You're right -- John McCain isn't George W. Bush. Sarah Palin is George W. Bush.

Ezra,
I share your call for calm, but for a different reason. McCain, with the celebrity ads, with the Palin pick and with the convention, discovered that if he 'wins' the daily news cycle, he does better. However, lacking substantive new policies to announce or major developments, he is now using all the tricks from Rove's playbook and being obvious about it, in order to get attention. The incessant calls for attention are wearing thin and earning him scorn. Obama is hitting back and not letting McCain get traction, but also playing it cool and refocusing on the issues at the same time. Eventually, McCain will run out of things to complain about or just run out of steam, leaving Obama to dominate the news again, be able to do a "I told you so" speech, and re-affirm the substantive policies he has been talking about whiling pointing out that McCain hasn't been talking about anything that lasts beyond a single news cycle.

For the pundit love triangle analogy to hold, you would have had to have spent the last 6 years trying to look, dress, walk, generally appear as similar to Chris Hayes as possible.

Or, to wind this analogy out much farther than it can probably bear: you only want to date Chris Hayes' girl to get to meet her roommate. Now it's starting to look like that My Three Sons episode in which Robbie has dates with two girls on the same night. You're at the two-story hamburger joint, and you're telling the girl downstairs that you are really down with Chris Hayes and he's the coolest guy you ever met, only you are actually better at being Chris Hayes than he is.

Upstairs, you are tellin g the roommate that the Chris Hayes thing was just a phase, you are your own man now, and will in fact be exactly the kind of "change" she is looking for.

But remember that the object of the game is to keep both girls on the reservation, while hoping they don't meet up in the restroom and compare notes.

With all the above revisions, sure, it's a great analogy.

I couldn't agree more with this post! I never liked "More of the Same". But I do like "Change We Can Believe In". I also think that Obama should run with the lipstick analogies. He shouldn't have apologized for alluding to McCain's policies.

Lipstick:

http://kenyaimagine.com/images/stories/republican.jpg

Importantly, these days McCain is trying to convince voters that he and Palin are the ticket for change. Whose message is winning here again?

I'd like to see Obama point out that Bush also ran (against McCain, BTW) in 2000 as a "reformer with results." Sound familiar?

Obama's problems are that change is an empty vessel that can be filled equally well by Obama or McCain if he is not careful. The key is filling that vessel with content, and Obama has the advantage there, but he has to do it. You do it by incessantly repeating in a memorable way the specific policies that would represent change, UHC, commitment to green politics, investment in people at home and respect abroad. Obama's problem is that he's been coasting since May, neglecting to make the positive case for himself (aside from GOP 2000-2007 is bad or change is good).

Make the case.

Martin,

What other things would you have him do to make that case though? He does this on the stump, and in ads. I'm not sure that doing so in a memorable way is straightforward, particularly with our existing media.

The big complaint I have so far with the Obama campaign is that they didn't fight back on the McCain campaign's lies concerning taxes hard enough. I'm not sure they ran one ad painting those claims for what they were: lies. Of all the lies/distortions McCain's put out there, that one's the most damaging, IMO.

Why is it bad to point out that McCain's policy direction is pretty much the same as Bush's? McCain isn't doing a very good job and trying to point out any differences - in fact he doesn't even try. The vague pronouncements he makes just mark time until he can step away from the mic. Why not hit McCain over and over again to make him get specific, make him sweat.

I'm okay with "more of the same" if it's clear (or as clear as possible) that it's more of the same failed Republican policies, not more of Bush (although throwing in Bush is an easy shorthand).

In terms of discrediting McCain (since he's running more on his persona than his policies these days), I loved Kerry's approach of "there's Senator McCain and Candidate McCain". Senator McCain has the history of independent thought; Candidate McCain is a lying panderer. It focuses on what he's like NOW, which is far more beatable than his history.

I'm on the frontlines here in Ohio, and I've been seeing lots of Obama TV ads on the networks and cable. He is hitting the 'more of the same' line pretty hard, although there are other ads hitting McCain out there. He is leavening that with positive ads giving his positions on the issues he cares about. It seems an effective mix to me.

Happily, McCain provided them with plenty of ammunition for a charge that's organic to his life and record

Most of all: he supported the signature Bush policy proposal -- the Iraq War. It's a war that the American public is solidly against.

Run against the war.

"the Obama campaign needs to provide the reason to vote against John McCain .... That he's out of touch. Doesn't get it. Too old, and too rich, for the world we live in."

In other words, you want Obama to run a campaign of character assassination. One of the reasons I plan to vote for Obama is that I believe he's better than that. I hope I'm right.

At some point in the election, though, the Obama campaign needs to provide the reason to vote against John McCain

By calling McCain Bush II, they arn't campaigning against Bush. The assumption is that noone likes Bush, so the campaign is that McCain is like Bush and why would you want 'more of the same'?

My opinion of McCain has changed since 2000. I think his maverick image is tarnished or was over-sold to begin with. I think he can't or won't stand up to his party. I think in every substansive way he will run an administration nearly as bad as W.'s.

How did I arrive at these opinions? - and don't tell me they don't count because I went to college or drink coffee and eat salad.

The big elephant in the room, the one you don't actually mention in this post is John McCain's willingness to use military force, not as a last resort, but as a means of problem-solving. Jeffrey Goldberg's recent article in The Atlantic made this point very effectively. In an earlier issue of The Prospect, Matthew Yglesias wrote a similar article about McCain called "The Militarist". The truth is that McCain may be out of touch, and too old, and rich beyond belief, but none of these things really freak people out. In other words, the apprehension of these tropes does not trigger a visceral emotional reaction. The trope of McCain as a warmonger, the vision of a president who will involve us in more unnecessary conflict, further endanger our standing in the world through his 20th century vision of the world as a place of intractable conflict. This is a trope that Obama has not really pushed, probably because he doesn't believe in attacking his opponent's character. But I will say this: its not McCain's domestic attitude that scares me, it's his attitude towards foreign policy. To quote Goldberg:

"McCain, however, he never appeared greatly troubled by his shifts and reversals. It’s not difficult to understand why: tax policy, or health care, or even off-shore oil drilling are for him all matters of mere politics, and politics calls for ideological plasticity. It is only in the realm of national defense, and of American honor—two notions that for McCain are thoroughly entwined—that he becomes truly unbending."

To point this out forcefully to the American public might be engaging in "politics of fear", which Obama decries regularly. However, what if the object of discussion really does merit genuine fear? Doesn't that make it more legitimate? I realize these questions are somewhat academic. But I do wonder why Obama has not attacked McCain more on his temperment and belligerent attitude towards those who do not share our values in the global community. Right now, most undecided voters--from what focus groups and other surveys show--like Obama, feel that he understands their problems better and trust him more to fix the economy. The problem is that they don't think he's ready to be president, and they feel that McCain is ready to be president. In other words, they feel Obama to be more of a risk than McCain. Call it a Rovian tactic. Whatever. But there is a true meme out there about how McCain is an even greater risk as president than Obama. That McCain might not just be "more of the same" but actually make things a lot worse by 'bomb, bomb, bombing Iran.'

How about an ad comparing Bush/Brownie to McCain/Palin? Stress how experience, competence, and qualifications were not priorities for Bush and his administration, and how that contributed to Katrina. McCain is now doing the same and setting us all up for another disaster.

so we need a Daisy ad? A 527 could surely come up with a riff on Bomb Bomb Iran, 100 Years in Iraq, and some random audio of McCain saying something else incredibly stupid and militaristic, put it to patriotic music like a whimsical Sousa march, and tie it all together that John McCain has no respect for peace or diplomacy and just wants to blow up shit. Sounds good to me. The media would be talking about it for weeks.

The two points Democrats need to be stressing about McCain are that he's abandoned almost every position that he had during his short period of maverickiness (he's far from being steadfast and unmoved by political considerations) and that he's reckless, especially in his attitude toward military action. The recklessness may make a McCain presidency even riskier than a third Bush term would be.

Spike, maybe an ad something like this?

You could actually tie the two together fairly easily.
The philosophy is 'more of the same'. The particulars are a reason to vote against MCain.

The philosophy is large tax cuts slanted towards the upper income brackets. The particular is McCain as a rich, out of touch man who doesn't even know how many homes he owns.

The philosophy is Iraq as the central front in the 'war on terror'. The particular is refusing to even discuss withdrawal from Iraq.

Can this post be reconciled with this one?

Can this post be reconciled with this one?

as one of ezra's more recent posts notes, it's not about fighting back, it's about throwing the first punch.

though cliche to say, the obama campaign needs to get off the defensive and reclaim the campaign narrative. and taking control of the narrative means leveling new accusations against mccain daily.

and it should be easy to do if for no other reasons than the accusations have the benefit of being true: mccain thinks you have too much health coverage, mccain will cut your employer health benefits, mccain will raise your taxes, etc.

the charges can be better phrased, but they must be phrased in the affirmative. voters need to know what mccain will do if given the keys to 1600 pennsylvania.

that's, I'd argue, the best way to paint mccain as an active threat in voters' minds. fear wins elections.

the implications of mccain's proferred policies ought to provide endless ammunition.

I must admit that for somebody who knows his alinsky, obama seems to be attempting to organize people not from where they are---prone to making decisions based on fear; prone to preferring GOP strongmen---but from where he wishes they'd be.

and while I don't think the election's lost, it's legit and appropriate---especially on a blog---to be batting around the deficiencies of obama's campaign. that's kinda the point of a blog: to provide a forum for discussion.

and given the democratic party's sad recent history of letting the GOP set the terms of most debates, it's hardly unreasonable to be concerned that that's what's happening at the moment.

Jake:

Two points. The first is that as of like yesterday, McCain and Obama were polling about evenly on which candidate was more likely to bring change about. The reason that happened is that Obama has been running on "change," which is an empty signifier, rather than UHC or commitment to the environment, which is a liberal signifier. That's point one.

The second point is that if you ask regular voters what policies Obama would implement as president, they don't give clear answers. As Kevin Drum analogized the other day, that was not true of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Everyone knew exactly what Reagan wanted to do. You say it's not easy to become associated with issues in this media environment, but that's poppycock. If Obama wanted to wed himself to UHC and one or two other issues, they could do so. It takes a discipline that Obama has in other areas, but not this area.

I agree with Ezra, but on a meta-level McCain has had to adjust his entire strategy (Experience -> Change/Reformer). Clearly Obama has set the terms of the debate.

I just hope everyone commenting here is also donating and volunteering. That is a way to actually win votes. The Obama strategy team is pretty f'ing good; let's not delude ourselves that we know better. The election may come down to the 20 voters you register on a Saturday, however. Read a blog, then go do something.

In addition to preemptive (preventative?) attacks on McCain, Obama needs to make the affirmative case for himself, and he needs to make it again and again--he deeply wants to make this country better, and he wants to use the Presidency to do so.

Ezra, right on! I keep waiting for Obama to take the next step in his speeches: "McCain voted 90% with Bush" .... But then...
What we need to hear is the story, the narrative, to make sense of it:

Obama: "...BUT LET ME TELL YOU WHY. WHY WOULD McCAIN DO THAT, KNOWING HOW UNPOPULAR BUSH IS AND RECOGNIZING THAT McCAIN IS NOT BUSH? HERE'S WHY..."

You are right. They need to provide a reason for why not McCain. But I do think Barack needs to shoe some "outrage" and passion. I have been sick of "more of the same" slogan.

"They know John McCain because he ran against George W. Bush in 1999. Because he was dismembered by George W. Bush in 2000. Because he spent a few years being a pain in George W. Bush's ass."

Right Ezra, then he became George W Bush to solidify the base, including bringing in the team of people that called his wife a drug addict and his adopted child a nigger.

Barack is right, you are wrong.

If Ezra doesn't like it, it must be good.

This ad is genius. Newsflash, Ezra: we WANT to run against George W. Bush. The public’s perception of John McCain is softer than you think – many obviously weren’t aware of the POW thing until after his convention speech.

Plus, don’t get caught up on the tagline at the end. The main point of the ad is making John McCain look old and out of it. Most of the public isn’t aware that he’s 72 years old, either.

Agreed. Trading off Bush's unpopularity is a beginning, but as the central message it just can't work. I have a sinking feeling that "Bush's third term" may become to this election what Al Gore's endlessly repeated "locked box" was in 2000. A tired slogan, playing on known fears, that doesn't come to grips with the other candidate's real weaknesses or articulate a positive vision.

Now here comes the latest update on Wapo's front page, titled "Obama Campaign Promises Aggressive Responses." Here we go again -- "responses"! Dammit, they need to stop "responding" to whatever the McCain thugs have dreamed up that day, and start taking the fight to John McCain's doorstep, day after day, non-stop until the election. Let *McCain* worry about "responding" for once. We need to see substantive attacks on the man's record, judgment, and temperament, all of which are deeply vulnerable. Draw the contrast again and again and again. If Obama and his folks don't drive up McCain's negatives, which have been blunted by Palin's popularity, we're all in big trouble.

The second point is that if you ask regular voters what policies Obama would implement as president, they don't give clear answers. As Kevin Drum analogized the other day, that was not true of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Everyone knew exactly what Reagan wanted to do. You say it's not easy to become associated with issues in this media environment, but that's poppycock. If Obama wanted to wed himself to UHC and one or two other issues, they could do so. It takes a discipline that Obama has in other areas, but not this area.

I agree that this is important, but I don't know that Obama is doing badly. I know what he stands for, whereas I can't tell you what issues Kerry stood for in 2004 or Gore in 2000 (other than 'lockbox'). On the other hand, I remember Clinton's 1992 campaign promises as if I heard them yesterday.

So, for my money, Obama is doing much better than Gore or Kerry.

A month ago, conventional wisdom held that "More of the Same" was the ideal campaign slogan. What's changed?

John McCain hasn't announced any new policies that would mark a meaningful departure from the last eight years.

McCain has staked his campaign on the possibility that Americans are stupid enough to believe that his administration would represent "change" without departing from George W. Bush on any issue Americans care about.

It's intellectually dishonest political gimmickry, but we can't convince Americans of that fact unless we believe it ourselves.

Personalities matter? If John McCain has his way, you're right. But why on earth should Democrats concede the point and run this race on John McCain's terms? Is the party that facile and self-doubting?

For the sake of our country, I hope not. McCain is more of the same. McCain 2.0 is nonsense. Do not back away from it.

Ezra - thanks for articulating what I've been feeling for a while.

But there's an easy way for Obama to pivot off this, and Paul Krugman points the way: McCain is WORSE than Bush. That's not more of the same - that's WORSE! That's the line Obama should be using. What's he afraid of?

Here's the ad from Obama I'd like to see. Call it "Hurricane of Lies" -

Start with network news announcer, make it looks like a real weather alert to get the media to talk about it and give it airplay: "Alert! There's a new hurricane forming and headed straight for America...it's John McCain's hurricane of lies." Quick montage of oh, say, a dozen McCain/Palin lies from the past weeks. "Forty years ago, John McCain served this country honorably. Now he's covering his lack of any real policy proposals for America in a hurricane of lies. If this hurricane hits the White House, it would be a disaster of epic proportions."

Then introduce the new slogan: John McCain. No, that's not more of the same. That's worse.

"John McCain is not George W. Bush. They know John McCain because he ran against George W. Bush in 1999. Because he was dismembered by George W. Bush in 2000. Because he spent a few years being a pain in George W. Bush's ass."

The main thrust of the argument isn't right. What don't voters like about Bush? McCain supported most of those same things. Yes, you have make the case that McCain actually does like all these things too. But Biden and Kerry did a pretty good job of that in the convention, and Obama seems to be doing a pretty good job of it so far. Complete the strategy, don't abandon it.

It's wrong to think that you have to start a whole new argument about what John McCain would do, assume it's very different than Bush's ideas, and then attack these new, unheard of proposals. Retrospective voting is much more powerful than voting on policy proposals, that much in voting behavior research is clear. Tying McCain to Bush isn't a perfect fit but it's a case that has a lot of truth to it. Which is more than you can say from the message coming from the McCain camp.

"Worse Than Bush"

If the Obama campaign does adopt this as their new slogan they're nuts. Then they need to keep making the case.

Think Bush is a hothead? McCain is even more of a hothead.

Think Bush's economic policies were bad? McCain wants more tax cuts for the wealthy than even Bush requested.

Think Bush started bad wars? McCain wants to go to war with Russia.

etc. etc.

WORSE THAN BUSH!
WORSE THAN BUSH!

Oops -- I meant if the Obama campaign doesn't adopt the "Worse Than Bush" slogan they're nuts.

Enough!

http://www.bobcesca.com/images/ZZ7A3474E6.jpg

You're all wrong. McCain is winning because issues are irrelevant to the remaining uncommitted voters. They vote on personality--whether they like or identify with the candidate--alone. The polls are not wrong. Obama's only chance is for the media to start painting McCain negatively. It hasn't yet happened.