Kick 'Em While They're Down, Hit 'Em While They're Bleeding

The candidacy of Barack Obama has been most often portrayed by an enthralled national media corps as an uplifting gospel revival meeting, dedicated to hope and change. And so it is. But Team Obama has also displayed a willingness to press any advantage in the service of its ultimate goal: winning. So the fact that the campaign had a high-quality 13-minute video in the can portraying John McCain's involvement in the Keating 5 banking scandal of a generation ago should hardly be surprising to anyone who has been paying attention to Obama since last year. The man consistently hits back as hard as possible, and he is totally unafraid to go negative.

Now, I know we're all supposed to be singing from the same hymnal on the left these days - the positive plans of the Obama-Biden juggernaut and all that , the change brand - but I'm breaking ranks. To this Democrat, used to suffering through disastrous election nights in the full knowledge that the results will further ruin his country, Obama's instinct to go for the vicious final punch, the head-snapping lights out political blow, is a thing of beauty.

Senator Obama knows that Senator McCain is on the ropes and reeling. Virtually tied until the wheels came off the American economic system after years of debt worship, McCain-Palin has many Republicans looking for the exits and talking about rebuilding their movement. But he is not content to let McCain fade, or to allow his opposing campaign to trot out a series of lame attacks - really, Bill Ayers is gonna change this election?! - without using every weapon at his disposal.

Besides, the stakes are big and the reward expansive for going negative in the last month. The entire conservative movement is ripe for dividing into rival camps - the social/religious camp versus the so-called economic conservatives. Huge majorities in Congress beckon. A sharp national turn to the left - the next New Deal - is lurking in the eaves.

Howard Wolfson posited in the New Republic that this election is as good as over. I'm inclined to agree. and he's got the stakes entirely in focus:

The economy is simply bigger than the rogues gallery that John McCain is conjuring up.

Why is this?  Why won't the swiftboat tactics work this year?

Its easy to lose sight of it in the day to day coverage, but the collapse of Wall Street in the last weeks was a seminal event in the history of our nation and our politics. To put the crisis in perspective, Americans have lost a combined 1 trillion dollars in net worth in just the last four weeks alone.  Just as President Bush's failures in Iraq undermined his party's historic advantage on national security issues, the financial calamity has shown the ruinous implications of the Republican mania for deregulation and slavish devotion to totally unfettered markets.   

Republicans and Democrats have been arguing over the proper role of government for a century. In 1980 voters sided with Ronald Reagan and Republicans that government had become too big and intrusive.  Then the economy worked in the Republicans' favor.  Today the pendulum has swung in our direction.  Republican philosophies have been discredited by events. Voters understand this. This is a big election about big issues. McCain's smallball will not work. This race will not be decided by lipsticked pigs. And John McCain can not escape that reality. The only unknowns are the size of the margin and the breadth of the Democratic advantage in the next Congress.

So keep hitting, Barack - even if they're bleeding.

UPDATE: Jim Wolcott must have been posting just as I was, on a similar wavelength - so I have to quote him:

My rooting interest is less about Obama himself than about how big a hurt he can put to the Republican Party. I don't want the Republican Party simply defeated in November, I want to see it smashed beyond all recognition, in such wriggling, writhing, anguished disarray that it can barely reconstitute itself, so desperate for answers that it looks to Newt Gingrich for visionary guidance, his wisdom and insight providing the perfect cup of hemlock to finish off the conservative movement for good so that it can rot in the salted earth of memory unmissed and unmourned in toxic obscurity.

______________________________________________________________________

Pre-order Tom's new book CauseWired: Plugging In, Getting Involved, Changing the World

 

Comments

[Mutaman]

Hey Tom: I must have missed it. No statement on the annual Met's colapse and the end of Shea? I think they need to increase their payrole.

[Max Gladwell]

The Stockton Record (CA) hasn't endorsed a Democratic candidate for president since FDR (http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080928/A_OPINION01/809280301/-1/A_OPINION). Obama is up by 10 points in Virginia, which the Dems haven't won since '64.

But this election was over long ago: http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/09/indecision-2008-experience-economy-and-environment. "When the economy is in trouble, the incumbent party gets voted out every time. In 1932, FDR beat Hoover in the midst of the Great Depression. In 1980, Regan beat Carter during record inflation and sure signs of a recession. In 1992, Clinton beat Bush on “The economy, stupid.” And in 2008, Obama will beat McCain because we’re in the worst economic crisis since The Great Depression." This was written on September 2nd.

What would have been a close election between the first black candidate and the typical old white guy (in Obama's favor) is now going to be the landslide that always would have been if that Democrat was a typical old white guy. In other words, if Obama was 100% white, he'd have been up by 20 from the day he got the nomination. And they'd have called the election already. OK, so that last part was an exaggeration.

[Neil M]

Damn straight. If McCain wants to throw hardballs he'd better be ready to catch a few. It's time that we liberals worried less about playing nice and more about winning. Americans will forgive us any negative campaigning when we provide 'em affordable healthcare.

I completely agree about Ayers, whom most Americans don't know even after Hillary Clinton aired the "connection" in the primaries. I think that truly damaging attacks are based on latent (or not-so-latent) fears that most Americans either harbor or can relate to. The Willie Horton ad was so effective because lots of Americans are irrationally afraid of black men. Are lots of Americans as worried about aging 60's radicals who now spend their time agitating for school reform? I don't think so. If an attack ad has to make people stop and think, instead of simply twanging an emotional chord, it's going to fail. That's my view, anyway.

[Tom K]

If large numbers of people better understood the Obama-Ayers relationshp, that would (and should) hurt the Obama campaign. That's why Obama is lying about their relationship. (Hint, he's not just some guy who happens to live in his neighborhood . . ..)

Ayers, like Rev. Wright, presents a legitimate issue. If Obama had a more developed record, they could be more easily dismissed but, given what he's got, it is right and proper that they are subjects of inquiry by his opponents, and they should be by the media as well.

But it would likely be of marginal interest to most voters, even in normal circumstances. With the economy where it is, such such stuff, while still legitimate, is effectively irrelevant. The economic downturn has killed McCain's rally, and this election does indeed seem to be as over as one can be this far out. Nothing trumps the economy . . . except maybe a domestic terrorist attack.

[Neil M]

"If large numbers of people better understood the Obama-Ayers relationshp, that would (and should) hurt the Obama campaign. That's why Obama is lying about their relationship. (Hint, he's not just some guy who happens to live in his neighborhood . . ..)"

True. Ayers is an acquaintance who served on the same board as did Obama, and once donated $200 to one of Obama's state senate campaigns. I don't really see anything there of great concern. Perhaps that's because I'm an Obama supporter, or maybe this "connection" is just so tenuous as to be unworthy of serious contention.

You know, the convenient thing about saying there is a "connection" between two people is that the term can mean anything you want. I once got Cyndi Lauper to sign an album for me on South Street, so one could very easily say that she and I "have a connection." I guess in the strictest sense that's true, but it doesn't mean Lauper leaves me concert tickets at the will-call window, does it? Accordingly, I view allegations of this sort with a very skeptical eye.

[Slappy]

"The economic downturn has killed McCain's rally..." Do you mean McCain's surge? Because the surge is working you know.

It will be fun watching Jerry Falwell and Ron Paul going after each other's jugular trying to take the lead in the GOP. This will be one beautiful, ugly divorce.

[Tom K]

Neil:

What you say about "connection" is true, and similar elasticity in terms such as "ethnic cleansing" and "weapons of mass destruction" had imparied political arguments even before the Iraq war.

That said, it seems, from the way Obama underplays the place of Anneberg Foundation in his story and experience -- when it should be the "executive experience" highlight of his resume -- that he's fudging the relationship with Ayers. That Ayers won't speak till after the election does nothing to dispel this.

Obama seems to have made a point in his career out of showing that he's comfortable with radicals (as any Saul Alinsky devotee should). It seems he was at least partly focused on making this point when he joined Rev. Wright's church, which had the most radical credibility but no other apparent claims to his allegiance.

