This is what got GWB into the White House, twice. A simple message, repeated over and over and over again. Nuance? Over the heads of the voters. Adjusting to changed circumstances? Shows lack of resolve. Most voters have the political understanding of fourth-graders, so you talk to them like they're fourth graders.

Somebody tell me: what the hell happened to hope and change and a new kind of politics? Where is the message that got Obama the nomination in the first place?

Posted at July 3, 2008 7:43 PM in response to News Orgs Already Getting It Wrong On Obama's Iraq Remarks

"some ways of saying things are easier to distort than others, but I don't think this one was."

That last part has been disproven by events, hasn't it? Obama's statement WAS easy to distort -- because most of the major news orgs DID distort it. And they did so quickly: the words were hardly out of Obama's mouth before the misleading headlines went up.

You're right about the first part: some things are easier to distort than others. And what Obama orignally said was clumsy and easy to distort. This is what he said:

"And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."

He should have said "refine the details," or "I'm sure my trip will shed more light on the situation," or something else. Not refine -- i.e., change -- his policies.

Posted at July 3, 2008 7:37 PM in response to News Orgs Already Getting It Wrong On Obama's Iraq Remarks

Good point. It's possible that the campaign felt it absolutely had to "refine" Obama's withdrawal policy, and knowing it would cause fits in the media, planned it for when it would make the least impact.

That still leaves the question of whether the "refinement" was smart to begin with.

Posted at July 3, 2008 5:32 PM in response to News Orgs Already Getting It Wrong On Obama's Iraq Remarks

Any time you have to hold a second press conference to clarify what you said at your first press conference, you screwed up.

Posted at July 3, 2008 5:23 PM in response to News Orgs Already Getting It Wrong On Obama's Iraq Remarks

Now, come on. To echo the point of CT Voter, this reaction/misinterpretation was completely predictible.

Yes, the MSM can be lazy and/or stupid -- especially "B" team reporters and editors, who are surely working today while the "A" team is already on the way to the beach. (Obama team, why oh why did you say anything remotely new on a holiday?)

But we knew this already, didn't we? The real fault lies with the Obama campaign, in thinking that his stated willingness to "refine" his plan would be interpreted as anything OTHER than a flip-flop.

Because Obama has made "change" the major theme of his campaign, he needs to avoid doing things that allow the theme to be turned against him. As in: "Obama is for change. If you don't like his policies, just wait a week, and he'll change them."

Posted at July 3, 2008 5:20 PM in response to News Orgs Already Getting It Wrong On Obama's Iraq Remarks

You assume that McCain's messaging will include actual proposals and substance. I think this assumes too much. McCain's messaging will be more like branding, and it will be framed so that he can continue to have it both ways.

"McCain: Principled reformer."

That type of crap. Much like the "compassionate conservatism" that put GWB into the White House. Slogans without any real substance behind them.

Posted at July 3, 2008 12:52 PM in response to McCain's New Campaign Boss Begins Tightening Grip On Operation

TPM, you can do better with your headline-writing. The China-Cuba drilling story is a lie. Not myth, not "conspiracy," but a lie. Please, call a spade a spade.

Posted at July 3, 2008 11:36 AM in response to Rudy Pops Up, Recites China-Cuba Oil Myth

Melvo, I agree with you absolutamentary. Like you, I am a liberalite of the Democrat party, but I just don't see where Obama can get the job done. Where he can stay the course. Where he can stand up to the terrists who hate America. I hate to say it, but we progressivarians have misoverestimated Obama, and I'm gonna have to vote for McCain.

Posted at July 1, 2008 7:44 PM in response to GOP Senator's Top Staffer Busted Posting Comments Under Fake Name On Liberal Blog

Perhaps the numbers suggest that voters, although they prefer a certain outcome in Iraq (i.e., stabilization), understand that their policy preference is secondary to electing an executive who is not a crazy, unflexibile, Bush-like imperialist on foreign policy (i.e., Obama), as opposed to an executive who is a crazy, unflexibile, Bush-like imperialist on foreign policy (i.e., McCain).

Posted at June 26, 2008 12:39 PM in response to In Four Key Battleground States, Majorities Favor Staying In Iraq Until It's "Stable"

Don't reject focus groups just because they reveal ugly truths. These people are the American electorate. This is what Obama has to work with.

And frankly, it's not a pretty sight. Focus groups are probably where you see the biggest Wilder effect. If someone is going to lie to a pollster about who they voted for, then they're going to lie when they are sitting in a crowded room looking other people in the face. People who think that McCain is better on values, character, having a beer with, etc. aren't going step into the voting booth and pull the lever for Obama. I'll be McCain.

My guess? In the actual election, the three "undecided" subjects will go for McCain. Maybe one of the Obama supporters, too. That's a split of at least 7-5 for McCain.

Obama has a lot of work to do.

Posted at June 25, 2008 1:44 PM in response to Focus Group: Pennsylvania Voters Are Suspicious Of Obama -- But Support Him Anyway