Rough stretch for Obama, no doubt about it. Hasn't won a news cycle in weeks. Though I've long argued that his campaign doesn't pursue news cycle wins with the same ferocity that Clinton's does (See the number of conference calls and press releases from each camp), i'm not sure the best PR team on the planet could have contained Nafta-gate, Bittergate, elitist, losing PA, and Wright-gate 2.0. The media might have given him one or two, but all of them on top of each other like that, just too much for the press not to pile on.

not a problem though.

This thing will die its own death if he just keeps his cool and takes a page from the republican playbook. Do what McCain did when confronted with that lobbyist story in the Times: have your presser, answer all the questions, and then say you've exhausted the story and tell people you're moving on.

The difference between the two scenarios is that Obama rarely, rarely, does a 'til you drop' presser. he always gets a "last question" cue, takes one or two after that, and then peaces out. it may sound nit-picky, but doing a McCain style press avail gives the candidate a great talking point: "I answered all the questions reporters had on this subject..." It gives the feel of transparency, and therefore credibility. Obama did a til you drop on Rezko with the Chicago papers and the story went away (this was even before Wright came out).

Granted, these two situations are not perfectly comparable, but still, the idea is the same: when you're being attacked, stand your ground. take the incoming fire and earn people's respect for doing it. Then you get to claim, "I took the worst they had, now I'm changing the story."

This is one of the things I like about McCain's campaign style.

He needs to win NC or Indiana. If he wins both, thre narrative changes dramatically: now he's the comeback kid, et cetera. He's been vetted and the people want him most. He's taken the assaults, the bad press, and has proven he can take a beating...and survive. et cetera. If he wins next tuesday, he can pivot hard and fast and put this story to bed.

If he loses both, all bets are off.

the black vote won't abandon him, sorry Billy Glad. too much at stake and AA voters understand that Obama isn't running for President of Black America

Posted at April 30, 2008 1:19 AM in response to Memo to Axelrod: Put Some Chicken on that Chest

Obama cant come across as being a sore loser, but he absolutely should take Clinton AND McCain to task for this.

Understand this: Clinton told the world Obama was a liar about Nafta, knowing full well it was her campaign that told the Canadians not to sweat the rhetoric.

OBAMA NEEDS TO CALL HER OUT FOR THIS.

Axelrod and Plouffe need to get on a call tomorrow and demand that Clinton retract her statement and APOLOGIZE TO THE VOTERS OF OHIO FOR DELIBERATELY LYING TO THEM.

Clinton will say anything to win

Posted at March 6, 2008 1:10 AM in response to Report: NAFTA-Gate Leaker Said Hillary's People Were Reassuring Canada, Too

None of this debate above matters unless Obama is able to convey this message to the larger electorate. Clinton has won the spin war this election. She has won the expectations game. She will play in the dirt whereas Obama has tried not to, and she's dragging his name through the mud.

The number of disaffected democrats isn't really that important, because, as we will see when HRC wins Ohio tonight -- blue collar dems dont give a fuck about how she wins. And, sorry to say, the number of poeple who are turned off her politics is small compared to the number of Americans who see her as "a fighter," "experienced," blah blah blah.

Obama's mistake thus far has been not to attack HRC on her perceived area of strength: experience. He's made tepid arguments here and there, but he needs to pick up sledgehammer and remind voters that: 1) most of what she claims counts as her experience was actually Bill's doing; she's blurring the lines to pull the wool over voters. 2) this campaign can't be about the DC establishment experience HRC touts because that experience took us into Iraq and is crippling our economy. 3) in spite of her claims to experience, HRC hasn't learned that secrecy and being non-transparent is not the way to win the confidence of voters.

Posted at March 4, 2008 12:10 PM in response to

the tax returns bother me, but the stonewalling of those presidential library records concern me even more.

sure the tax stuff may prove sexier (and more damaging...foreign investors, hedge fund magnates), but those schedules as First Lady will, in all likelihood, tear to shreds her arguments about "experience" in the white house. which is why i'm sure they've been d.r.a.g.g.i.n.g their feet.

man, it's like a perfect storm of sh*t. Obama will lose TX and Ohio; HRC will keep pushing this Rezko crap; the Rezko trial will loom even larger in the background; FOX News will continue to bang on about this Ayers, Farrakhan and Rev. Wright business; meanwhile, HRC will keep pushing the NAFTA / Canada stuff...the goal line gets pushed back to Pennsylvania, which HRC will win. and then we've got a serious, bloody civil war on our hands.

All this innuendo will destroy Obama unless he comes out and does what McCain did about the sex scandal--take all the questions one time, for as long as needed, and then never talk about it again. let people get over it.

meanwhile, i am perplexed why clinton's own convicted financers dont even register as a blip on TPM's radar.

Posted at March 3, 2008 4:41 PM in response to Obama and Rezko: TPM's Timeline

look, this is silly.

for over a year, the media told us HRC was going to be the nominee.

for over a year, every pundit touted HRC's experience; zero pundits actually questioned what that experience entailed.

