« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Chicken Little Is Dead: The Genius Of Obama's Strategy
John McCain has become increasingly negative and uncouth this election season.
The newest McCain attack ad, hitting Barack Obama for having the gall to follow instructions from the Department of Defense, is the nadir (to this point) for the McCain campaign.
However, I'm here to spread the good news about McCain's latest strategery. Folks, Obama's been through this before.
The better news? It's going to collapse under the weight of its own stupidity - just like before, too.
I know we've seen plenty of negative campaign ads before, and we've certainly seen a negative campaign with a consistent message win elections (see: 2004 Presidential election).
But there's always been a good, reliable counter to those ads: tell the truth, and stay on your own positive message.
The problem is that no candidate (in my recollection, anyway) has been really willing to stay above the mudslinging and instead hold up a mirror to the opponent's falsehoods and blunders.
This is exactly what Obama is doing this election season. And, despite the desire to give a "Chicken Little" clamor for some scathing response to McCain's sophistry, I'm now fully convinced that his campaign, by electing not to venture into the Republican gutter, is absolutely distinguishing itself from McCain. It is that distinction which will be most telling in the fall.
Remember, the whole Obama concept isn't about standing around, holding hands and singing "Kumbaya". The Obama concept is about elevating the political discourse beyond typical partisan sniping.
For all the complaints about Obama being a flip-flopper, he's been remarkably consistent about this. That consistency showed throughout the spring, and throughout the summer to this point.
Yes, Reichwingers will eat the ad up. But those were votes Obama wouldn't ever get anyway.
The only reason to do a response ad, therefore, is to reassure moderate and undecided voters. Of course, Obama can do that with a statement and a few supporting statements from other lawmakers.
McCain's ad is unworthy of a similar response. Remember: Never argue with a fool; otherwise, they'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
I, for one, have watched over 20 years of "bait-and-bitch" politics determine the course of our country's leadership. Now, I get to watch a candidate reject that tired old model (and its tired old candidate).
I have faith that Obama's new "aikido" approach to combating smears and lies will continue to be effective. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be the presumptive nominee.
I say, let McCain go negative as much as he wants. Obama will turn his lies and invective against him, using the truth, supported by easily produced displays of fact. The contrast between their approaches and levels of decorum will be vivid - and McCain's death knell.
Comments (40)
Obama means what he says and says what he means!
I have such respect for him because he will not get down in the dirt with the repubs. And it appears that is driving McCain and his to only do more. I expect head spinning and pea soup shooting out of him any day now!
July 26, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
July 27, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I mean really, they are accusing him of going to the gym instead of visiting the troops and the shot they use is of him in Kuwait with the troops! Are they really that stupid? (Oh what am I saying.)
July 27, 2008 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just so we're clear... When Obama talks about transcending partisan politics, he's talking to the right.
It's a coded way of saying that he won't hold Bush and Co. accountable for everything they've done. There won't be any hearings or commissions about the Iraq War and all the mistakes that have been made. George W will skate as usual.
But Obama will get the White House in the bargain, and on balance that's a good thing.
July 27, 2008 3:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you're wrong.
July 27, 2008 4:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you want to make progress or assign blame. Would you like President Obama's energy assigned to putting Bush in Jail for all the wrongs he'd done or would you like him you use his time and energy reversing as much of it as he can as quickly as he can? Blame is a game that losers play so they don't feel like they're in last place.
July 27, 2008 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I personally would like both.
Obama's energy? How much energy did Bush use to ream out the DOJ?
All Obama has to do is appoint a Special Prosecutor and tell him/her to find the truth. He doesn't need, nor should he -- get into the thing himself. It shouldn't sap his energy to delegate this.
Now, he WILL need energy to try to undo the havoc that has been done to our country. But that is where I want him to spend it.
We shouldn't have to choose between justice and progress; we should expect both!
July 27, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just so we're clear...I'm well to the left of center, and I heard the message about partisan politics loud and clear. Apparently, a few others in my neck of the spectrum did too.
It's not about going backwards. It's about moving forward. You could hold 10 years worth of hearings on the Bush Administration and end up with not a single person going to jail. Frankly, I'd much rather invest that time fixing the damage from Bushco.
