Rachel Maddow said Obama camp is inept

[my3boyz]

She said the McCain campaign has successfully made this campaign about Barack. She said Obama's campaign does not seem to know how to pivot it back so that it can be a referendum on Bush and the economy. She says if it remains about Barack he will lose. First time she seemed clearly disappointed in the Obama campaign.

I have to admit this is my first time feeling really disappointed. Obama has to fight back. He either has to do it himself or select his VP attack dog and let them do it. He can't let this go unanswered. They are slime and they are trying to define him. It is working. Even the most pathetic/ridiculous attacks are working.

[tedoll78]

1. This was my one concern about an Obama candidacy.

Would he FIGHT?

I'm disappointed thus far.

"Is this the best you've got?" is catchy to those of us who already pay attention.. but to your average (i.e., dumb) voter, I'm not so sure it'll get Obama very far.

[doc03]

19. I agree you got to get down to the 5th grade level

to get the average American's attention.

[tedoll78]

26. Pretty much.

In this country, flawlessly discussing the details of mortgage finance policy will get you less political mileage than calling your opponent a "big stupid doo-doo head" during a press conference.

Obama's camp had better realize this, and soon.

[gateley]

2. Although I've really liked the responses from Obama's campaign a LOT,

I see her point about pivoting the focus back to the issues, and getting it off of HIM.

[Whisp]

59. the press are the pivoters - doesn't matter what obama says

they will take it in the direction they need it to go - get McCain elected.

[Mz Pip]

3. I wish I could disagree

Warning people that his opponents will try to scare them isn't enough. Obama needs to warn America why it should be scared of McCain.

I really hoped the mocking of the ads and of the tactics would be enough. Obama has been clever and funny but that doesn't seem to be enough to counter the scary Black terrorist rock star crap McCain is running on.

We can say McCain is desperate but whatever he is doing seems to be working.

[TexasObserver]

4. We heard EXACTLY the same WRONG opinions during the primary.

McCain has not done anything Bill and Hill didn't already do, and do better than McCain.

Recall that a few months ago, we had pundits constantly opining: "if Obama keeps allowing them to make this about him, he's going to lose."

So far this year, Obama has been right about most things, while the Clintons, the GOP, McCain, and the world of Rovian pundits have been wrong.

People need to stop buying into everything the MSM and GOP float, and that includes Rachel Maddow.

[my3boyz]

6. I would be able to ignore it if the poll numbers weren't moving in McCain's favor. nt

[goodgd_yall]

9. Yeah, and we know how reliable polls are

3 months before an election. Remember the primaries?

[TexasObserver]

20. I don't believe any of the numbers are moving McCain's favor.

I know that when Gallup has a couple of days of questionable polls results, members of the punditocracy talk as if there has been a shift, but it's bullshit. No one who is paying attention to any of this is changing their mind RIGHT NOW. In the summer, the people who are undecided or subject to movement are not even watching the presidential race. They are boating, and vacationing, and barely know who the major parties have running for president.

The ONLY people paying any attention to this race right now are people who already have their minds made up on who they will vote for in November. That's why the total of voters whose opinions are given are somewhere around 85-90% each time.

There are 45% who are GOING to vote for Obama, and they will not change.

There are 40% who are GOING to vote for McCain, and they will not change.

It's the other 15% of voters who are up for grabs. 5% will vote for a third party candidate, and the other 10% will decide the election, BUT NOT UNTIL THEY WAKE UP FROM THEIR 46 MONTH NAP. These voters never know who they will vote for until the last two months, every four years.

[totodeinhere]

30. The problem is that as long as the polls say it's close, whether the polls are accurate or not,

then the pukes will see an opening to try to steal the election again. And the MSM will swallow it hook line and sinker like they always do.

[TexasObserver]

45. I agree with that.

Which is the reason we have MSM constantly telling us it's so close. MSM is in the tank for McCain. The globalists who own MSM control the messages through their off camera management teams.

[Cha]

23. Don't believe shit from the corporate media and

you'll feel better.

[Jawja]

53. And the best way is to

TURN THEM OFF.

This election cycle, I am not listening to the GOP crony Corporate Media GASBAGS. They are working on behalf of an agenda, and it's NOT an agenda for the Middle Class or the American People as a whole.

After struggling with them in 2000 and 2004 with their treatment of Gore and Kerry, I refuse to put myself through it again.

They are not going to change.

[Connie_Corleone]

10. You're right.

The best way to deal with this crap is to talk about what Obama's plans are for the country and call out McCain when he takes the low road. Ridicule McCain's attacks and get people laughing at them and realizing how silly they are. Obama is good at that.

While McCain is trying to smear Obama, he's ruining his own image among those Independent voters who liked the McCain of 2000.

[TexasObserver]

24. Apply Occam's Razor: Which is more likely?

Apply Occam's Razor: Which is more likely?

a. That people are closely watching the race and daily change their minds about who they will vote for, and whether they will vote, or

b. Polls are imprecise, even when done well, even when done with large, well selected samples, and the variations seen in them are best explained by methodologies and biases of pollsters, not actual movement of voters.

Middle voters - let's call them what they are - they're low information voters who do not follow politics, who wait until the last two months every four years, and then try to figure out what everyone else already knows: what these two main candidate really advocate. If the middle voters weren't off doing everything BUT following this presidential election this summer, all those campaign efforts in September and October wouldn't be needed.

The people who will decide the election ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION RIGHT NOW. They are therefore not moving around every day and every week on who they support for president.

You wrote "While McCain is trying to smear Obama, he's ruining his own image among those Independent voters who liked the McCain of 2000."

McCain has reversed himself on key issues that made him attractive to independents, to middle voters. He is selling himself as more conservative than Bush. He's certainly become more warring than Bush. All that endears him to the GOP base, but he's got that chunk any way. He cannot win by appealing to rightwing themes that do not have currency with middle voters.

[uponit7771]

51. plus 1

[kurtboss]

34. You're Partly Right

Obama shouldn't be responding. And his problem in the primaries is that he didn't have the full Dem party behind him. What disturbs me is that no one appears to have his back. Where the fuck are the Democrats creating new stories???? Pounding the McCain=Bush III narrative??? Or doing what the GOP is doing and hit a hot button topic like sex, drugs, 9/11, nukes, abortion, bin laden-->that would attract attention...But you're right, Obama shouldn't be doing it.

[TexasObserver]

46. Yes, we need an army of surrgates playing defense and going Offense

Democrats have to do better in that regard.

[dkf]

44. But Bill and Hillary didn't have the right wing wurlitzer.

We simply don't have the little guy media power they do.

Yeah, we rule the blogosphere, but we aren't going to catch all the easily impressed low information voters they get.

[depakid]

47. This ain't the primary -and Rove Co. ain't Mark Penn

though if you care to recall, some of Clinton's attacks were effective in the rust belt, where the election will be decided.

I happened to listen to that segment and Dr. Maddow's (a Rhodes Scholar with a PhD in Political Science from Oxford) analysis was not only spot on, but if things keep on as they're been going- decidedly prescient.

There may well be a LOT of disappointed polyanna's here come November 5th if the campaign allows the Republicans to continue to control the focus and frame the debate.

From many of the comments here, the prevailing sentiment seems to be "take the high road, "we don't "go negative," and McCain and the corporate media are full of shit- people will see through it.

My hope is that the Obama campaign is smarter than that- but after the past 20 years, I'll have to see it to believe it.

[TexasObserver]

50. No, they weren't. Those are voters that vote GOP for president.

Stop believing every meme the GOP MSM feeds you.

Sorry. Better luck next time.

[kennetha]

66. But the primaries

were only an internecine struggle among pretty committed democrats. The GE isn't about persuading people already inclined to vote democratic that they should choose this dem over that dem. Completely different situation.

[cliffordu]

5. I think the period of time between the conventions and the election are going to

be very different than what's going on now. If not, Hello, Canada!!!!

[quantass]

11. And we Canadians will Welcome You, eh!

:hi:

[cliffordu]

25. Aw, shucks, that's great to hear!!! Can I start practicing 'Eh" ahead of time??

:hi:


By the way....

Do you have AA in Canada or is it all Molson, all the time???

:rofl:

[Connie_Corleone]

12. Yes, it will.

I remember when Craig Crawford all but declared the Obama campaign dead back in November. Obama stepped it up big time by December.

[gateley]

13. Got room?

[goodgd_yall]

7. You're watching too much cable TV

What's with this "it is working"----got evidence, or are is it a case of the nervous nelly?

[quantass]

14. The polls seem to reflect that its working -- which is a shame

[goodgd_yall]

21. In what way?

And since when are polls reliable? If you remember the primaries, people didn't coalesce around a candidate until the election was nigh upon them. I'm expecting the same for the General. I say, don't be downhearted. Obama will prevail. Obama has the support of the young and we saw how enthusiastic they were for him in the primaries. These are not people the pollsters are reaching. And Texas Observer upthread makes a good point about this season of the year too which I think is spot on.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. Of course it's a referendum on Obama, that's the point

People want change and like Obama's message. The only way Republicans can win is if they scare enough people into not voting for Obama. Attacking McCain can only get you so far because McCain won't be judged on his merits. McCain is simply the nice old white man that is there if people decide they aren't ready for Obama. No campaign can change that.

[book_worm]

15. Rachel is on record as saying for some time she expects McCain to win even before the primaries were

over and she also predicted that Hillary would take it all the way to the convention. She's a pundit like everyone else and is sometimes wrong. I think we have to take these day by day polls with a grain of salt. They will be up and down. Nearly every poll shows Obama leading and leading in the key swing states and doing better than any democrat in years in some red states.

[comtec]

54. Rachel is right more than she is wrong

and it wasn't Just that Hilary would take it to the convention, she added a qualifier, of if something isn't done to appease Hilary.. .and it really seems like something was!

And to be honest, unlike some other pundits Rachel not only has her DOCTORATE, she's a rhodes scholar.. she knows HER stuff better than nearly anyone OUT there on the reich!

I am really scared she's right...bang, dead on target!

[doc03]

16. I agree with her 110% n/t

[NorthCarolina]

17. Rachel is pretty damn wise

and folks would do well to listen carefully to her words. She is very intuitive, and she pretty much tells it like it is.

[CTyankee]

62. As a lesbian, Rachel is probably more acutely sensitive to smear stuff

than a lot of heteros on the political scene. She "tunes" in to stuff that many of us don't and that is a bit scary. I take her viewpoints very seriously, her counsel is of utmost importance to Obama's campaign.

[OwnedByFerrets]

18. McSame is running a well used Rovian tactic....

let the media do your work for you. He runs an ad in a small market for pennies and the media runs with it for days. Its priceless. I dont see much different in BOs campaign than I saw in Kerrys. And I know Kerry actually won the election, but I want a freaking landslide in november, not a chew my fingernails all nite moment.

[karynnj]

56. There is one consolation, if Obama's campaign is as good or better than Kerry's,

he will win by far more than Kerry, because so many of the underlying factors have shifted enormously to the Democrats. In 2004, the war was a year and a half old and even many people who thought we shouldn't have invaded, still believed that in the long run, it could lead to a better situation. The economy was seen as not that bad.

I think that Maddow's observation that they are making this about Obama is true, BUT it ignores that it is the pundit class that she is part of that is doing so - and it ignores the news cycles when Obama and his surrogates, make the issue McCain.

In fact, the word "ignore" is an understatement, the media puts it's thumb on the scale continuously. Consider that on FTN, Scheiffer asked Kerry, about his changed opinion on McCain, pretty much asking if McCain changed or Kerry's position. (Slightly biased, but fair) Kerry answered with a long list of issues where McCain changed his position 180 degrees. Sceiffer, then interrupted with a faux shocked tone in his voice, "Are you questioning his integrity?" (Note the irony that the MEDIA in 2004 pushed the theme Kerry flip flopped, even though there was NO list like the McCain one that could back that up.) Then consider how little outrage there was over "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran". No Democrat could have been politically alive after something so stupid and damaging to foreign policy.

[azmouse]

22. Rachel's words are not gospel.

She's a pundit. I trust Obama and his people to do what is right for them. It's worked well so far.

[Middle finga]

27. The media talking heads have been trying to give advise to Obama

on how he should run his campaign since he entered the primaries and they've been wrong the entire time. I really wish they would all just STFU and get out of the way. This election should be between the Candidates and the people. The Corporate media should get of the middle of this process and stop trying to define the candidates or create the narrative.

[woolldog]

35. So true.

I'm just so annoyed with all the punditry and "analysis" and hyperventilation over minor swings in polls.

[Thrill]

28. I don't agree with that. While I do think they need to hit back harder. Its hard when

all MSM will talk about is the Rove/Mccain talkingpoints. He was hitting McCain hard today. But all we've heard about is Britney Spears and Paris Hilton yet again.

[Virginia Dare]

29. I don't think so..

McCain's camp is very undisciplined clearly scrambling right now. I think Obama is doing just fine.

[Zomby Woof]

31. But Maddow's opinion has never been worth a shit

Doesn't matter which side the pundit is on - anyone who does half their homework can outsmart a pundit.

[Alcibiades]

36. She's paid to talk

Anyone who is paid to fill airtime will get things wrong. It's not like this was in the APSR.

[Political Heretic]

40. Oh Puh-leeze.

She's not a pundit. She's a Doctor of Political Science and an expert. She's also incredibly intelligent and her analysis has very regularly proven true in the end.

Does that mean her word is gospel? Of course not. But never been worth a shit? Sounds like someone's bitter about the primaries still.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

63. I have a doctorate in political science. Doesn't mean that I'm always right.

Rachel should know better. While she is right in the sense that Obama needs to hit back harder on the ISSUES in his ads, she knows that the M$M has always shilled for the Reich and McSame in particular. Rachel should be asking where the Democrats are. Why isn't she? Why is she just blaming Obama? And furthermore, has she heard any of Obama's summits on foreign policy and the recent economic meeting he had this week? He is sticking to the issues and hammering away at McSame. Just because the M$M doesn't care to report this doesn't mean that he isn't doing so. His ads need to be better. The DNC should also be airing more effective ads containing McSame's lies, gaffes, and outrageous missteps.

The Democratic Congress need to CONDEMN McSame's despicable, incendiary remarks about how Obama would rather lose a war. They were quick to condemn MoveOn.org but allow McSame to get away with his outrageous remarks that essentially accuse Obama of being a traitor. Where's the anti-McSame resolution?

WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE DEMOCRATS, RACHEL!??!?!??!?!

[Political Heretic]

64. Yeah, that's exactly what I said - so what's the point of your post title again?

I do believe I said that it doesn't make her always right.

[Zomby Woof]

69. I was never bitter *during* the primaries

My opinion of pundits (pieces of expensive paper on their walls notwithstanding) predates DU, let alone half the lifespans of DUers.

I am sure you wish this has something to do with Obama. It doesn't. I just hate blind hero worship - especially for overpriced talking heads.

[kurtboss]

32. As usual She's Right, Dems need to CREATE diversions

But...Obama's problem is that the Dems haven't been able to change the story. Obama isn't going to attack (can't really, as the black candidate), where oh where are the surrogates to change the story??? Keep pounding the McCain=Bush III line.

[jillan]

33. Agreed - Now is not the time to play nice.

Go get him Obama.

[TwilightGardener]

37. Ouch. But Obama is starting to swing back, we'll have to wait and see.

[swishyfeet]

38. Rachel knows how to kick Buchanan's ass, but predicting victory is another story

Nobel prize winning economists ought to be making billions in the stock market.
But they aren't.

The prediction business is altogether different.

[JackORoses]

39. Newsflash: Rachel also said Hillary was going to the Convention, repeatedly

She does not know all.

She has her opinion and that is all.

[LVjinx]

71. And last I heard, Hillary will not only be going to the convention, but speaking there

[DeepModem Mom]

41. K&R

[jobycom]

42. She's wrong. They're just off-balance. It'll pass.

Obama's coming off a high with his foreign trip, so you'd expect him to stumble a bit. He's not doing anything wrong, it's just that McCain, and mostly the media, fought back harder than he expected. Plus, it was never going to be easy, and we all need to realize that. This was always going to be a close, nasty, racist, ugly fight.

But the issues will take center stage, sooner or later. When they get to a debate and McCain is babbling about Paris Hilton and Obama says "We are paying too much for gasoline, unemployment is too high, our troops are too far away, our nation is in greater danger of economic collapse than it has ever been, and only one of us is even talking about fixing it," all of McCain's little petty crap will look silly.

Obama will make the adjustments, and he'll win.

[TheDonkey]

43. Maddow can STFU. She knows very well that the MSM is framing the debate, not McSame

[depakid]

48. Yep- toss another one under the bus

because you don't like what she's saying.

[Lisa0825]

57. One STFU doesn't exactly equate to tossing under the bus.

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen a deluge of "Rachel, you are DEAD to me!!!11!" posts. :shrug:

[lamp_shade]

49. I have to agree with her

But where are our VP attack dogs? They're sitting on a bench like a bunch of seagulls (mine,mine,mine), hesitant to open their mouths for fear of appearing obvious. I wish he'd pick a VP now.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

52. The media will ONLY discuss personality and not issues.

Good luck with Obama trying to get them to talk about issues. It is not the fault of the campaign - I think they've been about as good as they're going to be allowed to be.

[JoFerret]

55. I know we don't think it should be but

if this campaign is going to be all about Barack then we lose.

[NewJeffCT]

58. It does concern me because August has killed Democrats in the past

like Kerry in 2004 and Dukakis in 1988.

we're now in August and I still see the Democrats trying to play nice and playing defense instead of playing offense.

I still get pissed when somebody like Wes Clark says that McCain being shot down doesn't qualify him to be president, and then the wave of mock outrage forces Obama to repudiate Clark. Phil Gramm is much closer to McCain than Clark is to Obama, yet Gramm is still working for McCain despite the "nation of whiners" comment.

[Kokonoe]

60. The script is written.

Like a great novel, the election story of McCain's win is played out.
The media corps, fake polls and election fraud are the crown jewels of the McCain campaign.

But don't expect the media to stray from the McCain script. When the national media says they are tied in the polls,
the electronic tabulators will take care of the rest.

Since Hillary Clinton lost, the writers had to do a Hasty rewrite for Obama that seems to be based on the race card.
If we know how the story is supposed to go, it may offer a chance to rewrite the story with an Obama victory.

[book_worm]

61. inept? let's see, he beat the Clinton machine and he's leading McCain

what we have on DU is a bunch of folks who don't understand that polls fluctuate especially day by day "tracking polls" and every little blip down that Obama may be they tend to panic and start posting that 'Obama is in trouble' and whatever else. Obama is a smart guy. He's not Kerry. He has a great team.

[Phx_Dem]

67. Sometimes I think Rachel

says things like this to keep the Obama camp on its toes. She isn't a fawner and, perhaps, doesn't want Obama's team to get complacent because everyone is fawning over them. She's extremely intelligent and I think she knows the Obama camp is anything but inept. He didn't handily beat the Clintons by being inept. Obama ran a brilliant campaign.

Here's a link from Raw Story about three separate economic models that predict a CLEAR Obama win.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Economic_models_predict_clear_Obama_win_0801.html

[Phx_Dem]

65. I love Rachel, but I think she's way wrong

on this issue. This campaign has ALWAYS been about Obama -- even in the primaries it was all about Obama. He is an anomoly in American politics. This is his campaign to lose and McCain knows that; which is why he is trying to knock Obama off his pedestal. I don't think it's working, but this campaign never has been, nor ever will be about John McCain. If McCain were to win -- and he won't -- it would be because he created doubt ABOUT OBAMA, not because he successfully turned the spotlight on himself and his issues, or made himself a better candidate than Obama. He knows that is not possible so his only hope is to bring Obama down.

John McCain can bring planes down, but I think that's about the extent of his ability.

Rachel is awesome, but she's been wrong about a number of things in this election.

(Mrs Phx_Dem)

[gblady]

68. Rachael....

is impressive in her knowledge in a lot areas...

but in this thinking that Barack is going to lose...
I disagree totally.

Just like I disagreed with her about Hilary taking it to the convention...

And it just pisses me off to hear her talk about President McCain...
I just want to smack her when she says that....grrrrrrr!

[ericgtr]

70. I completely agree with Rachel

As much as everyone hates the idea, he must fight back or end up like Kerry.