ANALYSIS: Statements from Obama that show his lack of electability if nominated!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 14, 2007 - 11:46am.
Rapid Response
Hello Everyone:
Barack Obama said on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 that he is not worried about swiftboat attacks and that he does not pay attention to what the Republicans say about him:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21562193/
Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate for October 30
Read the transcript from the special coverage
updated 11:16 a.m. CT, Wed., Oct. 31, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES PARTICIPATE IN A DEBATE
SPONSORED BY MSNBC
OCTOBER 30, 2007
BRIAN WILLIAMS, MSNBC ANCHOR: "Senator Obama, we’re going to transfer into a new area here. A question specifically for you because you’re in a rather unique position. It’s about religion and misinformation. Governor Romney misspoke twice on the same day, confusing your name with that of Osama bin Laden.
Your party is fond of talking about a potential swiftboating. Are you fearful of what happened to John McCain, for example, in South Carolina a few years back; confusion on the basis of things like names and religion?
OBAMA: No, because I have confidence in the American people.
OBAMA: And I don’t pay much attention to what Mitt Romney has to say—at least what he says this week. It may be different next week..."
Barack Obama also said in this Hardball transcript that "Triangulating and poll-driven positions because we‘re worried about what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just won‘t do:"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21771593/
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Nov. 12
Read the transcript to the Monday show
updated 11:46 a.m. CT, Tues., Nov. 13, 2007
Guests: David Axelrod, Roger Simon, Nancy Giles, Jonathan Darman, Chrystia Freeland, Ryan Lizza, Chris Cillizza, Jill Zuckman
Sen. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: "That is why the same old Washington textbook campaigns just won‘t do in this election. That‘s why, I‘m not answering questions because we‘re afraid our answers won‘t be popular, just won‘t do. That‘s why telling the American people what we think they want to hear instead of telling the American people what they need to hear just won‘t do. Triangulating and poll-driven positions because we‘re worried about what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just won‘t do. This party, the party of Jefferson and Jackson, of Roosevelt and Kennedy, has always made the biggest difference in the lives of the American people when we led not by polls but by principle, not but calculation..."
I wish that Obama was right about this but unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world right now. We live in a very partisan environment where the other side controls most of the message and what you say as a candidate definitely matters!
Authors Mark Halperin and John F. Harris summarize this key important point very well in my opinion talking about both the 2004 and 2008 elections in their excellent book titled "The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008" which I highly recommend:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301030_pf.html
The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008
Chapter 1: The Way to Lose
By Mark Halperin and John F. Harris
Tuesday, October 3, 2006; 6:08 PM
"The bottom line was that the Bush campaign and its allies did a better job than the Kerry campaign and its allies in using the Freak Show -- its magnification of the personal and negative -- to define the opposing candidate. But the story as told in this chapter is a tactical one. What is more important for the next presidential election is the strategic reality that the Freak Show does not affect both parties equally.
The dynamic in 2008 will be the same as it was in 2004. There are structural issues in politics and media that now favor Republicans over Democrats. Freak Show politics will represent only a moderate threat to Republicans and give them a major advantage as they try to define the opposition on unfavorable terms. On the other side, Freak Show politics offers virtually no advantages for Democrats, but will again present a huge threat to any politician hoping to keep control of the narrative of his -- or her -- life story..."
I articulated further about that book in this post:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/8841
ANALYSIS: A great Washington Post article about how the media affects Democrats!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 5, 2006 - 2:03pm.
Rush Limbaugh summed up very arrogantly but correctly that for the most part he and his side define the news, circumstances, and personalities right now:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184342,00.html
Transcript: Rush Limbaugh on 'Your World'
Thursday, February 09, 2006
LIMBAUGH: "Neil, there is a new media out there today that doesn't let the left get away with defining the news, defining the circumstances, defining personalities and so forth.
And they haven't learned how to deal with it. They haven't learned how to deal with people like me, the problems they think FOX News causes, and everybody else. They are still in their 30-year-old playbook, in which they think they still — all they have to do is, you know, portray somebody they want to portray them, and the American people will see it, swallow it, and like it..."
