M. Medved (conservative hate monger I hate) said today that John Edwards was an empty suit who looked good on TV, remind you of anyone? Why isn't Obama winning by more?
S. Miller (liberal hate monger I find tolerable) said today that Obama is winning, and that Medved should get with Hillary's people and talk about their hypothetical scenarios together.
* * * *
S. Miller could have said, "Look, John McCain had an affair with a lobbyist. This story has got people talking about infidelity and dishonesty. John McCain betrayed his wife and his values with that affair; and I think this story about Edwards reminds us of it."
No one every proved that John McCain had an affiar with the Cindy look alike. It would be irresponsible for a Obama to say this, or Harry Reid to say this. In fact, it is very likely untrue. But Stephanie Miller is supposed to be our answer to Medved. Medved took a story about Edwards and pivoted on the Edwards is a fag angle from Ann Colter to talk about Obama is a celebrity.
To be sure, Obama is a celebrity is a stupid terrible campaign. But, Medved was on message (however weak) and on the attack. Is it a mistake for Stephanie Miller to have passed on questioning McCain's relationship with the Cindy look alike lobbyist?
8 comments:
I think if she were to have counter-punched on the adultery issue, she should have hit McCain's *actual* adultery with Cindy, while he was married to his former wife, not an arguable/rumored affair.
However, I like her response better. There's been a lot of hand-wringing "Why isn't Obama winning by more?" on the left, and I think it was Wes Clark (I forget) who recently took this on very well in response to that direct question -- "I can't spin my candidate's consistent lead as a negative. A five point win in November would be a huge electoral win, and the real question is 'Why can't McCain close the gap?'"
Yes, I want more counter-punching from the Left, but it should be to reinforce our guy's status and raise the question "What's wrong with McCain?"
Hatemongering is fine, when it's all you've got. We on the left should cultivate it as a skill for when we do need it, but I don't think we need it now. When you are winning, stick to the high road as much as possible, I think.
But of course Obama's consistent lead is a negative. He's polling below the generic Democrat.
That is a clear and present danger in the current environment.
Well, we tried running a generic democrat in 2004 and it didn't work too well. Seriously, "generic" polls are almost useless when compared to polls comparing actual candidates. The actual candidate is winning, and winning in a way that could lead to an electoral landslide. This is a really polarized electorate: no party has gotten more than 51% in sixteen years, and in the last 36 years only twice did someone exceed 55%. So a five-point lead is great. No, not as great as a "generic democrat," and not as great as Reagan in 1984. But a win is a win is a win, whether it's 271 or 400 EVs.
I'll put it another way: would you rather be winning or losing 80 days before the election?
(Note to Electoral Gods: Yes, I know they're just polls and I'm not counting any chickens. Don't jinx me, please.)
Speaking of... I heard John Kerry speak again today. I can barely tolerate his strident, preachy speaking style, and he never, never, never stops talking when he's asked to. No matter the damned topic, the venue or the general tone of the conversation, debate or interview, he will exceed the time given to him.
God he drives me mad.
Trends matter. Also, Obama closed incredibly poorly versus Clinton. 80 days out if he'd been up by 5 points to her, she'd have won.
I've heard it asked, did he close poorly because Clinton ran a better campaign late, the later states were not his natural venue, or because after his rock star status calms down, the public finds him less exciting?
I think there is at least some of the latter.
This goes back to my original point. If Democrats and Independents were exposed to a steady drum beat up high of how John McCain will be exactly George Bush in office--a better man maybe--but exactly the same president, then were exposed to stand-ins saying, "this string of blunders: Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan borders Iraq, Shiites supporting Al Qaeda, it's troubling. Is John McCain as sharp as he once was?", then were exposed to liberal hate radio saying, "this SOB licked W's boots after W accused him of having a black baby in South Carolina; he is in favor of torture even though he was tortured; he is in the pocket of lobbyist; he is a filanderer and a fraud!"--If all of that was going on, I wonder if MSD might be worried about the company John McCain was keeping rather than Barak Obama. I wonder if Hillary Clinton supporters would stop saying their undecided in the polls.
The candidate has to be hopeful--Reagan, Clinton, even W had an optimistic vision; but campaign may have to be vicious. I hope he can win with hope, but cynical independents really question good intentions, it is negative campaigning that wins that group over.
Matt --
I agree. Kerry lost for a number of reasons, not least because he was never particularly charismatic or likable.
As for BO vs HRC, I don't think we'll ever really "know" why that turned out the way it did. The race was essentially a tie. BO was smart and ran up some numbers in unrecognized-value caucus states. Hillary rallied t the end. The later states were demographically unfavorable to BO. HRC went negative. BO couldn't close the deal. Who knows?
You are right, though, that trends matter, and in this case, the pollster average is actually pretty steady with a fiveish-point Obama lead, which is not close in recent electoral history. I'd like more of a blow-out, but I'll take it.
Jim --
You know, I kind of agree. I think that I and a lot of folks are really questioning Obama's decision to rein in the 527's. (though there have been some hints that he might quietly unleash them; we'll see.)
Of course we'll never know, but I think it may be true that Obama doesn't wear well and that factor may mean the 5 points holds for now and erodes in the coming weeks--that's all I'm saying.
Post a Comment