How to Beat Obama (Maybe).....

[THUNDER HANDS]

Beyond these obvious points, Republicans should learn from Hillary's campaign that Obama is remarkably adept at ridiculing the old style of campaigning. He cheerfully and in a cool, understated tone will slice and dice overly broad charges, such as Hillary's "inexperience" taunt or her ill-considered "words vs. action" charge. (And by the way, after seven years of Bush's verbal infelicity, there is a hunger for eloquence. Moreover, eloquence is good. Consider Lincoln, FDR, Churchill, Reagan -- even Bill Clinton in a cheesy, insincere way.) Obama must have been tempted to use that old Humphrey Bogart line, when Bogart asked of someone who couldn't keep up with him: "What do you want me to do, learn to stutter?")

Overly broad charges against him are dangerous. Republicans will make a mistake if they take to calling him "too liberal for America." He is too liberal, but they need to make the charge specific point by specific point. If they try to pigeonhole him as a liberal, he will refuse to perch in such a hole. He is a golden falcon, not a fat pigeon. He will swoop down verbally on his accuser and point out how he is not liberal at all on that point -- but his accuser's record is.....

If Obama can be defeated, it will not be with a meat cleaver but with a surgeon's scalpel. This is difficult in a national campaign in which the public, almost of necessity, must be communicated with by slogans. But Obama is the master responding to blustery charges with wry, dry irony.

The Republicans must systematically make a hundred tightly argued, irrefutable critiques of very specific examples of Obama's policy being wrong for at least 60 percent of America.

America may be going through one of our episodic style shifts. In 1932, FDR's conversational style trumped Hoover's old oratory. In 1960, JFK's coolness and wit caught the emerging post-World War II sophistication of our culture. Twenty years later America, tired of sophisticated cynicism, was ready to return to Reagan's old-fashioned sentiments and values.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/how_to_beat_obama_maybe.html


Yes, this is written by Tony Blankley. And yes, I am an Obama supporter. But I think he's spot-on in this analysis. And I think if this is the ground the GOP wants to fight the election on, then it will be better for all of us, because we'd finally have an election based on issues and not swiftboating or other such nonsense. The GOP is still sunk, but at least they'd go down honorably if they follow this advice.

[Bicoastal]

1. He's a commie commie commie!!!

...except he's also a muslim terrorist. :dunce:

It's actually a brilliant strategy, making Barack Obama our nominee. The GOP think it'll be easy to smear him...and they're in for a big surprise.

[earthlover]

14. well, that is what I heard some alleged Democrats saying during the primaries....

Obama survived the dingbats from the Hillary camp, he can survive the dingbat of a similar persuasion from the McCain camp.

[Mojambo]

2. He's outlining a gameplan they are not capable of implementing. n/t

[THUNDER HANDS]

3. shame, isn't it?

it sounds completely reasonable, but that's like telling a gambling addict to stay out of a casino.

[Cha]

8. It certainly doesn't read like

that hothead pundit I used to see on m$$$m.

[crispini]

9. Indeed.

Snerk. :D

[anigbrowl]

4. The GOP's problem in trying to 'go substantive'

is that their record is so bad. Forget Iraq - if they decide to try being economic policy wonks (and conservatism is as much or possibly more about business as it is about 'security'), all Obama has to do is unroll a chart of the deficit.

[DemGa]

5. They'll just hit his strengths -- soon enough, he'll be "polarizing"....nt

[monmouth]

6. They lack the talent for such an endeavor, but I am impressed that

Tony Blankley wrote this. Quite eloquent..

[Dogmudgeon]

7. Bad for 60% of America?

I'm supporting Hillary, but it's not difficult to see that the argument the Republicans must make just ain't so. The differences Obama and Clinton are quarreling over are whose policies are good for 82% of all Americans versus whose policies are good for 83% of all Americans.

Obama is winning on less-tangible and not-particularly-economic reasons because he, and Hillary, and most other Democrats agree on the overall workings of how the economics of a just society would work. They have shared values -- as we do, which is why we spar over the details and the intangibles, not values.

The 'Publicans no longer even have much intellectual solidarity. Unless we really screw the pooch, we could easily put the GOP out of business for two decades or more.

--p!

[Swamp Rat]

13. "no longer even have much intellectual solidarity."

And after 10-30 years of listening to hate radio and watching FUX Noise, 60% of them no longer have an intellect. :D

[FlyingSquirrel]

10. I'm scared

:scared:

Not really. Interesting article though. Something about Barack really makes me confident in his ability to counter a thousand attacks, still smiling all the while. The best part is, he knows when to concede the point (doing so will often just deflate the balloon) - for example last night with the "reject vs. denounce" thing. Like a tree that bends just enough to avoid being toppled by the harsh wind. "Strong enough to bend."

[Swamp Rat]

11. You're giving too much credit to Tony Blankley.

"The Republicans must systematically make a hundred tightly argued, irrefutable critiques of very specific examples of Obama's policy" - LOLOL! Good luck!

AND, he's is assuming Obama will do exactly as he fantasizes.

I'll bet a dozen donuts the repukes, including Tony Blankley, will resort to generisations and ad hominem because that is all dey got.

[babylonsister]

12. Blankley showing grudging respect for a Dem? Get my smelling salts! nt