I think we have to give the Republicans a certain amount of credit for the creativity inherent in their "celebrity" attack on Barack Obama. As Carri Budoff Brown notes at The Politico, this is just about the first time a criticism of Barack Obama's personality has penetrated from the Beltway and onto the late night talk shows.
The problem is, isn't this a bit like that classic job interview situation where you ask what a candidate what his greatest weakness is and he gives you a completely facetious answer? You know what I'm talking about: "My greatest weakness? Sometimes I work too hard! Sometimes I care too much!"
Obama's popular? (Over)confident? Voters may get the message -- but is McCain really going to get their votes because of it?
I realize that the McCain campaign is going for something a little deeper here** -- trying to portray Obama as an empty suit. But that was one of the singular least successful lines of argument for Hillary Clinton in the primaries -- she employed it most aggressively in the run-up to the Wisconsin primary, trying to key off the Deval Patrick / plagiarism controversy, and wound up getting blown out.
Because McCain has higher favorables than Hillary Clinton, he probably has more leeway for attack politics. But is this really the best use of his attack chips?
** I emphatically do not buy that the ad has racial undertones.
7.31.2008
Opportunity Cost
@ 8:25 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
154 comments
the problem is by calling obama a britney, who is a right wing republican, it doesn't work so great...
mccain and britney have a lot in common. (youtube link)
The impression I get is that McCain likes this tack. I think it started back with his "my opponent is an impressive fellow" comments several weeks ago, and it's built up to this.
I can't imagine McCain will have a whole lot of success pushing the "Obama played the race card" offensive simply because of the radioactivity of that situation. Obama probably would love it if McCain waded right into that one. Everyone who knows anything about this election has been just waiting for race to come into overt play, and you can bet the left is prepared for it.
So, I think we might see a considerable amount more of exploration of this thread on McCain's part. I expect him to start working a clever comparison of Obama to Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan into his stump speeches. And who knows? Maybe that will resonate. I don't think it will, personally.
Is it the best use of his attack chips? Probably not. Are his Rovian disciple advisors panicking because of their internal numbers and the realization that they're not all that likely to win? It would appear so. I can't think of a campaign that's gone this negative this early, and it really looks like a panicked reaction. All it appears they're doing is throwing the kitchen sink early and seeing what works, so they know what to focus on later. The problem, of course, is that by doing that whatever they do later will just be tuned out. But, it's not like running a safe campaign was going to take them anywhere.
So who exactly does this whole thing backfire on, when the Hilton grandfather gets upset at McCain for comparing his wonderful Paris to Sen. Obama?
Nate,
This is big....turning point in the campaign. He was trying to fire up his base with this racial garbage and now won't be able to mention it again.
It's over for him. How do you spell Obama freefall.
The whole point of the ad is to show that Obama has risen to this point by media driven buzz and celebrity, rather than real presidential credentials, much the way Britney Spears and Paris Hilton are celebrities for accomplishing and producing very little.
rl - I was just about to ask whether the Hilton camp had chimed in. It's interesting, especially since McCain is "proud" of the ad. Harder to blame it on someone else? They should have stuck to Spears/Lohan.
Also, is anyone else experiencing difficulties with the rest of the main page? Can't seem to get anything but the first 2 posts to appear.
It probably wasn't intended to have racial undertones, but Mc'Cain had the hapless misfortune to put out something that lent itself to comparison to the attack leveled against Harold Ford.
And perception will almost always trump intent in a head to head.
Let us not forget Ludacris "painting the white house black"
Let's go and youtube that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnglbGr6g-k
THAT will scare even fairminded people.
Obama better be hoping no one asks him about the Ludacris thing. I'm sure he doesn't want to be put in the position of having to denounce it, which might snowball into Obama being pushed to clarify his position on "gangsta rap" or something incredibly relevant like that.
I think McCain learned from 2000 and also likes to think of himself as a fighter. He let go of the "higher road" surrogates and chose the Rovian team. I think he's enjoying it because some daily tracking polls are implying it works. But, I also believe he will attempt a pivot in September (if this negative tack works enough to make him competitive)to the more feel good "Maverick" persona that the media loves.
Will he burn too many bridges between now and then? There is a good possibility but who knows. The press and populace can have short memories. His current campaign staff is betting on it.
It's still EARLY.
The GOP isn't even using the VARSITY NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN people.
Hell, that Britney Ad was probably put out by some Young Republican summer interns and McCain likely just laughed when he saw it and figured "why not throw it out there to encourage the kids".
It's like the Lion allowing Lion cubs to chew on an impala while it's laying there breathing in the savannah grass.
Billy Ayers hasn't even made his nightly debut into American homes.
Here's a trivia test
What individual who has bombed a government building is a friend of a current US presidential candidate? (cue in Jeopardy theme music)
1)The Unabomber Ted Kazinsky
2)Oklahoma City Federal Building Bomber Tim McVey
3)Osama Bin Laden
4) William Ayers
comparing a song produced by a rapper who has nothing to do with the Obama camp with an ad and the many statements from the McCain camp seems completely off point.
Read the interview with Schmitt at Politico where he pretty much says they have been waiting to use the race card. Now it's out. Way too early. I think the Obama camp has a talent for getting under the skin of the other candidates and forcing their hand.
Mark
Obama already denounced Ludacris yesterday.
Too early, as this card cannot be played often. That said, they need to build Obama's negatives, and this might be there only play.
McCan't - the negative liar.
...McCain's voting base listens to Luda? That to me IS a funny thought.
adam,
The swift boat ads against Kerry started right around this time.
tjb,
Stanley Fish, the conservative economist, has said he's had Ayers over to his house many times. The both teach at the same school. He's also said he doesn't know of a time when Obama ever entertained Ayers at his house. I don't think Ayers will stick.
Obama didn't denounce Ludacris, "the campaign" did.
This is not the GOP's fault, Obama associates with all these clowns. Obama is ultimately hurting Obama. This site isn't showing it yet, but Gallup has the race at a 1 point Obama edge for the first time this month, Rasmussen has it only a point or two, and every state poll out that I've seen here has been trending McCain.
Obama is sounding shrill lately.
Thanks, LAT. Hadn't heard that yet.
If the Ludacris song continues to get national mainstream recognition, that will hurt Obama with white democrats.
Yet, the funny thing is, people will still call people who don't support Obama racist, while black voters go Obama 91-1% and that isn't considered racist.
It's ridiculous how Obama is whining about McCain calling out Obama on using the race card when Obama is MORE than guilty of using it several times. What part of "People will be scared because I don't look like presidents on dollar bills and coins and on pictures in the White House" isn't racist?
Wow, what a huge mistake by McCain! That ad was one of the most childish and immature political ads produced. Let alone the fact that Britney is a right-wing Republican! The use of an sleazy ad like that clearly reflects McCain is not leadership material. And that he blatantly lied (again!) when he said he looked forward to running a campaign "on the issues". It is no wonder he is losing the electoral vote, sounding desperate and lying so much ("I never said anything about a timetable...").
People will look back on this ad as reflective of the disastrous and utterly pathetic campaign that McCain ran. And how clearly it showed the man was not presidential material. He has nothing positive to run on. And Obama's campaign has barely touched any of warmonger McBush's astounding number of negatives! The fact that the Repubs are going negative this early is a true sign of political desperation.
If I'm guessing right, the GOP will debut the anti-Ayers stuff the week right after their convention.
They'll use Ayers comments about 911 and bombing and the photo of him trampling the flag and they'll run it through Labor day weekend and into 9/11.
McCain himself has said that Ayers is fair game and that should be a tipoff that Ayers is going to be a main GOP focus in the Fall.
While it may not swing many votes, it will appeal to the far right who hate the '60's Left with a passion, and that will help McCain with the base.
There will be a lot of books written about this election.
If repeating the Ford ad and linking Obama to two blonde young white females does not have clear enough undertones of racism for you Nate, what about the McCain response?
They stated that Obama was 'playing the race card from the bottom of the deck,' which was a direct quote from the OJ simpson trial.
here is the statement re Luda by Obama campaign.
Simultaneously, Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton released a statement saying:
"As Barack Obama has said many, many times in the past, rap lyrics today too often perpetuate misogyny, materialism, and degrading images that he doesn't want his daughters or any children exposed to. This song is not only outrageously offensive to Senator Clinton, Reverend Jackson, Senator McCain, and President Bush, it is offensive to all of us who are trying to raise our children with the values we hold dear. While Ludacris is a talented individual he should be ashamed of these lyrics."
Pluoticus--is Obama supposed to hold a press conference on this, why is not enough for his spokesperson to put out the statement? This is standard operating procedure.
As for the shrill. I think you got the candidate who is being shrill confused.
Tyrone, I think it's a dumb strategy too. But I keep seeing insinuations, not from the McCain campaign itself, but from neocons from these boards to the network news, that Obama is "a militant black" or "a secret Muslim". I keep hearing "Osama - I MEAN, Obama". I keep seeing and hearing "Barack HUSSEIN Obama".
