The Clinton Democratic stratagists are hitting the Obama campaign hard today, warning that if he keeps pushing the message that "things are getting better" he will fail.
http://www.democracycorps.com/focus/2012/06/shifting-the-economic-narrative/
"These voters are not convinced that we are headed in the right direction. They are living in a new economy – and there is no conceivable recovery in the year ahead that will change the view of the new state of the country. They actually have a very realistic view of the long road back and the struggles of the middle class — and the current narrative about progress just misses the opportunity to connect and point forward," they write. "While we hear some optimism, this is framed mostly by the sense that this has to be rock bottom."
They are trying to push two narratives that they feel the president must adopt to be successful.
1. That this is a "new economy" not subject to the economic rules of the past (this of course is bullshit).
2. That he must adopt the platform that we are not in recovery, but instead are at "rock bottom" because that's the only way to frame his position of moving "forward."
While I don't like Carville et. al. because he is a snake, I do agree that he is on point with his analysis, and if Obama wants to win this election it will be necessary for him to adopt some new BS instead of flailing around with re-invented slogans and poorly executed press conferences that serve only to separate him further from his constituency.
President Obama is lucky enough to have a portion of his base that are fanatically motivated, but for him to rely on them will be a mistake. Fanatics make great voters but they can also serve to alienate rational voters who may find embarrassment at being associated with that degree fervor.
He needs to build his connection again to the independent voter, and as much as I hate to say it, Carville is right.
And I suspect they will keep frightening people via the blogosphere about an impending theocracy, war on women, war on race, war on culture, etc. or continue the tactic of trying to convince perfectly logical non-blacks they are racist if they disapprove of Obama's first term or oppose any of his policies.
Look at the message:
QuoteOn Sunday, Angela Rye, Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus, told CSPAN that conservative opposition to Obama is rooted in racism.
"I think that a lot of what the president has experienced is because he's black," she said.
"You know, whether it's questioning his intellect or whether or not he's Ivy League. It's always either he's not educated enough or he's too educated; or he's too black or he's not black enough; he's too Christian or not Christian enough. There are all these things where he has to walk this very fine line to even be successful," she added.
Even the term "cool" is considered "racially charged," she argued, citing an ad by Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS super PAC.
http://www.examiner.com/article/black-caucus-executive-director-conservative-opposition-to-obama-is-racism
Tail end of another piece compiling racist memes:
Quote03/27/12: Dahlia Lithwick, Slate: "And now we know the [Supreme] court is worried about freedom: the freedom to live like it's 1804."
06/04/12: Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Washington Post: "By attacking labor unions, flooding Wisconsin with outside cash and trying to cleanse the electorate of people who don't look, earn or think like him, [Wisconsin Gov. Scott] Walker has taken aim at more than a single campaign cycle or a series of policies; his real targets are the pillars of American progressivism itself."
06/08/12: Cassandra Jackson, Huffington Post: "[T]he war on affordable health care is a war on Blacks and Latinos."
And now, full circle, comes today's other installment, from our old friend Charles P. Pierce in Esquire magazine:
In so many ways, the path [Barack Obama] has to walk to re-election is similar to the path he has had to walk through his life. It was hard not to notice the subtext present in all those earnest warnings about hurting the fee-fees of our financial titans. The president was stepping out of his place. The president was being uppity again.
This is also the case with what is perhaps the most noxious idea out there: that Barack Obama "failed" in his promise to "bring the country together," and that he is now — Glorioski! — campaigning like he wants to be president all over again. He is engaging in politics. Mother of mercy, I swear David Brooks is just going to break down and go all to pieces on PBS some evening over the president's betrayal of his role as the country's anodyne black man and, of course, his upcoming role as black martyr to incivility and discord. It is his duty, dammit, to be all the things that people like Brooks wanted him to be so that he could lose, nobly, and then the country could go back to its rightful owners.
Still no convincing explanation for how the racist Teabagging Republicans could have fallen so hard for Herman Cain, but I think the most salient point is one noted by (gasp!) David Brooks: Barack Obama is consistently much more popular than his policies. Mitt Romney has been consistently less popular than his. That's a mighty odd way for a country to express its racism.
Two bits from me from the racially contentious late summer of 2009: "The Race War That Isn't," and "Are Tea Parties Racist?"
http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/08/a-modern-timeline-of-liberals-claiming-t
And here's this gem of a reach-around published yesterday:
QuoteSeth Stephens-Davidowitz, doctoral candidate in economics at Harvard, has conducted researching on voting patterns and racial prejudice as revealed by Google searches. His goal was to find out how much racial animosity hurt Barack Obama's election results in 2008.
"I did that by measuring how much racial animus there is in different areas, based on their Google searches," Stephens-Davidowitz said.
In essence, he was looking for people searching for bad things about African-Americans.
"Usually jokes with some very strong language," he said.
He looked particularly at the "n-word" — searches containing the "n-word" — filtered geographically.
"I don't think anything was totally shocking," he said. "The number-one state in the country in the frequency of the search was West Virginia. See it a lot in the South as well, but I think it wasn't just a southern phenomenon at all. A lot of searches in the Northeast, Midwest, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc."
From there, he was able to convert the volume of those searches into maps that showed how racial feelings vary across the country. He based it on the percent of racist searches as part of the larger total of Google searches, to account for differences in population from state to state.
What he found was startling. In areas where racially motivated searches were most common in the years before Obama became a candidate, Obama almost always performed worse that John Kerry did in 2004, or at least worse when compared with gains by other Democrats in those areas.
Specifically, he points to Obama's performance in Denver, Colo., and Wheeling, W.Va. In both states, Stephens-Davidowitz wrote in The New York Times, Kerry received about 50 percent of the vote in 2004. But Wheeling had the seventh highest racially charged search rate in the country, while Denver was the fourth lowest.
Statistically, Obama should have won about 57 percent of the vote in both cities, based on the performance of other Democrats. That's exactly what he got in Denver. In Wheeling, his support actually fell to 48 percent — lower than Kerry even.
"In other words, racial prejudice gave John McCain the equivalent of a home-state advantage nationally," Stephens-Davidowitz wrote.
The same approach could be applied to feelings toward gays or lesbians — virtually any minority group.
"It's a very interesting view into the human psyche we don't normally have," he said.
He also cautioned against drawing overly boad conclusions from his research. It's not to say that everyone who is racist conducts these sorts of searches, nor that all who search using these words are motivated by racism.
"You aggregate what turns out to be millions and millions of searches and you get a great picture," Stephens-Davidowitz said.
http://www.pri.org/stories/politics-society/tt-google-searches-paint-a-picture-of-how-racism-still-infects-america-hurt-obama-10215.html
Have any of these yahoos ever heard of "confirmation bias"?
At this point I certainly would not want to be President Obama. He is facing an up-hill battle in convincing the public that nothing is his fault, and at the same time battling the Clinton machine, not knowing what advice to take and what focus group to look toward.
I agree with what Carville has to say, but then again, it may be set as an attempt to push him in a direction that the Clintons need him to go. Either way, the advantage is not on his side.
It is funny that you republicans are so concerned with the "message" is or will be for the democratic candidate.
It once again confirms that you can't defend Romney and the only weapon you have is to attack Obama.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 12, 2012, 02:43:35 PM
It is funny that you republicans are so concerned with the "message" is or will be for the democratic candidate.
It once again confirms that you can't defend Romney and the only weapon you have is to attack Obama.
There's no need to defend someone who has actually:
-Created jobs in the real world
-Understands personal and corporate finance first-hand, not something he read or was advised on
-Has actually been a head of government
-Has shown he can work in a bipartisan manner when he was governor
-Is credited with authoring a healthcare program similar to Obamacare which should be a plus for you Obamacare fans. At the very least, I think he might leave it up to the states to work out much like they did in Mass.
-Turned what was surely headed into being a bust into a huge success (SLC Olympics)
Those are all great examples of leadership.
President Obama has charm and to some is a great orator. He's not illustrated leadership, the economy is still in the tank (granted the president only has so much power over the economy but as a leader he can help inspire confidence and help with policies considered friendly to recovery). By any measurable yardstick, I really don't see how Obama's first term can be considered a success unless him taking personal credit for an heroic Navy Seals operation or suddenly being for gay marriage when it was expedient are true successes.
Nope, the economy is not going to exhibit any more of a recovery than it has this year, so they have to obfuscate and turn the attention elsewhere. That's the real issue impacting millions of Americans right now. They need to try and get their minds off this reality or at least create a bogeyman Obama to protect them from.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 12, 2012, 02:43:35 PM
It is funny that you republicans are so concerned with the "message" is or will be for the democratic candidate.
It once again confirms that you can't defend Romney and the only weapon you have is to attack Obama.
Defend him on what?
He hasn't changed his message, and his platform is rather simple. His primary message is jobs and economic growth and it is based on reviving private sector growth. His track record for doing this is "sparkling" to use a Clinton complement.
President Obama, on the other hand, continues to push the same platform of hype & blame with the head of Bin Laden on a steak as his only positive achievement.
I think a discussion of the policies of Romney vs Obama would be healthy and perhaps when we get an idea of what Obama's real message is we can cover that, but currently it's the same as it was in 2008. . .Rich people bad. . . .Business bad. . .Energy bad. . .Banksters bad (except for donors). . .Everything is someone else's fault. . .Entitlement creates opportunity. . .Government must grow.
If you wish to lob an attack at Romney, I suppose we could try to defend him.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 12, 2012, 02:55:30 PM
Defend him on what?
He hasn't changed his message, and his platform is rather simple. His primary message is jobs and economic growth and it is based on reviving private sector growth. His track record for doing this is "sparkling" to use a Clinton complement.
President Obama, on the other hand, continues to push the same platform of hype & blame with the head of Bin Laden on a steak as his only positive achievement.
I think a discussion of the policies of Romney vs Obama would be healthy and perhaps when we get an idea of what Obama's real message is we can cover that, but currently it's the same as it was in 2008. . .Rich people bad. . . .Business bad. . .Energy bad. . .Banksters bad (except for donors). . .Everything is someone else's fault. . .Entitlement creates opportunity. . .Government must grow.
If you wish to lob an attack at Romney, I suppose we could try to defend him.
Be tough to do; he has so many differing opinions.
On the same issues.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 12, 2012, 02:55:30 PM
If you wish to lob an attack at Romney, I suppose we could try to defend him.
He strapped a dog carrier to the roof of his car 29 years ago and might or might not have been involved in roughing up a schoolmate 46 years ago. We aren't sure because the family of the fellow he supposedly roughed up pretty much rebuffed the story.
Those were truly moments to define a presidential bid.
Quote from: Hoss on June 12, 2012, 02:57:31 PM
Be tough to do; he has so many differing opinions.
On the same issues.
So Hoss, are you going to vote for a formula which has proven not to work or someone who might actually know how to improve the economy?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 12, 2012, 02:59:25 PM
He strapped a dog carrier to the roof of his car 29 years ago and might or might not have been involved in roughing up a schoolmate 46 years ago. We aren't sure because the family of the fellow he supposedly roughed up pretty much rebuffed the story.
Those were truly moments to define a presidential bid.
What if he wears funny underwear?
Quote from: Gaspar on June 12, 2012, 03:01:12 PM
What if he wears funny underwear?
Oh damn, forgot about that. He's also personally responsible for something Joseph Smith may have said in the middle of the desert a couple of centuries ago. He's toast.
Quote from: Hoss on June 12, 2012, 02:57:31 PM
Be tough to do; he has so many differing opinions.
