November surprise

You people need to take a Zoloft or something. Obama will win, and win big. His grandmother has made the final, ultimate sacrifice for her little Bear. All of those stupid undecided voters conditioned by a lifetime of Hallmark cards and afterschool specials will be wiping away tears as they vote for the big O.

“I’m so depressed. It’s happening again. It’s a nightmare.”

Via Ben Smith, 

A major Democratic fundraiser described it a good bit more starkly after digesting the polls of recent days: “I’m so depressed. It’s happening again. It’s a nightmare.”

I'm hearing the same from a lot of friends, especially those who backed Hillary. There's a widespread feeling that Obama is getting rolled, and that he doesn't know how to push back, or isn't willing to do what it takes.

But my question is, what would it take? I hear Obama trying to reframe the debate, and push back on some of the bullshit, but it doesn't seem to penetrate the way McCain's messages do. And I don't think it's because he's not trying hard enough. Steve Benen agrees (emphasis mine):

MATTHEWS: ... I want to ask you, what will we talk about two days from now?

SCARBOROUGH: Whatever the McCain campaign wants us to talk about, because the McCain campaign is assertive.

I suppose the most obvious question that comes to mind is why the Obama campaign isn't equally assertive. But the truth is, it's quite assertive. Like D-Day, I've seen plenty of the campaign's blast faxes, emails, "In Case You Missed It" memos, etc. Obama's team is pushing plenty newsworthy stories at media personalities on a nearly constant basis.

But news outlets seem kind of picky about what kind of nonsense goes into heavy rotation. As far as I can tell, the story has to a) have video; b) be exceedingly simple and easy to summarize in a few seconds; and c) be good for John McCain.

And that is where much of the frustration comes in. We saw Gore and Kerry go down under a landslide of unfair media coverage, and ascribed a lot of the blame to the candidates. And they do deserve some of the blame. And if Obama loses, we'll find plenty to not like about the way he (and Biden!) did or did not conduct himself during the last 80 days before the election.

But we need to recognize that we live in the house that Rush and Newt built, and until we build a new house, it's going to be very hard to win national elections. And yet, I am not worried as some, and here are four reasons why:

1. The press are (slowly) turning on McCain.

Well documented at Talking Points Memo are the series of journalists who are disillusioned with McCain. This may not happen fast enough, but I'm hoping that October's press narratives are substantially different in character than September and August's.

2. Palin's star may fade.

Let's be honest. She would never have survived the Republican primary. Whether two months is long enough for her dirty laundry to be internalized by the voting public, I don't know. But it is possible. 

3. Palin scares some Jewish voters.

Witness Ed Koch. 

4. Obama has an ace in the hole

And that ace is Obama. Recall how he handed the Reverend Wright issue. He didn't push back hard, right away (as everyone wants him to be doing right now). He let the issue simmer, perhaps permanently damaging his image with a few voters. But it built anticipation. And when he finally responded with his speech on race, the press was slavering for it. It defined the news narrative for days. 

And Obama is no Kerry or Gore. Once he has everyone watching, he has the ability to package his message in such a way that it is actually received. 

You may not be convinced! But if you are despairing about the state of the Obama campaign, let us know in the comments what, specifically, you would like like to see them do. I'll start it off with something Henderson asked me:

Where are Obama's surrogates? Any surrogates?

I don't know. For example, why isn't Biden on the primetime cable news shows every night, tearing shit up?

And no, Matt Damon doesn't count as a surrogate, but he makes some good points:

Too much fun with Palin

In the comments, Wobs writes:

I want to make hay over her daughters pregnancy. Palin is a proponent of abstinence only sex ed as the panacea for teenage pregnancy. May I introduce to you exhibit A in evidence of its bankruptcy.

I understand the desire to go there.

But every time we get to this point in a big election, there is a tension between what will make the best short term political attack, and what makes the best long term argument. I think this falls into the latter category because I just don't think that many people are going to rethink their stance on sex-ed in the next 60 days because of Palin's story.

In terms of winning the election, Palin's story is, I think, a deceptively helpful battle for the Republicans. The economy and the war are going to lose McCain the election, if we can keep the focus on that. If the election becomes about social issues... well, we'll probably still win, but I think it will be a lot closer.

Hillary on the NCAA Men's Basketball Champions

"In a move that's sure to be seen as controversial, Hillary has contacted the NCAA Board of Directors to argue that Memphis is actually better qualified to be National Champion."

Barack Obama can do ANYTHING!!

Apparently the jury is still out on whether or not Barack Obama "shoots rainbows out of his butt" (quoting Jason there), but it has long been known that he does, in fact, smell like caramel.

In other news, the following is taken from "The Delegate Hub" portion of Hillary's website:

"FACT: Florida and Michigan should count, both in the interest of fundamental fairness and honoring the spirit of the Democrats' 50-state strategy."

Three thoughts to kick off the discussion:

1) "Florida and Michigan should count" doesn't strike me as a particularly fact-y statement.

2) I'm pretty sure I didn't hear any complaints from Hillary's campaign about the DNC's decision to not seat Michigan and Florida delegates until after she lost South Carolina.

3) If Hillary wins the nomination because she is awarded delegates from Michigan and Florida, I will not vote for her in the general election.

Discuss.