While his calls for transcending differences may well be sincere, he is fundamentally a man of the left. (Commentary ran a useful piece recently pulling together some of the evidence on this: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/obama-s-leftism-12961)

Now, this being a "progressive" site, y'all surely don't see anything wrong with that. You may think he's not left enough. But he's as left as he is and, this being a democracy and all, it's fair game for folks on the right to comb his biography and relationships to show what he's trying to fudge. Even if it probably won't matter, there's nothing wrong with doing that -- in fact, it is important that it be done.

[Neil M]

"Even if it probably won't matter, there's nothing wrong with doing that -- in fact, it is important that it be done."

Assuming that one is combing for facts that shed actual light on the candidate and not just trolling for methods of insinuating that Obama himself is a terrorist, I agree. However, from what I have read, there's really nothing to be seen from this casual association except that it was casual and not much of an association. Let's not overlook the near-certainty that McCain is really using this to bolster the idea that Obama is a secret Muslim...and of course, as part of his desperate flailing to save his flagging campaign.

[Susie]

"Obama seems to have made a point in his career out of showing that he's comfortable with radicals (as any Saul Alinsky devotee should). It seems he was at least partly focused on making this point when he joined Rev. Wright's church, which had the most radical credibility but no other apparent claims to his allegiance."

I don’t think he joined Wright’s church to show he was comfortable with radicals. I think he did it for political advantage as a way of ingratiating himself with a community and culture to which he was for all intents and purposes a stranger, and to a man who had strong roots and connections in that community and could be helpful to Obama. For me, this explains why he sat there for twenty years listening placidly to that stuff. He didn’t really care. He joined the church for political reasons and left it for those same good reasons.

[Neil M]

"For me, this explains why he sat there for twenty years listening placidly to that stuff. He didn’t really care. He joined the church for political reasons and left it for those same good reasons."

Agreed. Truth be told, I think this sums up most of why any politician engages in things outwardly religious. As to Wright specifically, although I myself am not religious, I have many friends who are, and they have often regaled me with stories of crazy things said by their pastors/preachers. Seems to me that part of being religious is accepting that what the preacher says and what the congregation actually believes can be very different animals. I don't hold the former against the latter, in most cases.

Personally, I think this Wright business is old and cold. Hillary Clinton already bludgeoned Obama with it back in April, and I suspect most of those who were going to be swayed by it have already been. If that stuff didn't dissuade Obama voters in April, it's probably not going to dissuade them in October.

[Tom K]

I agree with Suzie (and Neil) on BHO's likely reasons for joining Rev. Wright's church. (That is not to question Obama's religious instinct, just his choice of how to express it among many available churches).

But I think that church was able to help with "ingratiating himself with a community and culture to which he was for all intents and purposes a stranger" in part because its radical message helped diffuse the perception of him as an establishment, Harvard Law guy who the people he was looking to appeal to may have been reluctant to trust as "one of us."

Discussing Wright does have a regurgitated feel to it, but I expect we'll see more of it. Time is running out, and McCain may figure that a played out song is likelier to get the party (small p) going than anything else in his collection.

[Susie]

You don’t seem to be able to avoid bringing the subject back to Hillary the Wicked and the primaries, Neil. It’s the second time you’ve done it in this thread alone. I note this only to say that your comments in this area are going undisputed only because I’m not interested in raising the subject again and not because of the soundness of your remarks.

Wright and Ayers won’t wound you fatally in a Democratic primary campaign but they can do damage in a general election, although the economic news blunts any impact.

Obama should have bitten the bullet and done a “This isn’t the Bill Ayers I know” a long time ago. It would have been embarrassing, and the GOP would have made hay with it, but it would have put the ‘issue’ away.

The Wright business at least raised some legitimate questions. The Ayers business is not that big a deal IMO, but it's fresher meat and Obama's prevarications don't look good, so we'll see.

[tdraicer]

Yes Republicans suck. Unfortunately the evidence strongly suggests that Obama sucks only slightly less, and the next four years (I don't see Obama serving eight) are likely to demonstrate your celebrations are entirely premature.

[Neil M]

"You don’t seem to be able to avoid bringing the subject back to Hillary the Wicked and the primaries, Neil."

