The Armchairmen: A New Diagnosis for Advanced Chicken Little-ism

Your Mack the Knife line reminds me of a conversation I was having just today with a Democrat who wasnt sure Obama could close the deal.  I reminded her that he isnt all lofty rhetoric. Anyone who played politics in Chicago knows how to play hardball.

This should be required reading throughout the progressive blogosphere. Another problem is that a lot of people only seem to understand one way to fight. Obama is a master at letting his opponents defeat themselves - it's one of the things I most admire in him - but that doesn't look like "hitting back" in a conventional sense.

are instant turn offs.  Unfortunately, there are a surprising number of comments and diaries like that on the more popular progressive web sites.

I predict that some of these people are either going to burn out or stroke out by election day. 

A few so-called progressive sites that I used to love to visit have become so obsessed that they post about every little negative thing; I wonder where they find the time to post so much negativity so often.

There are more blogs/diaries/comments about what Obama and his campaign ought to do, how allegedly horrible Obama's campaign communications is, what the Clinton crazies may be up to, or about McCain't's latest lame brain, mendacious ad or appearance than there should be.  It's gotten really crazy; I suspect that it will only get crazier.

Well there's hitting back and then there's hitting back.  I like the idea of overwhelming the media with the release of a new Obama book, part campaign moments (fotos!), part policy statements.  Let's say released on Sept 9 just after the gop con. 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12432.html

Boy, this one's really gonna make 'em whine!  :)

If I'm not mistaken, the best term for Obama's tactic is "rope-a-dope." 

Look it up, if you don't remember the Rumble in the Jungle.

Thanks Al.  Once again.  I just left a Campaign for Change neighborhood volunteer team meeting.  We plan to meet every Tuesday between now and election day, at least.  We are planning voter registration drives every weekend as well.  We are seeking out new volunteers in our community.  Our moniker is East Point Ward C for Change.  We will be registering and contacting voters in three precincts within East Point, Georgia, for the duration.  Our team leaders will participate in training by the Obama campaign workers Friday night and all day Saturday(9am-9pm).  Afterwards we will be reaching out to others to duplicate ourselves in the community over and over until the election and beyond.  Georgia is the chicken capital of the world, but there is no time for Chicken Little-ing or Armchair quarterbacking here.  Georgia will be a hard-fought victory we are determined to achieve.  So any Georgia Fieldhands out there, let's get involved.

And Al, look for a donation this Friday night.  Thanks for all your sane work.

Many of these armchair strategists don't stop at "Obama should _____." I see an awful lot of "Obama must _____ by X date or it's all over" and "If Obama doesn't _________ by X date then he's not really trying and I'm through with him." I can't count how many times I've seen calls for Obama to fire all of his communications and/or campaign staff and get "people who know what they're doing."

In addition to the reasons you point out for this phenomenon, it seems also to be a matter of people having rather conveniently inaccurate "memories" of how Bill Clinton campaigned. Lots of folks complaining that Obama is being too easy on McCain are convinced that Clinton did non-stop rhetorical smackdowns on GHWB in '92 and that this created a wave of enthusiasm for his candidacy.

I really don't mind these Chicken Little types too much.  While I think that Obama is running a good campaign and has a good chance in November, I think it is primarily helpful when the press (or bloggers) runs articles claiming that McCain might win.  Sure, they're doing this to maintain interest in the election coverage--but that's what we want.  I think Obama more than McCain will be helped by keeping the marginal voters interested as he is relying much more heavily on new voters.

I think some of us all a little gun shy here.  We have seen what we thought was a sure thing because how could a country elect and re-elect that idiot Bush(!) and then lose.  We know in some respects the deck is stacked against us (MSM) and Republicans fight dirty.  Some days are good, some days are bad.  It's our country at stake and I never underestimate the opposition.  I believe we have the better candidate and if we can get our message out there, it will swing our way.  I'm not really chicken littling - but maybe some days there is a doubt or fear in the back of my mind.  I do believe in his campaign strategy though and am doing my part.   I just hope it breaks through the McCain rose-colored glasses with the media.  They  drive this campaign, unfortunately.

Good stuff, Al. I was gonna add this to Digg but someone else already did. Taking your advice, I came up with a new yard sign to describe John McCain's warmongering nature. I'm hoping it goes viral. I made it wit the intention of shocking the viewer into paying more attention to how dangerous McCain's approach to foreign policy really is. Here's the link to it on digg:

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/McCain_08_Which_Country_First

 

Wow, great minds think alike (although your mind is much better at this political stuff than mine).  I post at a number of liberal/progressive sites, and one of the major has a post on Liberman/McCain attacking Obama, saying he won't put his country first.  There was so much chicken-littling there, that I just posted this reply:

"This has seriously become redundant, not the cheapshot by the McCain campaign and Liberman, but our reactions to it.

We know what kind of campaign McCain decided to run once he realized he couldn't win with honor, or on the merits.  McCain has finally "found his voice", and its the same old, same old.  It's nothing new, but everytime it happens, we all have the same reaction. Based on the headline, I bet we all could write a transcript for how the thread will go and who will say what before anyone even post a response.

"Obama needs to hit McSame hard",  "This is disgusting...Rove/Bush playbook",  "the campaign is too slow",  "Obama needs to counterpunch", "Why isn't the campaign responding quicker"  It's like a continuous loop.

Well no more for me.  I refused to sit here whining about what the Obama campaign is doing wrong, or about how the McCain campaign are slimeballs.  I already donate regularly to the campaign, but now I'm going to become more involved than that.  I'm gonna volunteer, maybe do some canvassing, register voters, or just talk up Obama to my family, friends, coworkers and foes, whatever it takes. No more chicken-littling.
Time to get more progressive.

How 'bout ya'll?"

I was in the need of a anti-chicken little booster shot, but there was so much whining, that I had to take action.  I guess you could say that I gave myself a booster shot.

Al, armchairmen needs to be armchairperson's.

 

your pal from the true blue north....

Sorry.  A post like this just shows you can take the girl out of Texas but you can't take the Texas out of the girl.  Here's the NYC version:

Bravo!  Bravo!  Bra-a-vo!!

Christ indeed!  Can everyone PLEASE remember that this time last year we were at least 25 points down in a huge field against at least one opponent far tougher to beat than McCain?!?  Now that Al has woken you out of your trance, plant this FACT in your brain and don't let it out!

Thanks Al.  Keep it comin'.

I'm a reformed Chicken Little, someone who would be having a really tough time right about now were it not for the fact that Al's track record has been so great. Can't say I'm completely beyond the fear. As many times as we've been disappointed, it's hard to trust that things will be alright. At the same time, I've noticed that Obama has been hitting back hard in critical markets and his campaign clearly knows what it's doing. I really appreciate Al's efforts to point this out to us.

There are times when I actually find myself sitting back, enjoying the show. An example is when the talking heads fret about Hillary's "failure to back Obama" and their endless concern trolling over a role call.

Because of what I've read here, I've been able to appreciate the genius of Campaign Obama as it manipulates the media dodos into building intrigue for the Convention -- particularly for the Clinton speeches. Third night will be the unveiling of the VP (whether previously announced or not), whom I'm still guessing will be someone currently off mainstream radar (perhaps Schweitzer), despite the Campaign's alleged leaks (head fakes) to the contrary.

This has been the best new website of the political cycle. Poblano's fivethirtyeight.com is another great new site.

I have nothing other to say than this post is fantastic. I've noticed a lot of this bizarre insistence that Obama needs to go into full-on attack mode or he'll lose, which not only has no rational basis but is mightily presumptuous that the speaker somehow knows a better way for Obama to win than Axelrod and co. If they know how to beat the Clintons, I think they can handle McCain.

Al, If I remember correctly, you were among those who were saying that Obama should let the celebrity ad ( and other ridiculous ads like it) slide because these ads are silly and Obama shouldn't get down in the mud and tarnish his brand. Basically, that responding to these ads would only validate these lines of attack.

The Obama camapaign waited and waited to respond to the celebrity ads. They noticed prominent Democrats & the liberal blogosphere speaking out, suggesting that he hit back harder.

Even Tom Daschle, part of the campaign, publicly acknowledged that they noticed it was gaining traction. Only then did the Obama campaign get their sh*t together. I know they prefer to counterpunch, but even their counterpunches come too late at times. As well, sometimes they have to go on the offensive which they have started to do more recently after much criticism. He has been "going more negative" which is something you said Obama shouldn't do. ie: the DHL ad in Ohio, the Harley radio ad in Wisconsin, the Yucca Mountain ad in Nevada

So say what you will, but the "Armchairmen" came in handy. The Obama campaign plays it too safe/cautious and we've seen this before in the primaries (ie: response to Michelle's "proud" comment, the botched way Rev Wright was handled, bittergate). In the general, the way the troop visit smear was handled, with various timid explanations was awful. So it's perfectly fine to have people throw out suggestions or voice their concern. Like Obama stresses, his supporters have a say and he will always take their opinions into consideration.

Attempts to ridicule or stifle people who are genuinely concerned by giving them funny labels and mocking them is counterproductive, in my opinion.

Personally, I'm glad that there are many people in the netroots who are hyper vigilante. It's no coincidence that this sudden burst of tailor-made local negative ads (and negative ads in general ) from Obama campaign coincides with his supporters/party members being more vociferous.

For the past two weekends I have gone to Indiana to reg voters. I know I am doing my job--Once I fully immersed myself in the field, I stopped watching the news and listening to the "littles" of the media and blogasphere.

I know where the battle is won. And it is not at he tips of my finger pecking at this keyboard.

 

The blue of Illinois will bleed into Indiana--turning it a deep and royal purple.

"A critic is someone who never actually goes to the battle, yet who afterwards comes out shooting the wounded" — Tyne Daly (the Cagney of Cagney and Lacey)

No campaign or cause has ever won when it relied on panic to rally the troops. Plenty have lost that way.

Your suggestion that the Obama campaign did anything to placate the whiners and Chicken Littles out there is akin to saying the quarterback threw a pass because some guys in the bleachers shouted onto the field that he must do so.

And your characterization of what I supposedly think - of what I've said "Obama shouldn't do" - is not backed up by anything I've written. It's your own spin and interpretation that clouds your clear reading of it.

Go ahead and tell the guys in the bleachers that the QB threw that pass because they belched it loud enough. You're deluding yourself and deluding them if you say so.

But in any case, with so many Armchairmen out there flapping their poultry wings, so many blogs and places to read that stuff you love so much, I have to wonder if you're being a little bit disingenuous: I mean, why come here to see that tendency mocked and ridiculed time and time again (and you ain't seen nothin' yet!) when you can find a hundred safe harbors and coops of Chicken Littledom elsewhere? Me thinks you're just trying to provoke!

I liked in "yellow's" post the typo? "hyper vigilante."

Hard-working anonymous & Mikell Hagwood: you are the reason I can, as Roy Martin does, sit back and enjoy the show, when I'm not out registering voters myself.  We will not see an operation like this again in our lifetimes (unless you are all really just 21, perhaps).

The recent tough elections have distorted our notions of what fighting dems look like: KRK's point about Clinton's race in '92 is well-taken.  We have to bear in mind too that Clinton was rhetorically hog-walloping a man whose malapropisms literally fill volumes, and he didn't do it for 18-24 months straight.

Let the Armchairmengeddon begin!

 

On a somewhat related note, I've actually been using the rhetoric from McCain in regards to the Georgian/Russian conflict to successfully scare a couple people further away from McCain.

Most Americans aren't exactly thrilled with the idea of a president who wants to enable a second cold war or another world war.

as you have pointed out, Al, is that it takes time away from actual work to be done.

That is why I don't understand those who say that we must be "vigilant" about Obama's poll numbers, or who call up the Obama campaign and yell that they aren't being "tough" enough.

I can donate, phone bank, canvass, register voters, do data entry, and other volunteer activities. Those I can do regardless of what the latest poll says.  I really, beyond the of my scope of volunteer work, can't change what the latest tracking poll says, so why waste time getting upset about it?

Oh and yellow, if I believed for a second that Obama was making strategic advertising decisions based on advice from the peanut gallery, I'd stick a sharp object in my eye. THEN you'd see some freaking out.

Sitting half-way across the world, I don't get US msm (thankfully) and rely only on blogs for this GE. And them blogs have given me only bird flu so far with their collective chicken littling. I never knew that Obama is running those state specific ads. Thanks for pointing them out.

amk

Is it "presumptuous" for a candidate who isn't President yet (and hopefuly never will be) to say he speaks "for every American...we are Georgians"?  Huh...

As I've been told by the MSM, it is DEFINITELY "Presumptuous" for a candidate to speak "as an American citizen and a citizen of the world...." in front of 200,000 Germans, right?

Seriously,  I'm no fan of Bush, but he is still President right?  I know he was off lollygagging at the Olympics, when he should have been hightailing his ass over here to "deal" with this problem, but McCain actually held a press conference and released a statement before the President of the USA did.  He was basically acting as the de facto President (he was Cheney).  If that's not presumptuous, I don't know what it.

If Obama had done the same, Fox News and the Repubs would have screamed bloody murder.

Al, I've been hoping for you to smack down the "Obama needs to..." crowd. Thanks for coming through as always.

In off-topic news (sorry), http://www.demconwatchblog.com said today that Claire McCaskill is speaking at the convention on Monday, and Ted Strickland on Tuesday (same day as Hillary), so that's two more consolation prizes handed out.

