RESPONDING TO NEGATIVE ADS
How are the candidates doing? What have we learned about them?
Well, 'getting the message out' is starting to get equal time with "contrast questions".
THE "FAIRY TALE"
I thought that Obama's reply to Bill Clinton's fairy tale was superb. It re-framed the issue, making Obama the underdog and Bill seem ... petty for what what was portrayed as an exaggeration. If that was Barack's retort, we've learned, to my mind, great political acumen for debate. If not, then ... it's nearby. On the Clinton side, we've learned that Bill is still a good campaigner (yawn).
Still, the Obama campaign is missing part of responding to negative ads. Dismissing the question or re-framing it is not enough. If there is some factual element, it usually needs to be rebutted, one way or another, especially if the source is known and credible (like Bill). All that came through the press was the retort. (If there was more, the message isn't getting out - that's a separate problem).
The subsequent, non-Obama led effort to "neutralize Bill" - a very smart goal - by re-reading his comments along racial lines, hasn't worked. These debates over motives have no end, except to annoy voters and drown out the important messages. (It appears that the candidates are now recognizing this, putting out Olive branches, etc.).
HILLARY'S AUMF VOTE
It's fine that Obama is getting vetted on the war issues, right? The GOP are likely to go the rounds on this, as well. Also, Clinton trying to eliminate the contrast with Barack on the question of war is understandable, a question that is probably more of an issue within the Party.
It may backfire, especially come the debates, whether it was conceived just as part of strategy, just an off-hand remark that turned out to have unexpected legs, or as a real conviction that Hillary has the 'same voting record' and is equally deserving. But not for the reasons that some suppose, namely 'war opposition'. The fact of the matter is that this was a bad vote. It certainly doesn't showcase "experience" or understanding, right?
DRUG USE
The story has to get out there. The GOP is going to do it, anyway. Camp Obama cannot deflect that upcoming attack, if they choose just not to talk about it. Pitching the story as black-white politics is ugly; but, on this issue, it may be possible to turn a negative into a positive, rather than reject the criticism, etc.
"THE CLINTONS"
I part ways with AS and Hitchens on 'the Clintons'. They seem to think that there are some Presidential-ready politicians out there who are not ambitious, willing to 'take on water' without a fight, willing to pass out just favors and not punishments, or do not come with dramas all their own. And, yes, being a good politician has always involved knowing how to run a good campaign and be a campaigner - is King George any different (he loves the trail and just waxed on about how he misses it).
There is another view.
Much of the lore of the Clintons is the product of the hyperbole of the Right, wrought during their years trying to throw anchors around a hugely popular and politically astute Democrat. By way of contrast, have a look at Bush-Cheney. Even Bill at his worst (the women, the denials, the haircut on the tarmac, the off-hand remarks) seems better than having likely war criminals and those with such poor military judgment. Yet, in the rhetoric of some, the 'outrage' and disdain over the two seems almost equivalent ...
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
"News" Cycle: Where We Are Now
