Obama Camp To Surrogates: No Palin, Focus On Issues

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:08:10 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Sam Stein reports:

During a conference call with national female supporters on Monday, Barack Obama and his aides outlined a comprehensive strategy to target female supporters who could be on the fence between his and John McCain's candidacies. The plan included intense focus on McCain's opposition to equal pay legislation, which aides to Obama believe resonates beyond female voters; sending out prominent female surrogates to serve as political "ambassadors"; limiting focus on Gov. Sarah Palin in favor of McCain himself; and breaking through the media's propensity to focus on conflicts and gaffes.

There were several issues on which the campaign suggested these pseudo-surrogates focus. Equal pay, opposition to choice, and the economy were some of them -- Sarah Palin was not. "I know we are getting a little distracted by discussion about Sarah Palin, but I think it is important for all of us to focus on Sen. McCain," said Dana Singiser, a strategist for Obama. . . . "Whether we are talking about jobs or health care or gas prices, this is what women voters and really all voters are concerned about."

(Emphasis supplied.) Amen.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Marijuana Arrests at Record Breaking High....Again | FBI Crime Report: Violent Crime Drops Most in Areas With Less Incarceration >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama Camp To Surrogates: No Palin, Focus On Issues | 59 comments (59 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Please, please, please, Sen. (5.00 / 9) (#1)
by oculus on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:11:25 PM EST

Obama. Let's hear from you an unequivocal statement you support a woman's right to choose. Please do not leave this to your female surrogates.

How about "walking the walk" (5.00 / 9) (#4)
by Coral on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:25:11 PM EST

on equal pay for women in your own campaign?


: Amen. (5.00 / 5) (#10)
by tree on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:35:30 PM EST

I hope Claire was on that call. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Teresa on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:19:44 PM EST

I'm getting really nervous about this election. I hope the surrogates follow this advice.

She deserves her own very special (5.00 / 7) (#7)
by nycstray on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:31:47 PM EST

gag order after yesterday!


what did Claire say? (none / 0) (#9)
by TimNCGuy on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:33:17 PM EST

this (none / 0) (#12)
by nycstray on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:40:03 PM EST

: Upside (none / 0) (#17)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:59:17 PM EST

She wont have to appear against Fiorina any time soon, seriously if after today McCain trots out Carly and doesn't just get blasted--having someone whose primary qualification is the destruction of an American Corporate Icon as a spokeswoman, at a time when the economy is in Free Fall is just stupid.

Good to see this. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Pegasus on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:20:43 PM EST

My sense has been that the campaign itself has been properly focused after a bad day or two immediately after the Palin announcement, but that the surrogates weren't getting the message.

Insofar as they have to talk about Palin at all, I thought Sean at fivethirtyeight had a good point today.

I agree with the first part of that. I hope Biden (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by Teresa on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:27:33 PM EST

doesn't compare her to a TV show or a game show in the debates though. I hope he wasn't serious with that part.

(Though, I feel exactly like I'm watching a movie about an ordinary American woman plucked up and put in the VP position. But you don't say that out loud.)


: Yeah, Sean's script (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Pegasus on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:35:55 PM EST

is questionable. It's the right spirit, though.

No (5.00 / 4) (#24)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 08:16:19 PM EST

the campaign isn't properly focused if the surrogates aren't. They are part of the message.


About time. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by scribe on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:33:05 PM EST

Some of this (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 08:14:39 PM EST

is good news but I have to wonder why now? Is it desperation that's finally driving the train to make them think that they need to actually do something other than just sit around.

If the surrogate strategy was played out on Sunday morning they had better reconsider the effectiveness of that. If they think sending out McCaskill was effective, then their strategy is flawed.

Singiser (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 09:07:32 PM EST

Dana Singiser is a former Hillary staff person. coincidence? I think not.

Am I... (none / 0) (#6)
by Brillo on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:29:27 PM EST

A surrogate?

McCain and Palin's favorables tanking (none / 0) (#13)
by magster on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:46:53 PM EST

as Obama's numbers show a slight uptick. I don't disagree that focusing on McCain is a good idea going forward, but the Palin bashing (especially on the bridge to nowhere lies) over the last week was not without some benefit.

And Along With Them... (5.00 / 4) (#16)
by Brillo on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:58:37 PM EST

The bump McCain/Palin got going out of the convention. And in a week or two it'll start showing up in the state polls.

Far as I'm concerned, the bloggers who think bashing Palin will win this for us are just as wrong as those convinced that it'll loose it for us. Both groups need to be gently informed that the last few weeks of outrage and offense over Palin and/or her mistreatment don't really matter.

End of the day, the Republicans got a convention bounce and it's fading.

You want something to worry about, we've got voter registration deadlines looming. Stop talking about Palin and/or her mistreatment and go register people.


: I don't know about this "bounce fade" (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by kenosharick on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 09:11:04 PM EST

we are now hearing about. Some of the same people touting that message also were sure of an Obama landslide, and that Wisconsin was "in the bag" for Obama (it's now tied), and that Obama also had a good chance in Georgia. All I know is that it will be (once again) a close election. Razor thin, when we could be running away with it if we had nominated a stronger and more experienced candidate.

: Is that you, Giordano? (none / 0) (#19)
by Pegasus on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 07:37:16 PM EST

Classic poll cherrypicking... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by ks on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 07:28:24 PM EST

Yeah, take a dubious poll, that RCP doesn't even use in it's compilation as Gospel, from a dubious souce. It might make more sense to check out RAS latest state polls which are not good news.


: Debatable (none / 0) (#31)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 08:57:24 PM EST

The Ras polls are mixed, OH has McCain taking a massive hit and being the closest its ever been, Obama's now tied in VA, CO and PA the opposite has happened.

That can be attributed to a fading (none / 0) (#14)
by Pegasus on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:52:28 PM EST

convention bounce, as well. Pretty tough to chalk it all up to political attacks.


: And it's also due to the media just doing their (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by steviez314 on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 06:58:07 PM EST

regular vetting stories instead of regurgitating the crazy blog nonsense.

Man (none / 0) (#20)
by Steve M on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 07:39:08 PM EST

BTD sure looks like Cassandra on the messaging issue.

: Not the first time (none / 0) (#41)
by andgarden on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 09:10:51 PM EST

One big problem... (none / 0) (#21)
by ks on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 07:52:53 PM EST

"The plan included intense focus on McCain's opposition to equal pay legislation, which aides to Obama believe resonates beyond female voters;"

So what happens when the McCain camp points out as explained in the Seattle newspaper story that, iirc, either McCain has more or a higher percentage of women on his senior Senate staff and that on average he pays his female Senate staffers MORE than his male staffers?

Also, while BTD is correct about the focus, sending out female specific surrogates does still make it about Palin to some degree.

So? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 08:29:10 PM EST

Even assuming your unlinked McCain-aganda is correct, what on earth does that have to do with the broader principle of equal pay for equal work? Or do you, and McCain, think that should apply only to his friends and coworkers?

How is this different from "yeah, but some of my best friends are. . ."?


Serious? (2.00 / 1) (#36)
by ks on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 09:04:53 PM EST

Silly stuff. The article was in the Seattle Intelligencer and referenced here previously and you can look it up if you are really interested but I suspect you just want to label it a "McCain agenda", whatever that means. Anyway here it is:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/378772_murdockonline12.html.

Yeah, if you want to "gender bait" and categorize it as "some of my best friends are..." go ahead. If you want to attack McCain on eaqual pay while he's paying his Senate female staff a higher average wage than his male Senate staff and has picked a female as his VP it doesn't make a bit of tactical or practical sense but have at it.

Jesus H. Christ. (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 09:22:14 PM EST

Follow your own link and look at the banner on the top of the column. It's an opinion piece. By a conservative, Republican, partisan, hit-piece writer.

You know, it's nice to keep an open mind. But not so open that your brain falls out. This is indeed McCain-aganda (propaganda for McCain) that you're linking here.

The danger of making statistical deductions based on such a tiny sample size is clearly demonstrated by the author of the piece when he points out that the discrepancy is not due to unequal pay for equal work but rather from the fact that Obama has fewer women among his top five aides than McCain.

And none of the so-called data mined by the gentleman from the Hoover Institute (my, where we get our "news" from these days!) is in any way applicable to the larger issue:

McCain opposes legal remedies for pay discrimination.

Obama supports legal remedies for pay discrimination.


