One of the lines of argument during the primary that was pro-Obama was that the right wing knows how to attack a Clinton, but they don't know how to attack an Obama.
And now that the party has a nominee and polls reveal we are starting to unite behind him, this argument is proving true -- particularly when you pay attention to what people on the right are saying about Obama.
The first thing you'll notice is there's no overarching narrative forming for them. With John McCain, we have a narrative -- His ideas are tired, they are rehashes of President Bush's failed policies, and the Senator himself has much more longevity in Washington than he has judgment.
This may be the first time in many elections we have had this advantage.
With Al Gore, the narrative was he was a professorial egghead who thought he knew everything and who lied about his accomplishments.
With John Kerry, the narrative was he was a flip-flopping, Bush-hater who voted for bills he'd previously voted against.
With Barack Obama, they have no such narrative. The jabs they take at him are scattered and random -- and often contradictory.
Take, for instance, the often-mentioned "associations." This is a word you will hear a lot on Sean Hannity's radio show as well as elsewhere. William Ayers is used to paint Obama as an anti-American radical leftist. Jeremiah Wright is used to paint Obama as a Christian extremist who believes in Black Liberation theology. These two characterizations don't match that well, as few militant leftists from the '70s were religious.
Even more of a reach is the "Muslim Manchurian candidate" smear, which directly contradicts the notion that Obama believes in Black Liberation theology.
The list of common attacks looks something like this:
- Obama is an unknown quantity. We don't know what he stands for, or what is in his background. This is scary.
- He has "associations" with radicals. This makes him a radical. This is scary.
- He is inexperienced and ignorant. Mainly the latter. They're trying to portray him as a dumb kid who is in over his head.
- He is out of the mainstream and is unpatriotic. He didn't salute the flag and doesn't wear a flag pin. And his wife made comments that she hadn't been proud of her country until her husband started winning elections.
- The media is fawning over him, and starstruck press people want him to win the election. This is why they aren't asking him the "hard questions."
- Rather than being ignorant, he's too smart! He's an Ivy League intellectual elitist who talks about arugula when Americans are paying $4 for gas.
As you can see, they are trying a lot of different lines of attack here -- none of which are terribly compelling or effective on their own. The only way attacks of these nature can be truly effective is when they are tied together with a common thread, an overarching narrative.
So far, conservatives have been unable to cobble together such a narrative on him, and they are running out of time to do so.
In the meantime, they're being pulled every which way in their attempts to construct this narrative. Is he an Ivy League egghead, or a dumb kid in over his head? Is he a sinister Manchurian candidate, or a bomb-throwing radical?
And of course, every time McCain opens his mouth, he provides new material for Obama to hit him back on.
This year, we have the narrative advantage in this election. There are two main reasons for this: First, Obama is on the right side of history on the issues, and we nominated a candidate that McCain and the Republicans are unable to attack effectively.