The polling out right now is looking pretty bad, trends are hard to reverse - especially with under 60 days to go... I guess it's all on the debates now - Probably nothin' to worry about, Obama always hits those out of the park (would it hurt to study up for those!).  Real specifics would be helpful to me.

    Parent

    Obama must make a difference before Oct (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Saul on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:09:42 AM EST
    If the polls are still the same in a dead heat in Oct then IMO Obama would have lost  any chance of not making this election a close race.  Then you will have to just cross your fingers that he wins and that's not what the Dem expected this election.

    That's is why I am angry at Obama.  He decided to risk the election when he knew he did not have to.  By not picking Hilary he knew he would be jeopardizing the election especiallly when he had slam dunk deal that was at his finger tips which he threw away.   And that is why I say to Obama,

    How dare you risk my chances and the people chances of having a slam dunk victory in 08 and putting a democrat in the oval office just because you could not swallow your pride.


    Not about not picking Hillary anymore (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Coral on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:25:00 AM EST
    It's about being politically tone deaf.

    I thought I would sit back and smile while the GOP attacked Obama with unfair smears, because of the way he treated the Clintons.

    Well, no, I never in my wildest dreams thought he would respond so poorly. Now I'm beginning to panic. The next four years will be a total disaster if the Democrats/Obama/ and the rest of us, don't do something fast to pull this out.

    Parent

    Didn't Obama say (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by JAB on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:41:28 AM EST
    that he could handle anything thrown at him from the Republicans and 527's?  Look at what's hit the airwaves now:

    Link you'll have to scroll down to the post titled "Here They Come -- A Plethora of 527 Ads"

    And let's face it, Obama has not run a completely clean campaign all this year.  He's done his fair share of throwing dirt - both at Clinton and at McCain.  It just doesn't seem to gain traction with McCain.

    Parent

    Whatever he does, he's got to do now (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:43:55 AM EST
    I do not like the numbers I'm seeing. And no, I will not be told to ignore the trackers by professional spin artists.

    Trackers (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:54:12 AM EST
    are definitely important for trends.

    If Obama can't turn it around soon, then imo everyone needs to abandon ship and start focusing on the downtickets.

    Parent

    I've always been bearish ... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:59:41 AM EST
    on Obama's chances.

    And one of my arguments against his nomination was that he lacked political agility.

    That he couldn't change strategies when things weren't working.  This is a skill which isn't only important in a campaign, but it's important in governing.

    I've seen nothing in the last two weeks to change that assessment.

    But I'm hoping he proves me wrong.  Soon.

    Parent

    I watched the primaries (none / 0) (#82)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:02:17 AM EST
    So yeah, I've seen this movie before. And no, losing elections 51/49 won't be sufficient anymore.

    Parent
    And what a ham-handed attack (none / 0) (#83)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:03:56 AM EST
    All they've got to say is that John McCain can't use email?

    ::pounds head on desk::

    Parent

    You'll also notice ... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:32:13 AM EST
    in what's supposed to be an attack, they defend one of McCain's points about himself.

    "McCain hasn't changed."

    Insanity.

    Parent

    Don't make this About You (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by WS on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:32:40 AM EST
    Politico has an article about what Bill might have said to Obama and I'm positive that Bill said "don't make this about you" to Obama.  Instead, he wants to make it about people's lives and how Dem policies will make it better. I hope Obama takes this piece of advice because the "come to Obama" strategy has clearly run its course.  Like Begala said, "the people who love Obama are already with him, what he needs to do is convince the rest on why should vote for him." (paraphrase).  

    Obama should send out issue attack ads.  At the same time, grab the media spotlight by accepting Hillary's health care plan in a press conference with Hillary.  McCain and/or Palin can then rail about "Hillarycare" and I hope they do.  That'll draw immediate distinctions.    

    i'm half with you on that (none / 0) (#132)
    by jar137 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 04:27:23 PM EST
    I have always been of the opinion that at this point Hillary cannot play that prominent a role in the campaign because it only highlights her loss/no VP/etc.  I may be wrong on this point, but that is where my gut is.  Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly about giving the republicans a major policy on which to disagree because it will only highlight the differences between the parties' positions.  Well done.

    Parent
    Something tells me (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Dave B on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:56:47 AM EST
    That the Obama Campaign is finally realizing what it's like to run against someone who will do and say anything to get elected.

    Too late (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by waldenpond on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:05:11 AM EST
    I think it's too late to blame the Repubs.  Obama blamed Rs and Ds in the primary.  McCain has blamed both parties (govt is broken).  Voters blame both parties. (I know I do)

    If Obama blames the Repubs, McCain has several avenues as a comeback.. pointing out Obama's change from the primary..

