Attacking Obama
I am tapping out my link-free cocktail party talking points of probable attack lines against Obama. Help me out!
1. Can We Settle For Picking A President, Not A Messiah?
It's wonderful that Mr. Audacity of Hope has got Scarlett Johannson all acquiver - the poor dear was no doubt looking down a long, lonely road to a gray horizon until Barack saved her. But really, can't we just pick a President? This Cult of Barack is creepy.
2. Commander in Chief of a Cub Scout Troop - Maybe.
This guy is ready to command the US military in wartime? Please. Kennedy wasn't ready - ask the folks who survived the Bay of Pigs debacle. Let's add that Bill Clinton was not ready to be President, since not all the whackos at Waco were inside the Davidian compound but neither Reno nor Bill seemed to be in charge. Or ask about Mogadishu that fall.
3. Barack, Barack, what have you done lately, or ever?
Chris Matthews had fun with this; won't be the last time.
4. When Does The Bipartisanship Begin?
David Brooks offered a fruitful variation on the "What, if anything, has Barack accomplished (I have a free thirty seconds)" question - why has he ducked the big bipartisan pushes of the last few years?
Where was Barack when the Gang of 14 teamed up to move judges through the Senate? McCain was there!
Where was Barack when the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill was stumbling through the Senate? McCain was there!
Where was Obama when roughly 20 Democratic Senators joined the Republicans in trying to update FISA? McCain was there!
The reality is that McCain has practiced the sort of bipartisanship Obama has merely preached, and has the political scars to prove it. Do we want the guy who does a great job of talking the talk, or the guy who has walked the walk for years?
5. We Are The Change We Have Been Waiting For (Or Am I The Walrus?)
Some of Obama's rhetoric desperately needs to be mocked. We can assume that the Saturday Night Live folks will go AWOL on this but perhaps others will pick up the slack. We are the change we have been waiting for? Uh huh, and John McCain is the KeyMaster. Or is he the Merovingian?
6. Down With MiddleClassedness
Obama's minister surfaced a few weeks back; hard to believe he is gone for good.
Help me out. I really think it is Obama's hard luck to be squared up against McCain.
You should include some of the things he has actually proposed, invading Pakistan, drivers licenses for illegals, etc.
Posted by: abw | February 20, 2008 at 06:13 PM
4. is hard to deny.
Posted by: clarice | February 20, 2008 at 06:16 PM
Barack Obama - Is that a request?
Posted by: PeterUK | February 20, 2008 at 06:43 PM
7. Voting for Obama is like tossing the keys to a Ferrari Testarossa to your 5-year old.
Posted by: coolpapa | February 20, 2008 at 06:44 PM
I really think it is Obama's hard luck to be squared up against McCain.
Oh come on he is so not square.
Thats' his appeal his Unsquariness-which uh, wow, rhymes with his scariness.
Yours truly,
Scarlette, Scar-ette, Scar-it!
Could she look more clueeless in that one video-you know the one.
I know let's call him His One-ness!
Have you read some of the threads at the Barack blogs?
Which are actually under the web address "my barack"..
Wow. My Sharona!
Posted by: Anon | February 20, 2008 at 06:47 PM
Everybody wants to vote for their Grandpa for President!
Posted by: dmh | February 20, 2008 at 06:49 PM
Look I have to do this-
Have you seen some of the DRIVEL-
Here it is in all it's squirelly "goodness"-
Posted by: Anon | February 20, 2008 at 06:55 PM
McCain can run on "Change You Can Depend On" vs. BHO "Change You Can't Believe In"
Posted by: Steven W. | February 20, 2008 at 06:57 PM
No better not go with that...
Change your Depends....
not good.
Posted by: Anon | February 20, 2008 at 07:06 PM
I would use GMax's analysis of the cost shifting involved in the promise to cut health insurance premiums by $2,500. I don't know the IQ of your cocktail crowd but they would have to be industrial grade stupid not to get that one.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 20, 2008 at 07:10 PM
2. Commander in Chief of a Cub Scout Troop - Maybe.
This guy is ready to command the US military in wartime?
If you guys intend to pursue this line with any effectiveness in persuading swing voters, you're going to have to grit your teeth and admit grudgingly that Bush in '00 was probably even less experienced in foreign policy and that his wartime performance hasn't been so stellar (at a minimum, by not prosecuting the Iraq war very compentently).
Hardly anyone who is not already in McCain's camp is going to buy the idea that Bush was obviously foreign-policy seasoned when he first got elected AND that he's performed well AND that Obama should be considered green using the same nonpartisan criteria by which Bush was judged to be ready in '00. It's not going to happen.
Maybe once Obama picks a VP (assuming he wins) you could try contrasting the joint team with Bush/Cheney, although I wouldn't be too optimistic about that strategy, either.
If you're willing to push this line with some accompanying Bush-bashing, though, it may gain some traction. How bad do you want to beat Obama?
Posted by: Foo Bar | February 20, 2008 at 07:16 PM
Bush was pre-9/11.
It's that simple.
Conditions are fluid.
You can't plop Obama down in 2000 and say it's all the same.
Posted by: Anon | February 20, 2008 at 07:21 PM
I don't know-maybe with Democrats you can.
That's the problem.
Posted by: Anon | February 20, 2008 at 07:22 PM
# 4 is your best argument. I'm sure we will be seeing variants of ity here over the next few months. (And maybe I'll be able to think of a good response to it. Right now, I'm like that poor schmuk on MSNBC last night)
The counter to #1 is that the reasonbable fellah talking to you probably does not buy into the Messiah business.
The counter to #2 is that he was right on Iraq, when the experienced weren't. Good judgement counts for something...
I'm sure the talking points on Item 3 are coming. I don't know them yet.
I think the answer to #5 is that Hit & Run be hired by the SNL/Colbert/Daily Show crew. In seriousness, the media tends to excerpt "big nmoments" from Obama's speeches, so that one misses the programatic stuff.
#6. All politicians lay down with dogs. Hence they all carry a few fleas. It does not seem that Obama has too many moronic associates, but time will tell.
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | February 20, 2008 at 07:23 PM
Wouldn't trouble me a bit to bash Bush in order to defeat Obama. But at least the man had put on a uniform and got in the cockpit of a hot and dangerous aircraft. Having some understanding of what military people do isn't foreign policy experience, but it sure is an element of being commander-in-chief. And JFK, callow as he was, had commanded men in combat and been decorated for it.
Posted by: Other Tom | February 20, 2008 at 07:23 PM
The counter to #2 is that he was right on Iraq, when the experienced weren't. Good judgement counts for something...
My counter would be to play the "what if we hadn't gone to war with Iraq?" game.
Iraq has been a huge problem.
Go back to 2003 and tell me what happens if we never bomb, because I don't see how it would end with anything but Saddam in power rebuilding his nukes with Iran madly trying to keep pace, and Libya chuckling alongside them.
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2008 at 07:34 PM
"McCain can run on "Change You Can Depend On" vs. BHO "Change You Can't Believe In"
How about "Change you have had before so it will come as no surprise"?
Posted by: PeterUK | February 20, 2008 at 07:35 PM
"Bush in '00 was probably even less experienced in foreign policy and that his wartime performance hasn't been so stellar (at a minimum, by not prosecuting the Iraq war very compentently)."
You won didn't you? Nobody prosecutes a war competently(sic),it isn't in the nature of the beast.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 20, 2008 at 07:38 PM
Anon,
The Democrats are still in 1968,their bodies may be in 2008,but their brains are forty years behind them.
I blame leaf.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 20, 2008 at 07:41 PM
#4 Bipartisanship --
It's even worse, McCain tried to include Obama in a bipartisan task force on ethics and Obama reneged on a commitment to McCain.
McCain's letter blasting Obama is here
(2nd letter)
Here's a taste:
Posted by: capitano | February 20, 2008 at 07:52 PM
A.P. said, "It does not seem that Obama has too many moronic associates, but time will tell."
I dunno, A.P. I seem to remember in one of the debates where Obama claimed to have many of Clinton's old advisors, and even offered to confer with Hillary. Do those advisors count as moronic?
Posted by: centralcal | February 20, 2008 at 07:53 PM
Have y'all seen the drudge headline?
The NYTs unloads on McCain and an affair, or alleged affair, with a lobbyist.
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2008 at 08:07 PM
Bush in '00 was probably even less experienced in foreign policy and that his wartime performance hasn't been so stellar (at a minimum, by not prosecuting the Iraq war very compentently).
Why is this relevant FooB? McCain has way more foreign policy experience than Obamessiah, end of story. How either compares to GWB, or Clinton, or Herbert Hoover is beside the point. None of those guys is running.
Posted by: Soylent Red | February 20, 2008 at 08:13 PM
Tom...Tom...Tom
How quickly everybody forgets the Campaign of 2000 and the wordsmithing used by the Democrats.
What Obama lacks is the "G" word: Gravitas.
My understanding, thanks to the Democrats, is that a candidate without gravitas is unelectable. That candidate needs a gravitas-laden personality to act as co-president.
All the Democrats need to do to secure an Obama presidency is have Dick Cheney change his registration and run as Veep.
Gravitas - If you can't have it by winning two elections to be chief executive of the 2nd largest state, what chance is there is that serving in a state legislature and running during your first term as a senator gives you it?
-
Posted by: BumperStickerist | February 20, 2008 at 08:16 PM
Try to picture an empty suit lip syncing a Milli Vanilli tune.
Posted by: MikeS | February 20, 2008 at 08:19 PM
If you guys intend to pursue this line with any effectiveness in persuading swing voters, you're going to have to grit your teeth and admit grudgingly that Bush in '00 was probably even less experienced in foreign policy and that his wartime performance hasn't been so stellar (at a minimum, by not prosecuting the Iraq war very compentently).
If the swing voters aren't any more intelligent than that, I don't want em.
Posted by: Pofarmer | February 20, 2008 at 08:23 PM
(at a minimum, by not prosecuting the Iraq war very compentently)
The only way McCain loses on this count is if he cheerled for the "incompetent" approach, say, and then derided the approach that worked. Ooooops. Looks like McCain's (wrong, IMHO) criticism about Rumsfeld&Co's handling of the war, and surge support hits all sides of the "prosecution" meme perfectly. And the contrast in experience is ridiculous. Obama can't win this one, and dare not fight it.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 20, 2008 at 08:24 PM
PeterUK
I blame more than the leaf...
Posted by: Anon | February 20, 2008 at 08:24 PM
The NYTs unloads on McCain and an affair, or alleged affair, with a lobbyist.
I feel cheated that they never went with the Rielle Hunter story.
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2008 at 08:25 PM
"If you're willing to push this line with some accompanying Bush-bashing,'
Sorry. Since he cannot run again, he is not a subject we wish to discuss.
Posted by: Semanticleo | February 20, 2008 at 08:25 PM
"Bush in '00 was probably even less experienced in foreign policy and that his wartime performance hasn't been so stellar (at a minimum, by not prosecuting the Iraq war very compentently).'
""Why is this relevant FooB?""
I think it's because you wish to give Bush
a pass on foreign policy acumen, while assailing Obama's similar pre-WH experience.
But that's how you guys do your stuff.
Posted by: Semanticleo | February 20, 2008 at 08:28 PM
His dad was President . His dad was Ambassador to China. He is close to his dad. He probably knew more about foreign policy as a kid than Obama knows as a candidate.
Posted by: clarice | February 20, 2008 at 08:31 PM
I think it's because you wish to give Bush
a pass on foreign policy acumen, while assailing Obama's similar pre-WH experience.
Does equating Obama to Bush work out well for the Dems, FooBar and Seman?
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2008 at 08:32 PM
Given BHO's penchant for voting 'Present' when the going gets tough, his support of infanticide may provide a nice "compare and contrast" area.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 20, 2008 at 08:34 PM
"Does equating Obama to Bush work out well for the Dems'
I don't know, MayBee, but I'm sure you'll tell me.
I am glad that someone here used the 'Bush'
word. Will McCain want his endorsement?
Posted by: Semanticleo | February 20, 2008 at 08:34 PM
I think it's because you wish to give Bush
a pass on foreign policy acumen, while assailing Obama's similar pre-WH experience.
But that's how you guys do your stuff.
Where did anyone ever say they gave GWB a pass? And furthermore, isn't Obamessiah the change from Bushitler politics of non-hope we've all secretly been praying for?
Why on earth would the Chosen One - who makes me weep with tears of ecstasy and speak in tongues - want to compare himself in any way to Chimpy? Doesn't he brag about how is inexperience makes him the perfect agent for hopeful change we can all believe in and hope for while changing toward the hopeful?