On the same issues.
That what I most dislike about Romney. It is hard to believe he is the nominee. I would have thought the republican party would not have fallen for a guy like him.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 12, 2012, 03:08:50 PM
That what I most dislike about Romney. It is hard to believe he is the nominee. I would have thought the republican party would not have fallen for a guy like him.
Ok.
But now after almost four years, it has been proven that you were right all along RM. The man you didn't trust, that you warned us about, that your candidate, Hillary, warned us about, was exactly what you anticipated.
It seems that you were actually more successfully critical of Candidate Obama than you seem to be of Mitt Romney.
(http://i1.cpcache.com/product/298779168/hillary_2012_campaign_button.jpg?height=350&width=350)
Quote from: Conan71 on June 12, 2012, 03:00:53 PM
So Hoss, are you going to vote for a formula which has proven not to work or someone who might actually know how to improve the economy?
Like I said in an earlier post, I'm not choosing this early. We still have a WHOLE summer to see how this plays out. Hell, I might abstain from voting for the Pres.
I sure won't vote for someone who constantly changes his views on opinions to suit his political whim. Neither of them. But the Etch-A-Sketch candidate is sure not looking any better than the current occupant.
Wasn't Dubya a businessman also?.....we all know how that one turned out. Just because you are a businessman doesn't mean you know how to run the economy. Look at Clinton. A lawyer. He left office with a surplus.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 12, 2012, 03:08:50 PM
That what I most dislike about Romney. It is hard to believe he is the nominee. I would have thought the republican party would not have fallen for a guy like him.
He was the easiest on the eyes out of the remainder of the field.
We like him now that we don't hate him.
Hell, even Joel Osteen is telling Wolf that Romney is a "real Christian".
It's funny how suddenly protective all of us get over someone we never would've picked in the first place.
Quote from: Hoss on June 12, 2012, 03:18:02 PM
Like I said in an earlier post, I'm not choosing this early. We still have a WHOLE summer to see how this plays out. Hell, I might abstain from voting for the Pres.
I sure won't vote for someone who constantly changes his views on opinions to suit his political whim. Neither of them. But the Etch-A-Sketch candidate is sure not looking any better than the current occupant.
Wasn't Dubya a businessman also?.....we all know how that one turned out. Just because you are a businessman doesn't mean you know how to run the economy. Look at Clinton. A lawyer. He left office with a surplus.
Bush did manage to turn around a budding recession he inherited. Bush also got to face some natural and man-made catastrophes never faced by any other president. That's always conveniently forgotten in the double-speak about debt, deficit, and the overall economy.
QuoteThat what I most dislike about Romney. It is hard to believe he is the nominee. I would have thought the republican party would not have fallen for a guy like him.
Did you vote for Kerry in '04?
Quote from: Townsend on June 12, 2012, 03:18:15 PM
It's funny how suddenly protective all of us get over someone we never would've picked in the first place.
Happens after the primaries are over every four years.
"That baby isn't near as ugly as it looked two weeks ago"
Quote from: Conan71 on June 12, 2012, 03:36:32 PM
Happens after the primaries are over every four years.
"That baby isn't near as ugly as it looked two weeks ago"
It gets personal over someone chosen for us. "Well shoot, guess I gotta stick up for that sorry-assed bastard after all."
Quote from: Townsend on June 12, 2012, 03:38:33 PM
It gets personal over someone chosen for us. "Well shoot, guess I gotta stick up for that sorry-assed bastard after all."
That's how I felt about McCain. Exactly.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 12, 2012, 03:43:03 PM
That's how I felt about McCain. Exactly.
No matter who "wins" I'll still say; "they're spending my money on freaking what?"
Quote from: Conan71 on June 12, 2012, 03:43:03 PM
That's how I felt about McCain. Exactly.
That's the great thing about this country. You can vote or not vote. If you vote, you are always choosing the lesser of two evils unless you are weak in your convictions. If you choose not to vote you have chosen either not to pollute the race with your indifference, or to relinquish your political responsibilities to others.
Because of the history of my family, and my personal beliefs, I will always be one of the first at the polls, and vote, even if it is a vote for the lesser of two evils. I will always be critical of a leader, even if he is the candidate of my choosing, because that too is my duty.
Romney is an imperfect candidate who has demonstrated evolving positions on issues, but he demonstrates a track record, ethic, and ability that is far superior to President Obama, in fact there really isn't a comparison.
If President Obama does indeed win, it will be painful to watch him and the country suffer through this mess for four more years. If Romney wins, it will most likely mean a Hillary victory in 2016-20. She is cunning and smart and I have confidence in her too, so the lesser of the two evils is clear. 4-8 years of Romney, then 4-8 years of Clinton vs. 4 years of the same, and who knows what after that??
In my mind it's 8-16 years of recovery and prosperity (as their track-records would indicate), beats 4 years of blame and uncertainty and then ????
Quote from: Gaspar on June 12, 2012, 04:06:22 PM
That's the great thing about this country. You can vote or not vote. If you vote, you are always choosing the lesser of two evils unless you are weak in your convictions. If you choose not to vote you have chosen either not to pollute the race with your indifference, or to relinquish your political responsibilities to others.
Agreed. It's rare that I miss an election and I have never missed a presidential election and can't recall missing congressional, senate, or state elections. I'm trying to think, but I don't think I've missed a mayoral and council election either.
I do try to vote on bond issues, but sometimes those happen if I'm out of town or I simply don't know about them until the last minute.
I had a brother in law who used to piss and moan about the state of government but he refused to even vote. Sorry, not interested in listening to someone who doesn't even take an active role in the process.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 12, 2012, 03:08:50 PM
That what I most dislike about Romney. It is hard to believe he is the nominee. I would have thought the republican party would not have fallen for a guy like him.
For the love of decency, stop it. Your overt disdain for Obama less than four years ago destroys ANY credibility you have in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of any candidate. Obama is a liar, campaign cheat, and race baiter. Those are YOUR words of the candidate you have the gall to now champion over Romney? Your level of audaciousness is eclipsed only by your sickening wagon-training. Quite frankly, why do you support a liar, campaign cheat, and race baiter for president? Because your party told you to? And if it is, you have the gall to question the motives of those voting for Romney?
And whether you like it or not, I will continue to hammer you over the head with YOUR WORDS no matter how often you choose to make the messenger (me) look. After all, there are those unknown moderates in here that may not know the character of Obama, and indeed the personal histories of those who support him.
edited.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 12, 2012, 04:17:34 PM
I had a brother in law who used to piss and moan about the state of government but he refused to even vote. Sorry, not interested in listening to someone who doesn't even take an active role in the process.
I'm guessing at the percentage but if you go by that rule, you might ignore about 80 to 85% of the population in Oklahoma.
What is the percentage to ignore here in Oklahoma?
Quote from: Townsend on June 12, 2012, 03:38:33 PM
It gets personal over someone chosen for us. "Well shoot, guess I gotta stick up for that sorry-assed bastard after all."
My sorry-assed bastard is better than your sorry-assed bastard.
Quote from: guido911 on June 12, 2012, 04:20:10 PM
Quite frankly, why do you support a liar, campaign cheat, and race baiter for president?
How did this suddenly change to Inhofe and George Bush??
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 12, 2012, 07:12:48 PM
How did this suddenly change to Inhofe and George Bush??
You have an overactive imagination.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 12, 2012, 08:12:29 PM
You have an overactive imagination.
Apparently not - I missed the transition completely!
I hate it when that happens....
Hey! There's a basketball game on with an Oklahoma team playing for some NBA final thing?? Who woulda thought??
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 12, 2012, 08:35:36 PM
Apparently not - I missed the transition completely!
I hate it when that happens....
Or... you found a transition that doesn't exist.
