According to the Associated Press, a sequence of interviews with Democratic leaders has revealed this to be the political plan being recommended to the Obama campaign:
1. Tie the Republican to an unpopular President Bush.
2. Let no charge go unanswered.
3. Stress plans to fix the economy.
Well, I’m not sure any of these items is good advice, with a possible qualitative exception on #3.
The opportunity for item #1 has probably passed and was in any case a hard sell, given the bitter experience in 2000, the long contest over Iraq policy, and the fact that McCain’s spent his entire career establishing his political independence. If people were going to buy this one, it would have already happened. George W. Bush and John McCain are not new entries in the electorate’s consciousness.
Item #2 is a perennial bit of Democratic Party non-wisdom. A leftover lesson from Bill Clinton’s “War Room” and a profound misunderstanding of the Swift Boat experience. How you answer a charge is vastly more important than whether you do, and occasionally answering criticism can only validate it (particularly if it’s petty or unfair). You’ll notice that Sarah Palin has simply ignored the bulk of the charges leveled against her from the Democrats, and it has had no appreciable effect on her popularity at all. Had the Republicans thrown a similar laundry list of rumors and slanders at Obama, he’d still be mired in trying to disprove them so that none went “unanswered.”
Item #3 is problematic. It’s an expression of a traditional Democratic conceit that you only have to talk about an issue in some way in order to emphasize your superior command of it. Obama’s recent proposal to delay rescinding the Bush tax cuts to encourage economic growth –a fatal concession on a crucial issue– is a perfect illustration of the fallacy of this thinking. What you say and propose matters, not just talking about an important issue as a subject. Specificity and sensibility is key for whether this is good advice.
If this is the plan, Obama could be in trouble.
Item #3 is problematic.
Uh, yeah. I myself am wondering how many elections the Dems have to lose before it occurs to them to revisit their economic premises. In our lifetimes maybe?