Turning Obama Into A Punchline: How Democrats Can Lose

Once upon a time there was a candidate who was 17 points ahead of his foe. The election, it seemed, was his.

His name was Dukakis, and he lost that election to George Bush, Sr.

Or, more accurately, he lost it to Lee Atwater, Rove's mentor. By the time Atwater got through with him, Dukakis wasn't even a respected politician anymore, he was a punchline.

In 2000 Rove ran Bush as a "compassionate conservative" and smeared Gore as a liar, the man who'd "invented" the internet. The fact that Gore had never said that didn't matter. In 2004 Kerry, an actual war hero, was smeared as a coward by the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth" and by the time they got through with him, the man who'd taught Swift Boaters that the way to respond to an attack was to turn into it, was branded a coward, not a hero.

Republicans try and run elections based on "character" and when they manage it they generally win. When the election turns on something else, such as hope, the economy and health care in '92, they lose.

Today McCain promoted a new campaign manager, Steve Schmidt. Schmidt has been pushed, hard, by Karl Rove. He worked for the Governator's reelection, and he also worked for Bush's reelection in '04. Schmidt understands both parts of the Republican two-step -- how to take away the scary parts of Republicanism, which he did for the Governator, who ran on a number of rather liberal policy plans; and how to destroy the opponent.

McCain isn't going to win this election by playing nice. The natural momentum of the time favors Obama, because the Republican brand is badly damaged. The appointment of a Rovian disciple shows that the Republicans get this, and they're ready to intensify their strategy.

Folks act as if negative campaigning doesn't work, but this is a myth. It works, and it works well. All it is is reverse branding -- branding your opponent for him. Schmidt will be looking for the opportunity to brand Obama as effete, weak and unprincipled. Obama's actions of the past couple weeks, his "run to the center" in which he has suddenly realized he didn't mean what he said in the primaries is playing into this narrative.

As with almost all Democrats Obama doesn't seem to get that strength isn't about what you vote for (national "security"), it's about how you act. Stand strong on a principle and people will admire that even if they disagree with it. Be seen to flip like a weathervane and even if people wind up agreeing with you, they'll despise you. Being strong, appearing strong, is about having principles, about taking a stand, not about talking tough.

Now, certainly McCain has no principles to speak of, having thrown his few remaining scruples out the door over the last couple years to court the conservative base, as when he voted for torture.

But, as we all know, the media prefers Republicans on character issues. The Swift Boaters were liars, their lies were proved at the time, but they were never effectively rebutted by the press. In 2000 the press likewise repeatedly failed to call Bush out on his many lies, indeed Paul Krugman, who tried, was expressly forbidden to use the word "lie" by his editors.

So the McCain campaign is going to try and define Obama. Republicans defined Dukakis, they defined Gore, they defined Kerry. Only with Clinton did they fail. At the same time, I expect Schmidt to push the McCain maverick brand more seriously and start backing away from the right wing base on a couple of key issues. (Torture, for example, is a place where McCain appears to be attempting to claim he is different from Bush, despite his vote for it.)

Muddle the difference on some key stands, define your opponent, make the election about character and not about policy. Obama has made this easier. It can't really be about health care since Obama is not for universal care, and it's harder to make it about the economy after changing his position on NAFTA.

So what Obama's got left is "I'm not George Bush. And I am change." If he can define McCain as Bush, he can still win it. But remember, historically elections that have come down to being about character have favored Republicans. And as Obama decides to be all things to all people, and nothing to anyone, I hope he isn't walking into a trap whereby in simply defining himself as "hope" and "change" and "not Bush" he's leaning on some slender reeds, easily broken by the avalanche of mud soon to come his way.

Lee Atwater is dead, but the style of politics he perfected hasn't changed.

And sometimes the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Ian Welsh is the evening and weekend editor for FireDogLake.

Comments

[in10se]

I believe that President Clinton was elected twice by the DLC. Love them or hate them they have the only winning track record for Democrats in the past 40 years. Mr Obama should take notice.
www.dlc.org

[orangepetal]

I imagine defining Obama should not be too difficult, he does seem to have a difficult time defining himself.

[editrix66]

I don't understand all of these pundits who now insist that Obama has changed all of his policies. Did any of them read his books, study his record in Illinois, listen to his speech about reaching across the aisle? It is no surprise to find that he wants to fund successful church programs when you know that he found the best anti-poverty programs in Chicago often worked within churches or partnered with churches. He is an idealist to some extent in values, but in essence he is a pragmatist and is interested in what works. Politics often means compromise or it means getting absolutely nothing done.

[oafishcad]

If Bush could beat Gore, and if Bush could beat Kerry, then McCain can beat Obama. In each of those other elections the Democratic candidate was far and above the best person to be President. Not even close. Yet somehow the Village Idiot won. McCain is smarter and more qualified than Bush, he'll be harder to beat. One can only hope that the voters realize the horrible, horrible mess that the USA is in is because Republican policies guarantee that's exactly what will happen. Vote for a Republican, this is what happens. This time, vote for the smart guy.

[applecrispbetty]

Logic in the article and some comments is lacking. Obama beat the Clintons. The Clintons beat Daddy Bush. Daddy Bush beat Dukakis. Obama >> Dukakis.

[Speakchic]

How authentic is it for a candidate to just change course mid-election. To say to the American people. My message isn't working so I'm going to hire people whose message I don't actually like but need in order to win. So vote for me. I don't know what I'm doing but I can hire a bunch of the other people from the failed current Presidents team to bail me out.

Yeah right!

Obama '08

[AnotherMike]

There's only one way Obama even has a shot at losing this election and that's by responding incorrectly when something happens. By "something," I mean whatever the right has in mind to smear our nominee.

Here's a possible example:

Remember Bill Clinton's line about trying marijuana but never inhaling? That was a huge thing, mostly because everyone knew he was lying and should have just come right out and admitted it. Had he, the right would have attacked him as a drug user and smeared him for it, but it would have fizzled out fairly quickly since 70% of American adults have tried it. Obama describes his liberal use of drugs in his book, "Dreams From My Father." If people still believe he's a Muslim, they'll believe even the most exagerrated description of this fact, and there's no "anti-smear" website that can explain that away.

Obama's done a great job of it so far, but he needs to continue staying out in front of these stories. In my opinion, he should start this story himself. Let's play a little game of 'McCain's Media' on John McCain. The more quickly and earlier we can get past the things that can be agitated into a serious problem, the better.

What else? I'm sure you guys have some more ideas of their trump card we have yet to see...

[hopeless277]

Too late. The fool is already a punch line. The joke is on the people like me who voted for him.

[poeticjustice4all]

I held my nose and voted for Hillary Clinton. Not an ideal candidate, but at least I knew where she was coming from. And I knew she made the rabid right-wingers' blood boil.

Senator Obama thinks he can duck, dodge and apologize his way into office -- and maybe he can -- but it'll make for a disastrous 4-year term.

[AlisonChaynz]

This post by Ian is perfect. It's the same thing I've been saying (and emailing to the Obama campaign). Standing on principle will gain you respect even amongst those who disagree with you.

Stand strong on principle Barrack, and the presidency is yours.

[MoeB]

LOL...clearly it won't. Look at the posts on Huff. Just read them. Obama actually is standing on his principles...and the far left is OUTRAGED. Post after post of saddened, p'od people who are basically threatening to sit this one out or vote for someone else. So clearly standing on principle only works if those people agree with EVERYTHING you say or do.

[MegWe]

AMEN! Thanks for saying that Moe.

[poeticjustice4all]

It's impossible for any voter to actually agree with EVERYTHING that Senator Obama says since he's taken a stance on both sides of almost every major issue. And yes, the "far left" is outraged, because they're the ones responsible for Mr. Obama's candidacy. They know -- just like the evangelicals who feverishly backed Bush know -- the Obama failure is their fault.

No matter how many arguments were made that the ill-prepared and untested junior Senator was not ready to be the leader of the free world, the "far lefties" and "MoveOnites" had one comeback: Hillary voted for the war!

Yeah, Senator Clinton made that vote but what does that have to do with Mr. Obama being ready for the White House? She voted for the war! She voted for the war! She voted for the war!

[Citizenofreality]

Nice try, but take it from someone who voted for Dukakis, thought he was a nice guy, and knew, no matter what the polls said, he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell to win the election. Equating Barack Obama with Michael Dukakis is a mistake. Barack Obama will win this election and become the 44th President of the United States.

[PioneerKing]

IAN:

HAVE YOU CHECKED WHAT'S IN STEVE SCHMIDT'S BAGGAGE?

Dude, Steve Schmidt may be good at dirty tricks but, Stevie has been a pretty naughty boy and if you think that the Charile Black and Phil Gram have some shady connections then you really will be surprised at all of the crap clinging to Schmidt. Schmidt was a bad decision for team McCain.
What a disaster awaiting exposure.

[SpaceCadet]

I agree that taking principled stands is more important than all this triangulating. Obama called the "gas tax holiday" a gimmick during the primaries, and it may have helped in against Clinton in Indiana, where he finished only a few points behind her. And I don't think it's hurt him at all against McCain, despite the fact that the Repubs could use his position to label him a tax & spend Democrat.

The Republicans have a better chance of making the "flip-flop" charge stick. Even though McCain is a much bigger flip-flopper than Obama, the corporate media are going to ignore them while they'll seek to magnify ever deviation made by Obama no matter how trivial.

BTW: Obama's moving more toward the center from the left of center. The worrisome thing about McCain is that he's moving from the right of center toward the lunatic fringe of the far right, especially with his vote for Bush's torture policy and his ranting against the Supreme Court ruling regarding habeus rights for detainees.

[LAJonathan]

"Obama's actions of the past couple weeks, his "run to the center" in which he has suddenly realized he didn't mean what he said in the primaries is playing into this narrative."

Whatever happened to red states and blue states becoming the united states? Remember that? Obama has been saying this for 14 months now. Why now must we not let him do it??? We are shooting ourselves in the foot, right now with all of this negativity and micro-analyzing. Watch out, its coming. Hope your o.k. with the outcome extreme leftists, whatever it may be....I guess we'll see.

[ashenthorn]

"We are shooting ourselves in the foot, right now with all of this negativity and micro-analyzing."

Exactly! On these blogs it's like:

A. Obama to Register Millions of New Minority and Young Voters - Yayyy!
B. Obama to expand "Faith-Based" Initiatives - Booooo!

Without realizing that the black church and black politics are inextricably intertwined and headline B. is a key method by which headline A can be accomplished.

Chill out people.

[tropicartisan]

Sure he might win, but win what? Another set of disappointing positions. The brand is turning out not to be worth fighting for.

Let the Republicans have it again. At least we won't be upset at a Democratic president (which, I hope you realize is what Obama will get from the left, given his stances).

Think of what it is going to be like when we have to attack Obama on his positions, which we will have to do. If the country is not ready, better to keep a Republican, its less embarassing overall.

[redstatebluedude]

I agree. I've never voted for a Republican in my life before .. but I'm voting for McCain. Not because I like anything about him, but because what Obama did in the primary and what he is doing now has finally opened my eyes. This country is too far gone to be fixed and, for the sake of the entire planet, must be destroyed as quickly as possible. A McCain presidency is exactly what will do that. It's time to accelerate the end and see what's next.

[oafishcad]

I understand your logic, but I disagree. To say the best way to fix something that's sick is to make it worse, or to destroy it is illogical. I hope your doctor doesn't think like that. Obama is not the cure sent from heaven, never was. He's just some bed rest and a couple aspirin. He was never as progressive as some thought, he was always more centrist than I wanted. But he is a step in the right direction. McCain is a step in the wrong direction. Our nation needs to be righted, and we must head in the right direction to do it.

[Stringer32]

To act as if there is anything Obama can do to prevent the GOP from trying to define him as something he is not ,is silly. It is so pathetic to see democrats get so afraid because McCain makes some changes to his campaign staff with the goal of an all out attack on Obama. McCain will lose this election because his time has come and gone, he is old and doesnot have a real desire to be president anymore, just that it is his turn to run (most American will sense that). It is this reason that any attack launched by his campaign will be half hearted at best and easily countered.

[learnsomething]

You've noticed it too? That Obama does not have a real desire to be president anymore. He's probabaly dismayed that he won.

I can't believe the Republicons voted for McCain. Goes to show you the Repubs do not know how to pick a candidate.

[learnsomething]

CORRECTION: I meant to say, That MCCAIN does not have a real desire to to be president anymore. MCCAIN's probably displayed that the won.

[rovezaleeker]

What ever happened to Vicki Iseman?