 

como decían en mi pueblo,

esa no fue pedrada,

fue lajazo!

Goo one Al,

 

invent them an Armchairmen computer game to simulate the fantasy.

 

I think that a lot of people are used to seeing everything as a blood sport competition and hence their insistance on Obama to know McCain down to the ground. This morning I was listening to the radio and some Pro-Clinton people were talking as though Obama was the worst that has happened to the Democratic party. There is a movement to recreate the riots from 68 as well.

Muchas gracias de nuevo for putting things in perpective. And from your post this morning, I thought for a moment that you had been given the name of the VP but you were just too modest to let it out of the bag completely! ;-)

I like the armchairmanship.  Think of it as a contrarian indicator.  As a Red Sox fan, I'd point out that it's best not to be overconfident.  In fact, it's actually preferable to overrate your opponent and talk down your chances.  Anybody who thinks Obama is going to win this thing has to go outside, turn around three times and spit.  Obama is gonna get crushed.  I predict that he'll lose 534-4 in the electoral college (winning only exotic Hawaii). This after choosing the French men's relay swim captain as his running mate.

On a less superstitious note, Mark Mellman has a great post on putting the current election in the proper historical context.  All of the blabbering Beltway media types gleefully pointing out that Obama's current margin of lead is too small desperately need to read this article.

http://thehill.com/mark-mellman/why-obama-doesnt-hold-big-lead-2008-08-1...

 

Fair enough, Al.

Where you see panic, for the most part, I see some very well thought out and insighful constructive criticisms.

Is it possible that the Obama campaign's decision (to suddenly come out with a slew of hard-hitting negative ads against McCain) has NOTHING to do with the fact that so many have Democrats begun to worry that he isn't "hitting back" hard enough? Sure. Personally, I think that's highly unlikely. When you're in a campaign, it's easy to get wrapped up in your own little world and lose touch. I see nothing wrong with the Obama campaign looking outward for feedback sometimes when weighing their options. That's smart--- not a sign of weakness/self-doubting/placating the base. Sometimes the base has some ace ideas.

But I'll agree to disagree with you on this one.

ring doorbells, make calls and donate...that's what we need to do

@ mikell - This Georgia fieldhand is training this weekend at the Fulton County HQ too. I'm having a little meeting for my neighborhood and "team 22" on Thursday. Before last Saturday, I knew one other Obama supporter in my neighborhood. Yeah, I saw a couple of yard signs but I hadn't actually talked to them. Hopefully by Thursday I'll know a few more. More importantly, we'll have our own plan for registering voters and GOTV. What happened? I went to some first baby steps training on Saturday. There, the organizers asked everyone there to do two things -(1) get out and register voters that day, with a small group of our newest colleagues, to get over our fear & find out how energizing it is, and (2) to make personal committment for action this week. For me, it was this neighborhood meeting. I've had this idea since late june, but i didn't know how. One of the best things for me was to hear exactly how these campaign kids - who aren't from here- got all of us there for that very meeting. Bottom line: just do it. Talk to people, put the word out, just do it. We are the ones we've been waiting for. (maybe it's a good time to pick up that Alinsky book : ) ?) I think getting involved on the ground is far more energizing than reacting to armchairmen.

I especially agree with your statement that people misremember the Clinton '92 campaign.  My recollection fits yours-that Clinton fused a change message with being optimistic about America's future.  I'd invite anyone to go check out the archived campaign ads at livingroomcandidate.org.  He took some hard shots at Bush 41, to be sure, but they were regional, targeted ads, referencing a plant closing in Tennessee, in one instance.  The national ads were much more postitive, on the other hand.

Obama seems to be borrowing from that playbook with his targeted ads hitting McCain, which is a more effective approach, imo, in that it has the added benefit of showing the voters of that state that the campaign has given some thought to issues that are specific that that state.

I think a lot of the armchairing is due to a desire to exact rhetorical revenge on the republicans for the damage of the last 8 years.  I feel that, but its not necessarily good tactics.

 

I definitely think that what I can do is work for the campaign every second I can manage.  Obviously, Obama's strategy has worked thus far despite all the "expert advice" from the bleechers.

Luckily, I'm off to Camp Obama this weekend for intensive training on the fundamentals of organizing.  Even though we are doing well in CA, in terms of a secure blue state, the campaign knows the energy is here and we are willing and ready to help turn swing states blue.  We've already made a significant amount of contacts that are never picked up by any media.

Nervous energy, at least for me, is converted into asking myself...is what I'm doing helping to get Obama closer to victory?  And stressing about "hitting back" or an ad or whatever is the crisis du jour does nothing to help reach that ultimate goal.  I have no control over that.

