Mindgames
| Thu Oct. 9, 2008 3:59 PM PDT
MINDGAMES....John McCain and Sarah Palin (with the help of the entire cast of characters at Fox News and NRO) have been trying over the past few days to talk up Barack Obama's ties to former 60s radical Bill Ayers. But McCain didn't bring it up directly in Tuesday's debate, and apparently the Obama campaign has now decided to start taunting him over it. Today's taunts:
Barack Obama: "Well I am surprised that — you know, we've been seeing some pretty over the top attacks coming out of the McCain campaign over the last several days — that he wasn't willing to say it to my face."
Tom Vilsack: "If John McCain were so concerned about things like Mr. Ayers, why didn't he just simply turn to Barack Obama and directly confront him?"
Joe Biden: "In my neighborhood, when you've got something to say to a guy, you look him in the eye and you say it to him."
I guess the Obama folks figure there are three things that could happen. First, McCain does nothing and ends up looking like a coward. Second, their taunts get under McCain's skin so badly that he goes over the edge and does something really stupid. Third, McCain takes the bait and decides to bring up Ayers at the next debate.
The first two possibilities are obviously good for Obama. And the third? I guess they must be really sure they have a dynamite response ready in case McCain decides to unload next Wednesday. Either that or they're trying to fake McCain into thinking they have a dynamite response, thus scaring him into not bringing it up. Or else, by being so obvious about it, they're actually trying to sell McCain on the fakeout theory — and then when he falls into the trap and brings up Ayers, they're going to crush him. Or....um.....you get the idea. Basically, they're just playing mindgames with the old guy. I wonder if it'll work?
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Or else, by being so obvious about it, they're actually trying to sell McCain on the fakeout theory ? and then when he falls into the trap and brings up Ayers, they're going to crush him. Or....um.....you get the idea.
Seems like a good time to recall that Obama's gambling game of choice is poker, a game where such "second-level thinking" and higher often is a tool in a successful player's arsenal. McCain, not so much. He goes for the games with the thrill without much thinking.
In general, you don't want to think more than one level ahead of your opponent. So maybe McCain's campaign is on 0th-level thinking ("MUST... CONTROL... NEWS CYCLE! AYERS!!!!") and 2nd-level is too much to outsmart them.
Or else, by being so obvious about it, they're actually trying to sell McCain on the fakeout theory ? and then when he falls into the trap and brings up Ayers, they're going to crush him. Or....um.....you get the idea.
Seems like a good time to recall that Obama's gambling game of choice is poker, a game where such "second-level thinking" and higher often is a tool in a successful player's arsenal. McCain, not so much. He goes for the games with the thrill without much thinking.
In general, you don't want to think more than one level ahead of your opponent. So maybe McCain's campaign is on 0th-level thinking ("MUST... CONTROL... NEWS CYCLE! AYERS!!!!") and 2nd-level is too much to outsmart them.
Of course the Obama campaign has a dynamite response: Keating. Or Hagee. Or any number of crazy wingnuts McCain has associated with in his career.
Does McCain really want to risk reminding voters of the last time he was involved with corruption in the banking sector? Let's hope so!
Of course it will work. Because there is no there there. This Ayers thing is basically a bubble, an item worth one debating point or a single attack ad, which has been blown into a fantasy that makes the Protocols of Zion look like sound history.
Submitted by Daryl McCullough (not verified) on Thu Oct. 9, 2008 4:02 PM PDT.
In the same way that George W Bush seems unconcerned about being the worst President in living memory, John McCain seems unconcerned about running the worst Presidential campaign in living history.
Is this the same Obama from the primary? Is this the guy we were saying "kumbayah" about? Is this the campaign that completely lost their cool when Hillary started the heavy mindgames with them?
I'm smiling today, that's for sure.
Palin's rallies remind me of seeing a Nazi rally with her in the role as a female Hitler. The way the crazed mob chants and sing-songs her name over and over again -- Sarah, Sarah, Sarah! In a very dazed, fevered and crazed way, almost like being hypnotized! A crowd who would do anything for her, maybe even Kill for her!
Yet this is the very same Palin who is so illiterate that she is unable to go on Meet the Press, like every other vice presidential candidate who has gone before her. Palin a/k/a Hitler, who could be a heart-beat away! Scary...dangerous, scary!
Submitted by Legacy on Thu Oct. 9, 2008 4:20 PM PDT.
gordonminor: Sure, you can call me that. But only for a few more days, since I turn 50 next week. Better get your licks in right away!
They have a more direct response: that board that Ayers and Obama was on? The Annenburg family, big Republicans, supporters of McCain, were the ones who chose Ayers for that board. Just ask John McCain when he plans to disavow the domestic-terrorist-loving Annenburgs and return all of their money.
To elaborate on what I just said: if Ayers does come up, it has to be answered first, before Obama pivots and counterattacks. Ayers was chosen by a respected Republican to be on that board; at the time Obama had dealings with Ayers he knew him only as a college professor and had no idea what he'd done when Obama was eight years old, but McCain, on the other hand, knew full well what he was up to when he shilled for Charles Keating and confessed as much in his own autobiography.
I'm sure the Obama camp wants him to bring it up. McCain needs an economic game changer. If he talks about the economy and mentions Ayers, which will the media talk about for 24 hours? Obama gets to cut ads with McCain talking about Ayers and pointing out that he is not talking about the economy. McCain is boxed in and the best thing the Obama camp can do is spend the next week all but calling him a gutless bastard and try to provoke him to talk about it. If he doesn't, the talking heads will spend 24 hours talking about how McCain won't confront Obama and casting doubt on the sincerity of the Ayers charge.
Or else, by being so obvious about it, they're actually trying to sell McCain on the fakeout theory and then when he falls into the trap and brings up Ayers, they're going to crush him. Or....um.....you get the idea.
Seems like a good time to recall that Obama's gambling game of choice is poker, a game where such "second-level thinking" and higher often is a tool in a successful player's arsenal. McCain, not so much. He goes for the games with the thrill without much thinking.
In general, you don't want to think more than one level ahead of your opponent. So maybe McCain's campaign is on 0th-level thinking ("MUST... CONTROL... NEWS CYCLE! AYERS!!!!") and 2nd-level is too much to outsmart them.
Submitted by Equal Opportunity Cynic (not verified) on Thu Oct. 9, 2008 4:37 PM PDT.
Oops, forgot to take credit or blame for the poker comment.
It isn't hard to play mindgames with McCain. There's a reason he finished 894th out of 899th at the Naval Academy. It wasn't just because he was too busy getting drunk and, as he often puts it, chasing tail.
The only display of shrewdness I've ever seen from him was getting everyone to somehow think he is a reformer. When someone like George W. Bush can play you like a fiddle, you aren't too bright.
Submitted by elmo (not verified) on Thu Oct. 9, 2008 4:44 PM PDT.
If you put a bowl of antifreeze soup in front of McNoddle and told him if he ate it, he would win the election...he would lick the bowl dry...
I don't think Obama even needs a dynamite response if McCain goes for door #3.
I assume that McCain is laying low at the debates because he realizes that it's a different audience, one that he would be more likely to antagonize with his smear talk. If Obama can goad him into treating the next debate like a party rally in southern Ohio, then I think Obama gets one more chance to point up the contrast between his own presidential qualities, and McCain's descent into Yosemite Sam-like spasms of incoherent anger.
I think Obama was ready to ambush McCain on Tuesday, probably with some still as yet unexplored unsavory associates of McCains (and there are rumblings of Mafia connections with the McCain liquor franchise in Arizona involving dead bodies) and he was disappointed. Calling him out (and I was more sure this was the case when Biden did it too) will make sure it comes out next week:
"Yes, Senator McCain, guilt by association can be troubling. What do you have to say about your family's personal fortune being built on extortion and murder?"
I think Obama was ready to ambush McCain on Tuesday, probably with some still as yet unexplored unsavory associates of McCains
You don't win an exchange like that by jumping down into the mud with your opponent. You win it by using the opponent's attack to make him look small and tawdry. Which I'm guessing Obama could bring off.
BombIran may be right that the economy could trump everything. Kevin is wrong in that any discussion of Ayers at the debate is not good for Obama.
But Ayers is a pretty disgusting guy and even comes across as personally obnoxious. Don't you guys at least concede it reflects poorly on Obama that he served with Ayers on a couple boards/foundations, started his political career with a fundraiser in his home, and praised his book on radical politicalization of the educational system?
It's not that they have a secret knockout response, it's that it's petty to bring it up at all while the economy is melting down so it's a win-win proposition. It's "Does this terrorist make my campaign look fat?" There is no good answer.
But Ayers is a pretty disgusting guy and even comes across as personally obnoxious. Don't you guys at least concede it reflects poorly on Obama that he served with Ayers on a couple boards/foundations, started his political career with a fundraiser in his home, and praised his book on radical politicalization of the educational system?
I refuse to believe you're this stupid Brian. I don't buy it.
I don't mind KD being at Mojo (though Mojo itself didn't interest me after looking it over for a couple of weeks).
But I am really getting tired of all the nasty images on the left margin. The kid in the KKK suit is particularly annoying.
McCain's father-in-law, Jim Hensley, who helped engineer McCain's rise in politics in the 1980s, worked for reputed mobster Kemper Marley, an Arizona liquor dealer who was implicated, among other things, in the 1976 murder of Arizona Republic investigative reporter Don Bolles. (See Phoenix New Times story at http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2000-02-17/news/haunted-by-spirits/1)
Hensley was convicted in 1948 of seven counts of making false entries in federal liquor records and conspiracy with his brother, Gene, who was convicted of 23 counts. In 1952 the brothers bought a racetrack in Ruidoso, N.M., with Teak Baldwin, a Phoenix gambler. The Helmsleys sold the racetrack in 1955. Jim, a cash-strapped ex-con, somehow secured the exclusive right to distribute Budweiser in Phoenix. (See http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=0fd7470d-a41f-4d9e-9328-fd079b...)
jimBob's got it. Bringing up Ayers at the debate will backfire on McCain. Basically all Obama has to do is shake his head in disappointment.
Brian, Ayers is a non-entity. No one would know or care anything about him if the McCain campaign wasn't trying to make him an issue. There's no reason to have any opinion about the guy. He just is not that important.
As for the idea that serving on the board with the guy reflects on Obama's judgment--that's just silly. A lot of Republicans served on that board. Should young Obama have hired private investigators to look for skeletons in all of their closets before agreeing to serve with them?
As for praising the guy's book and letting him host a fundraiser--whatever. Really, there are more important things to worry about.
i'll count your vote as feeling it reflects well on obama that he associated with the scumbag Ayers.
Yes, go ahead and do that, won't you?
While you're at it I'd like to hear your thoughts, Brian, about how such an association reflects on the Annenburg family and Foundation. Who not only recruited Ayers to serve on their boards, but also promoted his ideas?
You know, the McCain supporters?
Waitaminitt.
Do you suppose that's got anything to do with McCain's choice of a VP nominee with ties to a secessionist America-hating Alaska Independence Party.
Maybe Palin was properly vetted!?!
Just not for the normal stuff like integrity and basic competence ...
he realizes that it's a different audience
I don't think he does. He's used to fishing from a stocked pond in his Republicans-only town halls. He mugged and made his lame jokes expecting to get laughs but the audience was skeptical undecideds who'd been told not to respond.
there are rumblings of Mafia connections with the McCain liquor franchise in Arizona involving dead bodies
They're not "rumblings." His father-in-law was a bootlegger and convicted felon.
Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on Thu Oct. 9, 2008 6:14 PM PDT.
Kevin wrote: "I guess they must be really sure they have a dynamite response ready in case McCain decides to unload next Wednesday."
The Obama campaign has this response if McCain mentions Ayers:
One of the main "connections" that the McCain campaign points to between Obama and Ayers is that they served on the board of the Annenberg Challenge Project, a program of the Annenberg Foundation.
The president and chairperson of the Annenberg Foundation is Leonore Annenberg.
Leonore Annenberg was the second name on a list that the McCain campaign released this week of 100 former US ambassadors who have endorsed John McCain. She is the widow of ambassador and philanthropist Walter Annenberg, and served as chief of protocol at the State Department under Reagan.
If McCain starts in about "palling around with terrorist" Ayers during the debate, Obama can simply point out that he and Ayers served together on the board of an education reform organization headed by one of John McCain's most distinguished supporters, and ask McCain if he is also accusing Mrs. Annenberg of being a terrorist sympathizer?
It's a very smart move on Obama's part. McCain simply cannot benefit in the next and last debate from bringing up Ayers in the midst of an economic meltdown without looking absolutely foolish. And McCain's campaign knows it.
So there's no downside whatsoever for Obama to mildly taunt and trash talk him about it for the next two weeks. But, even if McCain doesn't bring it up, Obama will. He's not going to let McCain and Palin trash him on the stump without confronting McCain about it face-to-face in the debate.
He's going to find the right opportunity to call him out on it. He's going to invite him to tell 50 million people what he has been saying behind Obama's back to small crowds across the country. And after McCain angrily fumbles through his pathetic attack -- and audience reaction flat-lines -- Obama is going to look at the audience and tell them that, in the midst of all their economic hardship, this is what the "Straight Talk Express" has come to: character assassination.
Or something to that effect.
I think Kevin is right about the possibilities.
I think the "say it to my face" taunt is very smart. Very smart.
And I think all three possibilities are about equally good for Obama. The first two are self-evident.
But given that the Ayers smear is getting a lot of attention, I think McCain bringing it up at the debate is a very good option for Obama. And I bet he isn't bluffing. He's ready. I don't think Barack does empty bravado.
I don't think McCain has the guts to do it.
McCain will look petty. Desperate. Trying to change the subject.
Obama will have a chance to repudiate Ayers in front of a huge audience. I imagine he'd really like to do that. And he's ready. He's practiced. Stick a knife in this once and for all.
I just don't see how Obama can lose - unless he tries to say something like "yeah, but McCain has some bad friends too." I think that would be foolish.
Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on Thu Oct. 9, 2008 6:24 PM PDT.
Rob Mac: "Ayers is a non-entity. No one would know or care anything about him if the McCain campaign wasn't trying to make him an issue."
That's not true. The city of Chicago gave Ayers its Citizen of the Year award in 1997 for his work on the Annenberg project. Ayers is well-known and respected in the education reform community in Chicago.
Ayers has never been convicted of any "terrorist act". The federal case against him and his wife for their alleged activities as part of the Weatherman organization in the sixties was thrown out due to illegal wiretaps and prosecutorial misconduct -- the kind of misconduct that was all too often directed at peaceful, as well as violent, opponents of the Vietnam war in those days.
I don't endorse or condone Ayers' endorsing or condoning violence forty years ago. But he was right to oppose the Vietnam war, and he was right to say in 2001 that he wished he had done more to oppose it. We all should have done more.
Rob Mac,
You may be right that Ayers will not make much difference in the election. If so, Obama becoming president after years of hanging arount with Ayers, Wright and Rezko is an amazing story. I think Obama would have lost with the economic crisis.
Yglesius has a link to a very interesting analysis that argued idealogical realignments were mostly a matter of chance and timing, like Roosevelt in 1936. If true, then the dems and liberals might be about to get very lucky.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/10/the_political_impact_...