I hate it when you use literary exaggeration...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 12, 2012, 08:38:23 PM
Hey! There's a basketball game on with an Oklahoma team playing for some NBA final thing?? Who woulda thought??
Is Prez Obama playing? Does he want to "Reset" from President of the USA to NBA star? I could support that.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on June 12, 2012, 07:12:48 PM
How did this suddenly change to Inhofe and George Bush??
I don't know how that happened.
Quote from: guido911 on June 12, 2012, 10:26:49 PM
I don't know how that happened.
Its all they have...
Quote from: Breadburner on June 12, 2012, 11:29:30 PM
Its all they have...
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/544965_441888585829461_969138471_n.jpg)
Is chalking a cue and taking everyones drink order....????
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 13, 2012, 12:03:48 AM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/544965_441888585829461_969138471_n.jpg)
(http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/images/image_map_images/wake_up_america_imgmap.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on June 13, 2012, 07:56:59 AM
(http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/images/image_map_images/wake_up_america_imgmap.jpg)
Someone's been drinking the KoolAid. Likely Blue, since I see that color in many of his posts...
Quote from: Hoss on June 13, 2012, 08:04:24 AM
Someone's been drinking the KoolAid. Likely Blue, since I see that color in many of his posts...
Just countering crap with crap.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 13, 2012, 08:05:55 AM
Just countering crap with crap.
Fair enough. However, something about 'do not feed the trolls' applies here.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 12, 2012, 09:09:37 PM
Or... you found a transition that doesn't exist.
I hate it when you use literary exaggeration...
What exaggeration??
Just heard the economy is not recovering and the people are still hurting. Whew, glad to hear that.
Cleveland baby....listen to him. He'll make mincemeat out of RMoney. The debates will be a real treat.
From the "You Simply Can't Make This Up":
Obama Tuesday:
Quote"So all of this stuff is baked in, with all the interest payments for it, it's like somebody goes to the restaurant, orders a big steak dinner, martini, all that stuff and then just as you're sitting down, they leave and accuse you of running up the tab. That's what they do," he said.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/12/obama_republicans_left_me_with_the_check_for_a_steak_dinner.html
Obama Two Days Later:
QuoteAmid the bustle of President Obama's surprise stop for barbecue Wednesday the White House apparently overlooked one key detail: the bill.
Celebrating Father's Day early, the president had lunch with two service members and two local barbers at Kenny's BBQ on Capitol Hill.
As the group chatted about fatherhood, the president enjoyed a steaming plate of pork ribs with hot sauce, collard greens, red beans and rice and cornbread.
The bill for the president and his four guests was $55.58, but was left unpaid at the point of sale, according to pool reports.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/white-house-forgets-to-pay-fathers-day-lunch-tab/
[
Emphasis added].
I guess when Bush left he at least intended someone pay the bill... :P
Quote from: guido911 on June 14, 2012, 04:10:59 PM
From the "You Simply Can't Make This Up":
Obama Tuesday:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/12/obama_republicans_left_me_with_the_check_for_a_steak_dinner.html
Obama Two Days Later:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/white-house-forgets-to-pay-fathers-day-lunch-tab/
[Emphasis added].
I guess when Bush left he at least intended someone pay the bill... :P
I covered it for him.
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5071/7372988902_fbc048f525.jpg)
Nice tip, Gas! You are all class!
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 14, 2012, 01:52:01 PM
Cleveland baby....listen to him. He'll make mincemeat out of RMoney. The debates will be a real treat.
MSNBC Panel's Verdict On Obama Campaign Speech: It Stinks
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-panels-verdict-on-obama-campaign-speech-it-stinks/
President Barack Obama delivered a campaign speech on Thursday that was billed as an effort to refocus on the economy and to frame the debate against Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney moving forward. But a panel of liberal commentators on MSNBC reacting to the speech unanimously felt the President had wasted the opportunity to truly make an impact on the race.
MSNBC Panel's Verdict On Obama Campaign Speech: It Stinks
video
by Noah Rothman | 3:35 pm, June 14th, 2012
» 84 comments
President Barack Obama delivered a campaign speech on Thursday that was billed as an effort to refocus on the economy and to frame the debate against Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney moving forward. But a panel of liberal commentators on MSNBC reacting to the speech unanimously felt the President had wasted the opportunity to truly make an impact on the race.
RELATED:MSNBC's Most Influential Show Is Still Run By A Staunch Conservative
"I thought this, honestly, was one of the least successful speeches I've seen Barack Obama give in several years," said Newsweek editor Jonathan Alter. "It was long winded. He had a good argument to make, and at the beginning of the speech he seemed to be making it in a fairly compelling way but then he lost the thread."
Alter said he thought the speech was "way too long" and Obama had "lost the audience by the end."
Daily Beast columnist and economist Zachary Karabell agreed with Alter, saying that the President opened the speech well, but quickly lost the plot.
When he went, sort of, away from offense and on to defense, 'what we've done and what we're going to do,' it became unbelievably diffuse and, in some sense purely as a political phenomenon it was very ineffective in that respect because it very well characterized the opponents as 'this is not going to work' but it didn't really give you the sense of what will.
MSNBC anchor Tamron Hall attempted to clarify the President's points for her panelists, seeing that the conversation was rapidly spiraling into pointedly off-message territory. Hall said that Obama made a key point that a Romney administration will rely on a more laissez faire approach to tax policy which, in her opinion, would hurt the middle class.
"His point was, that's exactly what the person who wants to take my job now will do. That's what you can bet on," said Hall.
"And that's a powerful argument to make," said Alter.
"It is," Hall added.
"It didn't work in 2010," Alter added. "But it can work, properly framed, in 2012."
One might look at this rebuke of President Obama's much ballyhooed speech by his progressive supporters in two ways:
The first, that Obama's speech was a spectacular success. Why? Well, the President has spent much of the campaign season – nay, all of it – appealing to his Democratic base. He has proposed policy after policy that have no potential to pass Congress with the express intention of establishing a campaign platform.
When he is not laying the groundwork for a legislative platform to campaign on, Obama has blocked initiatives with broad, bipartisan support like the Keystone XL pipeline. All this to to elevate his standing among deflated liberals. That Alter and Karabell are so disenchanted with this speech in particular may mean that Obama struck a note with independents and tacked towards the center.
But I did not see that in Obama's speech. So, I'm leaning more towards door number two: Obama's speech was an unmitigated flop.
This would not matter so much if it wasn't for days of breathless hype surrounding this speech. It was promoted as though it would be the singular moment that would demarcate a before and after in the 2012 campaign. But in the end, it was just another speech — and not even a good one.
Romney's speech, delivered in the same state minutes prior to Obama, was nothing to write home about either. But his speech was not billed as anything more than a pre-response to Obama. There were no expectations to not meet.
Obama's team, however, set the bar high. But in the eyes of his own supporters, Obama could not clear the hurdle they set.
The implications are broad. The President will have to continue talking to his base and ignoring the center of this country where elections are won and lost. This is bad news all around for the Chicago team.
UPDATE: Jonathan Alter appears to be taking heat for his insufficient support of Obama. Not long after his appearance on MSNBC, Alter tweeted this: Just cheerleading BO doesn't help him. He needs a sharper, more cogent message with some memorable lines. I ain't walking my criticism back.
I left off the tweet.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 14, 2012, 04:41:15 PM
I covered it for him.
This absolutely shows the glaring omission of reality and the complete inability to pay attention by the Murdochian cult movement. This shows the bill was "settled" on the 14th. One day AFTER the White House had already fixed the omission and paid the bill (by end of day, Wednesday, the 13th). Which WAS stated in the cited web reference. But one would have to actually read the article rather than just grab the "sound bite" and run with it.