Posted by: Soylent Red | February 20, 2008 at 08:35 PM
OMFG!
I just saw Obama's beatific face on my grilled cheese sandwich.
Posted by: Soylent Red | February 20, 2008 at 08:38 PM
I think it's because you wish to give Bush a pass on foreign policy acumen, while assailing Obama's similar pre-WH experience.
Nonsense. Obama has exactly zero military or related experience. GWB was a former military (Guard) officer himself, and head of the Texas guard as governor. (And son of a military officer, CIA director, ambassador, and President, as noted.) The experience is not at all "similar." The contrast with McCain is even more stark.
Obama is perfectly unqualified to be C-in-C.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 20, 2008 at 08:39 PM
Energy Independence Now!
No more Oil Wars!
Stop funding the terrorists!
Drill in Anwar.
Build more nuclear power plants
Use More coal.
Use more natural gas
Turn trash into energy
Double the efficiency of windmills and solar cells.
If France can do nuclear power so can we.
If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we.
If Australia can do LNG power so can we.
Posted by: poetryman69 | February 20, 2008 at 08:39 PM
"Nonsense"
If you say so, 'He who must be obeyed'.
Posted by: Semanticleo | February 20, 2008 at 08:43 PM
I'm thinking Bush had at least 12 years of Hillasperience. While his dad was in the White House.
Maybe that's where he learned it was bad form to insist on launching military attacks inside an ally's territory without their permission.
Posted by: MikeS | February 20, 2008 at 08:43 PM
I suppose if Bill Clinton had been more honest about the nature of the threat we were facing from AlQaeda, John McCain might have done better in 2000.
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2008 at 08:46 PM
From my.barackobama.com...
Barack Obama is a Black Man, born in Hawaii, of a Kenyan Father and a White woman from Kansas; a holy union that has blessed us with a being capable of giving rise to the grace of God through the words that he speaks, and through his service and example. Someone capable of channeling spirt with such intensity that he can inspire us to go far beyond our selves in the service of Mankind, and all creatures great and small with whom we share this planet.
I think I might barf.
Posted by: Soylent Red | February 20, 2008 at 08:55 PM
I'm a cockeyed optimist. I still think Hill will win the nomination, and then lose to McCain.
Posted by: clarice | February 20, 2008 at 09:00 PM
Chauncey Gardener.
Roger Ebert: " 'Being There,'... has the appeal of an ingenious intellectual game, in which the hero survives a series of challenges he doesn't understand, using words that are both universal and meaningless. But are Chance's sayings noticeably less useful than when the president tells us about a "bridge to the 21st century?'' Sensible public speech in our time is limited by (1) the need to stay within he confines of the 10-second TV sound bite; (2) the desire to avoid being pinned down to specific claims or promises; and (3) the abbreviated attention span of the audience, which, like Chance, likes to watch but always has a channel-changer poised."
"...The movie argues that if you look right, sound right, speak in platitudes and have powerful friends, you can go far in our society. By the end of the film, Chance is being seriously proposed as a presidential candidate. Well, why not?"
Posted by: sbw | February 20, 2008 at 09:01 PM
Question for Obama: Senator Obama, when you said, "My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington." which you do you intend to represent?
Posted by: sbw | February 20, 2008 at 09:04 PM
Breaking News ... via NY Times under pressure of THE NEW REPUBLIC has a story about an affair between a female lobbyist and John McCain.
Here we go ...!
Posted by: centralcal | February 20, 2008 at 09:05 PM
I once knew a girl with a really sweet smile,she kept on giving this smile,which turned sugary,then sacharine,then unbearabley cloyingly sickly.The smile and the girl had to go.You will find Obama has the same effect.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 20, 2008 at 09:05 PM
If you say so, 'He who must be obeyed'.
Riiight. Somebody forgot to tell my wife.
. . . and through his service and example . . .
What "service"? Being a congressman? Pretty thin.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | February 20, 2008 at 09:06 PM
In Obama's commercial playing on local tv, he says he isn't going to be the president of blue America, or red America but the United States of America. So, my question to Obama is how are you going to be my president when I disagree with everything you have proposed? Are you willing to compromise and move to the center? And if so, in what areas?
Posted by: Sue | February 20, 2008 at 09:07 PM