Ouch!

It seems to me that those arguing so strongly for more, more, more attacks from Obama are overlooking the dynamics of the Democratic primary, where the initial success of the Clinton "kitchen sink" negative campaign quickly backfired. McCain's starting even earlier, which gives more time to counter in the same "high road plus counterpunching" strategy that the Obama campaign did so effectively then, and Paris Hilton is helping with today.

As you say, I think a lot of people are projecting their own desires: the Republicans have been beating up the Democrats for so long and this year's stuff is so appalling that it's certainly natural to want to give them back more of the same. But is that a good match for Obama's message and style -- and the vibe of 2008? Voters are worried about their jobs, the economy, health care, the war, and the future of the country ... the issues. Yeah, sure, the McCain campaigns smears and attack ads will reach a lot of people; most of them would have voted for McCain anyhow. They'll also turn a lot of voters off -- and the Disabled American Veterans appearance is just one more example.

I think that Al makes a great point in that so many Dems want payback for the last 8 years. the swiftboat attacks, the mendacity of this administration that they want Obama to say things that gives them a vicarious sense of justice/payback etc...

...but Obama knows that the swing voters don't necessarily go for that type of rhetoric.

That's always been my problem with the moveon.org crowd.  For example. their ads in print and paper are great only if you're on their side, otherwise they don't make a convincing argument to the undecideds - the people that Obama needs to convince - a reason to vote for him, and at worse they turn people off.

Basically those ads make us who are convinced already feel good about ourselves - how effective they actually are I wonder.

Having said that I understand Moby's concern except that there is nothing in the manner that Obama and his crew have conducted themselves this far that suggests that they are going to be patsy's or are soft in any way.

At the end of the day, most people would rather hear something good than something bad about people. That goes double for people who have suffered and sacrificed for real.  I think Obama is exactly right in how he handles groups like this, while using local ads to expose the truth of McCain's record.

I think the Olympics especially after Obama's recent trip to the Middle East and Europe provide a boost. the Olympics is in tuen with his message. McCain going negative in ads during the Olympics is a big mistake. it is out of tune.

as for the Vets, McCain was an Officer. so was his dad and grandfather. they are not pro-troops. they use them. the Officers are the privileged class. that McCain was shot down or crashed was just part of his consistent history of crashes. he obviously was not good at flying. but he has gotten great at lying.

Ya, I've often wondered about the difference between McCain's appeal as a veteran to civilians compared to his appeal to other veterans. The transition from soldier to politician might just as well be seen with deep suspicion and cynicism as not by soldiers whose lives have been determined, many times ruined, to such a large extent by the expediencies of politics.

Also, more on envy by (sorry) Dowd.

I love this phrase and the use to which you put it.  It brought to mind the old saw from British poet George Herbert: "Living well is the best revenge."  When I googled the quote to make sure of the author, I found an even better one for Obama by Frank Sinatra:  "The best revenge is massive success."

JoAnn

He decides to go after Obama on the tire gauge issue (which was dumb, but that is another story). All of the right wing pundits and the RNC fall into line, and while the Obama tire gauge is on the front page of the RNC website, and Pawlenty has just gone on the attack about the issue, McCain cuts their legs off by turning around and agreeing with Obama on the issue.

Then he runs a negative add during the Opening Ceremonies of the Olympics! For all of the people criticizing the Obama press shop, who is the tone deaf idiot running McCain's operation! That would have been the perfect spot for an inspiring, McCain as war hero, rah rah American ad.

Part of what is wrong with McCain's strategy is that he went nasty and negative so early in the campaign.  The electorate can only tolerate so much of that crap, and if you serve it up non-stop for months on end you're basically conceding that you don't have substantive issues to talk about.

Al, I totally agree with your observations.  McCain's constant attacks on Obama make him look weak; and Obama's ability to keep the campaign focused on issues can very likely win the day.

There are many 'progressives' on Kos right now praising McCain for his hawkish stance with respect to the Russian/Georgia conflicts.  To me, these people are stuck in a black and white, cold war mentality.   This same type of 'progressive' will whine that Obama is moving to the center, that he doesn't follow suite when McCain engages childish attacks, etc.

The more Obama keeps his cool, the more McLame lashes out and swings his dick--the more Obama appears as presidental uniter at this crucial juncture in US and world history.

The corporate media want nothing more than for Obama to get down in the gutter so as to create a gossipy political show to pump up ratings.  They can't and won't key into Obamas superior approach, so there will continue to be a large degree of tone deafness with respect to our candidate's strategy.   And this is a good thing--because while they are stuck in the cold war, liberal/conservative patholoigcal oscillations (that have weakened and diminished our nation) we will march on toward victory in November.

The apologists for corpoate tyranny and traditional US imperialism can't quite put their finger on what they don't like about Obama, so they resort to name-calling, saying that Obama is a 'socialist', or a 'communist'.  And I would say that what they don't like, what they can't abide or even contemplate is good old fashioned authentic 'democracy' (always configured as a binary opposite to the existing oligarchy/plutocracy that has to  pretend to be the the manifestation of 'democracy' for propaganda/perception purposes)

A great post at TPM cafe. A mother heeds her teenage son's stance on the campaign and negativity. An excerpt (emphasis mine):

He, and many other first time voters his age are truly sick and tired of the rage and the passion and the futility of what passes for politics in this country. He did not then, and does not now, see Obama's refusal to play tit for tat as a sign of weakness. Where many people see John McCain hitting and Obama not hitting back, others see Obama not getting all caught up in the bullshit, not losing focus, not playing the same tired game, the same tired way. And they are refreshed and renewed.

Al - In 2004, the "Swift Boat" ads began running in early August, just after the Democratic convention. Kerry seemed to make a big mistake in not responding quickly and forcefully.

I believe you're saying that it is important to respond with strength, but not now. Wait for the big hit, which is likely coming after the Convention, when people are really tuning in, and then come back with your best. Is that correct? Also, at what point in the cycle, if any, should Obama begin going after McCain's weaknesses in a stronger way that raises questions about his fitness? Is it enough to sit back and watch to see if McCain's attacks are counter productive?

I can't recall a presidential election cycle in which going negative didn't benefit the practitioner. LBJ unloaded on Goldwater, resulting in a landslide. Atwater lowered the practice of sliming one's opponent to a kind of surreal/grotesque art form. Ever since, the Republicans have played this game to great effect, except with Bill Clinton, who responded quickly and forcefully to each charge and leveled very effective counter charges.

Clinton's strategy came in a change-themed cycle. I recall thinking, in '92, that if Clinton mindlessly said the word "change" one more time, my head would explode. Yet it seemed to work. A tight focus on the economy plus quick, decisive responses to Bush's attacks on him as a tax loving lib'rul seemed to do the trick. But it helped that Bush had pissed off his own right flank by raising taxes himself and that Perot was there, giving Bush his best on a nightly basis.

Despite Clinton's success, it seems that recent cycles have illustrated the importance of playing tough. Seems to me that many Americans want to feel their president is a strong guy who can protect them in dangerous times. If he doesn't move decisively to protect himself, they get the feeling that he's too weak to protect anyone. Call it the Jimmy Carter effect (replete with cardigans and the smoking ruins of aircraft in the Iranian desert); the narrative the Republicans are trying to create with tire guages.

It seems we're hard wired, at least at an instinctual level, to crave a benevolent strong man as leader, not a wise moderate technocrat. I think Obama projects a lot of strength. In many ways, far more than McCain. Not everyone sees it. Hopefully that will change as both men stand side by side in the debates, one looking young and strong and well spoken, the other looking stooped and pasty faced and baffled.

However, my bottom line question is what strategy would you suggest for Obama going forward? At what point, if any, should he wield that tire iron you mentioned in an earlier post?

Roy - I think those that say that the Obama campaign isn't responding as hard as, say, the Clinton war room of '92 or '96, or that say he's not responding enough (a la Kerry '04) don't have very good memories by which to compare.

No matter how small or large the charge by McCain or his surrogates, the Obama campaign has a response in the media's email box immediately. The oppo research data dump against McCain is constant, many times a day, with factual documentation, videos and other bells and whistles. It's better than Bill Clinton ever did it.

What people forget about '92 is how overwhelmingly positive the Clinton campaign was, in its paid advertising and in the candidate's speeches and statements. Clinton preached against the politics of fear and struck many of the same themes that Obama strikes today. He was upbeat.

I think that rather than working off real memories of previous campaigns too many people have bought into the spin that they're reading by others that weren't there (or that don't remember well) and I simply don't accept the premise that Obama is being less responsive than Clinton in the 90s to negative attacks, nor that he's allowing himself to be swiftboated a la Kerry and the "swiftboat" ads. The facts just don't back those myths up.

Roy, it seems to me that McLame is using the tire iron on his own head.

Obama is responding--but on a level of issues, not getting down to the childish level that McCain has recently.

I think Obama is doing exactly what the campaign needs to do right now.  McCain is not appearing strong, he is appearing weak and desparte.

The fact is: McCain came out and WORKED against Jim Webb's bill which is a modern day GI bill for soliders. McCain did this without losing face in the media because of his vet/POW status. but ACTUAL Vets and POWS KNOW what the GI Bill means and what a modern day version (derided by McCain as too generous!) can do for soldiers and vets. They also care about universal healtcare.

The articales you linked to Al, combined with the fact that currently Barack Obama, not war hero John McCain, is getting the most donations from the military (families that can afford to just give indiscriminatly and who these donations are specific and hard commitments to a campaign): well it means that the McCain wins vets meme will on Nov. 4th go the way of the "Barack Obama has a brown/latino problem" one has gone poof too.

I understand from a scholar of elections that there is a consistent gap of 3-5% between the vote for a black candidate and the polling done right before the election.

The scholar adds that we don't have any data from a national election.

Yet...

Scary.

It's not just the timing, it's the venue.  We want feel-good stories from the Olympics, not the real-life negative.  If there's pathos, it's always about how athletes overcame tragedy to triumph, even if they do not actually medal.

To come out with overtly negative material during this event is to misunderstand the market completely.  I shake my head everytime one of those McGrumpy ads comes on.

John Krogman - Your "scholar of elections" friend is citing on severely out-of-date information - disproved in recent election cycles, including this year - as if it's fact. It's not.

I highly recommend reading Mark Blumenthal's article from June of this year about the so-called "Bradley-Wilder" effect in polling contests with African-American candidates:

In recent years, however, that pattern has not held. As reported by Scott Keeter and Nilanthi Samaranayake of the Pew Research Center last year, polls in five biracial contests in 2006 were largely accurate. The margins between the candidates predicted the vote, with no evidence of hidden support for the white candidates. "The accuracy of the polling in these five biracial elections," they wrote, "suggests that the problems that bedeviled polling in the 1980s and early 1990s may no longer be so serious."

 

Also, this year's primary results did not systematically understate support forHillary Rodham Clinton. If anything, polls tended to underestimate support for the winner in each state, a trend that worked in Obama's favor as often as Clinton's.

There are a lot of "scholars of elections" out there that make completely opposite claims: Some, obviously, more schooled than others.

As for having no data for a national (presidential) election, well, of course not: This is the first time an African-American will be a major party nominee! But the data of 2006 and 2008 so far indicates that if there was such an effect on polling during the last century, it hasn't been the case in this one. I'll add that I think it's extremely important to research such claims before stating them as fact.

For those of you interested in the war mongering that might put our soldiers in harms way in yet another far-away region of the world, it's worth noting that the current conflict between Russia and the Republic of Georgia has a lobbying connection to McCain's camp not dissimilar to the connection revealed recently with the deposed Kyrgyzstan strong man Askar Akayev.

The McClatchy news service reported yesterday that Randy Scheunemann, McCain's chief foreign policy advisor, was a lobbyist for the nation of Georgia for some four years, including last year while he was working for McCain's presidential campaign. During that period, Georgia paid Scheunemann's company, Orion Strategies, some $900,000.

From the story:

Orion's filings with the Justice Department's Foreign Agents Registration Office indicate that Scheunemann and his partner, Mike Mitchell, had more than 40 phone conversations and meetings with McCain, his Senate chief of staff Mark Salter and his foreign policy aide Richard Fontaine, on behalf of Georgia, which is seeking membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The briefings picked up in the summer of 2006, when Scheunemann briefed McCain and his aides several times before McCain took another trip to Georgia, this time with other Republican senators.

... [Current Georgian President] Saakashvili has been criticized for authoritarian tendencies following a crackdown on demonstrators last year, but McCain has been a staunch ally, sternly criticizing Moscow for its backing of pro-Russian separatists.

After Russian tanks rolled into the breakaway region of South Ossetia Friday amid fighting between Georgian troops and the separatist rebels, McCain called for an immediate Russian pullout and urged the Bush administration to request an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council.

McCain, given his vehemently anti-Russian, neo-Cold War foreign policy stance, is like a bull in a China shop when it comes to this region of the world, with his positions seemingly influenced by policy advisors who are more interested in dollar signs than the welfare of U.S. interests in the region. Blindly supporting the Georgian authoritarian, anti-democratic leadership in this situation seems to be a rash, even dangerous, foreign policy position that risks further escalating tensions in the region. Georgia's play to join NATO, another Cold War leftover, only raises the stakes in the conflict and the possibility of drawing in more nations to this regional struggle.

The people of South Ossetia supporting a movement toward Russia are simply exchanging one form of oppressive government for another in a region of the world long marked by sectarian infighting. Where is the U.S. dog in that fight? Is McCain trying to invoke a Cold War domino theory of containing communism in a post-Berlin Wall world? If so, that is a foreign policy judgment that is seriously flawed.

It seems that it is another war in the brewing sponsored by old men with old ideas that threaten to commit even more of our young soldiers to another conflict spurred on by an over-active Washington lobbying culture that has run out of salient theories to sell to the media.

And Obama's camp is calling them on that reality. From a story carried by the French AFP wire service:

The Obama campaign, attacking McCain as a creature of Washington because of his reliance on several former lobbyists high up in his operation, highlighted Scheunemann's work for the Georgian government.

"John McCain's top foreign policy adviser lobbied for and has a vested interest in the Republic of Georgia, and McCain has mirrored the position advocated by the government," Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan said Saturday.

And from the same story:

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson said McCain's campaign "is run by lobbyists that represent Georgia and other countries."

"He takes huge amounts of money from oil companies that are profiting in the (former) Soviet Union and many parts of the world," the Democrat told ABC News, attempting to depict a conflict of interest for McCain.

... "This has been one of the failures of the Bush administration, failing to build a strong relationship, a mutually beneficial relationship with Russia, so we'd have the kind of influence to persuade them to stop some of these very, very dangerous efforts within their territory," he said.

Looks like a line in the sand has been drawn, clearly, over foreign policy judgment. It will be interesting to see how all this plays out in our immediate history.

[Sorry for the long post, but I thought it was a development worth mentioning in the context of Al's post, since it helps to explain on yet another front why some Vets, who are not clueless on these foreign policy issues, are seemingly less than embracing of the McCain campaign.]

Al - thanks for your prompt, thoughtful response to my question. For the most part, I agree with you. I do, however, wonder about the impact of Perot in '92, undermining the Republican from his right (or at least libertarian/right) flank day after day after day.

I'm very impressed with the Obama campaign. They've made very few mistakes. So few, in fact, that I would be loath to point to anything -- even FISA, which seemed so boneheaded, given the potential to reach libertarian leaning Independents and pump up the base -- knowing that there could be some brilliant angle I'm not seeing.

As you point out, Obama is, in a sense, wielding that tire iron you spoke of (if the metaphor was offered as a kind of visual hyperbole) by responding to each punch with at least a counter-jab, very much like Clinton. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Perhaps Plouffe has decided the wise choice is to wait and see what's necessary -- responding to today's exigencies rather then locking into tactics best suited to yesterday's battles. Or perhaps he's just biding his time, waiting for the right moment to break out the switchblades, brass knuckles, crowbars and tire irons that I freely admit I've been long dying to see. Or maybe these are the very tactics that would have worked in '88, '00 and '04 had they been employed with the skill and finesse on display this cycle.

Steve -- I like your imagery and hope you're right.

According to a NY Times article, the McCain Campaign has a lot in common with Ms. Clinton's version of Drama Central (which will be dissected in an upcoming Atlantic article). As Al has pointed out on numerous occasions, one has to admire the finely tuned machine that is Team Obama.

Here's a link to the Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/us/politics/10mccain.html?_r=2&hp=&adx...

Here's a link to a Politico article that previews the Atlantic's: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12420.html

Obama's coolness is exactly the tonic we need. He learned long ago that if you take time to do something right, you won't have a lot of things to regret later. By staying patient and positive, Obama can focus on winning over independents and undecideds and reassure people about his ability to lead. It reminds me a lot of Ali's fighting: let the opponent wear himself out, and then lay the finishing blow. That takes coolness and patience, but definitely wins every time.

It is the same strategy as in the primary. Obama kept to the high road, relying on organization and strategic attacks. Hillary spent millions on attack ads and still ended up losing because she turned off so many more people than she won.

By going so negative now, McCain will find himself out of ammunition in October. He will have nothing to say that the electorate hasn't already absorbed and probably discounted. He will then be trying to race the clock in making people feel better about himself instead, while Obama subtly slides in the knife through gotv and tough ads.

I'm curious - I don't have a television, so I'm wondering which of the candidate's ads are playing during the Olympics. I've seen Obama's "Hands" ad online, and I really like it.  Is this the only ad he's running?  And which ones is McCain running?

Thanks.

KD

I wonder if any of these vets have buyers remorse over the way Kerry was treated in 04.

Speaking of officers, this survey seems to indicate their sympathy to Obama's style of foreign policy:

Here's a sneak preview of a poll of 606 commissioned U.S. military officers conducted for the Center for U.S. Global Engagement, which holds a conference on national security in DC tomorrow.

## A significant majority of the officers recognize the need for non-military tools and diplomacy.

## They see the top national security threat by far as terrorism and Islamic extremism; what's missing from our policy, they say, is (a) more diplomacy and (b) long-term investments in the Muslim world. In the words of Dem pollster Geoff Garin and GOP pollster Bill McInturff, " a significant majority of officers surveyed embrace a new paradigm in which strengthened diplomacy and development assistance are important companions to traditional military tools for achieving America's national security goals."

## More than half say the US is doing too little to strengthen these non-military tools -- about the same percentage as those who say the U.S. isn't doing enough to strengthen military capabilities.

## 77% say that the degree to which American is respected overseas makes at least a fair amount of difference to the effectiveness of the military overseas.

The audience is fairly strongly Republican, and they're very likely to vote -- 86% certain. McInturff polls for Sen. John McCain, which is one of the reasons why the survey should be of interest.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/military_officers_w...

McCain is running the one in which he falsely proclaims that Obama would raise taxes and get rid of jobs, I'm sorry I don't know the name of it. Obama is running his Hands ad. I have seen a lot more of the McCain ad than the Obama one, but some of the McCain ads have been at 2:30am EDT so I doubt too many people are really watching then. Seems like a case of poor timing. I do love the Obama ad though, especially now that it's contrasted with McCain's "Let's say nothing of our own policies and spout lies regarding our opponent's" ad.

I just saw the McCain ad again, and it's the one that starts with "OBAMA OBAMA!" Cheering (Not the one with Paris and Britney though), then asks "Is the biggest celebrity in the world ready to lead? The real Obama wants to raise your taxes, cut jobs... etc."

Bill, I have been reading up on Ossetia and Georgia for most of the day.

To me, just as the IMF capitalists worked to cripple Russia with their privatization policies after the fall of the Soviet Union--shock therapy--the move to surround Russia with Nato puppets/allies was massively stupid.  The same, tired, imperilalist mindset, a mode of action that put Russia on the defensive and helped stoke a massive resugrence of nationalist pride. (Whiich isn't bad, or 'evil' in itself--this is simply a fact of mass psychology/identity)

The savage, tired US imperialist mindset exemplifed by McLame and the US rightwing simply isn't conducive with long-range human survival.  Europe's weak response to Russia protecting the Ossetians is really telling--even US surrogates in Europe see the damage that US leadership has done for security in the region.  They just didn't have the stomach to come to the aid of a US-trained stoodge.

Make no mistake.  The events in this region these last few days makes Bush, Nato, and US power look pathetic.

Russia is protecting its survival and identity by doing everything in its power to stop Nato expansion on its borders.  Iraq, Palestine,  and Yugoslavia really do epitomize the villany of US lead imperialism as it strives to rule the entire world.

The fact that US hawks are powerless to take the side of Georgia militarily shows the inherent weakness of US hard-power.  It is always good to engage 'shock and awe' on  smaller nations that you can  swiftly and overwhelmingly defeat.

Obama represents a better face to the world of what the US can be--and it is better to be respected thant it is to be merely feared.  This is what the savage neocons can't get through their lizard skulls.

Russia's defense of Ossetia from Georgian/US agression marks a tremendous event that, I think, signals the decline of the US as a unipolar superpower.   The emporer stands impotent, red-faced, and naked infront of the world.  Bush being in China at an Olympic event adds insult to this moment.

The world is multipolar--and trying to foist a unipolar paradigm down the throats of the world's people is immoral, delusional, criminal, and insane.  But the US didn't learn a thing from nazi fanaticism as it moved to take over Europe in the 1930s.

McLame, again, really does epitomize the arrogant, might-makes-right, white supremacist, and thouroughly selfish ideology that has been dominant in US culture for too long.

@Joel Wiess at 12:56.

Thank you for posting Maureen's column on Obama envy, McCain's Green-Eyed Monster. No need to apologize for the link. Maureen's columns are variable and there often seems to be some sort of subtext sexual theme running through them, but this column is tops.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/opinion/06dowd.html

Not since Iago and Othello obsessed on the comely Cassio, not since Richard of Gloucester killed his two nephews, not since Nixon and Johnson glowered at the glittering J.F.K., has there been such an unseemly outpouring of boy envy.

Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson and John Edwards have all been crazed with envy over the ascendance of the new “It” guy, Barack Obama.....Now John McCain is pea-green with envy....

Dowd does know how to write the pithy turn of phrase. To wit, this short explanation for part of McCain's envy:

And he hasn’t paid his dues in the Senate, since he basically just stopped by for directions to the Oval Office.

I find myself wondering what an attack ad countering, say, Sen. McCain's celebrity ad would look like. 

I can certainly see where Sen. Kerry should have forcefully denounced and countered the calumny of the swiftboaters more rapidly.  (Just as Gov. Dukakis should have stormed out of that 1988 debate, waiting just long enough to remove each of Bernard Shaw's teeth one-by-one.)

But McCain's attacks are so senseless and juvenile, there's no way responding to them will do anything but tarnish Sen. Obama.  Should Sen. Obama have called a press conference about the celebrity ad?  He could have compared academic transcripts and curriculum vitae with Paris and Britney, in order to establish once and for all the he's more qualified for the presidency than them.  Would this have made "moby" happy?  Or do we really (really?) want all the tired Grandpa Simpson jokes we make with our friends turned into a commercial, followed by, "I'm Barack Obama, and I approved this message"?   

As we probably all know, when both sides spend the campaign in sewer, the establishment wins.  We all remember the black-love-child mishegoss from South Carolina in 2000.  Fewer of us remember Bush's equally effective tactic of baiting McCain into going on the attack.  When McCain compared Bush to Clinton (in right-wing circles, circa 2000, I believe being "like Clinton" was slightly worse than partaking in homosexual bestiality), his campaign was effectively dead.  (It helped that Bush was better at playing the "what happend to a new kind of politics?" card than, for example, Howard Wolfson was.)     

@Susan Kitchens at 2:01

This remarkable post at TPM is titled "In which I finally get it" and addresses what Al was talking about re attempts to use Obama's campaign as some sort of healing gestalt. The writer has entered a hospice program for terminal cancer which she attributes, in part due to years of corrosive anti Bush & Iraq War political hate. Her wisdom comes from her 18 year old son's involvement in the Obama campaign.

Sometime around February, I became an Obama supporter. And by that I mean that I decided to take him at his word and seriously consider the implications of doing politics HIS way. Mind you, I am used to being on the losing end of presidential politics but I am not resigned to it by any means. I spent so much energy in a rage over George Bush and the war in Iraq that I think that rage is partially responsible for the terminal cancer I have developed. Being angry for a very long time KILLS a person. And I was angry. I wanted a Presidential candidate who would be an avenging angel, who would smite the godless republicans, who would punish them for their evil deeds, who would fearlessly force them to back down like the pack of snarling dogs they are....

The current Obama coalition includes many people like me who are still hurt, and still angry, and still itching for a fight. Unless we can get over ourselves, Obama is going to break our hearts.

My son, a man of a mere 18 years, once asked me to choose what matters to me more, kicking Republican ass or solving problems? And if fixing the country means NOT kicking ass or taking names, would I be willing to do that?....

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/08/in-which-i-finally-get...

I'm starting to see O's Olympic buy as a sort of deliberate fake. Some right wing pundits were reacting with how "inappropriate" a political ad in the midst of the games might seem, and maybe that has merit. So the Obama team makes a safe bet that McCain will counter the 5 mil buy with an equal+ buy on a negative ad. The neg, however, is correctly read as inappropriate. Meanwhile, the Obama ad is so feel-good and innocuous that it hardly comes across as a political ad at all. Political jujitsu at work?

And to think national media regard him as some IA guru around caucus time.  Puke.

... We always knew outside events would have an impact on the presidential race.  Many of us thought it would be a terrorist attack.  While that can still happen, the brutal Russian meddling in Georgian affairs is one of those unforeseen developments that will effect American concerns and voting behavior.  It’s likely to remind undecided American voters of the need for a president who has some experience in military and foreign policy.

Those have always been McCain’s strong suits and Obama’s weak ones.  Even before last week’s developments, McCain was creeping up on Obama, who has not been able to break through 50 percent in any major public opinion polls.  Obama's solution: take vacation.

Surveys show Americans have concerns about Obama’s lack of experience.  Clinton tried to convince Democrats of that but came up.  Now, the Russians just reminded Americans how important experience will be.

"Was Hillary right?"

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckPer...

Clinton didn't beat Bush, Perot did.  Clinton was just at the right place at the right time.

I, like many of you on this board, want to think that Obama is running a superior campaign than that of his feeble-minded opponent, but perhaps that reflects a degree of wishful thinking.  I humbly suggest that we wait and see what the response or fallout is from McCain's negative ads during the Olympics before we imbue the Obama campaign with more claims of unfettered genius (the Obama camp is, after all, not bound to be perfect 100% of the time).  Furthermore, I'm hard-pressed to think that the McCain camp would be so stupid as to run those ads without fully weighing the pro's and con's.  The New York Times article on McCain referenced earlier closes with an anecdote suggesting that McCain's strategists are firmly committed to negative campaigning against Obama.  There must be some basis to their position.

Wow, just one out of 4,000 is a certain voter for him? bummer.

Good point about the negativity. I still want Obama to be tougher with ads though, just use McCain's own words against him.

Vik, I think that Obama's strategy is to come across as the more pleasant, level-headed choice--and that he follow the soft campaigning through to the convention.

McCain is trying to reinforce a visceral reaction to Obama, and hoping that such a stigma will stick to the candidate in the general election. These negative ads are helping to firm up the usual Republican base--but I don't think that this will work with some Republican moderates, and some independents.

During these times of crisis and economic uncertainty, with major problems continuing to loom, Obama has always been a uniter--but make no mistake, the Obama team will not allow outright slander and mischaracterizations to stand unanswered. So far this is nothing like Kerry in 2004, when the Dem candidate let the Republicans assault him by impunging his war record, and labeling him as soft. Kerry trying to come across as an 'everyday Joe" was seen as enfeebled, defensive fakery.

Nancy--my heart goes out to this woman and her son. She has every reason to be proud for raising a wise, intelligent 18 year old young man. Revenge is an ignoble and counter-productive instinct. A proclivity and instinct for 'justice' transcends revenge every time.

@Bill Conroy 3:16 p.m. & Steven Hunt

I was aware of the NATO geo-political aspects and the Western/Israeli pipeline routing motivations for the conflict, but I was not aware of the McCain campaign's financial ties with Georgia.

Here's another angle regarding unintended consequences of U.S. foreign policy, With Georgia, They're out of Their Minds, posted by Richard Spencer at Taki's Magazine.

http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/georgia_out_of_our_minds/

There’s the further irony that for all of the State Department’s talk of protecting Georgia’s sovereignty, Washington’s policy over the past 15 years has been to support ethno-separatist movements much like the one in South Ossetia—the best example being our military campaign on behalf of the KLA, culminating in George Bush’s official recognition of the Islamo-Mafia cesspool known as “Kosovo.” Spain notably didn’t follow Bush in legitimizing “Kosovo,” as it worried that this might encourage Basque separatists within its own borders. I wonder if President Saakashvili is wondering whether the incoherent foreign policy of his American patron might have done much to inspire the South Ossetia rebels who are now such a pain in his side.

 Dear Christi -- 

Barack Obama is about to make one of the most important decisions of this campaign -- choosing a running mate.

You have helped build this movement from the bottom up, and Barack wants you to be the first to know his choice.

Sign up today to be the first to know:

http://my.barackobama.com/vp You will receive an email the moment Barack makes his decision, or you can text VP to 62262 to receive a text message on your mobile phone.

Once you've signed up, please forward this email to your friends, family, and coworkers to let them know about this special opportunity.

No other campaign has done this before.

The McCain camp is committed to running a negative campaign because they believe (and probably rightly so) that is the ONLY chance McCain has to win.  He cannot win on his own merits.  He MUST bring Obama down to his level to have any chance at all.  Now, I don't think it's going to work in any case but they've got to work with what they've got.

 or any other Repug nominee to go negative? We all know, that is how they roll. The chicken little posts (like Moby's) in the blogoshere don't seem to think Obama's people knew this was going to be a battle of fighting the smears, lies, distortions, and negative campaigning. It's like Tara just said, that is all they have got. Obama's campaign beat the Clinton machine, these guys know what they are doing and I have faith in my prediction back in June, Barack will win the electoral college by a large margin.