: Do you think people can't read links? (2.00 / 1) (#52)
by ks on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 09:42:23 PM EST

"A watchdog group called LegiStorm posts online the salaries for Capitol Hill staffers. "We have no political affiliations and no political purpose except to make the workings of Congress as transparent as possible," its website explains. Parsing LegiStorm's official data, gleaned from the Secretary of the Senate, offers a fascinating glimpse at pay equity in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body."
And are just going to accept your biased chracterization? Your babbling about sample size is just a diversionary tactic. Based on the data, McCain has more senior female Senate staff members than Obama and subsequently he pays them more than his male Senate staff members and, on average, overall, he pays his female staff memeber more than his male staff members unlike Obama. Period. Now, his opposition to equal pay legislation is not good but as a political tactic, given the above, it's not going to gain much traction except for the choir. It's called putting your money where your mouth is.

The problem (none / 0) (#22)
by IzikLA on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 08:07:24 PM EST

Is only partly his surrogates and campaign though.

Another huge part of the problem is the media's fixation on her. Even when they are being critical of her I feel that it is hurting Obama. People want to like her and they seem to want to come to her defense.

Look, I just turned on MSNBC (I know, I know). They are so in the tank for Obama but it does him absolutely no favors that the opening segment on Rachel Maddow's show tonight is all about Palin and "Troopergate". I am convinced that none of this helps us, however I'm not sure that we can control the media on this subject and that is a problem.

The problem with that strategy is (none / 0) (#26)
by christinewalk on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 08:30:12 PM EST

that McCain actually has more women in top positions on his staff than Obama, and that he pays them better than Obama pays his female staff.

That, coupled with the fact he chose a woman for his running mate, really weakens that line of attack.

No, I don't have a link at my fingertips, but the article about this came out within the past few days (I've got to run off to a meeting). It's out there. If anyone saved a link to that story, please post it here.

Yeah. . . (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 08:40:21 PM EST

No, I don't have a link at my fingertips, but the article about this came out within the past few days (I've got to run off to a meeting).

and what about that article that said McCain eats live babies. I know it was around here somewhere. Wait, is that the phone? What was I saying. . .

It is impossible to weaken the "line of attack" that McCain has consistently opposed any attempt to allow legal remedies to pay discrimination. That is a fact. F-a-c-t.

This is one of Hillary Clinton's signature issues. It is embarrassing to see people attempt to claim they're Clinton supporters while at the same time apparently not caring a fig about any of her issues.

Hillary Clinton supported legal pay equity. John McCain opposes it. Barack Obama supports it. Hillary Clinton wants universal health care. Barack Obama wants, at the least, expanded health coverage. John McCain wants to tax your health benefits.

This stuff actually matters to actual people who actually support the actual positions taken by Hillary Clinton during the primary.


But the difference between Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by tree on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:37:52 AM EST

and Obama is that Clinton also walked the walk. The article I linked below shows that not only does she believe in the legislation, she actually exercises pay equality with her staff.


Here's the (2.00 / 1) (#32)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 08:57:55 PM EST

problem in a nutshell: Or this is what's going around: Obama says he supports equal pay but pays his female staffers less than his male staffers. McCain is against equal pay legislation but pays his female staffers equal or better than the males.

So doesn't your "friends" argument cut both ways? McCain thinks that no one else should do what he does but neither does Obama.

How is that really a winning issue for either candidate?


No. . . (none / 0) (#34)
by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 09:01:07 PM EST

equal pay for equal work means legal remedies to counter pay discrimination.

Obama, Clinton, and right-thinking people support it.

McCain and Palin both oppose it.

This is something that no one, no matter how much they love McCain, can spin. Who supports legal remedies for pay discrimination? Obama. Who opposes it? McCain.


Why (2.00 / 1) (#38)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 09:05:27 PM EST

should anyone believe Obama when he doesn't practice what he preaches? Why would anyone think that he'll fight to get that issues passed? I mean his actions show that it's not something that's important to him right?

He wants everyone else to do what he's unwilling to do himself. He doesn't lead.

Look, I understand the policy you are talking about but how can you believe Obama when he talks about it? Certainly I believe McCain when he says he doesn't support it. He has a history of voting these beliefs. All we have to go by with Obama is his staffers and how he treats them.


Feh. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 09:11:33 PM EST

Obama and McCain both have voting records on this issue, and their positions couldn't be clearer.

