October 16, 2008, 2:01PM
Soon after Senator Hillary Clinton exited the race, I'm pretty
sure Barack Obama posted an image of her on his website saying "Thank
You, Senator Clinton!" That photo is still there, welcoming former
Hillary supporters. Most of those supporters (88% I last read), polls
say, are now supporting Obama, so why's it still there?
Because he owes her, big time. It seems I and everyone else was totally
wrong about the primary campaign. It's done Sen. Obama a world of good.
Hindsight is always 20/20 (or at least 30/30), and so I'm publicly
saying I was wrong. All primary Obama supporters should be sending Sen.
Clinton a thank you note RIGHT NOW. In the last throes of the campaign,
it's becoming ever clear how important the first six months of this
year were.
Why?
--Vetting: People realized this at the time, but the truth is so
visceral now: THANK GOD Rev. Wright and William Ayers came out in
February/March and not now. It's old news now and frankly few people
except extremists and ignoramous care, though I'm still holding out to
see if there isn't a last minute turn. But let's be honest, everyone's
seen the Rev. Wright videos and made up their minds -- they were on
24/7 for a good two weeks, especially on Fox News. A last minute
negative push could still tip the scales, but I think it's only taken
us a few months to realize that a) Obama doesn't at all agree with
either Wright or Ayers, b) he barely knows one of them, c) it doesn't
matter because we're all going to be poor soon.
--Familiarity: Attacks that try to ask "who is Barack Obama?" don't
have the same resonance. Granted, some people who would have never
supported him anyway will buy into the idea he's "mysterious." But
let's face it: for a full six months, Barack Obama was on television at
least every other day. If not every day on some channels.
--Ground game: Democratic registrations have soared (let's hope they're
not all bogus), people are excited and plugged into the campaign. Obama
has offices everywhere -- the numbers are staggering. He has efficient
GOTV and GOTEV (early vote) operations. What's more, states that never
got any attention because they were after Super Tuesday are organized
and poised to go Democratic: especially Indiana, Virginia, North
Carolina, West Virginia, which are all possible pickups now.
--Message: Obama's message of change is solidified and, now,
substantive. Being vague in the primaries (altho, in my opinion, he
wasn't that vague) allowed him to inspire and excite people first, so
that he can be the "cool," issue-oriented politician now and still not
bore people to death.
--Strategy: Obama knows how to answer questions well and sell his
message effectively. All those debates with Hillary really prepared him
for McCain. He's assured. He knows the issues. Moreover, he's fast and
efficient with advertisments, negative and positive. His release of the
Keating Five *documentary* -- now with 1.5 million hits on YouTube --
the day after McCain went negative speaks how refined his campaign is.
--Data: The primary gave poll experts like Nate Silver and Obama's
strategists tons of data on his weak areas, what demographics he needs
to focus on, what messages to send where. All of the qualms about Obama
were aired, so the campaign knew how to address them and have
addressing them ever since.
--Money: The primary campaign habituated first time donors like me to
giving on a regular basis ($350 so far!), so much so that he appears
flush (buying a full 30-minutes of primetime a la Ross Perot is ballsy
move, and I'm sure they wouldn't be coating the airwaves now if they
weren't assured of their financial advantage).
--Issues: Fighting Hillary Clinton over the left -- who's healthcare
plan was more comprehensive, who was right on Iraq, who's mortgage plan
was right -- was prescient. As the economy gets worse, ideas once
thought too liberal are now becoming mainstream. Moreover Obama's
strength on healthcare is partially a halo effect from Clinton (and
Elizabeth Edwads, God love her). McCain can't compete because he had to
spend that time courting the right, an ideology increaslingly out of
favor. Six months of Democratic messaging has adapted much of the
electorate to Democratic ideas. Obama has very little selling to do.
Had the polls been right and Obama had won New Hampshire, it's very
possible he'd be much worse off now than he is. So hats off to Sen.
Clinton (and, for good measure, I'll even stop souring on Bill),
because even though she probably still hates Obama privately and wants
him to lose (just a little bit; c'mon you would too!), in her --
selfish? -- quest for the nomination she did him a world of good too.
October 5, 2008, 5:41PM
So for those who don't know, Obama is looking pretty good to win. Poll average have him winning by +6 and +8. FiveThirtyEight gives him a 80% percent chance of winning.
In other words: DESPERATION! For McCain. So what's a politician to do: go negative!
I always wondered about Mark McKinnon's decision to leave the McCain camp because he didn't want to take part in a Obama character-assassination, which is exactly what Republicans plan to do starting this week. It's going to be ugly and ruthless. Now I know why he left: because character assassination is what losers do, and it makes them look small, petty and desperate. Given that's what Republicans did to Kerry, I think McKinnon's right to stay away from that meddle. It might just save his political career and legacy.
Too bad McCain isn't so concerned about his. Is this how he wants to go down? Seriously, if this doesn't work, he will effectively end his political career as the once-honorable senator who cozied up the extreme side of a losing party and dying ideology and then tried to tarnish the good name of the nation's first black president. Has he thought this through?
Here's the thing: while Obama remains vulnerable because there are still a lot of skeptics out there, the truth is that there isn't a lot of time. Obama's poll number are now as strong as they were mid-summer and it took eight weeks of going negative for McCain to bring him back to a tie (have we forgotten the "celeb" ad?). He needed the RNC just to get a lead in the race. Well, he won't have unfettered media attention between now and election day. So how exactly does he plan to take the lead by trying something that's already failed?
The truth is McCain needs a message beyond "Change is Coming." Because frankly his ads don't make sense: "Barack Obama will raise your taxes. Make government bigger. And he's untrustworthy.... John McCain: Change is coming." WHAT? What does that even mean? You can't craft a message from a negative depiction of another person -- John Kerry tried that. You have to bring something to the table. McCain has no message but the copied word "change" and the empty word "maverick." With McCain running on brand -- which he's quickly moving to tarnish -- is it even possible for critics to call Obama "nothing but words"?
McCain's going to negative and scare the bejesus out of the electorate to win. My problem is: I'm very skeptical it will work. And if it doesn't, he stands to be one of the most hated Republicans in the country, perhaps in history. It's a shame because he's probably a good guy -- perhaps he should start listening to himself and not his foaming-at-the-mouth advisors.
October 5, 2008, 11:27AM
So for those who don't know, Obama is looking pretty good to win. Poll average have him winning by +
6 and +
8. FiveThirtyEight gives him a 80% percent chance of winning.
In other words: DESPERATION! For McCain. So what's a politician to do: go negative!
I always wondered about Mark McKinnon's decision to leave the McCain camp because he didn't want to take part in a Obama character-assassination, which is exactly what Republicans plan to do starting this week. It's going to be ugly and ruthless. Now I know why he left: because character assassination is what losers do, and it makes them look small, petty and desperate. Given that's what Republicans did to Kerry, I think McKinnon's right to stay away from that meddle. It might just save his political career and legacy.
Too bad McCain isn't so concerned about his. Is this how he wants to go down? Seriously, if this doesn't work, he will effectively end his political career as the once-honorable senator who cozied up the extreme side of a losing party and dying ideology and then tried to tarnish the good name of the nation's first black president. Has he thought this through?
Here's the thing: while Obama remains vulnerable because there are still a lot of skeptics out there, the truth is that there isn't a lot of time. Obama's poll number are now as strong as they were mid-summer and it took eight weeks of going negative for McCain to bring him back to a tie (have we forgotten the "celeb" ad?). He needed the RNC just to get a lead in the race. Well, he won't have unfettered media attention between now and election day. So how exactly does he plan to take the lead by trying something that's already failed?
The truth is McCain needs a message beyond "Change is Coming." Because frankly his ads don't make sense: "Barack Obama will raise your taxes. Make government bigger. And he's untrustworthy.... John McCain: Change is coming." WHAT? What does that even mean? You can't craft a message from a negative depiction of another person -- John Kerry tried that. You have to bring something to the table. McCain has no message but the copied word "change" and the empty word "maverick." With McCain running on brand -- which he's quickly moving to tarnish -- is it even possible for critics to call Obama "nothing but words"?
McCain's going to negative and scare the bejesus out of the electorate to win. My problem is: I'm very skeptical it will work. And if it doesn't, he stands to be one of the most hated Republicans in the country, perhaps in history. It's a shame because he's probably a good guy -- perhaps he should start listening to himself and not his foaming-at-the-mouth advisors.
August 29, 2008, 1:26PM
At first, I thought: her experience is so light, they've done themselves in.
But after watching her speak, I have to say she comes off as smart,
sharp, capable, and appealing to women: from the PTA to the governor's
mansion and churning out 5 kids (one in Iraq, one with Down Syndrome)
on the way. The McCain is pushing her "executive" experience, which
they say outdoes Obama's senatorial career spent running for President.
That might be an argument they can win, because she doesn't talk or
look like a lightweight.
I think it would be a mistake to go all-out negative on Palin. Obama
and Biden would look like bullies, and it seems to me she's a woman
both Republicans and women in general would want to defend.
I also think it's possible she would eviscerate Biden in debates. Biden
can be rhetorically clumsy and tough-sounding. She sounds sharp as
tack, and I immediately see why they once called her "the Barracuda."
Biden better start debate and image prep now.
Stay away from the Palin landmine! Don't force McCain to defend her! He'll look like the good guy. We'll look like Rick Lazio.
PS - I do think it wouldn't be bad to cut a softer ad on her resume,
and one with this Wooten guy: can he pay his bills? Did Palin throw a
working-class guy on his feet?
August 29, 2008, 1:24PM
At first, I thought: her experience is so light, they've done themselves in.
But after watching her speak, I have to say she comes off as smart, sharp, capable, and appealing to women: from the PTA to the governor's mansion and churning out 5 kids (one in Iraq, one with Down Syndrome) on the way. The McCain is pushing her "executive" experience, which they say outdoes Obama's senatorial career spent running for President. That might be an argument they can win, because she doesn't talk or look like a lightweight.
I think it would be a mistake to go all-out negative on Palin. Obama and Biden would look like bullies, and it seems to me she's a woman both Republicans and women in general would want to defend.
I also think it's possible she would eviscerate Biden in debates. Biden can be rhetorically clumsy and tough-sounding. She sounds sharp as tack, and I immediately see why they once called her "the Barracuda." Biden better start debate and image prep now.
Stay away from the Palin landmine! Don't force McCain to defend her! He'll look like the good guy. We'll look like Rick Lazio.
PS - I do think it wouldn't be bad to cut a softer ad on her resume, and one with this Wooten guy: can he pay his bills? Did Palin throw a working-class guy on his feet?
August 27, 2008, 10:08PM
Good job. Solid.
And how great is Bill Clinton for bringing up the growing HIV crisis in the US? During the primary, before the Pennsylvania primary, I went to see Bill Clinton speak at the University of Pennsylvania to a mostly black audience. I have to say, however upset I was about the conduct of the Clinton campaign, he impressed me. Bill Clinton knows his policy. He spoke more eloquently about urban/black issues than I've ever heard from any politician -- ever. So his inclusion -- however small -- of HIV in America in this speech, which is disproportionately affecting the black community, seemed to be classic Bill and completely genuine.
So, congrats Bill and Hillary, I now, officially, harbor zero resentment toward you. (Okay, maybe just a little. C'mon, I'm human.)
And I'm happy to say this will be the last note I plan to write about the Clintons! (At least until 2016, or, god forbid, 2012.)
August 27, 2008, 2:25AM
She did a great job, yes yes. And yes, some holdouts will be holdouts and neither she nor Obama can do much about that.
But what Clinton didn't say is as important as what she did, and her silence says to me: I'm going to rally my former supporters but do little else for the next 3 months.
Ask yourself this: what in Hillary's speech could be used to counteract McCain's attack ads right now? In other words, the Obama campaign needs her to basically "take back" everything she said in the primaries. This way, the campaign could edit it and put it out on air to stem the McCain onslaught. She needed to say tonight: "Obama is ready to be commander in chief and will keep you safe. Obama is a patriot. I know Barack Obama and he is an honorable man."
She didn't do that tonight. She held back, again. Hillary offered little reason to support Obama "the person" just Obama "the Democrat." But it's Obama, the person, who could lose in November. Everyone knows he's a Democrat. Obama's biggest challenge has always been himself -- his resume, "otherness," etc. -- and, well, she didn't vouch for him.
I'm being picky. I KNOW! But as of now the biggest threat Sen. Clinton is to the Obama campaign isn't her words now, or her supporters, it's her words 8 months ago.
Of course, Clinton knows this. She knows her attacks from earlier this year still sting (we're still talking about 3 A.M.!) And I'm beginning to believe Michael Gerson when he says that her refusal to vouch for Obama -- the person -- tonight is her "silent revenge." Now I see why she's smiling. On to 2012!
Note -- I'm not a Hillary-hater, nor have I ever been. I actually like and respect her, but I'm also skeptical, and I wonder about what she doesn't say sometimes, as much as what she does say. Just to let you know where I stand.
August 14, 2008, 3:45PM
In light of Obama's planned counter-attack on Corsi, I'd like to throw an idea out there: could the right-wing's attack backfire in 2008? Even if Obama did little to counter it?
The one good thing -- the only good thing -- about the media's coverage of Obama Nation is they repeatedly mention 2004's Swift Boat attack. Now, I would hope, but I'm not sure, that many Americans remember 2004 as a time when they voted for Bush because they thought he was a good guy, and then he turned out to be the worst president in history -- Bush's job approval ratings obviously support this interpretation. And I'm pretty sure a lot of the people who voted against Kerry because of Swift Boat now wish they had voted for him. Or at least that voting for "liberal" "anti-war" "unpatriotic" Kerry wouldn't have been the worse choice.
So my question is: will Corsi's book feel like deja vu but in a bad way? I'm sure at least a few people are skeptical of an author making various defamations on Obama's character. Forwarded emails and salon chatter is one thing -- a very powerful thing, sociologists know -- but "Swift Boat" is not a good brand, and that's just the kind of brand Obama wants attached to his attackers, I'd argue.
Maybe I'm optimistic, but I think a lot of Americans will say: fool me once, shame on you. I won't be fooled again.
I'm the last person to underestimate the ability of Obama's race, nationality, religion and youth to make people completely irrational. We've all dealt with it for 8 months now. But I think there are a few more people this time cynical enough to not believe anything from a guy associated with "Swift Boating" the guy we should've had as a president right now.
August 11, 2008, 3:13AM
Any regular reader of TPM probably found few insights in New York Magazine's BIG RACE ISSUE, with lots of articles about Obama and RACE.
Still I have to give them props for putting that four-letter-word in big, bold letters, if only to firmly declare it the election's master wild card. Race doesn't need to be talked about at length by the MSM -- frankly I think they talk about it too much. So maybe this NYMag issue will be that one instance where the media lays down the stakes in plain English and then shuts up.
Fat chance, though. Already, as the magazine tells us, there's more fun to come in the form of a Mr. Wright:
"In October, Obama’s former pastor, Wright, will publish a new book and
hit the road to promote it, an occasion that might well place the topic
of Obama’s blackness...squarely at the center of the national debate. How Obama handles that moment may determine whether he becomes the next occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."
I'll add something to Heilemann's comment: how much time the media spends focusing on Wright may determine how uncomfortable America is with a black president, and how well Obama succeeded in convincing people he isn't Wright. He convinced me, but then again any black person is smart enough to know Obama isn't Wright -- or Jackson, Sharpton, etc.
I won't go through each article, because frankly if you've read any number of articles about Obama, Michelle and race, you know what they say.
But I will say that one of the magazine's points, only referenced in passing, is an important, if not too brilliant, one: that almost every conversation about race in America is drenched with misunderstanding. I can't say I've ever had a discussion on race in which I didn't think at least once, "are you even listening to me?" (And even in the academy among people who study this, this happens all the time). Growing up in a multiracial/ethnic environment (mostly white and Asian-American), and then going to a Big Ten university, I've had enough conversations on race to say that most conversations are entirely unproductive.
Here's hoping the media and Americans realize this too and evaluate Obama on the merits of his policies and plans for improving people's lives, and not on his (in)ability to solve/improve/overcome/eliminate all our racial baggage.
Fat chance?
July 31, 2008, 4:19PM
Just a quick word on Obama's "race card." What Obama did was
*mention* the idea of color, in order to inform people of how they were
being hoodwinked by McCain. It was McCain who played the race card.
It's an easy game. There's nothing more white people hate than the race
card. And for good reason too. It completely shuts down conversation.
So McCain looks like a good policeman, saying Obama is playing unfair.
This has happened before. Obama and his wife have been accused of
playing the race card even when they haven't been talking about race.
Or when they have been talking about race but only to move the
conversation beyond it (i.e. his race speech). Watch one week of Fox News and I guarantee someone will say Obama has played the race card, even though Obama is well aware that playing the race card will damage his image and cause him to lose the election.
McCain can do this because most people don't care what you say or how
you say it. If someone says "Obama played the race card," then he did,
or might as well have, because non-raced people think blacks, et al.
LOVE playing the race card (when in fact, we, or at least I, hate it).
Why's McCain going so low? Simple: the only reason Obama's leading in
the polls is that he is doing *better* among white voters than John
Kerry (around 40-50%, depending on the state and the poll). All McCain
has to do is convince a small number -- 5% to 10% -- of white voters
not to vote for Obama and he's won the election.
This is simple race politics, and it's MCCAIN playing them, not Obama.
June 26, 2008, 2:18AM
In response to Josh's question about whether readers have seen McCain ads in MO -- well, I can't speak to that. But the same ad has been running without end in Philadelphia (I've seen it three times in the last 24 hours, twice during the 7-8:00pm hour last night; all three times on network TV).
It seems McCain, eyeing the polls showing Obama's lead, is doing some quick damage control and running liberal-sounding ads in major swing state cities. I have to say the ad is pretty effective. It makes me think, "oh, McCain's not that bad." Then I slap myself in the face, go to TPM, and all is right in the world again.
