« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Repriming Obama...
One thing the GOP and the Clintons have always had in common is that they know the power of saying the same thing incessantly - that if you say it loudly and long enough it'll become a truth in enough voting minds, regardless of evidence.
I was so encouraged when Wes Clark came out on MSNBC and socked it to them - John McCain does NOT have foreign policy/international relations experience - what he has is limited millitary experience.
I hoped the rest of the party and especially the Obama campaign and surrogates would pick up the theme and really run with it. Instead, it's disappeared into the ether.
We had Harry Reid coming out and saying that McCain doesn't have the temperament needed for C-in-C. Does everyone else keep running with it? Nope.
You only have to keep reading the Jed Report to have seen endless examples of McCain flip-flopping or contradicting himself and, crucially, clearly not knowing the facts.
Obama himself has said sometimes that McCain's oil policies were gimmicks.
He's told rallies that McCain's policies are for Wall Street, not Main Street. He knows damned well that McCain has nothing for education.
So playing a word association game this morning on Fox Business Channel, asked for a word to describe McCain what did he come up with?
neocon... bomb... militarist... right wing... war... confused... all over the place... filthy temper... Bush...
Add to the list.. take your pick...
No. He chose `honorable`
Pathetic. Simply pathetic. Actually, it's tragic.
Comments (5)
Fran,
A couple of points, if I may.
1. The tactic you cite in your first paragraph pre-dates the Clintons and its alleged use by the GOP. It is the tactic espoused by Josef Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda for the Third Reich.
2. It may be a guy-thing, but a 46-year-old man does not throw punches at a 71-year-old man, period. Particularly one whose grandfather and father served as Four Star Admirals in the United States Navy and who himself was a Prisoner of War and subjected to brutalities far beyond what the average human being goes through in life. IT'S JUST NOT DONE.
3. The Big O owns the issues---that's all he needs to win.
4. Attempts at personal destruction of McCain-as-a-man can only redound to the favor of the man being attacked. Destroying McCain's political positions by deferential criticism make Barack appear as a much stronger, and decent man than would ad hominem attacks.
5. His word association of "honorable" in regard to the mention of "McCain" shows the proper respect that a young man owes an older man, virtually ANY older man. It evinces Obama's good upbringing and his respect for people who have served in uniform.
6. Finally, it differentiates Barack Obama from the entities mentioned in your first paragraph as well as the additional one cited in my first point.
Fred
June 26, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll go away and think about this one... (I'm not convinced, but I'll think about it. )
June 26, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
F,
Fair enough.
F
June 26, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK I thought and we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Obama's running for President. Your suggestion is on the same lines as what held him hostage throughout the primary - a black man couldn't be seen to be beating up on a white woman.
This is the real thing now - he has to set the tone and substance of the debates. Gloves off time.
He can cop some amount of criticism when he says things initially - but if he sticks to his guns and has enough other high profile surrogates echoing the memes he sets, then those memes can take over.
June 26, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's worth noting as well that Wes Clark, while hitting McCain on this, also used the word 'honorable' to describe him. ;)
June 27, 2008 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment