Obama '08?

sozobe wrote:

Well, no. "Keeping it in the closet" certainly implies purposeful hiding.

OK, if you prefer a rephrase, what struck me in Goldstein's observation that "If you don't see this Obama, you can't comprehend the fervor some of his progressive supporters feel" is that all that shows, then, is that Obama is apparently not following up on his jab to Hillary in his own outreach. You cant criticize your rival for failing to speak up loudly and assertively, if you yourself reserve "this Obama" to safe occasions like a union rally or a book that only those already enthused will read.

Because yes, Dreams of My Father is a best-seller, but reality check: even an amazing 500,000 copies sold means about 500,000 voters reached - which is just 0,4% of the number of 2004 voters. A fairly select audience, thus, of people likely to mostly already be enthused anyway, i.e. a "safe occasion".

As for the point about avoiding the "angry black man" trap, yes, it is understandable that a black candidate would try to avoid that trap -- even if it means toning down otherwise necessary progressive rhetorics. But there you are, then -- a candidate who plays down his progressive side for strategical reasons. Excusable strategic reasons perhaps, but that's still what you have then.

If, as you say, a black candidate can not stand a chance to win the elections if he adopts too progressive a position or rhetoric, that is of course extremely sad. I think you may well be right. But that would merely underline that there would be a real problem with Obama's candidacy then. Because the country does need a President who will dare to take progressive positions. You need more than a Bill Clinton redux, you need a Clinton-plus to overcome the damage Bush has done in the meantime.

Meanwhile, you dont address my point about the book count in general. Whenever there is a complaint about Obama not getting a certain message out, you say that, well its in his book for everyone to read. But do you really expect voters to read each of the candidates' books? (Hillary's was quite the bestseller too I believe.) If not, how's it an appropriate answer to questions about the message Obama is putting out?

0 Replies

It's an appropriate answer to whether he's hiding that message. He's not.

nimh wrote:

Because yes, Dreams of My Father is a best-seller, but reality check: even an amazing 500,000 copies sold means about 500,000 voters reached - which is just 0,4% of the number of 2004 voters. A fairly select audience, thus, of people likely to mostly already be enthused anyway, i.e. a "safe occasion"

I already said:

sozobe wrote:

However, the rest of my post is recognizing that the people who will go find the book are a small percentage of the electorate -- and that he may be purposely managing how those people get to know him.

Meanwhile,

nimh wrote:

If, as you say, a black candidate can not stand a chance to win the elections if he adopts too progressive a position or rhetoric, that is of course extremely sad.

That's not quite what I'm saying, though. I'm saying that I think he wants to manage his image, and make sure that people see him first as basically reasonable and mild-mannered before he gets more impassioned on a more regular basis. That doesn't mean he won't, or that he can't -- it means that I think he's waiting.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

It's an appropriate answer to whether he's hiding that message. He's not.

Right. That tangent seems to have been spurred by a misunderstanding, then, considering that what I actually said, right in my first post, was:

"Shouldnt Obama then show all of us that Obama [..] rather than keep it in the closet just for safe occasions?".

I.e., never implied that he hid it altogether, just that, well, he uses it "just on safe occasions". I think his book counts as such. No parallel to the gay "in the closet" thing was intended.

sozobe wrote:

That doesn't mean he won't, or that he can't -- it means that I think he's waiting.

I can only hope you're right. It would go right against normal patterns though: usually it's in the primary that candidates play to the base, and then in the general election campaign they veer right (Dems, I mean).

I know that you probably meant that he's waiting until later in the primaries, but consider the implications. If it's true that, rightly or wrongly - and I fear that you are right - Obama can't afford to adopt too progressive a line or rhetoric out of fear that it will evoke too much of an angry black man image now, in the home game that the primaries are, then how much more reason won't he have to put on the brakes when it's time to address the great center in the general elections?

The game of defining candidates will then start all over again, but with a much bigger audience tuning in, and arguably an audience more prone to be swayed into prejudice than the Democratic activists are. So in your logic, wouldn't he then have to tack away from any proud progressiveness more than ever?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Despite her enthused inspiration by Obama, Goldstein focuses on that as well in subsequent posts about Edwards' speech - an even bigger success than Obama's - and members' responses afterwards. I want to post those too, but don't want to flood the thread..

For those, see this post in the Hillary, Obama, Edwards thread.

0 Replies

Again, to refer back to something I already said (this is an unusually circular discussion):

Quote:

That may be dangerous, may cost him the nomination, I don't know. But I think he is going to kick things up a notch or two when we get closer to the primaries. Maybe he already has.

(Emphasis added.)

I'm not necessarily claiming that this is the best way to go. I'm saying that I think this is perhaps WHY he's been reining things in thus far, and that perhaps the reins are already loosening.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I'm not necessarily claiming that this is the best way to go. I'm saying that I think this is perhaps WHY he's been reining things in thus far, and that perhaps the reins are already loosening.

And then what happens after the primaries, when the larger race starts up? Do you think that because of what you said about Obama having the extra burden of having to avoid the 'angry black man' tag, he would be forced to tack even more to the middle than a candidate already always is?

I really hadnt thought of that angle yet, actually. I'd chalked Obama's cautiousness up primarily to his, well, cautiousness - considering the indications that it is part of his political philosophy overall, rather than just strategy (we touched on this when we were discussing his political influences before, I posted from an article that connected Obama and Niebuhr, cant find a link back now though).

It's a good point though. And though it makes his strategical choices more understandable and empathisable with (eh, thats not English), it also raises concerns about where he'd be forced to go in the general elections campaign, when he will face the same dilemma all over again. I want a black American in office, but not if it comes at the cost of having to steer a more centrist course than would otherwise be possible.

0 Replies

Yeah, I hope that wouldn't have to start up again... I don't know. My thinking thus far is that it's about his first impression on voters. I think now is when that's happening at the largest scale. Every state has a primary -- voters in every state will be reached as the primaries roll across the U.S.

I think it's therefore possible that the reining-in would not start all over again. Primaries are definitely more narrow, by definition, but I think that for example there would be enough publicity, enough of his name in the newspapers, enough of him on the evening news, enough coverage in whatever way that people who passively receive news receive it, that the Osama-Obama coupling would be removed. (When I was talking to my book club about him, someone actually called him Osama, and not by accident either.)

That's what I hope, anyway.

I do think that some of it is just the pacing thing, as removed from Angry Black Man. It's a long race, he's got a lot on his plate (active senator, young family), and I think he may be holding something in reserve just plain in terms of the energy involved. Again, may be a dangerous decision if that's in fact the case, but if it IS the case, I think it's again towards getting more and more engaged and more and more passionate as the 2008 general elections get closer... if he manages to get nominated.

0 Replies

If you look at the overall campaign strategy it makes sense. His campaign's first priority has been to energize his grassroot support to build the foundation for the future work of his campaign.

He's in a transition period now. The blue prints for that foundation are drawn and all the initial construction materials and workers have been gathered. Now he and his grassroots supporters have their boots on the ground and are walking the precincts.

The campaign is now expanding the focus. There is a bit of internal conflict about how that is being done. It may turn out to be the turning point where his campaign thrived or failed.

His campaign is sharply and exclusively focused on the early states and drawing in supporters from all other states to smother the precints with Obama walkers. The supporters in the other early states such as California, New York and Florida are pushing for the campaign to widen the focus to the rest of those early primary states and include them in the campaign's immediate strategy. They believe it is a mistake to ignore those early states just to be able to point to two of the other 50 states as winners. The campaign isn't budging from that original strategy so the grassroots supporters are taking it upon themselves and opening up their own campaign offices in those early states and getting to work without official sanction and support from the campaign headquarters.

0 Replies

SOrry, tangent intermezzo -

Quote:

POLL: CBS Bush, Iraq, Dems

A new CBS News national survey (Iraq story, results; Dems story, results) of 706 adults (conducted 9/14 through 9/16) finds:

<snip>

"Sixty-one percent of those who plan to vote in a Democratic primary express confidence in Clinton's ability to make the right decisions about health care. Forty-two percent say they have confidence in Obama, while 39 percent say they have confidence in Edwards."

Sigh, yes.

See http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_cbs_bush_iraq_dems.php, also for those story and results links.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

SOrry, tangent intermezzo -

Quote:
POLL: CBS Bush, Iraq, Dems

A new CBS News national survey (Iraq story, results; Dems story, results) of 706 adults (conducted 9/14 through 9/16) finds:

<snip>

"Sixty-one percent of those who plan to vote in a Democratic primary express confidence in Clinton's ability to make the right decisions about health care. Forty-two percent say they have confidence in Obama, while 39 percent say they have confidence in Edwards."

