But I don't think you're really hearing me. I am not saying the event did Obama in. I am saying the whole GOP operation (as exhibited at Saddleback, and later at the VFW), will do Obama in. There is no defeating it, unless (and believe me -- I hope I am missing something) Obama figures something out.
Ok.
I do think this is a problem, and it is one reason I didn't support Obama in the primaries. I didn't think he had the experience to do this. I also agree with you, it is important.
That said, I do not live in fear this year of what the Republicans might say or do as I should have in 2000 and did in 2004. Yes, they can attack. Yes, they own the low ground in appealing to people's baser instincts on certain issues. I am not as concerned for a few reasons. One of them is that John McCain is not the best leader for this machine. He's not a good attack dog; he's only proven himself good at letting surrogates attack, which isn't a bad skill, but it isn't everything. More importantly, unlike George W. Bush, he doesn't inspire many people. I hear you saying that he has found the ability to do so--perhaps I'm misreading or simply insisting on saying what I want to think you said--but I don't think he will ever be loved or cheered like Bush. He can enjoy some grudging respect, and that has value. It doesn't fill stadiums in West Chester, Ohio or The Villages in Florida with five-digit crowds, and it doesn't get volunteers dragging their friends to the polls.
Similarly, Obama can fight both offense and defense in the battle for votes. I don't mean offense in the way you might, in the sense of attacking McCain. He inspires voters and gets them excited. Gore and Kerry, bless their hearts, never did that. They were always on the defensive. At best, they gave Democrats reasons to support them, but they never seduced voters or inspired crowds. I wouldn't write that off. It helped Bush win in 2004.
Finally, I think we are seeing Obama take the gloves off. He is responding right away to attacks, which is something Kerry and Gore never did. I hear you saying that he may not do it in the right voice. I think we're going to have to see what he does at the convention, how he can take it to McCain and attack him. I think it is crucial he define McCain negatively there. He's going to have to do it in his own voice, though, to be convincing. He's going to do it more in sadness than in anger, which always worked for Bush.
I think you're right on this, but...
...not here.
For the simple reason that it's not 00, 02, or 04. People talk about the Mommy Party and the Daddy Party for the Dems and the Republicans. We went through a period of time when we wanted leadership that kicked ass and took names, and didn't get all gay with facts and logic and that crap. I feel that America is sick of it. Yes, we want a strong leader, one who pushes back against attacks and is confident in himself. I don't think that people are voting for the bigger bully any more. I also think that focusing on tactics can obscure how much the fundamentals supported the Republicans in those races. Cleland was running as a Democrat in Georgia in 2002, against Bush's coattails, in a state that was trending hard right for a long time. We were wiped out up and down the ticket in that state. The Cleland=bin Laden comparison was shameful, but the fact of the ad, or its outcome, did not determine the election. Voters just weren't buying what Cleland was selling.
This year, they absolutely are. Obama just has to close the sale. The Republicans have limited ability to stop him, just as the Democrats had limited ability to stop people from lovin' W in 2004 for keeping us safe and kicking butt for America.