    Obama campaign: McCain hugging Bush and more of the same.

    McCain camp: the Repubs failed the American people, so did the Dems, we need to accept we all failed the American people and work together.

    Obama campaign: Repub Pres, Repub Congress.

    McCain camp: yes and we failed and the Dems were on the committees with us and voting next to us.

    Obama camp: Repubs, Bush, Repubs, Bush

    McCain: yes we screwed up.  Look, does Obama want to work together to move on or not?

    Every time the Obama camp blames McCain, if McCain accepts the blame (which he has) and wants to move on.... that may be an appealing message to the voters.  I like it when people can step up and admit they screwed up instead of pointing fingers.

    McCain= Bush... blah blah (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by kelsweet on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:12:17 AM EST
    I don't even hear those words any more. Talk about STALE!
    I am looking at this from a whole different view than most of you here, I have never been a politcal junkie. I am one of the newly interested people taking part this year Even though I am not that young (47) The only times I have ever really cared was when Bill Clinton was running (I am native Arkansan) and this year because of Hillary
    Until this year I didn't even know what down ticket meant... This site has taught me so much in my self imposed "crash course" the reason I am even commenting now is to give a different perspective, and probably the one most of ya'll speculate on. Just my opinion. and I think he (BO) has jumped the shark. Oh and I had no idea what Charlie was talking about when he asked SP about Bush's agenda, so to me and most of the ignorant middle class housewives of America, her answer was normal rather than niave.

    Um. . . SP is running for VP (1.00 / 0) (#121)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:33:34 AM EST
    She should know more than you or me or any as you say "ignorant middle class housewives of American."  Normal is not good enough.

    Parent
    Silly girl.. (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by kelsweet on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:46:52 PM EST
    she does know more than you or me... I was simply pointing out the way most of America would see the interview question. I was not implying that SP was ignorant. Geeeez louise. Chill already.
    P.S. I guess one could argue that no one is  ever REALLY ready to be .... well you know...

    Parent
    Actually I don't think she (1.00 / 0) (#129)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 01:23:27 PM EST
    does know more than me.  That's one of the many problems I have with her.  

    Parent
    I fear that (none / 0) (#1)
    by BrianJ on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:22:09 AM EST
    OBama hasn't done enough to set up this attack over the last few months.  It's probably his best shot now, though.  Now if only he can get his surrogates treated for PDS...

    Well apparently (none / 0) (#2)
    by JAB on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:35:32 AM EST
    he has three new ads coming out - one that attacks McCain's age an inability to send email.  Will that do it?

    Link

    Parent

    Obama's campaign (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by frankly0 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:59:35 AM EST
    can act as if McCain is the crotchety old guy who can't do anything original or new, but who's the one who had made a bold, highly successful move in the campaign? The guy who chose Biden, or the guy who chose Palin?

    Parent
    New ad (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by bobbski on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:00:08 AM EST
    ...three new ads coming out - one that attacks McCain's age an inability to send email.  Will that do it? -- JAB

    You´re kidding, right?

    Attacking his age (72 is not that old today), is that designed to garner the senior vote?

    I was looking forward to a dem sweep but it looks like McCain will take the prize.

    God!  Why didn´t dems nominate someone who can win?

    I ony hope Obama doesn´t drag down the under ticket.

    Parent

    That's (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:11:34 AM EST
    my concern right now. Obama is going to drag down all the downticket races. Pretty soon we are going to have to forget about Obama and start focusing on downticket unless he can turn this thing around.

    Parent
    Actually, I was kidding (none / 0) (#25)
    by JAB on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:25:55 AM EST
    I think the ad is horrible too.  If this is the best they can come up with, instead of taking BTD's advice, then all is lost for the Dems this year (especially with polls now showing that the generic Democrat squeaks out a win against a generic Republican - bad news for downticket Dems).

    Parent
    Still ad (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by pooks1976 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:08:23 AM EST
    Well I thought the ad was pretty awful.  The second half was good and that is what Obama should be going after, but the first half, just spoke to the demographic that already supports him.  He needs to expand his base and this ad alienates many non tech savvy people.  Also are we trying to elect a Commander and Chief or the head of the IT department.

    Maybe I feel this way, because I often find myself behind on the latest tech toys and I am 32.

    Parent

    Vote Obama, he's cooler than McCain (none / 0) (#56)
    by esmense on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:26:17 AM EST


    Parent
    But ... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:32:38 AM EST
    all that retro stuff looks pretty cool these days.

    And they actually supported one of McCain's key points in their attack.  "John McCain hasn't changed."

    Parent

    He actually said that yesterday.... (none / 0) (#109)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:57:14 AM EST
    ...in the forum, that he would make government cool again. Is this really that important to them?

    Parent
    That (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:09:50 AM EST
    ad is absolutely horrid. It's mostly a personal attack not an issues attack. Obama is playing exactly the game the GOP wants him to.

    Instead of ads getting better they are only getting worse.

    Parent

    AP highlighted the computer (none / 0) (#114)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:06:24 AM EST
    illiterate ad and nothing else about Obama this a.m.  

    Parent
    Oh and BTD (none / 0) (#37)
    by Melchizedek on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:49:12 AM EST
    Here's another example of those crazy PDS folks:
    http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_palin_interview.php
    The interview gaffes are ALL ABOUT her resemblance to Bush: incurious, ignorant, yet utterly certain she's right.

    And while the left is (none / 0) (#42)
    by tootired on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:00:56 AM EST
    busy trying to compare Palin to Bush, the right is trying to  make the case that she's the next Ronald Reagan. Michael Reagan is doing a "Caroline Kennedy" and pitching that Palin is his dad in a dress.

    Parent
    Wasn't Bush (none / 0) (#88)
    by WS on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:08:28 AM EST
    supposed to be the next Reagan? When it comes to deficits, then yes, Bush was the next Reagan.  

    Parent
    Number 1... (none / 0) (#58)
    by NYShooter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:26:39 AM EST
    ...He can partially blunt the "Bush's third term" meme by reminding voters why he got the "maverick" label, and then rattle off a barrage of intra-party battles he's had with own party, and then finish off with, "but there's one thing I'll never disagree with, and that is that there are some really bad people out there who want to cut off your wife's, mother's, and/or daughter's heads. I WON"T LET THEM!"
    Then follow with a surreal, slow motion video showing Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Kerry, Richardson, et al, smiling sinisterly, as they converge on the naive, "One;" The implication being that these hypocritical Washington insiders support Obama because he'll be easy prey, and prove to be a malleable "lawn jockey" for their evil motives. The finish could be something like, "Do we really want to place ALL power in the hands of these do-nothing, corrupt, Democratic Power brokers?"
    Personally, I get sick to my stomach every time, when Pelosi, confronted by a reporter's serious question flashes her ear to ear, lily white, painted on smile, her pearls flashing, and her mind on her vineyard in the valley. And ole Harry Reid, looking like he's lost and asking someone, "excuse me, but could you steer me to the men's room? I seem to have forgotten where it is."


    Lawn jockey?! (none / 0) (#122)
    by Emma on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:54:59 AM EST
    That's completely inappropriate.

    Parent
    And look at this .. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:28:34 AM EST
    page on RCP.  Only one of the polls has Obama up, and that only by 1%.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:51:29 AM EST


    Parent
    be fair (none / 0) (#74)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:54:42 AM EST
    Its the WSJ-NBC.  

    Parent
    The problem is attack is anathema (none / 0) (#67)
    by vicndabx on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:43:42 AM EST
    to the personalities of some dems.  From my armchair psychiatrist's perspective, the super-ego if you want to classify it.  In other words, "I aspire to be a nice guy and want to get along w/everyone and want to be well liked and don't want to risk not being liked."  That's why, IMO you hear alot of comments about reaching across the aisle and working together, i.e. I want to get along.  I think it goes against Obama's nature as a person to go after someone w/o first being provoked.  We talk about wanting a fighter, but the person has to not have a problem w/wanting to fight.  To me, the only thing Obama can say that still allows him to feel comfortable w/himself is McCain = Bush III.  Even that took a while for him to reconcile.  You won't see push back unless Obama is first pushed himself.

    Wow, a gruesome 527 ad...and it's a Dem one! (none / 0) (#75)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:55:40 AM EST
    link

    If this can swing  1% of women voters (or men--I was grossed out too!) away from the Palin lovefest it's worth it.

    I hope Obama has given the 527s enough time to work.  I think so, since it seems the American public only remembers the last thing they heard this week anyway.

    You think.... (none / 0) (#87)
    by NYShooter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:08:16 AM EST
    ...this will swing voters to Obama? Those who find it gross were never going to vote for McCain in the first place. All I saw was a desperate attempt to show Obama is a wussy, and fence sitting hunters, (you know, those "clingers") getting off the coach to vote for Palin/McCain.

    Parent
    It's playing in a few swing areas where (none / 0) (#90)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:14:52 AM EST
    it's more likely to affect the women's vote than the hunter's vote, so yes, I do think it has the potential to have a small effect at the margins--which is all the 527s need to work on right now.