The 2008 Democratic nominee will be facing all of these blogs and websites, FOX News, and much more opposition media that Bill Clinton did not have to face in 1992:
http://media.nationalreview.com/
That is why I agree with Ron Brownstein when he said "Look, whoever is going to be the president in this hyper partisan environment is going to get there with a lot of scars. And the opportunity to bring together the country is only going to come after they‘re elected:"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21771589/
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Nov. 9
Read the transcript to the Friday show
Guests: Bob Baer, Robin Wright, Ron Brownstein
RON BROWNSTEIN, THE NATIONAL JOURNAL”: "I‘m guessing, if it‘s Barack Obama or John Edwards, the Republicans don‘t spend nine months offering cotton candy. Look, whoever is going to be the president in this hyper partisan environment is going to get there with a lot of scars. And the opportunity to bring together the country is only going to come after they‘re elected. It‘s hard to see it next year..."
This is a point that I think Hillary definitely understands:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/12/sitroom.01.html
THE SITUATION ROOM
Hillary Clinton Stalls; Fred Thompson's Troubles; John Bolton Interview
Aired November 12, 2007 - 16:00 ET
SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: "Change is just a word, if you don't have the strength and experience to make it happen..."
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13880
Hillary started a new rapid response website to fight back against enemy attacks
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 12, 2007 - 8:42am.
I do NOT see that Obama understands this concept yet:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13782
Barack Obama will be swiftboated & will get eaten up alive if he is the nominee!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 1, 2007 - 3:49am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13433
ANALYSIS: Why I think that Obama would be a very weak general election candidate
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 24, 2007 - 9:01am.
Right below is where Rush Limbaugh says "The conservative attack machine will soon launch nuclear war against the Democrats' nominee when he or she emerges" and below that is an article on Neocon Hugh Hewitt's blog which shows how hard that the other side will fight back on the blogs!
If we lose the 2008 election, then the Neocon controlled 2008 GOP nominee will just pick right up where Bush leaves off which will cause centuries worth of damage if it could even be fixed at all in my opinion!
Mitch Dworkin
http://www.securingamerica.com/
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10756
StopIranWar.com: "War is not the answer"
Submitted by Wes Clark on February 21, 2007 - 11:40am.
http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!
--------------------
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110507/content/01125109.guest.html
Democrats in Trouble Stack
November 5, 2007
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT 
RUSH: "This takes me to a companion story found today in the Washington Times: "Change Called Crucial for '08." It's by Donald Lambro. "Democratic strategists are warning their party and its presidential contenders that they have failed to connect with the voters' demands for change. In a memorandum on the state of their party one year before the election, strategists James Carville and Stan Greenberg said that 'Democrats have yet not found their voices as agents of change, except perhaps on Iraq, and risk falling short' of their political potential in 2008. 'The conservative attack machine will soon launch nuclear war against the Democrats' nominee when he or she emerges, and a lot of the discontent in the country could fragment and push voters to third parties and some even back to the Republicans, particularly if progressives fail to tackle key grievances, like immigration and taxes.'" Well, hell's bells..."
Read the Background Material...
• Washington Times: Change Called Crucial for '08
http://washingtontimes.com/article/20071105/NATION/111050021/1001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/a9581f94-e2ca-452c-9cb5-21727156f27e
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Blogs: Bill Clinton's Kryptonite
Posted by: Patrick Ruffini at 10:09 AM
Let me throw out a counterfactual.
If we had had blogs when Bill Clinton was President, he would have been a lot less effective and his approval ratings lower.
Bloggers, who shape more and more of the coverage, deal largely in the printed word. Until YouTube, video was utterly irrelevant to our commentary. Even now, a well-informed blogger can go through an entire day without turning on the TV and watching the speech for him or herself.
On the whole, this will tend to devalue eloquence, smooth-talk, whatever you want to call it. It will reward the politician who is clear, direct, and succinct, whose words make sense in 12-point Times New Roman.
I think this is part of why Mitt Romney is having a hard time escaping the flip-flopper charge, something that also dogged Bill Clinton. Yes, he’s a Republican, so he doesn’t get media brownie points. There are also the YouTube-style ambushes you just wouldn’t have seen in 1992. (There was an amusing scene in The War Room in which Carville et al. were debating whether to use footage of Bush signs being made in Brazil that some volunteer taped off a college public access channel. That wouldn’t be up for discussion in 2008. Someone would have YouTubed it.)
But an overlooked point is that we now have an entire class of opinion leaders that look to the text-driven Internet, not television, to shape their coverage. To a large degree, these opinion leaders will be immune from the charms of a Clinton or a Romney. Political reporters themselves are probably less reliant on TV day-to-day, trolling the blogosphere for storylines. I often regarded the TV on all the time at campaign headquarters as background noise, secondary to my online information diet.
Politicians who are very good on TV will still have an advantage. Lots of voters still get their information this way. But it’s an advantage that will be blunted by the authentic, no-frills nature of the Web, where the most succinct messages get the highest clickthroughs and where it’s easier to hold high-flying pols accountable. That tendency will tend to inflect mainstream coverage over time.
Take the uproar over Clinton’s outburst on Fox News last year. In the pre-Internet era, it’s more likely that Clinton would have had the last word. Or that he would have been matched by equally overheated conservative TV pundits, rendering it a wash. Or, even worse, that the face of the Republican response would have been some untelegenic GOP Senators bemoaning the incivility of it all. All played out on television, where Clinton had an inherent advantage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4
It’s precisely because we had a grassroots medium to ridicule Bill’s staged outrage that its impact was blunted. At the same time, we had a substantive debate on the Clinton record on terrorism, which we wouldn’t have had on cable news. This has an inherently leveling effect against planned media offensives by telegenic pols.
It’s also harder to smear bloggers in the same way you can attack TV and radio personalities. The First Law of New Media goes like this: “Never get into an argument with a blogger. You won’t win.” Think Progress regularly attacks O’Reilly, Rush, and other elements of the VRWC, but it’s laughable when they try and go after the “rightwing” Power Line guys. The Clintons perfected the “attack the messenger” strategy while in office. How well will it work with bloggers, who still have a heavy underdog streak? How would they have handled CBS memogate differently? Would they have attempted to smear Scott Johnson as a tool of rightwingthinktanks and Free Republic as inherently not credible? This might have worked in a media-scarce 1992 environment with the MSM to carry their water, but not as well with pesky bloggers demanding a substantive response.
Remember that it was Drudge that first bedeviled the Clinton media operation. Clinton II’s worst nightmare isn’t Drudge, but a thousand mini-Drudges you can’t fully track or demonize.
I should note that I don’t think this entire analysis applies to Hillary. It’s clear that she’s adopted the hard-edged, more partisan style of the netroots and doesn’t share her husband’s rhetorical gifts. So she will be comparatively more effective in the new partisan media environment than she would be in the dying TV marketplace.
But the point that blogs are Bill Clinton’s kryptonite still stands.
Email It | Print It | Take Action | Comments (24) | Trackbacks (1)
Hi Gordon:
If I am right about this and if Barack Obama wins the nomination, then the Democratic Party will surely get behind its nominee BUT they will probably be right in the same place in 2008 backing Obama where they were in 2004 when they backed John Kerry who also did not understand this concept even in 2005 after he lost that election:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9351#comment-147279
John Kerry has no concept about how to deal with media attacks:
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 31, 2006 - 3:27pm.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/350fnrnt.asp?pg=1
Kerry Loves the Mainstream Media
From the March 21, 2005 issue: . . . And has contempt for the American people.
by P.J. O'Rourke
03/21/2005, Volume 010, Issue 25
Kerry was led back to the main point by a question from the audience: "How [do we] stop the media from creating and perpetuating the divisive red state/blue state situation?"
Kerry looked sympathetically at Oliphant--a representative of the mainstream media--and answered as if Oliphant himself had asked the question. "Tom, I swear I don't have the answer to that. And I'm looking for it just like everybody else is..."
I have no doubt that Barack Obama will get full Democratic party backing in 2008 if he wins the nomination just like how John Kerry did in 2004 BUT Obama's chances of winning in the general election will be very slim at best in my opinion if he does not understand how to fight back to define himself against the other side who clearly will have the media advantage in the general election:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301030_pf.html
The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008
Chapter 1: The Way to Lose
By Mark Halperin and John F. Harris
Tuesday, October 3, 2006; 6:08 PM
"The bottom line was that the Bush campaign and its allies did a better job than the Kerry campaign and its allies in using the Freak Show -- its magnification of the personal and negative -- to define the opposing candidate. But the story as told in this chapter is a tactical one. What is more important for the next presidential election is the strategic reality that the Freak Show does not affect both parties equally.
The dynamic in 2008 will be the same as it was in 2004. There are structural issues in politics and media that now favor Republicans over Democrats. Freak Show politics will represent only a moderate threat to Republicans and give them a major advantage as they try to define the opposition on unfavorable terms. On the other side, Freak Show politics offers virtually no advantages for Democrats, but will again present a huge threat to any politician hoping to keep control of the narrative of his -- or her -- life story..."
If Obama does not realize how dangerous and powerful that Rush Limbaugh and the extreme right wing Neocon media are, then he is definitely not qualified and he is not fit to run as the 2008 Democratic nominee in my opinion:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12782
DOCUMENTATION: Rush Limbaugh claims to & controls who the GOP nominee will be!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 25, 2007 - 11:58pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12971
Bush met with 10 Neocon talk radio hosts and in private with Rush Limbaugh!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on August 9, 2007 - 3:28am.
Gordon, if I could spot all of these things about Obama, then the 2008 GOP nominee and the extreme right wing Neocon media will probably be able to see them as well and they will definitely exploit them to the fullest possible extent against Obama just like how they did to John Kerry in 2004:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12713
Obama's inflated donor numbers & the ridiculous statement he made about Iraq!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 19, 2007 - 5:27am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11596
TRANSCRIPT & ANALYSIS: Larry King specifically asks Obama about his "experience"
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on March 27, 2007 - 3:41pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11033
ANALYSIS: Reasons why Obama will have a very difficult time if he is nominated!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 12, 2007 - 6:00pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10998
ANALYSIS: Obama is trying to shift attention away from Foreign Policy Experience
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 9, 2007 - 3:24pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10648
TRANSCRIPT: Obama Promised one year ago Today NOT to run for President in 2008!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 22, 2007 - 2:23pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10547
Obama to explore 2008 White House run; EXPERIENCE MATTERS: Look at Bush in 2000!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 16, 2007 - 5:38pm.
Also, I have not seen anyone yet reply to my analysis about Obama's lack of electability to tell me where I am wrong:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13782
Barack Obama will be swiftboated & will get eaten up alive if he is the nominee!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 1, 2007 - 3:49am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13433
ANALYSIS: Why I think that Obama would be a very weak general election candidate
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 24, 2007 - 9:01am.
If anyone thinks that I am wrong about this, then please feel free to tell me what I am not seeing. Nobody yet has told me where I am wrong regarding any point about Obama's lack of electability that I have made!
However if I am right about this, then we have an awful lot to lose in 2008 if we lose that election. Bush has already caused at least decades worth of damage. Another GOP Neocon picking up where Bush leaves off on 1/20/09 will cause so much more damage that it may not even be able to be repaired!
The high cost of losing the 2008 election is definitely a very good reason why I think that this discussion about Hillary vs. Obama is absolutely necessary for us to be having right now!
Barack Obama is probably a very sincere person as well as being a good Senator for Illinois BUT he is in way over his head running for President right now in my opinion compared to what Bill and Hillary Clinton can do to effectively fight back and get elected to stop the 2008 GOP nominee:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/8655
Keith Olbermann comments on Bill Clinton's Fox News interview with my analysis!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 26, 2006 - 1:47am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13880
Hillary started a new rapid response website to fight back against enemy attacks
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 12, 2007 - 8:42am.
Mitch Dworkin
1/20/09 when there will be very little to no margin of error?
What does anything that Obama says in his answer to Tim Russert in the transcript below have to do with his being truly qualified to be able to inherit and fix Bush's huge foreign policy mess on 1/20/09 which the next President will have to immediately start doing on their first day?
Barack Obama
Nov. 11: Watch the full netcast of Barack Obama (D-IL) on 'Meet the Press.'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432/
‘Meet the Press’ transcript for Nov. 11, 2007
Barack Obama
updated 11:26 a.m. CT, Sun., Nov. 11, 2007
MR. RUSSERT: "The Wall Street Journal, NBC News went out and talked to viewers last week, asking them about the Democratic candidates, asking them to give marks, grades to the candidates. Likeability, this is what they said: Obama, 72; Hillary Clinton, 49, very strong grade. Then we asked knowledgeable and experience to handle the presidency: Clinton, 76; Obama, 41. These are members of your own party. Why are people in your own party skeptical about your knowledge and experience to be president?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, look at—I have not been on the national scene as long as some of the other candidates in this race, and so part of our job throughout this campaign is to give people some sense of what I’ve done before I got to Washington; what I did as a constitutional law professor, as a civil rights lawyer, as a state legislator. And what we discover is when people actually find out my track record, they’re pleasantly surprised. And so that’s why our focus on the early states like Iowa and New Hampshire’s been so important, because we can interact much more intimately with people and give them a sense not only about my track record but also my vision for the future."
....to a policy advisor for Senator Obama, with the suggestion that the senator drop out and return the $35 million +/- that he has on hand.
If your title is correct, and Obama secures the nomination, the Democratic Party will not get behind its nominee. Probably forfeit the race to Rudy, or Mitt, or John.
After all, since the Dems gained control of congress in November 2006, their new policy seems clear:
"Surrender --- IN ADVANCE."