Actually, Susie, I'm quite pleased that Hillary Clinton (whom I rather like) bashed Obama with Ayers and Wright earlier this year, because it blunted those weapons before McCain could get his hands on them. In fact, I think the spirited primary between Obama and Clinton was, all in all, a good thing, because it sharpened Obama and forced him to campaign at 100%. As to this "wicked" stuff, you might want to read my posts more closely. I like Hillary Clinton (although I didn't like the way she campaigned) she was my second choice in the primary, and had she defeated Obama I would have voted for her without hesitation. The only one who has called Hillary wicked...is you.

[mrmobi]

For me, this explains why he sat there for twenty years listening placidly to that stuff. He didn’t really care. He joined the church for political reasons and left it for those same good reasons.

Ayers, like Rev. Wright, presents a legitimate issue. If Obama had a more developed record, they could be more easily dismissed but, given what he's got, it is right and proper that they are subjects of inquiry by his opponents, and they should be by the media as well.

I'm calling bullshit on these remarks. Not that these "issues" will make a whit of difference in the campaign, just because you guys seem unable to think for yourselves or use the intertrons.

First, Rev. Wright, did not spend twenty years preaching "God Damn America." Both of you seem to think that Trinity was some kind of insurgent training ground, when the reality is, it was and remains a force for good in Chicago. Period. There is plenty of evidence, including many sermons by Rev. Wright, which confirm this. Try putting a little effort into your blind acceptance of a smear which stains an entire community, ok? Your willingness to smear the members of that church smacks of racism.

It is delightful to find someone on the internet who can read Obama's mind, however. Please, since you can read minds so well, and know for a fact that Obama picking Trinity was strictly a political move, let me know what the hell is going to happen in the stock market today. Maybe you could read Hank Paulson's mind for us, ok?

Both of you are also drinking the kool-aid on the Ayers "issue" as well. First the Annenberg Foundation, funded by Walter Annenberg, a Nixon confidant, needed a chairman, and a woman who had been tapped as a board member was asked to see if Barack Obama would serve as board chairman. He agreed, but only if she would serve as vice chairman. There were also several Republican board members (other domestic terror supporters, I guess). Ayers wasn't at the meeting. Ayers, in his capacity as an educational expert, did serve on the board, and on another, with Obama. So what? This has about as much credibility as the Rezko stuff, which is to say, none.

This business about Ayers being a "domestic terrorist" is a bunch of crap. He's a respected educational expert who, in his younger days, vigorously opposed the Viet Nam war (something I also did), and was a founding member of the Weather Underground.

The Weather Undergrounds' "reign of terror" did result in a few deaths, but Ayers himself has never been convicted of anything.

For me, terrorists are people who bomb indiscriminately and without warning, you know, like McCain adviser and war criminal Henry Kissinger, the architect of the indiscriminate bombing of North Viet Nam and Cambodia.

Putting aside the fact that Ayers has been convicted of nothing, factoring in that the Annenberg Foundation's board members (several of them Republicans) distributed funds to try to improve education, and I'm at a loss how this association, even if it were closer, is a problem for Obama. If Ayers is a terrorist, shouldn't we be prosecuting Walter Annenberg and Mayor Daley and the other members of the board?

The truth is, you guys don't like Obama. I get that. It doesn't help your case when you parrot as fact whatever desperate smear the McCain campaign is currently pushing.

For myself, I'm voting for "That One."

[Susie]

Neil, my reference to 'Hillary the Wicked' was an example of irony. Sigh.

"Yes Republicans suck. Unfortunately the evidence strongly suggests that Obama sucks only slightly less, and the next four years (I don't see Obama serving eight) are likely to demonstrate your celebrations are entirely premature. "

That sums it up well. It is, however, difficult to unseat a sitting President unless he is a disaster of Carteresque proportions.

[Neil M]

Well, I didn't want to ask, Susie, because I know how you are about backing up your assertions.

[Tom K]

Mr. M:

If what you say is true, it shows that the issue is easily addressed on the merits, not that it should be off limits to discussion. From what I've read, there's a little more to the story than you've passed on, but I wouldn't say for sure because I've had no reason to investigate it thoroughly.

I'm just saying it's fair to discuss -- that discussion won't influence me, because I'm not going to vote for Obama for reasons unrelated to Rev. Wright (whose positions, on the whole, are less despicable than the most-circulated excerpts suggest.)

Not that he isn't a racist, or driven by his racism to crazy beliefs; it seems that he is, and is. But I don't think it is right or even productive to silence all expressions of black racism, since I regard it as a natural phenomenon, given our history, and prefer to see such feelings worked out openly based on the net advantages of being a black american. Which in some ways was the gist of Obama's speech on Wright.

I'm not going to vote for Obama because I don't share his enthusiasm for statist solutions in general. I am open to them in certain cases, and am open to persuasion on health care (which certainly needs a fresh approach) but generally prefer less government and therefore vote for Republican or third party presidential candidates.

Without Rev. Wright's assistance, Obama lost me (OK, I wasn't a likely convert anyway, but whatever chance he had he lost) not by being too far left, but by failing to offer an alternative to the R party on issues like civil liberties (with his cave on the telecom immunity) and military restraint (most recently with his determination to show he's just as eager as McCain to expand NATO and confront/provoke Russia over Georgia.)

[Palomino]

The Wright/Ayers connections, for whatever legitimacy they might have had, needed to be raised weeks and weeks ago to be effective for McCain. Too late now.

http://tinyurl.com/47szdv

[Mary O'Bryan]

Believe it or not I am still a registered Democrat but, the Democratic Party has changed too much to suit me. I will not back them until they return to the party of the twentieth century. So, have it your way but, so far as I know, I still own my own vote!!!

[Susie]

Palomino, I think their calculation was that if Ayers and Wright were raised too early on, they would have faded from the minds of the general electorate before November. As it is, however, because of the economic collapse and the consequent fall in the polls for McCain, the raising of the issues can now be painted plausibly as desperation moves.

*****This business about Ayers being a "domestic terrorist" is a bunch of crap. He's a respected educational expert who, in his younger days, vigorously opposed the Viet Nam war (something I also did), and was a founding member of the Weather Underground.

The Weather Undergrounds' "reign of terror" did result in a few deaths, but Ayers himself has never been convicted of anything.****

I do not think that Obama’s association with Ayers should be held against him, although he has been less than straightforward about it.

That said. Ayers and his fellow Weathermen met the definition of terrorist by any standard, no matter how slack. As it happens, they only managed to kill several of their own members while preparing to blow up an officers’ dance, unless you count another bombing that killed a police officer, which they may or may not have had anything to do.

(And pardon me if I misunderstand you, but do you mean to suggest that issuing a warning before you blow up a building exempts you from responsibility for any deaths that might inadvertently occur ????)

My understanding is that Ayers was never convicted of anything not because he was guiltless, but because the FBI went so far out of bounds in going after the Weathermen that much of the evidence against them was legally worthless.

Ayers doesn’t seem to be regretful about any of this, either, or the fact that the Weathermen did a lot to split the New Left and give it a bad name. (One of my former professors was in the SDS with them and his own assessment was that they were a gaggle of arrogant, entitled creeps. One man's opinion.)

[Susie]

"Well, I didn't want to ask, Susie, because I know how you are about backing up your assertions."

Uh, the point was that it should have been clear enough for you not to have to wonder....but I see this is pointless. However, if you take any more passing shots at the defeated primary candidate without any apparent provocation, I'll not fail to note them.

[Neil M]

"I will not back them until they return to the party of the twentieth century. So, have it your way but, so far as I know, I still own my own vote!!!"

You most assuredly do, Mary. I'm curious, though; what do you think the Democrats of the twentieth century were? And what specifically would the current party have to do to return there?

[mrmobi]

(And pardon me if I misunderstand you, but do you mean to suggest that issuing a warning before you blow up a building exempts you from responsibility for any deaths that might inadvertently occur ????)

My understanding is that Ayers was never convicted of anything not because he was guiltless, but because the FBI went so far out of bounds in going after the Weathermen that much of the evidence against them was legally worthless.

Ayers doesn’t seem to be regretful about any of this, either, or the fact that the Weathermen did a lot to split the New Left and give it a bad name. (One of my former professors was in the SDS with them and his own assessment was that they were a gaggle of arrogant, entitled creeps. One man's opinion.)