Obama is absolutely right that people who are trying to see him defeated are resorting to racial attacks. And the McCain website, CNN, and other news organizations distorted his meaning by claiming that Obama said that "his opponent", John McCain, was the one making those attacks. He did not say that McCain was responsible for those attacks.
(The top page on this site is behaving oddly this afternoon.)
It is tough not to notice the irrational exhuberance over a bunch of platitudes and populism, and generic campaign words (hope, change) from Obama. McCain's camp was just putting it all into perspective. Consider it a "Wake up People!"
Change and Hope..come on, man..
I'm gonna start a campaign and base it on "Good and Intelligence". Just as meaningful.
lat, you didn't hear Obama in MO today, did you. Shrill.
Sigh...
These Ayers comments are really depressing me. I guess it's true that those ads are coming though...
I can only hope that Axelrod has something up his sleeve.
Can someone explain to me how the fact that Obama and Ayers both sat on the board of a non-political organization for a few years is somehow incriminating or indicative of Obama's "militant" or "terrorist" leanings? Am I missing something here?
Mark,
His campaign was asked about the relationship between Obama and Ayers. The response: "Friendly."
How is blacks voting 94-1 racist?
In every November presidential election before 2008, whites have voted essentially 100-0 for white candidates.
And so have blacks.
So who is racist?
I just love the way people loosely use adjectives.
McCain spent last week insulting Obama, getting as close as a candidate has ever come to calling the other a traitor, a textbook definition of what it is to be shrill. Today Obama talks tough on policy and he gets called shrill?
I imagine that this is of a piece with calling Obama fussy and hysterical?
The 'beauty' of the Rove attack machine at work. Just last week Obama was also a socialist and a god knows what else.
jakam,
It is racist based on their reasoning for voting that way. If your premise is true, then Obama will only win 12% of the vote because that is the nationwide percentage of Black Americans.
Your math doesn't work.
And McCain's relationship with George W. Bush, who invaded a sovereign nation on false pretenses and bears responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions, is "friendly" too.
Poking around, it sounds like Ayers has more or less reformed and is a pretty big name in Chicago, not even exclusive to the left, much less the radical left. Sounds like he's awfully good friends with Mayor Daley, even.
Tyrone said:
.
'What part of "People will be scared because I don't look like presidents on dollar bills and coins and on pictures in the White House" isn't racist?'
.
Well -- the part where it is true that that is some people's reaction to his candidacy. Obama is addressing, rather skillfully, the prejudices that many in the public (several of my relatives among them) have about black Americans in positions of leadership or authority.
Addressing racism is not the same as being racist. In the old days (esp. before about 1955) there often people who said the NAACP was taking a racist line by pointing out that discrimination was a widespread practice in society. That criticism of the NAACP would (I think) sound rather quaint today. But it's not so far from the bad rap being laid on Obama. It is not racist to, in effect, remind people that every past president of the USA was a white male.
lat,
Are you serious??? Obama talking about presidents on dollar bills, him having a funny name, and people being made afraid of him. How are those anything but shrill?
It is racist based on their reasoning for voting that way. If your premise is true, then Obama will only win 12% of the vote because that is the nationwide percentage of Black Americans.
Your math doesn't work.
The math works just fine. ANd you didn't even address the situation. White's have voted in every prior presidential election pretty much 100-0, as have blacks. That would seem more racist than 91-1.
Their reasoning is irrelevent.
pechmerle,
It may not be racist, but I think we can agree that it doesn't represent the type of politics that Obama claimed to be all about.
Right or wrong, banter about race will only hurt Obama.
Mark---don't you know that Obama's being an acquaintance of Ayers makes him part of the "hate america first" crew according to Sean Hannity and company?
On a more serious note, there was a really great long article about this in March, written by a conservative at the University of Chicago and another by a Republican from the state completely debunking this Ayers thing.
I guess there are three positions from the McCain supporters on this thread---it is fair game to go as negative as they are going now because it is not that early (but comparing to 2004 makes no sense because by this date the Dem Convention had already happened), that McCain will pivot and become Mavericky again in Sept and all will be forgiven by the Press and the public or that this is child's play and he will go nuclear in Sept.
Can't keep track!
jakam,
How did Obama win the primaries? With just black voters?
How is Obama up in polling now (granted its not a real vote yet)? With ALL black voters? It can't add up.
Check out this new video about McCain's dishonest and shameful "Troops" ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-u5mDZfrLw
"It is racist based on their reasoning for voting that way. If your premise is true, then Obama will only win 12% of the vote because that is the nationwide percentage of Black Americans.
"
And how, exactly, would you know our reasons for voting for Obama, Pluoticus? I guess the fact that African-Americans have been most of their support to Democratic presidential candidates for the past few decades could have absolutely nothing to do with Obama's success amongst the group? There is a portion of the black population that will vote for Obama based on his race - but I'm sick and tired of people acting as if that is the only motivation we have for supporting him. Since the Republicans debuted the Southern Strategy, blacks have largely supported Democrats. Obama's race is not the only factor here. I'd say it's not even the primary reason for his support; his party is.
Right or wrong, banter about race will only hurt Obama.
I doubt it. People who weigh race heavily already are disinclined to vote for Obama. Discussion of race will be more likely to make the notion seem as silly as it is, and some people will wise up and realize it's a lousy reason by itself not to vote for someone.
Nate wrote:
"But that was one of the singular least successful lines of argument for Hillary Clinton in the primaries -- she employed it most aggressively in the run-up to the Wisconsin primary, trying to key off the Deval Patrick / plagiarism controversy, and wound up getting blown out."
You are correct in noting that attacks like this did not result in Clinton overtaking Obama in the Wisconsin Primary. That Obama overcame these arguments in a Democrat Primary electorate is not evidence that he will prevail over them in a general election.
Remember, Clinton did secure 41% of the vote in Wisconsin. McCain's current effort is aimed squarely at those voters, intending to raise familiar doubts about Obama. With a Republican audience less than sympathetic to the Illinois Senator, further fostering doubts among the 18 million Democrats and Independents who voted for Clinton already may get prissy David Gergen's panties in a bunch, but it is smart strategy.
Pluoticus said:
'pechmerle,
It may not be racist, but I think we can agree that it doesn't represent the type of politics that Obama claimed to be all about.
Right or wrong, banter about race will only hurt Obama.'
.
No, I don't think we agree on this. Obama's effort to get audiences of all backgrounds comfortable with his 'never-before-in-our-history' candidacy does qualify as an effort to draw people together. And it is obvious that Obama doesn't think his good-humored banter about racial identity in this election will hurt rather than help. I think he has the approach on that right.
Seems to me the poison dart isn't racism, it's emasculation. A favorite Rove trick(dont kid yourself into thinking he is not spending hours daily w/Schmidt and Davis).
No one that I heard even asked why not Cruise and Pitt or even a lightweight guy? Because this is the Breck Girl moment for the noise machine to riff off the rest of the way.
This campaign is no longer in the hands of McCain. Look for very few candid moments, and even less where Davis is not controlling the camera. And of course the media message from here on in will be classic Rove, slash and destroy.
A good ROI for McCain.
Run ad for a few days in battleground States.
Same ad gets played and talked about over and over again on 24 hrs news cycle.
People post comments on the net nonstop.
All because of a 30 second TV spot.
Desirae,
I understand that one cannot read minds. I am trying to base my opinion on the numbers. The black vote usually goes about 10% to the republicans. Polling so far has that number between 3% and 6%. In addition to that, a number of Black CONSERVATIVE personalities are considering voting for Obama based on a history making event that many have waited for their whole lives, regardless of how Obama stands on issues.
Desirae,
My wife is African American. She voted for Bush last election. This time she's not sure. I can tell you, because she told me, the reason why.
pechemerle,
of course you do.
The "racist" tag is going to be far more damaging if the entire left is shouting it at the right than vice versa, particularly among independents and young voters. If McCain wants to watch overwhelming turnout by those groups against him in, say, Pennsylvania and Virginia, he should go right ahead and press the attack on Obama's use of the race card. I don't think that's a winning strategy.
Tyrone/Pluoticus - You mention that's it's "racism" that drives African-Americans to vote for Obama. Even if Obama was not running, black support for the Democratic candidate would be disproportionately high. Furthermore, why aren't we addressing the underlying issues: Why do AA's consistently vote for Democratic candidates in such high proportions? Why are there so few Black Republicans? Can you blame a group for not voting for a party that seems to ignore or make no real effort to court their vote? (You can also extrapolate this to other groups the GOPS seems to discount.)
Also, you are not accounting for the fact that this is the first serious presidential run by a black candidate. I think this same rationale can be applied to most subgroups who have the chance to vote for someone like themselves for the first time. (Granted most minority groups seem to break Democratic anyway, so it's more the margin that increases.)
Should Romney be the VP, are we going to accuse Mormons of having prejudices against other religions b/c they will disproportionately support a ticket with a Mormon on it?
When it's common for a diverse array of presidential candidates to appear on the ballot, then these arguments will be more salient.
Jakam and Tyrone - your points have no merit whatsoever. I guess blacks didn't vote 90% for a white candidate ever before, did they? Oh snap, they did - for John Kerry and Al Gore and Bill Clinton and just about every white democrat since the 60s. Whats that you say? They only vote for Obama cause he's black? I guess that's why Rev Sharpton, buoyed by a massive black turnout won the democratic primary in South Carolina in 2004? Oh yeah that didn't happen - hmm I wonder why? Could it be that the picture doesn't fit your nice little racial stereotype?
The reason most blacks vote for the dem candidate is because the GOP decided in the 60s that since there are more Southern whites than Southern blacks and because there was mutual distrust, that they could secure the South by running racially biased campaigns - stirring up racial divisions. They didn't care that they pissed off just about every single black person, because they would get more white support.
Racial tensions favor the Republicans. That's why this whole brouhaha works just lovely for McCain.
And no, warning your supporters that the oppo is going to make you out to be foreign, different, exotic or even black is not playing the race card. Its stating the facts of what republicans and anti-Obama people have long been doing in this campaign.
I agree with Mark---one thing is to shore up the base with the attack that makes them flock to McCain but independents will not respond that way.
and I second John McGaffe. Which is why calling Obama shrill for stating the obvious is, once again, just simple rovian tactics.
John - I said that blacks did vote for white candidates in November presidential elections more or less 100-0, as did whites.
As for Sharpton, he never made it onto a November general election ballot.
Ok then a small percentage of black Republicans who will vote for Obama *may* be doing so for racial reasons (even then, you can't assume that all of them are - there are Republicans of every race sick of that party and in search of a new direction.) But don't cast the choices of SOME individuals - like your wife - as characteristic of the entire community. When you do that, you're not basing such an argument on numbers but with disregard for them.
There is a difference between noting that *some* blacks are voting for Obama because of race and saying "It is racist based on their reasoning for voting that way," without any clarification of who "they" are (and the implicit suggestion that it's the entire black community or a large portion of it.) One is a statement of fact. The other is sophistry.
The current McCain strategy doesn't surprise me in the least. Attempting to emasculate the image of the Democratic candidate has a long history. Dukakis and the tank (a largely self-inflicted wound); sighing Gore and his earth tones; Kerry the French-looking green-tea drinking windsurfer. (In the case of Kerry, of course, they had to overcome first his military background, which might have insulated him from this, and thus the swiftboaters.) They even had it ready to go against Dean with the whole latte-drinking, sushi eating, etc., etc. (I always wondered: sushi in Vermont?) It's all part of the same packaged image: elitist, effete, not-the-kind-of-guy-you'd-want-to-have-a-beer-with. There's no question that it is aimed, in particular, at white males. And it has worked.
Of course the one exception to this rule was Bill Clinton, and the fact that they couldn't use this strategy on him was one of the many, many reasons conservatives hated him with such a passion.
So off it goes against Obama, and it is a concerted attack, with a number of permutations: "dissing the troops"; "likes arugula" (my personal favorite for the utter absurdity of it); and, of course, now Paris and Brittney. It may not have been racial, but it sure was gender oriented. He would never have picked, say, Ashton Kutcher, or Keanu Reeves. (It's hard to come up with male examples, and of course part of the point is that our society identifies female "bimbos" much more readily than it identifies male bimbos.)
I have no doubt that we can expect much, much more of this, in a number of different permutations. It has a track record of success, and McCain is clearly very pleased with his Rove disciples moving forward with this tack. Whether it will work again, we will just have to see.
-- Stu
Blacks aren't voting 91-1 for Obama simply because he's black. Before Bill Clinton (and now John McCain) threw the race card around, Hillary was getting a decent share of them. In fact, before the Iowa caucus, she was getting the majority of them.
Desirae,
I was trying to debase an argument made by jakim, My opinions on why people vote the way they do is not that simple, but I think we both agree that simply race is playing a role with a small but notable part of the Black and also the remaining electorate.
Truth be told, my wife grew up in the Bronx thinking she was a Democrat. I gave her the best unbiased political spectrum test I could, and she figured out that she did not share the opinions of Democrats. Her test this time had her picking Rudy G, (mine was Ron Paul) as her candidate. I feel that this is the case quite a bit. People vote a certain way without truly knowing why.
The argument is:
If blacks voting for Obama 91-1 in November 2008 is somehow racist, then how exactly is whites voting for white candidates in every previous November presidential election more or less 100-0 not?
it is not racist because they had NO CHOICE BUT TO VOTE FOR A WHITE PERSON. No NONWHITE was on the ballot. Therefore no CHOICE was involved. Racism involves CHOOSING one over another. Whites obviously did not choose White Hillary Clinton 100-0 in the primary or else Obama WOULD NOT BE HERE.
Come on, man.
People vote a certain way without truly knowing why.
Exactly!
Which is why I disagree with the sentiment above that talking about race can only hurt Obama.
Up here in the ND, people weren't inclined to vote for Obama, but without quite knowing why. When the race discussion was going on after the Wright ordeal, and Obama's subsequent speech, many realized that, subconsciously, race was that reason why. And many of them now are supporting Obama.
it is not racist because they had NO CHOICE BUT TO VOTE FOR A WHITE PERSON. No NONWHITE was on the ballot.
So basically, what you're saying is that since there is also a white candidate on the ballot, they are racist if a certain quota of them doesn't throw their support to the white guy, just because he's there?
Many white people I know thought that Obama was a militant anti-white sympathizer when the Wright stuff came out. It sealed the deal against him. It gave many people the impression that Obama doesn't care about white people.
what? you're arguement was that whites vote 100-0 for white candidates. my point was that it is statistically impossible for that to be true so far in this case.
Let me put it another way.
What %age of the black vote would have to go to John McCain in order to make the black voters who cast their vote for Barack Obama not be racist for doing so?
Thank you for clarifying, Pluoticus; but I do hope that next time you'll put a finer point on the argument.
As for voting habits, I think there's more at play than policies. In my experience, it's less the conservative ideas of the Republican party that turn off some African-Americans and more the party itself. If it were solely about policies, Republicans would have a better chance but once people decide they just don't like you (or what they think you stand for), they're less likely to give you a chance.
I think there was a chance for the Republican party to chip away at the Democratic party's advantage with black voters (based on certain so-called value issues.) But if there's a feeling in the black population (or a big enough portion of it) that McCain and/or the Republican party is trying to use race as a wedge, they can kiss that chance goodbye for quite a few more years.
I feel that race will only hurt Obama, because if it gets nasty, people will go back into their respective racial corners, defensively. And the statistics do not lie, there are far more white people than black people.
It is using racially divisive tactics that make one racist, not the fact that you oppose Obama or his policies.
I think once that the African American population becomes more confident in themselves being able to be sucessful without being held back artificially, the vote will be less skewed.
The whole reason why I am Republican is because I *know* that I can make it on my own and I don't need to rely on the government for regulation or any other legislation to help me along. I enjoy the free market and the opportunity to be independently wealthy someday.
I feel the Democrats successfully play on the fears of many African Americans.
jakam - forgive me, the racial spinning in this thread is dizzying.
As for Sharpton, he never made it onto a November general election ballot.
-That's my point.
For all those saying that Barack won SC because he's black and the he won the nomination because he's black, then why didn't Sharpton win SC and the nomination in 2004?
Blacks are not a single monolithic demographic that just vote in unison. Most blacks, as do most voters, actually think about who they are voting for. They end up not voting for the GOP because of the GOP's history and continued practice and policies (although not as bad as it used to be).
Desirae,
But you are completely right. I think just the name "Republican" turns off most Black people. Maybe they should disband altogether and merge with the Libertarians. :)
No, Pluoticus, I don't think the Democrats play successfully on the fears of many African-Americans. I think the Republican party is tone-deaf in its assessment of the black community.
Take your last post, for example. It supposes that black Americans are somehow less aware than other Americans and are in need of a collective revelation and that once we receive this glorious revelation that, apparently, not enough of us could figure out on our own, we will suddenly see the light and balance (for lack of a better word) in a way that makes sense to you. Without intending to (I think), you've condescended to black people by implying that we don't enjoy the free market (which isn't so free) and the opportunity to be independently wealthy.
And that kind of sentiment is one I see expressed more often by Republicans than by Democrats. That's the non-policy aspect of voting trends to which I referred earlier.
They could do a riposte ad, showing Oby's biog alongside BRITNEY'S -I'm pretty sure she didn't do any 'community organizing' (or maybe she did but for other less wholesome reasons?!)
Pluoticus said...
Desirae,
I understand that one cannot read minds. I am trying to base my opinion on the numbers. The black vote usually goes about 10% to the republicans. Polling so far has that number between 3% and 6%. In addition to that, a number of Black CONSERVATIVE personalities are considering voting for Obama based on a history making event that many have waited for their whole lives, regardless of how Obama stands on issues.
Desirae,
My wife is African American. She voted for Bush last election. This time she's not sure. I can tell you, because she told me, the reason why. [July 31, 2008 8:37 PM]
First, let's set aside your personal experience -- it's completely irrelevant when looking at large polities. For every anecdote, there is an opposite but equal anecdote. =)
Second, here's the vast, gaping hole in your logic: "The black vote usually goes about 10% to the republicans. Polling so far has that number between 3% and 6%."
Or, put another way, the black vote normally goes 90% to the Democrats, and polling so far has been between 94% and 97%, using your numbers.
That amounts to a -- gasp! -- 4.4% to 7.8% increase in support among blacks.
(The math, for the sake of completeness: 94/90 = 1.044 = +4.4% ... 97/90 = 1.078 = +7.8%.)
What a shocking increase! How could that possibly be anything but racism? I mean, Barack Obama couldn't possibly simply be 4.4% to 7.8% more charismatic than, say, John Kerry ... right?
If that were true, though, then you'd expect his support to increase across the board. Let's see: John Kerry got 48.8% of the popular vote in 2004. If you increase that support by 4.4% to 7.8%, that would be 50.9% to 52.6% of the popular vote.
Leaving out third-party candidates for a moment, this equates to a 1.8% to 5.2% margin of victory nationwide. Overall, Obama's lead on McCain is at least that good, at least according to Nate and all the other metapolling sites. (As of today, Obama's lead is +2.8% here, +2.9% at RCP, and +5.0% at Pollster.)
What does this mean? It means that -- using your own numbers -- black support for Obama isn't "racist" at all. Everyone likes him more when you compare him to the last Democratic presidential candidate, and the percentage increase in black support is comparable to Obama's gains over Kerry in other racial groups. Not identical, not certainly not so different that it's "proof" of how "racist" his support is.
Ahhhhh ... fun with numbers. It's why I'm addicted to this site, giving me a double shot of "math nerd" and "political wonk" in one glass. =)
Seems to me that Republicans don't get the votes of African-Americans in large part because they don't campaign for them.
Meanwhile, on the McCain "Celeb" ad, I thought James Poniewozik put it best:
"You can make Obama into Britney Spears, or John Kerry, or Malcolm X. I'm not sure you can make him into all three at the same time. (Is there a template in American culture for an Ivy-league-snob, black-militant, out-of-control former Mouseketeer?)"
I think a big part of the McCain strategy this fall is likely to revolve around personal attacks against Obama. But until the Republicans pick a line of attack, and stick with it, their attacks will be blunted.
http://www.time-blog.com/tuned_in/2008/07/mccain_tries_to_britneyfy_obam.html#more
Does anyone else have problems loading the page? I can't see below halfway through the PM post on todays polls.
This attack's penetration may partly explain why McCain is trading at his highest level on InTrade since May - 38%. Nate's model has usually been more favorable to McCain than InTrade, but currently it gives McCain a much worse chance, presumably because this factor hasn't yet made it's way into the polls. We'll see if the market is prescient and the polls move towards McCain.
Nate -
Which of the two would you say is the leading indicator: state polls or national ones?
This seemed like a natural question to ask given the reversal you noted between the two.
@ SNED:
Yep, the last post I can see is the one that mentions Chris Matthews.
I'm a supporter of Sen.Obama, but I think he crossed a line. He should have differentiated between Sen.McCain, his campaign, the GOP in general, and the right-wing nutjobs on the web. McCain has called out people on the right for going for the "Hussein" thing and he's stayed away from the race thing himself, so lumping him in with the folks who HAVE used those things is unfortunate. McCain HAS, however, pushed the "different" and "risky" thing.
Obama should have said something to the effect of "My opponent is trying to portray me as risky and diifferent, and some others on the Right are backing that up by pushing the funny name and different face thing". THAT would have been correct and properly assign the blame.
Can anyone tell me--I have perused the site but didn't see an answer--or didn't understand it if I saw it--
Does the model take into account closeness to the election? So that a 1% lead on October 25 in a given state is "worth more" than a 1% lead now?
He never crossed the line. he wasn't leveling an attack, it was part of his stick on the stump. I'd seen it 3 times and never thought of it as an attack or playing a race card. The clips of what he said were all over the media yesterday and nobody had a problem with any of it, including the McCain campaign.
Its political outrage. Its when you see a spot to go after your opponent so you make a big deal so the media will cover it and you'll get a news cycle to your advantage. Thats all.
francis: yes in two ways.
1. each subsequent poll is weighted higher than the previous poll (relative to its sample size and pollster reliability). so by the time that October 25 poll comes out, yes it is worth much more than the 1% lead today. other than a few very underpolled states, todays polls will probably be entirely drowned out.
2. the supertracker model discounts a large current lead, and predicts that the lead will be smaller but in favor of the same candidate on election day. this is due to some modeling that this is the most likely election outcome based on a poll. that discounting-a-large-current-lead effect will clearly be made less significant as the election nears and a current poll is more indicative of the election result.
Francis said...
Can anyone tell me--I have perused the site but didn't see an answer--or didn't understand it if I saw it--
Does the model take into account closeness to the election? So that a 1% lead on October 25 in a given state is "worth more" than a 1% lead now? [July 31, 2008 10:28 PM]
IIRC, yes. The weight of polls decreases as they get older: They are treated as if they have a "half life" of 30 days, so after one month they weigh half as much.
The "snapshot" figures show what this weighted value is right now, but the "projection" figures show what that weighted value would be in November.
Obviously, the model doesn't move very quickly when we're that far away -- that regression value (which is based on previous performance and demographics) doesn't change over time, so it keeps things stable.
As you get closer to November, though, the polls have a greater and greater weight relative to the regression and to the previous polls -- so, being 1% up now is a total toss-up, but being 1% up on the night before the election will represent a reasonably strong edge. (Things are a lot less likely to change substantially in 1 day than they are in 3 months.)
If any other veterans around here catch me making an error, please speak up and let us know -- I might have missed something about how he's doing the weighting. =)
Whose wife once told Vogue, explaining the purchase of a 7th or 8th house, this one a beach house, "When I bought the first one, my husband, who is not a beach person, said, 'Oh this is such a waste of money; the kids will never go. Then it got to the point where they used it so much I couldn't get in the place. So I bought another one.” (hint: it's not michelle obama).
that's via jake tapper's blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch
Matt JH and Bronxx
personally, i think it's in between. i'd heard obama say just about the same thing for the past many months, so the recent outrage is probably just that, a ploy for free media. but he might as well be careful to call out McCain specifically on the things he's done, and others on the things they've done. I don't think any sort of "Obama's playing the race card" claim will stick (or is smart at all for that matter), but he might as well just speak a little more precisely about the attacks he's referring to.
This attack hasn't stuck. He's too much of a celebrity? The media is running with this with the angle of how lame it is. Not how accurate it is. Why do you think they brought out the "He played the race card" attack today. They didn't like how the news coverage was going and decided to change the subject.
Sooner or later the McCain camp is gonna realize this stuff isn't gonna work this year, then they're gonna bring the heavy artillery. This is as desperate as we've seen a campaign this early. The hero stuff didn't work. These laim attacks didn't work. they are not leaving themselves any room here. Theres only one place to go from here, NUCLEAR.
We may see stuff that makes the Willy Horton add look like a picnic. If they can tear down a guy's military record like they did to Kerry, they can make the black guy named Husein an extremist from Saudi Arabia. Pull up your boot straps, this is gonna get ugly. Obama is gonna need some of that South side of Chicago background before this thing is over.
I get the same sense, Matt JH
It's starting to remind me of the Hillary camp's split personality-- attack on everything possible and then pivot immediately to act affronted when he hasn't even mentioned his opponent. "Shame on you Barack Obama!"
Now this ridiculous "Obama has Britney Spears cooties" attack quickly followed by "Obama called me a racist!"
I was moderately impressed that the media didn't buy equality of argument for just this day's coverage. Rather than "McCain is using petty attack ads and Obama's playing the race card, just a matter of perspective" they basically agreed that the McCain camp was full of s***. But I won't make any pretense that this honest streak will continue.
Ludicrass is a tool.
pluoticus said:
"pechemerle,
of course you do."
.
Don't patronize me. There is no of course about it. I disagree with Obama on many things, including his Iraq position, and his position on the Second Amendment. But on the good-humored banter on racial identity, I think he has it right and I think it works with the audiences.
.
If you have knee-jerk reactions to everything, that's your business. But you don't get to assume that everyone else does.
You don't have to be consciously or overtly racist in order to come up with an ad that fits into a racist narrative. And it's hard to imagine any savvy political pro not understanding the racist implications of this ad. Phyllis is right, above. So is
Robert George, though not IMHO on the way Obama should respond.
The Obama campaign is getting a little dumb - ergo Sebelius for VP.
@Pluoticus:
“…The whole reason why I am Republican is because I *know* that I can make it on my own and I don't need to rely on the government…..”
Unlike McCain “doling” campaign funding ($84m) from the state…..
So does this make Obama more of a “Repulican” than McCain, because Obama is making it on his own with regards to the manner in which he raises his campaign funds ?
By the way, I disagree with Nate on the Britney ad not having racial undertones. You see that, I think, by combining moondancer's comment above (ad seeks to emasculate Obama's image by the comparison to opposite gender celebs) with the long history of racist attitudes that combine fear and slander toward any 'uppity n**' with balls. I don't contend the McCain campaign intended precisely that reading, but -- while this will be too deconstructionist for some -- nonetheless it's there.
You people just need to use common sense! This isn't 1988, Obama isn't going to implode, no matter how many right-wingers fantasize about it! It's 1980. And McCain is Jimmy Carter!
Unpopular incumbent tries to paint his opponent as "scary?"
Remember this attack line worked for Jimmy Carter for MONTHS. In fact, the Carter "Reagan is too extreme" line of attack worked -- up until the first debate. The election was close up till then because Carter kept raising doubts about whether Reagan WAS a "scary extremist" like Barry Goldwater. Only he showed up in the debates as a genial and self-confident debater, who was genuinely likeable to people. They found him CHARMING.
And that was the end of the Carter campaign. Reagan ran away with it.
This election is taking on the same quality.
McCain has tried the "It's all about my resume - I'm a war hero!" He's tried: "my opponent is too liberal." He's tried: "The Surge has worked!" He's tried "Obama's too inexperienced!" He's tried "Obama's a flip-flopper!"
He even tried to position HIMSELF as the "change candidate," i.e. "change you desrve."
Nothing at all has worked. Obama's looked supremely confident and Presidential through all of it. He's not making flubs and looking lost on the big stage. He looks comfortable in his own skin. People can listen to him and watch him and see him as President.
Time to get DESPERATE for McCain: so he starts throwing EVERYTHING at Obama!
Only Obama's going to show up at those debates and all people are going to want to know is "Is he some wild-eyed muslim radical and are his ideas scary liberal, or is this all hype?"
And the minute they get those two on the stage together McCain's entire attack will fall to the ground. He can't sustain it in the presence of Obama as a mild-mannered, intelligent, confident candidate with something to say.
Obama is charming and inspiring when people hear him speak. And no matter how hard Republicans try and paint that as some kind of negative, it's like trying to say that George Clooney is "too handsome." It's just hard to get anybody to take you seriously.
Pluoticus @ 8:37pm
You write that black vote that goes to the GOP has gone down from 10% to about 3-6%, and based on that, you say that blacks are voting for Obama based on race.
But wait a second. Only about 10% of blacks voted for Bush. Since then, the GOP's numbers have fallen among basically all groups. Why have you discounted the possibility that the small decrease is simply dissatisfaction/disgust with the GOP after these past couple years? Hispanics are also moving to the Democratic Party and supporting Obama in greater numbers than before. You gonna accuse them of doing it for racial reasons too?
Well, much as I like the Carter=McCain -- Reagan=Obama concept, I have some serious doubts about it in this election.
.
Here's why: Reagan did come across as genial, pleasant, optimistic in the 1980 general election debate. (He was less so in the R primary; there was that wonderful, famous moment in NH in which he snapped at Bush I, "Mr. Bush, I'm paying for this microphone.") But I'm skeptical that Obama can do that well in the debate this fall. To me, he seems to have two out of the three necessary gears. He gives a great formal speech (and does it reliably, repeatedly). He does well in informal settings with moderate-sized groups. But he did much less well in the D primary debates. He doesn't seem to have the good debater's knack of finding the right thing to say, in the right way, in quick adaptation to what the opponent has just said. Sometimes he stumbles; sometimes he is off focus from what the most effective line of response would be.
.
The other side of that coin is that McCain is not particularly good in the debate format either; he lacks that gear, and the formal speech gear. Arguably, he is better than Obama at the small group informal discussion format.
.
Result, maybe, is the general election formal debate is an event that is each man's to lose. Neither man has the chops to win it purely on his own performance, but either has the potential to make the other look much better through his failings and gaffes.
Put a lawyer up against a fighter pilot in a debate and I'll take the lawyer every time.
There are some usual suspects on this site who complain that Rasmussen is systematically biased towards Republicans whenever A Rasmussen poll does not look good for Obama. Two recent examples show there is no basis for such criticism.
First, Rasmussen's Kentucky poll today showed McCain up by 9 with leaners. But Research 2000's poll today for the ultraliberal Daily Kos showed Obama behind by 21 points in KY.
Rasmussen's July poll for Michigan showed Obama up 8 there but all three polls afterwards by other pollsters showed a 2-4 point margin.
So stop with the Rasmussen bashing.
BTW, whatever happened to SurveyUSA? Are they still in the polling business?
bad day for O'bama. If you have any doubt, please check he desperation on KOS tonight. I mean you, Nate.
Another unintended consequence of this "overconfident"/"arrogant" angle is that it implicitly imbues a certain degree of strength to Obama. Those adjectives are not typically, if ever, heaped on weak individuals. Many great leaders have been accused, fairly or unfairly, of possessing those characteristics. So, ironically, in their attempts to undermine him, the McCain camp could actually end up unintentionally reinforcing a positive leadership characteristic for Obama. The same goes with "celebrity." America doesn't shy away from celebrity. Popularity is associated with a degree of cool and cultural relevance.
Furthermore, by trying to portray Obama as an "empty suit," they are only setting the bar even lower for him. Whenever he does something that contradicts the caricature the McCain camp is trying to establish, he may actually gain ground, as well as diminish McCain's credibility -- people may say, "He's nothing like McCain said he would be."
Of course, this all a best-case scenario. Predicting how this stuff will play out is impossible. But, I think it is safe to posit that the McCain camp has taken a curious approach in their attacks on Obama. Maybe that's why several Republicans have come forward recently, and declared their attacks "childish" and risky.
Jeremy, are you a lawyer? I ask only beause I have seen so many lawyers who are quite poor debaters, poor on their feet in the courtroom.
.
I have to go read some commentary today in the WSJ about Obama's performance as a law school classroom teacher. But being interesting and amusing in that context (which a glance at those stories suggested he was) is considerably different from scoring the right points in an adversarial debate setting. And here is an audio clip from Obama doing an appellate argument at the 7th Cir.: www.suntimes.com/images/cds/MP3/obama.mp3 (I haven't listened to it yet myself, but now I will have to.)
We really shouldn't forget, either, that McCain was a fighter pilot for about three years, but has been a politician for over 25 years.
Given a choice between a black candidate and white candidates in Democratic primaries in 1988 and 2008, blacks voted like 90% to 10% for the black Democrat over other Democrats who were white. That is the proof of blacks engaging in race-based voting -- not a November matchup between a Repub and a Democrat (given that blacks always support Dems in general elections regardless of color).
Whites, on the other hand, are splitting like 56 to 44 in favor of the white candidate McCain right now and they split maybe 60-40 for Hillary in the primaries, showing that whites do not take race into account to the extreme extent that blacks do.
I wonder why whites don't vote in their racial self-interest the way blacks do?
In just 4 days, Obama has dropped 8points (from up 9 to up 1) in the Gallup daily tracker.
I expect that by Sunday McCain will be ahead in one of the daily tracking polls for the first time since the first week of June.
Mr Insight: How very nice of white people to be so fair and balanced. I hope black people are grateful.
Mr Insight: concerning your second point, at the rate the tracker is going McCAin will be ahead by 200 points come election day. Right?
MrInsight - Posts like yours are insulting, they totally miss the point, and they're part of the reason that Republicans will continue to get less than 10% of the black vote for another two generations at the very minimum.
the ad had racial overtones because we're talking about whether it had racial overtones. think about it. the ad ran a few times in a few markets but is all over cable tv and the blogs. the point was to get people talking about it. same with the race card charge.
Poor Rick Davis. Got 'taken' by Andrea Mitchell. Always unwise to attack a media host, Ricky boy. They always have the last.word.
bbebop, I don't think we can go quite that far. Some paranoids don't have enemies.
Honestly, I think that might have been the worst political ad I've ever seen. Not worst in terms of sleaziness. I've seen far worse in that regard. Worst in that I think it is totally ineffective.
Why is it ineffective? What exactly does it charge Obama with? Being popular. Is anything inherently wrong with being popular? No. Even McCain's campaign manager says he wishes McCain was a big enough celebrity to be able to give a speech to 200,000 people in Germany. So if you stop and think about it, its an attack ad without an attack. They get all the negative backlash and they don't have anything to show for it.
An effective attack ad can't have people scratching their heads and saying "I guess thats true, but so..." An effective attack ad has to scare the living shit out of the viewer. The viewer is going to start out with a negative on you for attacking. Whatever you point out had better be so scary that it makes it worth the negative you're taking and the dollars you're spending. I can't imagine any logical person thinks this is true about this ad.
The other point about this ad was supposedly "Obama doesn't take this campaign seriously enough". But it just left themselves wide open to the countercharge "We do take this campaign seriously, thats why we're running issue ads. Why don't you take this seriously?"
Do they focus group any of this stuff?
Trust me, I'm not complaining. I love these ads. Its like watching the other team fumble the ball right to you in the end zone. You're like "theres a touchdown I didn't do anything to earn, but hey if they want to give it to me"
The whole point of the ad is to show that Obama has risen to this point by media driven buzz and celebrity, rather than real presidential credentials, much the way Britney Spears and Paris Hilton are celebrities for accomplishing and producing very little.
Like McCain, you can't tell the difference between claim and show.
Obama didn't denounce Ludacris, "the campaign" did.
This is not the GOP's fault, Obama associates with all these clowns.
Neither Obama nor his campaign "associates" with Ludacris, moron.
You Republicans really would do better to stay silent on sites like this, where you simply reinforce the view among intelligent people that you're all retarded and pathetically dishonest.
Not sure I'd call the ad "racist" in any explicit or conscious way ... I don't know how self-aware its racism is. But the Paris/Britney-Obama analogy is provocative in ways that fit in with history of racial representations in the U.S. ... One the one hand the analogy feminizes and degrades Obama--he's like a white woman (and one who's sexually available--Ludacris knows the word I'm not going to type here). At the same time it hints at miscegenation anxieties--at a corrupt European "celebrity" world where black men are free to romp with pairs of white females.
Another unintended consequence of this "overconfident"/"arrogant" angle is that it implicitly imbues a certain degree of strength to Obama. Those adjectives are not typically, if ever, heaped on weak individuals.
Great point. I was thinking about this and I was trying to think of one presidential candidate that was not arrogant. Frankly, I can't think of one. If you run for President, you are saying that out of 300,000,000 people you believe that you are the best one to be the leader. You are accepting a responsibility that you will have to make calculated decisions where if your calculations are off, thousands of people will unnecessarily die. Its hard for me to picture anybody without a great deal of selfconfidence running for president.
Certainly McCain is self-confident to the point of being called arrogant. He doesn't strike me as a humble man at all, which just makes this attack funnier.
There's a kind of castrative fury lurking underneath the whole thing, an outraged jealousy. It's a Jesse Jackson impulse gone mainstream.
The whole reason why I am Republican is because I *know* that I can make it on my own and I don't need to rely on the government for regulation or any other legislation to help me along.
Then you're even more stupid than the average Republican.
Given a choice between a black candidate and white candidates in Democratic primaries in 1988 and 2008, blacks voted like 90% to 10% for the black Democrat over other Democrats who were white.
Given a choice between a white Democrat and a black Republican, blacks in Maryland voted 75% for the white guy.
Don't pretend that blacks will always vote for the black guy because its not even remotely close to being true. Hillary was actually doing quite well with the Afr American community until her husband started to make some specious comparisons.
jqb, please leave off the name calling. It doesn't say anything good for you or the positions you support.
The Rethuglican base hates McBush so he is trying to use everything negative to make them hate Obama more. The press loves the narrative that this is an election that is a referendum on Obama. But in reality this election is a referendum on the American people.
-Are the American people going to fall for negative campaigning over an issues based campaign?
-Are the American people going to reward the Republicans for 8 years of disastrous economic and foreign policies?
-Are the American people going to vote against their self interests once again? When the majority of Americans agree with Democrats on 90% of the issues.
-Have the American people bridged the ethnic divide like they say they have which had held us back for so many decades?
-Do the American people really want an administration that does not want to increase executive power and uphold the constitution?
-Do the American people want competent government or do they want cronies and lobbyists to run government?
If America votes for McBush this year we failed as a society just as badly as the Republicans have for 8 years.
I do not give the Repukes any credit at all.
This is classic "jumping the shark" desperation. Just more same old PeeWee Herman "I know you are, but WHAT am I?" by the Repukes.
Obama is so much more smarter and perceptive! But he knows that the Repukes will resort to anything. He outmaneuvers the crooks all the time, but knows they are clever and diabolical.
They have the idiot quotient and racist bigot demographic and will play every card in the troglodyte deck.
McCain, a man that knows the difference between right and wrong, will nevertheless side with his corpo-fascist financiers against constitutional and ethical self evident truths.
McCain is a flawed mercenary, and a threadbare one at this juncture.
He could have been proud, but he chose to be a doughy sell-out.
That ad just provided the setup for one of the funniest Daily Shows in quite some time.
Now why wouldn't you accept the racial overtones argument? How, exactly, does this differ from the Harold Ford advertisement (in that it pairs images of sexually-available white women with a black man)? That's a pretty classic racist move in this country.
Nick,
I actually don't think its as bad as the Ford ad. The Ford ad had the woman saying "I met him at the Playboy party...call me". It was clearly saying "Ford might have sex with me". This ad didn't say Obama will sleep with Brittany. It said "Obama is Brittany". I think there is a difference. I don't actually see the racism there. If anything, there was sexism, since they clearly picked female celebrities to somehow say Obama is less of a man.
I see subtle racism in the presumptuous argument. I think it plays on the old idea of I don't mind blacks who "know their place", only the ones that get all uppity. I've yet to hear anything specific in the arrogance argument. He thinks he is going to win and he is telling the world what he wants to do when he does win. Arrogant? Perhaps, but no different than any other politician -- including McCain.
Well, Paris Hilton references are just everywhere. For example, in Feb. 2005, Obama was interviewed 7 weeks into his term as Senator. And he came out with this:
.
"Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame," says Barack Obama. "I've already had an hour and a half. I mean, I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse." (Wash. Post)
I just read the peanut bar and arugula Rick Davis memo that has gotten so much attention. Supposedly the cheesesteak argument worked on Kerry so the Republicans are going to try it again. Count me as one that had doubts. I think this sort of stuff actually hurt Bush.
My theory is that 53% of the country actually agreed with Bush on the whole security vs liberty debate that is at the center of real issues in the red/blue divide. All of the culture war stuff that Rove tried to peddle didn't win him the election. It damn near lost an election that should have been relatively easy.
For one thing, I think it is really condescending to blue collar workers. Basically what they are saying is: You are all stupid rubes. You'll never be able to comprehend real issues. We assume not only that you don't enjoy exotic foods. We assume you have such a hatred for people that like different things that this irrational hatred will trump everything else. Now watch me eat a hamburger while I insult my opponent for eating sushi --- that's raw fish in case you had never heard the word before. They don't even cook it!! How could you trust someone that doesn't cook their fish?
The whole argument is incredibly patronizing and insulting.
jqb, please leave off the name calling. It doesn't say anything good for you or the positions you support.
Pechmerle, lay off the pompous assholely lecture and stick to the issues. I'm a very bright guy and don't need your guidance as to the effects of my actions.
Overtly playing up racial tension like McCain is doing is the poison gas of political campaigns. It might work, but the winds can blow and send the gas right back to your frontlines, killing you in the process.
He quite possibly got away with it this round, but he better be damned careful and quite while hes ahead.
The local Dems are getting excited by the expected appearance of Obama on Monday in Nate's home town of Lansing, MI. (Probably won't to go to East Lansing because MSU is at half-staff with summer sessions ending.)
McCain is expected to be in MI next week as well. Battling in the battleground state.
It's fun living in a battleground state because we get to see all the ads as well as the candidates.
Three points:
1. This is the most effective I've seen the Steve Schmidt team. I don't think this was a brilliant attack, but the preemptive strike on race indicates to me that they've drawn some plausible lessons from the Democratic primary. I suspect Team Obama will still outmaneuver them in the long run, but I think Steve may have earned his pay this week.
2. It's a little disappointing that the comments on this fine web site aren't taking more cues from the setting. We've devolved into the kind of tit-for-tat discussion that you can find on any political site; whereas I take the central premise of this site to be that the fundamentals (demographic and grand narrative) of an election dwarf such daily tactics. I hope we can find more ways to look at the fundamentals in these discussions.
3. With that in mind, I think Obama's already taking the right tactic in response: to ridicule all this as a distraction. I might go one further. In one of those talks where he has the audience laughing, Obama could add in that they appreciate McCain's team's help, but they've done the research, and Brittany is actually a Republican, so they're not considering her at this point for a cabinet position. Then note that McCain's policies are the ones sufficiently close to Bush's that it's more accurate to pick him as the one saying, in effect, "Hit me baby, one more time." I can hear the crowd calling that back in response to a litany of Bush-McCain policy positions right now.
That may not be the best script, but you get my point: defuse the issue with humor, possibly turn the joke on McCain, but most of all: reinforce the electorate's (and the press's) sense of the fundamentals, which are pretty much all in Obama's favor. If you want to talk about Brittany, McCain's your man. If you want to talk about important issues, come over here.
First off: Fuck Steve Schmidt and the pony the bastard rode in on.
It may be best for the Obama team to use humor, blah, blah, blah, blah... But I'm not a member of any team, so there ya' go.
Nate originally said:
I think we have to give the Republicans a certain amount of credit for the creativity inherent in their "celebrity" attack on Barack Obama.
Creativity? This just goes to underscore how individuals wouldn't know true "creativity" if hit 'em in their g-ddamn face.
Example: In my best Lewis Black voice...
What the McCain team is doing is bullshit! B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T!
And John Sidney McCain is an ancient, gutless, belt-way insider and an empty soul to put up with it.
Of course McCain proved that when he rolled over to the Bush machine in 2000.
These attack ads are probably not a good idea in a time when your own base is smaller than your opponent´s base. Additionally, McCain is giving away is most precious asset, his character.
What does the Britney-ad actually say: Obams is famous and thus not as good a presidential candidate as the implicitly unpopular McCain. That´s a rather stupid argument in my opinion.
Then the ad also says that Obama is being famous just for being famous, i.e. the empty suit argument. Well, he made that argument before. Of course, that argument has power, by comparison to Hilton and Spears he is aiming for total low-information voters who at least know those two celebrities. Well, it can work... those total low-information voters might make up the majority of the currently undecideds. But would those people actually go to vote? Would they go to vote because they think that if they don´t vote against Obama we will soon have a Spears/Hilton in the White House?
Well, I don´t believe it. McCain might rally his base, for the price of rallying also his opponent´s base. He might also lose independents because he ruins his reputation. This is probably just the start of these attack ads, but I fear it won´t do McCain good in the long run.
The original intent of the ad may not have been racial and that is giving the McCainiacs more credit than they deserve. However I do not doubt for a moment that the McCain people saw the racial undertone of pairing Obama with two young, white women and decided it was a big extra bonus.
My hope is that such a message is a wasted effort because most people are far beyond racism.
I also think that the celebrity theme of the ad is so insulting to voter intelligence (whether or not we voters are this shallow is another discussion) that the ad mostly just shows McCain to be what he is -- a candidate with no message, no money, no base and one who will stoop to any low tactic. It shows us how he would govern, too.
McCain is heading for a beating. Until now the media and the public have seen him as a gutsy outsider fighting against all the odds to become President. He has charmed and impressed people from all backgrounds and was the only Republican capable of winning this election.
However the past two weeks have seen the death of that John McCain. Any objective observer of politics over the past two weeks will only have seen a nasty, negative, false and unpleasant John McCain who literally has nothing positive to say to the American people. All attention has focused this week on his vile and misleading attack ads and it's a matter of time now before his stock falls in the polls. Obama's response yesterday to the Britney/Hilton ad was succinct and very effective. Is that all you have to say, is that all you have to offer the American people Senator McCain?
This should be Obama's refrain for as long as McCain engages in the currency of Rovian lies.
Only one of these candidates has acted in a manner befitting a President of the United States and that man is Barack Obama.
Alex S. said...
That´s a rather stupid argument in my opinion.
Obviously. Yes. Two words: "ditto-heads" ...
Enough said? Good.
Now where were you just one month short of 8 years ago? Here, take a trip in the Wayback Machine to this Opinion Article. Read the whole "opinion." The author made great sense.
Guess what. Replay...
"Alex S. said...
These attack ads are probably not a good idea in a time when your own base is smaller than your opponent´s base."
Bing! Bing! Bing! We have a winner! This guy gets it!
Bush and Rove had a PLAN in 2004! That's why the Swift-Boat Attacks worked.
They had 11 million new Republican voters, but they needed a way to get them to the polls. So, they went totally negative with the Swift Boat ads. Result? They drove up Bush's negatives. Independents were disgusted and swung to Kerry. He won Independents by 1% and Democrats rallied to him 89% to 11%.
But, none of that mattered, because Bush won Republicans by 93% - 6%.
And Rove knew they could get them to the polls as long as they kept up the intensity.
But, in 2008 there are 9.5% MORE Democrats than Republicans (according to Rasmussen). There's simply NO WAY McCain can win, unless he wins Independents by a wide margin and doesn't antagonize Democrats so they rally to Obama they way they did to Kerry.
He's not going to do that with attack ads! The only way is to convince Independents he's all "Mavericky" and "not partisan" and "stands for a new type of politics."
The more he seems like Bush, the more he loses! Worse, the failure of his tactic is obscured, because his vicious attacks actually raise doubts among Indpendents about Obama. So, he keeps Obama's numbers down . . . FOR NOW.
So, it seems like it's working! Bring on the Swift-Boat Surge!
Only he's only lowering the bar for the debates. Just like in 1980. People WANT change. McCain's only hope is to somehow convince people that HE's the agent of change.
All Obama has to do at the debates is SHOW UP! And NOT be a wild-eyed Muslim-Radical, who's going to install Angela Davis as Defense Secretary and Rev. Al Sharpton as Commerce Secretary.
It might start to seem a bit strange to a lot of voters if Obama is continually having to "denounce" people. I hope he doesn't have to do too many more of these denunciations before the election.
"pechmerle said...
Well, much as I like the Carter=McCain -- Reagan=Obama concept, I have some serious doubts about it in this election.
Here's why: . . .I'm skeptical that Obama can do that well in the debate this fall. . . .He doesn't seem to have the good debater's knack of finding the right thing to say, in the right way, in quick adaptation to what the opponent has just said."
This guy doesn't get it. Obama doesn't have to WIN the debate, (although he will) because that's not what voters will be tuning in to see. Kerry and Gore "won" the debates, but voters were tuning in to see whether Bush could hold his own, nobody expected he'd win. They just wanted a good look at Bush to see if he could hold up. When he did, they were relieved and voted for him.
Same thing here. Obama is the entire election. Voters want to vote for him, because they're tired of the same-old Republican failure. Unless Obama melts down during the debates, he's going to win.
McCain might "win" the actual debate for all we know, just like Kerry did by getting the better of the argument. But, it won't matter. The bar is being lowered by McCain's attacks enough that Obama will win just by showing up and not looking like a wild-eyed radical.
That's why this election is 1980. Reagan didn't have to be the "Great Communicator" to win that election. All he had to do was show up and NOT look OLD.
He almost blew it in the first debate by looking old and crazy. But, voters REALLY wanted change and tuned in to the second debate and he was more relaxed and confident. So -- they said "he's ok!"
End of Election.
Obama Overplays His Hand
In a stunning miscalculation Barrack Obama overplayed his hand over the past few days, suggesting that both Bush and McCain were directly using race against him. This was a drumbeat that he started in late June saying that his opponents would use his blackness against him in the race. When Obama went so far as to accuse McCain and Bush of this in MO the other day, he went too far, and the McCain campaign along with the candidate leapt on it, took umbrage and basically hoisted Obama on his own petard.
The Obama campaign was left scrambling and backpedaling yesterday as they could not come up with a single instance where either the Bush or McCain camps could be shown to have themselves played the “race card”. Instead they were left whining about McCain using “old politics” and going “negative”.
Well, Duh!
As I said yesterday, McCain is a smart military man and he knows that the first objective in to neutralize and marginalize your enemy. Hence the Brittany Spears/Paris Hilton ad. The Obama campaign and its surrogates (David Gergen) tried to leap up at first and suggest that the juxtaposition of the blond starlets with their politician was meant to make some smarmy sexual allusion about how nubile white women are somehow at peril in the presence of black men. The same sort of smear that Harold Ford tried to imply unsuccessfully in his losing race for the TN Senate in 2004. That that ad is still topic number one and continues to paint Obama as an air-headed celebrity full of fluff and very photogenic but wrong on substance (bad on energy and taxes) is a problem for him. The ad is succeeding and Obama is whining.
Obama has not regained his “land legs” since he came back from the Rainbow Tour. The post mortem on the trip was that it did not do him any short term good. This week when he was supposed to have returned to focus on domestic issues. Instead it left him branded as presumptuous and arrogant, with a photo op with Nancy Pelosi and his advising Americans to fill up their tires as a way to solve the energy crisis. Let’s not bother with the vast untapped reserves of oil we have here in the US.
Obama is next confronting the Olympics. The two weeks commencing a week from today will be a period of great nationalism and American pride here at home. His challenge will be twofold: One, compete with the mega show in China for publicity (publicity is the oxygen on which his campaign breathes) and Two, distance himself from the suspicion that he wants to be not just President of the United States, but of the World. As Americans get into the mode of rooting for the home team and wishing ill on the Germans and the French among others, their subtle consciousness will be altered and it will not help Obama.
This is why Obama must make his Vice Presidential pick soon, no later than Tuesday. He will need to grab the news cycle soon. Indeed with the week have gone so badly for him he does not want the weekend cycle to be dominated by his missteps of the past week and his leaky, arrogant candidacy.
I have suggested before, to the consternation of many here, that Obama takes a great risk in injecting race into the campaign. As we learned with the New Yorker Cover story, crying foul over such things does him little good, especially where the point is either satire (as with the New Yorker) or non-existent (as with these charges against the McCain campaign). Voters are not fearful of Obama because he is Black, what they fear is that he and his administration will filter everything through a prism of race and that every policy debate will somehow get dragged into a racial scuffle that this country can ill afford at this time.
As far as these latest polls go, they virtually all show movement towards McCain as compared with comparable survey (with the exception of KY). Things are moving McCain’s way and towards the Republicans right now. This is because of the success in the War and their having taken the high ground on Drilling. Now that Obama has injected race into the campaign, it will be curious to see if he gets a sympathy bounce or if his complaining shines a further spotlight on his deficiencies, leading to further erosion of his standing.
This is why he will pick Evan Bayh any minute now and change the subject.
One further observation: the ad was brilliant. We are still talking about it days later and look at all the comments!
There was a lot of talk about the 2005 Hitler ads, too.
McCain is running out of time. I know that he is "close" in the polls, but he is still about 4 points behind Obama.
He has wasted his summer on petty attacks, using the "kitchen sink" approach. He is just throwing out garbage, different things daily, hoping something sticks. By doing this, no story has a chance to gel, and they are all so substanceless that they can't really do much damage.
While doing this, he is sullying his own image as a "straighttalker". When the MSM starts calling him a liar, as they are doing with his troops ad, it damages his primary asset.
Meanwhile, Obama is not worrying about the daily tracking polls, but building a campaign platform for the fall.
This campaign is tracking a lot like the 1980 campaign. McCain is counting on voters rejecting Obama as "risky", while Obama is building up his image as "presidential". McCain's negative attacks focus the campaign ever more on Obama and away from himself.
The biggest irony is that Obama is playing the role of Reagan and McCain is playing the role of Jimmy Carter. No wonder McCain is acting so peevish, having to run against a Democratic version of his hero.
It seems that McCain is steadily defining himself not as the better candidate, but as the default alternative to Obama; the "anti-Obama", if you will.
This is why we keep hearing the Right saying that the election is "not about McCain". I don't believe that, but the Right certainly does. They can't win outright with their candidate, but they can scare people into either sitting out the election or voting for McCain merely to keep Obama out of the White House.
However, if McCain would manage to win, that leaves him with almost no political capital. Essentially, the country would have voted against Obama rather than for McCain. And consider the lukewarm, unenthusiastic "support" McCain has with the GOP's base; he's damaged goods before he takes office.
McCain will certainly face a more Democratic House and Senate, with those in the GOP up for election in 2010 increasingly nervous about the invincibility of their Party. In short, McCain is being kneecapped in advance by this campaign approach. Even if he wins, he loses, and the GOP looks worse than it did before. The Party is already taking over his campaign, and they would almost certainly take over his Presidency since he would have no support of his own. He can't keep presenting himself as the guy who saved us from Obama for four years; that's all he would have on his own.
Republicans should carefully consider the consequences of "making the election about Obama".
"
This campaign is tracking a lot like the 1980 campaign. McCain is counting on voters rejecting Obama as "risky", while Obama is building up his image as "presidential". McCain's negative attacks focus the campaign ever more on Obama and away from himself.
The biggest irony is that Obama is playing the role of Reagan and McCain is playing the role of Jimmy Carter. No wonder McCain is acting so peevish, having to run against a Democratic version of his hero."
Here's another guy who gets it!
People are wildly over-complicating this election with all the Micro-babble and talking points!
This is a change election. Obama = Change. McCain tried briefly (in his infamous "Green Screen" speech) to position himself as "Change you deserve" but that was a miserable flop and he's basically given up.
Now he's the anti-change candidate: "change is scary! Stick with what you know!" Obama is too: liberal, flip-flopper, race-baiter, arrogant, inexperienced, unknown, etc.
This sort of stuff actually works with low-information voters -- for a while, as Jimmy Carter proved in 1980.
The problem is that eventually voters get to compare the actual candidate with the caraciture painted by McCain -- just as voters in the 1980 debates saw a Reagan who didn't look all that "extremist" or "too old."
In 2004 the Swift Boat attacks worked, simply because they were aimed at rallying Republicans and there were more Republicans than Democrats. This time Rasmussen has been tracking the numbers since last year and they've shown Democrats with a 9.5% partisan ID advantage. In 2004 there were 37% for each party. Now there's 41% Democrats versus 31.5% Republicans.
Thanks to the rolling disaster that is George W. Bush.
The tactics that worked in 2004 cannot work this time. McCain will get every Republican, but he'll lose the election, simply because his base is smaller.
@ petekent 8:32:
Yep, that ad sure was an attention-grabber. Now, the jury is still out if it was a good ad or a bad ad but the McCain-camp is surely delighted to get a little attention after the Obama-trip. Now, attention for attention´s sake, who is usually doing this????
Alex S
Quite right, McCain grabbed the attention and made Obama look foolish and support for him misplaced. McCain has bought room to talk about the issues.
Right now, McCain needs to do all he can to drive up Obama's negatives. Obama has gotten a free pass and before the Messianic fervor sweeps the country he must be shown to have feet of clay. Once the damage has been done to Obama by the late August conventions McCain will have plenty of time to accentuate the positive.
Polling should improve for McCain as a result of the strategy. There could be a short lived sympathy bounce for Obama, but I am not so sure, since he is being portrayed as having started this with his outrageous race baiting comments.
Right now, McCain needs to do all he can to drive up Obama's negatives.
This is dangerous for McCain on several levels, with no strong benefit.
I know that it's difficult for Republicans to believe this, but most Americans really don't believe that the Democratic party would put up a Huey Newton/Che Guevara/Bin Laden up as a candidate. It just isn't credible. Republicans have spent so much time in their bubble world that they still believe that they have unquestioned credibility with the American people. They don't. That vanished as Bush spent over a year making upbeat statements about Iraq as it crumbled into the mess that necessitated the surge. It faded as soon as people saw that the Bush tax cuts didn't improve the economy for them, but rather for a few extremely wealthy people. You simply can't call half of the country "far left" and "traitors" for years and expect to remain credible.
Republicans have spent so long believing that speaking the magical words "liberal" and "traitor" will automatically suspend the critical thinking of Americans that they now have become victims of their own rhetoric.
What these attack ads will do is send McCain's "idiot choir" into a frenzy and they will make a fool out of their own candidate. Independents will hear these rabid, shrill, and ignorant shills and strongly desire to distinguish themselves from McCain. It doesn't matter if McCain "disowns" them or not; the mental association will be made with McCain and the idiot choir. We've all seen these rabid trolls here, but that's just the internet. Wait until the media puts these jackasses on display and makes Ron Paul supporters seem sane and reasonable by comparison.
So, yes, go negative and lose independents as your idiot choir goes into convulsions. Please.
What is supremely ironic in this moronic comparison with the class act presidential candidate and Britney Spears/ Paris Hilton:
the other guy is the one that MARRIED the rich, blonde bimbo!
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解,av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, G點,性感內衣,情趣內衣,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,後庭,情色論譠,影片下載,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片,同志,聊天室,運動彩券,,大樂透,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢,懷孕,美女交友,交友,日本av ,日本,機票,香水,股市,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命,姓名配對,姓名學,姓名學免費,遊戲,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯,購物車,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,六合彩,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,水噹噹,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家公司,中和搬家,台北搬家,板橋搬家,新店搬家,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,交友,越南新娘,婚友社,外籍新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,交友,外籍新娘,視訊聊天,大陸新娘,婚友社,婚友,越南新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,視訊交友,外籍新娘,網路排名,網路排名軟體,網站排名優化大師,關鍵字排名大師,網站排名seo大師,關鍵字行銷專家,關鍵字,seo,關鍵字行銷,網頁排序,網頁排名,關鍵字大師,seo大,自然排名,網站排序,網路行銷創業,汽車借款,汽車借錢,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,拉皮,抽脂,近視雷射,隆乳,隆鼻,變性,雙眼皮,眼袋,牙齒,下巴,植牙,人工植牙,植髮,雷射美容,膠原蛋白,皮膚科,醫學美容,玻尿酸,肉毒桿菌,微晶瓷,電波拉皮,脈衝光,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,英語演講,托福,Toastmaster,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車借款,汽車貸款,汽車貸款,借錢,借貸,當舖,借款,借貸,借錢,週轉,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment