Do you remember the good old days--I dunno, Thanksgiving?--when the Merkley campaign considered themselves the only "realistic" candidacy in the Senate primary? Which is to say that they didn't really perceive themselves as being in a primary, so much as an extended battle against Gordon Smith. That continued with the dismissive "can't take yes for an answer" response the day after New Year's, regarding those same debates featuring Jeff and the Unrealistics. The lumping of Novick in with two guys who didn't even show up to debate--Pavel Goberman, for heaven's sake--was similar disrespect. (Why does Jeff Merkley keep ruining Steve's holidays? Send a facebook gift next time Jeff, OK?)
Whether it's the slowly lumbering giant of professional consultancy or simply an awareness that Plan A has not been successful at vaulting them over the competition, they're not dismissing and smiling condescendingly at invisible Steve Novick anymore:
Merkley campaign spokesman Matt Canter called the two snippets evidence of how Novick treats his own party. He "disparaged Barack Obama," Canter said, and "brags about support for Ralph Nader," who has been hard on Democratic presidential candidates in the past.
"Novick appears to attack Democrats at will," Canter said.
Jake Weigler, Novick's campaign manager, said Novick did indeed wrestle with his decision to support Obama after John Edwards dropped out. "If Jeff Merkley thinks his fellow Democrats should be put beyond reproach, we look forward to that debate."
On Nader, Weigler said Novick thought the consumer maverick ran a good counterpoint campaign in 1996. "In 2000, he was a strong supporter of Al Gore."
Well now, let's start with the first question: whose story is this? Obviously the Merkley campaign gave Harry Esteve at The O the offending passage from Steve's LTE in 1998; he published shortly after six last evening. Kevin Kamberg of Preemptive Karma, a seriously invested Merkley supporter, had this same quote shortly after noon yesterday. It certainly would be an extraordinarily coincidental Google search--if you could find that on Google. I'm fairly sure it required a hard copy or film search to get it. Let's assume at a minimum Merkley fed both Kamberg and Esteve (among others, surely)...is Kamberg's function to peddle Merkley's oppo research? Or was it his all along, passed to Merkley and then to Esteve? Point being--all that, for...this?
This response to the Obama endorsement by Novick--at least a week in the planning as confirmed by Oregon for Obamite Charlie Burr, contra Merklyite Kari Chisholm's bold assertion otherwise--is classically awful messaging, and I will count the ways for you, although you can probably count along.
There are three memes being pushed in this "attack" on Novick, each a little more ridiculous than the last:
"Steve Novick backed Ralph Nader in 1996, so his endorsement of Obama for 2008 calls that endorsement into question. Or vice versa...or something." The effort here is to convince people that Novick is a rebel, out of control, ready to harm the party on the altar of his own egotistical principles. Aside from being 100% silly-season in its approach, it tries to make the connection between a 12 year old vote and a current endorsement. Good luck getting that one to stick with the primary electorate three months from now, especially those who--like myself--have a vote for Nader (or other minor candidate) in their past more recently than 1996.
"Steve Novick is disparaging and lukewarm to our brightest hope for a Democratic President--Jeff Merkley won't criticize other Democrats." As Novick campaign manager Jake Weigler noted in Esteve's piece, "bring that shit on, Jeffy." (a bit paraphrased). Please, let the theme of this primary be that Steve Novick will occassionally criticize a Democrat in favor of actual Democratic principles, while Jeff Merkley will play the party role and go along to get along, not wanting to shake things up. That way both candidates can be sending the same message to the voters on this subject.
"Steve Novick may have endorsed Barack Obama shortly before Merkley was able to scramble his own press conference together, but Merkley endorses Obama even MORE. Like, 150%!" For the Merkley campaign, in whose view the week neither started well nor ended well {pdf}, this week is starting off the same way (and I have a feeling next week won't be much better). Out of all three latent themes in this coordinated, calculated "attack" on Steve Novick, this is the one people are most likely to hear: OK, so we both endorsed Obama--but we endorse him more: blindly, and without reservation!
Sadly, I think this illustrates that he doesn't actually get the movement he's signing onto. Like those who castigated Mother Theresa's memory for her crises in faith, calling equivocal Obama supporters inferior backers of their candidate totally misses the point. As Obama says often, it confuses hope with naivete. Merkley interprets a nuanced, pros-and-cons evaluation by Novick as essentially a failure of hope, a shameful refusal to show total devotion and unquestioning support for the man and his vision for America. It's almost a reverse Clinton mock; it's criticizing Steve for not being messianic enough.
But when I hear Obama speak, I hear him say that hope is not naivete. It is not blind optimism; not in America, not in his cause--and certainly not in him. He acknowledges there will be sacrifice, there will be the hard work of change, and above all there will be hard, dirty opposition. And that even as President he won't succeed if he is left to fight those battles alone.
But what drives the power of hope--the theme that resonates so strongly with his audience--is precisely that struggle, that sacrifice. You don't discredit hope by acknowledging your fears, your doubts and your own conflict with the rules for change. You honor it, you use it to persevere despite those doubts, and learn how to face them better the next time--because there is always a next time.
Hope is what sustains you through seemingly impossible periods of suffering and strife. Hope is what keeps you going, forces you out of bed another morning. Hope is believing that this time, surely, if we try together and create a critical mass for change, we will be successful. With hope you don't bury your doubts and fears under the rug; you face up to them and march forward as you must, believing that you, or yours, will one day prevail despite them.
Merkley wants to claim that Novick isn't ready to taste the fruit of hope that Obama offers because he still doubts, whereas Merkley's love for Obama is pure. If Merkley were an Apostle, he'd be Simon the Zealot. Who's the purity troll now?
They're not ignoring Steve Novick anymore. I smell fear.
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
