McCain Campaign Big Lie "Obama is a Typical Politician" Hits DU: The Vanilla Version

[McCamy Taylor]

On July 4th, I wrote this journal.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/254

Obama is a Typical Politician: How to Spot It, How to Fight It

Turns out that you will not need the pointers on how to spot it. I even got the name right. There is a thread right here at DU at this very moment in General Discussion Presidential telling us to hold our noses and vote for Obama because although Obama is Typical Politician he might throw a few crumbs our way.

And did I tell you that Gore is the same as Bush? And that John Kerry is such a waffler? This Big Lie comes from the same folks that brought you those as well as Edwards is a Phony and Hillary is a Bitch.

There are two flavors of Obama is a Typical Politician . On sites like DU, Daily Kos and Huffington Post you will see the Vanilla Flavored Big Lie. That is the one for us liberal types. This Big Lie will emphasize FISA (he won't filibuster it---don't recall the last time a major party nominee filibustered his own party's bill) and faith-based social programs (which Obama cut his teeth as a community organizer on) and the NYT's deceptive Iraq Story (which Obama immediately corrected but which the NYTs is still pushing) . This story will be all about how Obama has abandoned progressive principles and has made a mad dash to the right---so that he is now the same as Bush. No difference at all. Please stop sending him money. You might as well stay home this fall. Or maybe vote for Nader. Yeah, that's the ticket.

McCain and Co. are counting on liberals to act like fashion victims. People on the left love to keep up with trends. In order to be fashionable, one must hurry to be the first to blend in with the herd. So, if the NYT reports that prominent, wealthy progressives like Arianna Huffington are angry with Obama, all the little Arianna wannabes are supposed to get angry with Obama, too. The Daily Kos will do one of its dogpiles---aided by hard working Freeper moles.

I describe the other type of Obama is a Typical Politician Big Lie (let's call it Caramel Flavored ) in my July 5th Journal, The Media Lynching of Barack Obama. This one is intended for independents, apoliticals and Republican voters. In this story, right wingers and conservatives who write in papers like the Washington Post will exploit lingering racial prejudice to portray Barrack Obama as a caricature corrupt inner city Black politician straight out of some KKK propaganda pamphlet.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/255

You will not see the Caramel Flavored version of Obama is a Typical Politician in progressive blogs and journals, because in that version they are calling him things like "the most liberal Senator in Congress" and a "baby killer" and they keep talking about how he wants to "cut and run" from Iraq. When they are not making veiled allusions to corruption and crack and voting fraud, they are superimposing his image over that of Che and talking about how he wants to talk to Iran. They do not want liberals to get the idea that Obama is still a progressive politician. That kind of stuff is strictly reserved for the Free Republic.

You will not see the Vanilla Flavored version of Obama is a Typical Politician in right wing blogs (except phrased as "Obama is a waffler"), because in that version they are calling him things like a moderate and an advocate of faith based programs and an advocate of handgun rights---and they do not want independents to get the idea that Obama is a moderate politician. That kind of stuff is strictly reserved for Democratic Underground.

Funny, I see a whole lot of waffling going on---from the McCain campaign. Seems to me they can not decide how they want to portray Barack Obama. Do they want to try to paint him as too moderate (white)in order to deprive him of funds and the support of his base while he is trying to amass a war chest? Or, do they want to portray him as too liberal (Black), now that he is trying to appeal to a general election voting public?

Just to cite on example, within the space of 24 hours, we had Right to Life announcing to liberals that Obama has changed his position on abortion (gasp!) though NARAL says he didn't (and someone posted the article on DU for progressives to shake their fists over). On the other hand, Karl Rove was quietly reassuring conservative voters that Obama was the worst baby killer in the land.

I understand why the people on the right---the conservative bloggers and writers are playing along. But why are people like Arianna and bloggers at Daily Kos going along with this anti-Obama attack strategy? Are they naive? Are some people not what they profess to be? Have they had second thoughts? Buyers remorse? Are they afraid that Obama may lose, and they do not want to have their celebrity tainted by association with a loser, so they are dumping him now rather than later?

