Rob Goodspeed analyzes how many words each candidate's website dedicates to each issue. You can see that John McCain has very little to say outside his security/Iraq/veterans comfort zone. To me, that means it's vital for Barack Obama to try to hit McCain early in that comfort zone since that's where it'll be hardest to build an argument that convinces people, but I think Democratic strategists have a bad habit of preferring to stay within their own comfort zone.
« Good for Carper | Main | Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran »
Word Count
08 May 2008 10:15 am
Comments (19)
Why do we refer to McCain as simply "John McCain" because that's the way he wants it? I suggest referring to him from now on by his proper appellation: John S. McCain III.
It would be good to remind voters that he comes from a rather more elite background than the black son of a single mother.
____________________________________________
John McCain may FEEL comfortable talking about security issues, but every time he opens his mouth, he demonstrates that he doesn't have a clue. The most recent was his belief that Czechoslovakia still exists. What's next? A plan to bomb the Soviet Union? Or maybe he'll enter into negotiations with the Ottoman Empire. Or how about a call for the independence of India?
And Don' forget that McCain has NO energy policy!
He's going around the country saying that he supports renewables, and that we need to end our dependence on foreign oil, but he has been running for preisdent for over a year without putting forward any actual proposals (with the recent exception of the gas tax holiday).
It's really remarkable, especially considering that Obama and CLinton both put out very detailed and forward thinking policies many months ago.
"I think Democratic strategists have a bad habit of preferring to stay within their own comfort zone."
True enough, but I'm not sure it applies to Team Obama.
Don't do it Matt. Voters aren't going to listen to and compare the actual policy proposals. They're going to ask themselves, "who do I believe would do a better job solving this problem"?
Right now, the answer to that question for just about everything except "who do I trust to hunt down the dirty terrorist who killed my sister and rip out his throat" is Senator Obama. (Want to see mass opinion on this? Check out the Onion right now).
If you make this question about national security, Senator Obama will lose. If you make it about anything else, he will win. That is the entire story of this campaign. Everything else is just window dressing and fodder for columnists
True enough, but I'm not sure it applies to Team Obama.I'm sure it doesn't. Obama has great confidence in the soundness of his foreign policy views and his ability to put them across. He has openly said that he won't be choosing a running mate to compensate for any supposed deficiencies in that area because he doesn't believe he has any. I think he'll do a fine job, in his patented calm, nonconfrontational way, of explaining the looniness of McCain's ideas.
On the nose, Matt. And what's one of Karl Rove's basic rules for electoral success? Go at their strength. And our case has the virtue, unlike most of Karl's, of being true. Dems need to get moving already.
Karl Rove was never the "boy genius" the mainstream press made him out to be, but he did make a serious contribution to modern campaign strategy by focusing on the opponent's perceived strengths and making attacks on those strengths the center of his campaigns. Hence, John Kerry (the war hero) became the latte-sipping fairy who cheated to get his purple hearts, and Al Gore (the intellectual) became the pointy-headed dork that everyone hated in high school. Rove's tactics may have been deplorable, but his basic strategy is worth emulating in our current era of skeptical cynicism.
Obama needs to make attacks on McCain's perceived "straight talk" the center of his critique of McCain (rather than, say, McCain's opposition to universal health care). I would argue that attacks on McCain's "straight talk" provide the perfect window for highlighting ALL of McCain's awful positions, since Saint John reverses himself so frequently on everything, including national security. In other words, Obama should not say, "I am for universal health care and John McCain is not." Hit McCain on the lies he has told about the Democratic health care plan. Once McCain has been framed as dishonest and inconsistent, then briefly explain the differences between the cadidates's positions. Finish with, "John McCain just can't seem to tell the truth about America's health care crisis."
On national security, hit McCain with quote after quote supporting Bush on Iraq, then flip to him saying how he was critical of Bush from the start, then the 100 year comment. Finish with, "John McCain just can't seem to tell the truth about his support for the Bush Administration's War in Iraq. Barack Obama's position has always been crystal clear."
Turn McCain's habitual inconsistency into "a problem with the truth." Within that frame, all other critiques of McCain - both foreign and domestic - will fit. It will get dirty fast, but hey, that's what it takes. And I hope Obama isn't afraid to do what it takes.
I'd gladly deal with low word counts if the words would be more of policies I supported with more definite commitments.
The McCain campaign certainly isn't staying in their comfort zone -- here in Ohio for the last few days I've seen McCain ads on TV touting his "bold" proposals to fix healthcare. The only actual policy proposal I was able to ascertain from the commercial was to allow prescription drug importation.
To respond more directly to Matt's comment: I think it makes sense to compare Obama and McCain's foreign policy positions for the wonkish types...but for the masses, the far more effective attack involves turning Mr. Straight Talk into a dishonest, inconsistent, political opportunist who will say whatever he has to in order to please everyone. In short, it is about character, not policy distinctions. Within that framework exists plenty of space to highlight McCain's nutty foreign policy views.
Take McCain's 100 years in Iraq comment. It stands on its own as an indication of McCain's foreign policy nuttiness, obviously. But if I were running Obama's media campaign, I would run clips of McCain's inconsistent statements before and after the "100 years" comment (along with McCain's blind support for Bush followed by his claims of being "critical" of the Bush plan), then finish with: "Mr. Straight Talk just can't seem to tell the truth about his position on Iraq."
McCain's greatest strength is not his foreign policy experience, it's his "character." Destroying that strength will be an ugly business, but that is where Obama must focus his fire.
Obama needs to make attacks on McCain's perceived "straight talk" the center of his critique of McCain
Obama has done this on several occasions. He has used the line "the wheels fell off the straight talk express" in at least one debate and I believe one post primary speech. Others may know, is this a normal part of his stump speech?
Which is exactly why Hillary needs to go. It's because of her presence that his attacks on McCain don't get noticed by the MSM. If even people around here don't know about them, that's a big problem.
Attack your opponents strength from your weakness. That's Karl Rove's first law. Which I suspect that he got from thinking about JFK attacking Eisenhower (and Nixon indirectly) over the "missile gap". For some reason or other Democratic strategists like to imagine that we're playing tiddlywinks instead of trying to seize the most powerful office in the world.
McCain's a doddering fool and approaching senility rather quickly. Play up the dread over him launching an ill-advised war that will spiral out of control. It has the advantage of being true and worrisome.
Attack your opponents strength from your weakness. That's Karl Rove's first law.
It's also Sun Tzu's first blunder.
There are two fundamental issues regarding defense. Democrats, Republicans, and the public at large, to their general discredit, have failed to grapple with either.
First: Does high tech weaponry make the United States stronger or weaker? The Iraq War strongly suggests that high tech's actual capabilities are limited. China is developing serious cyberwar capabilities. Lengthy development times for new weapons systems actually impede swift responses to changing developments.
Second: Can the United States, with its deficits, with its shaky financial system, afford to continue spending more on its military than the rest of the world combined. What happens when - not if, when - the Chinese and others call in their loans? Can the military be reconfigured, not to achieve more bang, but rather more bang for the buck?
The Democratic Congress has shown no serious ability to grapple with either of these questions; and the vested status of the American polity suggests that business as usual will substantially continue regardless of who may be elected.
But these issues will assert themselves regardless of which party prevails, what the media covers, what the lobbyists prefer, or what Joe Sixpack wants.
Attack your opponents strength from your weakness. That's Karl Rove's first law.
It's also Sun Tzu's first blunder.
There are two fundamental issues regarding defense. Democrats, Republicans, and the public at large, to their general discredit, have failed to grapple with either.
First: Does high tech weaponry make the United States stronger or weaker? The Iraq War strongly suggests that high tech's actual capabilities are limited. China is developing serious cyberwar capabilities. Lengthy development times for new weapons systems actually impede swift responses to changing developments.
Second: Can the United States, with its deficits, with its shaky financial system, afford to continue spending more on its military than the rest of the world combined. What happens when - not if, when - the Chinese and others call in their loans? Can the military be reconfigured, not to achieve more bang, but rather more bang for the buck?
The Democratic Congress has shown no serious ability to grapple with either of these questions; and the vested status of the American polity suggests that business as usual will substantially continue regardless of who may be elected.
But these issues will assert themselves regardless of which party prevails, what the media covers, what the lobbyists prefer, or what Joe Sixpack wants.
Comment: why is the comment submission on this site so incredibly annoying? It takes forever and frequently multiple postings result.
The biggest trees grow from the smallest acorns, and one of the topics with a low word count is full of lies and misleading and incomplete statements from all three. And, just because the two candidates will both be vulnerable on it doesn't mean it will be off the table.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
McCain is running on "war hero" - period.
Gut him on that or he will win, especially if Bush and Cheney start an Iran war in the next five months.
Duncan: Because The Atlantic has an IT staff with no clue about load balancing, performance monitoring, and apparently Apache configuration given the number of "Internal Server Errors" the stupid thing generates. That's REALLY bad Apache configuration. And considering Apache is open source and FREE, and has tons of documentation, and is the standard Web server worldwide, you've go to wonder how they could screw that up so badly.
Answer: crappy IT staff. Or more likely, crappy IT management.
Comments closed May 22, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Exactly!! Even in McCain's comfort zone, he knows very little. All he knows is taking photo-op strolls through Baghdad with Holy Joe and Mini-me(Graham).
Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 8, 2008 10:23 AM