Originally Posted By Mr X What are your thoughts, given this new drive to take the attacks up to an even greater level starting this weekend (Palin firing the first volley with her "ties to terrorists" angle), as to what Obama needs to do to counter the attacks? I'm thinking it's best that he stay largely above the fray, though I think he should respond to any direct attacks with a true accounting of the facts (such as this allegation that he's buddies with a terrorist), but for the most part I think he should send out Biden, Bill Clinton and others to counter the dirt and throw some back. Thoughts?
Originally Posted By mawnck Oh, the Ties to Terrorists thing has been going for a few days now. Every Republican within 50 feet of a camera - even if it's a toy Polaroid - starts yammering about it as if Obama personally kidnapped their children. We've seen it on this very board, and they're just getting warmed up. They've decided the Muslim thing is the lie with the most staying power, so they're going to play it to the hilt by using the "terrorist" codeword. In a world where ethics no longer count, it's probably their best possible bet. Watch for McCain to get confronted by a reporter and backtrack on his "Obama is not a Muslim" statement sometime this week. If it doesn't turn the polls around (which I doubt it will, especially if the economy doesn't magically fix itself on Monday), the next round of GOP talking points should be wondrous to behold.
Originally Posted By mawnck Oh, and I 100% agree with your strategy for Obama, X. Biden and Clinton need to make some big news, preferably by mercilessly attacking McCain's honor while harping relentlessly on the economy. I'd prefer they did it without so flagrantly parroting Dem talking points, but I guess you can't have everything.
Originally Posted By ecdc There's a risk to McCain's strategy, so it's tough to know how Obama should go forward. He needs to be seen as a fighter, as someone who won't take this lying down. But he also can't afford the risk that McCain's taking - to alienate the moderate and swing voter. I was reading today and most research on swing voters shows that they do not like negative politics. They want the person who's going to be optimistic. Bush, for all of his *many* faults, did this better than Gore or Kerry. I think the right way for Obama is to hit back hard by showing how desperate they are, but without going to negative on them specifically. For example, I don't think a "Troopergate" ad would be the best move.
Originally Posted By hopemax "My fellow Americans, these are difficult times we live in. My opponent would rather talk about me than to talk about the problems that you are facing. I have denied the unfounded accusations before, and I urge each of you to check our our website, fightthesmears.com . I could spend the time I have with you, combating each of these unfounded claims, but that will not help any you stop worrying about how you are going to pay your energy bill this winter, or whether or not you will have a job, so instead I am going to focus on what matters most to you."
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< They've decided the Muslim thing is the lie with the most staying power, so they're going to play it to the hilt by using the "terrorist" codeword. >>> Speaking of codewords, be on the lookout for this technique: using some charged word (such as "terrorist" or "Muslim", but it could be others) in the same sentence and in close proximity to Obama, but without directly tying the two together. Here's a hypothetical example: "America faces many dangers, such as from radical Muslims and others, but Barack Obama is not up to the task of responding." This linguistic technique was used over and over again by the White House to subtly link Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and al Queda, without ever directly doing so.
Originally Posted By Mr X Already being done, SD. Though they seem to have dispensed with any semblance of "subtle". <a href="http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=C6H3Xuk1T2w" target="_blank">http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=...3Xuk1T2w</a>
Originally Posted By Mr X <a href="http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=X6QGOOA_VjU&feature=related" target="_blank">http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=...=related</a>
Originally Posted By mawnck Dang ... and I was going to take the week off from watching the Sunday morning blabs. Now I want to see this. BUT FIRST ... Anne Hathaway's on SNL tonight. Priorities.
Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14283.html" target="_blank">http://www.politico.com/news/s...283.html</a> At least he's not sitting back and doing nothing.
Originally Posted By mawnck >><a href="http://www.politico.com/news/s...283.html" target="_blank">http://www.politico.com/news/s...283.html</a> At least he's not sitting back and doing nothing.<< Perfect. Now run it eleventy million times.
Originally Posted By chickendumpling <<Oh, the Ties to Terrorists thing has been going for a few days now. >> A few days? That, and oh-so-much-more, has been out there being circulated in emails since well before the conventions. It's just that now McCain has decided to take the manhole covers off the underground in a last ditch effort to win this election. Decency be damned. Truth is an unfortunate casualty. This is not what I wanted for McCain. This is definitely not what I want for political discourse in this country.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< <<Oh, the Ties to Terrorists thing has been going for a few days now. >> A few days? That, and oh-so-much-more, has been out there being circulated in emails since well before the conventions. It's just that now McCain has decided to take the manhole covers off the underground in a last ditch effort to win this election. Decency be damned. Truth is an unfortunate casualty. >>> This is following the Swift Boat Veterans blueprint almost to a tee. It starts out as a backwater, under-the-surface campaign that gets largely ignored by the mainstream, but in doing so builds up enough steam that it surfaces at some point beyond the point of control. I'm certain that this is the tactic that's being used, but there are two differences between this and the 2004 Swift Boaters: - The notion that a sitting US Senator has active ties to "terrorists" is a quite a bit less believable than attempts to muddy the waters about what happened decades ago in Vietnam. - The nation has had four additional years of history and experience. 1) Terrorism is less an issue now in the public mind than it was in 2004, 2) the techniques used by the Swift Boaters are now understood in hindsight, at least by some. Also, the fact that Palin came out swinging with "the terrorist connection" not a day after the VP debate makes it obvious that it's a well-planned, contrived maneuver, rather than just a new fact that's come to light. And, considering how close the past two elections have been, and how close this one looks to be, it won't take but a small percentage of the people noticing the lack of transparency and obvious hard-core politicking in order for these tricks not to work this time.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I'm thinking it's best that he stay largely above the fray, >>> It's a risky strategy, but it may be the right one. It's certainly in line with his "Change" message. I think that among other things, "change" means doing away with the traditional "dirty tricks" campaigning style that most people say they are sick of (but unfortunately all too often fall prey to). So far, I think Obama has done a good job at running an up-front, straightforward campaign. To disclose my point of view, I think this general election is perhaps the most exciting and interesting one that I've seen in my adult lifetime. Each of "my" candidates are running, as I supported McCain in the Republican primary and Obama in the Democratic primary. Since I've always been a Republican, I voted the Republican primary ballot, so my vote in the primary election went to McCain. But I contributed monetarily to each of "my" two candidates during the primary and to no others, so it's a very interesting general election for me. As an artifact of being a primary election donor to both McCain and Obama, I get the mailings from both sides. It's rare that a day goes by that I don't have something from at least one of the candidates, asking for a donation for the general election. For awhile, I was just shredding all of it, as I'll make additional donations when and if I'm ready do, without respect to any mailings that I'm sent. But, as of a couple of months ago, I thought it would be interesting to start saving everything I received from either campaign. Now that I have a stack of material from each campaign, it's been very interesting to compare the two. I'm starting to pick up patterns. The first thing that is apparent is that Obama's material is much more likely to talk about what he wants to do if elected President, why it's important, and then asking for money to help get him elected. On the other hand, the McCain material is much more likely to start out talking not about John McCain and what he wants to do, but about Barack Obama and some scare tactic about what he might do and why he must be defeated. To address the OP, I think that Obama really is making every effort to stay "above the fray" and run an honorable, transparent campaign, and McCain is increasingly falling back on the type of tactics that most people say they are sick of (but unfortunately fall prey to when their own personal hot buttons are pushed). Since all indications are that McCain is increasingly going to use fear tactics and negative campaigning in an effort to win, it remains to be seen how it will all turn out. Will Obama continue the current trend at keeping "above the fray," or will he resort to more traditional campaigning? Will McCain turn up the heat on negative campaigning, fear, and scare tactics enough to swing the election his way, or will it backfire on him or otherwise simply not be enough? I guess we'll know in about 4 weeks.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney ^^Wow very interesting SD, thanks! I to hope Obama stays 'above the fray'. What I love about Obama (and partly why I think he will be a good leader) is that he keeps it cool! He's never seen as rattled, at least not on the outside, I love that about him . McCain has been acting like a chicken with his head cut off the last few weeks and its looking embarrasing with now the dirty tactics ramping up. One guy on another board says it best, and I still lol when I think about it, but I will 'rephrase' since I cant say it the complete line here: 'McCain is parking the Straight Talk express....revving up the 'bullcrap' wagon'. LOL, I love it!!!! My guess what Obama will do: Defend the attacks of course, stay above the fray, keep to the issues and constantly remind people what McCain is doing now and how desperate it all looks. But, if the poll numbers start to fall, he may start getting on his level soon...and by that point, sadly I cant blame him for it.