At this stage in the campaign, Barack Obama's main job is to allow the other half of the electorate---the non Democrats---to get to know him. The issues matter less than his character and personality. Anything which diminishes his character--his honesty, his courage, his compassion, his intelligence---aids John McCain in his quest to become president. I have seen more character attacks against our Democratic nominee from self identified Democrats----on this board and on other progressive sites---than I have seen in any election since 1980.

Now, it is quite likely that most of these character attacks are from people who only pretend to be Democrats. And the press has developed a tendency to inflate criticism of Obama on certain issues by well known liberals as character attacks. But the effect on rank and file Democratic support can be devastating.

The phrase "Obama is a typical politician" needs to be recognized as McCain oppo---his campaign said last winter that this would be their attack strategy against Barack Obama. No one who hears the phrase "Gore is a liar" now thinks of anything except malicious RNC pr. The same thing should begin to happen now with the McCain campaign's new tag phrase--not next year, when the presidential race is over.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." SUN TSU

[Buck Rabbit]

1. Interestingly, a new poster I suspected was an "operative" when he first appeared

used that phrase tonight. How he has gotten past 200 posts is beyond me. In another thread he is pushing his anti-affirmative action tale and defending Condi Rice while back-handedly defending an anti-Obama video.

I would say you nailed it on this one.

[McCamy Taylor]

2. Google "Obama is a typical politician" now and you only get 2000 hits.

If I am correct, this is going to start rising as they begin posting like a bunch of maggot breeding in a wino's gangrenous leg ulcer. I will recheck in a few days.

[AZBlue]

6. Have you contacted the mods?

Unfortunately many keep springing up but there's a way for them to track and deal with them.

[McCamy Taylor]

10. I like the Democratic approach. If you have concerns about a thread

there are ways to post them without being disruptive. You can talk about why the subject is a problem without making any personal accusations or attacks. For instance, since I know that the McCain camp announced last winter that its strategy against Obama was going to be to show that "Obama is a typical politician" (their words) when I see someone post that, I feel compelled to mention that this is the McCain strategy.

[Cha]

36. Can we just alert on those posts and get rid of

the disruptors? It's against the rules and the moderators, admin, and we need all the help we can get to clean up our site and get Obama elected.

I alerted on one post tonight and posted the rules for a reminder..and now I go back and see my post was deleted too in a "deleted sub thread" sweep. Whatever it takes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6467218

[Whisp]

3. great, good reading post. k&r'd. nt

[woolldog]

4. Great expose.

[Triana]

5. Put his SC ayass on Ignore...

I just am NOT gonna read that rightwingnut shiite.

[AZBlue]

7. K&R

Excellent post!

[JohnnyLib2]

8. Where does this fit in, if at all. Hackles are raised!

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3384199

[depakid]

9. So, the entire progressive blogosphere is just a right wing tool?

:tinfoilhat:

Reality check.

The Obama campaign is doing just fine creating this public perception by themselves, without anyone else's help.

That the other side of the aisle (along with the corporate media and the NY Times) has also taken notice and is now exploiting it for their own purposes, shouldn't catch anyone by surprise.

What else would you expect?

Let's just hope that the over the holiday weekend, the advisors and consultants have had a chance to catch their breath and reflect on what's transpired these past 3 weeks. Because none of us can afford the consequences of continuing to alienate the Democratic base.

[McCamy Taylor]

11. Tool? No. Entire? No. Are there some silly people out there? Yes.

"That the other side of the aisle (along with the corporate media and the NY Times) has also taken notice and is now exploiting it for their own purposes, shouldn't catch anyone by surprise."


Well, if everyone knew that the corporate media was going to exploit it, why did so many people in the left wing bloggo-sphere rise to the bait?

One of the problems with the left is that they get their gold stars for being oppositional. I understand. I am more likely to write if I am tearing something or someone a new asshole. Except in my case, since I never intend to make any money off my writing, I have an unlimited number of targets. The professional and semi-professional bloggers and writers on the left have to keep in the good graces of the corporate media because they may want to publish a book or get a TV gig one day. So, they have to be careful about who and what they criticize. They have discovered that it is a lot safer to go after Democrats than it is to criticize anyone else.

Look at poor Ariana. She could not get any book promotion time on MSNBC because she criticized the network for helping to sell the Iraq War in her new book. But she got lots of MSM publicity for criticizing Obama.

[depakid]

12. Rise to the bait?

The Obama campaign can stop enabling and legitimizing right wing policies and chastening progressive groups and issues any time it likes.

Yet if it continues on as it has- then it's reasonable to expect that folks whose issues have just been tossed under the bus aren't just going to their heads in the sand or "suck it up" for the greater good. Much less enthusiastically get out and volunteer- or send in contributions.

That's not how politics works.

Here's a quote from a blogger on Huffington Post. My guess is that you'll like the whole piece, as it seems to be where you're coming from- though the poster seems quite unaware of the irony in this little narrative :

Not long after the 2004 election, I was in a New Jersey taxicab. The driver was a typical male New Jersey cabbie. "So what do you think of Corzine?" I asked. "Oh, Corzine, tough guy. Like him," he replied about the then-Senator.

"What do you think of Bush?" I asked. "Like him too. Tough guy. Stands up for what he believes," came the answer.

"What about Kerry?" I asked. "Kerry? Can't stand him. Flip-flopper."

People want leaders who are firmly committed to their values. The key thing that affected the New Jersey cabbie's view wasn't the positions or views of the candidates. It was whether they stood up for what they believed. There are many independent voters just like him.

I believe that John Kerry has very clear values, but he left himself open to be defined to swing voters as if he didn't.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/progressives-must-guard-a_b_111098.html

[McCamy Taylor]

14. The Obama campaign is not doing anything except trying to make Obama look "unscary"

which is the number one task of a Black man running for president of the United States the minute he enters the general election. He did not have to do this in the Democratic Primary, because Democrats are not afraid of African-Americans. But a whole lot of other people are, like swing voters.

The McCain camp is trying to force him to 1) scurry to the left to shore up his base so that he will 2) fulfill the prophecies that they are making to the independents and Republicans at this very moment about him being a Scary Black Politician

Did I make that clear enough for you?

So, would the liberal columnists and bloggers please chill or will you only be satisfied if Obama puts on a Che T-Shirt and a Hamas button and pledges allegiance to Karl Marx while aborting a third trimester fetus and smoking a joint? Because that is what John McCain wants him to do.

[lark]

41. They absolutely don't get it!

The FISA bill IS SCARY, shredding the constitution is scary. What in the world makes them think this is a winning idea? Don't see how anyone on the left can condone his and other Dem's unconscionable actions in supporting ths awful bill.

[lark]

42. How about asking Obama to support filibustering FISA?.

We understand appealing to the masses. Supporting a gas tax holiday would be appealing to the masses. It's a meaningless gesture in the long run, yet Obama fervently opposes it. Voting yes on a FISA bill that says it's OK for Bush to have illegally wiretapped who knows how many Americans, PRIOR TO 9/11, is not appealing to Independents, it's a total cave in to the right wing who will not vote for him any way and it makes me quite sad.

When he starts taking a stand on something that actually means anything, then I will support him with my money and not just my vote.

[Occam Bandage]

13. "Entire?" No, hardly. Are the kneejerks of a minority of excitable people

being used by the right wing? Yes.

[depakid]

16. Those so called "exictable" people

Have a lot more experience and education, are better informed on the issues and more adept at analysis than most of those who brush them off because they don't like what they're hearing.

"We learn from history that we learn nothing from history" ~George Bernard Shaw.

[Occam Bandage]

20. Well, just judging by the writing abilities of your average purist and average apologist,

I would say that claim is largely wishful.

[depakid]

25. Equivocal framing- as Lakoff would say. And, looks like you'd better add Dr. Lakoff to the list

Because he just explained in somewhat more scientific terms what many seasoned observers have been saying.

If Omama continues down this path, our hopes rest largely on a McCain meltdown, and in any event, this dysfunctional "strategy" will hurt progressive candidates and issues down ticket.

See: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/07/10162/

(You might also note the comments beneath the article).

[Occam Bandage]

26. I like Lakoff's theories. On the other hand, they're completely untested and unproven.

While I wouldn't by any means claim that the following is a repudiation of his politico-linguistic theories, I do find it notable that the favored candidates of Lakoff's biggest fans tend to achieve mediocre or nonexistent levels of political success.

[depakid]

27. Achieving success (as in 2006) requires a central theme

One that's framed around traditional Democratic values.

Why Democrats are to do that, particularly since poll after poll shows progressive positions on the issues to be far more popular than far right or so called "centrists" stands is an open question. Fear, perhaps- but more likely, complicity induced by corporate money.

[Radical Activist]

31. You mean experienced people who are so used

to Democrats moving to the middle that they're just waiting to see Obama do it too? People who need Obama to move right to confirm what they always "knew" about him all along? People who are so jaded by past failures of liberals that they can't believe a real liberal could ever get the nomination?
It seems that some people are eager to believe any spin and weak argument that confirms what they want to believe about Obama moving to the middle.

[Enrique]

15. in a lot of ways it's true

more true than some ridiculous exaggerations of how radical he is.

[skepticscott]

17. How many times does this have to be explained?

Obama made an unequivocal promise when he was running in the primaries that he would support a filibuster of any bill that included retroactive immunity for the telecoms. Then a few months later he comes out in support of a (really bad and almost certainly unconstitutional) House bill that included exactly that, and lies about his reasons for doing so. This is NOT an invention of the right wing smear machine, or the MSM or even the liberal blogosphere. It's a simple and undeniable fact.

And despite your straw man arguments, I don't give a rip about Obama proving he's to the left of Ralph Nader. I do expect him to keep his promises, tell the truth and defend the constitution, as do all of the other people who've held his feet to the fire over this. If that's asking too much of someone who wants to be president, then he has no business running. If we can't count on him for those things, then nothing else he says matters.

[McCamy Taylor]

19. If he can not win the approval of the American voters, nothing else maters because he will lose.

I hear a lot of talk. Talk is cheap. I always say ignore appearances and look at results. A lot of people are trying to give the appearance of being holier than Karl Marx----but what is the result of their demands for shrill leftist rhetoric at a time when it is politically inappropriate? Defeat this fall.

[skepticscott]

29. Let him win it, then

He's got my vote, despite his handling of FISA which, as I pointed out, is a problem entirely of his own making. But let's face it...lots of people out there don't understand the issues very well. They aren't well informed on economics, health care, the environment, science, civil rights or international politics. But they will vote for someone they think is honest and that they can trust. Obama has made that harder for some of them by allowing the media to paint him as a flip-flopper, even to people who have little clue as to what FISA is all about. He certainly can't pretend that this was something he didn't expect. If he and his campaign staff have half the savvy they seemed to show during the primaries, they had to know that the MSM would be looking for ANY chance to slap the FF label on him, and giving them the chance by doing a 180 on this issue was a huge mistake. And it didn't help that he honked off what should have been his strong base by switching from the right position to the wrong one.

[lark]

43. Well said - me too!

:toast: :toast:

[Marrah_G]

18. I think he is better then your average politician

Whether or not he can govern...we will see. But I definitely think he is a hell of a campaigner. I don't always agree with his campaigning style, but it obviously works. If it keeps McCain out of the WH I can live with that.

[McCamy Taylor]

21. Here are some recent "Obama is a typical politician" links to study

http://www.slate.com/id/2194888/\

The Slate with a summary of the corporate media's campaign to portray Obama as changing positions on Iraq when he did not change positions on Iraq.

Of course, that view was helped along by Sen. John McCain's campaign that quickly pounced and labeled it as another example of how Obama is "a typical politician."

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/06/is-obama-a-typical-politician.html

This site asks it as a question "Is Obama a typical politician?" and then answers the question in a form designed to drive leftists into a frenzy....if they did not know that the corporate media is trying to drive a great big rift between Obama and his base in order to herd him back to the left in order to make him seem "scary" and "radical" to swing voters whom he is now trying to court.

In one way, Obama certainly is typical. During primaries candidates often curry favor with base voters and then move to the center during the general election. It's the way elections are usually won.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07022008/postopinion/letters/will_the_real_obama_please_stand_up__118141.htm

Wow, two McCain operatives sent letters to the New York Post the same day calling Obama a "typical politician" on July 2. How is that for a coicidence?

I have finally seen the change that Obama has been talking about the last two years.

He is transforming into a typical politician right before our eyes - or maybe he was one all along.

Peter W. Kelly

Obama is a typical politician who says what he has to in order to get votes ("Obama Smart as a Pistol With New Tough-Guy Act," June 27).

No one was better at this than Bill Clinton. As public opinion went on an issue, so did his support.

This is one of the reasons why the left hates President Bush. He has convictions and doesn't change his position simply because it's no longer popular.

What does Obama stand for? He stands for getting elected.

Bret Wallach

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/channel-08/2008/06/in_a_presidential_campaign_tha.html

"Spy" is in on it, too.

Just like immigration, McCain changes his position based upon the will of the people and changing circumstances, as any thninking person does. Obama changes his positions, like public funding, for political expediency. Obama is a typical politician.

Posted by: Spy | June 29, 2008 9:55 PM

Note that the McCain campaign's going with the cheap subliminal "NO" associated with Obama in this article (and be sure to see how scary he looks) . We have also seen it with their latest TV ad where Obama is superimposed on a world gone black and also in the "Nobama Girl" video.

http://bourbonroom.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/07/02/obama-camp-denies-favorable-home-loan/

They are posting at Fox

Comment by Gerald
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Obama is a typical politician. Smear everyone else until you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar. Then deny any knowledge about any of it. With all of the issues that Obama has denied any knowledge of, I find it hard to believe that Obama is truly that clueless. Perhaps a much better and more plausible explanation is that Obama is misleading the American Public.

A new type of politician? Hardly! He’s just as slimey a politician as everyone else is.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/21/obama-hits-mccain-on-help-for-cities-levees/

McCain's staff calls Obama....

"It is beyond the pale that Barack Obama would attack John McCain for actually trying to fix the problem and change the way Washington works. Barack Obama's willingness to continue the status quo pork-barrel politics in Washington, and then engage in political attacks that entirely disregard the facts, once again fundamentally shows that he's nothing more than a typical politician," said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds in a press release.

Be sure to check out the comments from "Democrats" who are just so outraged with Obama that they are voting for McCain. Right.

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/obama_rejects_public_financing.html

And look here, the McCain camp used that phrase another time not so long ago to disguise the fact that they were the ones who broke their pledge about public funding.

McCain's campaign charged that the decision shows Obama is just another politician.

"Today, Barack Obama has revealed himself to be just another typical politician who will do and say whatever is most expedient for Barack Obama," McCain campaign communications director Jill Hazelbaker said in a statement. "

Note how the press just keeps parroting this accusation. Gore is a liar started like this but more slowly.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/bellantoni/2008/Jul/02/mccain-uses-obama-clark-scandal/

The Washington Times discusses how the McCain Campaign is making use of the Clark statement to paint Obama as a TP.

http://www.americansagainstobama.com/

The "Americans Against Obama" site has introduced Obama is a TP to their slogan list as of July regarding his mortgage.

But you want to read the funniest thing of all? The New York Times, which is printing oppo from the McCain camp about how Obama is a TP, also did this article for them assuring the public that the McCain camp is not doing any oppo against Obama, because McCain is too nice to make dastardly attacls.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/us/politics/04strategy.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1215439435-h711mPdzWHCleN6yw6EKeA

Please read the whole article. It is a hoot. It includes this.

“We think there is a developing pattern with Senator Obama where he is willing to reverse core positions, like on Iraq, and which show he is not a change agent but just a typical politician,” said Brian Rogers, a spokesman for Mr. McCain. “We’ve got a long time to go to make our case.”

See, the same smear is included in the article about how McCain isn't currently smearing Obama. Precious. That is five times I have documented the John McCain campaign using the same line that is now being parroted by surrogates and others....and yet they say that they are not doing any oppo. Guys, you said way back when McCain locked up the nomination that this was how you were going to smear Obama. Did you think that no one was listening? Sounds like typical dirty politics to me.

Maybe Obama should do a speech about America needs solutions, not name calling.

[MadHound]

22. Oh horrors then, McCain must have been influencing me months ago then

Because I came to the conclusion that Obama is a typical politician months ago, and his recent actions have only confirmed it.

Sorry, but Obama is a typical politician in many, many ways. Sorry if that offends you, but that's the way it is.

About the only non-typical politicians that we had on the slate this year were Kucinich(for consistently being on the right side of virtually every issue) and Mike Gravel(for sheer entertainment value). The rest, Obama included, were very much typical politicians. Sorry, but the truth hurts sometimes.

[sourmilk]

23. WTF? Is this the best that McWar can come up with?

Personally, I completely agree with the sentiment that BHO is a typical politician. When has he ever stated or demonstrated that he was atypical in any way?

I enjoyed watching him beat HRC in the Primaries. I thought he and his campaign were professional and very competent. He panders pretty well, dissembles well enough, deflects and obscures well, etc. He's awesome at staying on message and has absolutely mastered the art of saying little very well. His campaign sets Obama up for incredibly generous character comparisons with MLK, Jr. and JFK, and his oration helps greatly in this pseudo-deception. YES. WE. CAN. HOPE. CHANGE. OBAMA.

I could get into more of exactly how "typical" he is by looking at the issues of race and sexism during the primaries, but I do not want to join the DU Cemetary Club. In short, if Obama was not a politician (and a damned good one), he would be dead in the water, period. If HRC's attacks hadn't done in his run, McWar's certainly would have.

He's just a Chicago politician, period. He's good at it. Has he ever said any different? WTF is the problem with this? I certainly don't see this as a character attack. In fact, I can see it working as just the opposite - SOMEONE has GOT to play down the more messianic rhetoric being spewed daily here on his behalf...

Ya gotta admit - it's pretty weak and feeble line of attack - Obama has certainly never claimed to be any more than a typical politician...God knows, with all of the "secret Muslim," "illegal immigrant," "Marxist" BS being floated about, the phrase "typical politician" is pretty harmless in comparison.

[ooglymoogly]

24. kr nt

[LVjinx]

28. "typical politician" may be their angle, aimed at disillusioning voters, but it's hardly false

For crying out loud, there was a big recommended thread just yesterday talking about how of course Obama was just a typical politician, and a moderate, and people who thought differently hadn't paid attention to what made him so attractive as a candidate. Today there's posts about how he's not a typical politician, he's a huge progressive, and that's what made him so attractive as a candidate.

One of these narratives is going to prove to be false. And the fact that each of these groups has such a large number of people in it suggests the fallout will probably be nasty - because it is impossible for both statements to be correct.

What do we gain by trying to defend an illusion, one that is actually dangerous to Obama? Look at what's happened just since he became presumptive nominee a few weeks ago. He's already branded a "flip-flopper" not just by right wingers, but by the media, and by left wing blogs as well. In just a month!! What else can happen in the next 4 months?

I'll go ahead and make the admission I've never bought the "Obama is a different/post partisan blablabla" screed, so that colors my view here, but what's important in November is winning. Trying to deny that Obama is a politician, in defiance of any kind of objective reality, will not help us win in November. It will only continue to add to the illusion of Obama supporters as being breathless, moon-eyed cultists. That image won't sell in the general.

What should be focused on, rather than trying to assert that Obama isn't a politician, is that "yes, of course he's a politician. But he's a politician that wants to do the right thing, and set America on the right path." Honestly, considering this an attack is just silly. And trying to fight it will make us look even sillier.

[McCamy Taylor]

30. No, fighting it makes us look organized. "Kerry waffles" and "Gore is a liar" looked silly too.

And who thought that "Edwards is a phony" would sink the JE campaign? When I first blogged about the "Edwards is a Phony" smear back in January or February of 2007 and called it the new "Gore is a Liar" people told me I was exaggerating and that they were completely different and that it would have not effect or---as you have just done---they said But Edwards really is a phony, so what? why fight it? .

We all saw what happened. He could not raise money. He got ignored and shut out.

Are we going to let the press that knocked out JE and Hillary Clinton do it again to Barack Obama by saying "What's the big deal? BO really is a typical politician and it will just reduce out dignity if we try to fight the smears. We should act like Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 and stay above the fray"?

I don't think so.

[seasat]

32. Rove 101: Attack them on their strength

One of Obama's strengths is his change message. He presents it as a way of bringing people together to solve problems beyond partisanship. By branding him as typical they diminish it. I definitely agree with your post. While disappointed in Obama over the FISA bill, I realize that there is only so much that can be done to persuade him before we cross the line and start hurting our chances in November.

Repubs still beat us in messaging. We're pretty good at online campaigns but we're terrible at the rest of the media. We've done a little better in our messaging this time but still need a lot of work on it. We haven't quite mastered the word association game that Repubs are so good at.

Our success is that we've managed to diminish McCain's maverick brand and we've associated him with Bush. Recent polls show that the biggest concern about McCain is that he'll continue Bush's policies. The word association polling shows that the top word associated with McCain is old and maverick doesn't even show up in the list. We can't really take credit for associating McCain with "old", since comedians and McCain have played that one up.

Word association works because media is lazy and therefore loves a narrative to follow. Repubs use the media's love of narratives to get messages out about Democratic candidates. If I could lead a campaign against McCain that uses those tactics, I'd use the word "unstable". People like stability and "unstable" is a word associated with personality disorders like McCain's temper. Temper and anger are not necessarily associated with bad things. People can visualize the scene from Network News where the reporter yells, "I'm mad as hell and will not take it anymore". However, an unstable temper has a bad association.

An unstable temper is associated with someone going crazy and randomly destroying things. It won't directly attack his age and POW status out but will get people questioning about how they relate to his unstable temper. People would focus on that weird laugh and awkward grin McCain has while giving speeches. Each time McCain lets loose just a little bit, I would state, "Wow, his temper seems a little unstable. He could have a meltdown if the wrong thing is said to him." If played right, when McCain blows up, the media might catch the narrative. Instead of playing its a close race to build ratings, they may make it McCain's meltdown. The media loves a good meltdown story, look at all the focus of the celebrity coverage of Britanny Lohan et al. McCain would be sunk if that became the narrative.

[JDPriestly]

33. The waffle accusations against Obama are typical Rove illusions.

McCain has changed his stance on virtually every issue in order to get the support of the extreme right-wing. By accusing Obama, the Republicans are successfully diverting the attention of the public from McCain's flip-flops which are far more numerous and more serious than anything Obama could possibly think up.

Rove magic trick: diversion from the real issues by making false attacks. Attack the opponent's strengths not his weaknesses. Typical.

Obama should not have conceded the hero issue so quickly. That is probably McCain's most vulnerable point -- his claim to be a hero. People are most likely to pay attention to attacks on the ideas that seem to be givens. And McCain's claims have some merit, but there are still lots of questions about his conduct in North Vietnam as well as exaggerations he has made about his military record and his explanations for his many "accidents" and bad grades during his career. McCain is a hero, but not the hero his supporters claim that he is. So, his credibility can be challenged by finding flaws and exaggerations in his claims about his military career.

I disagree with Obama's tactic on this although I understand that he is trying to change the political culture. If he wins by being a nice guy, great. But so far, the press is pushing this hero issue and McCain is getting points on it.

[McCamy Taylor]

34. On this I have to agree with Obama. The kind thing is to grant McCain heroic status for his POW

experience, but then challenge him on what he has done since.

We are not electing a POW in Chief. We are electing a President. A president that people can trust to be sensitive to their feelings---most people like to believe that their service in wartime will be respected and honored.

