Considering that political campaigns are nothing but marketing I think the major players are stuck in a button-down 1960s ad agency frame of mind. Where are the Chiat/Weiden/Saachis (not to mention the Putney Swopes)?
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Thursday, 26 January 2006 02:38 (eighteen years ago) link
― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 26 January 2006 03:17 (eighteen years ago) link
― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Thursday, 26 January 2006 03:29 (eighteen years ago) link
― Lenny Meyerneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 04:20 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 26 January 2006 04:41 (eighteen years ago) link
― youn, Thursday, 26 January 2006 05:17 (eighteen years ago) link
Yeah, if only Saatchi could work some of the magic for the Dems that he worked for Margaret Thatcher in the UK.
― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 26 January 2006 15:15 (eighteen years ago) link
It wouldn't be hard.
― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 26 January 2006 15:17 (eighteen years ago) link
to the extent the 'Dem leadership' did anything about Dean, they mostly helped rather than hurt him - the CLintons threw Clark into the mix so he could have a Veep who would reframe 'crazy' as 'crazy like a fox', then Gore endorsed him giving him some measure of legitimacy (which you can argue hurt rather than helped him)
that's completely nuts.
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 26 January 2006 15:22 (eighteen years ago) link
― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 15:36 (eighteen years ago) link
why?
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 16:21 (eighteen years ago) link
1. clark didn't help dean, not even "mostly help"2. gore /= clinton, possibly even gore /= "dem leadership"
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 26 January 2006 16:23 (eighteen years ago) link
"Last year I was appearing on a Boston TV show... This was about the same time that Harriet Miers was nominated for the Supreme Court role for which Judge Alito just completed his audition. Preceding me on the show were two women who were involved, mostly behind the scenes, in the Democratic Party. They were there to discuss the nomination. As we were chatting in the green room, one of the two mentioned that she had been one of Vice President Gore's key staffers.
"Hold on," I said. "Were you involved in preparing him for his first debate with Bush?" She replied in the affirmative. I was practically salivating now. "I have been waiting five years to ask this question. In that debate, the first question to your man was, 'Is Governor Bush qualified to be President?' At that moment, experience was a key issue in the race. Gore had been in the Congress, had spent eight years as VP doing all kinds of high-profile stuff, while the other guy had the reputation as being a naïf. It was a big advantage for your side. So," I said, nearly shouting now, "when the moderator throws you a gimmie like that, an obvious chance to score points, WHY DID GORE SAY 'YES?' DON'T YOU REALIZE YOU LOST THE ELECTION RIGHT THERE?"
The women glanced towards each other while I wiped the spittle off of my shirt. "No, no, no," they said, nearly in unison. "Saying 'no' would have looked petty and mean. You let proxies do that for you. You stay above it."
I was nearly speechless. "People liked the other guy because he seemed honest and direct," I said in a high, airless voice. No answer. They were still in denial. They had learned nothing from the tactics that had been used against them for roughly six years, if not since Joe McCarthy. In today's New York Times, Maureen Dowd had a column about how the Republicans have consistently succeeded in casting the Democrats as effeminate wimps.
It's actually kind of a simple bit of reasoning: people don't like you personally, and fair or not there is no way of convincing them to like you. As such, you might as well go down stressing your objective qualifications rather than subjective ones that no one believes anyway."
http://www.yesnetwork.com/yankees/pinstripedblog.asp
(Jan 18 entry)
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 26 January 2006 16:32 (eighteen years ago) link
― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 26 January 2006 16:38 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 16:48 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 17:07 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 17:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 17:08 (eighteen years ago) link
i'm talking about intentions, not results. and neither of us knows for certain what their intentions were. but i would dispute you on results - the Dean/Clark ticket became an instant talking-point.
2. gore /= clinton, possibly even gore /= "dem leadership"
that's because there's no such thing as the "dem leadership", but gore has as much claim on it as the Clintons do. and i see no reason to assume that their tactical intentions diverge significantly.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 17:11 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 17:13 (eighteen years ago) link
i meant no, of course
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 17:15 (eighteen years ago) link
― ,,, Thursday, 26 January 2006 17:18 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 26 January 2006 17:20 (eighteen years ago) link
rahm (sorry, still smiling about that one)...gabbneb, you don't actually pay for that echo chamber, do you?
― don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 26 January 2006 17:20 (eighteen years ago) link
I fully admit this is my own paranoid conspiracy theory - but its not the yelp and ensuing media frenzy, it was the way Gephardt fell on his sword in Iowa, running extremely negative ads and basically savaging Dean at every opportunity, simultaneously shooting his own campaign in the foot by looking like an asshole. But it def. damaged Dean's credibility and upped the stakes of the primaries - and Gephardt is too much of a party loyalist for me to not to suspect the hand of the Dem leadership (ie "ohmigod who can we get to stop this brushfire - lets throw Dick Gephardt at it, he's not gonna win anyway). The yelp and the media hoohah was more a case of Dems standing idly by and pointing and laughing - note that no one came to Dean's defense. The Dem leadership at large was happy to see him fail, and more than willing to fan the flames by calling his outburst "unpresidential", etc.
But yes, this is pretty much just a crank theory of mine.
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 17:30 (eighteen years ago) link
― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 26 January 2006 17:35 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 17:36 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 26 January 2006 17:40 (eighteen years ago) link
Oh yes, political genius - hostility to the person who brings you your audience.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 17:50 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 17:51 (eighteen years ago) link
I pay for the Times to be thumped against my apartment door.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 17:52 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 17:53 (eighteen years ago) link
you also have to recognize that 80-85% of voters are 30 or older
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 17:59 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 26 January 2006 18:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 18:01 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 18:02 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 18:03 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 26 January 2006 18:04 (eighteen years ago) link
tracer mostly OTM (re the part about the dems being "left"). OTH, it wasn't as if truman, lbj, or fdr pulled punches when punches needed to be thrown.
― Eisbär (llamasfur), Thursday, 26 January 2006 18:04 (eighteen years ago) link
― Eisbär (llamasfur), Thursday, 26 January 2006 18:06 (eighteen years ago) link
xpost
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 26 January 2006 18:06 (eighteen years ago) link
because I've often thought of him when reading your posts.
Echo chamber? Aside from Krugman, they're all bad, but in pretty different ways don't you think, don?
very few of them ever challenge the Editorial page's dogma--although admittedly the only time I acknowledge by glancing at it read the OpEd is on Sundays anymore (that's the only time I ever actually buy the paper.)
― don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 26 January 2006 18:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 26 January 2006 18:09 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 26 January 2006 18:11 (eighteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 26 January 2006 18:12 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 18:17 (eighteen years ago) link
― don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 26 January 2006 18:21 (eighteen years ago) link
but this is what i'm saying only if you adopt this binary view that says being on the offense requires getting all het up about it. this is what i was trying to illustrate above - Bush/Rove don't go around and say "John Kerry/Democrats would surrender in the war on terrorism," they say "I/we believe that fighting the war on terror takes [X]; some have a different view". The candidate should let flunkies and supporters connect the dots, but should attack only indirectly as an antecedent to making the positive case for what the candidate is going to do. Taking someone on directly just lowers yourself to their level. That kind of attack more often will wound the attacker, as an acknowledgment of their own weakness, than their opponent.
Of course, this is more about 2004, when Dems were actually out of power, than 2000, when Gore barely held on to it (running away from Clinton might have made sense on some grounds but it destroyed the biggest thing he had going for him - incumbency).
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 18:24 (eighteen years ago) link
cf Imus in the Morning and all his inside the Beltway buddies.
#1 reason why my father & his country club cronies are just about permanently disgusted with the Democratic Party. a few of 'em (lawyers) grudgingly voted for Kerry because they hate Bush but otherwise they think national Dems = wussy, don't stand for anything, out there in far left looneyville. I hear this over and over and over. Not "they're wrong," but "they're so clueless that the idea of voting these guys into power is 100% inconceivable."
― dar1a g (daria g), Thursday, 26 January 2006 18:38 (eighteen years ago) link
I can't even tell you how many times I overheard my ex roommate telling some poor friend of hers or another about how GWB mighta fucked up, but at least he "stuck to his guns, had a plan and is following it thru" as if being the most pigheaded person in the world is such a great accomplishment but that's what the people like. Changing your mind or waffling = confused and disoriented, not trustworthy.
― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 18:43 (eighteen years ago) link