The Whites of Their Eyes

Mark Thoma wonders what's going on:

Then here’s the question. Why hasn’t the Obama campaign opened their Christmas gifts and made use of them? Why haven’t they gone after McCain’s “disgrace” remark regarding Social Security? Have they said anything at all about that? Why haven’t they hammered away at some of his statements and the inconsistencies surrounding them about carve-out privatization plans? Will they do anything with the implication identified above that McCain must be planning to cut benefits? Why so much silence from the Obama campaign on the Social Security issue?

He's not the only one. All I'd observe is that I recall Obama supporters having very similar sentiments about Obama's campaign against Hillary Clinton about 12 months ago. People wanted to see hard-hitting attacks and they were disappointed. Attacks came eventually, of course, but not until substantially later. And beyond that, the attacks mostly came as counterpunching efforts, a kind of judo. Now maybe this means that Obama's team has a brilliant strategy of patience that they're implementing. Or maybe it means that they made the wrong decision last summer and wound up getting lucky and winning anyway by accident and have no learned the wrong lessons.

Comments

Obama is a much better counterpuncher than he is an aggressor. I kind of wonder if he's just the sort of candidate that is better at the point of conflict, and whether what we're seeing now is lassitude prior to the final two or three months. There's a feeling of torpor to the campaign at the moment.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 15, 2008 5:30 PM

Or it may be that such attacks would take Obama off his "change" message.

Posted by BobN | July 15, 2008 5:31 PM

I think there's a case to be made for forbearance during a primary. But a lot less of one during a general election. It could be that Obama himself (as opposed to surrogates) wants to preserve a bit more of a positive image prior to the convention, and we'll see the gloves come off in September. It could also be he's not eager to get into it with McCain on the specific issue of Social Security, given his (Obama's) own calls for higher payroll taxes (a proposal that leasves even some people on the left such as myself a tad queasy*).

*Full disclosure -- I'd personally like top marginal rates boosted into the 50% range, but I'm not so sure I want the bulwark of the nation's social insurance system made a bit less like social insurance and a bit more like welfare, which I suspect is how it will be spun in the future if Obama's (Goolsbee's?) plan is adopted.

Posted by Jasper | July 15, 2008 5:31 PM

Or it may be that such attacks would take Obama off his "change" message.

Posted by BobN | July 15, 2008 5:35 PM

Obama won his way. Maybe he did get lucky and that's the wrong lesson, but I think there were certain things he wasn't prepared to do, and one of them was explicitly bringing up the Clinton baggage even when that descent down memory lane may have helped him wrap up the nomination earlier.

The point is, whether real or simply a branding effort, he is supposed to be offering a new kind of politics. Painting the other guy as a flip-flopper is something he has mentioned as a sign of broken politics. He shouldn't go down that road unless he has to.

I think even saying "McCain is Bush's 3rd term" has gotten annoying and glosses over any real debate. If we want to move policy in a truly different direction, don't we actually have to win some substantive arguments and get people to agree with us? Be good teachers and all that?

Pointing out inconsistencies will be necessary and maybe even effective. But this is the equivalent of, in a murder trial, simply planting reasonable doubt by impeaching a witness rather than giving the jury a satisfying theory of who really did it.

Presenting a clear vision for the country is more important to Obama's brand at this point than impeaching McCain's testimony, if you will. Once he successfully establishes that vision and brand (general election style), the substantive contrast will give him even more mileage if he does start pounding these inconsistencies.

Posted by reversed | July 15, 2008 5:39 PM

"Why so much silence from the Obama campaign on the Social Security issue?"

There is a price to be paid for General Electric's support.

Seriously. Look at where GE makes their money. It's not at NBC.

Posted by Petey | July 15, 2008 5:45 PM

I've been a little stunned by this too. He seems to be purely on defense, allowing McCain to define the debate on his terms. I hardly think that pointing out all the many ways in which McCain is wrong about everything is a losing strategy. I don't even think putting the other candidate on the defensive is contrary to Obama's claim to be a new kind of politician. Could it be that the Obama campaign is afraid that McCain's fanboys in the press will scream about "attacking" McCain's "integrity" if he dares to point out McCain's weaknesses? There may be something to such a fear, but if they allow it to determine their campaign tactics I don't see how Obama can win.

Posted by bobbo | July 15, 2008 5:47 PM

I think a steady stream of McCain YouTube moments in September and October would be devastating. He'd be so busy trying to defend his ever shifting positions that all he'd end up doing is complaining that Obama was using "old politics" and looking weak in the process.

Posted by LFC | July 15, 2008 5:47 PM

I think BobN has it correct. The only dip I've seen in Obama's support is when he's moved away from the type of candidate he was in the primary. He loses what's so fresh about him when he's seen pouncing on gaffes. Might be a mistake, but I think its a winning strategy. There's also a lot of ballgame left, right?

Posted by Stacy | July 15, 2008 5:52 PM

My feeling is that Obama is confident he can win without going on the attack so much. If he is right, I think that he is definitely correct that a win without attack will make governing easier. His conclusion is dead on; the question is whether his assumption is right. I suspect that it is.

Posted by J. Michael Neal | July 15, 2008 5:52 PM

Rope-a-dope.

Obama is to politics as Cassius Clay was to boxing. And Muhammad Ali was definitely known for his eloquence out of the ring and the rope-a-dope inside the ring.

And John McCain ain't exactly Joe Frazier.

Posted by calipygian | July 15, 2008 5:54 PM

McCain is damaging his own image enough right now - this is the kind of thing Obama can sit on until he needs it. As far as outside organizing, basically all the people who worked on the social security fight are now paid Obama staff.

Posted by Anonymous | July 15, 2008 5:56 PM

Counter punching is boxing. Judo is about throwing, and grappling. Minor points. I think your overall idea is good. Obama seeks to use McCain's perceived strengths against him. Even the MSM is beginning to report on McCain's pandering.
As a counter puncher Obama can control the fight by forcing McCain to come to him, because McCain has no policy goals which cannot be tied to Bush. When McCain lumbers in the faster Obama pops him on the nose.
see: Floyd Mayweather Jr.

Posted by craig mcgillivray | July 15, 2008 6:02 PM

Obama's better off saving these mistakes by McCain for direct mail, state-centered, and other targeted moves come October. Right now, they'd distract from his two-pronged approach to first educate voters in likely close states about his biography and second to establish his two primary contrasts with McCain: Iraq (and foreign policy in general) and Economy/Energy (w/ a focus on gas prices). Incidentally, these two areas are the ones in which McCain's promises most overlap with Bush's accomplishments and their relative unpopularity, which goes into the broader theme of Obama's campaign. It's important to establish this shit now, and hold his fire on Social Security, abortion/women's rights, and McCain's age/wealth/out-of-touchness (re: internet) until just before the election. He'd look desperate if he pulled this stuff out again in October after deploying it today should the election be close enough to require attacks.

Obama's biggest last-minute expense in FL/OH/NV/etc will probably be television ads and targeted mailings brutally assailing McCain on Social Security privatization, and that could be what makes this election a landslide. Using it now might placate the talking heads and give bloggers something to talk about on a boring day, but it won't change many votes.

Posted by Zach | July 15, 2008 6:05 PM

I've gotten to the point where I refuse to believe any candidate -- even a winning one -- is some kind of strategic or tactical genius. Obama is just doing what he knows how to do and thinks will work. It he wins, we'll comment on how brilliant he was to hold back leaping on McCain right now. If he fails, we'll call him an idiot for being soft. He's just taking a bet. Though taking a bet that it's not a good idea to come across as the "aggressive angry black man" is probably a good bet for him to take.

don't we actually have to win some substantive arguments and get people to agree with us?

You must be new around here.

Seriously, no, we don't. You don't win over voters by winning and election and then showing that your policies work. Voters tend to respond better to results than a "substantive argument" which is, let's face it, just words.

Posted by Tyro | July 15, 2008 6:12 PM

I agree with Zach on literally everything. You sound like my mind, except better written. People/the media have short attention spans. When best to have the "John McCain privatizes SS" debate, now or November 1st?

Additionally, Obama always was harder on the attack against Clinton in direct mail than he was in his speeches.

Posted by Virginia | July 15, 2008 6:12 PM

I agree with Zach. It's best to hold some of this stuff for now. Not enough people are paying attention at the moment.

Posted by Ly | July 15, 2008 6:13 PM

I agree with Zach. It's best to hold some of this stuff for now. Not enough people are paying attention at the moment.

Posted by Ly | July 15, 2008 6:14 PM

I agree with Zach on literally everything. You sound like my mind, except better written. People/the media have short attention spans. When best to have the "John McCain privatizes SS" debate, now or November 1st? btw, I except to see direct mail screaming "Barack wants to legalize all drugs" around the same time.

Additionally, Obama always was harder on the attack against Clinton in direct mail than he was in his speeches.

Posted by Virginia | July 15, 2008 6:16 PM

As usual, Al Giordano is much smarter than the rest of you idiot bloggers:

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/if

Best part:

"It seems to me that Axelrod - the Christian Science Monitor story refers to him as "Keeper of the Message" - and team are keeping their heads when all about them are losing theirs and blaming it on them.

And that's why so many previous media-generated crises and outrages-of-the-day over the past seven months, especially - two Clintons, two reverends, some gaffes that were gaffes because they were errant, other that were called gaffes because they were not - so many millions of words on blogs and in the media that portrayed every moment as if history would be decided by that one loud distraction - floated back out to sea and aren't even remembered in much detail today."

Posted by 55 | July 15, 2008 6:17 PM

I agree with Zach on literally everything. You sound like my mind, except better written. People/the media have short attention spans. When best to have the "John McCain privatizes SS" debate, now or November 1st? btw, I except to see direct mail screaming "Barack wants to legalize all drugs" around the same time.

Additionally, Obama always was harder on the attack against Clinton in direct mail than he was in his speeches.

Posted by Virginia | July 15, 2008 6:17 PM

But this the general, where the Dem who initiates negative ads/attacks on his opponent always gets slammed for "playing dirty." He'll have to wait until McCain or the GOP puts out some outrageous blast on terror or something to respond in kind.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | July 15, 2008 6:28 PM

if obama loses this election historians will only have to look back at the last month or so in order to determine why obama lost.
obama should be burying mccain now, as mccain has been floundering from one horrid mistake to another.
instead of coming down on mccain with both feet and crippling him so that he could not get back up to fight, obama is giving him room and space to recover.
he's like a boxer who has his opponent hurt badly and instead of pressing his advantage and putting his opponent away, he's being overly cautious and allowing mccain to clear his head and get back into the fight.
maybe obama's gamble will work - he is clearly playing defense and simply expecting that he will win as long as he doesn't make a big mistake - but i cannot recall a democrat using this strategy and being successful.
the only thing a prevent defense does is prevent you from winning.

Posted by frankie d | July 15, 2008 6:38 PM

What political junkies and media talking heads forget about is that most people don't observe politics and elections through their eyes and their time perceptions. People know that there is an election coming up between Obama and McCain. However, nobody really cares about "Outrage of the Day" stuff who isn't reading a blog right now. Getting into these little dustups months in advance only serves to turn people off of the process, which for Obama is counterproductive in that he's depending on new voters making red-leaning blue states competitive. He's been countering the personal attacks (this year's version of Swift Boating), thus avoiding Kerry's mistake, while also not attacking McCain on esoteric policy details that to non-wonks just look petty, especially this early.

Posted by Reality Man | July 15, 2008 6:41 PM

GE has two main policy goals:

1) No universal healthcare
2) From a Democrat, agreement that SS "needs further study".

Obama tactically can't cross GE. They are his base.

He can sell out civil liberties folks on FISA. They ain't his base.

Obama has created a campaign where the butter is on a very specific side of the bread.

Posted by Petey | July 15, 2008 6:48 PM

frankie d, in the most recent poll Obama is leading McCain by 9. Earlier polls had him leading by 4 or 5. Knockout punches this early only work on people who seem absolutely crazy or total jokers (Goldwaters and McGoverns), especially when you aren't an incumbent. McCain is the most electable DC Republican not named Powell. You don't really land knockout punches in July against major contenders with a shot of winning. Defining himself now as the angry black guy beating on the old war hero is a losing strategy. Obama has been pressing McCain for a while on Iraq. There is a difference between beating someone on grand themes and winning on charisma than pressing on what a lot of people think is minutia and just alienating people.

Posted by Reality Man | July 15, 2008 6:51 PM

I am a master in performance art. I mean, how sad would it be if I bought my own bullshit?

Posted by Petey | July 15, 2008 6:56 PM

Why do blogs attract such an assortment of OCD freaks?

Posted by El Cid | July 15, 2008 7:11 PM

I also agree with Zach. We also have the same birthday, and the same favorite color. In fact, Zach is my god, and I am his prophet.

No, just kidding. I really do agree with Zach.

Posted by Ted | July 15, 2008 7:14 PM

Reality Man:
Social Security is not an esoteric policy detail. Second, it would shore up Obama with people over 55(which is his weakest demographic).

Petey:
How is Obama in bed with GE? Are you saying Immelt is a secret Democrat(because we know Welch was a hard right Republican)? And how is life as a trust fund scumbag? ;-)

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | July 15, 2008 7:18 PM

People saying that he's just keeping the attacks in reserve: I'll buy that, though I think there are good cases to be made against that strategy. What I don't buy is the idea (given by reversed above) that attacking McCain's unpopular positions is somehow anti-change, old politics, etc. If McCain attacks Social Security, or lies, it seems to me like that might be fair game; if that's beyond the pale, I don't know what's left. What's the honorable way to win--arm wrestling? A coin toss? What?

Posted by tomemos | July 15, 2008 7:20 PM

TYRO SAYS:

You don't win over voters by winning and election and then showing that your policies work. Voters tend to respond better to results than a "substantive argument" which is, let's face it, just words.

I wasn't talking about winning an election. I was talking about governing when you get there. You can't govern if you didn't win the argument and secure a mandate for change.

Call me an idealist, but the things all the president's men decide and implement have actual consequences, as W's reign has shown.

Posted by reversed | July 15, 2008 7:21 PM

Matt,

fix your frikkin comment software. see those multiple posts? broken comment software.

Posted by cleek | July 15, 2008 7:24 PM

Joe, Joe, Joe . . . don't you realize by now that everyone is in bed with GE?

Posted by Ted | July 15, 2008 7:24 PM

"Social Security is not an esoteric policy detail. Second, it would shore up Obama with people over 55(which is his weakest demographic)."

The problem is that while McCain seems to be anti-Social Security and his policy proposals are so in effect, he isn't dumb enough to straight out say he wants to kill Social Security. His biggest gaffe on the issue has deniability in that there is an argument he was talking about how it was funded. When you get into these very specific funding issues within the context of Social Security, it does get a bit esoteric. Then you end up in an argument over policy wonkishness and diagramming McCain's sentences a bit. People tend to tune out a lot of this stuff, think it's just politicians being politicians and then go "a pox on both of their houses." If you use this too early, McCain gets time to re-adjust and neutralize the attack.

Posted by Reality Man | July 15, 2008 7:27 PM

Boxing is the wrong analogy; you can't end an election ahead of election day by knockout. The obvious sports analogy is a marathon, or a timed sport like football or basketball. There's a reason why marathoners don't go flat out, or why football teams don't run a two-minute offense all the time.

It's early in the second quarter, Obama has the lead and is dictating the pace of the game. It would be foolish at this stage to overextend in an effort to score every possible point.

Posted by Incompetence Dodger | July 15, 2008 7:29 PM

I meant to say that you DO win over voters by winning and election and then showing that your policies work. You DON'T win them over by making some kind of "substantive argument" for why they should vote for you. Because while you're spending all your time doing that, the other guy is explaining how you're going to destroy the government and that your wife is an ugly wench.

Posted by Tyro | July 15, 2008 7:29 PM

Boom:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/obama_camp_hits_mccain_on_conf.php#more

Posted by marcj | July 15, 2008 7:31 PM

This Obama cult of personality thing is both depressing and frightening. As is the overconfidence of the Obamabots. I find the failure of the Obama campaign to forcefully attack McCain (Social Security is the most obvious, followed by his most obvious flip flops like the Bush tax cuts) both inexplicable and dumb. McCain's most valuable asset, by far, is the ridiculously fawning and protective press coverage he receives. Obama deperately needs to puncture this somehow and at least get some of the truth (and not the Village narrative) about McCain into the MSM. And so far, he's not. I don't get the Obamabot rationalization that no one is paying attention now. Does anything stop Obama from making the same attacks in the Fall that he makes now? I'm sure McCain won't stop giving him more ammunition. I wish Obama would start using it.

Posted by Marlowe | July 15, 2008 7:33 PM

This Obama cult of personality thing is both depressing and frightening. As is the overconfidence of the Obamabots. I find the failure of the Obama campaign to forcefully attack McCain (Social Security is the most obvious, followed by his most obvious flip flops like the Bush tax cuts) both inexplicable and dumb. McCain's most valuable asset, by far, is the ridiculously fawning and protective press coverage he receives. Obama deperately needs to puncture this somehow and at least get some of the truth (and not the Village narrative) about McCain into the MSM. And so far, he's not. I don't get the Obamabot rationalization that no one is paying attention now. Does anything stop Obama from making the same attacks in the Fall that he makes now? I'm sure McCain won't stop giving him more ammunition. I wish Obama would start using it.

Posted by Marlowe | July 15, 2008 7:33 PM

Are you saying Immelt is a secret Democrat

He was a Clinton supporter. Business in general is going to throw money at Obama because they aren't stupid and giving money to McCain is as useful as lighting a match to it.

I know very smart people that work in economics with positions that would make the Wall Street dems go positively apeshit. They have access to Obama and they are going to have a seat at the table policywise. I don't know if they will win or lose to the Rubinites, but they *didn't* have a seat at the table during the Clinton presidency so you are getting something.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 15, 2008 7:35 PM

Yeah, I think I agree with Marlowe. For comparison, four years ago at this time, the Bush campaign wasn't keeping its powder dry, it was attacking Kerry as a flip-flopper and funding the Swift Boat ads. Kerry, meanwhile, seemed to be figuring this stuff didn't matter that much yet. The outcome was pretty predictable.

Which is not to say we need to use Rovian tactics. But we need to use some tactics.

Posted by tomemos | July 15, 2008 7:38 PM

People who should know think they are going to not just win but flatten McCain in November. I don't know if they know something I don't or they are overconfident but they think they have a plan.

Posted by anonymous | July 15, 2008 7:56 PM

Of all the possible scenarios, give some wait to the idea that they don't think anyone is listening this month--we're all at the beach. Roger Stone et al always threaten the October surprise because, if you launch your best attack in July, everyone's tired of it before the convention.

I'd also posit that I believe Obama posits gradually raising the SS age by a few years. This is a good idea, and reflects both longer lifespans and the practicalities of the system; it's still a third rail issue. So they may not feel that going after McCain on SS is a winning strategy for them. Leave it to the press to say "hey, that makes no sense!" so they don't have to respond with what their plan is. (This would be a better plan if the press weren't out selecting the right sprinkles for John McCain's donuts. Still--see "July" in first paragraph.)

This also reminds me of GHWB's plaint, "What is it about August?" Referring to the tendencies of scandals to explode into those slow-news days. Let's all hope this year's is solidly Republican in nature.

Posted by Deborah | July 15, 2008 8:06 PM

As candidates, there is NO rational comparison to be made between Obama and Kerry (or Gore).

Posted by bab23 | July 15, 2008 8:06 PM

One problem of comparing a political campaign to a boxing match is that vulnerabilities don't go away in an election.

If McCain exposes his gut and his chin at the same time, and you are primed to hit the gut, only the weak Obama would try to redirect his efforts to the chin.

Obama decides to talk about war. He releases at least some of his speech text. What we get is Bush holding a press conference which disrupts regular television, then Obama, then McCain with his "speech". It should be obvious that if the president is willing to talk about Iraq when the press conference is about the near failure of two mortgage lenders, that Obama has these guys running scared.

Posted by tomj | July 15, 2008 8:24 PM

I wouldn't even characterize him as a good counter-puncher. Think about when he backed out of public financing. You'd think his people would be ready for the inevitable and somewhat merited flip-flop charge with either/both some push back on McCain's use of the public financing system as collateral or McCain's refusal to come to any agreement regarding outside groups.

Posted by Consumatopia | July 15, 2008 8:32 PM

Your answer lies here: "How to stay 'on message'?"

Today was supposed to be Iraq, as was yesterday. But yesterday New Yorker (-gate?) got in the way.

Social Security? It can wait. We have the Google and the YouTube here in our century. We can afford to wait.

Meanwhile, it's July. The average voter spends at most five (yes, at most) minutes a day even thinking about the election. In July? Less.

Posted by Ross Smith | July 15, 2008 8:37 PM

Much more success here than trying to demean Dee Brown, I see.

Posted by Zach | July 15, 2008 8:45 PM

Apparently every blogger is an armchair political strategist who thinks the candidates are idiots if they do not follow the blogger's advice.

