Dear Obama campaign: This is not 2002. Please don't fight the last war

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Many folks active in politics today learned everything they know about effective politics from Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove. Fair enough… I learned much of what I know of politics from Lee Atwater and James Baker and George Wallace. We are all products of our times.

To anyone who first became politically galvanized during the 2000 campaign/recount, or by the fascist atmosphere post 9-11, it appears that Karl Rove is an evil genius.

He is not. He lost the 2000 election. He won in 2002 and 2004. He lost the 2006 election.

Rovism only works when the tallest building in America has been destroyed by foreigners within recent memory, which in America is a span of about four years.

That’s pretty much the definition of a special case. Rove and Bush were very lucky. Lucky to have a corrupt Supreme Court majority and lucky that a few thousand Americans were murdered. (Read Soros’ piece on the Bush bubble. It’s a good look at how any gambler who happens to win a few consecutive rolls of the dice appears infallible.)

And even with the Devil’s own luck, in terms of votes Rove is only 2 for 4.

The FISA vote, widely defended in practical political terms, is actually politically foolish. It recalls Tallyrand’s famous quote, “c'est pire qu'un crime; c'est une faute.” (it's worse than a crime; it's a mistake)

Presidential elections are unique in that they are almost never decided on issues. They are decided on a vague sense of trust and tribal familiarity. Even the terror-card is merely a symbolic marker for the truly decisive questions.

“Is this guy one of us?” “Does he share the values of my family and my community?” “Is he a stand-up guy?” “Is he a mensch?” “Is he strong?”

The Obama campaign was correct to reckon that “nobody” has heard of FISA. So they did something for perceived political benefit to inoculate the candidate against the terror-card.

The problem is, the terror card is not about terrorism, and cannot be de-fanged by votes. Kerry demonstrated that the terror-card cannot even be de-fanged by being awarded the Silver Star for heroism in service of the country.

Kerry went down for precisely the same reasons Gore didn’t win by more. The media painted him as weak and indecisive.

The muslim-card and the terror-card are red herrings in election 2008. The media loves that Barack is black. The media loves that he has a “foreign” background. The MSM types consider themselves sophisticates.

The only Republican narrative that has any MSM traction is, “Does this guy stand for anything?” (The orgy of MSM flip-flip narratives should amply demonstrate that to anyone who pauses to consider it.) The MSM loves the weak, vacillating, effete Democrat narrative. It is the narrative that dominated the last two presidential elections.

So during a period when the Republicans were getting their first palpable hits on Obama on the untrustworthy-weasel-flipflop-card, he walks right into the buzz-saw!

Nobody had heard of FISA, and fewer cared. And no FISA vote would have changed a word of Republican attack ads to come. Those ads have never relied on the truth of the matter. A clip of Obama opposing the FISA bill in a speech is more than enough. Then wait for the Obama campaign to counter with, “But he voted for it after denouncing it.” D’oh! That's even worse than the alternative.

All that has been gained by the vote is a few needless days of advancing the flip-flop narrative. People who do not know or care the first thing about FISA are now being treated to, “He promised to vote against X, then voted for X.” People don’t really care what X represents. It’s a broken promise. That’s all persuadable voters hear.

Stop fighting the last war! This is not 2002, which was the only actual terror election.

No voter knows what to do about our problems because they are terrible problems that offer only the lesser of bad choices. Iraq will be an ongoing tragedy whether we stay or go. In a stagflation environment no economic prescriptions work… anything that boosts the economy boosts prices, anything that lowers prices lowers GDP. A strong dollar kills our exports, but a weak dollar makes oil more and more expensive. We are so out of good answers that the Fed is going to raise interest rates this Fall, during a recession! They have to... the weak dollar is raising gas prices, which is hurting the economy more than tight money would. Stagflation turns all economic thinking topsy-turvy. (The last time we faced this problem it was cured by Paul Volker inducing the sharpest recession since the 1930s in 1982, and Saudi Arabia saving our bacon by crashing the oil market so we wouldn't look for alternatives. No good answers.)

The voters are faced with a gambling proposition, and they know it. The people are out of ideas, and are trying to figure which guy to hand the dice to at a craps table.

So the TRUST issue is the only issue in 2008.

