Letters posted here are associated with the following article:

34
Letters
Tuesday, October 7, 2008 12:00 AM

The strategically erratic strategist

The Los Angeles Times profiles top McCain adviser Steve Schmidt.

The letters thread is now closed.

View:
Tuesday, October 7, 2008 08:18 AM

The premise is flawed

A 10 point win was far from automatic even in a race like this. With a popular Republican candidate chosen, there was always a chance he would win; McCain vs Clinton had McCain winning in January polling. If Obama can pull out a victory in 4 weeks, I'm not going to spend much time worrying over if he could have won by an even wider margin.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008 08:23 AM

Faulty logic

You say: we may legitimately conclude that Obama lost the campaign but won the election.

Some people may conclude this based on Eyore type of thinking, but based on your explanation of the Steve Schmidt erratic campaign strategy, it does not strike me as being a logical conclusion to say that Obama loses the campaign if indeed the McCain strategy doesn't prevent him from getting all the votes he needs to win the election.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008 08:27 AM

Wrong track info needed...

When you quote polls that the majority of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, you should also acknowledge that about half this electorate are willing to vote for a continuation (or even radicalization) of the Bush policies.

The fact that half the people I interact with daily are this stupid makes me think of leaving Dumbfuckistan for a civilized one...

Tuesday, October 7, 2008 08:28 AM

Two things...

It is FAR from fact that the selection of Palin was "successful". Under what dillusional cloud are you standing? Such pronouncements require proof. If it's your opinion say so, because facts increasingly point away from your statement.

Secondly, it is disgusting to discuss a strategist who admits that his campaign is engaged in a "shock" 'em with anything to get people's attention plan, no matter what the cost. It's all about winning, it's not about the citizenry and the future of the country.

While Palin is pathetically trying to smirk her accusations that Obama is "unAmerican" the McCain campaign's deliberate attempt at storm trooper strategies is the most arrogant, dangerous, callous, egocentric, cynical and UNAMERICAN behavior I have witnesses during the course of my awareness of politics.

Shame on them. And shame on you for reporting it like it is just a little insider strategy talk.

Have you guys all lost your minds...and your sense of decency?

Tuesday, October 7, 2008 08:30 AM

let the excuse-making begin

no, really. so the race would inevitably "trend obama"? glad to hear it, but it sounds like schmidt et al. are laying the groundwork for a major do-over in '12, perhaps with palindrone at the top of the ticket.

look, the reason the race is still shockingly close despite all the issues that favor dems is that the country has been, is, and will be hardened along partisan lines in ways that have been building for a generation.

also, all the "shocks" that schmidt was planning in the campaign pale in comparison to the major economic shock that everyone's feeling. it's fireworks in the midst of a tsunami.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008 08:30 AM

Palin pick a success

With negatives rising, I just have to ask...really? Starting to look like a huge liability. A person that could sit down with the media and get a coherent message out might have been a better choice.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008 08:34 AM

Mad bomber strategy?

Given that GW Bush ran both of his tainted and questionable wins in 2000 and 2004 as if he had a mandate, I think it's ludicrous to try to pin a strategic loss on Obama if he doesn't win by a landslide -- if the Democrats manage to widen their hold in Congress and Obama wins the White House, that's a workable majority, there. Seems like if there's not a landslide in the offing, Democratic pundits find their knees knocking.

But GW Bush had no mandate in 2000, and none in 2004 -- the tallies definitely show that. But he ran like he had a mandate, for sure, and the media breathlessly hopped into his lap, got its tummy scratched now and again.

I'm sure an Obama win next month will see an immediate return of the aggressive media that's been MIA/AWOL since 2000, but let's not piss in the swimming pool just yet, Schaller. Republican weakness (and desperation) certainly doesn't translate into Democratic strength -- the Democrats really, really need to find their feet if they're going to build a bridge to the future to combat the GOP's bridge to nowhere brand of 20th century political posturing.

But an Obama win will be significant, regardless of by how many points. And that McCain's willing to pursue a mad bomber strategy to try to win the White House all but advertises his unfitness to serve -- "anything to win" is just not what we need in our country's leadership in this new century.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008 08:34 AM

Actually.....

"it sounds like schmidt et al. are laying the groundwork for a major do-over in '12,"

Actually, I'd say it's Salon laying the groundwork for a Clinton run in '12.

"Sure, the guy won, but he could have won bigger. It's time to give Hillary a try. She *deserves* it."

An eight point win would be 54-46, often called "landslide" by the press--but not by Salon, eh?

Tuesday, October 7, 2008 08:34 AM

what?

So we should think that McCain won the campaign if Obama wins the election by 6? Man, I think 2000 really fried something deep inside the head of many....

Ok, let's keep watching to see if Obama can beat McCain at both the election and the campaign....how depressing. I'll be praying for a 7 point victory of the........election/campaign. Or does he Obama need to win the election by MORE than 7 in order to be McCain at the campaign? I guess elites earn their stripes with this kind of analysis. Can you imagine the SMART headlines on the day after the elections:

"Victory for McCain AND Obama: Obama takes the election, McCain the campaign"

I'm not very smart.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008 08:35 AM

Winning at any cost

The unstated assumption here is that it doesn't matter what they do, provided that it decreases their chance of losing the election. Harm to the country doesn't matter -- if making people afraid might help McCain, then spread the fear! Even harm to the Republican party is OK -- look at all of the lesser races that are in play for the Democrats now as the awfulness of McCain's choice of Palin sinks in. But it's all fine, because if McCain doesn't win, what else matters?

Of course, McCain didn't invent this -- Bush ran that way, too. This world view explains a lot about governance by modern Republicans. We want to fight in Iraq, so any lies we tell are OK. We want to enrich our friends, so deregulating Wall Street is great. And on and on. Sooner or later, reality intrudes. Hopefully that will happen (by a landslide) on November 4th.

Most Active Letters Threads

530

Do Obama officials know what his Afghanistan plan is?

What explains the completely contradictory statements from key aides on a central plank of the war strategy?
128

Is my kids making me not smart?

Stay-at-home fatherhood dulls my intellect to a nub. Excuse me while I ponder the subtext of "Hippos Go Berserk"
126

Trig, the anti-abortion straw baby

Sarah Palin's son is being used to demonize pro-choicers
113

I survived Glenn Beck's Christmas spectacular

The preposterous showman brings his holiday book, and waterworks, to the stage and screen. Lights! Camera! Jesus!
100

I live in a van down by Duke University

How do I afford grad school without going into debt? A '94 Econoline, bulk food and creative civil disobedience

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon