AUGUST 7, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Short answer: Not much.
Prior to this week, a lot of pundits wondered why Obama was holding his fire while McCain roughed him up on a near-daily basis. The argument against firing back was the analogy to the Democratic primaries: Around this time last year, we all wondered why Obama wasn't knee-capping Hillary. But Obama more or less stuck to his no knee-capping policy (at least up to Iowa), and it worked out pretty well for him. No one could be sure it wouldn't work the same way in the general.
Now that Obama has responded with two hard-hitting ads, it's worth asking whether the analogy holds. By going negative, is Obama making a mistake he wisely avoided during the primaries?
I don't think so, for two reasons:
1.) In a Democratic primary, it's incredibly tricky to go negative on a woman who's beloved by half the party, well-respected by at least another quarter-to-a-third of it (or at least she was at the outset), and who evokes unpredictable emotional responses across the board. Much easier to go negative on an old white guy. (Though probably slightly less easy against someone like McCain, who's historically appealed to independents.)
2.) Obama had two major assets in the primaries. The first was his early opposition to the war. The second was the perception that he practiced a new kind of politics. Both allowed him to favorably distinguish himself from Hillary. Outside those two things, there weren't many differences between them--no major policy disagreements, for example--and the few that existed (experience, say) tended to favor Hillary.
If Obama had gone negative, he would have ceded one of those two key assets (new politics). Worse, blurring distinctions tends to favor the frontrunner, which Hillary was until Iowa.
In the general election, Obama has a different set of assets. The first is that his policies are more popular than McCain's. The second is that voters prefer Democrats to Republicans by a wide margin this year. The third is that George W. Bush is radioactive among everyone outside a small group of Republican partisans. The fourth is that voters see Obama as a credible change agent in a year when 80 percent of them think we're on the wrong track. The fifth is that he represents a vision of the country as unified.
Unlike the primaries, going negative actually enhances most of his assets in the general--it draws attention to McCain's unpopular policies, it remind voters that McCain is a standard-issue Republican, it links McCain to Bush. I think the effect on the fourth asset is netural--voters will see Obama as a symbol of change regardless of what he does, since he's not only a Democrat but young-ish and black and has a foreign-sounding name. (Obama's problem isn't that voters doubt he'll bring change; it's that they worry he'll bring too much change.) The only risk is the unity theme, which I think Obama and his campaign are deft enough to finesse. (When going negative, you basically frame the race as George Bush and John McCain versus the rest of us.) In any case, this particular asset, while central to Obama's political identity, is probably less important than the previous four.
Almost by definition, the primaries were about demonstrating why Obama should be the Democratic standard-bearer, which made it necessary to focus on the Obama brand and made anything that tarnished it (like going negative) pretty risky. But in this year's general election, any minimially acceptable Democrat will do. And so any damage to Obama's particular appeal is less important than it might otherwise be.
UPDATE: Click here for Mike's take on the question.
--Noam Scheiber
20 comments
What McCain and Hillary have in common is that they both quite clearly want Obama to lose.
- Wandreycer1
August 7, 2008 at 8:57am
I agree with the basic thrust of this. However, a successful "frame" of an opponent is not created with a couple of ads. There needs to be first a strategy -- what frame are you trying to hang around the guy's neck? -- and then a consistent drumbeat of "data" fed into the media, by any and every means, to reinforce it. If the frame is going to be McCain = Bush, which is not bad at all, then someone should be researching every statement and video clip made by McCain that echoes Bush. Then you play them together with quick cross-fades. And you keep at it as soon as the other guy starts to squirm and then you intone, "It is pretty outrageous that John McCain makes up one lie after another about Barack Obama and then complains when we air not only accurate quotes of him but actual footage of him speaking his own words."
"America can't afford four more years of the same Republicans doing and saying the same thing. It's time for a change. In November, vote for Barack Obama, Democrat for President."
A great variant on this would be the juxtaposition of McCain on both sides of different issues -- plenty of material there. You don't accuse him of being a flip-flopper, you say this:
"Does John McCain even know anymore which side of the issues he's on? Does he even care? After all, he's been on this side, then that side, then back on this side, then that side for so long, it would be hard for anyone to keep track."
The implications are not so much flip-flopper as senile and indifferent. Worse than flip-flopper. All without saying it explicitly. Indeed, any oblique way to imply feebleness on McCain's part, done consistently and persistently, is going to work out just fine. Then, the first time McCain sticks his foot in his mouth in a debate, Obama says, "I believe that Senator McCain is confused about the details here" and gently corrects him. Mission accomplished -- McCain is too old and feeble to be president. In the war between "too young and slick" and "too old and feeble," I would bet on the young guy every time. This is America after all. But Obama has to be as or more successful at framing McCain.
Thj
- roidubouloi
August 7, 2008 at 9:15am
I agree with your second and longer answer. Had you only written "Not much." you would have ignored the contrast between the two campaigns. I think the two campaigns do tell us something about Barack.
I'm bad with names but I recall a concern that Barack might lack a cynical (I think that was the word?) streak. Well, he does not. He landed a few good jabs on The Brawler From Panama this week and even his dollar bill punches last week were better than some in the press admitted. Yes, Obama v. Hillary told us Barack lacked enough cynicism to be in the ring with the GOP but that match was deceptive because a decision by points was good enough. Plus, it would be dumb to leave a Hillary on the mat, dazed and confused. McCain may have a temper but he might re-think if it's wise to piss-off Obama from now on. Everyone knows playing with the big boys means taking a few elbows.
I admit to doubting it would be wise for Barack to play rough and I was wrong. He should tell Johnny to stick the tire gauges where the sun don't shine.
- michael
August 7, 2008 at 9:53am
Great post Roi, I feel the same way. My idea for a McCain parody ad: Where Has The Real McCain Gone?Two old "country type" guys on a porch who look like they fought in Andrew Jackson's Battle of New Orleans talking about John McCain with something along the lines of: "I'm telling you, there's somethin' fishy allright." "Aww, C'mon. McCain's great, he's against those crazy tax cuts for the rich." "Not anymore. That was the old McCain. The new McCain is for them!" "Really? Well what about Roe vs Wade, he said he wouldn't repeal that?" "That was the old McCain. The new McCain said he'd overturn it." "But he's still against the Confederate Flag right?" "That was the old McCain. The new McCain is for it!" "I'm telling you, aliens took the Old McCain and put in a decoy." "Ya think? Or maybe it's... Osama bin Laden!" "Yeah, that would explain why they never found him!" "Don't you miss the old McCain?" "Yeah, you bet."
Cut to Obama: "I miss the old McCain too. i was hoping to have a substantive debate over issues that are important to the good working families of this country. Instead we're being bombarded with frivolous nonsense and even outright lies. John McCain, I call upon you to get rid of all those crazy Republican consultants of yours and bring back the Old McCain! The Old McCain wouldn't make fun of common sense solutions such as proper pressure for our tires. The Old McCain wouldn't lower taxes on the richest one percent of our country in a time of war. The Old McCain would know better than to confuse celebrity with leadership. The Old McCain would have run a respectful issue-based campaign. So please, for all of us, bring back that Old McCain and lets have a debate with substance instead of the same-old disrespectful politics as usual campaign you've been running. I look forward to seeing and debating that Old McCain soon."
You guys did notice that I managed to call McCain old 12 times without calling him old, right?
- Gavriel Meir-Levi
August 7, 2008 at 10:01am
roid has it right. My concern and hope is that this may be a little rope a dope. Push McCain to become the non-Maverick. Wait until it is obvious that McCain's finish is tarnished, then unload with very specific policy attacks, but fundamentally continue to question his thinking in a way that subtly brings up issues like his inconsistency and, dare I say it, age. His counter punchs: 'taking pride in ignorance' and 'McCain v. McCain' do directly address the issue and can be the frame, ultimately making people question whether McCain still has it to lead. (Both ultimately reflact the 'age issue', but very subtly). And they can be delivered now with relative impunity. Remember "I respect McCains 50 years of service' kinda fell flat, too direct. But this meme works, forgetful, changing positions, a little past his cognitive prime...
And note the meme: 'Obama is finally going negative, well he had to, he couldn't keep taking these attacks, etc." No one is blaming him for getting in McCain's face now, woudl have been much different in June...
- dbhuff
August 7, 2008 at 10:12am
Cool Ad Levi! You know, Sullivan is running a contest on good, fair ads he'll post on his site:
andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.../taking-back-t-2.html
Maybe someone here has video expertise?
- dbhuff
August 7, 2008 at 10:15am
Roid: Obama has already started this, when he said yesterday something along the lines of "The most interesting debates is between John McCain and John McCain", pure Dorothy Parker stiletto stab.
- icarusr
August 7, 2008 at 10:24am
I agree roid, and I think your "In the war between "too young and slick" and "too old and feeble," I would bet on the young guy every time." is a concept that good ad guys can exploit. They don't even have to disparage grandpa when they portray Barack as having the vitals necessary to manage the arduous task of running the country.
They can turn the 3AM phone call into "People ask if Barack Obama is fit to be President?" As the narrator ticks off the duties (working a twenty hour day, not having the luxury of weekends off and having a sharp recall for facts because sometime the wrong answer can be more than a gaffe) we can see Barack pounding it out in the gym against the Army and giving rapid fire answers to a complicated question. They close with, "Yes, Barack Obama is fit...next question?" (I'm Barack Obama and I approve...)
- michael
August 7, 2008 at 10:24am
Gavriel, awesome.
- boneill
August 7, 2008 at 10:46am
I shudder to say it, but the new ad by moveon is pretty good ("I thought John McCain was a maverick. I'm disappointed" or something to that effect)
- miceelf
August 7, 2008 at 11:03am
Nothing Obama's done or will do is in the same category of stupic/awful as the "celebrity" or "messiah" ads, and that is the main distinction.
- psantillana
August 7, 2008 at 1:03pm
Why do we have to keep pretending that the Obama campaign never went negative? What was spokesman Jesse Jackson's official statement for the campaign after NH ("She never cried for Katrina")? Or that part of the candidate's wife's stump speech attacking Clinton in a most personal and sexist way "if you can't run your own house you shouldn't be in the White House?" Or Obama's many stump speeches to African American audiences alluding to the Clintons as "bamboozlers?" What about the constant attacks on her character and the "will do or say anything" refrain? The "racist" memo to the media? The various negative and personal attacks, taken straight from Republican talking points, made in campaign brochures on issues like health care?
Just because most of these attacks were made by others in and close to the campaign, rather than the candidate himself, doesn't mean the candidate didn't run a negative campaign. And, lets be honest, looking at just two of the examples given above, both an intentionally sexist one and, sadly, too often racially divisive one.
I have too much experience with Obama's online supporters to expect any of you to look objectively at the evidence. And to acknowledge the true nature of Obama's campaign. You are too committed to the idea of Hillary Clinton as a politician of exceptional evil for whom even the most hateful, over the top attacks are seen as reasonable and deserved.
As a lifetime liberal, Hillary wasn't my candidate (too centrist), but I wasn't blind to the negativity of the Obama campaign. But even more important, as a liberal, I was morally offended by how the campaign exploited gender, class and racial fears and bias.
And I continue to be morally offended by so-called "progressive" commentators who refuse to acknowledge and condemn, or worse, make excuses such tactics.
- esmense
August 7, 2008 at 1:31pm
Noam , an interesting difference between Obama-Hillary and Obama-McCain is that the McCain camp hasn't
- Anonymous
August 7, 2008 at 2:50pm
"and who evokes unpredictable emotional responses across the board"
ha ha ha! Noam, does your wife know you wrote this sentence?!?!
- virginiacentrist
August 7, 2008 at 2:52pm
"You are too committed to the idea of Hillary Clinton as a politician of exceptional evil for whom even the most hateful, over the top attacks are seen as reasonable and deserved"
Pretty much!
You reference a bunch of gaffes by Obama's people that they apologized profusely for....and your reference to the word "bamboozled more than a bit silly. Bill Clinton used that word often in the 1992 campaign. I know you folks desperately wanted to tie Obama to Malcolm X and other "scary" black people because if caused a small uptick in microtargeted rural white uneducated turnout for Hillary, but maybe it's time to give that line a rest.
- virginiacentrist
August 7, 2008 at 2:56pm
"you people"
What "people" would that be?
Like "typical," such a usage reveals presumption, stereotypical thinking and unexamined prejudice -- and, most likely, a relatively limited experience of the world. How young are you?
- esmense
August 7, 2008 at 3:19pm
esmense: Actually, she said "you folks," which doesn't have the same connotation at all. And she was clearly referring to folks who are dug-in Obama haters, not to any particular racial or demographic group.
I disagree with virginiacentrist about Clinton (I do not think she embodies "evil" or that she deserves to be attacked in "the most hateful ways" -- despite the fact that I think a lot of her tactics in the primary were disgusting.) But your last post suggests you have a large degree of over-sensitivity about the primary and it's outcome. Is it possible this is affecting your ability to weigh all the evidence about who really smeared whom?
- hemlock41
August 8, 2008 at 2:02am
Gavriel & roid - the Obama campaign should hire you guys. Your ad scenarios are bullseyes.
- JackR
August 8, 2008 at 9:46am
esmense,
Your analysis of the Democratic primary campaign is so very objective. Barack's team was all-negative all the time while Hillary's people were just squeaky clean, almost with child-like innocence. Yeah, very objective, you.
Primary campaigns tend to fray emotions, you know. But when it's over, people move on. Even McCain and Bush moved on after a very fractious 2000 primary for the sake of party unity.
Democrats, if we want victory in november, should do the same unless of course some of us are still running the primary race with an eye to 2012.
- scrubbyoak
August 9, 2008 at 7:48am
Yuck - the one thing I will not miss when this campaign is over is delusional self serving diatribes by Hillary dead enders. I'd rather eat glass than suffer through one more.
I don't think Hillary is evil, that's a hysterical dodge designed to ignore the reality of the situation. She's just a remarkably rotten politician and a fierce competitor, most of us are yin and yang, not evil. HIllary is no exception.
She's also incapable of taking responsibility for herself and that seems to rub off on those who support her. Apparently, unlike every adult on the planet, every single bad thing that ever happened or happens to her is someone else's fault. This is n ot a quality that inspires respect. Anatomy certainly isn't enough for me and I find it sexist to reduce this whole mess down to it.
As a hard workin' white person, I even appreciate Hillary's weaknesses - I'm rotten at some things I wish I wasn't either and tend to look for others to blame. I like to think at some point I look back in the mirror where the blame belongs, unlike Hillary.
When she spoke in front of the Women for Obama fundraiser I attended, we gave her a standing ovation. The 2500 hundred of us that were there are able to decipher the good from the bad. Most of us have both, and Hillary is no exception. She's my Senator, she's a good one when she isn't introducing flag burning ammendments or voting for things like the Bankrupcy Bill. I hope she sets those tendencies aside. If she doesn't, she'll get her ass voted out - we're fed up.
Maybe Hillary dead enders get their marching orders from memos, but the rest of us sentient human beings were able to see what was explicitly in front of our face without the memo. That is the most dishonest dodge of all - that somehow the five alarm race baiting of Bill and Hillary was entirely the "fault" of some campaign memo. Mmm hmmmm, yeah right. The continuing refusal to own up to the race baiting is disgraceful. Let's not even talk about the Zimbabwe comparisons and all the rest of the disgusting best hits.
I look forward to Hillary being a responsible citizen again, she certainly wasn't in that horror show campaign.
- Wandreycer1
August 9, 2008 at 8:14am