Obama's trying to innoculate himself from the Oct. surprise.
In 2004, a few days before the election, Osama bin Laden released a videotape in which he basically endorsed John Kerry. Now, obviously, those of us paying attention realized that GWB was the best thing that ever happened to Al Queda, and that they knew by saying they wanted Kerry to win, a certain number of uninformed voters would be influenced to vote for the candidate NOT endorsed by the perpertrators of 9-11.
Who knows how many thousands of votes that well-timed 'surprise' cost Kerry? Perhaps enough to have made the difference in a couple of swing states? Throw in the BlackBox voting and it's entirely possible.
Now just imagine it's October 30/31, 2008. The election is next Tuesday and we get ANOTHER video tape. It's Osama or some other individual that the newscasters tell us is the number 2, 3 whatever in Al Queda. THIS time, the endorsement is for 'our Muslim brother', Barack HUSSEIN Obama. Maybe just before or just after this, Homeland Security conveniently raises the terror alert for the first time since, oh...I don't know, the LAST presidential election, claiming some kind of 'chatter' on the wires and for us to be 'vigilant' and 'on the lookout' and all that good fear-mongering, alarmist stuff. Even if he still has a 10-15 pt. lead in key state & national polls, if this sequence of events occurs, which is not at all out of the realm of possibility, that lead can drop to within the margin error OVER freaking NIGHT. And that is without any ACTUAL terrorist attack taking place. God forbid something actually does occur. And there will be NO TIME for Obama recover.
Now, the only area where McCain consistently beats Obama in polling is on war/terrorism/national security. Obama does not want to leave ANY opening for the 'he's a secret manchurian Muslim who really wants to hand the country over to the terrrorists' meme. When the soundbites start flying, Obama wants HIS to be 'I'm protecting America, national security trumps everything, yada yada yada'. If he leaves an opening on national security, the Republican will wear him out with 'you can't trust him to do what's necessary to keep America safe.'
After a few months sowing of these doubts, when the 'surprise' comes, Obama will be way more vulnerable, perhaps, than if he appears MORE hawkish than the bluest of blue dog dems. I don't think he likes it or wants it to be this way, but, as the nominee, he doesn't have the luxury counting on the American people to not be duped THIS TIME, into voting from fear, like they have so many time before. And, if he can keep McCain from sowing these doubts too deeply, maybe he can ride out the hit when/if it comes.
Who knows how many thousands of votes that well-timed 'surprise' cost Kerry? Perhaps enough to have made the difference in a couple of swing states? Throw in the BlackBox voting and it's entirely possible.
Now just imagine it's October 30/31, 2008. The election is next Tuesday and we get ANOTHER video tape. It's Osama or some other individual that the newscasters tell us is the number 2, 3 whatever in Al Queda. THIS time, the endorsement is for 'our Muslim brother', Barack HUSSEIN Obama. Maybe just before or just after this, Homeland Security conveniently raises the terror alert for the first time since, oh...I don't know, the LAST presidential election, claiming some kind of 'chatter' on the wires and for us to be 'vigilant' and 'on the lookout' and all that good fear-mongering, alarmist stuff. Even if he still has a 10-15 pt. lead in key state & national polls, if this sequence of events occurs, which is not at all out of the realm of possibility, that lead can drop to within the margin error OVER freaking NIGHT. And that is without any ACTUAL terrorist attack taking place. God forbid something actually does occur. And there will be NO TIME for Obama recover.
Now, the only area where McCain consistently beats Obama in polling is on war/terrorism/national security. Obama does not want to leave ANY opening for the 'he's a secret manchurian Muslim who really wants to hand the country over to the terrrorists' meme. When the soundbites start flying, Obama wants HIS to be 'I'm protecting America, national security trumps everything, yada yada yada'. If he leaves an opening on national security, the Republican will wear him out with 'you can't trust him to do what's necessary to keep America safe.'
After a few months sowing of these doubts, when the 'surprise' comes, Obama will be way more vulnerable, perhaps, than if he appears MORE hawkish than the bluest of blue dog dems. I don't think he likes it or wants it to be this way, but, as the nominee, he doesn't have the luxury counting on the American people to not be duped THIS TIME, into voting from fear, like they have so many time before. And, if he can keep McCain from sowing these doubts too deeply, maybe he can ride out the hit when/if it comes.
