Obama and Change
| Mon Aug. 25, 2008 2:19 PM PDT
OBAMA AND CHANGE....Joe Klein sat in on another of Frank Luntz's focus groups of undecided voters yesterday and, among other things, came away with this:
"Change" as a theme is over. Too vague. And Obama's rhetoric has begun to seriously cut against him. "No more oratory," one woman said. "Give us details."
I imagine Klein is going to get a lot of grief for this in the lefty blogosphere, since, after all, Obama has white papers up the gazoo for anyone who wants to know what he really stands for. But I'd be careful about shooting the messenger here. If Obama hasn't closed the sale, then he hasn't closed the sale, and railing about it won't change the facts on the ground.
What's more, I think there's something to this. Sure, "time for a change" is an evergreen theme, adopted by out-of-power parties since the first leader of a neanderthal clan failed to kill enough mammoths to keep everyone back in camp happily sated. And it'll be part of Obama's message all the way until election day. But by itself it might not be enough to get him elected, and even if it is, it won't be enough to allow him to govern.
I just finished writing a short essay on more-or-less this very topic, so I won't anticipate myself too much here. But the nickel version is this: the goal of this election shouldn't be just to win, it should be to talk a big chunk of the electorate into becoming friendlier toward liberal goals and ideas. Not just friendlier toward change, but friendlier toward specifically liberal change. That means a public that, at least at the margins, is more convinced that we need universal healthcare and that Obama can deliver it; that we need to withdraw from Iraq and reboot our foreign policy; and that some sacrifices are acceptable in the service of a serious energy policy. So far, though, Obama has simply been too cautious about standing up and really hammering home a simple, easily understood case for these and other specifically liberal goals.
FDR got away with this in 1932, running a mushy campaign and then turning around and delivering the New Deal a year later. But FDR was a genius who had the Great Depression around to scare the hell out of everyone. Obama just won't have that, which means that working on public opinion is even more important now than it was in 1932. That woman in the focus group was practically begging to be not just inspired, but inspired in the service of a specific goal. Obama needs to listen to her.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Submitted by ben kelley (not verified) on Mon Aug. 25, 2008 2:28 PM PDT.
Criticizing "special interests" is too vague, and cuts both ways - some good people are members of one or more "special interest" groups such as AARP, labor unions, etc. It's "wealthy interests" that are the target - big-money lobbies and their backers. Changing "special" to "wealthy" or "moneyed" or "deep-pockets" would be more effective and accurate.
So far, though, Obama has simply been too cautious about standing up and really hammering home a simple, easily understood case for these and other specifically liberal goals.
I can see why Obama is too cautious. Americans want big changes to come for free. No one wants to sacrifice anything for the common good. Sacrifice for the common good, they have been taught, is Communism. Sigh!
In that same focus group, only one person said that it was important for the candidate to share their policy positions, so it sounds like the group is reflecting the GOP talking-points about Obama being all talk.
The info is out there, people.
On the other hand, the convention is the one time when the candidate will be able to present their policy views unrebutted and unfiltered.
.
I think that desire to be "inspired in the service of a specific goal" is a very strong undercurrent in our country. I think that since Bush told people to go shopping to support the troops, that desire has been simmering, and being deflected.
If Obama can find a way to make people feel invested in American Greatness again, success will follow. Maybe with a project like Americorp, or some other type of civil service program, or maybe even friggin victory gardens will be sufficient to get the asses off the couch.
IMO.
KD: Obama has white papers up the gazoo for anyone who wants to know what he really stands for
GMT: The info is out there, people.
Yes, it is. But if you want to win an election you've got to reach the people that won't go looking for white papers. The only sure way to refute the "no details" talking point is to talk details.
A. What makes you think Obama doesn't have a depression to deal with?
B. 0bama has provided detailed proposals. The fault now lies with the f**ktard press, which declines to report the details while complaining that no details are being reported. (Maybe Obama should just mail copies of his proposals to every household in America...)
And Obama's rhetoric has begun to seriously cut against him. "No more oratory," one woman said. "Give us details."
I dunno, Kevin - this may be just one of those things people pretend they want. Like it's conventional wisdom that all the voters despise negative campaigning? Yet like clockwork, they respond to it like Pavlov's Dogs.
The minute Obama starts giving details, stand by for the focus groups to begin whining about how boring and wonky he is, and pining wistfully for the glorious rhetoric of Ronald Reagan.
I thought that "change" was wearing out its usefulness. It is one of those things that the pundits annointed early on, but it just gets old. It seems like Obama and his surrogates as so tied to it that they say it endlessly and it loses effectiveness.
The problem in Kevin's argument is that "liberal change" will not win the election. It also is unlikely to happen if he wins the election, in view of the realities of the budge and the economy.
I think one of the more effective McCain arguments will be that Obama was ranked the most liberal senator and Biden the third most liberal senator, each more liberal than Socialist Sanders. From the republican perspective, this information almost too good to be true.
Is it Obama who is not getting specific about his policies or is it that the places these mushy people get their information from don't inform voters.
Obama has issue ads, and issue papers, CNN wants to know if he's wearing his flag pin today. -
So Info-seekers aren't learning anything - go figure.
And I think good ol' Frank is talking to a room full of mushy undecided McCain leaners.
I thought that "change" was wearing out its usefulness. It is one of those things that the pundits annointed early on, but it just gets old. It seems like Obama and his surrogates as so tied to it that they say it endlessly and it loses effectiveness.
Yes, I distinctly remember you commenting on its initial usefulness, but I can see how the evenhanded analysis for which you're famous would lead you to change your mind on that one.
By the way, that POW tic... err... helpful reminder provides quite the refreshing contrast, doesn't it?
people who wanted an election that reframed american politics in a more liberal direction made a mistake if they thought that obama was their man.
he's an instinctive centrist, whose primary virtue is his intelligence.
you go to elections with the candidate you have, and i'm certainly going to vote for obama, but there's no reason to think that he wants to do anything more than win (which is not a criticism, just a fact).
"Change" was enormously useful to Obama in the primaries and, effectively, allowed him to beat Hillary (along with the failure of Clinton's then vaunted team to visit the Trinity Church website and find the rantings of Reverand Wright before the Iowa caucus).
In theory, "change" should help in the general election, and it probably will somewhat, but I think it is just wearing out its usefulness.
I'm really worried. Obama needs to get on the damn stick. I'll vote for him because I'd never vote for a Republican, but even I fast forward the TIVO when he speaks now. It is the same damn speech. He needs to start filling it with, "I met a family in Ohio last week that x, y and z". Bill Clinton was really good at that stuff and it seems fairly easy to do. I think that is what folks want to hear -- a plan tied to some image they can understand.
White papers to read. Yes, and I imagine the people who read those are also the people who read operating manuals before buying the product. Bless your hearts, you are in the minority.
Details need to be pithy and memorable or homey, touching and memorable. Like most people, I watch the news after a day at work.
I assume you guys don't care for The Corner at National Review, but there is an interesting post highly critical of Obama's tactics in running an Ayers defense ad premised upon Obama being only 8 years old when he bombed the Pentagon. They think it is stupid to put the issue in play, especially just as his convention starts.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
Obama may have polling indicating that it is a killer issue. Otherwise, it is hard to understand why he would engage in the debate at this point. I know Howard thinks it will not move voters, but Obama launching his career with the help of and then being friends and colleagues for years with an unrepentant terrorist seems like a very damaging issue for him.
The "only 8 years old" when Ayers bombed is the kind of defense that I think only works for folks already strongly in Obama's camp or folks totally ignorant about Obama's long recent relationship with the terrorist.
oh brian, brian, brian! here i was, harmlessly strolling through, and you had to reference the corner! the corner!
let's see: 40 years ago, bill ayers played at revolution and associated with people who blew things (and themselves) up. he served his time, raised 2 kids of his own and 1 kid of someone else's, got advanced degrees in education, and works in that field as a Distinguished Professor (that's a title).
he blew up one statue; obama has denounced that and his criminal/terrorist past; and since then, he has been part of a number of philanthropic ventures aimed at improving education.
i think that obama's tone on this one is just right ("why is mccain stuck in the '60s?"), and yes, i continue to think there will be no meaningful change in voter perceptions as a result.
in fact, since you tell me that the usual gang of clods and idiots at the corner thinks this is a bad thing for obama, i'm further convinced that it will make no difference at all.
[Rant Warning!]
"Change" can be both good and bad. If voters don't have confidence in Obama, and aren't terrified of John McCain, they can't be expected to vote for Jobama automatically.
For several years, poll after poll has shown that most Americans think the country "is going in the wrong direction." They're right. We're facing crises, and not just on the issues of health care and energy.
We're in a moral crisis that isn't about sin. It's a crisis of uncertainty, ignorance, decline of world standing, abandonment of principles, distrust, greed, dishonesty, lack of accountability, declining lifestyles, fear for our children's futures. It is a malaise we can't shake. We've seen the America we knew to be imperfect, but sincere, become hateful, afraid, hostile and jingoistic after 9/11.
My greatest concern right now are my two kids, ages 24 and 26. I worry about the environment -- natural, economic, political and social -- that is being ruined for them.
I don't see John McCain improving that environment, but I can't honestly say what an Obama presidency would produce. I'd like to get excited. I wish he'd tell me. I wish he would tell me his plans for dealing with health care that is the best in the world, but has the worst system of delivery than any other industrialized nation.
I don't want to hear examples of health care horrors. I *know* the problem. I want to hear a solution to the problem. A plan. I don't want promises or "we need to..." I want to hear declarations, such as "When I am president, *you* and every member of your family will have affordable, complete medical care. Guaranteed. Obstacles that now exist will be removed." I don't want to hear good intentions, or even copious specifics. When JFK vowed to put a man on the Moon, he didn't include the flight plan.
Years ago, I heard a speaker ask the question, "How many people bought quarter-inch drills last year?" Nobody knew. And he answered, "Nobody bought quarter-inch drills last year. They bought quarter-inch HOLES. Holes are what they wanted, not drills"
That's what Obama ought to be talking about.
[End of Rant]
"Obama has white papers up the gazoo for anyone who wants to know what he really stands for."
I think it's cute that you all haven't disagreed with this. I mean, do you all honestly believe that he'll keep his promises? Really? I don't "want to know what he stands for", I have a pretty good idea based on who he represents in the senate and his party affiliation, but it's NOT from reading his white papers. Are you really that naive, or do you just fake it for the "proles"?
I'll probably end up voting for him, out of resignation and based on the opposition, but really, white papers? Jesus.
Dear Howard:
I'm probably not representative of most U.S.A. voters, but then, who is, right? Anyway, the Bill Ayers association is really, really a problem for me because he (Ayers) is clearly against most of what I stand for and the possibility that Obama wasn't just using him for his own (Obama's) purposes is one of the main reasons I would consider voting against him (Obama). Anyway, don't just dismiss it out of hand. The best thing Obama could do with Ayers is pretend he never knew him.
Submitted by Steve J. (not verified) on Mon Aug. 25, 2008 5:25 PM PDT.
it sounds like the group is reflecting the GOP talking-points about Obama being all talk.
The info is out there, people.
I agree. Accusing a Democratic candidate of being vague, etc. is standard procedure for the GOP.
GMT: The info is out there, people.
No it's not. Unless the "info" is in the actual advertisements for Obama, it's not out there.
We've seen how the party plank is created, mostly in non-public fashion, and then derided as so much nonsense no one will follow in the end.
Why should Joe Random Voter think that Obama will do what he says in some paper that the candidate doesn't express on national tv.
I'm not picking on Obama, this is the nature of media today. Unless it's on national tv, or youtube, it just doesn't exist. And it doesn't exist in the middle of a 45 minute speech. It has to be in our sound bite world form. A rousing Obama ad saying, "If elected, I will...."
That's when the message is out there.
Everything else is just so much hot air.
"it sounds like the group is reflecting the GOP talking-points about Obama being all talk.
The info is out there, people."
"I agree. Accusing a Democratic candidate of being vague, etc. is standard procedure for the GOP."
Yup. It's out there. Along with the info from Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Carter, Mondale...
You can write off Lutz, but it would be a mistake to write off Franck Rich, who wrote the same thing, and some very uncomfortable poll results.
Way back in the WM days I wrote that the Berlin extravaganza was going to be a mistake on the order of Bush landing on the aircraft carrier. Granted, offshore drilling and Russia have helped the momentum, but I stand by my prediction that that was the start of Obama's slide. The focus needs to be taken off Obama's hubris, and the public's concurrent insecurities, and put back on the objective conditions that need to be changed. I'd recommend Obama start rolling out his cabinet appointments along with his white papers over the next few weeks.
I think the "all talk" criticism can be expressed alternatively as, On what issue or issues is Obama passionate? Apparently not on war and peace issues, based on his comments on Russia and Iran; haven't heard much about health care, or in fact any issue I can identify him with.
No, I'm not voting for McCain, and yes McCain is alarming and dangerous.
I'd be interested if anyone can identify an issue that Obama seems to feel passionately about - appealing to the religious community is the only item that comes to mind.
"I'd be interested if anyone can identify an issue that Obama seems to feel passionately about - appealing to the religious community is the only item that comes to mind."
Didn't come to my mind.
If he answered "Michelle," he'd pick up most states south of Arkansas.
Democratic Convention comment:
Ted Kennedy's speech was moving. He and his family are rich, but have done a great deal for the downtrodden.
But Ted's ego and his supporters' determination not to let go when he finally lost the primaries to the incumbent president Jimmy Carter gave us Ronald Reagan. I remember the president of the United States trying to chase down Kennedy, determined to elude him on that convention stage, trying to get a handshake. Ted Kennedy. Liberal icon, arrogant asshole.
Ronald Reagan is the Kennedy Legacy. George Bush is Reagan's legacy.
An easy way to screw with the moderators is to claim they deleted posts of yours. Like my 11:44 and 11:53 posts. Stupid mods here are almost as bad as the ones at the Monthly.
Scary thought! It's the same guy and Kevin brought him with him!
Just kidding: none of my posts in this thread have been deleted yet.
Not kidding: get rid of mods. Instead, allow the commenters to spam rate, privacy rate, abusiveness rate posts and use those ratings to hide obnoxious posts.
there are TWO PHRASES in your lead sentence that should have been warning signs:
the words "JOKE LINE" should be self-explanitary. the man has no credibility, he's a joke line for the three digit IQ crowd
and a "frank luntz focus group" ???
were you born stupid, or did you just grow up that way ???
frank luntz is a repuglitard tool. he uses LOADED focus groups. the man ain't honest about what he does
you should know those two points. they're pretty well covered on the innernets
next time you wanna write about focus groups, pick an outfit that uses HONEST focus groups, and try not to quote a total repuglitard tool of a hack journalist
you been around the innertubes. I shouldn't have to clue you in to all this
did you leave your brain at the old site ???
The few things everyone knows about Obama relate to him - Kenyan father/Kansas mother, Harvard, angry pastor, rockstar - not what he is going to do for them. We are a transactional nation and while 'elect youngish black guy' was enough of a pay off for a portion of Dem primary voters it is not enough for the general voting public.
Occasionally someone reminds Team Obama they are Democrats and they get pseudo-populist.
A little more of that, borrow one of Clinton's list and stop sounding like a professor and he can get to 270.
Luntz deserves all the flames, and his findings should always be taken with a grain of salt. But I do suspect that the use of the word "change" from the Obama people has been a little vacuous. There's the change from our current direction, which 80% of Americans think is the wrong one, and then there's this "change" to a more civil, collegial, post-partisan environment, which strikes most people as unrealistic. Emphasizing the former, de-emphasizing the latter will make Obama's pitch more concrete (especially because McCain is indistinguishable from the Bush status quo on nearly every issue). Also, change as "throwing the bums out" rather than change as "Obama transforms Washington" defuses some of that derisive messiah chatter.
Submitted by Leanderthal (not verified) on Tue Aug. 26, 2008 8:27 AM PDT.
I agree that change is out as a slogan. Too vague as has been said.
I'm betting that Obama has not wanted to get specific too soon, that his convention speech and his post convention actions will be the beginning of the specifics. I also predict that Biden will be the attack dog against Bush/Cheney/McCain
And if those of who believe there is a need for both are disappointed Barack will lose.
And that would be tragic.
On the other hand, the convention is the one time when the candidate will be able to present their policy views unrebutted and unfiltered.
In theory, yes, but in the reality of tv, no. ABC, CBS, and NBC are only covering an hour of the convention. And there's plenty of "analysis" going on before, during, and after the convention to frustrate any hope of unadulterated communication.
For example, Larry King had a GOP panel responding the DNC evening, all pushing their talking points.
Even if you stick to the networks, you're getting comments from the likes of Brian "I love Rush" Williams who talks about conventions as infomercials. All the networks had someone rambling and pontificating while Pelosi spoke.
The theme among the hosts and commentators across the networks as I flipped was that it was a dull first evening. No enough attacks on McCain for some juicy tv.
There is plenty of filtering and rebutting going on, especially with the ADD talking heads.
"If Obama hasn't closed the sale, then he hasn't closed the sale, and railing about it won't change the facts on the ground."
well, when the "news" programs report that "americans don't know what democrats stand for" and simultaneously refuse to report what it is that democrats have repeatedly and for many decades say they stand for and what they believe would be better policy in a multiplicity of areas, it's not particularly surprising that the people in the "focus group" claim to have no clue.
day after day after day we are informed by the teevee punditocracy that "democrats are losers" and "the american voter doesn't know what democrats stand for," is it any surprise that people adopt that meme?