July 27, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, Obama is in a phase of reassuring the center. Once he's president, he may very well let certain "information see" the light of day.
Bush and/or some of his cronies could still end up in Jail.
July 27, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that it is reliable to `1"tell the truth, and stay on your own positive message." Haven't Democratic candidates for President tried this over the last 30 years, without appreciable success? Being truthful and positive is fine, as long as you get heard and appear in control. Being ignored or on the defensive is very dangerous in American political life. And if the media won't help a candidate make a recovery, it can be devastating.
July 27, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democratic candidates have NOT stayed on message for over 30 years. In fact, they routinely go OFF message to reply to negative GOP attacks.
Being ignored only works if most of the media isn't following you anyway. Obama doesn't have that problem, obviously.
Being on the defensive is also bad. But your analysis is incorrect, I believe.
Can you stop the GOP negativity? No.
Should you respond to every negative ad in kind? Obviously not - because you're then fighting the way the GOP wants you to.
This is not the same political environment of the last 30 years. It used to be that a candidate could tell a lie on Monday, have it discovered by Friday, and buried over the weekend because it's old news. Nowadays, when a candidate tells a lie, that information is on the Internet within minutes (if that, even) of the candidate speaking. It's researched by some site like TPM, and within a few hours, TPM TV has a feature on it, Politico's run with it, and the AP is picking it up.
In that environment, the old "bait-and-bitch" politics is exposed for the foolishness it is. Yes, low-information voters will still buy it, and still vote for McCain. But many low-information voters are low-info by choice. And it's MUCH more important to focus on undecided voters, as they frequently tip the balance in any large election.
Now, ask yourself: Which candidate, as of now, is more appealing to undecided voters? The one who has solid domestic plans, had a great week on his foreign trip, and isn't attacking his opponent with obvious smears? Or McCain?
July 27, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I admit there are times when I want Obama to respond in kind to McBush's nastiness. Instead I trust Obama's truthful and direct responses (definately not the usual Demo ignore or roll over).
As to who should/will investigate and expose the crimes of the Bush years, I'll leave that to the new Congress.
July 27, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting point.
I'm not sure that I want Obama to be responding to every smear put out there by the McCain campaign, but I'd like a little more proactivity from the Obama campaign.
They seized the narrative with this trip, and McCain stumbled and bumbled around in response. The Obama campaign should continue to seize the narrative.
July 27, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you've stated your point very well. And, until I started to see how the whole picture worked against Clinton, I agreed.
However, the whole bland, "brush-off-the-shoulder" Obama campaign response track to the McCain smearing is only making McCain look angrier and less Presidential with every passing day.
Every day now, McCain is basically pleading for press coverage - and his campaign is so inept that they don't realize it's the LACK of coverage that keeps Obama's national polling lead in single digits.
So, McCain has to do wilder and wilder things (yank Novak's chain on Veep timing, take out ads in American towns named Berlin on the same day as Obama's speech, take out two smear ads, junior-high-quality riffs on Obama's book title) just to get ink.
All of this will be put on a loop and run against McCain in the fall. In the meantime, I'm happy to give him all the rope he needs to swing from.
July 27, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
is only making McCain look angrier and less Presidential with every passing day.
To people who are following this election closely. But most aren't, and I'm concerned that the ad, and the viral e-mail about Obama snubbing the troops, which was a lie, will be the only information people remember from this time period. On the other hand, the Gallup poll is moving in the right direction, even though Gloria Borger said this morning that Obama's speech in Berlin was going to backfire, big time, in Ohio.
I'm definitely torn about this. I don't want to see the Obama campaign engage in the negative campaigning that McCain already is. On the other hand, if that crap works (and the swiftboat ads definitely did) then the Obama camp needs to do something to combat it.
July 27, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The key is that most people aren't paying attention right now.
They'll start paying attention around the time of the conventions.
At that time, and at the debates, Obama will be able to put McCain on blast just by replaying all this nonsense.
In no way do I advocate complacency or overconfidence. But we knew this was coming - and it's easy to project that we haven't seen the nastiest stuff from McCain. It's hardest to hold your line and believe in your strategy when people start trying to tear you down personally. But, if my candidate is willing to hold the line and respond only with facts, then I'm good with that too.
July 27, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. People are paying attention and that's why Obama's numbers are going down in swing states. We have short memories if don't remember how the Dems sat back during the swiftboat attacks on Kerry thinking they were to ridiculous to be believed. Kerry's boat sank fast once those took hold.
If we have learned anything since our exile to minority status, it is that negative ads work, especially when they are not countered. I'm not suggesting Obama should use negative ads, but Obama surrogates need to push back on the lies and distortions being manufactured on a daily basis by mcnasty. The fall will be too late.
July 27, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Polling numbers in July aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
Many people - ESPECIALLY those who followed the primary season - are taking a break right now. And those who are paying attention are watching everything.
Obama's already pushed back on the ad, with his own statement and separate condemnations from Hagel and Reed.
Also, remember that this was a very small ad buy. So, why do it? To get the media to talk about it for free, and see if Obama will swing at a pitch in the dirt. The ad itself, though, is ridiculous, and still doesn't approach what was done to John Kerry. It doesn't deserve the rapid-fire response required for the SBVT ads.
The fall is the perfect time to outline all of McCain's lies and exaggerations. The sheer weight of the GOP BS will swamp them.
Remember the Clinton campaign? They were masters of the 24-hour news cycle. Steve Schmidt, McCain's new top dog, is very good at it too. But what those people don't understand is that news cycles are much shorter now - and information is much more plentiful - because of the Internet. People can go catch up on the campaign in an hour's reading, or watch all the video clips they want. When they look at the body of work, McCain comes off horribly. That retrospective ability, and the speed of reporting, is what makes those 24-hour news cycles obsolete.
July 27, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"..even though Gloria Borger said this morning that Obama's speech in Berlin was going to backfire, big time, in Ohio."
Ok, Gloria Borger is an idiot, at least she was this morning. Listen, I rail against my fellow americans as much as the next guy - but even toothless rubes understand that a future leader of the free world being accepted internationally isn't the worst thing in the world.
July 27, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Gloria Borger said that about Ohio, then she's totally full of shit.
She must be "thinking" about West Virginia or Kentucky.
Like all states, Ohio has its rubes, but the rubes aren't the majority, as she seems to intimate.
People like Borger see the primary results and ignore the fact that Ted Strickland, more than anyone else brought HRC the big primary win in Ohio. If Strickland was on the fence or backing Obama, then Obama would have won the Ohio primary.
July 27, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moreover, why would Obama's speech "backfire in Ohio?"
As opposed to anywhere else?
What a stupid assertion.
July 27, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what it is - Obama morphed right into The Prez on that trip. They are all panicked and looking for any little thing they can seize on to try to get the picture of President Obama with Patraeus in a helicopter; President Obama giving a speech in Berlin, etc. etc., out of people's minds as fast as they can.
July 27, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. And the contrast is stark, because McCain is not good at looking presidential. It's not just the years -- or the mileage -- but his tendency to oscillate between ingratiating humor and flares of temper. He rarely looks comfortable or confident.
Superficial -- but it's the kind of thing that sways swing voters.
July 27, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was one of the handwringers last October....then I learned to stop second guessing
He da greatiss
July 27, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was a handwringer, too, and I think TPM was what got me through the primaries without a nervous breakdown. The confidence in Obama here never seemed to waver. I'm better now, but haven't reached your higher state of existence yet.
July 27, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel your pain. :-)
The only thing that got me through the primaries was watching how Obama reacted to Clinton - and how his plan worked out, even though I was more and more nervous throughout May.
July 27, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's PTSD from the last two elections -- and especially 2004.
July 27, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you're correct that Obama's tactic will work. I certainly agree with it, and it makes it very easy to be a supporter of Obama because his campaign is so dignified, taking the high road over the smearing low road.
My fear is that the Rovian swiftboat tactics will work again. I'm disappointed that McCain has already taken to putting out false ads. If Obama keeps up the high road, and wins large without smearing, that alone will do our country's politics a hell of a lot of good right there.
July 27, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
One can only hope.
July 27, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
This ad shouldn't be seen as a plus for the GOP, it should be seen as an opportunity by the Obamites, if they're as smart as they sometimes look like they are. The McCain idiots should have left this kind of thing to their surrogates and their noisemakers. By going with a campaign ad they've given Obama a big fat target they can use to turn the story into "Look how negative McCain is being, in his own voice, so early in the campaign." It's not the only data point they can use for this by a long shot either. "McCain Campaign's Relentless Negativity" is one way to turn this thing against them; I'm sure there are others. I hope we see something along those lines in the next 48 hours or so. If past examples are any guide, that's about when it will come.
The one thing I do know: just sitting there claiming the moral high ground is a loser's strategy. I don't think Obama's crew are as delusional as Kerry's were about that. I've seen some evidence that they're playing a smarter game of chess when under attack than the usual Dem candidates ever seem to manage. But rope-a-dope isn't gonna cut it. We've seen how that one plays out and we'd BETTER have a smarter team going this time or we're screwed.
July 27, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are stuck back in 2004.
It's a different world now. Bush is polling in the low 20s. Repugs are terrified they are losing their seats and their majority and the White House - cause they know it.
You can be as concerned as you want to be - but I think it's a waste of time and energy.
THIS IS NOT 2004. OBAMA IS DEFINITELY NOT KERRY.
And Terry McAuliffe isn't running his campaign.
July 27, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama should take the high road. Responding to McCain would pull him down into the gutter with McCain.
But there are plenty of other people who should be pointing out that McCain is cynically using the wounded troops as a political football.
Where's Howard Dean?
There are people who believe this nonsense, and vicious lies should never go unchallenged.
July 27, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like your analysis, and I think you're right.
The thing that is paramount to his campaign is to show voters they can trust him and rely on him to know what he's doing and to be reasonable - for want of a better word. He wasn't that well known when this started and the only road Obama could walk to the White House is the Middle Road.
Look at him. If he was a leftists' leftist, he would so be already gone. He's walked a razor's edge throughout this campaign and he's practically danced on it - I've never seen a candidate with such grace.
July 27, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only did Obama put the questions about him being presidential enough to rest, he brings to my mind an even more distinguished role. He is a statesman.
July 27, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos to Obama for his grace, indeed. I know that if were being questioned by Brokaw who took an unhinged opinion by David Brooks and stated it as fact, my response would have been, "Are you f'ing kidding me?" Instead Obama artfully turned it around. Still, when the best hatchet man Obama has right now is Chuck Hagel, it does get me concerned about where the heavy-hitting surrogates are.
July 27, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden also kicks major ass.
And Hillary is going to campaign actively in August. I hear she knows a thing or two about fighting.
July 27, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goddamn, Boyd, that is a fine post. These attacks from the right start to creep into my head, and your post is exactly what I need to remember 29 words.
I have no idea how to put a link in a comment, so this may or may not work, but these are the 29 words to which I am referring... http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/29-words-the-reason-obama-won.php
July 27, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I want Obama to be Prez much more than I care about Bush being prosecuted as I'm so disgusted by Bush/Cheney and all the ills theyve wrought I just want them gone. but to blame them is irrelevant: theyre ALREADY GUILTY of everything theyre accused of and them some. so blame isn't needed. theyre guilty.
July 27, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post. I especially love the aikido reference. That nails his approach. Disarm first, confuse second, present counter facts third. At that point, the opponent is trying to figure out which day it is.
July 27, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice philosophy, Boyd. Pity it didn't work for John Kerry.
Any candidate has to respond to ANY false accusation, and fast, because -- let's face it -- all voters in every human polity, although not stupid, are ignorant as hell where politics is concerned, and if some candidate throws out an accusation and the other doesn't answer it they naturally tend to assume that it's because he doesn't HAVE a reply to it. Fortunately, Obama usually seems clearly aware of this unfortunate fact.
(By the way, back in the 1980 election, we had a spectacular example of this in Sacramento, near where I live. Respected state senator Albert Rodda figured he didn't need to run any campaign ads to swat down an obnoxious, smarmily fundamentalist ultraright challenger named John Doolittle -- after all, he'd been representing the voters for years, and surely they knew him. Doolittle won in a narrow upset because (as the polls later showed) most of the voters had gotten Rodda mixed up with a Southern California Democratic state senator named Alan Robbins who was currently involved in a child molestation scandal. Yes, that's the same Doolittle most of you know about -- after he got thrown out of that district in the next election, he moved to my own district.)
July 27, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment