‘This is not a cost-free exercise’
Josh Marshall encouraged readers this morning to stop what they’re doing and read John Heilemann’s take on the state of the campaign in New York magazine. I’ll second Josh’s endorsement — this is one of the sharpest analyses I’ve read this week.
The race is, obviously, constantly changing and evolving, day by day, hour by hour, but as of right now, Heilemann’s piece is spot-on. The headline and the lede suggest it’s another piece noting how relentlessly negative John McCain has become over the last week or so, but the piece has considerably more depth than that.
Many of McCain’s advisers from 2000, such as John Weaver and Mike Murphy, express qualms about the campaign’s newly nasty tone. (One can only imagine the sigh of relief emanating from Mark McKinnon, the heralded adman who helped McCain win the nomination but whose aversion to taking a cleaver to Obama caused him to sit out the general.) “In this kind of year — a change election, with big issues at stake — that sort of campaign is not gonna be in a voice the American people can understand,” Weaver tells me. “And at some point, John will need the goodwill that he spent years achieving.” And you think he’s in danger of losing that? “This is not a cost-free exercise,” he says.
But Weaver, Murphy, and McKinnon are no longer guiding McCain. Instead, the motor behind his operation now is Steve Schmidt, the shaven-headed strategist who earned his bones running Karl Rove’s war room in 2004, Frenchifying and de-war-heroizing John Kerry. What Schmidt and his associates have apparently concluded is that McCain’s weaknesses — on the election’s most salient issues and as a candidate — are so pronounced and Obama’s vulnerabilities so glaring that the low road is their guy’s best, and maybe only, route to the White House. They’ve concluded, in other words, that even if McCain may not be able to win the election in any affirmative sense, he might still wind up behind the big desk if he and his people can strip the bark off Obama with sufficiently vicious force.
If this sounds like an admission of a certain kind of defeat, that’s because it is. But in the prevailing political circumstances — the hunger for change in the electorate, the abject bankruptcy of the Republican brand, McCain’s positions on the wrong side of the public on the war and the economy, his age, and his pitiful performance skills — it may reflect a cold-eyed realism that’s an asset in any campaign. Moreover, at least in the short term, it actually seems to be working. Measured against the generic Democratic ballot, Obama continues to underperform dramatically.
We talked the other day about a point Jonathan Chait emphasized — the likelihood of Obama needing to match McCain’s, shall we say, tone. Heilemann fleshed out Obama’s options, and likely reluctance to pursue them.
The alternative, of course, is to get on offense, to batter McCain for his gaffes and incoherence, hammer him for his flip-flops, highlight how his maverick status is a thing of the past, and turn him into a combination of Bush and Grandpa Simpson. God knows there are those in Chicago champing at the bit to do just that—not least, one imagines, Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, who can wield the cudgel of negative ads with as much vigor and glee as any Republican. Yet Obama seems reluctant to go there. Tough pol though he is, he’s a conciliator and not a confrontationalist at heart; he seems to believe that once undecided voters know him better, he will have them eating, along with so many others, out of the palm of his hand.
And who knows, even if Obama stays above the fray, he might still pull this thing off. Because as unwilling as he is to get down and dirty, McCain may simply be unable to drive a consistent negative message.
It’s a great piece. Read the whole thing.
Dale
says:Without Libra’s permission I’d like to post her comment from Friday:
51.
On August 2nd, 2008 at 12:04 am, libra said:
It’s “funny”…
I check
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
daily. For the past 2-3 weeks, the numbers (electoral votes) for the Presidential race were stuck, to the point where I thought the Votemaster wasn’t updating them:
Obama 292, McCain 195 and 51 ties.
For the past week, McChipmunk has been huffing and puffing and blowing hot air for all he’s worth and, today, there has — finally — been some movement. There are 27 fewer ties than before. How were those 27 distributed? 24 went to Obama, 3 to McCain. The tally is now:
Obama 316, McCain 198, ties 24.
At (reported) $140K a day that McCain is pumping into the Celebrity ad alone, it seems like a piddling return on his money. But, hey…. I’m no economy expert.
All is not lost.
DrBB
says:It’s a pretty simple picture out there in a way. Which side has the easier job of defining the other side’s candidate? Obviously McCain. So that’s what they’re doing. For his part, he can bank on a huge amount of perceptual inertia. He’s a “known”–a celebrity himself, in fact with a well-established media persona. The fact that he’s been manifestly contradicting that persona with increasing blatancy over the last 4 years gives Obama’s team lots to work with, but it’s still uphill skiing. From where I sit in my own corner of left-libertarian blogistan it does seem like the potential elements are there for Obama to flip this around, jiu-jitsu-wise. McCain surrendering his soul to the ugliest elements in GOP electioneering, abdicating leadership over his own campaign to a bunch of Bushistas, seems like a pretty powerful counter-story in itself. But it doesn’t exactly seem to be catching fire so far.
Doctor Biobrain
says:As I’ve been saying for awhile, this has nothing to do with McCain winning. The GOP Establishment would be idiots to allow that to happen. They’re just using McCain in order to cripple Obama before he becomes president, and thus make him easier to manipulate. McCain’s just the patsy being used as the main attack dog, because he’s in the best position to hurt Obama. But that only hurts McCain’s chances. They’ve tricked him into thinking this is his best chance and he’s willing to do it because he’s so frustrated at things not working out better. But the more McCain stays on the attack, the worse things will be for him.
But really, I don’t see it working. They’ve pulled this negative crap too many times and they really don’t have it in them anymore. They’re all exhausted and are doing it out of necessity, rather than the joy of being mean. All they’re going to end up doing is making Obama even more popular than Clinton was, because people really do reject this crap in the long run. By January, people are going to hate the Republicans more than ever.
Dale
says:A well staged demonstration with people carrying a coffin marked Old McCain to mourn the loss of the once-worthy opponet who has taken the dark side would get some press.
McCain says, “Obama I am your father.” Wheeze. Wheeze.
jimBOB
says:McCain is doing this because he and his strategists know that following a more conventional kind of campaign leads inescapably to a McCain loss. The dead weight of the Bush administration’s unpopularity and the GOP brand’s toxicity is pulling McCain down (not to mention McCain’s lackluster abilities as a campaigner, plus his age), and the only possible path to victory is to shake up the game somehow. Turning into a foaming-at-the-mouth maniac screaming lies, racial innuendo and ad hominems at their Dem opponent is something they know how to do (and it worked for Daddy bush in 1988). So that is the path they’ve taken.
Will it work? I can’t say for sure, but I’m skeptical. Economic conditions are serious, and there’s a palpable hunger for leadership rather than this continual schoolyard brawling.
One thing I think ought to be said. This is, I think, the end of the line for the Atwater/Rove campaign style. In a way it’s a bit like the right’s attitude toward Peak Oil and to climate change: they deny the basic problem and try to squeeze as much benefit from doing things the old way until there’s a catastrophic failure. The U.S. is changing demographically, and the path the McCain campaign is taking puts the GOP squarely in the worst spot for the future. The coming majority nonwhite U.S. will want nothing to do with a collection of unreconstructed bigots, yet the Republicans are trying to win one last election by appealing to their base’s worst instincts. Win or lose, this campaign will stand as the time the GOP sold out their party’s future for a few votes.
Glen
says:Mudslinging McCain = Bush/Rove
And everyone wants four more years of the Worst President Ever!
Kropotkin
says:I rarely disagree with the opinions expressed here but this is one case that I do. John Heilemann wrote his piece without bothering to look at the national and state polls. Obama is kicking McCain’s posterior across the country. The battleground states were red states in the last election. McCain is spending big money trying to defend what should be solid turf. Obama needs to keep doing what he has been doing and not get side tracked.
If Obama were to go negative; the corporate media would skewer him and he knows it. He learned that from Clinton. He could not match her negative ads because doing so would erase his brand. He won the democratic primary by doggedly presenting his vision and not by taking a cudgel to his opponent. The same goes for the race with McCain. Anything Obama did would be proof of his lack of respect for white people and the military. Finally, the negative ads are making Obama’s case about McCain for him. McCain does not have any new or fresh visions for America and that is what this country needs.
Ze'ev Shaked
says:The republicans have been destroying our country for 8 years. It is time to go home my dear republicans! I am not sure if the democrats will do better but at least we need a change, yes, a change.
I am sad that McCain is the republican candidate since he deserves better. But John, you need to be accountable with the rest of your fellow republicans and make sure Bush is history we can quickly forget and move on.
Let’s see what Obama can do but it can hardly be worse compared to where we are right now.
Scott F.
says:I would like to see Obama take more of an offensive tack with McCain. McCain has controlled the debate this past week with the negative ads, which get replayed endlessly on cable TV McCain’s staff knows it can roll Obama campaign with these ads and they will continue to churn them out. It’s time to change the game on McCain and play offense. Let’s see more of the South side of Chicago pol.
CrazyRidesRockets
says:Reviewing the polls at TPM election central earlier today, McCain is starting to chip into Obama’s lead. This will only get worse. He’s going to win, unfortunately, and we need to start coming to grips with that (and prepare ourselves for Clinton’s 2012 “I Told You So!” tour).
It’s obvious to me after the past week – the media is actively trying to get McCain elected. There’s no other excuse for the dishonest coverage of the latest attacks and the various deliberate attempts to misrepresent Obama’s words and deeds. They are not being duped by Republican talking points. They are not simply trying to make it a horse race.
What I would like to see is Benen, Marshall, et al. stop scratching their heads and wondering why the media is covering the race this way. Stop giving these hacks the benefit of the doubt and starting attacking them for the disgraceful Republican surrogates they so clearly have become.
Tom in Ma
says:We’re all fighting the last war, and even then, we are fighting a misconception about the last war. We are afraid that Obama is being Swift-boated, and will then lose like Kerry. But did Kerry lose because of the Swift-boating? Or did he lose because he wasn’t that attractive a candidate, or because just enough people were not willing to call it quits in Iraq, or because Kerry couldn’t really hammer Bush on Iraq since he voted for the war, or did Kerry lose because evangelicals in Ohio really got organized, or did Kerry lose because the votes weren’t counted honestly? We don’t really know.
Obama is responding to these negatives. He is also building a huge field operation and raising a ton of money, and keeping his message mostly clear, and keeping his brand clear while avoiding getting targeted as ideological, and not pragmatic.
The problem with focusing so much on the shortcomings of the media is that we can end up caught in the same bubble mentality that drives the media, as though what goes down between Rachel Maddow and Pat Buchanan on MSNBC some afternoon actually drives the election.
jimBOB
says:He’s going to win, unfortunately, and we need to start coming to grips with that
Jeez people, get a grip. In 2004 they had a sitting president, who wasn’t (yet) that unpopular. We had a mediocre candidate, who was attacked relentlessly by the Swift Boat liars, and the press was at least as bad against him as the current batch is against Obama. The country was NOT in recession, and gas was under $2 a gallon. Yet they barely squeaked through (and would have lost had it not been for vote suppression in Ohio).
This time through the general climate is far far worse for Republicans. They’ve had a hugely unpopular president for years, the economy sucks, gas prices are through the roof, and we have a far better candidate this time. Their (non-incumbent) candidate, by contrast, looks like death warmed over, and isn’t even trying to articulate an affirmative reason for his candidacy. Most of the smart money thinks the GOP will lose this time.
Enough with the mindless pessimism. It’s annoying, and it’s wrong.
Prup (aka Jim Benton)
says:As some one who has repeatedly argued for Obama’s strategy, and feels that the idea behind it — that politics really is about issues, and is important, too important for Rovian tactics from either side, I have little doubt that Obama will ‘pull it off.’ I also think the idea that he is ‘remaining above the fray’ is a total misunderstanding of what he’s doing.
When we talk about Hillary’s ‘awful’ campaign, we are right, but what made it ‘awful’ was the fact that Obama, by not ‘responding in kind’ made it look as pathetic as it was. (Sure, he could have hammered her hard on all sorts of points, from the Lincoln bedroom to Rich pardon to the AUMF vote — and I can imagine ads he could have run on these issues. But, ironically, and as he seems to know full well, these ads would have made her campaign more effective.)
(I should mention, btw, that I DO have one major complaint with the Obama campaign so far, not that it hasn’t attacked McCain, but that it hasn’t made a much bigger point of stressing Obama’s actual and considerable achievements. The ’empty suit with a speech’ meme is nonsense, but this is the one thing he and his surrogates CAN attack — and should.)
However, it is still just the opening days of August. Technically, the PUMAs are right that neither McCain nor Obama is officially ‘the nominee,’ just the ‘presumptive nominee.’ We haven’t seen the conventions yet. We haven’t seen the debates yet. We haven’t even seen split screen shots of the two men campaigning.
We have Republican candidates being told (as Steve informed us) ‘run against your own party’ by the National Republican Congressional Committee chairman.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16409.html
We have the electoral vote count already giving Obama more than enough to win — and that will keep shifting in his favor.
Every day for the last two weeks, I believe, Steve has featured yet another Republican or Conservative saying how disappointed/disgusted they are with McCain.
Six weeks ago we were talking about how we hoped Obama would pull off a victory in a close contest, were worried about the PUMA factor and the ‘Appalachian problem.’ Now we are complaining because Obama’s lead is only in the (high) single digits.
We were worried that if “Rezko, Wright, Pfleger and Ayres’ came out so early what else would come out — but nothing has and those four aren’t even being mentioned by trolls. (Those may have been, in fact, non-issues, but there was a miniscule piece of fact in them, yes Wright was Obama’s pastor, etc. The new smears don’t even have this molecule of truth behind them.)
We see Obama draw hundreds of thousands of people in Germany, and almost as many in the US, while McCain seems to be speaking before handfuls.
We see Republicans deciding not even to attend their own convention.
We worry about the MSM because, reportedly 78% of the copverage of Obama was negative — and ignore that 54% of the coverage of McCain is also negative. And judging by what i have seen, heard, and read, the negative covergae of McCain has been much more strongly negative.
For example, saying “Obama is moving to the right’ is false, but is it actually negative? Saying “McCain’s policies are nonsense, his attacks are phony, his own advisors are criticizing him, and his advisors are an embarrassment — all of which has been said in the MSM — is stronger than any criticism of Obama I know of in the MSM. (Faux Noise and hate radio are not MS whatever else they are.)
Run a test, will you, and report back on the results. Most of you have Republican friends and relatives. Offer to bet them $5 even money on whether Obama or McCain will be the nominee, and find out how many takers you get. (It’s a little riskier, but if you live in a ‘red state’ other than Idaho, Wyoming or Utah, make the same bet on which will carry your state. You’ll be surprised at how few people will take you up on it.)
In other words the short version is “RELAX! We’re gonna win.”
R.T.Thaddeus
says:I’m with CrazyRides on this. Obama has to start fighting back and the nastier the better. I am still on my hobby horse over the 2004 Repub Convention antics of trivializing, indeed dishonoring and insulting Kerry’s Purple Hearts. Remember the Purple Heart band aide charade? Maybe because two of my brothers got purple hearts in WWII and it really pissed me off. I would like to see a calm deep voice over as video of the grinning Repubs flashing their Purple Heart band aides “This is an example of Republican patriotism. Dishonoring and insulting the Purple Heart earned by thousands of American troops in all our wars who have spilled their blood fighting for their country.” Then juxtapose a shot of McCain giving Bush a big bear hug. “Is this what John McCain calls patriotism?” Or something to that effect. Remember also, that most American voters are simpletons and many vote against their own economic self-interest. And if they vote for McCain they sure as hell are, but they’re either oblivious or pathetically ignorant. I know I’ll catch hell for that observation but sadly I believe it’s true. Nice guys rarely if ever finish first in this fucked-up country.
CrazyRidesRockets
says:What happens between Maddow and Buchanan certainly doesn’t drive the election. Granted.
However, people who aren’t paying attention yet, or are only paying marginal attention, will certainly be swayed by misinformation in the press. It’s why so many people believe Obama is Muslim. It’s why so many people believe he didn’t want to visit the troops. It’s why so many people want to drill offshore even though it won’t lower gas prices.
McCain only needs a minute percentage of Americans to fall for bullshit. By constantly propagating bullshit, Dana Milbank, Richard Cohen, Chris Matthews, Wolf Blitzer and the rest will help make this happen. It’s quite a simple formula.
Steve in Sacto
says:“…(Obama) seems to believe that once undecided voters know him better, he will have them eating, along with so many others, out of the palm of his hand.”
It would be tragic if McCain turns out to be right about Obama’s messianic ego…
…Adding, I don’t know why there isn’t a concerted paid and free media effort that goes directly at the “Straight Talk” label — overtly, by name. I want to destroy the label itself to the point where he can no longer credibly use it. To the point where McCain’s method of arrival at campaign stops — the “Straight Talk Express” — mocks and ridicules him. To the point where simply stepping off the STE bus or plane disqualifies his credibility.
Prup (aka Jim Benton)
says:Thanks to Tom in Ma and jimBOB for making a point I’ve been trying to make about Kerry. He was a lousy, timorous candidate running against an incumbent who had not lost his popularity — and it was still close enough that Ken Blackwell’s manipulations probably were a factor. (The way that whatever we say about Florida in 2000 — and there is definitely a question which candidate did win by less than a couple of hundred votes there — though Bush v Gore was insupportable — it was Gore’s fault that the election WAS close enough to be ‘stolen.’)
CrazyRidesRockets
says:JimBOB –
Good points. I agree with you about Kerry. But remember that he was also hobbled by uneven press coverage. I remember thinking he hammered Bush in all the debates, only to see the press play up Bush’s performance due to the soft bigotry of low expectations. I predict a similar dynamic after the debates this time around. It will more than be enough for a 51-48 McCain victory.
Mindless hubris posing as optimism is also wrong and annoying. The letdown will be far less depressing come November if we stop telling ourselves that an Obama victory is inevitable.
lou
says:I am still waiting for a thorough analysis of McCain’s mental fitness to lead. The man has some very obvious and glaring personality issues. If McCain is just “having some fun” with Obama, just imagine how much fun he can have with all the powers of the presidency. The man is dangerous!
Equal Opportunity Cynic
says:We’re all fighting the last war, and even then, we are fighting a misconception about the last war.
I think Tom in MA is absolutely right there.
Unfortunately, human beings like to fit history into tidy patterns and come up with “silver bullet” changes that respond to it, right or wrong. Anyway, I agree that Obama certainly isn’t the same kind of candidate as Kerry and that the electorate appears to have matured in the last four years in realizing what a disaster Iraq has become.
Then again, I still have very little faith in the electorate to make the right choice when it matters.
Bruno
says:I agree with R.T.Thaddeus in regards to having to do something related to the way Republicans mocked Kerry’s purple hearts.
Since then a lot more veterans have come back from Iraq and Afghanistan with their Purple Hearts. Some of those soldiers were too young or in boot camp when the Republican convention was going on.
It would probably be refreshing for them to see what armchair Republicans at the convention thought about a fellow soldier who earned 2 purple hearts? I wonder if they’d still consider the GOP worthy?
I’m sure that those ads only need to be run in States with a heavy presence of military basis. That should cut down on the cost as well.
I’m waiting to see something like that. It would be a true depiction of ‘how’ hypocritical the GOP really is when it comes to honoring veterans, especially when also highlighting how they filibustered Veteran Benefits over and over again.
Bruno
says:Steve in Sacto made a good point as well in regards to the “Straight Talk Express” label McCain still has been using. Just as “Swift boating” has become synonymous with Republican deceptive advertising, it wouldn’t take much to make “Straight Talk” associated with flip-flopping.
People just need to be made aware of the 72 (and counting) position changes McCain has racked up so far.
Anybody up for the challenge to come up with a 30 second commercial.
Maybe Steve Benen, or one of his fellow like minded bloggers can come up with some kind of a contest. Kind’a like Stephen Colbert occasionally asking his viewers to submit interesting manipulations of certain footage. He did a great job with the “John McCain head” episode. That was outright funny, and close to the truth.
Elsie
says:I’m as confused as others – why these trivial attacks are having such an impact on voters.
The MSM (media) is completely complicit and takes the narrative ONLY from the Republicans.
McCain falsely attacks Obama’s character by “blah1” statement. MSM pounces on this false “blah1” statement. Obama denounces “blah1” statement with “blah2” statement. McCain distorts “blah2” statement and the MSM repeats distortion of “blah2” statement.
Instead of “REPORTING” the falseness of “blah1” statement and the correct context of “blah2” statement, the MSM just magnifies the false and distorted statements.
Why does McCain get to define ALL the campaign narrative? I feel like Obama has to always be on defense mode. He tries to be proactive with policies and agendas to let people know where he stands, but has to constantly address the annoying buzzing distortions that the complicit GOP MSM repeats.
Where and how can we change these distorted, misleading narratives and messages? Like really – drilling off the coast is a possibility – NOW?
I feel angry all the time instead of feeling positive for change. If Obama becomes president, it will become worse – the MSM will continue to distort common truths.
Steve in Sacto
says:“Anybody up for the challenge to come up with a 30 second commercial.
Maybe Steve Benen, or one of his fellow like minded bloggers can come up with some kind of a contest.”
How about the Obama campaign doing it? And using some of the millions they’ve raised to put it on the air? Pointing out that “Straight Talk” is BS is not “negative” or “low road” — it’s the truth. There’s nothing wrong with doing this. Indeed, not doing it would be political dereliction. Furthermore, making McCain’s lack of straight talk a major narrative/theme in paid media will cause the free media to scrutinize McCain’s statements in a way they do not now.
Taking “Straight Talk” away from McCain would cripple and likely finish his campaign. If McCain’s still seen as a “Straight Talker” in November Obama could lose. I assume Obama would like to, you know, win … although sometimes their actions (or lack of them) make me wonder…
mim
says:Oh, you take the high road and I’ll take the low road,
And I’ll be in the White House afore ye
Sorry, I couldn’t resist. I’ll have to read that article.
Fred J.
says:I saw Obama’s press conference this morning and thought he handled questions about the negative ads quite well — directly, concisely dismissing them and repeating the theme that the GOP has no new ideas. It gave a clear message: this is all just pointless nonsense, and although the media may insist on blathering about it, he’s going to keep talking about things that really matter.
I think this negative-ad stuff may raise a stink for a short while, but it doesn’t have much staying power. If McCain spends all of next week putting out more negativity, I can really imagine his pals in the media starting to dump on him for not giving them anything new to work with. It can really backfire on him, and his campaign doesn’t seem to have a good sense of when to stop. He’s already losing the “Straight Talk”, upstanding, civil-discourse image which was a huge part of his appeal to a lot of people.
And then what I’d like to see is the Obama campaign coming out with some harsh anti-McCain ads, focused on issues like his opposition to Jim Webb’s GI Bill. That would demonstrate that even when we attack, it’s substantive.
JD
says:I’m concerned about the passivity from the Obama camp. Voters respect candidates that fight back. If Obama can’t do it himself, then he needs to find a pit bull in his camp that can. Unanswered attacks are not good. I’m real concerned about this turning into a 1988-style fiasco, where our candidate dies a death of a thousand cuts, and won’t fight back until it’s too late.
Dale
says:Where are the rich guys who aren’t surrogates and can’t be tied to Obama? They should do the negative campaigning. They should make moveon.org look like moderates. And let Obama rebuke and renounce them, but still do it. Where’s the Schaif of the left?
Karl Rove
says:Yes Obama, stay above the fray, be another John Kerry and get your ass handed to you.
Karl Rove
says:@26
“I think this negative-ad stuff may raise a stink for a short while, but it doesn’t have much staying power.”
Really? How many people still think Saddam was behind 9-11? How many people think that Obama is a Muslim? How many people bought into the swiftboating of Kerry and the demonizing of Max Cleland?
The Republicans made heroes of draft dodgers and cowards of war heroes and the American public bought it.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people.
