This pretty much sums up how I feel right now.
Out where the voters live, you never lose by fighting back. And you never win by holding back. You see this principle at work everywhere you find winning Democrats these days - and another several decades of enlightened examples of New England-style "civilized behavior" seem sadly unlikely to persuade the rest of the country to change on this point. (More's the pity.)Then, progressive candidates need to recruit - and listen to - political experts who cut their teeth in the South and West, and know how the tackle version of the game is played. It's no accident that LBJ, Carter, and Clinton - our only successful Democratic presidential candidates over the past 40 years - came out of the South. (And the Kennedys were products of bare-knuckles Irish machine politics that didn't pull punches, either.) It's not an accident that James Carville, Lee Atwater, and Karl Rove all came from there, either.
Obama is at his best when he reaches back into his Kansas populist side; but these days, he's no doubt got plenty of old party hands giving him the same fatal advice they gave Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, Humphrey, and even old Adlai Stevenson. (Note that they're all Northerners, too. Gore was a son of the South, but spent most of his childhood in D.C., and went to Yale.) They're going to do him in, too - and in exactly the same way - if he keeps listening. He needs people who know how to stick it right back to the GOP - fast, fearlessly, fiercely, with deadly aim and a transcendently elegant sense of style. (There's no need to give up the high road, ever. You absolutely can do this and stay classy.) And he needs them this week.
We're not going to take back the country by doing things the way they do them in Boston, Philadelphia, or the salons of Georgetown. That low-conflict style of politics is, as the Wellstone people like to say, Not Normal - at least, not outside the Northeast. The pattern is clear enough now that we can bet the movement on it: Progressives win decisively when they acknowledge and directly address the deep cultural ideas about conflict and leadership that abide in the bars and churches and county fairs in flyover country. That's where elections are won - out where vast numbers of Americans of a very different heritage are looking for that firm assurance that their candidate has the guts and wit to fight for his own honor, and theirs, and the country's as well.
Exactly right, and glaringly obvious. What amazes me is that it's SOOOOOO hard for political "insiders" to understand this. Let me boil it down for supposedly "brilliant" political insiders - here's what you should be saying over and over again: "McCain=Bush"; McCain is a hothead; McCain is unstable; McCain is clueless and borderline senile; McCain is a warmonger who thinks you're all a bunch of whiners in a "mental recession;" McCain does NOT represent change...certainly not for the better; Conservatism is inherently evil. Read Thomas Frank's latest book, "The Wrecking Crew" (review coming soon), if you are unclear on that concept.
This applies, by the way, to ALL Democrats running for office this year. It also applies to what our approach to Joe "Benedict Arnold" Lieberman should be. Here's my message to Harry Reid: pick up the phone right now, call Joe Lieberman, say the following: "F*** YOU, you traitorous SOB, you are OUTTA HERE!" The general message? Democrats do not put up with traitors. We are strong. We are ruthless. We are not going to take any crap. Don't f*** with us. End of story. Fight or die.
P.S. Thanks to my grandfather the bare-knuckles boxer for both the genes and the upbringing that made me realize all this. People will never respect you unless they see you standing up for yourself.
P.P.S. Also, read what Jerome Armstrong has to say about the Obama campaign and the blogs.
So I'm not panicked yet.
Do I feel like the resources that are being spent now are having the fullest possible impact? Not really.
If Obama waits until September, he will already be defined in voters' minds by McCain. Obama is still the greater unknown. He's got a financial advantage right now and he needs to use it to counter-attack.
Hope that Team Obama hasn't already waited too long to start playing hardball.
Sometime it seems that a clone of Bob Shrum must be running the campaign out of Chicago. Where are those sharp Chicago elbows?
To counter your analogy, look at what happened in the women's marathon. One runner decided to break from the pack earlier than the others. No one ever caught her. They weren't even close. This race is not in the first 100 meters. We're into the heart of the run. It's time to make the choice as to whether we'll stay with the pack, letting them hang on or whether we'll press ahead and dare the rest to try to keep up.
(A) You don't HAVE to make McCain spend his limited funds now. The law has pretty much mandates his spending paterns for the rest of the year.
(B) If you sincerely believe that most people are not looking now, then you don't believe there's any strategic risk in doing nothing now.
Moving up the line to TPWB:
I agree that Obama has a fundraising edge, but it's not as significant at this point as people seem to believe, at least not to the point where you can advocate increased spending. McCain has access to $84 million in public financing the months of September and October. Barack Obama has $66 million on hand, spends about $50 million per month, and rasises about that much as well. Taking that $66 million advantage and adding in the the money he will hopefully raise, he'll have access to a 2:1 advantage. If he shoots his wad now, he's going into the general election with financial parity, which is precisely NOT what the campaign intended to do strategically by opting out of public financing months ago.
And finally AIAW:
That's the appropriate concern to voice--not strategy, but tactics. Tactically, do I have concerns that the funds that are being used right now are being used as effectively as possible. Of course, that was the point of my last sentence. Obama's spending about 3/5ths of his expenditures on ads. McCain's clocking in at about 2/3rds. I think Obama's "same old politics" attack is tactically weak and would like to see a harder hit. Finally, I worry that his economy message isn't clear and crisp enough. I know you're a fan of Krugman's columns in the NYT, as well, so I'm sure you saw "It's the Economy, Stupor!" I largely agree. McCain's driving the conversation towards foreing policy, away from his greatest weakness, the economy. Reasoned tactical adjustments should be made within the overarching strategy.
Your second point is correct as well. However, your reading, correct by what is written, is not what I meant. I didn't express myself well :) What I meant was this: if you make him spend his money now, he won't have any for the rest of the campaign. But if you can't make McCain run out of money by law, this point is beyond discussion.
As it was mentioned before in this thread, he is already spending 3/5 of his money on ads. Make him spend more, and he will have less and less money for on the ground organizing.
Kerry ended up his campaign with a surplus. It has done us a lot of good. I don't see why, if we have a money advantage, we don't use it.
This is a huge part of why I think that you're right--we do want McCain to blow half his budget the first two weeks of November--and that's why I suspect we'll see an aggressive probe, and why it ultimately won't succeed in baiting McCain. Obama will open with an aggressive run of strong ads while holding back some of the best stuff they have. McCain will want to respond and will start pushing some resources forward, but eventually the campaign manager will talk down the candidate, they'll slow their spending down to a daily budget holding back that critical reserve that always ends up being a surplus, and they'll retreat into a shell and hope to ride out the storm. Either way, Obama will almost certainly have the resources to control the initiative for the rest of the campaign.
Strategy is about the acquisition and use of resources in time and space towards completing an objective, and I'm not going to mince words: I think this is a winning strategy. There's an element of a gamble to it because it's untested, and a lot of very smart people identified early on these two weeks as the period of highest risk for Obama (Cilliza over at the Fix picked up on this something like six days after Obama opted out of public financing for the General Election). If they execute well tactically, I believe they're going to win.
The frame--which actually does reflect reality--can be simple:
McCain: confused and out of touch at home; reckless and out of touch abroad.
But the main thing that frustrated me was exactly the lack of balls to fight back against attacks. I don't, however, think it's because they're Northeasterners. As I recall, politics in New York, New Jersey - and even Midwestern cities like Chicago and Cleveland - could be pretty bare knuckled. Democrats knew how to fight and fight hard.
What in hell has happened to us?
"Liberal guilt," I would guess.
He said he was still undecided about who to vote for in the fall and is actually leaning towards McCain.
After I returned my jaw to it's normal position from where it had dropped, I asked him is he was really that stupid. He has absolutely no reason to vote Republican. He's not rich enough to benefit from Republican tax policy. He doesn't have a conservative social agenda. He doesn't hold stock in a bunch of companies or serve on their boards.
When I pressed him on why he was leaning that way, he said he wasn't so sure about electing someone as liberal as Obama. When I pressed him further about what made Obama's liberalism a bad thing, he could only parrot back some of the sound bites he'd picked up from the ads McCain is running and the continuous talking points spewed on Fox News. When I started to correct him and started giving him some of McCain's history, he was the one slack-jawed. He said he's have to look into some of those things and wondered why Obama's campaign hadn't made more of an issue of McCain's volatilty and why they let McCain continue to try to portray himself as a "maverick." The most telling comment was when he said "See, that's the problem with the Democrats. They let the Republicans define who they are and never get around to saying, 'Wait! You're full of sh**. This is who I am and this is what I believe. I'll speak for myself, thank you very much."
When I got back home this past weekend, I noticed that my neighbor now has an Obama sticker on his truck.
There is nothing dishonorable or low-brow about pointing out legitimate weaknesses in your opponent. You have to draw a clear line between who you are as a candidate and who your opponent really is. For far too long Democrats have been afraid to establish themselves by drawing contrasts. We don't need to shoot back for the sake of shooting, but we certainly shouldn't stand by while we're sucker punched.
This is the answer that I got from a conservative. I disagree with the initial paragraph, but the important insight is what follows. My emphases:
Well, hugo, if Obama doesn't get his shit together, John McCain, 72 years old and Bush 2.0, or whatever, is going to win the election.
The Democrats are certainly no "Demogra-crats." The Republicans put up Bush 2.0, and the Dems, with the chance to turn this election into a rout, self destruct by hashing out their nominating process with primaries between a woman (first time), and a Black guy with an Islamic-sounding name (first, first time).Not smart. Now they are hanging on by their finger nails. Senator Obama is increasingly seen as an effete wimp who may not really want this election badly enough.
Politics isn't an Ivy League tea party. If you want to eat the ham, you gotta get down and dirty with the rest of the hogs.
If not, Obama = Kerry 2.0
Here's the thing - people like the ones I grew up with do not like or respect folks who won't defend themselves, who are above fighting. They don't trust people who always seem cool and unflappable. They like to see a little heat, a little passion, and a willingness to knock down the creep who's trashing you. They want to see the torn shirt, the spots of blood on the collar, the telltale red mark on the cheek, and the raised fist at the ready. They want to see Obama reacting as if he's worth fighting for because they won't follow someone who acts as if defending himself is not important.
Also, how hard do you want to hit back? What is off the table?
He is tempermentally unsuited to be president; he's well known for his vicious temper and his insults of fellow senators and even his wife. It is also well known, in political and media circles, that he cheated on his first wife; divorced her; and married a rich, beautiful trophy wife. He also was involved in the Keating 5 scandal. And his current wife has refused to disclose her financial holdings, some of which could be a conflict of interest for McCain. Teresa Heinz-Kerry was criticized in 2004 for a similar refusal.
McCain surrounds himself with lobbyists, some of whom have lobbied for foreign governments, including Georgia. He has flip flopped on major issues. And speaking of major issues, he's made some serious gaffes, including not knowing the difference between Sunnis and Shiites. Yet he holds himself up as better suited to lead on foreign policy.
Have I said anything yet that is not widely known and that can't be documented?
Given he threw the first punch, what exaclty about this should be off limits by the Obama campaign? I'd never say go negative first. But enough is more than enough. The McCain campaign has not even told the truth about Obama. Why are we holding back factual attacks?
THE ATLANTIC (8/00): Al Gore is the most lethal debater in politics, a ruthless combatant who will say whatever it takes to win, and who leaves opponents not just beaten but brutalized.
I'll defend Dukakis too -- he fought very hard in the last month or so of his campaign, and closed the gap, but not by enough. Sure he made a couple of mistakes -- that debate answer for example, or posing for photographs in an unflattering tanker's helmet. But to say he was too genteel to take hard shots at his opponent is just wrong.
And what about recent history -- I thought Obama demonstrated plenty of toughness in the primary campaign. As he often pointed out, he came up in politics in Chicago. Has Obama changed the leadership in his campaign since he won the primary? Is David Plouffe gone now? I don't think so. If they are holding back, I'm sure they have a good reason. Perhaps it's that they don't want to look like they are beating up on an old man who was awarded the medal of honor.
And he did allow himself to be saddled with that two-faced SOB Lieberman. What a concocted, pandering political move of convenience.
I like Al a lot now that he's out from under the spell of weinees. He's a fighter in his own right. He leads from the strength of his own convictions and has risked much.
That Sara Robinson is HOT!