re: "Where are the Democrats?"

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Many comments here-abouts asking why all the Dems are rallying to Obama's defense these last few weeks. The implication is that individual Dems are choosing to not extend themselves.

"What's X doing for Obama??"

X is doing exactly what X is asked to do. If Hillary hasn't been holding Obama rallies daily it's because the campaign doesn't want her to. If Biden isn't holding his impromptu street-corner press conferences to say McCain is getting stupider by the day, it's because the Obama campaign doesn't want him to. And so on...

The reality is that 99% of Dems would, if asked, go on any TV show in the world or speak at any event to defend Obama. So it is reasonable to conclude that they are not being asked. (These folks generally like giving speeches and being on TV.)

Obama is running a tight ship. It appears that he doesn't want anyone out there except a handful of tightly coached surrogates. Some probable reasons for that include:

1) He ends up having to defend any gaffe made by a Dem defending him, and freelance defenders would cause more problems than they're worth. If he has to defend whatever Ludacris says he would certainly have to defend whatever his own party surrogates say.

2) His position stances involve a lot of implication and subtle deception and amateur surrogates cannot be expected to defend positions they don't really understand. That's not snark, it's political reality. Obama's public stances are not always the same as the traditional Dem package, which is all the average Dem is competent to speak to. If Dems were all over the place on TV discrepancies would accumulate daily... the campaign would become about whether Obama agreed or disagreed with some surrogate's idea of what his position is, or should be. And, again offered without snark, Obama does not know what his positions will be in a month. (Neither does McCain.) The campaign is dynamic. Obama himself can be charmingly vague on positions that are "to be determined," but freelance surrogates cannot be depended on to take no stance, and will get twisted into knots if they do. (The existence of a position paper on a campaign website is not a news-cycle driver. The fact that Obama has a written position on something is not the same as a juicy sound-byte of someone saying something.)

3) He is not really running as a Democrat and having the party rally 'round is not necessarily helpful in his goal of presenting himself as a non-partisan figure. It's a high risk strategy, but it's a strategy. (Since generic Democrats are running ahead of Obama he might want to rethink that. If he gets in trouble in the polls that will change... a partisan Democrat won't get 60% but is guaranteed 51%.)

4) The majority of potential party defenders are in Congress, and Obama does not want to be associated with Congress, aka The Most Despised Institution in America in 2008.

5) He has made a tactical decision to not have anti-McCain sound-bytes. Most hits on McCain are from campaign staff and in written form. Assuming you had concluded that is the right tactic, would you trust freelance surrogates to NOT say anything nasty about McCain?

Love it or hate it it's a conscious strategy, and it is not fair to blame Dems for not taking a role they are being asked not to take.

A thought experiment: If any Dem were asked to go out and slam McCain and refused, wouldn't that be all we heard about from ghouls like Politico? I doubt anyone is refusing.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

1. BULLSHIT!! Why do they have to be asked?? This election is just as much about the Dems

as it is about Obama!!

WHERE THE FUCK ARE THEY??

Here's my generic letter and thread from the other day.

Take action!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

WHERE ARE THE DEMOCRATS???!?!??!

I don't care what anyone says: the standards are different for black men. Suppose that Obama gets down and dirty; suppose, even, that he went negative, focusing only on McSame's flip-flops or the issues in general? Can't we realize how the media would spin as something negative, something nefarious??

Can't we understand that the recent charge that Obama is "arrogant" and "presumptuous" are code for "he's the quintessential angry black man?"

He can't do this. He needs effective surrogates--preferably the Democratic leadership--to help him fight against these lies and smears!!

WHERE ARE THE DEMOCRATS?!?!??!??!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. If he doesn't want them out there, should they defy his judgment of his best tactical approach?

I recognize the problem. But a campaign has to have a unified strategy.

Many Dems are doubtless chomping at the bit to take McCain down. They reason they don't is that isn't the strategy dictated from the top.

I disagree with the strategy, but it is better to implement a game plan than to have a freelance cluster-fuck.

Presumably there are advantages and disadvantages in any approach. Attacking surrogates would undo whatever advantage Obama is trying to gain by not attacking, resulting in a lose-lose situation where the top of the campaign is going one way and everyone else is pulling the other way. So even if his plan is flawed, it is better to follow his lead than freelance.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

5. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. But they can have a unified message.

Obama should be responsible for crafting that message and he has: that a McCain presidency amounts to Bush third term. Every Democrat ought to be out there hammering away at this message. It's simple, a unifying message.

Another thing that needs to happen. The message that connects the faltering economy with failed policies in Iraq! Obama seems to be the only one out there pounding the flesh.

Where are the Democrats? Why aren't they, too, sounding off this message?

And now, the Repukes are gaining an advantage with regards to the drilling issue. Why aren't the Democrats out there sounding off on this? Obama is doing this, even if the M$M refuses to show this substantive side of him. But he cannot do this alone.

[Life Long Dem]

6. It's a little bit about this and a little bit about that but it is all about Obama or not.

And I trust his organizational skills in running this campaign as well as he has shown in the primary against a candidate that threw the whole kitchen at him and Obama came out of this without even as much as a scratch. So to me this sounds like another the sky is falling fairy tale.

[tedoll78]

2. HATE IT.

It's a sucky strategy, refusing to say anything nasty about McCain. It's almost as though we're trying to give this one away.

I'm fed-up with neutered candidates who won't FIGHT for this country's future.

[ruggerson]

3. I think you're right about the tight ship strategy

nothing kills a campaign quicker than having perpetual three or four day news cycles where the press is waiting for the candidate to respond to some perceived slur or insult against the opposing camp that the press, all by itself, has turned into the scandal du jour.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. I would be even more worried about policy statements

I would bet that the average Dem in congress or a statehouse has no idea what Obama's stance is on choice, drilling, Iranian sanctions, etc..

I see the biggest potential problem as people stating what they sincerely assume his positions to be, which misses the whole point of being vague.

And, in Obama's defense, the few people who speak for him haven't been tied into the crazy knots we've seen from Republican camera-hogs this cycle. Nobody knows where McCain stands on anything, and there have been some memorable deer-in-the-headlights moments.