The so-called article referred to is not an article at all but a column by a conservative commentator. Even if you believe that McCain has two more women than Obama out of his top five paid staffers (which is the claim on which that conservative hit piece attempts to bash Obama) -- even if you believe that's true, it's a statistical nothingness.

What matters is how the two candidates have voted and will continue to vote.

McCain tells you to your face that he opposes legal remedies for pay discrimination. He's not trying to shade this issue (well, except by saying that opposing the legislation means he's somehow for pay equality). He's being completely upfront with you.

And still your hatred of Obama means you can't accept that McCain means what he says on this issue.


Here's the link to the original article (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by tree on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:29:00 AM EST

Its not an opinion piece and it was published in late April of 2008 McCain, Clinton Pay Women Better Than Obama

I have found no subsequent article that countradicts what it says, and it is based on public records.

Non-intern female employees did better working on the Senate staffs of John McCain and Hillary Clinton during the latest public reporting period than they did working for Barack Obama, Cybercast News Service determined through an analysis of payroll data published by the Secretary of the Senate.
Both McCain and Clinton also employed more female than male staffers, while Obama employed more males than females. However, Obama's staff was more balanced between male and female staffers than either McCain's or Clinton's.
Also, McCain and Clinton had more female than male staffers making six-figure salaries, while Obama had more male than female staffers making six-figure salaries.
The data were taken from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007.

I have (none / 0) (#46)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 09:22:24 PM EST

no hatred of Obama.

Here's what you don't get: Yes, I believe what McCains says when he opposes the legislation. Apparently you didn't get the fact from my above post.

The fact of the matter is why would I think that the issue is important to Obama when his behavior has been less than stellar in this area? Put aside his behavior and just talk about how he's not trustworthy to fight for any issue. We've seen people and issues thrown under the bus so often it's not funny.

Now if you want to continue with your Obama apologia, please don't let me interfere.


Exactly... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by ks on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 09:27:11 PM EST

The "hatred" meme is just one of the latest talking points from hardcore Obama supporters that tries to label any and all criticism of Obama as "hatred" of Obama. Silly nonsense.


His "behavior". . . (none / 0) (#49)
by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 09:32:46 PM EST

has been 100% stellar on the matter in question -- the right to remedy before the law for wage discrimination.

One hundred percent.

The fact than an agent of the McCain campaign is able to publish a statistically absurd argument doesn't change Obama's commitment to this important legal principle. Republicans spew chaff all the time -- they did it to Gore, to Clinton, and they'd be doing to Senator Clinton too if she were the nominee.

I am no apologist for Obama as anyone who reads what I write would know. But on this issue -- legal pay equality -- he is 100% right and McCain is 100% wrong.


Look (none / 0) (#51)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 09:38:04 PM EST

I agree with you in theory. In theory it all works out. My issue is that their both bad simply because one has shown no spine and the other one because he stinks on the issue.


: Yep (none / 0) (#53)
by ks on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 09:44:53 PM EST

McCain is bad in theory and Obama is suspect in actual practice. Pols are pols...

Ahhhhhhhhhh (none / 0) (#40)
by Steve M on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 09:10:39 PM EST

And Al Gore doesn't really care about the environment because he has a big house. I've seen this movie before.


: What (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 09:18:15 PM EST

large houses can't be environmentally sound?

I agree with you on the equal pay issue and (none / 0) (#30)
by Teresa on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 08:54:02 PM EST

that Obama's position is the correct one, but here's one of several links.


Good grief. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by oldpro on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 08:59:58 PM EST

They list Michelle Obama as a 'Senior Staff Advisor' on the campaign team?

And what is SHE being paid?

I hear they raked in $66 M last month...unreal. Should have invested in television stocks...


First paragraph. . . (none / 0) (#37)
by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 09:05:06 PM EST

of that link:

Conservative columnist Deroy Murdock has an interesting piece today that takes a look at what Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and John McCain, R-Ariz., pay their Senate staffers.

So this is, in fact, not an investigative piece by a journalist but rather a hit piece by a conservative provocateur who, by carefully selecting the number of staffers he decides to examine, is able to make a superficial but statistically insignificant argument against Obama.


Feh indeed (2.00 / 1) (#47)
by ks on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 09:22:43 PM EST

Weak response. Do you have any proof that the article's points are not true or do you think that by silly labeling it a "conservative hit peice" that therefore everybody would dismiss it? Weak.


: I'm not labelling. . . (none / 0) (#50)
by LarryInNYC on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 09:35:12 PM EST

it a conservative hit-piece -- the newspaper it was published in is (an opinion piece from the Hoover Institute, heh).
The author himself, in the piece, makes it clear that your takeaway is not supported by the numbers (of course, you need to read more than halfway through the piece to get to that -- he spends the first part implying just the opposite).

Please (none / 0) (#27)
by borisbor on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 08:37:41 PM EST

That is such a weak argument.

You're getting played by the very ploy McCain is attempting to use; that he picked a woman means he is for women's rights.

As for his staff having more women.. so?


There's an old saying (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by oldpro on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 08:53:26 PM EST

in politics and in life -- never mind what they say...watch what they do.

To the degree that people ignore than maxim, their chance of disappointment is increased proportionally...not to mention the chance of teen pregnancy, contracting STDs and inflating the divorce3 rate.


Yeah, pay attention to what they do. (none / 0) (#54)
by Ramo on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 11:49:28 PM EST

What Senators do is vote on legislation. The legislation on the table is the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Obama supports equal pay, voting for it, and McCain opposes it, skipping the vote (effectively a vote against since skipping a cloture vote is a nay).


: And what they do is also whether they (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by tree on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 04:28:49 AM EST

do in fact support equal pay for the women on their staffs. That is also a valid way to judge a Senator. And as a Presidential candidate, there is this to consider when you judge by what they do:

After the Democratic primaries, I and a small group of Hillary Clinton supporters met with Sen. John McCain. I explained to him that women comprise more than half of the population, yet are underrepresented in every branch of government. I asked him to choose a woman for the vice presidential slot and to increase the number of women in the Cabinet and on the Supreme Court. Mr. McCain listened respectfully to my request.
After the Democratic Primary, I was contacted by a member of Sen. Barack Obama's Finance Committee, and we had numerous contentious conversations. I finally told him I would be happy to vote for Mr. Obama and rally other Hillary Clinton supporters, but in return I wanted Mr. Obama to pledge gender parity in the Cabinet.
"What if there aren't qualified women - you still expect us to appoint half women to the Cabinet?" he replied. "There are 300 million people in this country; you're telling me you can't find 10 qualified women?" I said.
He responded, "You can't have that." We had no further conversations.
From Lynette Long.

Are we ever going back to the issues? (none / 0) (#35)
by Media Stress on Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 09:03:17 PM EST

Who is actually running for president?

What does he want from America? How can we dig in and help each other?
What are we doing for voter turn outs?

Why is the economy a joke to the GOP?

Where is the next dime coming from after our bills have been paid.

What are the choices? Can we really and honestly deal with McCain and what he stands for?

McCain is well respected for his bravely, but so are many others who have suffered and continue to suffer in this economy.

What is wrong with these media journalist and recurring comments that have no base, or foundation, where is the help in questioning our future leaders on the real issues and or in finding solutions our current status.

Where have all the integral force of the real journalist, must it all continue to be about ratings. What is wrong with these folks?

Why are there so many question unanswered while the media plays around with Sarah Palins's non- consequential stories.

Today more jobs are lost, and tomorrow it just maybe yours. Wake up People. Enough gossiping!

The Magic Word This Election (none / 0) (#55)
by ansonj on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 12:41:14 AM EST

The magic word this campaign year: REPUBLICAN.

When you are blogging, posting on message boards or debating your friends, don't speak of McCain or Palin, speak of The Republicans. With this one word you tie together McCain, Palin, Bush, Cheney and the last 8 years with it's crappy economy and screwed up war. It's a quick way of short circuiting all that "maverick" or "reformer" nonsense. This by implication also helps house and senate contests. There's a reason this word didn't appear anywhere during the Republican National Convention and why the McCain people want to make this about personalities rather than issues. They know their brand is damaged and want to hide it.

Forget "McCAIN", "BUSH", "PALIN" etc. - "REPUBLICAN" is the way to discuss the issues.

I find it interesting that the (none / 0) (#57)
by tree on Tue Sep 16, 2008 at 02:34:13 AM EST

Obama campaign conference call on Sunday, per Jeralyn, was all about Troopergate, whereas the conference call today was all about focusing on McCain and issues and not on Palin. Did they get an epiphany yesterday? Or are they trying to have it both ways?