I was going to write another post chiding certain Obama supporters for their overheated rhetoric about the evil Clintons (who apparently are now even worse than Joe McCarthy).
Instead, I will attempt to spark a more constructive discussion of the best way to make the case against John McCain in the general election.
Daily Kos star diarist clammyc is absolutely right: “We don’t need a nominee to focus on our opponent”:
But while way too much energy, time, money and focus is spent on the back-and-forth and the less-than really important issues that are facing this country, or the enormous hypocrisy of just about everything that John W. McCain has been saying or doing is getting either ignored or fluffed over, precious time is being wasted to frame McCain and “rebrand him” as the man he is and has become as opposed to the man he once was and represented.
The question is, what is the best way to “rebrand” McCain? There are some good ideas in that clammyc diary.
Jason Rosenbaum wrote a great piece for Open Left, How to Attack John McCain: A Search Study,” which evaluates various frames:
* John McCain as old and unstable
* John McCain as angry, with a temper, a hothead
* John McCain as a war hawk who’ll keep us in Iraq forever
* John McCain as confused and unprepared (can’t tell the difference between Iran and Al-Qaeda for instance)
* John McCain as weak and unprepared on economic issues
* John McCain and his association with radical fundamentalist pastors like John Hagee
* John McCain as a flip-flopper or sellout
If quantitative analysis isn’t your thing, you might enjoy kid oakland’s half-joking “twenty thoughts about John McCain.”
Finally, for a laugh read Moody Loner’s Dr. Seuss-style poem, “I Will Not Vote for John McCain.”
Consider this an open thread on the best way to run against McCain.
4 Comments
Sorry, off topic here
But since you mentioned it too, I can’t help but repost what I said on Real Sporer about Gordo’s post:
“All the sudden the Clintons are very touchy. So one cannot mention a proven fact about Bill’s past? Like you R’s are not going to bring these things up if she’s the nominee? While I would love to have a D president, I would not be too crazy about spending 1-2 years of a four-year term in a Clinton melodrama and damage control. Does anyone really believe there are no more Bill’s bimbo eruptions out there?”
The truth is, Hillary’s D contenders have been and continue to be too polite about her real weakness. We are too removed from the 90’s Clinton melodramas. When the R’s remind us all of those times, her 51% strategy will surely tank.
Not that Obama’s chances are much better at this time. The way things are going, we better get used to the idea of a McCain presidency. Of course, it’s still a long way to go. I personally think the 100 years in Iraq argument is a strong one. But Obama’s line and observation about the wheels coming off McCain’s Straight Talk Express is a good one too. We should hammer him on his pandering and surprising inconsistencies. The torture flip-flop makes him particularly vulnerable.
rf Mon 24 Mar 10:32 PM
actually, I was more offended
by other posts on Gordon’s site:
The one where he approvingly quoted Andrew Sullivan (longtime Reagan-lover and Clinton-hater) who casually referred to the Clintons as “sociopaths”:
http://www.iowatrueblue.com/Bl…
And the one where he piled on to the Obama campaign’s passive-aggressive misinterpretation of Bill’s latest remarks. Gordon went further, saying Bill is actually worse than McCarthy. When I read Clinton’s remarks, and watched the video, I didn’t at all read them to mean that he was saying Obama was unpatriotic or whatever.
I will write another post on the Obama campaign’s passive-aggressive style sometime soon. They twist everything the Clintons say into the worst possible interpretation and then whip Obama supporters into a Clinton-hating frenzy over it.
desmoinesdem Tue 25 Mar 8:49 AM
My thoughts
I think there are some powerful attacks there, and some we have to be careful in unleashing. Here’s how I’d rank them, most damning to least; best to worst.
1. “John McCain is weak on the economy”
This is critical. We have to win this argument, or we lose. It’s as simple as that.
2. “John McCain is a hothead.”
This is a big charge we must make. We can so easily contrast his unpredictable, unstable personality against Obama’s calm, intellectual demeanor (or Hillary’s, as the case may be). Plus, it’s a less tricky argument than the “old” line. We have to convince people they don’t want him answering the 3 am phone–because who knows what he’ll do.
3. “John McCain is old/McCain is confused”
This is tricky. It’s going to be hard because so much of his doddering nature is caused by old POW injuries. Plus, it didn’t work against Reagan and McCain may be able to deflect it in a similar way. For what it’s worth, I doubt the average Joe six-pack can really differentiate between Iran and Al-Qaida either.
4. “McCain will keep us in Iraq”
This is a double edged sword. If we call him a warmonger, he’ll just say he’s “in it to win”. If we show clips of flag-draped coffins, he’ll show clips of mushroom clouds. The public wants out of Iraq…but they want to claim victory as well. We need to be careful that we don’t become the Humphrey/McGovernian “out now” to his Nixonian “peace with honor”. I really worry about this becoming a 1968/1972 repeat, in a lot of different ways.
5. “McCain is a flip-flopper”
Not a very good trick. The public likes that in McCain…unlike 2004, they want someone who’s flexible. Besides, how can we be up in arms when they called Kerry a flip-flopper (he kinda was, by the way) and throw the same mud at McCain?
6. “McCain as radical fundamentalist”
Absolutely wrong. It’s tempting to throw it back in their faces after they drug Obama through the mud with Rev. Wright, but it’s morally wrong and bad strategy. It highlights our candidate’s weakness (unless it’s Hillary) without doing significantly much more damage to our opponent. Plus, I think there are more people out there that subscribe to Hagee’s weirdness than Wright’s.
american007 Tue 25 Mar 12:32 PM
Here are a few things
1. Lets show his comparisons to George Bush. That will draw off everyone.
2. If he picks Romney for VP, we need to get out the Republican debate footage of these two going at it, that would be a big plus.
3. Age will be a huge factor, especially if he is running against Obama. We need to make this known everywhere.
secondtonone Fri 28 Mar 5:50 PM