I learned a lesson in law school, more than thirty yeas ago, which has proven correct time and time again in every debate, argument, or conflict, whether legal, political or personal.
The person or party that defines the issue wins.
A few weeks ago, Obama's tour de force of Europe had the media swooning. The narrative was that Obama had risen to the challenge on foreign policy issues. The media images of Obama showed world leaders and battlefield tours. McCain's images featured "Mac 'n Cheese."
Obama "won" that week because the narrative was centered on how everyone from Maliki to Bush was now adopting Obama's policies, such as a "timetable" for Iraq. The focus was Obama's entrance to the world stage.
Last week, McCain's ads reframed an Obama success into a debate on "Is he too presumptuous" "Is he a shallow celebrity" etc.
Follow me below the fold and let's discuss two things Obama can do to reframe the issues and change the media narrative.
There is a long history to Republican election strategy. And if there is one thing they are good at it is finding a trivial narrative and repeating it endlessly until it takes over the discussion.
The Mcain camp has made it clear that they will make Obama -- not his policies or ideas but Obama himself -- the focus of all their narratives: he has been called a traitor, painted as vaguely unAmerican, mocked as a shallow "celebrity," and derided as "the One". It doesn't matter what the new attack will be -- we know that it will take this form. And if the Democrats spend time playing "defense" on these issues while the media endlessly repeats the framing, we will lose.
The Democrats must refocus the debate. There are several ways to do that without damaging Obama by making him go negative just like McCain, which would destroy his credibility as an agent for "change" in the way politics is played in America.
One way: Take direct aim at the "maverick" "straight-talk express" branding that has defined McCain, and that the media continues to repeat. Obama has done some of this, but not nearly enough, and not with enough consistency. We must convince the voters who don't pay close attention to the details, that McCain's branding is no more authentic than the "Clean Skies" or the Healthy Forests" initiatives of the Bush administration. Indeed, we need to spell it out, and say something like: "Every time the Republicans name something, it's a good bet that it's exactly the opposite of what its been named. No matter what you call it, The Straight Talk Express has consistently taken the low road to nowhere. Similarly, only in a party that demands 100-percent loyalty to party can someone call himself a "Maverick" because his loyalty has wavered 5 percent of the time."
The Republicans are very good at taking a small talking point and hammering at it until it becomes the main point of the discussion. The Democrats tend to scatter-shot their attacks until no one can remember what the main points are. The media has bought the meme that McCain broke with Bush on several key issues. Obama needs to pound in the fact that McCain stood with Bush 95% of the time -- and even more since 2004.
There is a ton of video out there where McCain embraces Bush, both literally and figuratively. That video and McCain's own words belie his "maverick" and "straight talk" b.s. Obama has played around the edges of this narrative, but hasn't hit it nearly hard enough.
A second and more dramatic move would be to boldly grab that "third rail" that McCain has so far successfully laid -- and watch the sparks fly when Obama directly attacks McCain's so-called "experience", especially in the foreign policy area.
Obama's campaign made a big mistake when it backed down rather than support General Wesley Clark's statement about McCain being largely untested and untried, and that being shot down did not qualify him to be president. The right flew into a frenzy, the media jumped on board, and neither Obama nor other Democrats backed Clark, who was absolutely right not only in what he said but in the fact that he said it in response to a specific question.
Why did the McCain campaign fly into such a tizzy? Because McCain has nothing to offer but the mythology of the hero who courageously survived his years as a POW. (Note I said "mythology", not "myth".) That's why they fight so fiercely when someone like a Wes Clark say Well, ok, he's a heroic POW, but what are his executive experiences in foreign policy or national security? Or even in the military? The McCain camp, aided by a complicit media, managed to completely and to this point permanently take the whole issue "off the table" for the Democrats. The Democrats have to grab that third rail of McCain's experience and let the sparks fly until the discussion ultimately turns to the actual relevance of McCain's experiences.
One of the most dramatic and successful moves for the Democrats would be to put Wesley Clark on the ticket as VP, and let him be the "attack dog" against McCain on the very issue that McCain is most aggressively defensive on, which is his service and his status as a POW. Putting Clark on the ticket -- without even saying anything about McCain directly -- would be a bold challenge to McCain on the issue of foreign policy and military service, would instantly serve to frame the media narrative around the issues that Clark raises, and as an added benefit would make the McCain campaign operatives' heads explode.
Yes, of course, the media and McCain will fall all over themselves talking about whether or not this is a "slap in the face" to McCain, and the McCain camp will say it is "disrespecting" the service of all members of the armed forces, but the end result is that the issue of McCain's experience, and whether or not it qualifies him to be President and whether or not he has shown the judgment that the office requires will be front and center, rather than what it now is, which is untouchable.
In the interests of full disclosure, I have long supported Clark as VP, but my "bias" toward Clark does not negate the merits of the issue. Somehow, McCain has managed to make the issue of his qualifications and experience "too hot" for the Democrats to address. He did it, in one fell swoop, by getting the Democrats to back off the controversy that the Clark statement engendered. Had the Democrats not caved and failed to defend what was actually an accurate statement, the issue of McCain's experience would not now be taboo, and a whole new area of vulnerability for McCain would be very much still in play.
The quickest, easiest, and most effective way to challenge McCain on this issue is to put Clark on the ticket. Let the Republicans argue that putting Clark -- who served 34 or so years in the military -- on the ticket is somehow a slap in the face of the troops.
Putting Clark on the ticket also is the most effective way to enrage the Republicans, whose response to him indicates the level of the threat they must feel he poses.
Since I started writing this diary, I've read the one on the rec list about how we all should stop writing these "Obama needs to do this or that" diaries and trust that he's smarter than we are etc. While I agree that there are many other things we can do -- like donate money or time to the campaign -- that help in the ultimate goal of a win in November, I also believe that our concerns, our fears, our voices should continue to speak out, loud and clear, as to what we believe our campaign should do. Yes, sometimes there is a lot of hand-wringing, because we care so much, and so much is at stake. But we can also hope that someone in the Obama campaign is reading the diaries, and noting the tone and the texture of our comments. The media talking heads also have staff that browses this site to test what the blogosphere is saying. One reason I supported Obama rather than Clinton in the primary is that Clinton's campaign was out of touch and out of synch with the netroots. I don't believe we should just say let's trust the campaign to always do the right thing. That's not what this campaign purports to be about. Let's make sure it stays that way.
UPDATE Glad to see the new DNC ad, Maverick No More. It's a good start and a decent response to the Republican's ad using the Dems. previous quotes. But it's just a beginning. The Republicans repeat their points until it doesn't matter whether they are true or false. We can't just hit this theme once or twice and go on to something else. We have to keep hitting it until McCain is afraid to use the word "maverick" because it has become laughable.