Fighting Back
“He who hesitates is a damned fool” - Mae West
Senator Obama seems genuinely uncomfortable with confrontation, this is apparent from watching the few heated exchanges from the many Democratic debates. This is partially due to his basing his campaign on bringing “a new kind of politics” to America. His has disarmed himself from launching attacks on Hillary. Even Edwards, who most would assume would support Obama, has offered as his excuse for waiting that Obama doesn’t seem like a fighter.
As Jonathan Martin at the Politico points out, Obama is way too slow to respond to attacks. And Hillary’s attacks often come right before a major electoral event. Perhaps it’s the educated liberals running his campaign momentarily assuming that the less educated public wouldn’t take the attacks seriously. This is why swift boating sunk Kerry. There seems to be a curve of sorts where up to a breaking point, the more ridiculous the attack the more effective it becomes because there is a lower chance of there being a response. The Obama campaign’s current approach could become even more damaging as Hillary’s anti-Obama 527’s get off the ground.
A winning mantra: Only attack in defense, but don’t hesitate for a moment to respond when attacked. Do not let a news cycle go by without a response. No matter how ridiculous or offensive the attack, hit back. Temper your response based on how damaging the attack may be, and the risk of backfire, but don’t wait to respond. Every counterattack should be unmistakably structured as a response to an attack, as setting the record straight and reminding the people why we need to turn the page on the politics of destruction and deception.
Comment by Allan Niemerg on 21 February 2008 at 5:48 pm:
I agree that he seems uncomfortable with confrontation, especially in the debates. But I don’t agree that Obama has been slow to respond to attacks. The attacks mentioned in the Politico article are Republican attacks, and right now to become embroiled with the republicans could distract the campaign from beating Hillary. It would also create opportunities for errors that could be exploited to Hillary’s gain. Obama’s focus must remain on responding to Clinton’s attacks, and I think he has done that.
I think Hillary’s development of 527s just shows why Obama should not limit himself to public financing in the election–republicans will build an enormous “swift boat” complex to go after him, and he will be limited in his response. The logic of publicly financed campaigns–the disproportionate influence of wealthy donors–is irrelevant when you have almost a million Americans making donations, often in very small amounts.
But I do think the strategy Augur has outlined is the correct one. I would also add the Rovian strategy: Attack your opponent’s perceived strengths. With Hillary, attack her “experience,” with McCain, attack his foreign policy “experience.”