Originally Posted By SuperDry One other thing I've noticed in comparing the two campaigns' mailings is the level of intellect addressed. Perhaps half of the McCain mailings have used various low-brow techniques from the direct mail industry in an attempt to influence the, well, not-so-bright among us. Anyone that receives junk mail and doesn't fall for the tricks will recognize these tactics. Specifically: - Many of the McCain mailings arrive in outer envelopes that pronounce them as "Air Grams" or other nonsense. They are in fact just standard mailings based on the postage affixed, but masquerade as something that was sent via Western Union or some sort of express delivery service. - Many of the McCain return envelopes have some sort of extra writing on them that's designed not to affect the campaign offices that receives them, but to manipulate the potential donor that's opened the outer envelope. What I'm talking about is the Business Reply envelope that's included with almost every request for donation. We all know what they look like, and their purpose is obvious. But in one case from McCain that I have in my hand at the moment, there's this big red banner printed on the upper left that says "EMERGENCY RETURN ENVELOPE." Another says "PROCESS IMMEDIATELY." I'm sure that each mass mailing from either candidate generates thousands of responses - am I to believe that when they open the P.O. Box and get their stack of mail for the day, that mine in particular will stand out because it has a red banner that says EMERGENCY RETURN ENVELOPE or PROCESS IMMEDIATELY on it? It's obvious to anyone that has half a brain that these designations on the return envelope have no effect on what happens to them when they are received by the campaign, but are instead designed to make the donor feel important and create a sense of urgency. - From the McCain campaign, I've received various "items of value" that are intended to create a sense of obligation in making a donation. Among others, I've received signed portraits from McCain/Palin, a "membership card" of some sort, and even been "nominated" to the "Presidents Club" of the RNC. Interestingly, the canned response that I'm supposed to initial and send back in response to the nomination mentions Barack Obama by name but not John McCain! In all cases, there's a handy response form, with a checkbox to confirm that I've received the item "in good condition," not to mention an easy way to make a donation. - There's a questionnaire that's printed on what looks like old-school, "greenbar" computer printer paper stock, complete with perforated tractor feed hole strips on the side. In fact, I'm instructed to tear off the tractor feed hole strips before returning it. But, it's obvious that this form was not printed on any technology that would require tractor feed paper. - There are annotations to some of the mailings that are made to look as if someone made them by hand. As if, among the millions of mailing sent out, someone thought that SuperDry's was important enough to circle something on it and jot down a note by hand. - There's even one mailing that has my 3x5 "file card" enclosed with my personal details, along with instructions to "make any needed corrections" and return it in the reply envelope to make sure that my information is updated in the master files. The 3x5 card is complete with the pre-printed horizontal lines in blue (except for the top one in red). Am I to believe that somewhere there's a master catalog of McCain donors being maintained on 3x5 index cards, and that it's critical that I return mine in order to remain on the rolls of supporters? In stark contrast, none of the Obama mailings use *any* of the above tactics or techniques. Surprisingly, and refreshingly, they actually address the issues at hand in the election, and request that I make a donation if I agree with them. I wonder who came up with that unconventional idea?
Originally Posted By Mr X That's pretty hilarious, SD. I've noticed some measure of that from the emails I've received, but nothing quite as extreme. Frankly, I would think that for a normal, everyday Republican that sort of thing would feel like an embarrassment. But, I suppose it must work, or they wouldn't have done it.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***There's a questionnaire that's printed on what looks like old-school, "greenbar" computer printer paper stock, complete with perforated tractor feed hole strips on the side. In fact, I'm instructed to tear off the tractor feed hole strips before returning it. But, it's obvious that this form was not printed on any technology that would require tractor feed paper*** I don't understand the point of this (the other stuff I can understand, given SD's description of techniques designed to make you feel important and feel that you must act quickly). If anything, this plays right into the "30 years out of touch" thing, doesn't it?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Frankly, I would think that for a normal, everyday Republican that sort of thing would feel like an embarrassment. But, I suppose it must work, or they wouldn't have done it. >>> As for your second sentence, that remains to be seen in about four weeks. As to the first, I suspect that I'm in very tiny demographic as having contributed to both Obama and McCain during the primaries. I suspect that most people currently receiving McCain mailings do not receive any Obama mailings, and therefore aren't in a position to compare the two directly. And, since the McCain mailings use manipulative techniques straight out of the direct mail industry, they probably would not appear out of place to most Americans. The reason they stood out so much to me was that I was in the perhaps unusual situation of receiving an equal helping of mail from each side.
