Drop it like it's hot(headed)
Yesterday, Greg posted an item about the Obama campaign's new strategy of portraying McCain as a reckless hothead.
Today, McCain gave Obama the gift of the summer by forgetting how many houses he has. The Obama campaign, quite reasonably, has pounced: they are throwing together events in 16 different states in order to call attention to McCain's own personal "housing crisis."
So... if the Obama campaign is pushing the "out of touch plutocrat" line of attack, does that mean they need to drop the hothead strategy? Are the messages and images of the two lines of attack working at cross-purposes? Do they cancel each other out?
No, I don't think so-- and that's why I like the hothead strategy so damn much.
A long-term strategy framing McCain as a reckless, hair-trigger pol can complement almost any other attack, and not just on the subject of foreign policy, either... Take energy: point out that McCain rashly jumps to solutions that every expert knows won't work (gas tax holiday! "Drill here! drill now!"), and he lashes out at anyone who calls him on the carpet. And you can always show angry-confused-hothead McCain yelling, "Anyone else as sick as I am of paying four dollars, uh bucks a d--uhhh Paying four gallons!").
More importantly, the hothead strategy allows Obama to answer McCain's jabs without seeming reactive. Today (and for a while ahead, I presume and hope), Obama is flogging McCain's riches. What does the McCain campaign do? As per usual, they answer with a flailing rejoinder filled with cheap ad hominem attacks and threats of further mudslinging. To paraphrase:
As illustrated by today's attacks, the McCain campaign's regular hissy fits and downright nasty ads offer the Obama campaign a perfect opportunity to continually reintroduce the "hothead" frame. They might consider responding with something like the following:
The Obama campaign's response to John McCain's negative campaigning shouldn't be disappointment ("He's an honorable man running an increasingly dishonorable campaign") or false outrage and indignation (that's the McCain campaign's job). No, every McCain attack is another opportunity to hammer home the message that McCain is a hothead. McCain shoots first and asks questions later -- a hothead who's frequently wrong, but never in doubt (and what other political figure does that remind you of...?)
There will be many issues that push themselves onto the front burner during the next 2.5 months. It's the Obama campaign's job (and ours as well! Remember: we are the campaign) to ensure that the hothead frame stays a-cookin' at a steady boil on the back burner.
(crossposted at DailyKos)
Today, McCain gave Obama the gift of the summer by forgetting how many houses he has. The Obama campaign, quite reasonably, has pounced: they are throwing together events in 16 different states in order to call attention to McCain's own personal "housing crisis."
So... if the Obama campaign is pushing the "out of touch plutocrat" line of attack, does that mean they need to drop the hothead strategy? Are the messages and images of the two lines of attack working at cross-purposes? Do they cancel each other out?
No, I don't think so-- and that's why I like the hothead strategy so damn much.
A long-term strategy framing McCain as a reckless, hair-trigger pol can complement almost any other attack, and not just on the subject of foreign policy, either... Take energy: point out that McCain rashly jumps to solutions that every expert knows won't work (gas tax holiday! "Drill here! drill now!"), and he lashes out at anyone who calls him on the carpet. And you can always show angry-confused-hothead McCain yelling, "Anyone else as sick as I am of paying four dollars, uh bucks a d--uhhh Paying four gallons!").
More importantly, the hothead strategy allows Obama to answer McCain's jabs without seeming reactive. Today (and for a while ahead, I presume and hope), Obama is flogging McCain's riches. What does the McCain campaign do? As per usual, they answer with a flailing rejoinder filled with cheap ad hominem attacks and threats of further mudslinging. To paraphrase:
Unlike Obama, John McCain isn't "an arugula-eating, pointy headed professor-type." Oh, and, if you haven't heard, McCain was totally a P.O.W. That stands for "prisoner of war."
We have chosen to interpret Obama's attack as a signal that anything goes, so we're going to open up the flood gates and start hitting Barry with the really nasty stuff now: The holy wingnut trinity of Ayers, Wright, Rezko.
P.S. P.O.W.!!!!
As illustrated by today's attacks, the McCain campaign's regular hissy fits and downright nasty ads offer the Obama campaign a perfect opportunity to continually reintroduce the "hothead" frame. They might consider responding with something like the following:
Today, when confronted with the fact that their candidate is so out of touch with regular Americans that he doesn't even know how many houses he owns, the McCain campaign flew off the handle yet again. This time, they promised to smear Barack Obama with the kind of same sort of bogus, ad hominem attacks that they used to condemn. They don't just attack countries without learning the facts first -- that's also how they attack their political opponents. Since he has no plan to strengthen the middle class, John McCain relies on personal smears and wild accusations about Barack Obama. If McCain runs his country the way he runs his campaign, you'll certainly be able to take him at his word when he says, "there will be more wars."
The Obama campaign's response to John McCain's negative campaigning shouldn't be disappointment ("He's an honorable man running an increasingly dishonorable campaign") or false outrage and indignation (that's the McCain campaign's job). No, every McCain attack is another opportunity to hammer home the message that McCain is a hothead. McCain shoots first and asks questions later -- a hothead who's frequently wrong, but never in doubt (and what other political figure does that remind you of...?)
There will be many issues that push themselves onto the front burner during the next 2.5 months. It's the Obama campaign's job (and ours as well! Remember: we are the campaign) to ensure that the hothead frame stays a-cookin' at a steady boil on the back burner.
(crossposted at DailyKos)
Advertisement





I think pounding on a presidential opponent's temperment is dumb unless the opponent is actually prone to showing that temperment in his public appearances.
I was thinking that the other day when Josh Marshall posted on the same theme. McCain does not exhibit his temper for all the the world to see. It will not ring true to many people. McCain temper stories are almost all second hand, we don't see it in public.
Instead, we usually see a calm McCain in most of his public appearances, not only that but on the quiet, thoughtful side, he has the habit of talking softly and not shouting or orating or preaching, actually lowering his voice to look calm and in control while adding a touch of a sense of humility at the same time.
True, he has been known to steely and talk back when he has a heckler, and has been known to dis a citizen questioner or two, but only when he strongly disagrees with them and wouldn't want their vote anyways. He doesn't show the temper often in public appearances or even with the media, it has virtually all been behind the scenes. People won't give it much weight if they can't see it for themselves. Since most people may not end up seeing examples of the hothead temper for themselves, it may even backfire an opponent pounds it with the wrong examples, as in: knowing when to act mad and not act mad is a feature, not a bug.
Keep in mind he has a temper but he also comes from a military family, where classically discipline and "temper" go hand in hand.
By contrast, Guiliani, that's someone that might have imploded with the public hothead thing by now, and you could hang him on it.
August 21, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
AP, you make a good point. But being hotheaded is not quite the same thing as having a temper. Bill Clinton has a temper, but he's not hotheaded. It's the recklessness and rashness that are of great concern in a President and which Obama is trying to push. McCain has shown himself to be someone who "shoots from the hip" and even seems to take some pride in that. Recklessness is an explicitly negative representation of the same attribute. For that reason, I think it's a better word than "hotheaded" which does have connotations have anger.
Aufzoom, welcome back. I enjoy your posts and hope that there will be more.
August 21, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis, thanks for the kind words. I've missed hanging around here and it feels good to be starting up again, even if the entry is sliding quickly into TPM oblivion.
Artappraiser's comment makes sense, but I do think the equation has changed some since the disaster that has been the Bush presidency. Call me naive, but I think Americans might be looking for someone who considers their actions this time around and does turn everything into a destabilizing threat. And you don't have to speak in a loud voice to be recognized by the typical low-info voter as a loose cannon. I think McCain's weird whistly alto is just as redolent of a short-fuse as some other fellow's bellow. RHYME!
August 21, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What we need is a McCain dean-scream moment. Keep your fingers crossed. Sorry for calling you aufzooM.
August 21, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink