Will Someone Please Make Obama Watch the McCain Version of the Katrina DVD?

People who want Obama to win are heartened by his post-Hawaii willingness to object to McCain's tone, and to deplore McCain's ad hominem attacks on his patriotism and motivation, which Obama continued on Tuesday in his VFW speech. But it ain't enough.

A few Augusts ago, what finally shook George W. Bush into pretending to care about New Orleans was a DVD of television footage hammering him for vacationing while NOLA drowned -- a compilation that his alarmed staff made and forced him to watch.

I don't doubt that Obama receives reports about what McCain is saying in speeches and ads, and summaries of what the talking heads are saying about Obama's reaction to those attacks. But my guess is that no one has assembled and screened for him a clip reel of the worst-of-the-worst -- the stuff that Obama's supporters, not to mention undecided voters, have been seeing.

If he actually saw that ugly onslaught, would he really stick to his I'm-doing-this-my-way high road? Would he remain content to talk policy, and to demur with dignity when McCain and his minions slime him, rather than go on the attack and set the agenda himself?

The last Democratic presidential candidate who failed to engage, who abjured ruthlessness because it wasn't consistent with the noble kind of politics he wanted America to practice, was Michael Dukakis. That misreading of what it takes to win, and not the Howdy Doody tank photo, was what sank his campaign. If Dukakis had snapped Bernie Shaw's head off when he asked him a hypothetical in the debate about Kitty's being raped, 41 might not have become president, and his black sheep son may never have become 43.

Obama thinks America is yearning for postpartisanship. Maybe he's right. But I wish something, like a forced viewing of a DVD, would make him understand another thing that Americans yearn for -- a candidate so pissed off about McSame's recycling the worst of the Rovian worst that he gives as good as he got, and then some.

Follow Marty Kaplan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/martykaplan

Comments

[Bobotheclown]

Are you all intentionally missing the point of the article? The issue is not whether Obama would be a better President than McCain, of course he would be. The issue is not whether Obama should make the decision to sink into the gutter to combat neo cons, of course he should not.

The issue is that in American politics there are time tested tactics that win elections. Yes, there are some Americans that are fooled all of the time and a candidate needs their votes as well to win. We have seen the winners flawlessly execute these tactics election after election. We have seen the losers just not getting it. These tactics may appear mean and cynical to many Democrats, and possibly to Obama as well. But if he doesn't learn to flawlessly use the tactics that we all know will work, he will lose the election just like all the fools before him.

[mayhem4masses]

Look at the "great" job the repubs did for the past 7 and half years. If you want to stay in Iraq and fall deeper in debt, with no hope for a new and better tomarrow, then vote McCain, if you want a chance at making America a better place to live, vote Obama.

http://www.barackobamasworld.com

[BTippy]

I hate to say that the Democrat led legislative branch has not been a shining example this last year either. We need to see some kind of movement in every branch of our government, not just the executive branch.

[research]

Support Kucinich!

He's still working to impeach.

If we contribute enough to him, he will become the new power center.

About half the house dems are in line with Kucinich.

[mayhem4masses]

True, the Democratic legislative branch has not been the greatest, but I do see some improvement in the near future.

[Sportswoman]

Americans love a swift right jab, a left hook, a slam dunk that knocks a defender backward, a hard helmet-ripping block, a crunching tackle, a hockey fight with bloodied sticks, a grand slam, (not the breakfast), a leaping catch at the wall. In essence, we need the perception of extraordinary competitiveness and in-your-face defense to fuel confidance in ourselves vicarious rendered through our leaders--political, athletic, Even in entertainment we cheer the aliens being smashed, the good guys beating the bad, the nice girl getting the hot guy and vice-versa. Obama needs to take us ona thrill ride of overcoming evil, but the action scenes need to be fleshed out more vividly so that evil is made clearer to the audience. Obama might have used Warren'sforum to point outthat tax cuts for the rich coupled by oil interests which fueled a war in a nation that was never prooven to be a threat to us and that resulted in creating economic hardship, homeless and poverty, including one's own miliatary, is evil personified. Time for throwing deep, going long, hitting harder, and fireworks, fireworks, fireworks!

[nellie]

I don't remember Clinton attacking Bush's character. Or Dole/s. I do remember a really smart campaign slogan. What was that again? Oh yes. "It's the economy, stupid."

Clinton won on issues. And by taking advantage of Bush 1 mistakes, highlighting how out of touch he was.

Obama doesn't have to become a neo con to beat a neo con.

I wish the liberal punditry would GIVE HIM A BREAK. And stop these attacks.

[Hallie]

Good grief, there’s absolutely no need for Sen. Obama to get down in the mud with Sen. McSwine. Just AGGRESSIVELY start telling the truth and setting the agenda - PLEASE!!

- According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Sen. Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Sen. McCain.
- The Disabled American Veterans gives Obama a 92% rating and McCain gets only 28%.
- Likewise, the Vietnam Vets of America also give Obama 92% while their fellow Vietnam Vet, McCain gets a mere 37%.
- And, the Iraq and Afganistan Vets of America give McCain a "D" and Obama a "B"

[NYindy]

totally agree.. i had heard some of this stuff too a while back.. why is it not out there for everyone to see?? we should have it coming out of our ears by now!

[x88justy]

Dukakis was just plain lame and could only have possibly won by going extremely nasty and negative and slipping zombie juice into America's water. Obama is good enough to win without going the traditional negative campaigning or sleezebag smirky, cynical rhetorical game playing, things Bill Clinton and W were very skillful at, things Hillary was learning to really learning to do by the time she finally dropped out. Obama is a very strong candidate because of his message and, if you just watch his moves, he inspires great confidence with his steady style that gently is building his base to critical mass. He will make a fantastic President.

[lisakaz2]

O needs a simple point: If you want 4 years of the same, vote McC. If you think the status quo is no go, for for me.

[Jessegirl]

Taking the high road is great for you and me, but not so great for the "lazy voter".
You know, the one who still believes that 9/11 and Iraq are connected.
The one who still believes that Obama is something other than Christian etc etc.
For the General election, Obama is going to have to cater to the more stupid people.
The ones who fall for "perception" rather than reality.
He's going to have to lower himself temporarily for the "bigger payoff" later.
Fight like hell now and worry about the higher road later.
Sorry, but the sad truth is "perception" sways the stupid people and right now they are falling
for McCains War Agenda for America.

[hydorator]

Obama could not stand up to Hillary without the media helping him. Now he needs the Clinton help. He cant stand up to Mccain and he cant stand up for our country. He may be a good president if he putts Hillary on speed dial!

[laire]

hydorator,

get off the crack hillary lost because Obama ran a better campaign!

[metalpipe]

Think about it. Where do you think HRC will be? Out to lunch for four years. All you PUMA freaks are forgetting two important facts:

HRC has proven (first in her utterly failed attempt to institute a health care program, and then in a failed primary campaign) that she is not a people person, and few if any management skills.

She is still going to have Obama's ear in the Senate, and will likely be a candidate for a SC judgeship. A position with substantially more power than the POTUS any day of the week.

[Fraand]

I notice that John McCain does look diginified, almost like my beloved uncle the preacher. But his demeanor and actions, or rather what comes out of his mouth does not much that persona. He almost sounds like a bitter preacher who finds that everyone can read the Bible and make their own conclusions, rather than listen to him. He feels left behind by the ever changing times. He feels like the country owes him the presidency because of the fighting he did on its behalf, and the amount of time he spent in politics. Does that remind you of someone with the same sense of entitlement recently? Here comes a younger man, less "experienced" (as if becoming president/­king/leade­r really requires experience, rather than likability, vision, charisma and good judgement), quick witted, fast on his feet and more liked, and he can see his own am/bition for the top position turning into a nighmare. I can understand that. But people like the younger Obama because he is the one acting more dignified. There are 3 tyeps pf people; pre-conventional (immature), conventional (most of us), post convetional-those who take the high road even if their suffer because of ot. These are the Mandelas, Gandhis, Mother Theresas...and perhaps, in the way he has behaved so far Barack Obama.

[BTippy]

I agree that Mr. Obama has really acted as the more mature individual in this presidential race so far, but I really think a comparison to Gandhi, Mandela, or Mother Theresa is quite a stretch. Acting like an adult should be considered the norm for a presidential candidate and acting in the norm shouldn't qualify you for sainthood else we would be giving saint status to little Benjamin because he didn't act up in class today.

[laudbuck]

A large percentage of the voting public has no idea what anyone's policy positions are or what they said. With the MSM reduced to stenographers there is no mass education of the voters so the lazy voters (who I'm afraid are the majority) make their choices on less information but more gut feelings. Kerry was seen as weak on Defense not because of his policy positions but because he wouldn't fight back. Obama is losing on Defense to McCain. The reason has less to do with what their policy positions actually are or even what they say. These impressions come from how they conduct themselves in the campaign. The Repugnants run their campaigns like a war. They attack relentlessy and unmercifully. The Democrats cave in to this time and again. Obama will be seen as stronger on Defense than McCain when he stops attempting to respond to attacks with his cerebellum, rolls up his sleeves and rip McCains GD head off! That is something even low information voters will not miss and the MSM will eat it up.

[doughnut70]

Popular mythology. What you (and a lot of my associates on the left) refuse to accept are the intellectual underpinnings of McCain and Bush's foreign policy. If you look at the history of most of Bush's neocon advisors, they have been pushing Presidents for decades to make the US the world's policemen when necessary. Their argument (which most Americans, including myself think is wrong) is that we can't wait for the International community to take the steps they need to if there is danger in the world. We have to do it ourselves. But what they worry about with Democrats is that like Gahndi who advised the British to simply withdraw from India during World War II because the Japanese could never enslave a people who wouldn't cooperate in their own enslavement, that Democrats won't use force when it really is necessary because they are too caught up in the politics.

[doughnut70]

My point with the Gahndi post was that while everyone thinks Kerry was killed by the Swift Boat ads, Bob Shrums book talks about how in every focus group even among Democrats, a common question was if Kerry would have sent in troops if he found out that Saddam Hussein did have "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Because he couldn't convince voters that he would, he lost the election. Barack Obama faces the same challenge. He is way ahead in the polls, but if you talk to undecided voters, most of them are leaning McCain because of doubts about how he would react in a military crises. Hopefully he can answer those doubts, because that is what the election will turn on. But in Presidential elections (unlike any other) Voters do usually know who they are voting for and to pretend otherwise is just kidding yourself.

[metalpipe]

Exactly, regardless of what is said between now and November, the candidates qualifications are clear and the voting choices have been made. We will see in November if this country is ready to move on, or ready to perish in a collective disconnect from reality.

[laire]

Obama is not losing the so-called cable news shows have put the preception in your mind he is losing. In the Iowa cacaus they had it a three way tie and then Obama whens by 6 points which is a blow out in 5th whites state in the country with the highest Black incarceration rate per capita in the country. As the rap group public enemy said back in the day, don't believe the hype!

[doughnut70]

Spoken like a true Walter Mondale staffer. If you look at any poll, they show that most Americans have doubts about Democrats ability to actually govern (That's what happens when you are the party of change). Obama is having the success he has had so far precisely because he has risen above the nonsense. If you lie down with dogs you get fleas and if you do nothing but refight the last war, you never win. Leave Obama alone.

[Star2000dancer]

Hmmmm.....I have no fear if I get attacked. But, I will go way out of my way to avoid a conflict. I know alot of times take it as a weakness, but it's not. It's alot harder to control your temper than to hurt someone....bad. My bigger fear is hurting or killing someone defending myself. I only fight back if I'm really put in a corner & attacked.

Yet, when Hillary finally came out ,defended herself & attacked back, my respect for her did grow. I seem to have to get into setting an example every few years to someone who decides to try to abuse me or "compete" with me. Once you set the record straight, you do'nt get bothered for quite awhile.

And now that I think of it, I really do not respect Obama, & although I do not in any way want McCain to get in, I do have more respecr for him than Obama. Not as a president, not ethically, or morally but as a human being. If I had a choice between being defended by McCain, Clinton, or Barack, I'd choose Clinton. Maybe I'd had chose MCCain when he was younger. I do'nt see Barack as a fighter. I bet that's how alot of America feels, I do'nt know how he can fix it. Maybe he needs to set at least one example.

[Puddin]

Where is McCain's example? You have respect for a man who will lie, cheat and do whatever to win election? I don't have respect for someone like you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Obama 08&12

[Uberbah]

"If you look at any poll, they show that most Americans have doubts about Democrats ability to actually govern"

As opposed to the last 7 years of excellent Republican leadership? I'm not buying what you're selling.

[doughnut70]

All you have to do is look at the fact that no Democratic Presidential candidate has ever run ahead of Democratic Congressional candidates in polls. That is because they view Republicans as being wrong on issues, but stronger on leadership.

[timm0]

The thing that people who don't know how to win elections fail to realize is that there is another issue beyond gas prices, oil independence, inflation, job loss, health care, education, mortgage market corruption, etc.

The issue is, 'how does a candidate handle abuse.'

It's not a strategy - it's a bona fide ISSUE. People want to know what a candidate will do when bullied, slandered, and sucker-punched.

It's a subconscious analog to the garden-variety voter for how you will respond to foreign aggressors once elected. Ignoring an aggressor is tantamount to admitting that you'll let them rough up the country.

People may not like it, but that's the way it is. If you won't stand up for yourself, why should anyone expect you to stand up for your country?

[campaignman]

More than any other reason, this is why Joe Biden needs to be his VP. Joe Biden can fight the good fight without being accused of being an angry black man.

Joe will be able to take on McCain and allow Barack to carry the positive campaign.

[snesich]

People forget that George H.W. Bush in 1988, eliminated the lead of Dukakis, with his acceptance speech at the convention, when he took the gloves off and stopped being the "patrician gentleman/wimp" that he was known for prior to that.

I knew Bush was going to win when I went to work that next week and everyone was talking about the "great speech" Bush had made and how "he wasn't afraid to fight". Americans LOVE that! Obama HAS to be tough. He HAS to start punching, starting with his acceptance speech.

We know he's inspirational. We know he's intelligent. We know he's a great American success story. But now, he needs to be tough. To be a leader. To show he can throw a punch and stand up to his opponents.

Obama needs to remind people that the choice is clear: 4 more years of exactly what we have, or a new direction. The choice should be made clear, and simple. And it should be repeated over and over and over again.

Get in there and punch, Barack. Hard. And spell out the choice in very simple, clear terms.

[timm0]

A-freaking-men!