Susie, correct all around. Ayers is a son of wealth (his father was CEO of Commonwealth Edison) and is, apparently, not regretful about his actions in trying to bring an end, in his misguided way, to the Viet Nam war. As a former DFH myself, I can't say I did more than attend demonstrations, and was present at one police riot, in 1968. (By the way, you haven't lived until you find yourself standing in a large crowd of protestors and there is a National Guard Jeep with a loaded machine gun trained on you. It's something I'l never forget.)

I was in college in 1972, at the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle when the Kent State murders happened, so I got to see firsthand just how incompetent law enforcement can be. Some friends of mine were arrested after they tried to barricade themselves in the ROTC facility on campus. They, to my delight, also got off on a technicality.

Now, I mentioned I was a DFH. But let me clarify that. I never called a police officer a pig, and I never showed anything but respect for those who served in Viet Nam. I lost a good friend to the Viet Nam war, and a couple of dedicated Chicago detectives once helped me find a guy who almost killed my closest friend.

I don't deny that BIll Ayers was misguided, and perhaps criminal, in his youth. Since then, he's turned his life around, and is widely respected in these parts. Should Obama have steered clear of him? Perhaps, but he didn't. Maybe he hasn't been planning to be President since he was 6 after all.

Tom K:

Not that he isn't a racist, or driven by his racism to crazy beliefs; it seems that he is, and is. But I don't think it is right or even productive to silence all expressions of black racism, since I regard it as a natural phenomenon, given our history, and prefer to see such feelings worked out openly based on the net advantages of being a black american. Which in some ways was the gist of Obama's speech on Wright.

Well, as we know, Wright did kind of reveal his penchant for tin-foil hats at the National Press Club event, before he went into seclusion in Africa. Of course there is black racism, how could there not be? Obamas' speech on race touched on that, to his great credit. So we agree, I think, on Wright, but he's no longer the pastor at Trinity, and I hate to see that church disparaged, despite all the good works they do for their community, and the city.

Tom K, here is where you lose me:

I'm not going to vote for Obama because I don't share his enthusiasm for statist solutions in general. I am open to them in certain cases, and am open to persuasion on health care (which certainly needs a fresh approach) but generally prefer less government and therefore vote for Republican or third party presidential candidates.

I could better understand this is Obama had, in fact, proposed single-payor national healthcare, but he hasn't. He simply recognizes that this issue has become such a huge problem that it is adversely affecting the quality of life, and the business economy in ways that cannot be ignored. I keep hearing that Obama is proposing a government run healthcare system, and that is simply untrue. Then again, who knows what this country will be able to afford after a few more weeks of the economic disaster we are living through.

Tom, I think it is undeniable that the current administration has presided over the greatest expansion of government in this country's history. Bush II took a 5 trillion dollar debt, amassed by all the Presidents from Washington to Clinton, and doubled down on it in less than eight years. Ronald Reagan ran the biggest explosion of military spending in our history, raising the debt to unheard of levels, before Bush II. Is this why you vote for Republicans? Fill me in.

One last thing, Tom K. I once voted for a third party candidate, Barry Commoner. Way back in the late seventies he wrote a monograph called "The Politics of Energy." It is a searing examination of why we don't seem to be able to change our energy policy, and he got my (misguided) vote. Since then, I've come to feel that I wasted that vote.

This year, we Democrats have been very lucky. I would have gladly cast my presidential vote for Hillary, and I'm equally delighted to cast it for Barack Obama. After that last debate, there is no question in my mind that Obama has just the right temperament to do the job, and McCain is a dick. Of course, you can cast your vote for the libertarian. I mean, the guy did vote to impeach Clinton, so he can't be all bad, right? (snark intended)

[Neil M]

Not to gang up on you, Tom, but I think that in the last eight years the wheels have come off the argument that Republicans value less government in general. They value less government in certain areas; most notably, in business and the environment. However, Republicans are pleased to regulate whom states may marry, who may receive abortions (and who can't), who can know about government eavesdropping (which may or may not be legal), which courts (if any) can review the constitutionality of which laws, when habeas corpus applies, and which state laws the federal government will try to circumvent or outright supersede. The name Terri Schiavo should remind us all that the alleged Republican respect for states' right and limited government is more patter than principle.