BTW, I love this blog!!!! Thanks Al for doing what you do.

Hi Christi!  I was at a b'day party with friends a few hours ago when I HAD to pull out my Blackberry becuz it was buzzing with a text message...from David Plouffe!

I know, enough with the "Crackberry" jokes...I almost fell out of my chair when I saw that message!

I immediately signed up everyone at the table to get their emails/texts...

So cool!

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

On Meet the Press today, one commentator (sorry, not sure who it was as I was clicking through the channels and happened to stop and listen to this conversation) was saying (not an exact quote) that Obama's foreign policy consists of speaking to our enemies rather than using military force, and that this is an example of when talking to Russia isn't doing any good. It infuriates me when people try to oversimplify Obama's positions for sound-byte purposes and then use it to criticize him. Of course, this has been true of the MSM at large, with the "he's too soft" dialogues, the "has trouble with this population" dialogues, and the overall attempts to portray McCain positively while talking negatively about Obama to try to keep this race close and generate ratings from now until November.

There wasn't a single sunday morning show that I could stand to sit through today.  Thank god for Tivo!  I listened to Bill Richardson and then deleted that show without even hearing one word from Karl Rove.  I thought Jake Tapper was awful on This Week.  I couldn't even get through 5 minutes of David Gregory on Meet the Press.  I surely hope this wasn't a trial balloon for having him host the show.  Then I went to Chris Matthews, and there was David Gregory again, so I deleted that one, too. 

Some days I have little tolerance for the anti-Barack sentiment from some of these pundits who aren't even as well-informed as I am.  This is their day job, for god sakes; you'd think they would get their facts straight.

Sorry for the rant.

I don't watch it any more. Anything I know about what is said I pick up from the blogs.

If they can't be bothered to do some actual journalism, if they continue regurgitating Washington insider talking points instead of facts, if they keep treating this election like one long episode of "American Idol", they don't deserve my time. I used to watch CNN quite often, but after I watched the Rev. Wright story turn into "play the sound bite, and then have the pundits talk about how bad it is" night after night, I turned it all off.

Al's post on Disabled Veterans' responses is very interesting.  My father was career military, and word of the quiet and consisitent work Obama has been doing will certainly spread through military circles, which is a sub-culture all it's own.  Also Michelle Obama has been focussing on military family issues:

From Military Times on round table Michelle had with military families:

"The intensive 1½-hour session “touched the tip of the iceberg,” said Amanda McBreen, wife of a Marine lieutenant colonel who is in the process of moving to the Norfolk area from Parris Island, S.C.

“It’s an honor that someone in an influential position like Mrs. Obama would care enough to listen to what I have to say,” said McBreen, one of the spouses who participated in the roundtable. “I don’t wear my husband’s rank, so to be asked to have an opinion is quite an honor. I’ve spent 18 years following my husband and being told what to do without someone ever asking me how I feel about that.”

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/08/military_michelleobama_families_080608w/

This is very smart, and what's more, I think they both genuinely do care.   There will be plenty of knee-jerk Republican votes among active and retired military, but I think much of the "thinking" uniformed population (and their spouses, parents etc) will support Obama.

Re Obama's positive campaign vs. McCain's (silly) negative one: I so enjoy it when McCain rasps out a charge against Obama, and all the talking heads pipe up, and then Obama practices some political aikido (or is it jujitsu?) by making a joke about it in his stump speech.  I think O's humor at McCain's attacks probably enrages McCain and drives him to further impotent aggression.  

Speaking of impotent aggression here's a serious astrological site that has helped me with any latent chicken littleism:

http://starlightnews.com/wordpress/?p=22

The Field and the above blog are 2 sites I visit to keep an eye on the big picture and not sink with the daily Obama is doomed memes. 

Sorry if I haven't handled the quotes or links properly.  I only figured out what a blog is about 8 months ago when I couldn't stand the Best Political Team on Televison another second! :)

Be-side's, discovering "The Field",  I quit watching the garbage they call news, especially cable news. I get my news from places on the net, I trust to give me mostly truth, or both sides of the issue(s).

Hi, Pam & Suzy! Miss you both!