Sigh, yes.

See http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_cbs_bush_iraq_dems.php, also for those story and results links.

Isn't it crazy, how backwards the numbers trend from the proposals put forward? I remember seeing similar results when asked about Getting out of Iraq posted by you the other day...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Butrflynet wrote:

His campaign is sharply and exclusively focused on the early states and drawing in supporters from all other states to smother the precints with Obama walkers. The supporters in the other early states such as California, New York and Florida are pushing for the campaign to widen the focus to the rest of those early primary states and include them in the campaign's immediate strategy. They believe it is a mistake to ignore those early states just to be able to point to two of the other 50 states as winners. The campaign isn't budging from that original strategy so the grassroots supporters are taking it upon themselves and opening up their own campaign offices in those early states and getting to work without official sanction and support from the campaign headquarters.

Interesting! I think those in the other early primary states are right.

In particular, the strategy of drawing supporters from other states into Iowa (etc) to smother the precints there with Obama walkers seems a bad idea. It bombed very badly for Howard Dean last time round, and he happened to have much the same kind of supporters too (many young and high educated people, many students).

If anything, Iowans reacted negatively to those out-of-towners, the big-city kids coming in to help them with their vote. I thought that the politicos had all agreed that the lesson had been to always work with local people and use only a select group of well-trained out-of-staters -- hence why it was deemed so important to extensively cultivate local activist communities right from the start. Romney's done that well on the Rep side in IA and NH, and Edwards has done it succesfully in IA, but not NH.

0 Replies

Jesse feeling threatened by Obama's limelight?

Report: Jesse Jackson says Obama 'acting like he's white'

Jena_map The Rev. Jesse Jackson criticized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., for "acting like he's white" when it comes to the case of six young blacks who were charged with crimes in Jena, La., according to The (Charleston, S.C.) State.

Obama, a Democratic presidential candidate, issued what the civil rights leader describes as a tepid response to the case, The State reports. "If I were a candidate, I'd be all over Jena," Jackson tells the paper after giving a speech in Columbia.

"Jena is a defining moment, just like Selma was a defining moment," Jackson adds.

He told the paper he didn't recall making the "acting like he's white" comment about his fellow Illinoisan.

USA TODAY's Marisol Bello has a report on the "Jena Six."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/09/report-jesse-ja.html

0 Replies

Jackson just loves the publicity; he's a rabble-rouser who loves to be in the spotlight.

0 Replies

"If I were a candidate, I'd be all over Jena," Jackson tells the paper after giving a speech in Columbia.

Well, he was, and now he ain't. Nuff said.

0 Replies

Ezra Klein on Obama's campaigning conundrum:

Quote:

[..] it's hard to make up 20 percent in the polls, and if there were an obvious way to do it, one of Obama's advisors would have mentioned it to the candidate and they wouldn't be in a distant second-place anymore.

But one thing the Obama campaign could do is start bringing out some bolder policy. Their health plan was less impressive than either Clinton or Edwards' offerings, their plan for withdrawal from Iraq was rather typical for the race, and their new tax plan is, well, incremental is almost too generous. It's just some giveaways and goodies -- giveaways and goodies that I support, to be sure, but that don't do much to reform or simplify a fairly mucked-up tax code.

As Kevin [Drum - nimh] says, "[Obama seems] cautious to a fault. His big foreign policy speech was fine, but cautious and mainstream. His big healthcare speech was fine, but cautious and mainstream. And now his big tax speech is....just cautious and mainstream. I really want to hear something big and controversial from Obama, something that demonstrates a desire to shake up the status quo. But he just doesn't seem to be willing to take any chances." And it's hard to make up 20 points when you won't take chances.

I'd add that the unwillingness to "demonstrate a desire to shake up the status quo" is also at odds with his transformative rhetoric about wanting to do politics in a wholly different way, wanting to change the way things are done in Washington etc. He's not showing that the difference he'd bring would be about more than just style.

0 Replies

To go back to policy specifics, the Kevin Drum quote that Ezra lifted from the Washington Monthly is from this, and is about tax policy:

Quote:

BOLD? INNOVATIVE?

Here's Barack Obama's "bold and innovative plan to reform America's tax code":

1. A new $500 income tax credit for everyone who works and pays payroll taxes.

2. A new mortgage interest tax credit for homeowners who can't currently take advantage of the existing mortgage tax deduction.

