That’s my new label for Sen. Obama while he keeps putting out bad commercials like this. I love the guy, but this asinine strategy that he’s going to vaguely hint at the competition without being explicit that it’s Sen. Clinton is doomed to fail. That kind of naive posture is what has killed Democratic campaigns, especially at the presidential level. The intelligence of the public and the media should not be overestimated. Hit them over the head with the simplest of language. The idea that “I like good things, and some vague person or force that I never mention by name is not quite in favor of it” is mush, and the press is not going to do the work you need to do yourself by pointing this out.
I am reminded of this Pepsi ad from a few years ago where they clearly went after their rival Coke in an unambiguous manner while reinforcing their superiority.
In other words:
OBAMA: “I like puppies, some others are not as quite as fond of dogs as I am”
CLINTON: “I love puppies, unlike Barack Obama, who does not”
OBAMA: “Puppies are great, and I like them a lot. There are some people whose enthusiasm levels for puppies are not as high as my own. They are welcome to those emotions.”
CLINTON: “I give 10% of everything I own to puppies and puppy related charities. This is not what Sen. Barack Obama does. Sen. Barack Obama does not give money to puppies as far as I know, and this probably means Barack Obama does not like puppies.”
OBAMA: “My family and I have had many puppies, and we like puppies — that much is clear. Occasionally you hear about people who don’t like puppies. That’s not us.”
CLINTON: “This is the puppy I carry with me every where I go because I love puppies so much. Because Sen. Barack Obama of 123 Cedar Lane in Chicago Illinois does not carry a puppy with him – and by him I mean Barack Obama, the junior senator from Illinois and my opponent in the Democratic primaries in 2008 – it’s possible he kicked a puppy once.”
I don’t see how this is actually hurting him, though, OW. He’s now firmly in the top 2 in Iowa, with Edwards starting to slip down. Edwards is taking more direct shots at Clinton, and presumably Obama will become a bit more direct(as he has begun to do this past week) too.
If Obama wins Iowa by a decent margin, with Edwards a distant third, he then picks up most of Edwards’ support in NH(plus the X-factor of the independent vote there), and even a strong 2nd place finish there would pump a media narrative of “Now it’s a race” going into SC, where I suspect the black vote would start shifting back towards him. So, you’ve got the prospect of Obama and Clinton splitting 2 out of 4 official primaries going into Feb. 5th.
So one is only successful in politics if one is as big a dick as the other person? That don’t seem right.
If I want to see monkeys flinging poo, I’ll watch the republicans debate.
Discount Obama at your peril, young Jedi. The steam takes time to build.
As i have said for months now.
You said this the other day:
Right now the country is more divided than ever before, even more than 2000. How is Clinton going to unify the country by killing the GOP? As her rhetoric becomes more bellicose, it will only turn more people off. Plus, based on her recent voting record, it seems she is more aligned with the GOP than opposed.
I want someone who can kill the GOP also. But I think it would be better for the Dem candidate to let the GOP kill itself. They are more than capable of doing it on their own.
Just leave the gun on the counter and turn away.
I think one of the reasons for Obama’s lack of progress is this misperception that his civility/unity message is somehow a surrender to centrism and a sort of unilateral disarmament in facing the GOP. I don’t see it as that. I think you can be progressive on the one hand, and present your ideas in a respectful, broadly appealing manner, and on the other hand fight back when attacked, but do so in a fair fashion.
Obama > Lieberman, nor is he Clinton. Most people are tired of “nuclear jai alai”, and want someone who will actually move the country out of this era of hyperpartisanship. Obama seems to be the best choice for doing that. I think it’s worth the attempt, anyway.
Yeah, what he said.
Speaking of Obama…for a long time I kept thinking that Obama looks like someone I saw before and it was driving me crazy. But now I finally found out who it was that Obama reminded me of.
Oscar Proud!
My son used tow atch this Disney cartoon called “The Proud Family” all the time.
See here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qivljM018OM
What do you think, does Obama resemble Oscar Proud?
The GOP is like the Bible. It keeps getting shoved in the face of the country even though most people eventually disagree with them on just about everything. And having the born again’s snuggly in the GOP fold will assure access to the best shovers in the nation. This group will not just die or go away on their own as Duros is hoping.
And Obama needs more training. Hillary has already been time-tested against the GOP. She’s survived the worst of their attacks and hasn’t fallen. I’m not convinced Barak will fare any better than Kerry did in ‘04.
mike, the problem is that Obama has, I think, been drinking his own kool-aid. Civility and compromise are great during congressional negotiations and the mark-up session while a bill is going through committee. However, in an election, there is a winner and a loser and nothing in between. A candidate needs to be able to distinguish himself from his opponents and relentlessly drive the media narrative day in and day out, even when that means pouncing on his opponents’ missteps. Why? Because people who are motivated enough to vote are the sort of people who have strong feelings about things, and they want a candidate to have strong feelings as well.
Since Obama doesn’t want to do that– he seems to want to run a campaign the way one would draft legislation with colleagues — he’s going to get killed in an election.
I think it’s worth the attempt, anyway.
Ok, look, politics is not an opportunity for self-expression. It is a means of getting things done. If you want to go down with a sinking ship honorably, good for you, but at the end of the day, it means you won’t be able to go to your destination.
You know, I just want to say one peripheral thing about all this. For everything else lately that makes me wince to call myself a Democrat (Harry Reid, I’m looking at you), I like knowing that the majority of Democrats are debating whether or not they want to support the first female President of this country or the first black President of this country.
While the Republicans continue to bicker about which sloganeering white guy best represents their interests after the train wreck that was their last sloganeering white guy.
Ok, look, politics is not an opportunity for self-expression. It is a means of getting things done.
But does that mean you have to jump over women and children to get there? I mean, y’all can call me naive if you want, but I just want better for the country, and better for our democratic process. I don’t believe you have to be the biggest dick on the block to win. I believe Obama is going to bring it, and soon, but I think you don’t have to resort to calling your opponents big poopy heads (like Edwards and Clinton have been doing).
Obama responds forcefully and swiftly to attacks against him, unlike some others (Edwards) and with grace and strength of conviction.
But does that mean you have to jump over women and children to get there?
No, but you do have to be willing to jump on and over your opponents. If you’re not willing to do that, you have no business running, especially given the fact that your opponents won’t hesitate to do the same to you.
And that makes the baby jesus cry.