Wingnuts debunking wingnuts

Bill Kristol thinks that Joe Lieberman would make a great Veep candidate for some republican. It would do all sorts of things, including "scramble the political chess board." In response, Ramesh Ponnuru is making sense:

Lieberman for Veep?

I'm not sure what the case for putting him on the ticket is. To prove that Republicans are willing to reach out to Democrats whom most Democrats hate? To show that Republicans are the hawkish party? I think people already know that.

The Big O

Here:

Oprah Winfrey has already done plenty for Barack Obama, lending her influential endorsement and organizing major fundraising efforts, including an event on Saturday at her California home. But she may go even further. The Washington Post reports today that the TV superstar is in talks with Obama's advisors to take on a more active role in the campaign, possibly delivering stump speeches and more openly campaigning for Obama in the media.

Discussion question:

Is Oprah the cultural juggernaut everyone says she is? Will she send forth her arcane and hypnotic commands, shaping or subverting the will of America's ladyfolk? Will Obama crush Hillary and the hapless republicans beneath Oprah's fabulous heel?

Or is this more of a Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin level thing?

Noted for future discussion

Bishop is spot-on, and I’m always puzzled that people think that if Democrats win in red states that they necessarily did so because they converted the red portions of those states. As I have written for the Prospect, though Steve Jarding and other good consultants like him deserve credit for improving the margins for Democrats in rural areas, there just aren’t enough votes there. All these supposed “rural Democrat” winners like Mark Warner and Webb won because thanks to improved support and turnout from urban and inner suburban areas. If the “rural renaissance” is a useful rhetorical fiction for Democratic candidates and their consultants, fine, but it is a fiction nonetheless.

Link

Will Iraq be the prominent issue of 2008?

As I wrote earlier, Joshua thinks "no," and I think "hell yes." Neither of us can really know, of course, but that doesn't stop either of us from electoral prognostication. Yesterday, Josh sent me the following email:

Asked of Republican primary voters:

Which is more important to you in a presidential nominee — someone who commits to staying in Iraq until the U.S. succeeds, or someone who is flexible about when to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq? 

answer: 

39% committed to winning
58% flexible

This is coming from primary voters, mind you. The GOP voter is way more on top of this Iraq shit...they aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot over it. Bush might shoot them in the foot, however.

52% believe that the winning candidate will oppose the war. They aren't gonna run on it, and if both parties won't run on it, then it won't be an issue. Might it make sense for a Democrat to try and pin the other guy w/ it? Not really. It goes to Bush and he's in his private wilderness. The press will keep doing stories on it, but since both sides will be messaging the same message (get out), what will matter is health care, education, economy. Domestic issues election, this one.

There are three reasons why I think Josh is wrong.

First, Bush will probably shoot the Republicans in the foot (better than Cheney shooting them in the face, I guess). He's going to be president throughout the campaign, and if there's one thing we can apparently count on from Bush, it's that he will continue to mess things up real good. If we end up with a broader war in the Middle East, for example, I think even Joshua would agree that this would become the major issue in 2008.

Second, even without a foot-shooting-related incident, Iraq is on track to be in a significantly more horrific situation in mid-to-late '08 than it is right now. Top of the evening news, on the front page every day... that kind of horrific. There is no way that this doesn't become an issue in the primaries, where the "mainstream" candidates of both parties will face challenges from the left and the right. Candidates will need to put up specific proposals, and then those proposals will be savaged by both the "get out now" and the "stay to win" crowds.

Third, in the general election, I just can't see the Republicans not taking another tug at the national-security lever, especially if the race is tight. Perhaps their strategists will look at these polls and consider it a losing proposition, but I think it's more likely that they will suggest a series of slash-and-burn (political) attacks designed to move the electorate, and change that polling. The context of this poll is widespread malaise about Iraq, and nobody out there trying very hard to beat the drums of war. In full-on campaign season, the rhetorical landscape will be very, very different.

This has been my first prognostication entry for '08. Discuss.

Why do I hate Mark Penn?

I'm not sure exactly. I suppose he symbolizes, to me, what's wrong with the Democratic party at the highest levels. And I sure hope that Hillary (who I think would make a good president) will fire his ass before he turns her into John Kerry.

I've been calling Penn some bad names in email, saying things too harsh to post on the blog. So I was pleased to see TDH handle it more appropriately and more hilariously:

Why won’t Hillary Clinton call her vote on the war resolution “a mistake?” We don’t have the slightest idea—nor do we really understand why some voters care so much. (The notion that she should “apologize” strikes us as utterly silly.) But in Patrick Healy’s Monday report, he quoted a major Clinton adviser explaining the thinking behind Clinton’s stance. We groaned, then said: “It figures:”

HEALY (2/12/07): Some advisers believe the issue of her vote will fade with time; even so, they emphasize that she is taking a principled position of responsibility for it.

Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton's chief strategist, said in an interview: ''It's important for all Democrats to keep the word 'mistake' firmly on the Republicans and on President Bush. Senator Clinton has been very clear that we, as a party, should keep the focus on Bush—these were his mistakes. Ultimately that's very important, not just for her, but for the entire Democratic party.”

We don’t know if that is the real explanation. But only Penn could ever come up with this sort of tortured reasoning. Only Penn would advise a client: Don’t speak English for the next several years.