ESM
says:I keep hearing he should be winning by more, and perhaps that’s true. However he still seems to be doinig quite well. If you look at the last batch of polls (regular polls, NOT tracking polls) with the exception of the one debunked Gallup Poll you get the following:
Qunnipiac: Obama +9
Reuters: Obama +7
Washington post: Obama +8
NBC/WSJ: (Obama +6
Research 2000 : Obama +12
CNN/Opinion Research 7/31/08: Obama +7
That’s averages out to just over an 8 point lead.
The composites at pollster.com produce the following:
Obama 336, McCain 202
Not bad. And even if you go by pollster.com’s own method of having a separate catagory of leaners you get:
Obama 284, McCain 147, Tossup 107.
It takes 270 electoral votes to win. Today, Obama is 14 EVs above that threshold, while McCain is 123 below it.
Anyway you look at it he’s doing pretty well. I’m not saying he shouldn’t get more offensive, but this constant drumbeat of this being a virtual dead heat just isn’t true. At least for now.
JohnR
says:Hey Bruno.. Like you said yesterday…where are the surrogates? I puke every time the Rethugs roll out their surrogates. That asshole Rick Davis is a perfect example, browbeating Andrea Mitchell into submission the other day. The MSM seems to have no difficulty locating hacks to speak for McCain , getting gobs of air time. NBC seem to always trot out Rachel Maddow, who is committed but nowhere as outraged as she needs to be. Where are our attack dogs ! I want a stark raving outraged lunatic pleading our case.
zeitgeist
says:Prup, I understand about not spoiling Obama’s “change” message by engaging in “politics as usual,” but my concern is that because McCain is willing to be more “edgy” the media is letting him drive the agenda.
I’m not so worried that the McCain attacks on Obama will stick so much as I am concerned that Obama loses control of the stories, the timing, and the ability to get the attention to get his positive message out. The reality is that whether or not one thinks the public falls for smears, it is very clear that the press gets a kick out of them and will reward a smear with coverage that a good nuanced speech on economic policy will not. Indeed, had it not been for McCain’s ability to generate enough noise to drown out Obama’s signal for a solid week, I don’t think Obama would have had to back down on drilling. He was forced to do that in large part because his explanation of his position could not break through the wall of coverage on Paris, Britney, the “race card” and “going negative.”
The media will not pass the megaphone back to Obama if he is reamining high-minded, because at the end of the day the media is not high minded. They decide what is newsworthy, and the decision is clear: the traditional politics they understand is newsworthy. Nuanced, positive, adult activities are not. That is a real problem for Obama that cannot be ignored. In the primary he seemed to be able to set the rules of the game and the agenda for the campaign. Whether the press has changed or whether Team Obama is off their game, whatever the reason, he does not seem to be able to do that so far in the general. The press is making the rules and McCain is largely setting the agenda right now.
libra
says:Well, my goodness gracious me… Bob Herbert, *Bob Herbert*, the same Bob Herbert who’s always been so mildly spoken he’s been accused of being boring by most of the (white) “left”… *That* Bob Herbert has, finally, reached the end of his patience and let fly. Calling a spade a spade (I’m being literal here, not racially dog-whistling) and doing it with the same wit and elegance he always displays (he’s been my favourite columnist since I switched from WaPo to NYT)
I could have wished he’d held his horses till Tuesday (bigger visibility than Saturday, I think) but better than not at all. And, I guess, when you gotta go, you gotta go :^)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/opinion/02herbert.html?ref=opinion
Karl Rove
says:@34 Herbert is great at stating the obvious. But Frank Rich is the man for pulling bits and pieces from from anywhere and everywhere into an interesting explanation of the zeitgeist.
I hate him!
Karl Rove
says:“A small study of people’s reactions to the Britney-Paris ad suggested, however, that while people don’t like the ad, it caused them to doubt Obama, and small percentages who’d said before viewing the ad that they’d vote for him said afterword that they wouldn’t.”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/46165.html
They were going to vote for him and viewing this asinine ad changed their mind. You liberals just don’t get it: the American people are STOOOPID!
Fast Eddie
says:Obama can’t go negative and shouldn’t go negative.
First off, a huge part of his appeal to the electorate was that he wasn’t going to do that. He’s probably made as much of a deal out of the promise of a new manner of conducting politics as out of the policies themselves. If he gets into a pissing match with McCain – which is what Team McCain want – he becomes just another mean-spirited politician.
And, should it happen, the McCain camp will flip it round with ease. They’ll say – and are saying – that their ads were done with humor and a sense of fun (yeah, yeah, I know…), whereas Obama’s response-in-kind will be portrayed as vicious and unconscionable slurs on an honorable man, and oh by the way did we mention war hero?
There’s one thing that hasn’t been raised that I think is very important. We’ve seen attack ads before, but the more recent ones are slightly different that their predecessors. Rather than vilifying and demonizing, they’re mocking and taunting. They’re personal and they’re inviting the fight. It’s like the obnoxious barroom drunk who starts a series of spiteful remarks delivered with a sneering smile at you. Eventually he goads you into grabbing him by lapels and pinning him against the wall. At which point, he looks at everybody else in the room and says ‘Jeezus, I was only joking with you. Fuckin’ psycho.’ All of a sudden, you’re the bad guy.
Not to mention, Obama in attack mode would automatically become the ‘angry black man’. Don’t underestimate the power of that stereotype. The ‘angry black woman’ smear worked so well with Michelle Obama that she has become all but mute and invisible in this campaign. Getting angry and getting negative is not an option.
So what is? First, you respond quickly to all attacks with a measured tone and sweet reason. Secondly and perhaps more importantly, you control the master narrative rather than the individual story narratives. In other words, you frame McCain’s whole campaign as unworthy and low (something that’s increasingly happening already). Every time you respond, you mention the style and tone of the initial attack. Remember, people are expecting a hateful, vindictive campaign to emanate from a Schmidt-run campaign. Control the master narrative as being nasty, small-minded old school politics and you blunt the effect of each succeeding attack. Eventually, the attack strategy itself becomes counter-productive.
In any event, the McCain campaign can’t continue solely negative campaigning up until the election. From the conventions onwards, each candidate has to offer a vision of America’s future. Most of the damage to candidates such as Dukakis and Kerry had already been done by summer’s end. Drive up the opponent’s negatives and you also drive up your own. The final weeks before election day have to be devoted to raising your own positives back up.
Obama and Axelrod have run a cool-headed campaign. And while it may drive some Obama supporters to near distraction not to get into a slug-fest – and tracking polls may demonstrate the short-term benefits for McCain – they have to play the long game. I’d say they’re handling it just about right.
bcinaz
says:The guys who put the most unqualified person ever in to the White House twice are now running the McCain campaign. I think Obama is putting too much trust in the goodness of the American electorate.
I am hoping his campaign will at least engage in a little truth telling; i.e. McBush’s grade on veterans issues – a D or D minus; where he really stands on Roe; and not to mention – oh by the way – he was up ro his eyeballs in the Keating S&L scandall – the last time deregulation led to massive market banking failures.
libra
says:“Karl”, @35,
Unfortunately, sometimes, even the obvious has to be stated and, the plainer the terms used, the better. Things that seem obvious to you (and all of us here, at CB), may fall in the “I never thought about it *that* way” category for others.
Frank Rich is a much newer “discovery” for me, since I’ve been reading the paper — weekdays only — version of the paper for 7+ yrs, while the — online, weekend — version for just about 2. And, I have a suspicion that, while Rich may be more fun to read for such as us, he’s probably totally discounted by RW loons (and, possibly, independents too), the same way I automatically discount anything that comes out from Brooks’ or Kristol’s keyboard. If so, he might not be as effective as we might wish. Bob Herbert, OTOH… When a mouse roars, it’s an event worth paying attention to.
Tom Cleaver
says:Yet Obama seems reluctant to go there. Tough pol though he is, he’s a conciliator and not a confrontationalist at heart; he seems to believe that once undecided voters know him better, he will have them eating, along with so many others, out of the palm of his hand.
Liberal Democrats need to disabuse themselves of the idea that their fellow citizens are good, or the products of some long-dead “Age of Reason” (if it indeed ever existed past a few upper class intellectuals who could afford it).
Rove and his clone Schmidt are proving daily that Mencken was right: “nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.”
John Kerry and Al Gore both thought they could take the high road. So did Michael Dukakis. For that matter, so did Hubert Humphrey and Adlai Stevenson. Just saying their names tells you everything you need to know about how smart it is to operate from that point of view.
I can’t beleive some guy from Chicago didn’t learn this long ago. Chicago Rules are kick ’em in the balls and mash their nose into your knee as they go down, followed by several good kicks to the solar plexus, leaving them unable to breathe. And you come up behind them to start with.
If we lose this by being nice guys once again I am leaving the party oft “good government.”
One thing I learned a long time ago: you’re only willing to win to the degree you are willing to lose.
And I can say, as someone who talks to an average of 80 Democrats a day around the country, that the majority of the party wants to see this lily-livered bullshit stop. You don’t “conciliate” with someone who wants to see you dead.
Bruno
says:JohnR @ 32 Said: ….where are the surrogates? I puke every time the Rethugs roll out their surrogates….
It is amazing to see that McCain has so many surrogates carrying his water, yet pretty much all the surrogates on the left seem to remain silent.
Maybe I’m dreaming here, but is there a chance that Obama is biding his time, and wants his surrogates to hold off until later in the month? Like after the convention.
We all know that the media has a short attention span, and they can only take so many of McCain’s attacks at a time. McCain has been feeding them fodder for quite a few weeks now. I think that the media is getting tired of the diet.
Wouldn’t it be possible that Obama understands this and knows that, as the media starts ‘turning’ on McCain, Obama can start bringing out his policy ads. Each of his ads would also refer to one of McCain’s attack ads, and insinuate some lack of seriousness about the issues. BUT focus on the main policy office, almost peripherally mentioning ‘poor’ McCain who has nothing to offer.
At the same time, the surrogates on the left start going down after every single statement McCain proffers. Challenging him
What do you think? Naive? or possible
burro
says:“God knows there are those in Chicago champing at the bit to do just that—not least, one imagines, Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, who can wield the cudgel of negative ads with as much vigor and glee as any Republican. Yet Obama seems reluctant to go there.” – Heilemann
It sure seems like there would be some middle approach that would avoid calling McBush a vacillating, dangerous, spaced out old phart but that would also set aside this almost hands off policy.
Obama’s a smart guy and he’s got smart people around him. He’s been insulted, lied about and been described as frivolous. I can’t believe that he would have gotten this far and decided that turning the other cheek is the best approach. He’s the one who started all the “fired up” stuff. Right now he seems too relaxed for his own good.
libra
says:John R, @32 and Bruno, @41,
By his treatment of Wesley Clark and his call that all money should be directed to DNC or himself rather than outside groups, he’s, effectively, hobbled the surrogates. I’m not sure what to think about that; I see-saw, at least 5 times a day, between “wrong way, wrong way” and “maybe he knows what he’s doing”. When my — otherwise sweet-tempered and always thinking the best of everyone — husband says “he should kick that putrid McCain in the nuts; what’s he waiting for?”, I worry. Then, I remember the mastery with which he’d handled the primaries and I hope.
Bruno
says:libra @ 43 said: …By his treatment of Wesley Clark and his call that all money should be directed to DNC or himself rather than outside groups, he’s, effectively, hobbled the surrogates….
I agree that Obama should not have back paddled when Wesley Clark spoke the truth. We need more of the real Straight Talker – Wesley Clark that is, who also happens to outrank McCain and actually did ‘win wars’ unlike the braggart McCain.
I can see why Obama wanted to have all funds directed to the DNC or himself, however, knowing that most ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’ have a mind of their own; I don’t see that as a problem.
I have not given anything to the Obama campaign, because I feel he’s holding his own on that one. However I will give to local Democratic races, and have already given to out of State important election battles where it counts, and will give to MoveOn again, when I feel their effort meets my expectations.
From the comments I’ve been reading here over the years, I have no doubt I’m not the only progressive with ‘his/her own mind’ and will donate money where he/she sees fit.
I was referring to surrogates who do not need our money: John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark, Terry McAuliffe (our very own crazy attack dog), Paul Begala, Donna Brazille, Harry Reid and all other Senators, Nancy Pelosi and all other Democrats (minus the bluedogs), Howard Dean, John Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards, etc…
Just been wondering why they haven’t been out in force dispelling the lies… I sure hope it is part of Obama’s grand strategy.
jhm
says:I have to wonder whether the big name strategists are leading the attack here, or if it is Hon. Sen. McCain who is chomping at the bit and insisted on a surge to get him back on the front page. For one, thing, the number and negativity of this round of attacks is usually good for a bump (if that), and doing it in July rather than October seems a waste at best, and risks a slow news week turning into a retrospective on the lack of ideas from the campaign; especially if he doesn’t keep at it, which only increases the risks.
So, there must be some short term goal here. Maybe trying to move the polls before the Dem Convention, or goad Hon. Sen. Obama into an intemperate response (bad idea, I agree). At the end of the day, however, if Senator McCain doesn’t come up with something substantive in the next few weeks to a month, I predict that he will have reason to regret his impatience.
Stacy6
says:To everyone who has a great idea for an attack ad, you don’t have to wait for someone else to do it. You don’t have to have a massive budget and you don’t have to have gazillions of dollars for television/radio time. All you have to have is an idea, a way to make a digital recording, and the knowledge that you can put the final product on YouTube. You don’t even have to splice together video footage; you could do it with photographs and newspaper clippings. If not you, one of your friends/acquaintances will have the know-how to make your idea a reality. YouTube gives every single one of us the ability to make our voices and opinions heard on the national, nay /international/ stage. Every single one of us has the capability to be unofficial Obama surrogates.
I would love to see your purple heart idea make real, R.T.Thaddeus (#14).
Mark D
says:I know this comment will probably get lost (since it’s been a few days since this thread was posted), but …
While it is a great article, what people don’t seem to realize is that there’s a difference between going on the offensive and going negative.
Obama should go on the offensive by putting out ads that share his vision for a whole host of issues — and do so on the issues he knows McCain will pound Obama on, like energy, national security, and taxes. He can even do so by bringing up McCain’s plans (or lack thereof), and still not be negative.
Regardless, it appears that, once again, a Democrat is spending most of his time coming up with response ads, rather than being the one to get his message out first and controlling the narrative.
It’s not like Obama doesn’t have the money, yet I’ve only seen two different ads so far. What the hell are they waiting for?