Leaked memo: McCain is playing you, Clinton supporters

Wikileaks has a leaked memo which appears to be an internal memo from the McCain campaign to team members targeting Internet-based campaigning. The strategy? Take advantage of Clinton supporters of a specific demographic, target and inflame their anger to the point that they vote for McCain out of spite and fearmongering.

The following is the memo in pdf form found here. The entire Wikileak article, including arguments for and against its legitimacy, can be found here. Bolding is mine.


MEMORANDUM
To: (redacted)
From: S. Schmidt
Date: May 15, 2008
Subject: Clinton Strategy
According to both internal polling and exit polls by independent news
organizations, the Democratic Party is becoming increasingly polarized along
certain segments of its base. The recent result in West Virginia, while generally
unsurprising and definitely unlikely to cause any real shift in the race,
highlights the growing bitterness between certain supporters of Clinton and
the Obama camp in general. This unique situation has created an opening that
could help depress the turnout of key Democratic demographics in November.
The specific group we are targeting is a cross-section of white, female voters
over the age of 40. Internal polling reveals that this group is the most likely to
support John McCain after Obama wins the nomination. However, we expect
Obama's numbers to improve following Clinton's drop. Our job is to make sure
that number stays as low as possible.

Our limited financial resources and the media's attention on the Democratic
race, however, prevent us from reaching this group. Our aim is to point out
specific issues that we believe resonate well:
  1. Sen. Obama's connection to Rev. Wright
  2. His inexperience
  3. His links to the corrupt Chicago political machine
However, we cannot fully achieve this goal without a greater commitment on
the part of McCain's fundraisers and our various media partners. In lieu of
that, we have developed a number of inexpensive ways to reach this audience.
We have already worked to reinforce the Clinton campaign's narrative about
the unfair treatment that some networks, specifically MSNBC, have given her
camp. We are also planning to unroll a new campaign to highlight Obama's
experience deficit.
Simultaneously, our team has been testing new lines of attack through
independent pro-Clinton communities on the Internet. Our hope is that our
message here will spread by word-of-mouth.
Our local community organizing
has also been successful. We have organized dozens of "meet-ups" across the
country for Clinton supporters, and we have used that time to stress the
importance of punishing the DNC for choosing the undemocratically selected far-left Obama. At the moment, this is nothing more than a headache for the
Obama campaign. With a greater commitment on your part, I hope to see it
metastasize into something much more.
Let me know if you need more detail.
-S

Unsurprising. But I hope having this spelled out in black and white from the McCain campaign itself illuminates a situation that I think a great many Clinton supporters would recoil from falling for, given half a moment to sit and think through their disappointment and anger.

Not only are you being played, you're being played on the cheap. Your votes aren't even worth the money to earn honestly, based on policy and McCain's qualifications. No, the only reason your vote is being courted is because McCain's campaign knows anger is blinding, and they want to take advantage of that anger to blind you enough into acting as a firewall for the support Obama will gain after Clinton leaves the race.

Having said that, if you want to support McCain in November, that's your choice. But you should be aware that the people that are really taking advantage of you, and your honest anger and honest patriotism, aren't on the side of the other Democratic nominee.


-------------------------------------------------
Edit: thanks for the rec list placement. I'd like to clarify that no, I'm not trying to insult anyone with this diary. If you're insulted by McCain's campaign and their own words - viewing you as a demographic, cynically taking advantage of your deeply held beliefs and emotions that you came to on your own - don't get angry at me. I find it just as insulting as you do. And if you don't find it insulting - you're applauding his move, even if not his motives - the consider the motive. Consider how that measures up to your own standards and ideals that you've professed by supporting Clinton.

Display:


This would be the McCain who said (1.91 / 12)

"Why is Chelsea so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno?" to some audience

"That's a good question" in response to "How are you going to be beat the bitch?"

"At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." to his wife


by bobdoleisevil on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:27:15 PM EST

Heh. (none / 0)

Yeah McCain would really be great on women's issues wouldn't he?  

Do those "Democrats" considering voting for McCain realize that the man they believe to be a moderate is a dyed in the wool conservative who will be forced by his party to appoint conservative judges, maintain abstinence only education, make getting an abortion harder and harder, destroy SCHIP, continue the war in Iraq, start a war in Iran, stop sensible global warming legislation, veto universal healthcare, and generally continue this country's slow (or not so slow) descent into a third rate banana republic?

I hope they stop and consider what a McCain presidency will actually mean for American families, and cast a vote based upon that, not on some fleeting notion of revenge against Obama and Dean.

I say this with no snark intended: Rise Clinton Supporters, Rise!


by cato on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:02:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Vote for Grampy! (2.00 / 1)


by Deadalus on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:30:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain's Voting Record is 5% McCain 95% Bush (none / 0)

OMG! I can't beleive this shit!

At the moment, this is nothing more than a headache for the
Obama campaign. With a greater commitment on your part, I hope to see it
metastasize into something much more.


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:59:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: so now we have phony memos (none / 0)

Congrats on making MyDD as filthy as DailyKOS.

You people have no class.  Just trash.

The memo looks like another dirty Obama trick.

But even if it's not, appealing to women and other voters who have been trashed by the Obama campaign is perfectly legitimate.  


by PlainWords on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:02:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: so now we have phony memos (none / 0)

I have ID'd you as a McCain supporter


ENOUGH!
by JDF on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:29:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Shorter version: (1.78 / 14)

Geraldine Ferraros and Harriet Christians of the US, join us in making sure Teh Blakk Guy doesn't win. Join us in the quest for Hillary's revenge!

Sincerely,
White Men for playing White Women Like Fiddles.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:27:41 PM EST

Re: Shorter version: (2.00 / 2)

Gee Firewall that will really make women support you! Good work, unity pony.


by redwagon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:49:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shorter version: (2.00 / 1)

I'd say that this is a pretty accurate paraphrasing of the sentiment in the McCain memo. Your comment should really be addressed to the McCain camp for trying to con Clinton supporters away from Obama by capitalizing on the rawness of her impending delegate loss.


by Thadd Selden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:56:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shorter version: (2.00 / 1)

A couple things to remind yourself.

Firewall = some random guy on some random blog.

Obama = The guy who is actually running for preisident.

If your opinion of the first, influences your opinion of the second, you need to get out more.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:12:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shorter version: (none / 0)

Hear, hear.


by deminva on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:54:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is this snark...? (2.00 / 1)

not at all seriously..

But, really, this is the Democratic process. Regardless of things like this, I think the whole pundits message that we are supposed to drop our support for the only candidate that we feel is responsible enough to lead this country, the only candidate who has a workable healthcare plan, the only candidate who cares about all the people of this country.. is bullshit.

I will not give up on these important issues so that big media and big punditocracy can get their jollies...

Hillary can WIN in 2008

No way..


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:53:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this snark...? (none / 0)

It's one thing to say you're going to support Hillary while she is in the race.  Fine.  But when you suggest that when she drops out tomorrow and openly endorses and supports Obama against McW, you're going to turn your back on not only Obama but Hillary herself and work to enable Bush's 3rd term instead, that's the dropping off point for you around here.  Free Republic is calling...


NJ Hussein Independent
by NJIndependent on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:07:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Been away for over a week (2.00 / 1)

Come back to find I still can't stand the online supporters of BO. Just makes me loathe BO along with the hate peddlers who stink up DD like they have turned the orange stain et al into a cesspool.


by Newport News Dem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:52:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Been away for over a week (none / 0)

Thankfully, not everyone allows their world-view to be shaped by anonymous internet message boards.


by catalysis on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:59:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Been away for over a week (none / 0)

Sheesh. You need to find a better way to relax.


by Rationalisto on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:06:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Been away for over a week (none / 0)

I met this one guy from Chicago.  Ever since then, I can't stand the Bulls, Cubs, Bears, White Sox, or elevated trains!


John McCain
by ottto on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:40:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shorter version: (none / 0)

"Geraldine Ferraros and Harriet Christians of the US, join us in making sure Teh Blakk Guy doesn't win. Join us in the quest for Hillary's revenge!"

This is exactly the kind of insult directed at white women voters that insures they will NEVER vote for Barack Obama, his campaign has been a long series of offensive insults, directly and indirectly.

They absolutely will vote for John McCain, in droves. It's not ofensive to be called a demographic, vs being called ignorant, bitter, and racist.


by 07rescue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:45:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why never vote for (none / 0)

 My head is spinning from your convoluted LOGIC.


by xdem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:06:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shorter version: (none / 0)

If you vote for McCain because your feminist sensibilities have been offended, then you are an idiot.  Sorry to put it that way, but it's true.  The words that may have offended you are NOTHING compared to the policies that McCain will enact that will offend you even more.


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:02:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shorter version: (none / 0)

SO, your telling  me that by being mad at Obama, white women are voting for THIS guy?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/ 2007-02-19-mccain-roe_x.htm


A PROUD Hopium user!
by xodus1914 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:54:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaked memo: McCain is playing you, Clinton su (2.00 / 3)

Thanks...rec'd


"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:27:47 PM EST

Re: Leaked memo: (2.00 / 3)

Everybody rec this please.

It needs to be read.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:29:50 PM EST

What? (2.00 / 5)

Pro-Clinton communities on the Internet being used to further the campaign of McCain?  

I am shocked.  SHOCKED!


by rf7777 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:30:01 PM EST

Re: Leaked memo: (2.00 / 5)

How many times have i read BO supporters say "BO is not going to beg HRC supporters to vote for him".  Or suggestions that HRC should have to beg to support BO?  Now BO supporters may disagree and that is fine.

But the fact is these voters are up for grabs and if BO wants the support of these voters (he already has mine) in the fall he is going to have to work and work hard to get them.  As are his supporters.  

david


by giusd on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:30:43 PM EST

Re: Leaked memo: (2.00 / 2)

I use the "we're not going to beg" line all the time, but certainly not in the context you suggest.

We're not going to beg people who have nothing but venom and vituperation for Obama and who suggest that McCain (or enabling McCain) is a better alternative.

If people have legitimate concerns about Obama, or how they feel they were treated in this race, we want nothing more than to discuss this with them. But people who basically say, "Obama is a racist, sexist piece of crap who will never get my vote" doesn't exactly leave much room for conciliation. Those are the people we ain't gonna beg.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:02:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaked memo: (none / 0)

After he grabs the majority of delegates, his focus will be entirely on beating McCain, not Clinton. My concern is that Clinton's more ardent supporters will want to continue to make things about the primary race.

The best way to win over loyal Democrats should be to show the differences between Obama and McCain. Those who still won't vote for him after that is made clear won't be happy no matter how much he does. In my opinion, he shouldn't put too much effort into rehashing the primary to win them over since the only person who has a chance of swaying them is Clinton.


by Thadd Selden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:03:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaked memo: (none / 0)

If his positions he's put forth throughout this race aren't enough to lure these voters over to his camp, I don't see the viability or persuasiveness of any other arguement.

I think what you're referring to is the idea suggested by some that Obama needs to placate Hillary's supporters.  I think that would be unwise and ultimately regarded as patronizing.

In time it would be great to see a rational movement of Hillary supporters toward Obama because his positions fit their cause. Other than that I don't see how he can woo them in a way that wouldn't appear diminutive to Hillary or the historic nature of her campaign.


by Tenafly Viper on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:42:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

For the love of GOD! (none / 0)

Barack Obama is the only man on earth whos words just dont matter.  Everyone BUT him speaks for him.  

Please dont draw your opinions on why you think are Obama supporters, please dont draw your associations on you think are Obama associaties.  Please draw you conclusions directly off the impressions you get from him.  His writings his words - hell I wasn't mad people got upset over bittergate it was the only thing he actually said even though he didn't mean it, and tried like heck to tell the world what he meant.

The real fact is we are engaged in a war of agression in Iraq under pretenses that got people hung in Nuremburg.  The real facts are we have ships floating around where they torture humans to within an inch of their lives.  The real facts are we have corporate interests unchecked feeding like vultures off the hard work of real Americans while they take the profit overseas.  The real facts are you are taking your life in your hands if drive on thousands of bridges in America.  The real facts are I just paid 54 bucks to fill up a Ford Focus.  If you're on the McCain side of all that despite what anyone including the devil has to say, whatever!


by Adept2u on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:50:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaked memo: (1.14 / 7)

Looks like McCain is taking another tried-and-true technique of the Obama playbook...find a constituency that you can manipulate with negative "soft information" about your opponent and hope they flock to you in big numbers.

It worked for Obama because he's a very skillful communicator with amazing message control.  I'm not sure it will work for McCain.


The universe is a casual place, not a suit-and-tie affair.
by mtnspirit on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:30:51 PM EST

Re: Leaked memo: (2.00 / 2)

another tried-and-true technique of the Obama playbook...find a constituency that you can manipulate with negative "soft information" about your opponent and hope they flock to you in big numbers.

Evidence or retraction.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:31:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaked memo: (2.00 / 1)

Your post is evidence that it already has...


by rf7777 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:33:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaked memo: (none / 0)

Not really...truth is, I was very bummed when I wrote that post, and now I regret it.  I'm a bad democrat!


The universe is a casual place, not a suit-and-tie affair.
by mtnspirit on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:41:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leaked memo: (none / 0)

Likability counts for a lot in politics and McCain is the most likable Republican I have ever seen.

So vote for a Democratic that is not a legitimate candidate, one who only his "followers" like or vote for man that stands by his principles, even when others don't agree, a man all of DC respects on both sides of the fence?

Hmmmm  Hard choice.


by RockRooky on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:36:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Though I realize it is not authenticated... (2.00 / 5)

I find that memo to be quite believable.  It certainly would explain a lot of the behavior we have seen.  Also, it seems quite likely that the McCain campaign would engage in tactics of that sort.

It certainly seems authentic.


Check out McCain.
by you like it on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:31:51 PM EST

Rove is advising McCain (none / 0)

so I find this very believable.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:20:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ick (2.00 / 4)

At the moment, this is nothing more than a headache for the Obama campaign. With a greater commitment on your part, I hope to see it metastasize into something much more.

Stay classy, McCain supporters.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:32:18 PM EST

agreed (none / 0)

especially unfortunate "mestastasize"..


by 4justice on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:39:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's actually the word that makes me doubt (none / 0)

the authenticity of the memo.


by Liberal Monk on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:22:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Me too. n/t (none / 0)


by edg1 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:35:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You can't "stay classy"... (none / 0)

...unless you were classy to begin with.

So that really should read: Become classy, McCain supporters.


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:51:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh, Anchorman snark (none / 0)

What do you call it when you say something, but mean that they're the opposite for humorous intent?  

Wait I got it.

Sarcasm!

Dude are you being ironic?

I don't even know anymore.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:55:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heh, Anchorman snark (none / 0)

Funniest comedy of the decade.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:03:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A smart move by the McCain campaign. They saw (1.83 / 6)

that the Obama camp has created an opening for them, and they are exploiting it.  

BTW: I'm not suggesting that women vote for McCain.  I'm just pointing out that its a good political tactic that was caused by the tactics of the Obama camp.


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:34:24 PM EST

Re: A smart move by the McCain campaign. They saw (1.60 / 5)

Trolls are playing you. I'm sure you've mojo'd a few around here.

That's the point of the diary.


We want to see Ivana [Trump] because we are so desperate in Alaska for any semblance of glamour and culture. - Sarah Palin
by spacemanspiff on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:35:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A smart move by the McCain campaign. They saw (2.00 / 3)

and notice the date of the memo and now notice how many of these trolls showed up here around the same date. Next time you think someones a troll, just check out when they started posting here.


"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband
by venician on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:44:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A smart move by the McCain campaign. They saw (2.00 / 2)

You are an official assclown.

I hate to "curse" but that is the only word I can give you.

So this is Obama's fault?


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:36:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who used the term fault? (2.00 / 2)

The reality is that women voters are upset with the process right now, and McCain has noticed it and is taking advantage of it.  Its a good political move, regardless of whether you like McCain.

Listen, my Pistons were defeated by the Boston Celtics this weekend, and I was upset.  However, it was clear that whenever the Pistons double teamed Kevin Garnett by switching a player off Ray Allen, Garnett would dish it out Allen for a wide open jumper.  It was a good strategy by the Pistons, because Garnett is hard to contain one-on-one.  However, the strategy was exploited by the Celtics, who noticed that the switches were being made resulting in an open man, and made adjustments to get the ball to the open man.  I wish such a successful strategy were not used against my favorite team, but I admire it nonetheless.

How is this any different?  I'm giving McCain credit for taking advantage of a situation that is RIPE for takinga advantage of.  Should he be made fun of for taking advantage of a situation that could net him voters and help him win?


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:43:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who used the term fault? (2.00 / 4)

Made fun of? No. Exposed for being the dishonorable, disingenuous, conniving tool that exemplifies the Republican Party? Yes. This isn't a stupid move by McCain's campaign, but it is an insulting, obvious, desperate, and ill-spirited one.


by upstate girl on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:48:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We'll have to agree to disagree. To me, its just (2.00 / 1)

a politician seeing and opening, and going for it.


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:05:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We'll have to agree to disagree. To me, its j (2.00 / 0)

If you put on your democrat hat and look at this, though, doesn't it psis you off a little bit?  I certainly agree that it's a good political move for McCain (until it got leaked).  However, I find it troubling that this could be working despite the fact that in blind taste tests, democratic white women over 40 prefer Obama's policies over McCain's policies 100-0.

Okay so I didn't do the blind taste test, but I think we can imagine which a democratic white woman over 40 would pick if offered a list of McCain's positions next to a list of Obama's positions devoid of the context of the primary.


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:43:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mojo for the blind taste test. nt (none / 0)


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:28:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We'll have to agree to disagree. (none / 0)

So propaganda is good as long as it's enacted well.  In my opinion, that makes it all the more dangerous to the common good and democracy in general.


by Tenafly Viper on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:52:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We'll have to agree to AGREE WITH ME (none / 0)

Yes, McCain sees an opening, and is going for it, great. For basketball.

But lousy for Roe v. Wade.

So, if you like your politics, like you like your basketball, chuckle.

If you like your politics like you like your Supreme Court, that is, liberal, then, we should stomp it.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:16:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We'll have to agree to AGREE WITH ME (2.00 / 2)

off-base as normal. Putting partisan feelings aside is a sign of intelegence ya know. In any case the ONLY reason McSame has this opening is because of BHO "supports" who have driven so many people away from him.


by zerosumgame on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:49:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We'll have to agree to AGREE WITH ME (1.00 / 1)

I say this as respectfully as possible.

