« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Kerry: With Friends Like This...
Okay, it's perhaps not that bad, but like many I'd been pretty disgusted a few years back with the Democrats' inability to get out message points and stick to them as they fanned across talk shows. Along came 2006, and Cliff Schecter became a rather prominent Dem attack dog, and while I thought he came across a bit too Eddie Haskell and went on and on too long, you at least always knew what he was doing and what his point was (cause he repeated the damn thing 12 times, cutting off the other person and calling the other side schoolyard names). I imagine there would be blowback from his abrasive insulting technique, but I knew whose side he was on and what his point was.
Matt Stoller notes that John Kerry's stint as TV spokesman for Obama may make people feel good that he's expressing Obama's views well, but in the last month he's lost the war on Iraq despite Obama's trip there to and Afghanistan - Obama has lost ground to McCain on that very war issue. Kerry throwing Clark overboard wasn't very ingenious, and in the end we have a warm-bucket-of-spit response team that may come across as adult and responsible, but in the end fails to serve its purpose: control the TV message, make sure Obama's 3 or 4 talking points prevail.
The ObamaPalooza tour has come to its end. It's become an object fit for ridicule - "Obama to speak in Roman Coliseum! Obama to speak to entire population of Florida! Obama speech to be beamed from Outer Space!!!" - so that he has to find other ways of exciting the existing and new fan base - Nirvana Unplugged, the one-on-one tour, back to basics. I don't think the dribble of Veep possibilities has helped him - the suspense game has gone on too long, even for political junkies like me, and the backroom skinny over the last 2 months has done more to turn people off than engage, each new position change and Veep possibility opening a new can of disappointment for some segment.
So it would behoove Obama to get a fresher, more nimble set of spokespeople for his TV presence, people who can not only refute smears but do it in a way that quickly clarifies the issues for the public. Step back from the audacious & pretentious cliff, climb down off the pedestal - the reason the attacks are working is because they resonate - and stoke up the warmth machine. Barry, the kid from Hawaii who grew up shooting hoops and hanging out, worked hard through school, settled down among people who had problems, and came up with some simple but needed ways to improve things. Ways that we can all participate in, in small simple steps.
Because sometimes we're our own worst enemies - sometimes success breeds failure. Time for Image and Message Remake 101.
Comments (50)
Interesting take. However, I think the McCain tack on ridicule is ultimately doomed to failure.
I think anything Obama can do to provoke that McCain/GOP reaction ultimately harms McCain.
I completely agree about Dem surrogates needing to do a better job of staying on message.
August 7, 2008 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like this idea... however, it will most likely spark howls of "Look! He's always redefining himself!" and "He's not comfortable in his own skin!" Let's just hope he doesn't suddenly start wearing nothing but "earth tones."
August 7, 2008 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not talking about a new personality, just a change of venue with a performance that fits the venue. Hillary played with the equation all through the primaries and got it working finally. Obama's of course worked for that audience but needs to appeal to a different profile now. Not everyone is into stadium concerts.
August 7, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that weekly self-reinvention worked so well for Hillary.
August 7, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe she kicked Obama's ass in April & May. Where do you think it worked poorly?
August 7, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
In May Sen Clinton got trounced in North Carolina (after playing up a lot of hype about a close race there), barely eked out a win in Indiana, a state she was supposed to win handily, and finished with a big victory in West Virginia. In other words, a big loss, a small win (which was really a loss in the public relations war) and a big win. Does that really count as "kick[ing] Obama's ass"? It seems to me that the reality is quite the opposite. Her failure to deliver on her promise of an upset in North Carolina and her inability to deliver the big win she promised in Indiana were the final nail in her candidacy's coffin. May was a terrible month for her, West Virginia notwithstanding. What more, her big West Virginia win did not even coincide with a major reinvention. Agio is right; the quick-change artist routine has been proven a failure.
August 7, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
My god, you have too much time on your hands! ;^}
August 7, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love how he simply forgets that Kentucky exists.
Not to mention Pennsylvania.
August 7, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: too much time on my hands - I plead guilty to that. I should be working on the resubmission of my NIH grant, but the deadline is months away and the revisions are tedious, so I am procrastinating on the internet. No doubt I have better things to be doing, but that is precisely why I am here instead.
Re: Kentucky - once again, guilty as charged. It is not that I forgot KY, but rather in my memory, it took place in June, not May. I am not sure that this correction substantially alters my broader point, however. May was still the month that everyone took notice that Clinton's campaign had run off the edge of the cliff and (like Wily Coyote in the cartoons) it was this taking notice which prompted her crash. KY and WV did not reverse that decline.
Re: Pennsylvania - The PA primary occured in April, not May.
August 7, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
PA did take place in April. As Desi said:
August 8, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tis interesting, the workings of Rove. Take an opponents strength, turn it against them. Obama's great with crowds, gets them excited, so.... blow it up even bigger than it was after Berlin... and render that strength less easily usable. The Denver Stadium speech now, for instance, becomes something more problematic. So yes, for the interim, Obama definitely needs to avoid the Big Scene. I'd go funny, personal, close-to-the-ground.
And screw Kerry. He was the better choice when he ran, but as a surrogate, I can't stand him. He brings out my inner redneck. Which, granted, is 98.6% of me, but still. I'd rather have a Carville - or some other blunt-talking, fast, smart-cracking mouthpiece out there. Someone who's not afraid to nail McCain to Cheney, and make him hurt - while Obama does his thing.
August 7, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
An excellent post. In my view, Kerry is the ultimate loser. The fact that he, Kennedy and Daschle have so actively sponsored and promoted Obama is the source of my greatest reservation about Obama. Most puzzling is why the one person who has the most potential to be a devastating Obama surrogate is so silent.
August 7, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Devastating Obama surrogate.... hurrrrrmmmm.... Edwards mebbe? (Dodged a bit of a bullet there, didn't we?) Clark? (No.... apparently we didn't like him.... brains AND bravery... can't have that).... ok, 'nuff kidding.
Obama & Bill - The "Can You Fucking BELIEVE This" Ticket. You're right Billy G, Bill C's the man. He'd wrap ole McCain up in a bear hug, and feeeeeeel the pain right outta him. The Man From Hope & The Hope-Filled Man. I'm with ya.
One problem. What do we do about Hillary?
August 7, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. As long as neither Clinton is running for anything, they can work as a team. They can tag-team McCain and his surrogates. Plus, you get your guy (and mine) Carville for free.
August 7, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is funny that Obama can't or won't get the Unity Pony out of the corral. Bill at the end of the day just wants to be scratched behind the ears. Hillary's already working for Obama - why not higher profile? Methinks his ego or some odd political calculation - doesn't want to be in debt to them politically and has taken this much only because he has to?
August 7, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think ego. Not just his, but the rest of the Obama machine. They can't get past the way she beat him in the big states. Made him limp into the convention with a technical victory instead of a mandate. The question is, with Michigan in play this year and Romney in the game, can they afford not to give her whatever she wants?
August 7, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ego trumps logic.
August 7, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it possible -- please don't trounce me with ridicule, as this is a sincere question -- that Obama's message machine has suffered some inner angst, resulting in outer floundering, since HRC advisors were taken on board? I ask this without -- I repeat, without -- criticizing HRC herself, but only her now legendary inner circle, distracted by the desire to immolate their other?
August 7, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's not possible. They're getting paid to work for a new boss, and if Obama wins, they'll get future paychecks, too, from a plum position.
August 7, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure which HRC people these are.
My theory on Patti Solis-Doyle is she was picked up as a token woman to put in a to-date "Chief of staff VP for non-existent VP candidate" position just to show they could put some women high up. She may even have an office in Boise, Idaho for all I know.
But sure, blame it on Hillary or her people. It's to be expected.
August 8, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have a hard time with Clinton sulking because he doesn't get 4 terms in the White House. Washington was content with with two, and Bill was no Washington.
August 7, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like John Kerry, but I'm sorry to say he's the kiss of death. He's the one who should be mothballed, not Wesley Clark and not the Clintons.
The Democrats put forward an exciting new brand and then use a deadly serious, humorless sales team to sell the brand? That doesn't make any fucking sense. It's as if the Democrats are afraid of Barack Obama.
August 7, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just got form letter Clinton sent to out of state volunteers. Here's the closing paragraph.
"Now we embark on the next leg of this historic journey. Please know that I will continue to work for the safety and security of our country and advocate for the millions of Americans who are without health care, who are disenfranchised, or unable to achieve their God-given potential. The these ends I will work vigorously to unite our party and win back the White House in November."
No mention of Obama anywhere in the letter. As you know, out of state volunteers are hard core. She's not taking a chance on pissing them off.
August 7, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tip my hat to her for mentioning health care. It is astounding how quickly that issue has dropped off the radar of late. Mind you, the space it had occupied is currently taken up with discussion of energy policy (an equally important topic), so things could be worse, but I am still a touch disappointed that no one seems at all interested in discussing the Obama and McCain health-care plans. The issue looks already to be as dead as it was in 1992. If Clinton can manage to use her high-profile status to keep it alive, she will deserve our gratitude.
August 7, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er, 1993, not 1992.
August 7, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clark is the one who put the Obama campaign in damage control for a week. Kerry has delivered the message they wanted delivered. I mean, nice wishful thinking, but it's simply not true that Clark is a better surrogate since his carelessness gave an opening to McCain and the GOP.
August 7, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
What brand? Remind me again what the Demcrats stand for these days. I forget.
August 7, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama brand.
August 7, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
We stand for Obama.
August 7, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't this rather beg the question? Are the attacks working? How would we purport to know that they are? What is the evidence for that contention? Anyone who wants to can look at the Pollster.com graphs to the right of the EC threads and see that the national average has been bouncing back and forth between McCain and Obama for months now. In other words, these numbers bounce back and forth quite regardless of circumstances. Why, then, suppose that present ups and downs have much of anything to do with present circumstances? Meanwhile, in the charts that really matter (the state polls), Obama's numbers continue to go up and McCain's continue to go down. I do not mean to be obscurantist, but when those are the data as we have them, I am hard pressed to see my way to the conclusion that "the attacks are working."
August 7, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Survey USA Missouri July 31 McCain 49 Obama 44 Get your ass in gear, Greg.
August 7, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) I assure you, my ass is already in gear.
2) That poll and $2.50 will buy you a cup of coffee. KSDK (the St Louis NBC affiliate) commissioned that poll at the end of the month and found McCain 5 pts ahead. The St Louis Post-Dispatch commissioned another poll a few weeks before that and found Obama 5 pts ahead. A week before that PPP found McCain 3 pts ahead, and a week before that, Zogby found Obama 2 pts ahead. Just like the national average, the Missouri numbers are bouncing back and forth. It is all just statistical noise at this point. I would not count on us carrying Missouri, but to the extent that I am worried about McCain winning here, that poll has precisely nothing to do with my anxiety.
August 7, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I had the fantasy that I was going to be able to relax in Michigan, needle you anxious types in swing states, and maybe even do some symbolic work for McCain, just to express my opinion of Barry. I even bought one of those tire gauges as a souvenier. Now I find I'm going to have to work in Michigan to try to hold McCain off. You guys promised me a unified Party, country and a landslide victory. I just don't know who to trust anymore.
August 7, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hah? Glad to have you aboard. Consider this proof that we Catholics were right all along about purgatory - you really do have to suffer for all your sins, but there is a relief in sight at the end.
August 7, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
How strange, I would swear that I typed "hah!" not "hah?". I am not even sure what "hah?" means. Please mentally revise the above in light of this correction.
August 7, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Telling Billy to trust the church? Change he can believe in? How many Obamas can dance on the head of a pin? Through him lies salvation? Guess we're back to eternal truths.
I'm not suffering for my sins - I'm suffering through yours. Though if I could only hear that bagpipe it'd be some consolation.
August 7, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Playing the tunes of glory.
August 7, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
A distinction without a difference at this point.
August 7, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly you're right.
August 7, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fiddles may have to do, Des. This be Ashley, when he was on. Damn them Cape Bretoners can go. As fer moiself, it's back to the land of the Gaels for me for a coupla weeks - and well off the E-chain. Misbehave. Billy'll need someone to pray for.
Sleepy Maggie.
August 7, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never let the facts interrupt your stream of bullshit.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/obama_lets_bill_clinton_off_th.php
Obama Lets Bill Clinton Off The Hook
By Greg Sargent - August 7, 2008, 2:39PM
Bill Clinton took a bit of heat for supposedly refusing to say in an interview the other day that Obama was ready to be president...
The former president said he would not divulge his full thoughts on the campaign until after the election, and also stopped short of saying that Obama was currently ready to be president.
"You can argue that nobody is ready to be president. I certainly learned a lot about the job in the first year," Clinton said.
But today, speaking to reporters on his campaign plane, Obama himself appeared to let Bill slide...
Obama also spoke with President Clinton this week. "He was very supportive. I thought he showed extraordinary restraint in a fairly provocative interview while he was on his trip."
August 7, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton to speak at Democratic convention
from CNN, posted by readytoblowagasket August 7, 2008, 10:27PM
August 7, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, Matt Stoller has not proved to be a sound thinker or political tactician. He backed a candidate in Georgia against Barrow, as a "real progressive", until it was discovered that she had a 100% rating with the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, and had been given a chairmanship in the GOP-controlled Georgia State Senate (an indication of her playing ball with them). That is part of his fool hearted attempt to target "Bush Dogs" whom are in difficult districts to win. He hasn't a clue about the local situation, and swoops in like a carpetbagger with too little information coupled with too much arrogance.
With that background out of the way, John Kerry has been a surrogate for Obama since January 2008. He was effective back then, as he is effective now. He has been playing attack dog against McCain, especially good since it was a negative ad week from McCain. Obama has had a good week this week, and the polls have proved remarkably stable.
As to Clark, Kerry simply said he disagreed with his remark, and then turned the conversation to McCain's bad judgment, policy positions, and dishonorable campaign. The only ones making a stink out of it are disgruntled lefty bloggers; it did not make the news anywhere.
As for the Iraq poll, well events on the ground in Iraq are largely responsible: the violence went down. I do not think Iraq will be the overarching issue of the election, and Obama is still well positioned enough, so that he can shift to the economy and energy policy, where he has scored some points this week.
August 7, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Matt Stoller made a mistake? I'm sure he's made more, but he's done a good job pushing progressives. What did Rahm Emmanuel and Steny Hoyer do right?
Matt noted Obama's polls have gone down on Iraq. He linked that up with Kerry's unpersuasive performance. Explain how you conclude Kerry has been effective.
August 7, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kerry's lacking is not in the substance of what he says, but rather in the fact that he is such an awful communicator. I cannot for the life of me come up with a memorable thing he has ever said that stuck in my mind.
At this stage, this campaign is indeed a one-man show communications-wise, but the truth is there are only a few good Dem communicators out there, and 99% of them carry the Clinton surname.
August 7, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It appears that Sam Stein disagrees with us.
August 7, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just wasted my time reading that frivolous Stein piece. Thanks.
Stein is wild about Kerry. He somehow built a glowing article based on the following observations of Kerry '08 by others:
Makes me laugh the understated quotes Stein uses to support his overly exuberant thesis.
Just doesn't make me laugh enough, however.
August 7, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The diarist blames Kerry for Obama's slump in the polls.
Didn't it occur to you for a second that maybe, just maybe, Obama slipped in the polls because of the effective McCain ads, in which Kerry did not appear once? Didn't it occur to you that the slump was due to Obama holding an unpopular view on drilling?
No. Let's blame John Kerry.
Puhlease.
August 7, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was specifically referring to polling results on the Iraq position, and evaluating Kerry's luke-warm performance directly. That's an area where Obama should have gotten a bump, and someone should have done a better job on TV countering the "he didn't visit the wounded troops" smears. Who would that have been? Lessee,....surrogate-in-chief.... John Kerry?
August 8, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's one from Commentary Magazine
August 8, 2008 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment