Via Email: Hold Steady

Miller hittin it up one mo' time:

"Since my last post is looking faintly ridiculous now that McCain is, in fact, running the table in the toss-up states (serves me right for not waiting to see what effect the Palin bump had on the electoral map), I've asked Greer if I could post a follow-up. I'll be making the case that there's still cause for cautious optimism, but for different, better reasons.

If you'll permit a World War II analogy, we're in the dark days of the war. McCain's attack ads are akin to the London Blitz, or the "Happy Time," when German U-Boats torpedoed American ships and we were helpless to stop them. Putting Palin on the ticket is Pearl Harbor.

The reason I think the analogy is useful and not totally frivolous is this: Even though the situation seemed dire, and even though Germany and Japan had momentum at that point, once the United States entered the war, there was an underlying disparity in potential power that strongly favored the Allies, provided they had enough time to fully mobilize.

That the underlying conditions favor Obama in this election is well understood. But a more important point I'm trying to make with the analogy is that this is no time for risky game-changers. (That's what the other guy does in this situation, and what we've seen McCain do, skillfully.) It's a time to marshal those underlying advantages and methodically turn the tide. Ironically, I guess I'm advocating that Obama stay the course and indeed mount a surge, by reinforcing and refining his message rather than abandoning it to try something else.

I believe that Republicans would love to see Obama get mad and fight dirty (or try to, anyway). I also believe it would be disastrous for him, which is why they'd love to see it. Why would it be disastrous? First, Democrats in general will never be able to effectively practice Republican tactics, I don't think. We just aren't any good at it. We need our own playbook. Second, Obama in particular has built his campaign on the promise of a new kind of politics. To abandon that principle now would look like flailing, and it would mark him as just another full-of-it politician. Third, Obama is in a bit of a bind: he doesn't want to be seen as simply taking the abuse, the way Kerry did, but if he ever got truly mad, he might well come across as the Angry Black Man and activate certain people's nightmares. Whether or not that represents an unfair double standard, I believe the other side is giddy at the prospect. It would be playing right into their hands.

Fortunately, that's not likely, because of the fourth reason why getting mad and fighting dirty wouldn't work: It's not in Obama's nature, just as it wasn't in Gore's or Kerry's. Obama's a cool customer, not a hothead. And there's nothing more obvious or pathetic than a wannabe tough guy. In other words, acting like he'd lost his cool and was now fighting mad would be just as bad, in its own way, as getting mad for real. No one would buy it, and he'd look foolish. And thankfully, he hasn't gone that route, despite a great many commentators urging him to. (Well, urging him to get mad one way or the other, but given Obama's temperament, I think he'd have to fake it. Incidentally, as often as not, I hear this argument coming from the right, which should tell us something.)

One of the reasons the last couple weeks have been so frustrating is that we've essentially seen the Republicans and their shills in the press taunting Obama. They're like assholes in a bar, or on the playground back in the day, "accidentally" jostling him, coughing the word "wuss," and generally seeing how much they can get away with before he snaps. (It would be nice if members of the press, who unfortunately don't fit neatly into either of my analogies, would point out how idiotic the provocations were instead of chanting "Get in the ring!" with everybody else, but alas.)

It's infuriating, for sure. And in one version of the story--one I consider tied to Republican sensibilities--here's where your Clint Eastwood or Chuck Norris decides he's had enough and whups some ass. Only, we all know that's not how it would go down. If they're picking a fight, it means they're pretty sure they can win. Take the bait without knowing Aikido or something, and you're likely to come away bloodied and humiliated.

So what can you do about it? What should Obama do? You can try telling yourself that you're better than they are, which is no doubt true, but not much consolation. It didn't do wonders for Kerry. A better option is the one we fantasize about deploying in such a situation when we're not fantasizing about judo we don't know: the snappy comeback. This, I believe, is Obama's best bet.

There are many varieties, some of which he's used fairly effectively: for example, playing something off with humor, as when he started referring to his cousin Dick Cheney. Or the scathing non-sequitur, as when both Obama and Biden went after McCain's seven houses. So far, we haven't seen Obama execute the perfect comeback, which would not only defuse or deflect an attack but turn it right around on McCain. Still, Obama's doing a much better job of this than Democrats traditionally have. The main thing, though, is that you want your response to play to your strengths and your opponent's weaknesses, not the reverse.

Getting back to favorable underlying conditions and inexorably turning the tide, one development that gives me hope is that I think McCain may have reached the point where he can't go any lower without risking a backlash. Both the "lipstick on a pig" kerfuffle and the allegation that Obama supported sex ed for kindergarteners seem to have finally drawn cries of foul from the sidelines, most visibly on The View, but also in The Post, for example. It would be nice if a backlash actually developed, but I'd settle for McCain's having arrived at the limit of what he can get away with.

What else gives us cause for cautious optimism? Well, the debates are still ahead, and I expect Obama to win. As one luminary put it, "a roast chicken could out-debate McCain, especially if the debates are after 7:30 pm (McCain's bedtime)."

That still leaves the Biden-Palin debate--impossible to predict, but potentially combustible--and the Palin phenomenon in general.

One thing that worries me there is what I see every time I settle for Safeway instead of Whole Foods: People magazine and its ilk, showing Palin playing with her golden retriever (or something--I don't remember the actual cover) or the McCains looking like the kind of family you'd have over for Thanksgiving dinner, if you're a People reader. I don't think we should underestimate the effect of such testaments to McCain's and especially Palin's folksiness and approachability.

I'm also discouraged by the way they've been able to neutralize media scrutiny of Palin by decrying it as a witch hunt before it had even really begun. But surely, even if potential scandals like Troopergate don't amount to anything, we'll hear more about her being for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it, or the earmarks--in other words, not scandals, but cases where she's quite plainly misrepresenting herself. (It would also be nice to hear more about her more extreme views, or for the media to find occasion to test her knowledge of foreign affairs, past easy-to-memorize answers. That doesn't exactly qualify as an attack, you know?)

I think that may be the best we can hope for on that front. I don't think we'll see enthusiasm for her wane--I don't think there can be any doubt at this point that she's formidable and energizing, and that picking her was a masterful choice--but we might see people figuring out that she and McCain aren't really the straight-shooting, truth-telling maverick reformers they're supposed to be, and that Obama, while also a savvy politician and not a saint, has at least been conducting himself somewhat more highmindedly, and that he's been steadfast about it. If that counts for anything.

It's not a sure thing by any means, but I still see the tide turning before it's too late."