What?

Seriously.

What?


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:04:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We'll have to agree to AGREE WITH ME (none / 0)

looks liek he/she tried to write at your level.


by trytobereal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:16:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We'll have to agree to AGREE WITH ME (none / 0)

Nice typo...


by nathanp on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:08:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, as a non-female, Democrat, it certainly (none / 0)

didn't sway me to vote for McCain.  


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:31:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who used the term fault? (none / 0)

Yep.  It's almost as insulting as this diary. Millions of independent women do not need McCain's talking points or yours to guide their decisions.


by Tolstoy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:09:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who used the term fault? (none / 0)

Then get angry at the McCain campaign for taking advantage of your independent spirit and manipulating it for his own purposes. He only wants you to continue being angry - angry enough to vote for him.


by upstate girl on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:16:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who used the term fault? (none / 0)

Nobody is taking advantage of me or manipulating me.  Where do you get these crazy ideas?  You are making assumptions about people you don't know, assumptions which apparantly are only grounded in your own bias.


by Tolstoy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:21:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who used the term fault? (2.00 / 2)

Are you more insulted that someone might think you were being manipulated, or more insulted that McCain is actually trying to?


by upstate girl on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:23:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who used the term fault? (none / 0)

If you need to compare your actions with somebody else to come of less disagreeable it might be time to rethink your behavior. The argument "somebody else is more annoying then me" isn't that persuasive. You'll have more success if you approach people as if they're not easily lead sheep that need your truthtelling to be pushed back to the true path. Instead you should figure out what they are concerned about and address that.  

And yes, I can understand why some people took this diary the wrong way, because you present this diary as if McCain strategy has already worked, and that the over 40 women who support Clinton have shallowed it hook line and sinker. While the memo itself says that it isn't the case. Instead of warning people that McCain isn't genuine and is not a viable alternative to Clinton while Obama is, the dairy comes off like it says that all Clinton supporters are easily duped people. Obviously not the message you want to get across.

You didn't want to insult people, but they tell you that they were, that should tell you something. If you get a lot of pushback because people found your tone insulting then there is something wrong with how you communicated your message, then you as a communicator didn't succeed and you should pay more attention to how you phrase your words. It's your dairy and thus responsibility that it doesn't rub a lot of people the wrong way, because you want to convince people to come round to your point of view and for that to work, they have to feel that you take their  views serious and not that you think they are being naively "played" or bad hypocrites if they disagree with you.

If you want to convince people that something is bad or outrageous then it is your job to be convincing not theirs to look through your confrontational style. It's you who wants something from them, namely that they don't support the misogynist McCain out of spite over the far better Obama. So it's you who must do the heavy lifting in persuading them. And you do that by being non confrontational, nuanced and understanding to their standpoint while giving them better reasons to support Obama then they have for supporting McCain.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:49:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who used the term fault? (none / 0)

"Then get angry at the McCain campaign for taking advantage of your independent spirit and manipulating it for his own purposes."

Nonsense, what comes across is you and the diarist trying to manipulate Clinton supporters into supporting Obama by a transparent ploy. You stab friends in the back, sneer and try to browbeat them into submission and defeat with lies, innuendo, and pathological projections about their candidate, then you think you are going to get them right back on your side?  Not in a million years! Those bridges are long burned.

The Obama campaign has created a huge division in the Democratic party, and it will not just be papered over. Of course the McCain campaign should be trying to woo every demographic, just as the Obama campaign will try to. That's politics, remember?


by 07rescue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:57:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

There's a difference (2.00 / 2)

We're trying to use reasoned debate to sway your opinion.

They're trying to pretend to be one of you, or worse, one of us, and manipulate your feelings.

No, you don't need to have external stimulus to help you shape your opinions, but you choose to come here anyway.  Would you rather your opponents were honest but critical or have them lie and say only what you want to hear?

Both want your vote.  Which one has more merit?


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:18:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How about Stuckey, eh? (none / 0)

That kid is going to be a monster.


Check out McCain.
by you like it on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:51:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah. We just need to figure out what to do with (none / 0)

Rasheed Wallace.  

You can't keep a guy around for $14 million per year that you cannot count on in the playoffs (15 minutes late to shootaround in an elimination game, and only scores like 4 points?)... but having said that, you don't find such offensively and defensively skilled 6'11 players, with such a soft shooting touch and such long range, and when you do, you don't just give them up for a bag of used basketballs.  

But on the other, other hand, the team's personality is based on Rasheed's personality.  That whole "we're so talented we can just flip the switch" mindset, which causes them to lose games and fall behind in a seven game series, comes from him.  He is widely known as the "spiritual leader of the team".  In other words, he's become a cancer.  

Decisions, decisions.  


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:04:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is a problem. (none / 0)

It's frustrating because Sheed has been my favorite player since they got him.  I agree that something needs to be done, but I don't think that any other team would see his value.  I don't think that if he were traded that we would get much in return.


Check out McCain.
by you like it on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:30:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As long as we're way off topic, I'm hearing the (none / 0)

Charlotte Bobcats, now that they will be coached by Larry Brown, may trade Omeka Okafor and/or Jason Richardson for Rasheed Wallace.

I'm also hearing Elton Brand for Rasheed and Juan Dixon.

I'm also hearing Rasheed to Chicago for Luol Dang.

Nobody knows... but one thing the Pistons have going for them is that Rasheed is in the last year of an approximately $14 million contract.  That means he is an extremely valuable trade asset, if for nothing else for the $14 mil in salary cap relief he'd bring to his new team.  They'd get him for a six month tryout, and they could either re-sign him if they like him, or let him go and have lots of $ to spend on a free agent.


My name is Barney Gumble, and I'm an alcoholic. Lisa: This is a girl scouts meeting. Barney: Is it, or is it you girls can't admit that you have a problem?
by PJ Jefferson on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:38:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who used the term fault? (2.00 / 1)

Oy. Not helpful.


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:47:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who used the term fault? (none / 0)

And neither should it be about sexist comments like these.

Please this is a dairy that tries to persuade people, yet all your comment does is insult.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:53:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who used the term fault? (none / 0)

Hide-rated for obvious sexist content.


by Brannon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:04:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Women voters, unqualified and unquantified? (2.00 / 1)

There are some women voters who are upset. As a white, post menopausal woman, I take umbrage.
Have supported Obama strongly since the kitchen sink. Of all my women friends, only one supports HRC.
I just do not lump women voters into one category.
McCain will try to pick off a few of the HRC supporters, but his campaign underestimate the intelligence of half the population.
by barnowl on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:01:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A smart move by the McCain campaign. They saw (2.00 / 6)

Yes, Obama's constant praising and congratulations of Hillary and her victories, as well as stepping in and nipping the RFK kerfluffle in the bud shows his "tactics" that created the opening for McCain.

Meanwhile, her constant slime throwing (e.g. Farrakhan, he's not a Muslim "as far as I know", Did I mention Rev. Wright for 34th time?) and endorsements of McCain were just "tough campaigning" and he should go to her hat in hand, and beg her to join him for the sake of unity.

In fact, why not concede the top spot on the ticket? That would be the ultimate show of class by Erik from Survivo.....I mean, Barack Obama.


by Reeves on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:40:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A smart move by the McCain campaign. They saw (none / 0)

Your post is an example of why this is happening.  Your "he's hot a muslin as far as i know" is a out and out lie.  HRC said "No no of course not.  Then at the end of a long answer she said "and i take his at his word".  If there is an opening for McCain you should think about your own smear and BS.  You did nothing but twist her words and you have the nerve to talk about Unity.

david


by giusd on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:53:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A smart move by the McCain campaign. They saw (2.00 / 3)

I would hope we can all admit that both candidates' supporters occasionally have been guilty of reading the worst intentions in the other candidate's comments.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:06:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A smart (2.00 / 1)

Yes this is something we can both very much agree with.  

david


by giusd on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:11:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good start guys (none / 0)

:)


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:48:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A smart move by the McCain campaign. They saw (none / 0)

Sorry, had to de-lurk on this one:

("There is nothing to base that on. As far as I know," Clinton carefully replied to CBS interviewer Steve Kroft on the question of whether Obama was a Muslim, after pictures of him in Somali dress circulated on the Internet)


by Xochi on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:00:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A smart move by the McCain campaign. They saw (none / 0)

This s crap. Endless crap from the Obama campaign supporters. No, we will not vote for him, we don't appreciate being treated like crap.


by 07rescue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:04:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A smart move by the McCain campaign. They saw (none / 0)

Well, I'm not sure how pointing out something she did in fact say is "crap" or how it equates to treating people like crap.  If correcting assertions with facts is out of line, then I guess I haven't been missing much by not participating in the debate here.


by Xochi on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:19:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

this is politics (none / 0)

just the way it is going to be played by McCain and the repugs.  whether you like it or not, "its just politics", and no it doesn't make it right at all.  They're scrambling for votes too.


by 4justice on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:42:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is politics (none / 0)

Amen, 4justice


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:49:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Um (2.00 / 4)

I am a Clinton supporter, who won't vote for McCain. Please tell me how I am being played (Hint: diary title is tad simplistic)


by Mayor McCheese on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:35:32 PM EST

Re: Um (2.00 / 5)

You make a good point. It should say he is trying to play you...or something like that.  


"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody
by nextgen on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:37:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um (2.00 / 2)

Right, the title might sound a little absolute.

The title to be 100% accurate, is Democrats, McCain is trying to play you.

And he is, and he has played this site like a flute.

We are the only major Progressive blog McCain has been sucessful at "playing" not sure if he was sucessful in getting votes, but he was great at playing the whole site.


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:39:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um (2.00 / 2)

You're being played because unless you were already so angry as to be easily manipulated, you wouldn't be worth going after through low-cost, half assed methods.

You're not even a voter that thinks to them - someone that they could convince to switch sides and be a lifelong Republican because of your preferred take on their policies and what they stand for. To them, you're just an angry woman that they can get even angrier, angry enough to vote Republican in the fall.

If you want to fall for that stereotype, and vote for the campaign that thinks that lowly of you, go for it. But you're being played.


by upstate girl on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:40:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what an insult, upstate girl!! (2.00 / 1)

Shame on you!  What started out as a pretty good diary now devolved into you insulting the intelligence of Clinton supporters.  Do you not think we have a brain and can see this?  

Obama and people like you did create the opening,like it or not, and McCain is going to woo voters.  Just like Obama is going to have to woo working class people if he wants them. And its just politics.  You don't have to assume everyone is going to fall for this.

You accuse people of being angry and ignorant. So why do you care then whether McCain is successful or not with Clinton supporters?   Why did you post this again?  To convince, warn, or insult?


by 4justice on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:50:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what an insult, upstate girl!! (none / 0)

I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence. But if you think people make rational decisions in the heat of anger, there's a whole psychological standard that says otherwise.

There's a difference between wooing voters and fanning the flames of anger and hostility to take advantage of it.


by upstate girl on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:57:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um (2.00 / 1)

With all due respect WTF are you talking about? I've told you I WON'T vote for McCain. I am not threatening to go third party or sit it out either. I'm also male, yet you seem to be ready to brand me with a stereotype you have of what  a Clinton supporter is. Language like the above won't help your cause, which hopefully, will become OUR cause once the primary is over.


by Mayor McCheese on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:54:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um (none / 0)

I didn't call you a woman. The memo did - specifically targeting women over 40. That's how they see you. Not me.

You guys are getting pissed off at me when I'm not making McCain's argument for him - you're pissed at his words, not mine.


by upstate girl on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:58:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um (none / 0)

Good lord, can you at least try making sense here? The McCain camp doesn't see me as a woman. I am white male. Yet with your scatter gun approach, you lump ALL Clinton supporters into one category (The angry 40 plus woman) whether they fall into this category or not, accuse us of being "Played" even though you haven't got a scintilla of evidence of this and then say its not you doing this, its the memo, which may or may not even be legit.


by Mayor McCheese on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:06:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Read the memo (none / 0)


The specific group we are targeting is a cross-section of white, female voters
over the age of 40. Internal polling reveals that this group is the most likely to
support John McCain after Obama wins the nomination.

Their words - not mine.

You want to get angry about Clinton supporters getting lumped into a category? Call up McCain headquarters.

I've posted this in the thread, and in the diary with the link to the Wikilinks page:

Any questions about this documents veracity are noted. Fewer than 0.1% of documents that pass initial triage fail subsequent analysis (typically third world election material).

That's pretty good odds for it being legit.


by upstate girl on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:18:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um (none / 0)

I often disagree with you, Mayor, but I'm pretty confused by this one too.  I thought you were just pointing out a small but important fact that the diary title could be more targeted toward Clinton supporters who are considering voting for McCain, but it seemed like upstateg took it to be something else.


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:52:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Her title only targeted those being played. (none / 0)

Your nit is valid, but still a nit.
Let's move past it.
It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:07:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Her title only targeted those being played. (none / 0)

1. No it didn't just targeted those being played. It's a sweeping dairy title how all Clinton supporters are played by McCain.

2. It's insulting to the very audience you try to reach. It's showing that you don't take them serious. If you want to convince people to not do something saying that their opinion result from being weak willed sheep that can be played is counter productive.

This is counterproductive way to try and persuade people. This dairy is exactly the wrong way to shake people out of supporting McCain. By waving this comment away you show the truth of your tag line all over again. He's trying to tell you that it's a title that makes people less likely to change their minds and you are unable to look at this dairy from the perspective of somebody who would be foolish enough to support McCain so you dismiss him.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:09:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Her title only targeted those being played. (none / 0)

Sure, some of those being "played" will reject the notion outright - especially the players themselves. Yet some might keep this memo in mind when they next hear from someone fanning the bitterness divide. I doubt you'll see verbal validation from this segment, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Regardless, I doubt that replacing the title with "Leaked Memo: McCain is playing you, some (though not all) Clinton supporters!" will make a substantive difference to the above ratio. Ergo, the recommendation that we move past it.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:07:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Her title only targeted those being played. (none / 0)

Or how about this title: Leaked Memo: McCain trying to fake concern for disenchanted Clinton supporters?

Don't you think that would actually be a better title? You seem to miss the point that it is perfectly possible to have a title that does not insult and belittle the very people you are trying to reach!

I probably think they will keep this diary in mind when somebody fanning the bitterness divide. They'll remember that some on the Obama side purposely insulted them. How would that help if you just as easily could have avoided that and just got this memo under their attention without the insults and dismissals?

Again, it is just as easyto get this information out without insulting the people you are trying to reach. Why should people listen to a dairist if she's not even polite enough to refrain from namecalling? Why should people listen to you after they object to that you just reply "suck it up". It's a two way street. And momentarily both you and the author are having it both ways. You expect them to take you serious while you don't take them serious.

That won't work.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:17:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Her title only targeted those being played. (none / 0)

Sorry, Ernst. It's still a nit.

If you found the original title "insulting and belittling", we're probably not going to agree much further. I agree that your suggested title is more nuanced, but there are worthier causes to grandstand over.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:53:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Her title only targeted those being played. (none / 0)

It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain.

How true that quote, how ironic that you have it as your sig.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:39:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Her title only targeted those being played. (none / 0)

As I noted, we're probably not going to agree much further.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:03:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Her title only targeted those being played. (none / 0)

Alright. Since you've invoked my sig, I suppose I will make a final attempt at discourse.

I mentioned earlier that there were worthier causes to grandstand over. That doesn't negate your point. I suppose that tiptoing about this site in hushed voices might result in marginally fewer hurt feelings among Clinton supporters. But given the history of bruising take-no-prisoners battles on this site, such an attempt would only be derided as coming too little, too late - as it has repeatedly in the past.

I trust that this is understood. What I suspect you won't understand is our extreme exasperation with the idea that the burden of fostering unity should fall solely on one candidate's supporters alone. Against the backdrop of persistent attack diaries,  thinly veiled threats and mutterings under breath about defecting to the GOP, we are lectured on the other side's newly-found delicate sensitivities to our choice of words.

Your point does not go unappreciated, but we have real enemies to fight. This is your battle as much as it's ours. Join us if you're willing, or when you're able - but the time for words is over.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:42:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Her title only targeted those being played. (none / 0)

Seriously? I think the complaining Obama supporters here need a big helping of grow the bleep up.

We won, they lost. our job to mend fences. Why? because we won and they didn't. After all they have to start backing our candidate. Had Clinton won, it would have been their job. And Yes, I understand your "extreme exasperation" It's just that it's self centered bullshit. For Clinton supporters Obama supporters were just as bad as Clinton supporters were for Obama supporters. They have as much right for "extreme exasperation" at our side. Somebody needs to build bridges after the bruising take-no-prisoners battles, and you can wait until the losing side starts doing it but that ducking your responsibilities, because the winning side gets the biggest pay off, It's their candidate that gets to be president.

So yes get over your extreme exasperation. You're not "fighting" the "real enemies" your being needlessly antagonistic on a blog to the losing side of the primary.

If you actually had taken the trouble to read my  comments you would know that I'm already a Obama supporter. And one already working for that wants other Obama supporters to stop being a jerks to Clinton supporters because we want theirs votes

You talk about "fighting" the "real enemies"  You know how you "fight" in an election? by persuading people. And how do you do that?

You do that with words.

So I don't think I have to join you when I'm willing or ready. Instead I'm waiting until people like you are willing or ready to get over themselves and join me in the "fight"

After all the time for words has just begun.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:56:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Her title only targeted those being played. (none / 0)

No one's disputing the need to build bridges or mend fences. I do dispute your need to bloviate over a the significance of a title which at worst could be guilty of over-generalization.

Instead of getting further mired in this silly academic debate, I invite you instead to lead by example. Validate those points you make so passionately, starting with this blog, by persuading those yet-hostile diarists to join your cause. Maybe it's coincidental, but I don't recall any significant initiative on your part to engage the other side, other than supercilious finger-wagging with the efforts of others.

If and when you do this, I suspect you'll find that "persuasion" is hardly a novel idea, and that those of us that have abandoned it have done so out of frustration, not ignorance. But do let me know how your much-preached diplomacy of words works out for you.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:14:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Her title only targeted those being played. (none / 0)

"any significant initiative"?

Nope I'm just polite to them, engage in friendly discussions and make sure the more overenthusiastic Obama supporters don't spoil it for the rest. This is a blog, the dozen commentators here aren't going to make a difference. They