The Art Of War

What was so great about Team Obama springing to action yesterday was that it stood in contrast to the usual difference in campaign fighting styles between Democrats and Republicans. There was worry that Obama wouldn't be likely to attack in the same fashion as McCain, and would resort to "shame on you" entreaties. In actuality, he has been offering lots of contrast in local spots, but yesterday's action was swift, to the point, and overwhelming. McCain's rebuttals were scattershot, and if he's resorting to going back to the well of Rezko and William Ayers (the second ad made by an "independent" group managed by McCain's own paid consultant), well, that's good for muddying waters but it doesn't answer the major point.

However, there's another aspect that Democratic Presidential candidates must learn - the power of SUSTAINED attacks aimed at defining the opponent. The GOP does not make this a one-day affair. They continue to mock their opponent in any way possible to cut into them and make them a ridiculous figure. Peter Daou has the blueprint:

Expanding the theme, it's worth noting that the rightwing attack machine has been effective in the past because it serves a singular purpose: diminishing opponents through mockery and marginalization. Bloggers have referred to recent presidential campaigns as "genital-swinging contests" (we're using the clean version). That crude image underlines the strategy: make your opponent look small - or smaller. Shrinkage, for Seinfeld buffs. Think of how Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh and their cohorts operate - it's all about the laughter, the joking, the snide remarks, the scoffing. It's about cutting someone down to size, making them look meek and meager.

Democrats have been stumped by the technique, missing the underlying purpose and getting sidetracked by the minutiae of the attacks. 'Rovian' is an overused adjective, but it is mistaken as a strategy of attacking an opponent's strength as an end in itself, when that's just one tactic in the larger mission of systematically belittling the opponent. Going after their strength is a logical part of reducing their stature.

Democratic/progressive attacks generally run the gamut from negative character association (X is just like Y) to policy contrasts (we can handle the economy better than X) to one-off hits and 'Macaca moments' (X flubbed the name of a country) to impugning the attacker (look how nasty my opponent is). These can be effective, particularly the latter, but they are qualitatively different from the rightwing machine's diminishment of an opponent's character. That's something that Democrats don't do as well. It's less about negative frames, contrasts, rapid response, and all the other mainstays of political strategy and more about making your opponent the butt of a joke.

And this has flipped with the "doesn't know how many houses he has" comment. But it must be sustained. It's not like there aren't additional facts to add into the stew. McCain's net worth is $36 million dollars, almost 40 times that of Obama. McCain has butlers. BUTLERS! There's still the matter of getting McCain on the record about the exact number, and detailing - in excruciating detail - all the homes. There are potential events like ringing keys at the DNC and visits to all the compounds. If McCain does indeed pick rich venture capitalist Mitt Romney, then the whole thing is amplified.

The important thing is that the attack is SUSTAINED. The best example of this is the right's war on George Soros, where they clamped down and simply didn't let go:

Soros himself is now cautious about who he funds, refusing to act as lead donor in controversial initiatives where his presence could endanger the project's credibility. Similarly, various programs and groups are now more cautious about taking Soros's money because they're worried about the association. Thus, these projects don't get funded, and good work doesn't get done.

It's been a remarkable coup for the Right, who realized, in 2004, that Soros was readying to step up as an aggressive liberal donor and politicized his money so effectively that he couldn't fully inhabit his role in the liberal fundraising universe. It's been an extraordinarily effective effort to starve edgy initiatives of funding. Conversely, liberals have never put much energy into marginalizing conservative donors. If you called something Olin-funded, or Coors-funded, people would scratch their heads. Sheldon Adelson, the gambling tycoon who's pumping tens of millions into the right wing advocacy group Freedom's Watch, isn't even a household name among liberal political professionals. Yet Soros, who spent most of his life funding democratization efforts in the post-Soviet bloc, is somehow radioactive. It's nuts.

That's because, even after they've destroyed the guy, they're still going after him, like in this Michelle Malkin piece claiming that there's some clause in the DNC platform that will open up the money gates for him in an Obama White House. One, what does a billionaire like Soros need with more money? Two, if anyone ought to know about corporate welfare programs, it'd be conservatives, particularly those like Malkin who might as well get a paycheck directly from Scaife or Olin.

It's real simple; you choose your target, find a line of attack, and relentlessly hammer it in various ways, with total message discipline from surrogates (I'm looking at you, Russ Feingold). And you do it every day for about 3 months.

That's how you fight fire with fire. I would love a high-minded battle of ideals, but I'm not going to sit around waiting for it to happen.