Advertisement
Fear is the only reliable card McCain & Co. have to play. And I think you're right that damage control on that sort of October surprise is being implemented now, on several fronts. I hope that Obama's FISA vote is one of them. But whether it is, or is not, Wes Clark has been everywhere lately -- pointing out, on Obama's behalf, that McCain's alleged national security experience is a PR gambit; that, in fact, McCain left the military after coming home from his POW confinement, and that it is only officers who stay in the military, and climb the promotion ladder to far higher ranks, who eventually have the kind of responsibility that qualifies as national security experience.
The October Surprise, alluded to repeatedly but mysteriously, is an effective ploy, in that it incites the kind of dread that only the unknown can evoke. Red alerts are coming soon, to a neighborhood near you. Disgusting and manipulative and completely without conscience.
June 25, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're so lucky to have a man who knows that the most important thing is winning the election. Hell, what's a little telecom immunity between friends? Wink. Wink.
June 25, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the other hand, TPM is unlucky enough to have you, as its resident McCain troll, touting the value of principle above the power to exercise it. After all, what's a little more pro-business, pro-war, anti-civil liberties GOP in the White House? But you'd like that.
June 26, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're so lucky to have a commenter who knows that the most important thing is defeating telecom immunity. Hell, what's a little election loss between friends? Wink. Wink.
June 26, 2008 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
So glad to hear that we're passing bad laws based on what videos bin Laden might or might not make in October. Maybe Harry Reid should just give bin Laden a committee assignment and be done with it.
June 26, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Democrats take positions based on their fear of what Republicans will say about them, they demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Republican accusation is correct. That's why the Republicans bitch slap them on national security all the time. They know the Democrats are wimps who can be intimidated!
The Republicans also understand very well that Americans don't want wimps in the White House or in Congress. So, by intimidating them into becoming whimpering sissies on national security issues, the Republicans get the Democrats to convince Americans for them that they should not be trusted. I don't understand why DC Democrats don't understand how this works as the Republicans have been doing it now for 40 years with great success.
This is the line of attack the Republicans get when Democrats capitulate and make themselves vulnerable by supporting things they know are wrong in order to look tough and prevent attacks from Republicans:
"Democrats are cowards who won't stand up for what they believe in. How do we know that? Because even though they voted for telecom immunity and the FISA bill they only did so for political reasons--they aren't really for it. Orginally they opposed the bill. This demonstrates they will say or do anything they need to in order to win the election and this proves it. You can't trust them!"
That is the very same thing the Republicans did to the cowardly Democrats who voted for the Iraq war authorization and what they've done countless times over the years on military spending, weapons systems, and other very bad ideas that can fall under the heading "national security." The Republicans hammer away at the hypocritical vote cast by Democrats for the right wing position throughout the fall: "Sure they voted for it, but only for political reasons. You can't trust them to defend America."
And our DC Democrats are so thoroughly yellow they cower in fear and repeat the same mistake over and over and over hoping it will turn out different next time. If they'd straighten their spines (if they have them) and stand up forcefully for what they know to be right and start criticizing the Republicans for being the outrageous, irresponsible extremists they are, Democrats could win these contests. But instead of fighting to win, they play not to lose and that's a strategy that has produced bad results Democrats and for America over the years.
Continuing to adhere to this losing strategy is an error, not a "smart" political manuever.
June 26, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, people generally don't like "outrageous, irresponsible extremists", but they'll still vote for them if they consider that to be the "safe" choice. You know, people have wild imagination, and it doesn't take much to make them go think: "Hmm, what if something DOES happen...." Tell them that's all bullshit and those threats are made up, and you think it will help? No, people will still vote "safe".
We've seen civilized, diplomatic candidates lose elections to various "shoot first, ask questions later" types countless times. And if we've learned anything from that it's that people WILL fall for the trick of fear EVERY TIME (at least in the US).
The ONLY strategy that could possibly work against that is to show that republicans are in fact very bad PRECISELY for national security. (And Obama's been repeating that "GWB's policies have made us LESS safe" etc. quite a lot, but so far without much traction among the scared people.)
June 27, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
yep. I want a president who's smart enough to get elected!
June 26, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink