The good news for Obama heading into the Democratic National Convention next week is that he continues to lead McCain in the national polls by 45% to 42% among likely voters, according to a recent poll taken by WSJ/NBC. Even more encouraging is the fact that composite polling from pollster.com indicates Obama maintains a healthy lead in the Electoral College tally with 260 to 191 and 87 toss-ups. The WSJ/NBC poll also points to the fact that voters remain much more enthusiastic about Obama's candidacy, that his fundraising continues to give him a significant advantage, and that he is registering voters in much greater numbers than the Republicans. All of this augurs well for his candidacy heading into the general election.
The bad news, or at least the more paradoxical, is that despite his effectiveness as a candidate thus far, Obama has still not moved into a more dominant position in this election. This is a particularly puzzling reality when one considers the comparatively uninspiring strategy and message McCain has offered to the nation.
The key to understanding the current paradigm most likely rests with the fact that McCain continues to hold a distinct advantage over Obama on issues of national security and foreign affairs. A more targeted WSJ/NBC poll conducted in July indicates that 53% of respondents believe Senator McCain would make a better commander in chief, while 25% said the same about Obama. Similar numbers apply when comparing the candidates on issues related to the management of the war on terror and US policy in Iraq. These polls offer an important insight not only into why the race remains so close, but also where Obama can make strategic adjustments to pull away from McCain after the convention next week.
In the past several weeks McCain has wisely refocused his campaign on major foreign policy matters confronting the nation, while minimizing his rhetoric on domestic concerns, such as the economy, where Obama has the advantage. This strategy was on full display during the recent conflict between Russian and Georgia where McCain sought to bolster his commander-in-chief credentials and move the dialogue in a direction favoring his campaign. Shortly after the conflict broke out, the Arizona Senator went on the offensive. Taking an even more hard-line approach than Bush, McCain issued a statement urging a UN resolution by the Security Council condemning Russia's action, an emergency session of NATO to demand a cease-fire, and to remove Russia from the G8.
This response set the stage for what surely will be the core of the McCain strategy in the general election -- move the dialogue decidedly in the direction of foreign policy and national security issues, adopt hard-line policies that make McCain seem like a strong leader, use fear as a way to scare voters into believing they can only be safe and secure under a McCain presidency, and attack Obama as a candidate who is hopelessly naïve and inexperienced on the nation's foreign affairs. In effect, adopt the same "Rovian strategies" that got Bush elected twice.
But unlike the 2000 and 2004 elections, it is not so clear that these same strategies will work this time around. For starters, domestic ones now predominate over foreign policy ones. The economy, for example, is far and away the issue of greatest importance to Americans in this election. Moreover, voters seem far less convinced after 8 years of failed policies under Bush that a hard-line approach to our foreign affairs is the proper one.
This changing paradigm offers Obama two critical opportunities in the months ahead to pull away from McCain. First, is for Obama to take ownership of a key domestic issue like the economy and "own it." Second, is to challenge McCain on the single issue where he remains strongest, thus diminishing the key rationale for his candidacy. Without the national security and foreign policy legs to stand on, the McCain candidacy goes nowhere. On this second point particularly, there are at least five areas where Obama should focus his attention after next week's convention to make significant inroads on McCain:
“Failed Policy?” Naptime. “Distracted” Worse. “We are not safer” Wish-washy at best.
*** Our enemies are stronger because we invaded Iraq. ***
This argument is both easy to prove and in your face. Just run down the list of enemies:
Worried about what Iran will do next in Iraq? Iran wasn’t in Iraq before we invaded! Iran is stronger because we invaded Iraq. Concerned al Qaeda in Iraq will regroup? There was no al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded! Al Qaeda in Iraq is stronger because we invaded Iraq. Upset about the spread of radical fundamentalist Islam? Iraq was 100% secular – now 40% of the country suffers under Sharia law. The radical Islamists are stronger.
And al Qaeda and the Taliban? We could have crushed them if we had sent 30.000 extra troops there rather than 130,000 to Iraq. The true terrorists are stronger because we invaded Iraq.
A set of allied tag lines include:
• Republicans have no business telling anyone how to make America safe.
• Given their track record, there’s no way they should make the next decision.
• “The Emperor’s new clothes” – the Republican “mantle of national security”, vaporizes when you ask the simple question: are our enemies stronger?
Want to pass the tag line along to Joe?
Go back and become a Republican.
I think it would be a better choice to focus on the Afghanistan/Pakistan problem. The real threat is there. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, yet the Taliban has a strong and growing presence in its affairs. A solution is drastically needed and must not bog down the U.S. as Russia was bogged down -- and ultimately lost. Also, one of Bush's signature failures -- and there are many -- is that Osama Bin Laden has not been brought to justice.
Bin Laden is held to be truly evil by every American. He actually did us harm. Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a disagreeable blowhard who is easy to dislike. But he's not the real threat at this time.
Ditto the Hillary effect.
If Barack was white, and Hillary hadn't been running, he'd be up by 10.
And if I was a rich man, yaddle deedle daddle feedle faddle fum...
The Democratic party MUST register new voters who haven't been involved before in order to win. Plus, the Democrats tend to pay attention to the debate. The attention span of the US electorate is about 10 sec. If you can't say it in 10 sec you shouldn't bother.
Obama may show a large bump in Sept and Oct, but come election day, as Rev Wright has said, "the chickens will come hoem to roost". It's said state of affairs, but unfortunately it is right on I'm afraid.
Corrupt Republicans TRASHED the ECONOMY, TRASHED middle-income Americans and
want to PARALYZE OUR FUTURE.
do not wimp out.
FIGHT BACK. vote for OBAMA.
1) So-called "tough" talk about Iran actually endangers the U.S. the *moment* it passes a candidate's lips. This was true of Clinton's "totally obliterate" statement as well as McCain's "bomb, bomb, bomb" singing, both of which strengthened the anti-American statements made by Ahmadinejad by playing right into his hands. Obama needs to call this out for what it is: reckless, yellow-bellied, Bush-style bullying that endangers the lives of U.S. citizens. Not if McCain wins in November, but *right now*.
2) Jewish Americans overwhelmingly favor diplomacy with Iran over military action:
http://www.jstreet.org/page/media-advisory-new-survey-american-jewish-community
3) Obama already has 62% of the Jewish American vote, and the only Jewish demographic he does poorly with is Orthodox, which poll 77% for McCain (see link above). Considering that Jewish Americans number roughly 5 million, and that about 10% of that population is Orthodox, we're talking about roughly 500,000 people, a fraction of whom actually vote. And Obama has 1/5 of these conservative-leaning voters anyway.
So basically, Jewish Americans think and vote like other Americans, most of whom don't want reckless loudmouth warmongering.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761587494/Jewish_Americans.html
An as for Afghanistan, be careful not to see this as amenable to a military solution. This could be tougher than Iraq for military address. More troops there may actually arouse greater country wide anger at the presence of foreign forces and the government we support. What we may mistake as just Taliban could become a national insurgency.