Posted by blah | July 15, 2008 9:02 PM

Apparently every blogger is an armchair political strategist who thinks the candidates are idiots if they do not follow the blogger's advice.

Gah

Apparently every blog-commenter is an undiscovered genius who often thinks he or she has the novel answer to every problem that the blogger is inevitably far too slow to see before writing what the commenter thinks is a horrible blog post.

Speaking of fighting here's this

Posted by Swan | July 15, 2008 9:38 PM

It's called "rope-a-dope". He used it with Clinton to minimize fractures in the party. He's using it against McCain because the guy can't land a punch, and ends up punching himself in the face (not that the media sees it that way).

I think his style will change around convention time. But right now, what charge is he supposed to fight? That he's a dangerous radical (FOX); that he's an effete elitist (Rove); that he's an Oreo (McLaughlin); that his policies are indistinguishable from McCain's, so the election is about experience (AP)? If he fights all those at once, he'd be a flip-flopper.

Posted by Gordon | July 15, 2008 9:38 PM

Apparently every blog commenter who responds to another one is just looking for a way to promote his/her own blog.

Posted by 55 | July 15, 2008 9:55 PM

Apparently every blog commenter who responds to another one is just looking for a way to promote his/her own blog.

Since when?

By the way, how is a blogger supposed to promote his/her blog without putting a link in comments sometimes?

"Blogwhore" in my opinion is just a word conservatives thought up to try to shame real liberals from directing other people to their blogs-- that's why you see people complaining about it when if fact the average person probably usually only sees someone linking to their own blog once or twice in an entire day's worth of blog reading (out of hundreds of blog comments), at most.

Some epidemic. The wonder is that they get wimpy, milquetoast, beta liberal bloggers to eat it up.

It's a load of bullshit.

Posted by Swan | July 15, 2008 10:12 PM

Apparently every blog-commenter is an undiscovered genius who often thinks he or she has the novel answer to every problem that the blogger is inevitably far too slow to see before writing what the commenter thinks is a horrible blog post.

This was only meant half-seriously- I'm just pokig fun at how critical we all often get- but, Matt can have an opinion on what Barack should do, can't he? It's not really a specious observation to point out that sometimes Barack doesn't respond to things that really seem to call for it.

Posted by Swan | July 15, 2008 10:17 PM

The Obama campaign did finally go after McSame for some of his flip flops and gaffes today.

I do think they've had a rather carefully orchestrated strategy. I think first they wanted to just introduce Obama to everyone and get everyone comfortable with him.

That being said, I too would rather have them attack sooner than later. We need to put McSame to shame and the sooner the better for everyone.

Posted by cm | July 15, 2008 10:24 PM

Whatever the Obama campaign thought they were doing, their victory was a political miracle. Not in the sense that Hillary was evil and beating her was good (I've got no big problem with Hillary) but in the sense that no one thought he had any chance.

They've earned a little slack.

Posted by TomT | July 15, 2008 10:37 PM

Axelrod and Obama both believe that most marginal voters only really starting paying attention and making up their mind a few short weeks, sometimes just days, before the election.

And it is not like the Obama Campaign is doing nothing. Behind the scenes they are building a truly amazing set of field organizations in all their target states. Meanwhile, in those same states they are focusing on introducing Obama's basic biography to the electorates, plus also trying to make sure people understand Obama's views on Iraq.

And yes, this is the same basic approach they took in the primaries, starting with Iowa. But is Matt really of the view that Obama winning Iowa, then going on to overall win the months of January and February thus effectively sealing the nomination, was all just an accident? Um, no.

Posted by DTM | July 15, 2008 10:38 PM

Time and effort don't exist in vacuums. So Obama hasn't been pouncing on McCain gaffes. Well, first off, there are only so many hours in the day, and if one spent all day reminding folks that McCain made yet ANOTHER verbal or policy mistake, you'd never have time to talk about your own policies.

Which Obama HAS been doing. In four months, what will matter more - Obama having used this time to lay out a cogent approach toward foreign policy, or lambasting McCain for not realizing that Social Security is funded by younger worker's payroll tax contributions? To an extent, since McCain is his own worst enemy, Obama doesn't need to be spending too much time calling attention to the fact. The voters in the middle are getting it.

Posted by Marcus | July 15, 2008 10:46 PM

I'd comment but the last sentence is making my head hurt.

Posted by Jason McCullough | July 15, 2008 11:10 PM

DTM,

And it is not like the Obama Campaign is doing nothing. Behind the scenes they are building a truly amazing set of field organizations in all their target states.

They are? From the results of the new ABC News/Washington Post poll, Obama's flip-flops and moves to the center since Hillary dropped out are having the predictable effect of alienating his core constituencies. Among Democrats, intent to vote has dropped, and it has dropped most sharply in Obama's key demographic: young voters. Quote:

In March, 66 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds said they'd "definitely vote" in November; now it's 46 percent. (Turnout among young voters is not reliable.) Certain resolve to vote has gone from 82 percent to 66 percent among Democrats and from 77 percent to 58 percent among former Clinton supporters. And a third of onetime Clinton backers still shy from Obama, saying they'd vote for McCain or not at all.

Meanwhile, in those same states they are focusing on introducing Obama's basic biography to the electorates, plus also trying to make sure people understand Obama's views on Iraq.

What are Obama's views on Iraq? Specifically, is he still committed to withdrawing all "combat brigades" within 16 months, or would he be willing to delay the withdrawal if advised to do so after consulting "with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government" as he implied, but did not clearly say, in his New York Times piece yesterday? How large a "residual force" does he plan to leave in Iraq? A few thousand? Tens of thousands? How long does he plan to leave it there?

If Obama has a plan for Iraq, he's not saying what it is. More likely, he doesn't really have a plan at all, but is making it up as he goes along and trying to play all sides.

Posted by Mixner | July 15, 2008 11:16 PM

Re: Mixner: i don't really see the difference between a 16 month withdrawal and a 20 or 24 month withdrawal. the plan is still the same. as for residual forces, yeah, that's a big gray area, but justifiably: it depends on the situation, and we don't know what things will be like 3 years from now. For that reason, obama has never put a hard number on how many troops he would leave in iraq. OTOH, he's been pushing that ~16 month withdrawal timetable for a whole year and just recommitted to it politically. So I think this timeline, give or take a few months, is pretty much as solid as any campaign promise could be.

Re: Obama campaign performance: i want to echo DTM's comment above. the obama campaign is clearly looking forward to the post-convention race and is basically fine with treading water until then. is this a mistake? was the primary win an accidental fluke or strategic brilliance? i don't know. It's a big bet, and if obama loses this will probably be why. but if the campaign is right, and they somehow manage to steer the ship straight and win big, they're be the great political geniuses of their time. we'll see.

Posted by raft | July 15, 2008 11:50 PM

P.S. none of the above, of course, precludes the obama campaign from improving the press shop or other departments that are performing poorly. tactical upgrades are good and important. But i don't think they're gonna change their master strategy unless something catastrophic happens. and for whatever reason, that master strategy does not involve an all-out assault on john mccain at this stage of the campaign.

