Like most people I'm a bit of an armchair political quarterback. How my favored (I won't say favorite since he's no longer running) candidate is screwing up his campaign is a frequent source of frustration for me. Why? Because I want my guy to win. So, I've started a diary on DailyKos to vent my spleen and demonstrate my political genius. In particular, I'm obsessed with how politicians "frame" their positions and manipulate the public debate.
Anyway, I've also decide to reprint those diary entries here. Beware! They get a tad longwinded and wonky.
Obama: The best offense is an offense.
Back during the Kerry/Bush face off of 2004, David Mamet wrote a brilliant essay on why Democrats lose to Republicans. His basic premise was that Democrats don't know how to play poker.
He went on to explain that Democrats are like an overly cautious card player, one who never takes the initiative. So, when they are finally dealt an unbeatable hand and bet boldly they send a signal to their opponents that it's time to fold. All their careful strategizing, all their caution end up yielding them nothing; a pot too small to offset their losses.
Mamet wrote:
The Republicans, like the perpetual raiser at the poker table, became increasingly bold as the Democrats signaled their absolute reluctance to seize the initiative.
John Kerry lost the 2004 election combating an indictment of his Vietnam War record. A decorated war hero muddled himself in merely "calling" the attacks of a man with, curiously, a vanishing record of military attendance. Even if the Democrats and Kerry had prevailed (that is, succeeded in nullifying the Republicans arguably absurd accusations), they would have been back only where they started before the accusations began.
This is what Obama is doing in his responses to HRC's talk of his being her VP, of his being untested. Debating the issue logically will not win votes. Say, "I'm not running for Vice President" will not convince Joe Pennsylvania or Jane Indiana.
Those are defensive reactions. The man has nothing to defend. Yes, the facts are plain, but by feeling you must restate them as evidence of your legitimacy is to merely "call" HRC's bluff.
Control of the initiative is control of the battle. In the alley, at the poker table or in politics. One must raise. The American public chose Bush over Kerry in 2004. How, the undecided electorate rightly wondered, could one believe that Kerry would stand up for America when he could not stand up to Bush? A possible response to the Swift boat veterans would have been: "I served. He didn’t. I didn’t bring up the subject, but, if all George Bush has to show for his time in the Guard is a scrap of paper with some doodling on it, I say the man was a deserter."
Even if Obama wins the debate (one that is, on the face of it, absurd) he only ends up back where he started. If he loses even a the slightest ground, well, that's Hillary's gain.
The point is to dismiss the remark with humor, grace and cutting intelligence. The point is to reframe the conversation.
Now, I do not claim to possess the gift of gab but Obama might try something along the lines of:
"If Hillary would like to join me on the ticket, I'd be happy to consider her application for VP. But I should probably check her credentials. I learned a long time ago that saying you're qualified isn't quite the same as being qualified."
Only he should say it prettier.
Unfortunately, I think Obama is missing some of the point of HRC's VP comments. Yes, she wants to con a few voters into believing that by voting for her they can get two for the price of one. But she's also laying the tracks for a Super Delegate coup.
See, if she can create a narrative that forces Obama to defend his frontrunner status, she creates doubt about that status. And so, if she can convince super delegates to cast their lot with her no matter what the final numbers say, she gives her ascension more legitimacy.
It's perverse but it's very much in-line with the Swift Boat attacks. The damage was done when Kerry was forced to defend the obvious: that he was a war hero and Bush was not. Here, Clinton is forcing Obama to defend his frontrunner status while she acts like the frontrunner.
Obama, you must reframe the conversation. Show pity that she would stoop to such desperate measures. Question her sanity. Raise the stakes and bet boldly. But, please oh please stop defending yourself.
BTW, here's the Mamet piece in full: http://tribes.tribe.net/...