(i could go on about what such an examination could have revealed, and i'm not even talking about the sex stuff or many scandals, i'm talking about things like: she worked for the children's defense fund after law school for less than 1 year which contradicts her boastings on the stump; or, she claims to brought healthcare to millions of children (ostensibly through SCHIP)...well, she wasnt in the Senate when that bill was passed. she was first lady; she didnt vote on it, she "supported" it. and today she tries to own it) et cetera.

but let's leave aside the problems for HRC with this idea and look at BHO.

what has the coverage of BHO been since he announced AND AND AND where did the talking points on him come from?

> is he black enough black?
> did he study at Madrassa?
> he is such a novelty (legitimate) black candidate
> he is eloquent therefore he must be shallow
> he has no experience
> is he patriotic enough
> his supporters are cultish

from the start, this is the framework from which BHO has been spoken about by the media. i defy anyone to find a line of discussion on obama that doesnt begin or end with one of these

All the "glowing praise" clinton supporters complain about fits into the "he is such a novelty" line of thought. But even with that, the novelty (favorable) stories were rarely ever linked to talk about his policy work either in Ill or DC. It was usually personal anecdotes (non substantive)

sometimes, sometimes left leaning blogs look to the actual records of Clinton and Obama from the Senate and compare the bills passed, authored and signed into law; but no such substantive conversation has EVER been made for Obama in the MSM...but it's always been assumed for HRC, and that is the difference.

and one more thing: (sorry this is so long), but if anyone is wondering why HRC wont release her tax returns or allow access to her schedules as first lady, its pretty simple: its about plausible deniability. she wants us to already be in bed with her as our nominee when that stuff comes out; that way, any attacks on her "35 years of experience" can be rebutted as "the same old right wing attack machine" politics. the clinton's have made a career on conditioning us to be suspect of criticisms of their record coming from the right. if the public had access to her tax returns, access to these presidential records we dont know what we'd find. but we do know that it would infintitely harder for HRC to defend against a democrat than a republican on these matters because a democrat would be thought to have more credibility.

i would have liked to see that fight, but alas it will not happen. and we have our spectacularly "ANTI-HILLARY" main stream media to thank for that.

that is all.

Posted at March 1, 2008 6:21 PM in response to Is Press Unfair To Hillary? New York Times Weighs In...

just want to fact check myself: i realized (after posting) that it was Axelrod who said Obama and Ayers were "friendly," so that is my bad.

but i still stand behind the thrust of my post that if they continue to use kid gloves against smear tactics, they will not inspire confidence in their supporters.

i do still think Gibbs doesnt hit back hard enough though, and have thought that for a while.

and one more thing: obama's campaign does not benefit one bit from asking for, or accepting plainly, apologies for tactics like the TN GOP to smear him as a Muslim or a Manchurian candidate or unpatriotic. and here's why:

eventually--though we're seeing signs of it now--the right will start to dominate the conversation in the MSM about "not being able to criticize Obama without being called a racist."

i was livid when Clinton's surrogate said that the other day, and commenters are repeating it more and more.

this is a dangerous road for us to go down. because it plays into the "white victimhood" rhetoric of hannity and limbaugh and all the others... who accuse people (most of the time wrongly) of "playing the race card." in Obama, they will have a person to point to who embodies their cries of white people being treated unfairly by the media and the "PC police." it wont matter that Obama himself doesnt take the bait, his supporters might, and that will allow them to lump it all together.

what obama's team needs to do is: less fingerpointing, more fact checking.

if a GOP operative smears obama in a racially charged way, and St. McCain (again) comes out and says, "i dont condone this..." blah blah blah, Obama's team needs to come out and challenge McCain to, instead of simply apologizing (which may grow wearisome over time), say:

"While we appreciate the efforts of Sen. McCain to keep this debate respectful and devoid of underhanded fear-mongering, we would urge him to be STRAIGHT with the general public and call these smears for what they are: flat out lies designed to impugn the reputation of a fellow American who loves and cares deeply about his country."

otherwise, Sen. McCain can "good cop bad cop" his way straight till November.

I think the Obama campaign passed up a prime instance to set the tone for such a move, when they didnt come to McCain's defense during the NYTime's sex scandal story. the Time's didnt have it, and it would have looked so magnanimous of Obama to say that publicly.

Posted at February 28, 2008 12:33 PM in response to Obama Camp Calls Canadian TV Report "Inaccurate"

Obama supporters, of which I have been one for years, need to call this one fair.

this denial was completely anemic from Gibbs.

I am amazed by these type of weak ass denials from his campaign generally.

stand the hell up and "flatly deny" something for a change. "flatly reject" the support of someone who is a racist and can do you harm.

Gibbs is a weak communications director. I also wanted to punch something when he characterized Obama's relationship with Ayers as "friendly." WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY THINKING?

When Obama talks in debates he is very professorial. but his campaign staff ought to be savvy enough to see how their responses to hit jobs could leave them vulnerable to counter-attack.

they need to wise up, right now. because i'm getting sick of their anemic pushbacks.

that said: i'm still going to continue supporting and donating because i do think he's the best person to lead; but i need more strong objection from his team when he's being smeared. if he's being smeared.

Posted at February 28, 2008 12:10 PM in response to Obama Camp Calls Canadian TV Report "Inaccurate"