Be a stand-up guy. Do what you said you would do. And drop the idea that anyone can inoculate himself against Republican attacks through speeches and legislative votes.

The only inoculation is for people to say to themselves, “I don’t believe this attack ad because Joe Candidate strikes me as a stand-up guy.”

___________________________________

PS: Anyone interested in what the phrase "constructive criticism" might mean, this post is offered as an example of the concept. As the French told us during the run-up to the Iraq War, "America needs allies, not sycophants."

[babylonsister]

1. What are you talking about? What did they say they would do that

you're referring to?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

2. Boy, do I agree with this post!

K&R!

[chill_wind]

3. Here here! K & R n/t

[Catherina]

4. "the TRUST issue is the only issue in 2008". You have that right K&R n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. Though it will not be readily apparent on DU, this is not a hope election

This is a desperation and despair election, and will be the least issue oriented election since forever.

The only reason people would vote against Obama is if they think he's kind of a crummy guy.

So forget the triangulation. Just be a solid guy.

[Breeze54]

5. And the stakes just went up.... Great post!

:kick: & recommended

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. thanks!

[The Doctor.]

6. I"ll give it to you, it's a great post, but...

He never 'promised to vote against X', he said he would work to strip the immunity provision.

I know... that's because I know more than Joe Voter, and Joe Voter only cares about the image presented by the media. All in all, I can't see this causing huge damage to him, nor do I see him as 'enabling' the BA.

On balance, there was little he could have done right on this one way or another, and if you think that the Republicans wouldn't have squeezed some leverage out of "he voted against finding terrorists" then you really haven't been paying attention to just how much they can twist some things. And yes, the media would have been all too happy to go along with them.


Yes, he stepped in shit to dodge a bullet that may or may not have hurt him.


Very good points though. Great OP.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. Thanks for the thoughtful reply

It is a given that Obama will be attacked as a terrorist-enabling appeaser etc., etc..

But that was the case before the vote and after the vote. So the question is whether the vote, in and of itself, did anything to cause such attacks to be less potent that was, in and of itself, worth the downside.

People think Clinton won twice by triangulation. Actually, he won in Arkansas by triangulation. (Governors races are, unlike presidential race, intensely issue driven.) He won the presidency twice by playing an incredibly likable smart-as-hell redneck, which is a popular American archetype--like the moonshiner who gives money to the poor while always being a step ahead of the law.

Clinton's approach worked for Clinton. When Gore and Kerry tried to use Clinton's techniques of trying to have both sides of issues they just looked foolish, because they are men of intellectual gravitas, not loveable rogues. The "professor" archetype has to be utterly dedicated to the truth.

Obama has to be a moral paragon. That's his archetype. His race and relative inexperience make it imperative that he be seen as purer than Cesar's wife. By nominating Obama we already went "all in" on the proposition that the terror-card will not be decisive in 2008. So there's no point back-tracking and playing the game on the Republicans' court. That's defensive, and a good way to watch a lead evaporate. If Obama was 33 points up, like Carter in 1976, he might be able to compromise away all controversies and coast to a narrow, defensive win. But he's only up 5-10%.

Obama has what image capital he has, and loyalty and knowing his own mind are a big part of that.

Voters do not like people who betray their base, even if they're on the other side of the issue. "Selling out people who love you" is considered a character flaw, greater than the particulars of the issue. I know that I was particularly disgusted by Bush&Rove's manipulation of the people in the WH faith-based office, even though I don't think the office should even exist. (If he'll sell out the evangelicals, what chance does my atheist ass have?)

[The Doctor.]

22. Thoughtful posts get thoughtful replies.

You're dead-on with the breakdown on archetypes. Looking at such iconic relationships and values, I have to say I agree almost absolutely with your abstraction of how voters perceive the candidates, and how divergence from the purity of the iconic model can dull what is an otherwise effective and powerful symbol in the minds of the voters.

But it is a harder and grittier reality despite the potency of your observation.

You're absolutely right; Backing off on opposing FISA put a significant dint in his aspect. There is no doubt of that. But to understand his decision, we have to look at a cross-section of his voting base, from core support to fringe, that might respond to it, and at the nature of that response as well. Think of it like a dart board or any kind of circle with concentric graduation. Heck, we'll call his core supporters 'ground zero'. With each 'ring' of support we visit migrating away from the 'core', we find less fervent support, but a greater number of potential supporters than in each previous 'ring' of support.

His die-hard, 'ground zero' core supporters aren't going to abandon him to the benefit of McCain. Period. One can look at this as 'taking them for granted', or one can see it as having faith that his supporters have faith. That's really up to them, not you or I, and somehow I don't think The Flying Spaghetti Monster itself can talk them out of supporting him no matter how thick it laid on the parmesan. Obama is a pretty bright light still, so their radius is impressive.

His general supporters, like myself, are more than willing to give him the BOTD and look at his actions in the context of what is at stake. By this point, however, most of this 'ring' have maxed on donations and just looking to bring others on board.

His marginal supporters will not vote for McCain, and, at a bare minimum, they are most likely to go out and vote for him in the General Election. You are, ostensibly, one such supporter. Unfortunately, these supporters have not necessarily felt that the candidate requires their full financial support. That's fine in the balance, as these types of supporters are just as likely to donate as not. While this substantial 'ring' of supporters will likely vote for him, they can be dissuaded from providing either financial or otherwise substantive advocacy to his campaign. His actions regarding the FISA bill may have some effect on their financial or provocative support, but they are still likely to vote for him in the GE. These are the supporters who are most sensitive to any perceived infraction of ethics or integrity that the candidate could commit. They will curtail their financial or personal support based on whatever level of betrayal they are convinced the candidate has committed. Since this is most likely your ‘ring’ of support, it is not a surprise that a person like yourself will see his backing off from FISA as an egregious compromise of principles. You are not wrong, of course, and your illustration of archetypes perfectly reflects the cause and effect relationship between the candidate’s decisions and the perspective of this highly informed voting block.

His peripheral supporters, embodying the ring that makes up a huge segment of his real voting block, will have given little or nothing to his campaign, but they are the most crucial body of his voting constituency. They are also not entirely informed on these issues, and they can be swayed very easily by both the suggestion that Obama has “sold us out” and the notion that he is “soft on terror”. It is in this demographic that the double-edged sword analogy is most potent. It is still unlikely that many of them will vote for McCain, but plenty of them may completely withdraw support of the candidate, including not bothering to vote for him in November, just because they have been barely convinced by enough people that he’s “no different than any other politician”. How sad these folks aren’t enough apprised of the issues to know better… but that’s just our opinion.

The centrists, moderates, and pissed-off Republicans (among others) that make up the vast outer ring of voters are the most susceptible to the “Soft on Terror” meme the RW would hammer on had Obama chosen to oppose the bill directly. Why?

Well… for one; they don’t know every damn thing that you and I know.

When they hear that “Obama opposed the bill to spy on terrorists”, they, what being centrists and all, may not have the information they would otherwise need to reconcile what they are told with the fact that he bears no responsibility for the outcome of the vote in any way.

It is here we find the austerity of uninformed decision. It is here the RW makes it’s move with the full bearing and blessing of the media.

It is here, at the outermost ring of any real support, that we find the true key to Obama’s victory.

This last ‘ring’ encompasses all of those potential supporters who might actually vote for McCain, or just as likely stay at home rather than vote for Obama. They are the middle-class mavens, the ones under the gun who know damn well that they need something beyond Bush. They are also the ones who, despite feeling otherwise deprived by the strange insinuations of betrayal the “Far Left” has intimated, would be the most sensitive to the message of “Barack Obama doesn’t want to find the Terrorists!!”.

Looking only at the outside ring of nebulous supporters, there can be no doubt that the volume of potential supporters is very high.

If your understanding of platonic geometry is sufficient, you get this.


He stepped in shit to dodge a bullet.


Anyone who is dead set on voting for McCain is already in that dwindling circle comprised of two fanatics and a half-dozen of Cindy’s “clients”. Some are praying they can upgrade their quarterlies at least twenty-fold. The rest are uncertain enough to stay home or even, like some of the Republicans in my family, actually vote for Obama.


At the end of my coherence that even KMFDM can fix, I hope you get the thread of this and that I can clarify anything you might ask for later.

I like bright people on the Discussion Boards, and you’ve demonstrated a broad understanding of complex concepts.


Hell… You’re almost off the hook here.