[Telly Savalas]

38. Changing the political culture is critical.

If it's taken as axiomatic that you have to act like an asshole to get elected, then we wind up electing exclusively assholes, and I think it's pretty clear by now that Asshole-ocracy is an ineffective form of government.

Good people will be more prone to run for elected office if they know that they won't be constantly bombarded with petty bullshit that is unrelated to their ability to govern.

[terryter1]

35. Who Does This Sound Like to You?

Q: If the withdrawal doesn’t begin as soon as you take office, when would you like it to begin? What kind of strategy would you set in terms of timing?

A: It’s very hard to anticipate what it’s going to be like six months from now. We saw how rapidly things have changed over the last six months, because of not only the extraordinary work of our armed forces, but also the shift in attitudes of tribal leaders in places like Anbar, the Mahdi army’s decision to — for now at least — to stand down the more aggressive posture that the Maliki government took in going into places like Basra. So if current trends continue and we are at a position where we continue to see reductions in violence and stabilization and continue to see some improvements on the part of the Iraqi army and Iraqi police, then my hope would be that we could draw down in a deliberate fashion in consultation with the Iraqi government at a pace that is determined in consultation with General Petraeus and the other commanders on the ground. It strikes me that that is something we could begin relatively soon after inauguration. If, on the other hand, you’ve got a deteriorating situation for some reason, then that’s going to have to be taken into account.


http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/07/070708mt_obama_transcript/

[Cha]

37. Great research Mccamy..

thank you. Thanks for helping us get Obama elected:bounce:

[Eyes_wide_ open]

39. I think he's a great politician

Not at all "typical".

When you stand back and look at the whole situation unemotionally, it is easy to see the strategy McBush is using ... and it's effectiveness. I do not see most of the issues that have many here so upset as flip-flops at all. Although they seem to have taken many by surprise, I find the positions basically unchanged except for focus on all but FISA. And my "worry" about FISA has had much more to do with Obama's promise he would filibuster on it and then his reversal of that.

Empty claims of flip flops can be fought and proven wrong. But how do I explain to Independent voters that are already a bit leery of Barack because they know nothing about him that yes, he said that, but when the time came to put up, it wasn't politically expedient so he changed his mind, but that shouldn't matter to them because McCain is so much worse ... after all HE lies you know, and they should just not worry about it until after the election? I don't see that convincing many people to vote for our candidate, do you? I do not yet know how to handle that problem, and I sure haven't been getting any help with that around here.

What excites me about Barack Obama is the "new kind of politics" he has said he can deliver. I see that in the positions he's taken that have so many of us up in arms. Not because he's "moved to the center" as many claim, but because specifically because he hasn't ... they were the same positions he has had all along that many never noticed because they were caught up in the dream and projected their goals unto him. He operates from a place that is neither right, nor left, but has individual ideas about what is right and stands by them.

Most Independent voters are very much the same. We are liberal on some issues, conservative on others. We don't vote for parties ... we vote for people we believe have the same core values as we do. No one candidate is a perfect fit, that is a given. What is most likely to attract our attention is a candidate that stands up for his or her principles ... even when we disagree with the issues. Party types call that naive ... we call it common sense. You want the Independent vote? Give them someone they can believe in, it really is that simple.

This is an excellent OP that many won't be able to hear, some of them because of the STFU brigade that probably means well, but have done as much or more damage than the OMG The sky is falling! crowd. We ALL want to get the man elected, but we don't all agree on the best way to accomplish it. Seems to me that being on the same side we OUGHT to be able to talk about it. If we can't even talk to each other, how are we going to reach those yet undecided?

[Voltaire99]

40. But he is typical. Example: his Pelosi-like cowardice to impeach the criminal Bush.

Good luck trying to spin that one!

Hurry; Mr. Vanilla needs his unpaid spinners to cover up the truth. You are unpaid, aren't you, McCamy?

[McCamy Taylor]

44. Yes indeed. Never made a cent off my writing. That's why I make fun of everyone.

Especially people who play divide and conquer games from positions on the left.