Daily Kos

Obama, I'm Cringing--Don't Give Them Ground

Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:51:32 AM PDT

Senator Obama, I've been supporting you virtually all of your presidential campaign.  Though my presence and stature are humble, I helped focus sentiment on this site before there was icebergslim's invaluable This Week With Barack Obama or other such regulars for Obama supporters.  I've never been able to see you speak, but I don't doubt you will be the next president of the United States--you have the math, the fundraising, the public sentiment, and the zeitgesit on your side.

But now you need to hear this, because you are in dangerous waters.

Your rebuttal of John McCain and Hillary Clinton can only be described as jaw-droppingly adroit.  You did a few things.  First you brought up the source of the controversy.  You framed it carefully to clearly express your intent at a public speech in very neutral territory (Terre Haute, and a friend of mine lived there).  The audience was with you.  

Then, you turned the attack on McCain and Clinton without losing your focus.  You could have shown the depths of their hypocrisy.  However, that wouldn't be wise in the ultimate scheme of things.  Stay away from the negative.

You know all these things, so my recommendation is only a 5 or 10% recommendation in strategy--but it's critical.

You framed your message clearly in the rebuttal.  But how many people will see it?  The media will not play all 3 minutes of the clip anymore... meaning fewer and fewer in the tv audience will understand the full context.  

Very few people can follow the race in depth and your apology for being elite will be the remaining message people can take.  It need not be.

When you published your apology you gave the opposition a lot of ground: the apology was necessary, but you must stay away from playing into their frames.  As you said, the gist of your message is true, and remains.

You have to keep stumping this hard, and the media will eventually turn in your favor again.  Every time use a different point on John McCain or Hillary Clinton--Hillary Clinton, the upper class politico who's made millions of dollars (110 million including her spouse) is more in touch than you?  Hammer away at your life story and leave the story chisled to perfection.  Your speech at the 2004 DNC did just that and showed your enthusiasm and your patriotism, as did your careful tone in "A More Perfect Union".

Let it be a different point each time on McCain and Clinton.  So that the media picks it up, but each speech stays in relatively positive territory.  That way you are doing a manifold hting: controlling the media message again, and explaining yourself heart-to-heart to the voters at your stump speeches.

Bring up Jack Abramoff if you need to, but preferably not now.  Jack Abramoff is their time bomb.  Better to drop it in October.  I don't think you'll need to use it on Clinton, but the corruption of both candidates runs deep, and there are other, less divisive examples.  You know their voting records.  Swing away.

But whatever you do,watch how much time you're spending on re-apologizing and feeding into their frames.  Every second is 30 seconds of talk radio and tv time.  You apologized, that's it.  Turn it into a spotlight on John McCain and Hillary Clinton's motives, and for being hypocritical and the very thing they project of themselves onto you.  You know the line between being assertive and being negative.

They brought the fight to you.  You know how to rebuff them without taking the fight to the gutter.

They are elitist.  They are out of touch.  They have failed at times to look out for... you and I.  And they're so desperate they have to sink you with bittergate.  So don't let them.

The second you play into their frames, their messages, it's over.  It's the only thing that can destroy your ever-increasing odds of victory.  It's destroyed every single one of your immediate predecessors.

Tags: Framing, messaging, Barack Obama (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 33 comments

  •  Tips, If Any (23+ / 0-)

    We know the Obama campaign reads Daily Kos.  Your opinion matters.  You can make it shown!

    Republicans believe in gvmt. intervention for bankers and investors, I believe in intervention for the meek and lowly -- Nulwee.

    by Nulwee on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:54:24 AM PDT

    •  Completely agree (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      grrr, revgerry, yaddab

      Hit back hard, one punch at a time.

    •  There's a typo in here: (0+ / 0-)

      Then, you turned the attack on McCain and Clinton without losing your focus.  You could have shown the depths of your hypocrisy.  However, that wouldn't be wise in the ultimate scheme of things.  Stay away from the negative.

      The prophet is a fool, the spiritual man is mad; For the multitude of thy iniquity And the great hatred...

      by Tirge Caps on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:05:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think his (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      fatcatnichols

      clarification, expression of regret, was a bad idea.

      There's a battle for control of this story. If the coverage focuses on the anger and pain of working people, Obama wins. If it focuses on his ill-chosen words about people clinging to God and guns, he loses. The way I see it, his clarification was an attempt to get the discussion to center on the former.

      And my hope is that this week he gives a major speech addressing the economic struggles in our midst.

      He tackled race and now he has to take on class. No one said it would be easy.

      His eloquence is his best weapon.

  •  Well (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    frisco

    It seems the Clintons held the view Sen. Obama expressed at the fundraiser.  Via TPM:

    I have been in meetings with the Clintons and their advisors where very clinical things were said in a very-detached tone about unwillingness of working class voters to trust government -- and Bill Clinton -- and about their unfortunate (from a Clinton perspective) proclivity to vote on life-style rather than economic issues. To see Hillary going absolutely over the top to smash Obama for making clearly more humanly sympathetic observations in this vein, is just amazing. Even more so to see her pretending to be a gun-toting non-elite. Give us a break!

    The doctor said I wouldn't have so many nose bleeds if I kept my finger outta there. - Ralph Wiggum

    by jim bow on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:54:29 AM PDT

    •  He didn't apologize (0+ / 0-)

      and even if he did, an apology is not a sign of weakness.

      Obama 08: Its like shooting ducks in a barrel with a sniper rifle as you throw back shots of Crown Royal.

      by eclecticbrotha on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:55:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Um (0+ / 0-)

        Republicans believe in gvmt. intervention for bankers and investors, I believe in intervention for the meek and lowly -- Nulwee.

        by Nulwee on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:57:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  My post wasn't about any apologies. (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Nulwee

        It was about the Clintons' sudden change of views.

        The doctor said I wouldn't have so many nose bleeds if I kept my finger outta there. - Ralph Wiggum

        by jim bow on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:00:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Clintons have no independent views (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          grrr, Fairy Tale

          Their "views" are whatever the exigencies of the moment require.  HRC supported NAFTA in the WH in '93, she opposed it in OH in '08, and she publicly blasted Obama for citing this obvious inconsistency.

          Obama's big difficulty in this campaign is that he has a fixed set of views that he may tweak to meet the circumstances of the moment.  Team Clinton has a fairly limited set of views that can generally be overhauled at a moment's notice.  That ability has been a key to their political success over the years.

          Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

          by RFK Lives on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:13:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I actually believe Sen. Clinton on NAFTA in '93. (0+ / 0-)

            I believe Sen. Clinton when she says she was skeptical.  She just either chose not to use her prestigious and influential role as first lady to persuade her husband of the treaty's misgivings, or she really wasn't that influential (on this issue).

            The doctor said I wouldn't have so many nose bleeds if I kept my finger outta there. - Ralph Wiggum

            by jim bow on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:20:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Then why'd she host a WH meeting intended to (0+ / 0-)

              drum up support for NAFTA?  When did she publicly oppose it prior to this campaign?

              Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

              by RFK Lives on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:34:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  She wanted to help her husband. (0+ / 0-)

                The same way Barack Obama wanted to help John Kerry in 2004 by saying that he didn't know how he would have voted in 2002 on the IWR.  Nobody believes that.

                The doctor said I wouldn't have so many nose bleeds if I kept my finger outta there. - Ralph Wiggum

                by jim bow on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:37:42 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Shame there's no video! (0+ / 0-)

    •  Well of course (0+ / 0-)

      the Clintons don't object to the truth Obama was getting at.

      Unfortunately, Obama didn't quite get there and he gave his opponents a huge opening.

      But the more I think about this, the more I think he can turn it to his advantage, with a major speech on the economic struggles of Americans.

      Go to Pittsburgh and let it rip.

  •  HRC Looks Like She Need A Shot Of Crown On Here (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Fairy Tale

     title=

    Obama '08
    Dont Be Fooled. CHANGE Is Real And It Starts In YOU?

    by DFutureIsNow on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:58:15 AM PDT

  •  Give them hell...Don't back down. (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    revgerry, Mbuto, Fairy Tale

    I was going to write a diary that went like this...

    What's elitist? Lobbying for NAFTA and CAFTA in Colombia while telling rural displaced workers you are on their side.

    What's elitist? Riding your own private jet to avoid reporters on the campaign jet, or letting lobbyists lobby on the campaign bus.

    What's elitist, Senator Clinton? Parsing a phrase out of a speech and making bumper stickers out of it while ignoring the pain of rural America.

    Obama, don't back down. You've hit a real nerve! That's why they are reacting so strongly.

  •  356,000 views (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    grrr, Nulwee, dotster, pekkla, Fairy Tale

    People are sick of being spoon fed.

    Sen. McCain, it's not your turn either.

    by Hope08 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:59:58 AM PDT

  •  Agree absolutely... (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Nulwee, A Man Called Gloom, Mbuto, pekkla

    do not give an inch...that has been my issue with Obama all along...he has a tendancy to be too nice sometimes

    Obama/Whoever He Chooses '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

    by dvogel001 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:01:55 AM PDT

  •  Terre Haute rebuttal needs to be a commercial (5+ / 0-)

    in PA, Indiana and NC by tomorrow.

  •  Don't agree (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    housesella, ETF, Fairy Tale

    His apology was to people who were offended -- and that probably was not the millions of Americans who are bitter.  He did not back off the fundamental premise -- he apologized for one word.  

    I find it ironic that supporters want him to be superman.  That you buy into this "apology" as some kind of capitulation.  He didn't say -- "I'm sorry, I misspoke -- Americans are not bitter."  He reiterated that they are.

    My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. Barbara Jordan 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:09:48 AM PDT

  •  At this point, there is no turning back (0+ / 0-)

    And that's good! What you describe above is a winning strategy. Championing the right of people to a decent living, while the establishment (Media and Washington) is hammering you. It will be Barack against the forces of the status quo!

    He shouldn't care about potentially negative polls tomorrow. If I am right, they will get better, much better. And maybe there's not going to be any drop, anyway.

  •  He gave no ground (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ETF

    he stuck to his point, he merely said he could have worded it better.   Its a good move, its Bush and Clinton who refuse to budge on things like that.

    •  I disagree...he's backed away from people (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      DarkestHour

      feeling angry and bitter, to ummm, I think "disappointed".  He can't listed to assh*ts like Blitzer, or Carville...or even his own handlers.  His first response was the right response and he needs to keep it as fiery as that one was.

  •  It's as if you don't already (0+ / 0-)

    know that he can handle himself.  He can, and he has before.  


    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:36:36 AM PDT

  •  No quarter (0+ / 0-)

    It is time for Obama to take off the gloves and fight back hard, Chicago style. Enough of being Mr. Nice Guy. He needs to hit her hard on ALL of the issues, and not back down on a single thing. Senator Clinton is pulling no punches, it's time for Obama to do the same.

    I would really, really like to see him go so negative on her in the next debate that he reduces her to tears, at which point he can then ask her if that will be her response at 3 AM when the telephone rings. Her actions over the previous month warrant this. Obama is trying to be gentlemanly here, while she goes for his balls.

    There is no place too low, no place too dark and gloomy, that Hillary won't go. Saying that McSame would be a better president than Obama was the final straw for me. Following the Repuke talking points were the final nails in the coffin. I've had enough of this BS. It's time for Obama to stick the fork in Hillary, she's done.

    Then he, and we, can concentrate our attacks where they really belong, on John McCain and any and all Republicans running for office, from the lowest councilman all the way to the top.

    You can't fix stupid! - Ron White

    by A Man Called Gloom on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:51:18 AM PDT

Permalink | 33 comments