[digidigido]

11. It is a setup and a no win situation, look weak on terror or abandon your base

But in a war, and make no mistake, a general election in a war. The people who will fight for
you, go to war with you because they trust you and believe in you. Obama will get my vote,
but he's lost my trust and my passion, and my $$$, and he' hasn't even been nominated yet.

[The Doctor.]

17. Uhhh... there are just enough things wrong with that response

to ensure I needn't take you seriously.

So... Obama "hasn't even been nominated yet"....?

Really. Well then, perhaps Ron Paul will give McCain a run, eh?



Oh... Welcome to DU!

:hi:

Enjoy yer visit.

[Eyes_wide_ open]

10. excellent post

Joe Voter may not know what FISA is, that much is true. But Joe Voter DOES know that his rights have been stomped all over and taken from him for the last eight years, and when he begins looking at the presidential candidates and trying to decide who might be willing to help get them back, what is he going to hear when all he gets is soundbytes from the media? That this guy SAID he was going to filibuster ... then didn't when the time came. Sorry, I know that's not the whole truth, but it is how it will be perceived.

The sheeple are waking up, they want their country back. We have to convince them we're on the same side. It really is all about trust.

[depakid]

13. Case in point

Robert Creamer recounts this little tale in a piece on the Huffington Post, that attempted to deflect criticism from the Obama campaign. Ironically, what it does is demonstrate the danger in actions such as those we've been witness to the past several weeks:

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.

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

[Eyes_wide_ open]

15. exactly

What the Party minded don't seem to understand about Independent voters is that there IS no Party Platform that represents us. We don't fall in "the center" somewhere between Democrats and Republicans. The first think we look for is somebody we can believe. Politics being what it is these days, we usually have to settle for someone we can stand ;) and most of the time there is only one or two issues that really mean much to them, that affect their personal lives on a day to day basis.

You'd be surprised how far "left" some of those issues are. But the one closest to home is money, and in that case Republicans generally hold sway, which is why they win so much. But just look at how badly they've fk'd up the last 8 years! Add to that the war which most are against, health insurance that almost no one without a college degree can get which again, is about their wallets. Energy is a biggie this time around, gas prices have definitely got into our pockets. Global Warming is making its presence felt in everyones environment. There are lots of issues this time around that will be given some attention because things are so bad.

It's been said that Americans love a winner but I think that's a bit simplified. Americans admire strength and abhor weakness and that generally translates to winners and losers. But it's not just physical strength, but backbone. Standing up for what you believe.

The country wants "change" but most of those indies are not very politically aware, and they don't know Barack Obama. He will have to stand by his beliefs, whatever they may be, for it to be "change they can believe in" anything else is weak in their eyes and weak doesn't win.

[emilyg]

12. K/R

Good to see you.

[elkston]

14. I agree, candidates win not issues so get BEHIND Barack

Lets drop this thing and move on cause the continued outcry just feeds more into the perception that his integrity is brittle, while McCain is the "rock".

We know that despite his "faults", Barack is the better candidate. So start acting like it and forget all these plattitudes about betrayal. Its really getting old.

See the forest from the trees. There is a method to his madness and he is not going to sell us out. Come on, have some faith becuase that's what the Republicans did for Bush TWICE even though I'm sure many knew he wasn't the brightest one out there.

And you wanna know WHY he's not further ahead? Its *BECAUSE* he is black, (which is just a subtext for the TRUST issue) but the media is reluctact to go there.

So PLEASE, PLEASE refrain from tearing him down over this small stuff. We should be spending every moment building him up and reinforcing our confidence in his leadership.

[onetwo]

16. An Obama "Nay" vote would mean an immediate return to the "he's naive" narrative.

We would all be bombarded with the message that McCain understands how things really work in the world and that Obama, in his youthful inexperience, just doesn't get the fact that the TERRISTS R OUT 2 GET US!!!!!!

The Republicans had their best poker face on -- they were hoping that through silence they could lull Obama into thinking that he could afford to take a stand on this one.

The fact of the matter is that Obama voted "Yes" on a bill that, although still nowhere near perfect, does represent somewhat of an improvement over the previous versions that he spoke out against. And he still voted for the stipping out of the telecom retroactive immunity portion, as he promised. It's an issue because a vocal minority on the left are making it one.

It's time to stop beating him up over trying to make the best of a bad situation. I'll bet he's wearing his own poker face; let's see how the wiretapping program and associated legislation change under a President Obama.

[TheKentuckian]

18. I totally respect the logic

You may well be right, but I don't believe so. Rights, involve lots of sentences to get people's attention, which isn't popular and it's clear that many, if not most will trade freedom for safety, or the illusion thereof.

It's still my gut feeling that he made the correct political move. Not for now but in October. However, if we'd look up for just a moment, we'd see a McSame campaign that's really taking on some water all through the ship.

Now, is the time for going after them like when the mob goes to the mattresses. Put the heat on 'em, seeeee.
Let's have the Republicans on trial for a while and see how it treats them. They'll lose two generations of voters and we can roll up our sleeves and fix the many messes that have been made. It's probably going to take thirty years and some real changes in how things are done but if we can push then we can give ourselves at least a chance to earn back what has been conned away.

Anybody that has been in a fight knows that it's not a time for introspection. Door number 2 is not a viable option. All subsequent doors lead back to #2. Door number one Monty!!!

Is the FISA bill wretched? Sure. Am I against it? Absolutely! Is it clearly unconstitutional? Only if water wet.
Hell, I've wasted my existence writing McConnell. Is that not desperation? Still, in a real world, if we wish to win we must play the game in session.

McCain has bills he himself sponsored that he's flip/flopped on.

McCain can be rebuffed on this, if he stupidly attempts to use it despite being in favor himself.

I still see this as an issue best distorted into a soft on terror swiftboating. If I believed the average voter cared about their rights, then I wouldn't agree with the calculation but I see no evidence of a public that will get in a twist about this bill as it impacts their constitutional rights. We'd have a much easier time if this was true.

[onetwo]

21. Spot on. nt

[BeyondGeography]

19. Since you like the French, here's a quote from someone who wouldn't think twice about Obama's vote

"Intellectuals cannot tolerate the chance event,
the unintelligible: they have a nostalgia for the
absolute, for a universally comprehensive scheme."
Raymond Aron

[The Doctor.]

23. Gorgeous Quote.

It almost reflects the 'now' of "Wolf-Thought".

If you get that, then we and the universe can all laugh together.

[quaker bill]

20. You are fairly close

Character and trust are vitally important issues in this election, as they have been in any other. This runs further down hill than just the Presidential race, further than you would imagine. However, you are missing a point.

The "issues environment" is the anvil over which character and trust issues are forged as well as the scale on which they are weighed. The issues provide the context in which the assessment is made.

Rove did not win 2004, Osama Bin Laden did. In 2002, and 2004, the people actually wanted someone whom they could "trust" to kill terrorists. They did not seem particular about which "terrorists" were killed, or how much we tortured them in the process. They just wanted gun camera footage of s**t in the middle east being blown up. This was particularly true in 2002, but lingered enough in 2004 that the last minute Osama tape made the difference. This was the "issues environment" over which "trust" and "character" was forged in those races.

Barack is seeking to exert control over the "issues environment". Now, while standing up in a losing battle over this FISA bill would likely have won your enduring support, it is my judgement that this would have placed him firmly in the losing minority and that this is not the place to choose to do that, if such a place even exists. The vote on the ammendment to strip out immunity is a clear indication of how this was going to play out. There was no wave of support among the Dems for Obama's position.

If there had been a wave of support and the bill failed, then whether or not we "would provide the tools to allow the government to gather information on terrorists" would have been an "issue" in the "issues environment" over which "trust" and "character" would be assessed. The bill, having passed, actually takes the issue off the table for November.

All the polling indicates one clear thing. The "issues environment", again, the context in which judgements on "trust" and "character" will be made, favors the Democrats by from high single to double digits on basically everything, except "dealing with terrorism / global war on terror".

Accordingly, on any occasion where we can shift the focus of the "issues environment" more toward favoring, energy, the economy, healthcare, schools, the environment...... all the places (virtually everything else) where we are clearly favored, we should do so.

Even if we had passed a FISA law that Bush did not like by a veto proof margin, it is not like Bush would have started complying with it.

As far as being unconstitutional, we will apparently see how the Bush 5 rule. If ACLU gets it thrown out, more power to them!