3. Elimination of all income tax for seniors with incomes under $50,000 per year.

4. A new program in which the IRS sends prefilled tax returns to people with simple taxes.

I know that it's unfair to expect Obama to live up to his own hype every day. Not every proposal from his campaign is really going to be bold and innovative, even if he says it is. But really, if he's planning to campaign as the guy with fresh ideas, he's going to have to do better than this.

#1 is basically a convoluted way of reducing payroll taxes. It's OK, I guess. #2 is dumb. Why should homeowners get even more special treatment than they get now? #3 is just special interest group pandering. There's no reason a senior citizen making $45,000 should be exempt from paying income tax. #4 is fine, but trivial, and doesn't actually change the tax code at all.

I know the Obama fans out there are going to jump all over this, but I have to say that the guy's losing me. He's an inspiring speaker, and given the realities of how presidents exercise power that's no small thing. But he sure is cautious to a fault. His big foreign policy speech was fine, but cautious and mainstream. His big healthcare speech was fine, but cautious and mainstream. And now his big tax speech is....just cautious and mainstream. [well, etc, you've read this part in the post above]

0 Replies

In fact, for some reason there's suddenly talk all around of the race being over and Obama having lost (with Edwards not even being mentioned). Like it's infectious. Matt Yglesias opines:

Quote:

My record of political prognostication is terrible, but [..] I feel like Clinton is drawing close to checkmating her opponents.

Note that record he mentions though: in 2004 Yglesias predicted that Howard Dean was inevitable. But Scott Lemieux at the American Prospect's Tapped chimed in:

Quote:

Taking Dana's point that it's early and a lot can happen, etc., and without quite being ready enough to say "lock," I think that it's pretty much over. What allowed Kerry to come out of nowhere was concerns about Dean compounded by the inept, undisciplined endgame to his Iowa campaign. Clinton, whatever else one can say about her, is a very disciplined campaigner; she'll be very, very difficult to haul down from behind. I'm also inclined to think, given her strong basic political abilities and her lead, that the fact that she was two viable opponents probably helps her more than anything; both Obama and Edwards will stay in long enough to prevent a single anti-Clinton candidate from emerging until it's too late. This is unfortunate, given that I think she's both the least progressive and the weakest presidential candidate of the three, but I would be extremely surprised if she wasn't the nominee.

On TNR, Michael Crowley did play up a new "strikingly pointed riff" Obama included in a "pumped-up performace at a rally in downtown Washington": in his speech, Obama acknowledged that people might think, "Every four years somebody comes and makes these big promises, and nothing happens. The game is fixed. [Better] just settle on whatever seems like the safest bet," -- and warned them:

"that's what people who think politics is a game are counting on. [..] They are counting on you not having confidence that your vote can make a difference. That's what they're are always banking on. That's how the politics of fear overcomes the politics of hope.Crowley played this up as "pretty tough stuff", since "it seems clear that Obama is referring to the Clinton machine and its allies". But his colleague Noam Scheiber is unimpressed:

Quote:

I dunno [..]. I concede that Obama is trying to sharpen his stump speech. But "people who think politics is a game" still strikes me as incredibly vague and abstract, at least if the audience is the average primary voter. Now maybe the hope is that people like us will pick up on it and make the connection in our coverage. (If so, then mission accomplished, I guess.) But at some point I think Obama's going to have to go right down the middle of the lane instead of settling for nifty bankshots. [..]

What I still don't understand [..] is why there isn't a slightly greater sense of urgency in his camp. Granted, there's still plenty of time to change the dynamics of this race. But at some point Obama's going to need to take some real risks.

(Straight from my heart...)

So what's triggered this sudden rush of declarations that Obama's campaign is in deep trouble? Apparently, it was an article in Slate that set it all of: John Dickerson: Time To Panic?.

Quote:

Barack Obama is improving rapidly as a presidential candidate. His showing at the Service Employees International Union's spring health-care forum was so bad, an Obama adviser labeled it a "searing experience." But he was dazzling at an SEIU forum on Monday, putting to rest any concern that Obama is too cool and abstract to talk to regular folks. His Tuesday speech unveiling a middle-class tax-cut proposal demonstrated that Obama has moved past the uplifting, but vague, rhetoric of his early campaign and toward concrete policy ideas.