Posted by raft | July 16, 2008 12:00 AM

While I don't think Obama's necessarily doing himself any favors by staying quiet for a month or two here in the summer, I think it's probably a practical media strategy. Powerful factions in the media prefer McCain to Obama, and would take drastic action were Obama to be a true shoe-in this far from the election. Far better to lay back, let the media cover the horse race, let McCain embarrass himself repeatedly on the national stage, and then kick it into high gear in the fall.

It's going to be a close election, count on that. Folks who looked for an Obama landslide in this day and age were fooling themselves.

Posted by dob | July 16, 2008 12:31 AM

I think the Obama press/communication shop is highly inept. These guys have been driving me bunkers for about a year now. They never go on the offense, and often times allow opponents/circumstances to drive the narrative. Not a good strategy. If I were Obama, I'd hire some of the Clinton folks (wolfson would be a choice IMO) before it's too late.

Posted by AnthonyMason2k6 | July 16, 2008 12:36 AM

Think back to all of the crap that the MSM claimed would seriously damage Sen. Obama's campaign during the primaries and how played out that crap is now. Geez, every time McCain mentions bitter-gate, think how lame that seems. McCain even mentioned it last week. How much media coverage did that get? The little non-MSM coverage (e.g., Faux "News") it received and the blogosphere called out McCain's bitter-gate reference for what it was, desperate and lame.

The MSM played and looped all of the crap re: Sen. Obama during the primaries soooo much that they know that we know how desperate and lame it is for McCain to use most of that crap now. And, it will only come back to bite McCain in the backside.

The media hasn't harped too much on McCain's BS, lies, flip-flops, etc, for now. Sure, right now, Sen. Obama's camp isn't giving them a reason to. However, because the MSM was forced to spend the 45 seconds that it did expend discussing McCain's idiocy, lies, flip-flops, BS, etc. (just over the course of the last week), I can't imagine that their critique of McCain actually registered with too many people who were not already paying attention to the campaigns. However, come General Election time, after the conventions, I suspect the O'campaign will hit McCain hard on every last one of McCain's idiotic, lies, flip-flops, and BS. I also suspect that McCain will have a very, very, very difficult time in the debates. He can't remember his positions from one minute to the next! How will McCain remember to explain away his comment about SS being an "absolute disgrace" on the same day (or the next day) that he advocated for privatizing SS? Will such a discussion be fresh now or closer to the election? We Americans, with all of our Internet usage and 24 hour news coverage of events causing us to have memory and attention spans that are smaller than the size of a gnat's d!ck.

Sen. Obama has made it this far and he has consistently been leading in the national polls and the swing state and head-to-head matchups in many Bush-won state polls. Plus, Sen. O crushed the Clinton Political Machine and broke it into teeny, tiny, little pieces. Who are we to decide or tell this freshman Senator what he is or is not doing right or wrong with his campaign? He seems to have it together so far!! Please just get people to the polls!

Posted by LisaK | July 16, 2008 12:56 AM

Mixner,

(1) Nothing you wrote had anything in particular to do with field organizations;

(2) Here is a little dramatic play I wrote, just for you:

Normal Person: Yep, I am planning to go to the grocery store tomorrow for milk.

Nixmer: But what if the grocery store burns down before then? What if there is a sudden national recall on milk? What if you are killed by a runaway train on your way there?

[Nixmer continues hypotheticals for five more minutes]

Normal Person [interrupting]: OK, if all that happens I guess I will have to change my plans.

Nixmer: Hah! See, you aren't really planning to go to the grocery store tomorrow. Nixmer wins! Nixmer wins!

Posted by DTM | July 16, 2008 12:57 AM

My dad could totally play Nixmer.

Mixner, I have a question for you. Do you really know you're not going to blow a goat tomorrow? I know you say you won't. But what if you had a sudden urge, or you were starving, or that was the only way to get the damn thing off your lawn? If you have a plan not to blow goats ever, why won't you share it with the rest of us? Admit it, you just make things up as you go along. (And as we all know, that's the worst sin there is.)

Posted by southpaw | July 16, 2008 1:17 AM

I wouldn't even characterize him as a good counter-puncher. Think about when he backed out of public financing. You'd think his people would be ready for the inevitable and somewhat merited flip-flop charge with either/both some push back on McCain's use of the public financing system as collateral or McCain's refusal to come to any agreement regarding outside groups.

This is a really good point and well illustrates why I find the Obamabots so amusing when they insist Obama knows all, sees all, and has a secret plan for everyhing that may be invisible to us mere mortals (especially us unbelievers). When Obama opted out of public financing (a move I agree with), the virtual failure of the Obama campaign to highlight the fact that McCain was gaming the primary season public finance system--and that the Republican appointed FEC chairman had found his actions to be illegal--was just irretrievably dumb. This fact has been virtually disappeared by the MSM, who allowed the holier-than-thou McCain to ride his saintly maverick hobby horse. All Obama surrogates should have been screaming these facts from the rooftops and they didn't. BTW, similarly dumb is Obama's virtual shutdown of Democratic 527s. And it ain't for any goo goo, post partisanship, high road reason, but because Obama is arrogant enough to think he can raise ridiculous sums of cash (which may be untrue, especially after his FISA betrayal) and wants complete message control. I think he is really going to regret this as the lavishly funded Rethug groups go on the attack against him in the coming months. Oh, and although I disagree with this action, the campaign should have been pushing this when it opted out of the finance and contrasting it with McCain's failure to do likewise. Again, just dumb.

I know the standard response--the utter brilliance of the Obama campaign is proved by his victory. I think this is something of a myth. The Democratic field was a joke beyond the big three, and Edwards (who was my first choice) was always far weaker than the big two. As for Clinton, I think the strength of her campaign was something of a myth--like the overestimation of Soviet power in the '70s and '80s. She was roundly detested by a large segment (likely a majority) of active Democrats and was on the wrong side of their most energizing issue (Iraq). This is not exactly a good way to start a primary campaign. Plus, she largely ran a bad campaigm, courtesy of the detestable Mark Penn. Frankly, aside from women of a certain age (or, in certain states, racists), she really had no enthusiastic support. I rather think much of her support came from people who saw her as the lesser of two evils (at least that was why I voted for Clinton in the NJ primary after Edwards withdrew--I just disliked Obama more than I disliked Clinton). So while I think Obama ran a decent campaign, well aimed at this natural constituencies, given the circumstances, I don't think his victory is, in itself, proof that his campaign is so unerringly brilliant as to be above criticism.

Posted by Marlowe | July 16, 2008 1:39 AM

Reasonable points, Marlowe.

I'm frequently indicted as an "obamabot" but I think you're right that the campaign has thus far had a lot of trouble effectively hitting back against McCain. I don't think it's entirely for want of trying. On the public financing issue, David Plouffe was literally waving evidence of John McCain's illegal conduct in front of reporters' faces, and they still wouldn't write the story. (Obviously, it should have been Obama himself making the charge, if that's the story they wanted.)

There's two ways to interpret what's going on now. Some will say that Obama is conceding the air war in the face of a hostile press and focusing on ground organizing. I hope, and believe, that's not the case. Rather, I think Obama is trying to push back against McCain and keep his hands clean at the same time. But when he doesn't lend his own voice to the oppo, it just bounces off the force field of favorable press coverage that surrounds McCain. Obama will eventually find a way to land the punches, but he's losing valuable time in the interim.

Posted by southpaw | July 16, 2008 2:01 AM

If Obama had hit back hard on campaign finance, we'd still be talking about it today in regards to both McCain and Obama, and it would distract from Obama's more focus strategy. As is, it's dropped from political media chatter, and once the newly reconstituted FEC gets around to answering queries on McCain's questionable deals during the primary as well as potentially illegal coordination with the RGA, Vets for Freedom, etc, it'll likely lead to a real story come late September/early October instead of another example of Dems whining about Republicans gaming the system better than us.

The Obama campaign's shown time and time again that it prefers stories to appear just once and in a way that most effectively advances their campaign. It might not be the best strategy for all potential attacks, but as a general rule it's infinitely better than allowing your supporters to dip back into the same well of criticism over and over again (D-Punjab, anyone?) instead of focusing on what's right about your candidacy.

Matt's absolutely right with the "whites of their eyes" reference.

Posted by Zach | July 16, 2008 7:36 AM

And maybe it means they are in no major disagreement with John McCain on Social Security. Given the doublespeak and duplicity of the Clinton years, I'm thinking SS is the next thing the Democrats will be taking out.

Posted by Jesus Reyes | July 16, 2008 7:55 AM

Why should Obama say anything? How much more negative McCain coverage could he really generate?

Would you say McCain has had a good week or two? If not, perhaps some of that has to do with Obama NOT pouncing and opening up a debate that would inevitably be framed in tit-for-tat terms. He's just been sitting back and letting Team McCain shoot itself in the foot over, and over, and over.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | July 16, 2008 8:20 AM

Would you say McCain has had a good week or two? If not, perhaps some of that has to do with Obama NOT pouncing and opening up a debate that would inevitably be framed in tit-for-tat terms. He's just been sitting back and letting Team McCain shoot itself in the foot over, and over, and over.

Jeeze, it seems the only people as divorced from reality as Bush's 28% is the Obamabots. Yes, McCain HAS had a good week or two --in the MSM, which is the only medium through which that the vast majority of voters learns about the campaign. To readers of the liberal blogosphere, it may seem that McSame is shooting himself in the foot daily. But many--or even most--of these stories that generate such buzz in the blogosphere never appear in the MSM, and if they do, the stories are pretty much regurgitation of RNC press releases protecting McCain (which most of the press actually write themselves without waiting for the RNC). Take a look at Eric Boehlert's piece at Media Matters discussing the MSM's treatment of the "Social Security is a disgrace" story (to the extent it was mentioned at all, since their primary reaction was crickets).

Posted by Marlowe | July 16, 2008 9:11 AM

It's best to hold some of this stuff for now. Not enough people are paying attention at the moment.

Balls. frankie d has it right:

obama should be burying mccain now, as mccain has been floundering from one horrid mistake to another.

Forget 'new kind of politics'. It's crap. Obama is still heavily favored here, but it makes no sense to me that he's not kicking McCain when he's down (without seeming to do so of course).

Posted by jonnybutter | July 16, 2008 9:35 AM

Armchair quarterbacking from anyone who employs the term "Obamabot" is hilarious.

Clearly, the best strategy is to engage the MSM head-on and decry McSame from what he is day in and day out, right? No possible way that could ever get tired months out from the election, right?

You do realize that Obama's going to be attacked by McCain circa the debates for proposing to raise income limits for payroll taxes, correct? Would you rather he be able to respond, "Yes that's right, John. Unlike you, I don't think Social Security's a disgrace and I want to do what's necessary now and what should've been done in 2000," or would it be better that he bring out that argument now?

The benefit of Hillary Clinton's extended candidacy was that she repeatedly deployed the exact same tired accusations of elitism against Obama over the exact same two or three misconstrued remarks to the point that they were boring and self-defeating and now next-to-worthless for McCain (see the blah reaction to Rove's country-club remarks a couple weeks back). The last thing Obama needs is to make that same mistake.

Posted by Zach | July 16, 2008 9:40 AM

Obama didn't "back out" of public financing.

Sheesh.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 16, 2008 9:57 AM

It's best to hold some of this stuff for now. Not enough people are paying attention at the moment.

Again, no: not enough people are ever going to pay as much attention as you think they will or should. Yes, the numbers often change at the end of the campaign, but you want to have built up a big enough lead by then that the opponent can't catch up. Although it was a reelect, Clinton's '96 campaign is instructive here. Dole - who, like McCain, is a terrible candidate - never came close, could never 'get off the mat' so to speak. MY cites in a post above what we all know: the DC and political press is in the tank for McCain. But it's up to Obama to change that - it's not going to happen by itself.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 16, 2008 11:49 AM

close italics

Posted by jonnybutter | July 16, 2008 11:52 AM

Remember how well Clinton pouncing on every little outrage of the day worked out ("change you can Xerox")? Voters want someone likable and acting like the liberal Bill Kristol just looks petty. When you can't organize your attacks to make them fit into grander themes, you end up shooting yourself in the foot. After all, when politicians go negative, that tends to drive up both theirs and their opponent's negatives and just turns people off of the controversies, especially independents.

Also, how is McCain having a good week when he is falling further in the polls? CNN and FoxNews don't actually have as much control over the media discourse and public opinion as people seem to think. They get like 1-4 million viewers a night on a good night in a country of over 300 million people. Local news is what drives public opinion. Considering how Obama is focusing on his ground game, that is where the focus should be more - on the local level.

Posted by Reality Man | July 16, 2008 11:56 AM

"lthough it was a reelect, Clinton's '96 campaign is instructive here. Dole - who, like McCain, is a terrible candidate - never came close, could never 'get off the mat' so to speak."

Except the dynamics of a re-election campaign are fundamentally different. You don't have a primary fight usually and the election is very much a referendum on your performance as president. You have the media benefits of being both the president and a candidate. You have DNC, personal campaign and, in some ways, executive branch / White House resources at your disposal as campaign tools.

Posted by Reality Man | July 16, 2008 12:11 PM

Remember how well Clinton pouncing on every little outrage of the day worked out?

McCain's Social Security view - that the program itself is a 'disgrace' - is a petty, quotidian, faux outrage? Are you high? Maybe you think McCain merely 'misspoke', it was just a 'gaffe', a 'kerfuffle'....

And, I think there's a difference between 'going negative' in the late HRC (or Nixon, et. al.) sense of the term, and simply letting McCain present his actual view on videotape and drawing a contrast. He thinks SS is a disgrace.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 16, 2008 12:13 PM

Maybe they are keeping their powder dry (to mix 18th century metaphors). The McChristmas presents are on video. It might be good strategy to save them for later, preferably after McCain claims that Obama is falsely accusing him of not loving and understanding social security enough.

Posted by Robert Waldmann | July 16, 2008 12:46 PM

reality man wrote:
"When you can't organize your attacks to make them fit into grander themes, you end up shooting yourself in the foot."
i tend to agree although i do not necessarily think attacks have to be organized around central themes. it certainly helps, but a shotgun approach can be effective also. all you have to do is look at both bush/rove presidential campaigns and look at how they attacked any and every perceived kerry and gore misstep, no matter where or how it fit into their strategy. by attacking relentlessly, you put your opponent on the defensive and are better able to define the issues that the campaign is argued on.
imho, obama is failing miserably to attack and define mccain in a way that does fit into a grander scheme.
i cannot fathom why phil gramm is not a central villian in the daily press outreach that obama presents.
phil gramm - or "dr. phil" as he could be dubbed - is ripe for caricature and his recent "whiner" comments perfectly encapsulate the attack on economic issues that obama should be pursuing: that the republicans skew their entire set of economic policies to favor the rich while telling the poor, suffering everyman to suck it up and take their medicine.
combine that with the historical fact is that phil gramm and his wife, wendy, were directly involved in the deregulation that led to enron and the mortgage fiasco and the explosion in gas prices. it should be fairly easy to weave a narrative where gramm, his wife, bush and mccain are responsible for all of these catastrophic economic problems and while there is a counterargument, go ahead and let them make their counterargument, while you pound them over and over again with the facts.
each and every time they try to argue that gramm and wendy and bush and enron and risky mortgages and high gas prices are not connected, it gives your campaign the chance to push your argument.
it helps immensely when the facts are on your side and a campaign should not be afraid to make a factual, tough argument that strikes hard at its opponent.
this is simply one example of how obama could attack mccain in a fashion that does fit right into the grand, thematic argument of his campaign. the failure of the obama campaign to exploit phil gramm, appropriately, reminds me of kerry's failure to respond to the swiftboat attacks with a furious and sustained pounding of bush for his national guard misadventures and other glaring weaknesses that were just sitting there, waiting to be exploited.
sadly, i think obama is heading for the same fate, if he follows the same "above it all" strategy.
the model for obama should be the '96 clinton-dole campaign, where clinton had effectively buried dole by the time dole really started his campaign. obama has had the chance to do the same thing to mccain, but his inherent cautious nature has prevented him from doing so. i hope that cautious nature is not revealed to be his tragic flaw.

Posted by frankie d | July 16, 2008 12:52 PM

Re: Mixner: i don't really see the difference between a 16 month withdrawal and a 20 or 24 month withdrawal. the plan is still the same. as for residual forces, yeah, that's a big gray area, but justifiably: it depends on the situation, and we don't know what things will be like 3 years from now.

Then Obama needs to clearly say that, instead of continuing to recite this 16 month "timetable" as if it's a firm committment. And he needs to come clean on the size of this "residual force" he plans to leave in Iraq, and how long he plans to keep it there. Of course, if he did say those things he'd alienate the Obamabots even more than he already has, which is why he's being so vague and obtuse about his "plan" for Iraq.

Obama's Iraq rhetoric just serves to confirm that far from being an agent of "change" he's just a conventional oily, evasive politician, trying to play all sides, be all things to all people, tell people what they want to hear.

Posted by Mixner | July 16, 2008 1:23 PM

Who remembers what the Bush campaign was doing before it swiftboated Kerry? That didn't happen until after the convention.

There are two reasons to spend big before the convention - to build your machine, and to define your opponent.

Obama is building his machine.

McCain is too well known to redefine (even accurately) in such a way that it will stick through the unchallenged PR blitz of the Republican convention.

Spending after the campaign, Obama can point out the hypocrisy in everything McCain says at the convention.

No, Obama is doing it right. He's building Democratic presidential election campaign apparatus in just about every state. Some of these haven't had it for years. He's defining himself. He's protecting his image.

Posted by Njorl | July 16, 2008 1:36 PM

sadly, i think obama is heading for the same fate [as Kerry vis a vis swift boats], if he follows the same "above it all" strategy.

Can't agree here. I mean, yes, if Obama never fights, he will lose, but I'm fairly sure he will fight, and has already. The basic point remains, though: why do McCain any favors?

Posted by jonnybutter | July 16, 2008 1:39 PM

I wouldn't stake Obama's politic genius on the run against Hillary -- she had the momentum at the end, winning big in PA and OH, winning the contest that could go either way (IN) and winning races he was expected to win (SD). If the race had been a traditional election, where everyone votes at the end instead of along the way, he might have been in trouble.

He didn't get stronger as the campaign went on, just the opposite. Taking all those punches without going on offense took its toll.

Posted by pj | July 16, 2008 2:29 PM

@pj

As an alternate reading, consider the fact that Obama could've lost far more badly in the later races and even had a couple flip and still secured the nomination. His campaign wasn't in the mood to sacrifice anything in his general election campaign to dispatch Clinton ASAP. Any impression of the endgame of the primary as being remotely close after Obama tied Clinton for delegates in TX is a construction of Clinton's campaign.

As it turns out, the "Obama can't count on working class whites!" message that was so strong during the waning days of the primary isn't what we're talking about any more, is it? Looks like Obama was right to sacrifice a chance to win OH/PA/SD for a more cordial endgame.

Posted by Zach | July 16, 2008 3:18 PM

campaigns have to be flexible.
when an opponent provides an opportunity for attack, as mccain has plenty of times already, a campaign has to take advantage of that opportunity. that kind of opportunity may never arise again.
in fact, the biggest mistake the clinton campaign made against obama was its failure to take him seriously in the beginning of the race. as a result, they allowed his campaign to grow and prosper and ultimately become the threat that detroned the presumptive favorite.
if clinton had aggressively attacked obama in the beginning, before his campaign gained its stature and built the delegate lead that ultimately became insurmountable, clinton probably wins the nomination. even considering all of its other problems.
as pj points out, obama became weaker and clinton became stronger as the campaign dragged on and as clinton became more aggressive, while obama maintained his passive stance.
i think the evidence is very strong that clinton would have been successful if she had strangled obama's nascent campaign in the crib with the kind of attacks that she launched later.
obama is making the same mistake, relying on his shaky, small lead in the polls and allowing mccain to fight another day.
i have one question for those who advocate that obama maintain this strangely passive posture in the campaign: can you name one presidential campaign when such a strategy was successful?

Posted by frankie d | July 16, 2008 4:18 PM

"Boxing is the wrong analogy; you can't end an election ahead of election day by knockout. The obvious sports analogy is a marathon, or a timed sport like football or basketball... It's early in the second quarter, Obama has the lead and is dictating the pace of the game. It would be foolish at this stage to overextend in an effort to score every possible point."

As a fan and longtime observer of my favorite contact sports of boxing, football, and politics, I'll push the analogies farther.

With regard to boxing, a 12-round match is a marathon in a very real sense, and Matt's characterization of Obama as a counterpuncher is one I share. The problem with counterpunchers in boxing is that their general lack of aggressiveness means markedly inferior opponents who are more aggressive themselves can be allowed to hang around far longer than is warranted by their talents alone. If such an opponent is still around in the later rounds, then the consequences of something flukey happening are much more dire, because of the small amount of time for the counterpuncher to recover.

Using Muhammad Ali's rope-a-dope strategy against George Foreman in Zaire isn't really relevant, because there have been few boxers in history who were as quick to recognize when his opponent was seriously hurt, and whose abilities to capitalize on it were as quick and lethal. So far, I haven't seen that kind of response from the Obama campaign from McCain's numerous gaffes; it's been a single response in a speech, and then nothing. I've seen no sustained ad campaign, no surrogates hammering the point home, and no substantial follow-up.

As far as the football reference goes, as a University of Michigan fan I can assure you that there have been a number of mind-boggling losses we've sustained over the last 15 years to inferior opponents that were entirely attributable to the philosophy of managing the clock and not trying to score each possession. Just as in boxing, it enables inferior yet gritty opponents to stay in the game far longer than is necessary, which means that upsets at the end of the game are far more likely.

I suppose the view of how well or poorly Obama is doing at the moment is influenced by whether you're a glass half-full or -empty kind of individual. You can point to Obama's continuing lead after months of attacks by both Clinton and McCain and conclude everything's fine. My view is the opposite: in a time of absolutely horrid economic developments, a deeply unpopular war, a lame-duck President whose policies have made his party's brand radioactive, and the worst GOP candidate since Gerald Ford, the fact that Obama has only a narrow lead should be deeply worrying. The fact that voter enthusiasm for Obama is apparently waning, along with donations, is also a bad sign. Considering that the media environment is completely toxic and hostile, with the mainstream press spending each day fluffing McCain (yes, I do mean it that way), and that the GOP will inevitably be up to its old tricks in voter-suppression in key districts and counties on election day, anything short of a double-digit lead in on October 1 will be ominous. We can all agree that the Republican smears and lies will escalate to a fever pitch as the campaign closes, and if the Obama campaign spends all its valuable time responding, then the Republicans will have succeeded in neutralizing his inherent advantages. You cannot beat these Republicans by playing defense.

Posted by bluestatedon | July 16, 2008 4:33 PM

I'm not sure Clinton's attacks would have helped later in the campaign. They only raised both of their negatives and pissed off a lot of people, especially African-Americans. In fact, one has to wonder if that would have simply led to the other candidates rallying around Obama as the anti-Clinton earlier on or just helped Edwards become the anti-Clinton and win the nomination.

"all you have to do is look at both bush/rove presidential campaigns and look at how they attacked any and every perceived kerry and gore misstep, no matter where or how it fit into their strategy. by attacking relentlessly, you put your opponent on the defensive and are better able to define the issues that the campaign is argued on."

Part of this has to do with the fact that Kerry never figured out how to counterattack. He ignored the Swift Boats for a while, played right into the elitist theme with the windsurfing and his manner and never looked comfortable in his own skin. A lot of people, especially low information voters, never felt they knew what exactly Kerry was running on and what his Iraq policy was. Obama has been countering the attacks on his. After all, his race speech was a counterattack to Clinton running with the Wright controversy.

In addition, the Bush/Rove attacks on flip-flopping plus the Swiftboating helped define Kerry as untrustworthy. Basically, it put out the idea Kerry was a liar who didn't hold any strong beliefs and said whatever was convenient. Every attack pretty much fit a pattern. McCain's attacks on Obama have all been contradictory. I'm not even really sure what McCain has been trying to define him as. Obama, meanwhile, has been pounding McCain for his judgment and pointing out he's out of touch on policy, especially on Iraq and foreign policy.

Posted by Reality Man | July 16, 2008 4:34 PM

"Boxing is the wrong analogy; you can't end an election ahead of election day by knockout. The obvious sports analogy is a marathon, or a timed sport like football or basketball... It's early in the second quarter, Obama has the lead and is dictating the pace of the game. It would be foolish at this stage to overextend in an effort to score every possible point."

As a fan and longtime observer of my favorite contact sports of boxing, football, and politics, I'll push the analogies farther.

With regard to boxing, a 12-round match is a marathon in a very real sense, and Matt's characterization of Obama as a counterpuncher is one I share. The problem with counterpunchers in boxing is that their general lack of aggressiveness means markedly inferior opponents who are more aggressive themselves can be allowed to hang around far longer than is warranted by their talents alone. If such an opponent is still around in the later rounds, then the consequences of something flukey happening are much more dire, because of the small amount of time for the counterpuncher to recover.

Using Muhammad Ali's rope-a-dope strategy against George Foreman in Zaire isn't really relevant, because there have been few boxers in history who were as quick to recognize when his opponent was seriously hurt, and whose abilities to capitalize on it were as quick and lethal. So far, I haven't seen that kind of response from the Obama campaign from McCain's numerous gaffes; it's been a single response in a speech, and then nothing. I've seen no sustained ad campaign, no surrogates hammering the point home, and no substantial follow-up.

As far as the football reference goes, as a University of Michigan fan I can assure you that there have been a number of mind-boggling losses we've sustained over the last 15 years to inferior opponents that were entirely attributable to the philosophy of managing the clock and not trying to score each possession. Just as in boxing, it enables inferior yet gritty opponents to stay in the game far longer than is necessary, which means that upsets at the end of the game are far more likely.

I suppose the view of how well or poorly Obama is doing at the moment is influenced by whether you're a glass half-full or -empty kind of individual. You can point to Obama's continuing lead after months of attacks by both Clinton and McCain and conclude everything's fine. My view is the opposite: in a time of absolutely horrid economic developments, a deeply unpopular war, a lame-duck President whose policies have made his party's brand radioactive, and the worst GOP candidate since Gerald Ford, the fact that Obama has only a narrow lead should be deeply worrying. The fact that voter enthusiasm for Obama is apparently waning, along with donations, is also a bad sign. Considering that the media environment is completely toxic and hostile, with the mainstream press spending each day fluffing McCain (yes, I do mean it that way), and that the GOP will inevitably be up to its old tricks in voter-suppression in key districts and counties on election day, anything short of a double-digit lead in on October 1 will be ominous. We can all agree that the Republican smears and lies will escalate to a fever pitch as the campaign closes, and if the Obama campaign spends all its valuable time responding, then the Republicans will have succeeded in neutralizing his inherent advantages. You cannot beat these Republicans by playing defense.

Posted by bluestatedon | July 16, 2008 4:39 PM

bluestatedon,
as a fellow michigan graduate, i also recall plenty of losses directly attributable to the fact that the old blue allowed inferior opponents to just hold on long enough to sneak out an upset victory.
which is exactly what obama is allowing to happen with mccain, an obviously deficient candidate.

reality man,
mccain has been extremely successful painting obama as a flip-flopper. though it is a totally bogus charge, i saw a poll last week that found that over 50 percent of the population thought that obama had flip-flopped on numerous issues.
that finding could be the basis for a withering attack by the mccain forces, and i see no evidence that obama is taking those attacks as seriously as they should be taking them.
again, they appear to be hunkering down, trying not to make a mistake that could lose the election for them and it is allowing mccain to define the terms of the campaign.
the fact that he has not exploited the gramm comments is just stunning.
i cannot fathom any reasonable or logical reason to avoid using gramm's comments as a basis for attacking the mccain economic policies, yet obama appears to be studiously avoiding mentioning them.
mystifying.

Posted by frankie d | July 16, 2008 5:24 PM