Here we go again.
Two months out from an election in which so much is at stake, yet our presidential candidate is acting variously like a too-cool dude, a wimp, or at a complete loss, unable or unwilling to hit John McCain and Republicans and to hit hard.
Instead, they're parsing Sarah Palin! Wrong person, wrong message.
Where is Bill Clinton when we need him? I hope Bill and Barack had a tough heart-to-heart at their lunch, in which Bill made it clear that Obama has to shove the last eight years of Republican-led failures down John McCain's and other Republicans' throats and to give no quarter to Republicans - none, zero, nada, zilch.
Most Americans don't live and breathe politics, Washington, D.C., micro policy details, or nuance. Sorry. They don't. They don't care whether Sarah Palin knows the Bush Doctrine line by line or understands every detail of NATO alliances. David Gergen is spot-on in his analysis of Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson by noting that most journalists -- and most Americans, for that matter -- do not use this shorthand in describing preemptive strikes against other countries.
Voters are looking for a leader who can "feel their pain", connect in a heart-to-heart, personal way with their struggles and aspirations. They are looking at John McCain and Barack Obama, not to their vice-presidential picks, for this.
Yet Democrats seem completely flummoxed about how to proceed, concerned more with Palin than with McCain. Their befuddlement shows in their unwillingness to attack and keep it up and it reminds me too much of the Michael Dukakis campaign.
Voters are not scholars. Most live in a black and white world. They need and want simplicity, not "uhs" and "umms" and long-winded nuanced explanations to back up every answer. They can't afford to sit around and wait for Obama to say what it is he's trying to say. They need him to say it immediately, forcefully, in short sentences, with no equivocation, to put the punch line first, not last.
Unfortunately, he isn't doing this. It is as if he is stuck in a primary campaign, unable or unwilling to close the deal with the American electorate. His poll numbers reflect this. Voters still aren't convinced. And he isn't making it any easier for them.
Are we doomed to lose a pivotal election because Democrats (our presidential candidates, at any rate) don't know how to connect with voters? Can't or won't deliver a roundhouse punch to Republicans? Seem more interested in feeding on the McCain catnip than going for the red meat?
I sure hope I'm wrong, but it just doesn't look good.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
designanator
Dr. Susanne Freeborn
Joan Walsh
Kerry Lauerman
pretend_farmer
lpsrocks
Salon.com
Comments
Democrats claim to offer a smarter foreign policy. Well, how to you say that with emotion? Republicans claim to offer toughness. They are completely different appeals. One emotional, one rational. The emotional ones seem to carry the day.
Obama is sunk because no matter what he does the right wing and their minions in the media will spin it as an act of anger and desperation. He can't do it alone. There has to be a cacophony like they have on the right. This doesn't exist for Democrats and the media listen to who screams the loudest.
Obama is trying to do the right thing; so was Michael Dukakis; so was Al Gore; so was Walter Mondale. Democrats are nearly always right on the challenges and solutions (the issues). Bill Clinton proved that Democrats can be very, very smart on the issues, elevate the discussion, distill this into voter speak, and paint a very sharp contrast between Republicans and Democrats.
Obama has failed to do this. He singles out John McCain, which is part of it, but he is hesitant to do several additional things: simplifying and shortening his message to voters, continuing to draw the stark contrast in personal "I feel your pain" connections, and staying on the offensive.
If you're explaining and responding, you're losing. This is simple political reality.
It may be that the candidate is not at his high point, but candidates go up and down moment to moment, or are perceived to. It depends on what's going on that day, who's polling, who's spinning, and many other things.
But some of it is self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe Gore and others didn't lose the election. Maybe their constituents lost it for them by not rallying at the right time. I certainly think that's what happened to Howard Dean. He said "Yeehah" and that was it for his presidency. What kind of looniness was that? I'm not sure what he could have said to fix things since he'd done nothing wrong, but his supporters could have stood up en masse and said "look, we're not having this. we don't care if he said yeehah, we still want him". But they didn't. They acquiesced to the spinmeisters and that was that.
McCain supporters of course have a motive to be putting him down. But right now I think it's the job of the electorate to stand up proudly and say "This is who I support. He's doing the right thing by staying on message." And if you have a beef with his policy, send it privately to the campaign--don't expose the weakness to the public.
The Republicans rarely expose weakness publicly when they feel it because they know the fiction of spin is everything. They are yeehah behind their man whether he's saying nonsense or not, and that's one thing that carries them through times Democrats don't see our way through.
Just my opinion, of course. :)
Thanks for your thoughts on this. I hear what you're saying and appreciate this intent. I'm not sure if faith is enough once the public gets a perception about candidates - rightly or wrongly. I know, for instance, that after Kerry was swift-boated in 2004 there was a heightened effort where I lived to mobilize GOTV efforts including phone-banking, door-knocking, house meetings, etc. As a group of us analyzed our efforts after the election we started to realize voter attitudes seemed to have cemented against Kerry based on the perception that a) he wasn't a fighter and/or b) that the charges were true.
In short, we reviewed results of phone-banking and polling re: voters' candidate preferences and found that the percentage of self-described undecided voters remained stable through election eve. Given the numbers by which Kerry lost, we were 95% certain that undecideds had actually made a decision against Kerry either during or post-swift boating, but would not indicate this in polling.
Just my experience, of course!
A course of action?
First, stop focusing on Sarah Palin, period. The more Obama focuses on her the greater her appeal - and McCain's.
Second, Republican 527s are now mobilizing against Obama. Obama has to start hammering McCain AND Republicans. Enough with the nonsense about changing Washington and business as usual. It IS business as usual -- Republicans of all stripes are leading the charge, and Obama can't afford to parse out Republicans from John McCain.
Third, McCain and Republicans are responsible for our economic problems, our security problems, our infrastructure, education, foreign affairs problems. Every time Obama speaks he needs to hit this theme, provide one or two sharp facts, tie it to McCain and Republicans, then show that Obama and Democrats represent "change." This has to become like a broken record message every single day.
Fourth, sharpen and shorten his message, knock off with college-type lectures and speeches, refrain from long-winded explanations and three and four syllable words. Simplify, simplify, simplify. Make it easy for voters to really listen and not just hear a lot of noise. Short sentences, short words, repetition.
Fifth, Bill Clinton (and Hillary) need to be out there using populist appeals and messages in areas McCain/Palin are surging: Ohio Valley, Michigan, Indiana. These are areas in which Hillary (and Bill) did extremely well. Their campaigning style and their popularity need to be used often.
Sixth, he needs an infusion of Joe Biden passion: powerful, personal, hard-hitting and to temporarily shelve his cerebral side.
I'm not an expert here, but I have worked on numerous Democratic presidential and congressional campaigns (as a union staffer), in addition to numerous union organizing efforts and know first-hand what works.
Do I sense a little sarcasm? ;)
Excellent advice - no wonder you are raging!
Do you think the Clinton's are not out there because they don't want to be, or because Obama is hesitant to use them (and perhaps owe them?) I agree that they are very much needed right now.
I have a feeling I'm going to like this place!
And I'd love to get your opinion on my piece. Since I'm new I have no "friends" so it's just kind of floating out there in the ether with no eyeballs on it.
Thank you!
Although if you check out my blog from yesterday, I did at least write a few Haiku. They're short.
Thanks again.