Dear Senator Obama: Fight Back
oh no. for the third time, oh no.
it's 2008, right?
or is it? maybe it's 2000?
or 2004?
my confusion is based on the fact that the republicans are doing it again. they're using the same smear and attack
strategy on barack obama that they used on john kerry and that they used
on al gore.
and we, the democrats are doing...nothing?
sitting back and taking it like we always do?
sitting back and being the sissies that we always are?
in 2000 they slandered al gore as saying he invented the internet and was an elitist.
and he fought back how?
oh, that's right, he didn't.
and in 2004 they slandered john kerry by questioning his military service.
and he fought back how?
oh, that's right, he didn't.
and now they're slandering obama in a hundred insidious and incorrect ways
and he's fighting back how?
oh, that's right, he isn't.
if a bully kicks you in the shins once you should be prepared if he comes
to kick you in the shins again, right?
well, this is the third time that the gop are kicking us in the shins and we still
don't have shin-guards and we still haven't learned how to fight back.
that makes it our fault.
yes, in a perfect world the gop wouldn't be a bunch of lying sacks of shit, willing to spread scurrilous
lies and rumors, but, well, they are.
and we know they are.
and as distasteful as their methods might be, they usually end up winning.
and we're, once again, unprepared.
they're kicking us in the shins and all we're doing is quietly lamenting the fact that they're
kicking us in the shin.
dear senator obama: FIGHT BACK.
you're battling a dimwit who doesn't know the difference between sunni and shi'ite,
who still refers to countries that ceased to exist in 1993(czechoslovakia), and who believes
that iraq and pakistan share a border.
he's a media darling (appearing on 24, saturday night live, and the late night talk shows
more times than anyone can count).
and he's a staunch republican who deviates from the gop norm maybe .01% of the time.
so: FIGHT BACK.
we, the rank and file democrats, are tired of being sissies.
we're tired of the high road.
the high road would be great if it didn't lead us to defeat every 2 or 4 years.
the high road would be great if it helped us win.
guess what, it doesn't.
the republicans drag us into the mire and start beating the shit out of us and all we do is say,
'wouldn't it be nice if we weren't getting the shit beaten out of us in the mud?'
fight back and keep fighting until the gop are cowering in a corner.
we are better than them. we are smarter than them. we are younger than them.
and our ideas are better than theirs (stem cell research vs. creationism? we win).
we know how to win, it's almost as if we choose not to, somehow finding defeat
more comfortable and familiar and patrician than victory.
let's take the high road after we've won, ok?
in the meantime: FIGHT.
you don't bring a knife to a gun fight, and you don't bring decency to a fight with a republican (at least not if you want to win).
this might be a strange analogy for a vegan to use, but if you want to make an omelet
you have to break a couple of eggs.
start breaking some eggs.
moby
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I keep thinkin of that scene in Fried Green Tomatoes, seems like there could be a remix/mashup there, the O line could be 'Face it repugs, I'm smarter than you, make better speeches than you and have better ideas than you.' that he sez to the doddering repugs......
He's fighting back...just not like some people would like. It's HIS campaign. He's earned the right to run it himself. Win or lose, at least he won't be a LOSER if he runs the type of campaign he wants to run and doesn't sell-out to what others think.
Deval Patrick took the high road and became the first Democratic Governor of Massachusetts in decades, despite Kerry Healey's constant negative ad attacks, so it can be done. FDR also waited a while before responding to negative attacks at the last minute, allowing everyone to become bored with the existing vitriol. Going negative is often the sign of being an empty suit with nothing of substance to offer in the first place, and the Republicans have never had anything of substance.
Also, Fox News and the punditocracy would love to have footage of Obama getting angry so they can demonstrate how Democrats and blacks are too emotional and hysterical to be as good a leader as the white Republicans that currently run the show, or that Obama hates America by denegrating a veteran when he himself never served. Keith Olbermann even did a piece on how mouthing off to or even attacking the Fox News ambush camera crew just plays right into Fox News' hands.
I was thinking of this exact instance (being from Boston myself). Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states, but we like to have Republican governors, because this balances out at least a little bit the fact that our reps and senators are almost all Democrats. Ergo Mitt Romney was our last governor. So when Republican Healey, already the Lt Governor, was running against Democrat Patrick, most people figured she had it in the bag. I certainly planned on voting for her. But her campaigning was just SO negative and dirty, one of the worst I've ever seen, while Patrick kept a civil, respectful, and intelligent tone, so that it became impossible to choose her. I heard many a Bostonian, myself included, saying that even though she was the Republican choice and so we wanted her, we just couldn't do it, and Patrick won.
However, not fighting back worked in MASSACHUSETTS. Voters here tend to be educated and pragmatic. Studies have shown that when tested on issues, Massachusetts voters are among the best informed voters in the nation, if not THE most informed. So although not fighting back was the right strategy here, most Americans are very poorly educated and ill informed. So though the "taking the high road, keeping it positive" campaign is certainly one *I* prefer, and which worked out here, I don't know that it would be effective on a national scale.
No, Healey's candidacy was dead on arrival. Romney had generated so much backlash with not only the police and fire layoffs but him basically acting like we were merely an audition space for his Presidency (New Rule: a state governor must speak well of his state to others, no matter how vehemently he dislikes the place) that he knew he wasn't going to get a second term. Then Healey made the fatal error of trying to paint herself as a reformer when she was technically the incumbent ("Vote for me and I'll fix all the problems I kinda sorta helped create in the first place!"). It also doesn't help your side of the political divide that we now have video of her saying "I Am A Liberal" at one of the debates.
Moby nails it!!! Obama must fight back NOW!
see http://koulflo.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/obama-must-go-after-mccain-now/
Are you so sure, Moby, it was the Democrats and not the media who is to blame. What good does it do to fight back when no one is listening? The media isn't interested in geting anyone's message out that has a 'D' after their name. They are in it for themselves, the high ratings, and their GOP masters.
Three words I never thought I'd say: I agree, Moby.
McW has made gaffe after gaffe after gaffe. He is the ultimate example of old politics, of politics over solutions. Yet, Obama seems unwilling to take him head on. There is no better illustration of this than the 2 ads runnign during the Olympics:
1. McW's ad starts off with the Obama is a celebrity spin, and not ready to help family. You can imagine a whole series of "Obama is a celebrity.." then whatever issue is attached to the ad.
2. Obama's ad is all flowery, rosy, pie in the sky let'sworktogether stuff that could have been recycled from 2000 or 2004. Not one mention of McW's own words on social security, GI benefits, his gaffes on foreign policy. Nothing It's as if McW doesn't exist.
But he does. And he's slowly painting Obama into a corner. Time magazine just did an article on Obama's Hawaii trip, and they used the word "celebrity" no less than 3x in it. Just today, they're hammering Obama again on Iraq, and zero response from his camp.
Is this what I've sent my money in for? Another slow, tepid response Kerry campaign? Where are the sharp, cutting ads, the "I don't do cowering" attitude we were promised?
ExactaMUNDO!!!! Hit 'em where it HURTS! Git 'er done, Barack!!
"Wilbur the Cable Guy"
Barack is a surgeon and a strategist. Hang in there Moby! The Clintons STILL don't know what happened -- and he left no fingerprints! :-)
Wow! Well said.
Right on.
But it's a false dichotomy to equate "being indecent" with fighting or the "low road" with being tough. That actually buys into a right wing trick. Kind of like saying you have to choose between jobs or the environment. When through greening and industry regulation we can have both.
The truth can be also be aggressive. The truth can be the most aggressive tool in your tool box. But you have to use it.
We can have catchy sound bites and talking points that are aggressively progressive. Why don't we?
Here's some, just as examples:
"Republicans have destroyed our national security by destroying our economy."
"Jobs are a national security issue."
"Bring home the guard to defend and rebuild the homeland."
"Jobs now. Jobs here. Restore our National Security". Etc. You get the idea.
Moby is talking about the Dems taking the offensive for once--not just waiting, a la Harry Reid, keeping out powder eternally dry. Attack McCain not on made up whispers but on his real behavior ever since the Keating Five. Attack with the facts. But attack.
Leadership isn't just being right on the issues. It's bravery.
Your sound bytes are great !
Just want to add one more thing-- where are the junkyard dog surrogates out championing Obama and saying the things he cannot say? They should be flooding the stupid MSM talkshows and doing battle with Blitzer, et al.
I loathe James Carville, but there are times when someone like him is exactly what's needed.
They are there and they are doing their job, but the refs (the so-called moderators) are in the pocket of the GOP. It's hard to get the message out when the moderator is calling you a fool for doing so and cheerleading for his GOP masters.
I agree wholeheartedly. We can't rely on the Daily Show to paint John McCain as a cantankerous old man with a bad temper. He's doing enough of that on his own by foaming at the mouth and getting roused during his little speeches, (when he's not staring down at his notes like a speech class reject) but the Obama campaign needs to highlight how a loose cannon who can't manage to remember geography trivia wouldn't be the best person to handle national security-or anything else, for that matter...
By the way, can we agree to stop using "green" as a verb, in relationship to the environment?
Dear Moby,
You speak the truth Sir. I'm also feeling sick watching history repeat itself as the Republicans pull another Swift Boat, while the Democratic candidate takes the high road and gets shafted. It's no good being noble if it means you lose.
It's time Obama took the gloves off and came out fighting. This doesn't necessarily mean he has to run a Republican style dirty tricks campaign but he must start refuting their lies and shining a spotlight on McSames's myriad of faults, politically convenient policy u-turns and ties with Bush.
This election is too important for the future of the US and the world for Obama to allow himself to be railroaded to defeat.
Yours sincerely,
SimonNZ
P.S. Porcelain is one my favourite tunes :o)
As an AA, I am confident you will not be dissappointed. Barack is a strategist and survivor. He will be he last man standing by surgically and skillfully allowing McCain to self destruct -- himself. He has deftly played defense regarding his shortcomings -- and, as all AA's are familiar with -- his strengths, which are ALSO criticized, simultaneously as UPPITY. He has deftly allowed Hillary Clinton's weaknesses to show by being ultra-deferential to the extreme. A flawless performance. Overconfident and believing her own PR - surrounded by greedy sychophants who care about nothing for a generation, it was an UGLY QUEENLY sight of total mismanagement, disloyalty, racism and dysfunctional infighting/cat fighting -- on an epic scale -- for ALL to see, worldwide. We ALL turned away in revulsion and, of course, she has now morphed into faux feminist "icon" - hoping Millenials won't rememer her ambushes of women who told the truth about Bill long and her lies to protect him as facilitator.
The reason McCain won't know what has happened when the man who continues to say how much respect we all have for him (the setup aka Hillary) -- is INVISIBLE and still not taken seriously by a Party who has few AAs other than sell-outs, a man who has never had a relationship with an AAs in non-subservient roles (it shows, John) and, since that is the case -- HE IS OUTRAGED a BARACK OBAMA is even capable of challenging HIM. A nobody, non-entity, a celebrity (basketball player, boxer, singer?) -namless INVISIBLE MAN - of 1950. The CELEBRITY discussion is painful for AAs to watch and not for the reason you think. McCain is SHADOWBOXING from another generational thought base -- that pre-dates the boomers (he is older than us and not one of us). Seething RESENTMENT of even boomers who challenged and ended the Vietnam War -- and our children who are about to repeat the same "mistake" in Iraq -- is more than he can take.
This non-entity (McCain doesn't use his name, despite his being a sitting Senator from IL) is challenging HIM and winning -- will take him over the top! This is an ANGRY MAN. He is angry at women, Barack, AAs (they have some nerve), Xers/Millenials, boomers, you, me, your pet...and anyone who doesn't give HIM his way.
McCain's efforts to deconstruct Barack has been an embarassment of LIES since he doesn't respect or know authenticity when he sees it, having been in a privileged bubble since the day he was born. Consequently, the patronizing mockery (as if Barack is a servant). Ditto, the same regarding women, "Mad Men" style. McCain is a walking profile for WHY the boomers brought the house down during the 1960s. We were setting fire to -- him. Barack will reprise our own acts which we will recognize 79mil-strong -- this Fall.
When Barack is finished -- we will ALL recognize the real empty suit, non-entity. It will be the BREAKDOWN of legacy elevation of mediocrities in leadership roles across-the-board. Americans can be fooled, but we are not stupid. McCain will NOT get a pass -- this time. Barack doesn't need one..and never did.
McCain/Clinton/Lieberman will fight to the death. Be ready to fight, Barack's way.
I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that Americans can be fooled, but are not stupid. Recent presidential election results would strongly indicate otherwise.
Be careful what you ask for. If Democrats start dignifying Republican charges with direct responses you will have both candidates, not just one, arguing about who is the bigger celebrity, whether tire gauges are a sufficient energy policy, which would be more fun to have a beer with, and who was first to play the race card.
The problem with Gore and Kerry is that they allowed the Republican party to set the terms of debate. Once the debate gets drawn into the gutter, the Republicans have the home advantage. Obama's best hope is to stay on message and make the Republicans respond to him, not the other way around.
Obama's energy plan is to inflate your tires and put on a sweater.
He also has on his website that he wants to cut electric use by 15% during his first term. He ALSO wants millions more hybrid vehicles on the road by then too.
Uhhhhhh, hybrid cars Obama use whatfor energy? Electric? Oh yea, thats right.
A million more ELECTRIC cars AND CUT electric 15%????? Whee does all that extra electric come from? Do we just HOPE and say YES WE CAN? Everyone who reads this answer this question.
Can YOU cut your electric use even 5% or10%? If you say yes, WHY THE HELL HAVE YOU NOT DONE IT BY NOW??? DO IT NOW. If you say NO, how will that goal be met with the EXPECTED new uses for electric?
Heffblow--do you like apples?
Our household cut our electric usage by at least 5% this past year.
How do you like them apples?
Clark: Obama IS staying on message AND McCain IS responding - and that is the problem - it's working for McCain and against Obama.
You say Kerry 'allowed' the Repubs to 'set the terms of the debate' - that is true but not because he had any real choice in the matter after their attacks started. His mistake was not throwing the first punch and not that he was late to defend himself as many pundits believe. They threw the first punch, it stuck and voila - the debate was framed and nothing Kerry could have said after that mattered. You frame by picking your spot then hitting hard first – putting your target on the defensive making him look weak. Responding quickly after the attack is akin to prayer - something of a last hope.
Obama's recent ad showing McCain as the REAL celebrity is a start but not nearly as polished and hard-hitting as the overly dramatic spots the Repubs use. It's derivative and therefore inherently weak. He should instead start a whole new line of attack - like defining McCain as a hot head who can't be trusted holding the levers of power. Or how about his mental acuity? Point to all his recent gaffs then ask the question 'has his ability to negotiate reality, let alone lead the free world, passed? Be unmerciful - it works. Atwater/Bush/Reagan/Rove have proved it many times over. Obama can apologize after he's won.
Moby,
I hope you read Al Giordano at "The Field", he has an answer for your chicken little feelings about now.
This article is simply wrong. The low road will lose at least as many votes as it brings in. Being a low-roader is not Obama.
You can fight without taking the low road. Call them out as liars - again and again and again. Use the word "liar" as often as possible. And, most importantly, anticipate what they will pull out of their rear ends and neutralize it BEFORE they can use it. They don't have any new tricks, just old recycled tricks.
He's doing that - "it's like they take pride in being ignorant" is a great line. He's forcing them to either start talking about substantive issues, or prove his point. From the headlines this weekend, it seems they are doing the latter. I think it will be to there detriment.
Gore and Kerry never said things like that.
I agree. When McCain tries to frame Obama as an elitist and out of touch, he has to hit back. It's McCain who is an elitist by comparison, and that distinction should not be hard to make. Obama should know by now that more than half of America is not especially skilled in making logical decisions based on campaign ads.
If Obama wants to win, he has to play to win. Unfortunately, losing elections and caving in to the Republicans defines the Democratic party
Amen!!
WHO owns eight homes? NOT Obama!
Great post, Moby!
A lot has been made about the effect John Edward's infidelity on the Obama campaign. Well I would like to remind Obama and supporters that JOHN MCCAIN had a history of infidelities with his first wife. Why not remind the American public?
Obama doesn't need to "fight dirty" ..... just the facts, the truth about McCain, his past, his changing policies, and his miserable voting record alone should do it, that is if the media picks up what he says, in context and in full.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