I do, however, come here for frequent innoculations.  Finally, I would love to see what the % of fieldhands are out tilling the ground compared to other people who spend their time on "the sky is falling" blogs.  Now that would be interesting.

Just finished several hours of calling and emailing likely targets for my Obama fundraiser.  It was great to know that I am doing to something to help and to aid me in getting over my reluctance to talk to strangers.  Start with the easy stuff and then work my way up!

 

Just one interesting tidibit...one guy who had caucused for Obama said he was going to use this as an opportunity to tell me why he is disappointed in him.  He went on for quite a while before he got to the point...I thought for sure it was going to be FISA or something.  Nope, made a reference to the Father's Day speech and how he is attacking men.  Also something about men and Planned Parenthood.  Whatever...

the daily posturings of the respective campaigns rarely amount to all that much in terms of actual votes won or lost.

But as anyone who's been paying even the slightest attention knows, the factor that's been the real difference maker in the last two elections is mass disenfranchisement of newly registered voters and twiddling the machines on election day. We're already starting to read reports of Republicans gearing up to challenge voters in swing states like VA, PA and NM. Can another guarantee from Wally O'Dell be far behind?

I appreciate Al's level-headed perspective and his well-deserved ridicule of those who offer daily critiques of Obama's campaign strategy. Yet I don't feel it's Chicken-Littleish to remind people of the need to be ever vigilant of the possibility of voter supression. In fact, Al should be even more aware of this possibility than most of his U.S. readers. Not only did he witness the shenanigans of the '00 and '04 elections along with the rest of us, but he was also johnny-on-the-spot in Mexico when Calderon pulled off his 11th hour "miracle comeback" against Lopez Obrador.

I guess I'd sleep a little easier if I saw the Obama campaign being a bit more proactive in moving to counter that which, in the end, is the Republicans' real campaign strategy. As the last two presidential contests have shown, waiting until election day is too late. By that time, any serious challenge to the reported outcome can be easily dismissed as the bleatings of a sore loser. I'd hate to see the Obama campaign's groundbreaking mobilization of voters washed away in the end by a gambit that we all know is coming.

You may find these two diaries reassuring: 1, 2.

During the primaries, the Obama campaign generally seemed to be very much on top of these issues. They do not necessarily choose to advertise this, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.

The AP is reporting that Warner will be the keynote speaker on Tuesday, not Hillary.  The speaking slots for the supposed-short-list VP candidates haven't been announced.

Any ideas on what Warner's selection as keynote speaker portends?  He's a natural fit, since Tuesday night will be devoted to economic issues, and he's the Democrat with the most expertise on economic issues.

But does making him keynote speaker suggest that Obama is going to choose an old fart for VP (Bob Graham from Florida, Biden?), so that Warner is being designated as the future of the party, rather than the VP?

Does it mean that Kaine won't be the VP, because he'll be compared both to Bill Clinton (who's speaking on the same night as the VP, Wed. night) and Warner?

Or does it mean nothing with respect to the VP selection?

 

I, too, am out there working on calls, registering, donating, etc. in central Florida.   It would be helpful to hear/read what others are experiencing in the form of resistance from uncommitted people.   The Limbaugh "Obama is a socialist" folks are too far gone.  Those in the choir don't need converting.  It's the ones who haven't been paying attention or who, for some reason, are still "uncommitted" that need our energies.  How do deal with them on the ground???  One to one?

As an example:  I chat with lots of folks very casually, folks like waiters and waitresses.  One issue that comes up is a fear that they won't be treated "fairly" by an Obama administration.  I get a sense that this is an economic worry, that Obama will be obliged by the AA community to do more for the AAs that somehow will disadvantage them (the White folks).  It seems to overshadow what otherwise would be a positive economic message for them.  Any ideas?   How does one deal with that kind of fear out there?

In general, what I'd like to see here, rather than Armchairing and Chicken-littleing about what the campaign is doing wrong, is some reporting on our experiences out there (in the field, at the grassroots level) and how we can help each other to do it better, to bring another voter or two, one at a time, into our camp.

I agree the Armchairmen are annoying - however, I tend to just sit back and enjoy the show.  A particularly awful example was the front page article on Politico yesterday I think - 7 things Obama should worry about, and every single one of them was just ridiculous and silly.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12433.html

I am certainly going to smile when Obama wins VA and proves Point No. 2 of this idiot wrong (oh and Mark Warner is going to be the keynote speaker for the convention - can I say "Virginia" anyone?). The politico guy says "But Obama’s aides privately concede his odds in Virginia are probably no better than 50-50." Hmm - do you think they might be playing you?  I was volunteering for the Obama campaign in VA for the primary and there were rumors going round that the internals were showing the race tied.  So we furiously worked our asses off - and Obama won by a 30 point blowout, with turnout up 50%.  Anyone think we might have been played?  And for good reason.  Of course it's to Obama's benefit to have the race seem close.

In other news it is nice when the MSM does Obama's punching for him - here's Friedman this morning:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/opinion/13friedman.html

"Senator McCain did not show up for the crucial vote on July 30, and the renewable energy bill was defeated for the eighth time. In fact, John McCain has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year — which effectively counts as a no vote each time. Once, he was even in the Senate and wouldn’t leave his office to vote."

KD

Not only is Obama using the strategy of expanding his own appeal with the national ads while attacking McCain locally, but with the rollout of the Republicans for Obama group yesterday, he is presenting himself as a return to traditional American common-sense values that all voters crave post-Bush. Several speakers on the conference call yesterday -- Lincoln Chafee, Rita Hauser, and especially ex-Iowa Congressman Jim Leach -- made the case that Obama is the candidate of renewing what is great about America. Change not only as something new and young, but also a restoration of what has been lost in recent years.

I go into specifics of what was said at some length at this link, but it strikes me that the Republicans for Obama conference call yesterday was at the heart of Obama's rhetorical strategy for the fall -- be the mainstream values candidate and present McCain/Bush/Cheny as dangerously bellicose and radical. If he succeeds, McCain will have a very rough autumn ahead.

the keynote speaker at the dems convention. Does this relate in anyway to the veep selection ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/13/mark-warner-keynote-speak_n_118610.html

amk

yellow, chill.  Obama's campaign handled the Wright situation exactly the way they needed to--witness that none of this stuff sunk his candidacy.

You will note that it is the McLame campaign that reacts and goes negative.  They don't have ideas--and it is not that they couldn't come up with compelling ideas, but that they are too busy trying to take O-man down a notch to be innovative.  Being creative requires a relaxed space.

What impresses me is how cool and collected O-man stays--and people that know the guy say that it is a dominant character trait.

Liike, right now, yellow, your freaking out--and Oman is on a secluded beach right now, swimming, hiking, partying with amigos and having a great time with his favorite ladies in the world.  O-man is chill'en.

For me it is: stay calm, enjoy the farm work, take every Saturday toward registering voters and canvassing neighborhoods.   And, finally, have enough faith in the US public that they can vote their hopes and strength rather than wallow in thier fears.

Let go and let Dog, I say.

Anon said about Al:  "Not only did he witness the shenanigans of the '00 and '04 elections along with the rest of us, but he was also johnny-on-the-spot in Mexico when Calderon pulled off his 11th hour "miracle comeback" against Lopez Obrador."

That election theft was a real eye-opener.   It is really striking how the corporate media the world over are prepared to omit pertinent, criitcal information to roll over the will of the public.

Al's reporting was the most nuanced and critical in the world at that time--and I am surprised that he didn't write a book in Spanish about that criminality.

Here's another one:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/ohbarns

 

A positive local ad for Obama.

It seems a lot of the arm-chairing comes from those obsessed with the media horse race, while they are missing the actual battle.  It's all about the freaking electoral college.  Is that system a good thing?  No, I think it's due for a little modernizing.  But it's the gauge victory will be judged on, and it's the battle the O campaign is glued to.  It's ALL about ekeing out LOCAL victories!

As in the primaries where it was all about winning those counties in Nevada with three delegates, since the ones with two would be a draw - the counties with three decided the victor.  They (the campaign) have shown they know what the goal is (electoral college votes) and I'm sure they laugh every time some media airhead whips up panic in the henhouse over the latest Gallup national poll!  Did everyone miss the 2000 election?  The national tally makes no difference - there's no prize for that, as Gore will testify!

One question I have is about the difference in effectiveness of ads that play locally and get no media attention, vs. ads that get picked up and run endlessly in some national media excuse for news?  If Obama has this local angle on advertizing, would they prefer if their local ads got the 'celebrity' treatment?  Or is it better to stay local and more under the radar?

Personally, I think much of this "concern" stems from the constant repetition of McLame's national ads on the cable and network shows while Obama's campaign is so targeted at specific regional issues that they don't get the national play.

 

I'd venture to bet that the viewership numbers of the local ads show much greater penetration in the target areas than what the national coverage gets. Such geographical niche marketing is a natural counterpart to the ground game that the Obama campaign is justifiably famous for.

A baseball manager once said that if he listened to the fans in the bleachers, he would soon be JOINING the fans in the bleachers.

And the worst armchairing is when it's aimed at the most successful.  What other political candidate in history has defeated the Clinton machine, with all of its money, fame, connections, and dirty politics?

These people are probably also sitting around saying, "Michael Phelps HAS to get 11 hours of sleep to keep winning medals, or it's OVER."

Have you ever seen Tiger Woods walking through a throng of screaming fans, inches away from him, as he approaches the green?  His expression makes you think that he is unaware of anything other than the position of his ball. 

Incredibly talented people, possessing extraordinarily high levels of focus and concentration on a well thought out strategy, and who also have healthy levels of confidence in said talent and strategy, are often known as winners.

is it such a bad thing for Obama to be percieved as not "hitting back" as much as some of his (putative) supporters might want?  and esp. if he is in fact running ads in local markets that are critical of McCain?  seems like these Archairmen could be useful in blunting accusations that Obama is practicing the usual politics anytime his campaign actually does go negative.

This campaign amazes me more & more every day.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/ohbarns

too imaginative to be 'measured' by the limited thinking  of the MSM, or  ArmChairpeople( thanks to PA of Canada)  - thanks to all Field Hands and Narcosphere  - Al, can't wait to read your reporting from Denver!

I sure liked what i read about Kathleen Sebelius under the "more gossip" section of this post:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/warner-will-be-dems-keynoter.html

Thanks for posting those links. Although informative, I'm not certain as to how reassuring they were. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we also hear in 2004 that Kerry had similarly assembled a top-flite legal team to ensure that every vote was counted? We all know how that one turned out.

As I stated earlier, I believe that voter suppression/rigged e-voting could once again turn out to be the deciding factor this November. At the risk of sounding like a bit of an "armchairman" myself, I think it is imperative that the Obama campaign do more than just hire a raft of legal talent behind the scenes. I guess I'd like to see them make a bit more noise about this and start controlling the narrative on this issue well in advance of election day.

Anonymous - The argument that "John Kerry did or didn't do something and therefore we should worry that Obama is or isn't doing it too" is tiresome.

If you don't think that the first African-American nominee for president is more sensitized to electoral fraud and voter suppression tactics - and far more ready to take it on - than previous nominees, I congratulate you on being the only truly color blind person in the USA!

Your "advice" - that he should make more noise about it - is not good advice. "Making noise" in the press doesn't stop those tactics from working and could be counterproductive by telegraphing to the vote stealers the strategies and tactics that are pending. "Don't talk about it, just do it" has been the mantra of that campaign team and why should it be any different when it comes to protecting the vote?

 

Obama has to be very careful in negative ads.  If he comes on too strong (as many are pushing for) he will be called the "angry black man"... Not fair, but I am sure that is what will happen.  ON the other hand, if he "responds" to attacks on him, that would be okay.  He is really walking a very fine line here. 

Al, (and everyone else) You asked for specific ideas on how to help. Well on your blog which is a national platform, I want to put out the idea that the Democrats launch a coordinated attack against the Republican party to reinforce the idea that Republicans are "borrow and spend". profligate borrowers and profligate spenders. I think this message will resonate with the American people right now, because they are more aware of this damaging approach to personal finance than they ever have been. Examples could be cited, like printing money at the Treasury, not counting certain aspects of the money supply, the total amount of indebtedness to China, fighting wars while cutting taxes (and of course, point out who really saved the tax money). I don't know how such a message could be rolled out, but I think it could be effective for Obama and the DNC to lead the way on it, as well as in the Senate and Congress elections. If we are lucky, Republicans could be branded with this albatross for the next two or three election cycles, just like they effectively branded the Democrats. Specifically, I think this message would appeal to older voters, and independent voters, many of whom voted for Perot in 1992. More importantly, a theme like that could hopefully carry for several years, and pave the way to 60 Democratic Senators in 2010 so we can finally get real Health Care legislation to the Senate floor. Thanks for the platform. Ken in California

Obama has known with near certainty that he would be his party's nominee since the Ohio and Texas Clinton primary wins failed to put a sizable enough dent in his delegate lead. That means that his team had been building his general election strategy since early March. Look at what he's been up to since then:

• Registering voters
• Building up his grassroots organization and fundraising machine
• Putting states in play that Democrats have dumbly ignored for decades (e.g. Montana)
• Pinpointing issues that resonate with voters and developing talking points, speeches, and advertising that speak directly to them (see Yucca Mountain, etc. above)
• Redefining patriotism
• Working local media
• Having his Iraq withdrawal strategy validated by...Iraq
  
• Co-opting the Christian/family values narrative for Democratic harvesting (don't think the repeated appearance of the young, healthy, loving, smiling Obama family is an accident and that it hasn't made an impression)
• Recruiting attorneys to deal with Republican voter suppression tactics (at the precinct level)
• Dominating online
• Defining McCain as Bush Redux (McCain helped A LOT this week with his over-the-top and bellicose saber-rattling about Russia/Georgia)
• Pushing the McCain campaign into extreme overreaction mode and into the realm of the ridiculous (aka multiple easy targets when the time is right)
• Making his issues the issues (listen to - and laugh at - McCain talking about how Washington is broken and he's going to fix it)

Even his vacation this week has been a boon to him, as Hawaiians are reminded (not that they really needed a reminder about their native son) that there is only one candidate who recognizes that Hawaii is, in fact, a state. Where people pay taxes. And vote.

The vapors we hear from the media will continue and the right will spin it as the media's "love affair with Obama is over." But that love affair existed only briefly - from the Iowa win in Feb. to the Rev. Wright fiasco in March. Since then the media have hammered away at Obama like crazy (cf. ABC, Fox, Washington Post, CNN, Maureen Dowd, David Broder, Dana Milbank, etc. etc. In fact, MSNBC has been the only partial refuge from the onslaught and excuse for many of us to keep paying the cable bill). Obama's campaign has been very deft and skilled at countering the MSM void with alternate channels and reducing their dependency on it.

I knew when I lined up with Obama that it wasn't going to be easy, but the result of the extra effort has been genuine innovation and a re-imagining of the possible pathways to victory. This game is very much ON.

 

Look, I'll be the first to acknowledge that I'm no expert when it comes to electoral strategy. And I'll also grant that Obama's background and experience have uniquely prepared him to tackle this issue with a fervor that we haven't seen before.

My concern, as noted earler, is that waiting 'til election day to act on this may also prove ineffective. I'm guessing that Kerry must've known that the numbers out of Ohio were fishy but, when he thought back at the way in which Gore was lampooned as a a sore loser in '00 for rightly contesting the results, decided he'd like to continue his political career as a sober eminence gris rather than as fodder for late nite comics. Now, I'm not suggesting that Obama would make a similar calculation. Nonetheless, he'll ultimately need a strategy to counter the inevitable "sore loser" media narrative should he challenge the results on election day.

Finally, Al, I'm surprised that you yourself haven't been more out in front on this particular aspect of the campaign. You were my go to source for information in the aftermath of the farcical election of Calderon. So while I can well apreciate your point that the Obama campaign should maintain a low profile on this, I'd be really be interested to read your thoughts on how you feel the now-trademark Republican vote stealing strategy may or may not play out in this election.

 If anonymous is so worried about vote stealing, I say, get off your duff and register new voters to help counteract your fear.

I started reading Al back in late February, there were many days I thought the sky was falling and this place was a respite for me and many others. Nowadays, I let the armchairmen and women go in one ear and out the other.

In September, I will be staying in Nevada for a couple of weeks doing voter registration and canvassing. I will be calling New Mexico from home and canvassing my neighborhood after the registration deadline is up. Making a difference in the trenches, is what keeps me from contracting "Chicken Little" syndrome.

Thank you again Al, for another great piece, reminding us all of what our priorities should be.

While we may not be able to stop vote stealing now, we can certainly do our part to prevent it later by working to elect Democrats as Secretaries of State.  Don't know how many are on the ballot this cycle, but in WA we have a chance to elect the computer savvy champion of voter protection Jason Osgood.  The more I learn about what our present SOS has done to the election process, the more horrified I become.  My own fault for not paying attention sooner.  It's frustrating to think of all the work being done in this state and others to register voters only to have large portions of the registrations thrown out for every reason imaginable.

Also, @Malron...loved your sign!

Having read this, I feel better now. But I wonder the following: Why can't the Obama team put up a "national" offensive equally effective as the state-by-state one? Yes, I admit the latter is the most crucial and important. Maybe because the national one is less resource effective, less manageable? Isn't Barack's success so far attributed to a cerefully maintained, credible and worthy political personna that must be defended at the national level? I just wonder. But I am quite happy to have read this, I guess I was only reading from the armchairers.

Nate Silver (aka pablano) at TNR

Right now, the election = the economy = gas prices = McCain

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=b3c46522-a137-43df-9d3d-d36df9cd81c9

Are americans this gullible ?

amk