This is good news for Obama and his fans, but is it enough good news? While he's been improving, Hillary Clinton has been improving faster. He was once the Democratic Party phenomenon, but she's the one with the momentum in the polls. She now leads the national polls by 20 points. In the crucial states of New Hampshire and South Carolina, she's way ahead, too. Obama, by contrast, is doing no better in national polls than he was in February, despite vast and largely approving press coverage. He has fallen sharply in New Hampshire and South Carolina since late summer. And the betting money is moving to Clinton, too: She is crushing Obama by 68 to 16 in the political futures markets. The only decent news for Obama comes from Iowa, where he is third in the polls, but very close to Clinton and John Edwards.

Is it time for Obama to panic?

Each day Clinton stays as the strong front-runner locks in her status a little more. Republican candidates are certainly treating her like their chief opponent, launching an intramural contest to show who can attack her more quickly and loudly. Giuliani tried to provoke a fight with her over Moveon.org's anti-Petraeus ad, and Mitt Romney held a special press conference to attack her health-care plan. This only helps Clinton's standing among Democrats.

Dickerson then proceeds to sketch a number of strategies that could help Obama recover. But in a mini-review on Tapped, Dana Goldstein comments:

Quote:

John Dickerson gets it right: As I reported, Obama rocked the house at the SEIU candidates' forum Monday, but that kind of soaring rhetoric [..] isn't enough to get him elected. [..] Dickerson suggests several tactics to help Obama overcome the growing feeling of inevitability around Hillary Clinton. First, he could attack Clinton more explicitly, or dig deep and publicize any dirt on her he can find. Alternatively, he could take the high road and let John Edwards roll in the mud with Hillary. Lastly, he could renew excitement by beating the rest of the field in fundraising again this quarter.

The problem is that we've seen Obama try all of these strategies already, to no concrete jump in his poll numbers.

So what's up with all this talk? Are we witnessing a new, more negative narrative on Obama's campaign taking shape? That could spell trouble in itself: once a pundit consensus is established, it will frame the way viewers and readers are told about every new move by the candidate. Just see what they did to Al Gore in 2000.

But what about the substance? Does the Obama campaign really face a serious problem of its own making, or is it just the navelgazing, incestuous clique of pundits working itself into a frenzy again? It's tough to come up with exciting storylines every week again if you have to cover an election campaign that lasts for two years, after all..

One commenter lays out the counterargument on Obama's behalf:

Quote:

I'm pretty unmoved by this stuff. Obama started by casting a wide net, focusing on process-oriented details in terms of policy and leaving the rest vague, trying to pull in non-traditional voters. Since then, he's been doing standard coalition building.

Step 1-elites. He's doing really well there. Check

Step 2-the black vote. He's been trending up and up there, as well. Check.

Step 3 is going to be working class voters and maybe seniors. And that means more policy specifics, more boring details and droning speeches and such, but as we can see, he's doing just that. The Iraq speech. The Wall Street speech. The Tax speech (with its bonus senior and working-class panders).

If he can be as successful with those target groups as he was with blacks and elites, he's got a great shot. And I suspect that the timing of this is rather deliberate. All of a sudden, post labor day, there are very presidential images of him floating around, giving a serious FP speech, he's kicking ass at the SEIU forum, he's giving tax cuts to blue collar Dems and Seniors.

Seems to be part of a big, targeted push.

0 Replies

Doesn't most voters already realize promises made during their campaign are rarely, if ever, kept? Generalities are all most people understand and accept; too much detail only bores most.

Charisma and ability to communicate is important, but we can't under-value/estimate what personal destruction can do even if they are built on lies.

We still have over a year, so we can't let every bad or good news determine what'll happen in 12 months.

0 Replies

sweet a druggie lets vote for him

unless anyone who did more drugs than Obama and is likely to get elected?

0 Replies

Quote:

just the navelgazing, incestuous clique of pundits working itself into a frenzy again? It's tough to come up with exciting storylines every week again if you have to cover an election campaign that lasts for two years,

It is incestuous belly button fuzz at work. Only thing that makes it tough to come up with exciting storylines each week is when pundits sit in their cubicle and declare the country's citizens bored to death with their own coverage of the election process. What makes it tough is having to acknowledge they were wrong and eat their words when the citizens ignore their declaration and keep on passionately truckin' for major changes in the ways our government is conducted.

There is a lot of interest in this upcoming election out there.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know