    Parent
    527's (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:17:42 AM EST
    saying that they can't help at this late date. They said getting the money may or may not be doable but 2 months isn't long enough to put together a cohesive strategy.

    Parent
    He shouldn't have tried (none / 0) (#113)
    by kredwyn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:05:46 AM EST
    to negate them back when the $$$ drive to the 527s could've been useful. It takes time and $$$ to develop solid attack strategies.

    You start that early to really build up steam.

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#76)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:57:27 AM EST
    Bush had a larger advantage over Kerry in 04 after the convention.   Even Kerry managed to pare it down to 2.  

    There is still plenty of room for movement.  The post-debate polls should tell us what's what.

    If you're (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:15:53 AM EST
    relying on the debates to change the trends then go ahead and put Obama in the loss column. He's terrible at debating and unless he gets a ton of prepping between now and the first debate then you should expect him to go down in the polls.

    Parent
    The only consolation is that McCain (none / 0) (#93)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:18:14 AM EST
    is also a terrible debater.

    No, that's not much consolation.

    Parent

    I agree. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:21:34 AM EST
    The advantage McCain has is simply that he doesn't sound like a college professor lecturing. Has there ever been a presidential debate where to people watching all went to sleep? Ambien stock might take a huge dive after the debates.

    Parent
    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:22:51 AM EST
    Let me make a prediction: if nothing changes, Obama is going to lose this election.

    I haven't made that kind of prediction in a while.

    Parent

    from what I've seen (none / 0) (#104)
    by Lil on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:46:58 AM EST
    he will only win by the skin of his teeth, if at all. I think his campaign is terrible and too much like Kerry.  The difference for me, I'm just not as worked up as I was in 2004 (but it would be a major disappointment to not have a Dem President, after all we've been through).

    Parent
    The stakes are higher now, honestly (none / 0) (#105)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:49:06 AM EST
    This is the last stop on the "save the Supreme Court" express. And Obama is unable to change the conversation away from Sarah Palin's daughter.

    Parent
    Sincerity (none / 0) (#123)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:01:03 PM EST
    All McCain really needs to do is sound sincere and caring. People will pick up on that when they're in trouble. Obama hasn't been able to master that yet. He needs someone like WJC to coach him before hand. But would he listen?

    Parent
    The problem is attack is anathema (none / 0) (#100)
    by vicndabx on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:33:16 AM EST
    to the personalities of some dems.  From my armchair psychiatrist's perspective, the super-ego if you want to classify it.  In other words, "I aspire to be a nice guy and want to get along w/everyone and want to be well liked and don't want to risk not being liked."  That's why, IMO you hear alot of comments about reaching across the aisle and working together, i.e. I want to get along.  I think it goes against Obama's nature as a person to go after someone w/o first being provoked.  We talk about wanting a fighter, but the person has to not have a problem w/wanting to fight.  To me, the only thing Obama can say that still allows him to feel comfortable w/himself is McCain = Bush III.  Even that took a while for him to reconcile.  You won't see push back unless Obama is first pushed himself.

    It didn't need to be like this (none / 0) (#115)
    by Prabhata on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:07:58 AM EST
    We had a good candidate.

    I don't think that he (none / 0) (#124)
    by JDM in NYC on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:12:24 PM EST
    is post-partisan in a "let's all work together" sort of way; his belief seems to be "you're all wrong, and I'm the only one who's right." He should have run as an Independent. Instead he has run against the Democrats as much or more than he has run against the Republicans.  

    Liberals don't attack because... (none / 0) (#125)
    by pluege on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:37:53 PM EST
    they think deep down everyone is a nice guy:

    'mccain is a great American hero and man of integrity' [puke]
    'bush is everybody's drinking buddy'
    'the whack jobs using religion in politics are good people of faith'
    'conservatives mean well, they're just misguided.'

    In contrast, republicans/conservatives are very clear:

    'liberals sick! they are evil monsters coming to steal your money and eat your children. They're not like you and I' (even though a substantial majority of Americans relate to liberal policies and ideology more than conservative)

    liberals don't play politics for keeps, they'd rather whine about it and take brownie points for thinking to themselves that they're acting like a nice guy. Republicans play politics for keeps, like everyone's life and well being depended on it.

    correction: (none / 0) (#126)
    by pluege on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 12:40:14 PM EST
    "liberls sick!" should be "liberals suck!"

    Parent
    Obama On Offense: McCain = Bush's Third Term | 125 comments (125 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment