Wishful Thinking
Kevin Drum says:
If McCain wins, he’ll face a Democratic Congress that’s beyond furious. Losing is one thing, but after eight years of George Bush and Karl Rove, losing a vicious campaign like this one will cause Dems to go berserk. They won’t even return McCain’s phone calls, let alone work with him on legislation. It’ll be four years of all-out war.
I don’t think that’s even remotely true. There’ll be all-out war between Hillary Clinton’s supporters and the Obama camp as the former wield the “I told you so” axe in order to regain control of the party apparatus but it won’t take them four years to win. Meanwhile, you’ll have a congressional leadership whose instincts are to cave to the Republicans on national security issues and try to go for constructive small-bore compromises on domestic issues and they’ll probably go about it happily, while muttering to themselves that in a lot of ways they’re glad to not be burdened by a Democratic President who tries to boss them around.
96 Responses to “Wishful Thinking”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 10th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Why are John McCain & the Republican Party trying to help child molesters & pedophiles?
September 10th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Wow, Matthew, your clarity of foresight is uncanny. It’s almost as though you’ve already seen a Democratic Congress at work with a Republican Congress.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:01 am
“Why are John McCain & the Republican Party trying to help child molesters & pedophiles?”
I would like to know the answer to this question as well.
Thanks.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Yep, I read in the paper the other day that the Dems aren’t bringing up the Child Health Insurance legislation (S-CHIP?) because the president would veto it.
It totally boggles the mind, we have a president with a 28% approval rating, a government program that everybody loves (and it works) and the Dems are refusing to put it to a vote? The only reason why I think it would matter for them not to do it is if enough of the GOP congressmen would be willing to override the veto.
Why the F*ck should we elect democrats? I mean I understand the realities of the Iraq War and troop withdrawal. But this? This is irresponsible and immoral.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:03 am
“Meanwhile, you’ll have a congressional leadership … muttering to themselves that in a lot of ways they’re glad to not be burdened by a Democratic President who tries to boss them around.”
Given that the 2010 election prospects will be far brighter with a McCain administration than an Obama administration, and given that the legislative prospects are similar under either administration, I think Dems in Congress have far more pragmatic reasons for having mixed feelings about the elections than worries about being “bossed around”…
September 10th, 2008 at 10:11 am
I’m going to crawl into a hole now. Thanks.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:15 am
The time has come, the walrus said, to speak of many things.
Liberals need a “Plan B” both with respect to the Democratic Party and with respect to the federal government.
Obama himself has already voted for FISA and has indicated he may favor prolonging the Bush tax cuts. We all know the refrain – time after time after time.
So liberals need vehicles to accomplish their objectives outside – and perhaps against – the federal government and without – and perhaps despite – the Democrats.
This absolutely does not mean we now start painting lipstick on Obama photos. Far from it. He’s our guy. But it does mean that when he or Pelosi comes to us and tells us they need to cave yet again in order to attract the swing voters that we reply: “Hey guy. We’re the swing voters. Got it?”.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:15 am
The fundamental difference between the two parties is that the Democrats believe that government can, and must, be used to help solve the difficult problems the nation is facing today. This is the core belief of progressives, that government is by, for, and of the people.
The Republicans believe that government is the root cause of many of the nation’s problems. They believe the government is something other than the people. An opponent to be vanquished except when it yields benefits for their friends, supporters, and lobbyists.
We can see how this plays out over the last several years. When the Democrats are in the minority they work hard to get compromise legislation. They genuinely want to move forward on the nation’s problems even if that means dealing with the Republicans. When the Republicans are in the minority they are content to simply throw roadblocks in the way of all legislation except for those few things that are really important to them.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:16 am
While I think you are probably correct, you’ve made my morning bagel and coffee sad
September 10th, 2008 at 10:17 am
I’m sure Vice President Palin will reach across party lines and with her leadership we will have bipartisan success and progress!
September 10th, 2008 at 10:19 am
MY, do you think the McCain campaign wouldn’t have done the same thing to HRC? Oh the details would be different, but the general approach would likely have been the same. That being the case, some of the HRC and BO folks might fight each other if JSM wins, but I’m not so sure Drum is wrong. And it could get real nasty. POTUS can’t initiate legislation, not even to authorize the spending of money. This could turn into a real test of the limits of presidential power. Just too bad if Palin’s there if JSM ceases, for whatever reason, to be functional.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:22 am
“So liberals need vehicles to accomplish their objectives”
The vehicle is called the nomination process of the Democratic Party. We lost this year because the media and “professional liberals” pushed forward the most conservative Democratic Presidential nominee since Jimmy Carter.
“Pelosi comes to us and tells us they need to cave yet again in order to attract the swing voters that we reply: “Hey guy. We’re the swing voters. Got it?”
You seem to be confused on the meaning of the term “swing voters”. They aren’t base voters who threaten to stay home or vote third party. They are voters who could vote either Democrat or Republican.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:24 am
I think you are being a bit dramatic. How much compromise has happened since 2007? How many bills has Dubya vetoed? Things have changed since the Republicans controlled Congress. No, it hasn’t been ideal. What are they supposed to do? Everytime they present a bill, the President vetoes it. The public is already pissed at Bush, do you think they even pay attention to Presidential vetoes? No, so Congress has a tanked approval rating to thank for it. I’m just curious, what is your legislative/political strategy is for getting things done with an obstructionist President?
September 10th, 2008 at 10:27 am
“do you think the McCain campaign wouldn’t have done the same thing to HRC? Oh the details would be different, but the general approach would likely have been the same.”
Well…
They wouldn’t have been able to pick Palin.
They wouldn’t have been able to separate Dems from working class voters.
They wouldn’t have been able to win OH and threaten MI and PA.
Of course McCain would have fought Clinton with every weapon he could’ve found. The difference is that he wouldn’t have been able to gain the kind of traction he’s gained against Obama.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:31 am
No, no, Kevin’s right. The Dems would persecute Bush and Rove for war crimes; review FISA for constitutionality; and bring troops home from Iraq. Because they are like really, really mad.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:32 am
I think Matt’s probably right. But, rather than speculate how people would deal with the nightmarish scenario of McCain getting elected, wouldn’t it be more constructive to speculate about the most effective way to respond to McCain’s disgusting ad?
September 10th, 2008 at 10:39 am
It’s best to ignore me.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:47 am
They wouldn’t have been able to pick Palin.
Sure they could’ve. Would’ve been rather brilliant actually.
They wouldn’t have been able to separate Dems from working class voters.
Bullshit. They do that every single time.
They wouldn’t have been able to win OH and threaten MI and PA.
You think Hillary would’ve carried Ohio? Bwahaha. And Obama is going to carry MI and PA anyway.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:50 am
It’s instructive to remember that Hillary couldn’t even win the primary, largely because her campaign was so mismanaged. And that millions of Republican voters have been conditioned to view her as the devil. You would have had all the problems you see now, and Hillary wouldn’t have a ground game.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:53 am
You know the argument is lost when all that’s left is pseudonym spoofing.
“It’s best to ignore me.”
Serenity now. Insanity later.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Please take my posts with a grain of salt. I tend to say things that may make sense in a fictitious parallel universe, but that make no nonsense here in the real world. I do this to get attention because said attention makes me feel better about the fact that my life is devoid of meaning.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:56 am
“Please take my posts with a grain of salt. I tend to say things that may make sense in a fictitious parallel universe, but that make no nonsense here in the real world. I do this to get attention because said attention makes me feel better about the fact that my life is devoid of meaning.”
Personal insults just mean that you love me, albeit in some twisted way. Your pseudonym spoofing will fool no one.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:57 am
“It’s instructive to remember that Hillary couldn’t even win the primary”
Funny. I remember Clinton winning the OH, PA, and MI primaries, almost entirely because she was carrying the very working class votes Obama has been losing since the Palin pick.
It’s funny how the media and the “professional liberals” are so eager for Dems to walk away from working class voters.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Obama is going to lose this election and Hillary would have won. I know this because I have a crystal ball and I am able to make accurate predictions on matters that involved thousands of variables.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Yet another example of me not making any sense whatsoever. Please disregard my posts.
Funny. I remember Clinton winning the OH, PA, and MI primaries, almost entirely because she was carrying the very working class votes Obama has been losing since the Palin pick.
It’s funny how the media and the “professional liberals” are so eager for Dems to walk away from working class voters.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Clearly Obama’s erosion in the polls among women (as I understand it, basically most of the erosion) would not have happened if HRC were the nominee.
And the Clinton team would have already gone for the jugular in a way Obama hasn’t yet.
The only certain way John McCain would ever lose was to have his reputation as ’straight talker’ destroyed. I feel like the Obama people are getting better in this regard each day. but Jesus Christ, it’s time to cut this guy’s throat with ads that are just as harsh as McCain’s.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Matt as an ardent Dem, I am terrified to say, I agree with you completely. While the idea of a Dem congress mounting a reasonable opposition to a Republican president sounds nice, Dems just play too nice. It would be funny if it weren’t so predictably tragic.
When will congressional Dems learn that Americans LIKE the bad boy. The like the guy who is going to rough them up a bit, take away their liberties and then grind their opposition to death on wedge issues. It’s SO obvious. The republicans have been doing this for living memory, and Dems continue to try to be high minded, and the American people, and the world pay the price.
The Palin choice was just the most recent incarnation of this dynamic.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:00 am
You better stop with your pseudonym spoofing right now!!!
Yet another example of me not making any sense whatsoever. Please disregard my posts.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Petey is more right than wrong.
I don’t know about specific states, but Petey is generally right. Who can argue that Hillary isn’t better with blue-collar than Obama? Palin only works if she’s running against a man. Out woman Clinton? Be real.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Hey that’s not me either, what the hell is going on? Do you all not like me or something?
You better stop with your pseudonym spoofing right now!!!
September 10th, 2008 at 11:01 am
There is name for that vehicle. I won’t name it, but our forefathers were intimately familiar with t
September 10th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Also, fake Petey:
You do know that even most Petey-haters think you’re an asshole for hijacking this actually-interesting post/thread, right?
September 10th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Triple reverse pseudonym spoofing is against the rules of this blog. I am reporting you to Matt right now.
Hey that’s not me either, what the hell is going on? Do you all not like me or something?
September 10th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Your pseudonym spoofing will fool no one.
While this hilarious spoofing is fooling nobody, I do know how *I’d* go about spoofing you. Here’s how it works:
1) Imagine myself as Joe Lieberman. WWJD?
2) Post as you.
3) Fool everybody.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:04 am
You mean like I do almost daily?
You do know that even most Petey-haters think you’re an asshole for hijacking this actually-interesting post/thread, right?
September 10th, 2008 at 11:07 am
This thread blows.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:08 am
I actually think that the petey spoofer means well. Wrecking a few threads would be worth it if it drove Petey (the destroyer of many threads) from Matt’s blog comments.
Sadly, the spoofer misreads Petey’s personality. Most likely the spoofing will just make Petey more grimly persistent in his trolling.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:08 am
I don’t know about specific states, but Petey is generally right. Who can argue that Hillary isn’t better with blue-collar than Obama? Palin only works if she’s running against a man. Out woman Clinton? Be real.
True, but that isn’t dispositive, imo, and Petey would like you to believe it is, and that’s where is argument falls on its face.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Re Petey’s comment “We lost this year because the media and “professional liberals” pushed forward the most conservative Democratic Presidential nominee since Jimmy Carter”
————-
Well, we could have nominated John Edwards. That way, when Edwards kissed the babies we could try to guess which ones were his.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:14 am
My orders to young Petey are to wreck this blog with as much useless concern trolling as possible. Silly spoofers will do nothing to deter my obedient Petey.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:17 am
They wouldn’t have been able to separate Dems from working class voters.
Oh, right, because Democrats’ problems with working class voters have nothing to do with the economic policies pursued by the last Clinton Administration. Uh huh.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:20 am
If you’re right, Ezra, then the Democrats deserve to lose control of Congress.
But I think you’re wrong. Whether or not they would get furious, they would get even – systematically, confirmation vote by confirmation vote and point-by-point, bill by bill. They would attack McCain on his weakest points, details.
Congressional Democrats may be all over the place ideologically, but most of the younger ones are most importantly technocrats. With or without presidential support, they will go after dysfunctionalities and structural inequities in the federal governance and policy. That’s what they campaigned on.
It would be very difficult for a President McCain to characterize their work as “obstructionism” rather than “reform.” Not that he won’t try – like his campaign, his administration would be about fabrication and division.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:22 am
It’ll be four years of all-out war.
It sure will. The Sternly Worded Letters will be flying like cows in a tornado!
September 10th, 2008 at 11:23 am
I actually think that the petey spoofer means well. Wrecking a few threads would be worth it if it drove Petey (the destroyer of many threads) from Matt’s blog comments.
We must destroy the village to save it. No, wait…
To make an omelet, you have to break a few… no, that’s not it.
Isiah Thomas did a great job as the Knick’s GM. Hmmm, no.
John Edwards is the best bet for a progressive revolution and as a southern white man, has no downsides as a candidate. Also, Hillary Clinton is far more progressive than Obama. Sure, they may raise cash from the exact same donor class and have nearly identical policies and voting records, but… shut up, that’s why, you trust fund scumbag.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Lotta Democrats here panicking and eager to embrace that race to the bottom. Careful what you wish for, the Republicans can ALWAYS sink lower still. Let them have the moral low ground all to themselves. The Republican base has (bizarrely) already convinced itself that Obama is running the ugliest of campaigns; getting uglier is only going to convince them further. And the swing vote middle is still more likely to see through McCain’s astonishingly shameless tactics and give this to Obama – provided Obama retains his own sense of shame about such tactics. It is strategically worse to claim the high ground and then abandon it. Finally, it is important to recognize that Obama isn’t going to lose because of negative smears; if he loses the middle it will be on the experience slash national security argument. If he wins it will be on the change argument. Getting brutal with McCain is NOT change.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:25 am
This is the kind of argument that can never be finished. Even if Obama looses in 2008 and then Hillary goes on to lose in 2012, it doesn’t prove Hillary would have lost in ‘08. But it’s not as if Petey is throwing any new arguments out there. They are just a little more persuasive given McCain’s post-convention bump. On the other hand, Hillary’s campaign looks incredibly poorly run in retrospect, so that argument cuts against her even more. If Obama wins the election on the basis of a pretty solid GOV effort, I think that would justify supporting on him on the basis of his organizing abilities. But again, it doesn’t prove or disprove that Hillary would have been able to overcome a poor ground game by appealing to women and the white middle class (can we stop labeling these people working class, already?).
September 10th, 2008 at 11:25 am
The thing to remember is that Palin wouldn’t have been necessary to energize the base if Clinton were the nominee – top or bottom of the ticket. If Clinton is on the ticket, defeating the Clintons would have energized the base all by itself more than Sarah Palin ever could. And then McCain, with his base firmly at his back, could have made a centrist VP like Ridge and really be a serious threat. As it is, Obama will win going away.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:30 am
My pet theory that explains all this is based upon two simple facts:
1.Our political leaders are rich, either from the wealth acquired before they became politicians, or from the monetary rewards that come with fame and celebrity in our culture.
2. The basic principles of Democratic party are supposed to cater to the concerns of the people who make less than, say, $100K a year, and mostly much lower.
It is clear then that there is basic contradiction here, and it is a rare Democratic politicians who can transcend this contradiction to defend the principles and policy recommendations of the party with great passion.
We can decry the ball-lessness of the Dems all we want but it’s a structural issue, and not one of biology.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I’ll say this – Petey is wrong about almost everything, and if Hillary had won she would be 15 points down now and the press would be wondering whether McCain would “only” win in a landslide, or whether Clinton might scrape out a state or two in addition to Arkansas.
But even a stopped clock … he is right about the kid gloves approach of the Obama camp. I’m not necessarily saying he needs to get in the gutter with the McCain campaign – though perhaps his surrogates, at least, should – but his response to the lipstick on a pig remark was sadly typical and grossly inadequate. He needed to counterattack, hard – with a “shame on you, Senator McCain” response, and with surrogates running with clips and/or quotes of every sexist comment ever made by McCain. Instead you get more of the high minded “talk about the issues” bullshit that DOESN’T WORK.
IMO, he just lost the election today. Not so much because of this particular “issue,” but because this is proof that, even when the McCain camp makes the worst kind of below the belt attack, Obama will not strike back.
And do you think that, given the media’s credulous assistance regarding the lipstick on a pig remark, combined with Obama’s weak response, the McCain camp won’t get the message that literally ANYTHING goes?
Ultimately, though this is an indictment of the American people – the worst people on the planet.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Bill,
I’d like to commend you on the writing skills you’ve learned at the age of 3 years and ten months.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:42 am
It sure will. The Sternly Worded Letters will be flying like cows in a tornado!
Comment of the day!!!
Bill:
The question is when the country as a whole will heed Kucinich’s words.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Not to mention the fact that he entirely IGNORED the vile sex education ad. Not only is a strong response tot hat ad required, but it’s a golden opportunity to turn it around on McCain, without even departing from the truth – i.e., point out that McCain’s no vote on the act was vote in favor of child molesters.
No, it’s done. Today’s polls were even starting to move back in Obama’s favor. All he had to do was counterattack McCain on the two vile lies from yesterday – and he whiffed.
I don’t think Obama really wants to win this.
Though none of this gets the Republicans, the media, or the citezens off the hook. God, what vile trash we are dealing with.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:46 am
The thing to remember is that Palin wouldn’t have been necessary to energize the base if Clinton were the nominee – top or bottom of the ticket. If Clinton is on the ticket, defeating the Clintons would have energized the base all by itself more than Sarah Palin ever could. And then McCain, with his base firmly at his back, could have made a centrist VP like Ridge and really be a serious threat.
Bingo!! Petey would be wise to remember this. Yes, it is insanity, but that doesn’t make it less true.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Petey spoofer is the same guy (VoR) who was issuing death threats yesterday…
Charming guy.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:54 am
LarryM,
Overreact much? If you would wait 5 seconds before screaming about the falling sky you would realize Obama has every intention of responding forcefully to McCain’s hypocrisy and diversion.
McCain gets an entirely expected convention bump, tops it offs with a media grabbing VP nomination stunt, and all the sudden the election is lost.
Please stop with the concern trolling.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Please stop with the reverse Petey spoofing. We know this isn’t you and you are distracting from an otherwise good thread.
Petey spoofer is the same guy (VoR) who was issuing death threats yesterday…
Charming guy.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Petey,
LOL, you are almost a parody of yourself. Determined to prove yourself wrong about EVERYTHING. No, my methods, while certainly subject to .. criticism, are different than puerile spoofing.
And, just for the record, it wasn’t a threat, but was, rather, a fond hope. You evil piece of shit.
Now go jerk off to your fantasies about killing brown people as a method to build a progressive consensus.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:59 am
“The thing to remember is that Palin wouldn’t have been necessary to energize the base if Clinton were the nominee – top or bottom of the ticket. If Clinton is on the ticket, defeating the Clintons would have energized the base all by itself “
Pretty much every poll taken over the past six months has shown Clinton doing better in a matchup against McCain than Obama, y’know.
Clinton’s strength relative to Obama among small town / rural and working class voters always meant that McCain wouldn’t be able to consolidate the Bush voters against her in the way he’s been able to against Obama.
Of course, there are plenty of media folks and “professional liberals” who see a Democratic Party stripped of small town / rural and working class voters as a good thing. One wonders about their motivation.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Jay,
I’m not overreacting to the VP pick or the bump. Both could EASILY have been countered. I’m reacting appropriately to the fact that the Obama camp doesn’t seem to know how to counter it.
And where, pray tell, did ou get the idea that “Obama has every intention of responding forcefully?” He has responded, this morning, tot he lipstick on a pig controversy – check out TPM. His response was so lame that it almost sounded like it was written for him by the McCain campaign.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
I’d like to commend you on the writing skills you’ve learned at the age of 3 years and ten months.
I’ll try to be more polished, just for you.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
And even when they do respond appropriately, they do so in a way almost calculated to be ignored. The campaign’s response to the sex ed ad was pretty good, if much too restrained, but should have come from Obam’s mouth:
As it is, the only place I could find this response is on Atrios. And I doubt many undecided voters read him regularly.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Petey said:
Pretty much every poll taken over the past six months has shown Clinton doing better in a matchup against McCain than Obama, y’know.
That is simply a flat out lie. In fact, the opposite is true.
Larry M,
As requested:
Speaking at a high school in Norfolk, Obama took a few moments to address what he calls “the made-up controversy” of the day, Amie Parnes reports.
Obama said the McCain campaign moved to “seize an innocent remark and take it out of context because they knew it’s catnip for the news media.”
“See, it would be funny, but the news media decided that would be the lead story yesterday. This happens every election cycle. Every four years, this is what we do. This is what they want to spend two of the last 55 days talking about…Enough!” he said.
Obama called the attacks “lies, outrage and swift boat politics.”
He went on: “We have real problems in this country right now. The American people are looking to us for answers, not distractions, not diversions, not manipulations. They want real answers to the real problems we are facing.”
Here is the current Huffington Post headlines for further evidence that this shit isn’t going to go unanswered:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
September 10th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I definitely see your point about wanting Obama to be more forceful, but part of the reason I want him to be president is because he doesn’t usually do the knee-jerk emotion response. He is more thoughtful. But he will address it. Don’t be surprise if Obama addresses the sex ed add during the debate on national TV.
There is a reason why he was able to take down the Clintons in the primarly. His campaign isn’t perfect, but they know what they are doing and all electoral polling during this race point to an Obama win.
So all I’m asking is that you don’t declare the race “lost” when there is over one month to go and they haven’t had a single debate.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Jay,
Yes, that was the response that I was referring to. If you think that that response was appropriate and effective, you are living in a different world than the one I’m living in. WHERE IS THE COUNTERATTACK? You just can’t play defense on this stuff. Every bit of political science research ever conducted confirms this. YOU HAVE TO HIT BACK.
On the sex ed ad, think of the headlines if Obama had said what his campaign did? “Obama calls McCain dishonorable.” Beuatiful. That is EXACTLY what we need. And it would have had the added bonus of maybe causing McCain to lose his cool publicly.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Pretty much every poll taken over the past six months has shown Clinton doing better in a matchup against McCain than Obama, y’know.
Clinton’s strength relative to Obama among small town / rural and working class voters always meant that McCain wouldn’t be able to consolidate the Bush voters against her in the way he’s been able to against Obama.
Of course, there are plenty of media folks and “professional liberals” who see a Democratic Party stripped of small town / rural and working class voters as a good thing. One wonders about their motivation.
And when is the last time an attack ad was run against Clinton? February? Your point is taking on water faster than the S.S. McCain.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Stop with the Petey spoofing. Please.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
As an independent who has spent the last 6+ years longing for some electoral punishment of the Republicans, I think its fair to say that nobody has ever lost money (at least since LBJ) overestimating the political cowardice of the Democrats.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
And it would have had the added bonus of maybe causing McCain to lose his cool publicly.
This is exactly what I am talking about. You need to see the big picture. McCain loses his cool and then a week from now we move on to the lastest drivel of the day. What is the Obama campaign has every intention of doing exactly what you said with the intent of making McCain lose his cool, wouldn’t it be better if that happended 1 month from now, or on live TV during a national debate?
Obama’s response today was forceful, to the point, and professional. If you’ve seen Obama’s recent ads he is labeling McCain/Palin as phony and calling them liars.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
As a whole, the Democrats are absolutely impotent and incapable of serving as any kind of counterweight to the Republicans. Even with control of the House, they can’t muster the resolve to see their agenda through. I think the fundamental problem is that the Republicans have so controlled the political tone of the past 8 years that most people are inclined to view the Democrats as a party of weaklings, including many Democrats. How else can you explain the constant caving under pressure? The Republicans repeatedly kick the Democrats around and they keep taking it. With few excpetions (Biden, Wexler), none of them know how to fight.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
The debates? You think that something like this can wait till the debates? By then bringing it up again will only serve to remind the public of the original attack. I’m not asked for a knee-jerk emotional response (though a little more emotion in response to the character assassination of the McCain campaign would be appreciated). I’m talking about a calm considered counter attack QUICKLY, before the lies can settle in the public’s mind.
One thing to remember is that Clinton’s smeers worked to a large extent. They weren’t enough to cost Obama the election because of the dynamics of the primary system. Now, I’m not one of the Hilary supporters who somehow thinks that the fact that he ran a smart primary campaign with regard to the primary rules somehow made his victory less legitimate. But he needs to realize that the rules are different in the general election. So far he is running the same type of campaign. I sort of understood the logic of it in August, but now that kind of strategy is just insane.
I will certainly agree that the election can be won if the Obama campaign radically changes it strategy. i’m not sure how likely that is. Absent such a change, we are looking at a McCain win. Likely a narrow one, to be sure, but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
“On the sex ed ad, think of the headlines if Obama had said what his campaign did? “Obama calls McCain dishonorable.” Beuatiful. That is EXACTLY what we need. And it would have had the added bonus of maybe causing McCain to lose his cool publicly.”
Well, I wouldn’t use the word “dishonorable”, since McCain would somehow find a way to frame that as an attack on his POW service. But something like, “Have you no shame, Senator McCain?” might be effective.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Matt,
If you’re reading this, ask your Democratic contacts in Congress, particularly in the Senate, how they’ll like approving 4 more years of GOP federal judges?
That’s where the GOP has burdened this country. We can always have a miraculous economic growth spurt like the ’90s and pay down the National Debt. We can always pull out of Iraq, go the Afghanistan and kill terrorists.
BUT WE CANNOT FIRE GOP FEDERAL JUDGES.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
LarryM is on target. People, presidential elections by and large are not about specific policy measures, or god forbid “transforming” politics.
You know how the phrase, “Lesser of two evils” is recycled every for years by dimwitted voters who do have not strong opinions on issues? Or just think they are cooly cynical? Those people decide elections.
Obama can’t win by trying to be the best candidate. He needs to make McCain the worst.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I see your point, I think we just disagree about tactics and the current state of the race. And yes, I do think if McCain is going to lose his cool (which will only happen once if it does) Obama would be better served if it happens a month from now or during one of the debates. They way he has less time to recover from what will likely be his worst moment.
And because I believe if the vote were tomorrow Obama would win by a comfortable margin (this seems to be support by the electoral polling), I disagree that a dramatic change in strategy is necessary to avoid a loss.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
“And when is the last time an attack ad was run against Clinton?”
Clinton’s advantage relative to Obama versus McCain has held steady both during the heat of the primary campaign, and after that as well.
There are plenty of folks who wanted Obama as nominee because they preferred the more conservative candidate or because they had mommy issues, but I don’t think anyone with even half a brain wanted Obama as nominee because they thought he’d have a better shot against McCain…
—–
“I will certainly agree that the election can be won if the Obama campaign radically changes it strategy. i’m not sure how likely that is.”
Team Obama has been repeating all year that they didn’t care about winning news cycles. They’ve been bragging about it.
The folks who wanted “new politics” have gotten “new politics”.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Hillary certainly got a taste of “new politics” as her dream of being President crashed and burned for all the world to see. Score one for “new politics” I guess.
Imagine spending your adult life perfecting “old politics” only to have a youngster beat you down with “new politics” right as your are about to realize your dream.
The Obama campaign has plenty to brag about. His win in the primarly was “historic,” as will be his win in November.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Jay,
It’s pretty clear that the Obama campaign belives it too. The support for that belief seems to be the ground game, where a LOT of the money seems to be going, is going to be worth a couple percentage points on election day.
And I don’t thjink that that is an irrational belief, of an irrational strategy – as far as it goes. But there are two problems I see: (1) the ground game may be worth a couple points, but perhaps the “I don’t want to sound like a racist” polling factor cuts the other way just as much.
The other point is the dynamics of the race. I fear that, absent a strong counter attack, the numbers are just going to get worse. It’s not like the McCain campaign is going to stop, or even pause, it’s relentless series of lies and smears.
Ironically, if he does lose, it will completely discredit the so-called new politics.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
John McCain has shown himself to be a liar and a flip-flopper. He has shown himself to have no allegiance to the truth, or to what he himself said less than a year ago. If we can’t trust him not to tell blatant lies, if we can’t trust him to hold the same position today that he held yesterday, then how the hell can we trust him to run the country?
Who is more elitist? The man who went to prestigious universities to educate himself, or the man who talks down to the American people like they are gullible idiots?
September 10th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
“Ironically, if he does lose, it will completely discredit the so-called new politics.”
Of course, having a strong GOTV program is in no way is tied to thinking that you don’t have to worry about the grubby business of winning news cycles.
The lack of concern about winning news cycles is actually the old politics that got correctly thrown out a generation ago.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Apologies that my rant was only tangentially related to this post. Personally, that’s where I see McCain’s biggest weakness right now, and that’s what I see as a good avenue of attack.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Oh, OK. Now I get it Petey or Petey spoofed. When you said “old politics” earlier you actually meant “new politics” of today. And when you said “new politics” earlier you actually meant the “new politics” from a generation ago.
It is a good thing your posts make sense otherwise we wouldn’t know what the fack you are talking about.
The lack of concern about winning news cycles is actually the old politics that got correctly thrown out a generation ago.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
The vehicle is called the nomination process of the Democratic Party. We lost this year because the media and “professional liberals” pushed forward the most conservative Democratic Presidential nominee since Jimmy Carter
That’s ridiculous, Petey. Compared to say, Bill Clinton’s platform in 1996, Obama’s platform is indisputably more progressive.
September 10th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Well, I wouldn’t use the word “dishonorable”, since McCain would somehow find a way to frame that as an attack on his POW service.
This attitude is a big part of the problem.
At one point, it looked like Obama could win without destroying McCain in the eyes of the nation. Given the low, low road that McCain has chosen to go, that is no longer possible. No, the public needs to be shown that McCaiun is dirt, worthy of no respect or honor.
How to do this in light of the POW stufff? Look, I’m not saying it will be easy. Me, I’ve never understood why being shot down while bombing innocent civilians, and then survicing by betraying his oath and making propaganda videos for the North Vietnamese, is deserving of sympathy, even, let alone a evidence of McCain being “honorable.” But I’ll agre that such a direct attack would likely fail. But the answer, while not easy, is obvious: attack the man as he is now, for the moral cretin that he is, and distinguish that from the person he was 40 years ago.
Palin? While I do think that surrogates need to keep the heat on some of the more compelling narratives, e.g. the Bridge to Nowhere lies (and not go anywhere near the family stuff), on the whole the REALLY tough stuff should be aimed at the war criminal at the yop of the ticket. I’m still convinced that Palin will sink herself at some point; even if I’m wrong, destroy the animal McCain, and no one (or not enough people) are going to vote for him just because they like his VP candidate.
September 10th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I think you are dead on.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
A Dem Congress and Senate in a McCain/Palin administration may not be so “angry” or whatever, but the activist left will be on fire, and every two years will be pushing local elections harder and harder. The whold nation’s discourse will be progressively more uncivil. Given McCain’s ideas about policy, inevitably things for the most part are going to get worse. There will be enough Dems who are thoroughly pissed to keep the investigations going. McCain’s own party has a ton of grudges with him, and if he even so much as tries to go after the lobbyists that run the Republican agenda, he will find himself in the same place Bush is now–irrelevant. Gridlock will be inevitable. And then if so much as a hair of Sarah Palin’s evangelism slips over into policy or their hiring and firing practices resemble Alaska or the Justice Dept. under Bush, there will be a drum beat. The Health Care problem will reach a tipping point that will rock the economy, and the resentment of the nonwhite poor in urban areas will reach a violent pitch. More war, more hard times, more political repression, more ignorant foreign, economic, and energy policy will have their obvious effects, especially since the ground has been so unbelievably prepared by the last 8 years for disaster.
September 10th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
And the bloggers outside looked from Petey to Petey Spoofer, and from Petey Spoofer to Petey, and from Petey to Petey Spoofer again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
(Paraphrased from Animal Farm.)
September 10th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Obama’s going to lose. I say that with a pit in my stomach; we’re in for four more years of incompet policies and actions.
One solution for the Dems; get rid of Polosi and Reid; worst Dem leaders of Congress and select some decent leaders.
Combine that with the worst president ever (no wait, McCain is going to be in the running for that title-hard to believe anyone could be worse than Bush, but McCain has potential) and it’s no wonder the US is going down the tubes.
I’m an undecided voter; I can’t decide what country to move to if McSame wins.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
I’ve wondered what it would be like for Obama, if HE’S elected. He will probably be at constant odds with the opposition party (I dare not speak its’ name) because they seem to more than dislike him, they seem to really hate him. I doubt that I’m the only one that sees it that way.
I don’t see how either side will ever heal the wounds that have been opened up during this campaign. I thought some others were pretty bad going back over the last 50 years, but this is the worst I’ve ever seem. I’ve seen horrible ads, and outrageous accusations ofcourse, but never to this degree of nastiness and constantly sustained, with no let up at all. Slime, smear, lies, lies, lies and innuendo. I’m embarrassed that we have to witness such a spectacle when this election is so very, very important.
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:41 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:01 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:37 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Very interesting site, Hope it will always be alive! viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 10:05 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
viagra