October 12, 2007
To Obama or not to Obama
Just what is Barack Obama's strategy? His plan on winning the Democratic presidential nomination?
He's certainly not out of the race in Iowa but he needs to make a
strong initial impression and eventually be leading Hillary Clinton and
winning primaries -- not what is currently taking place.
Obama wants to be seen as a harbinger of change -- and MAYBE he is the
real deal -- but it's generally coming across as quiet change, not
anything revolutionary. Not that he needs to be leaping into moshpits
at his campaign rallies or state that he will bring Dr. Phil into his
cabinet as Secretary of State but, although possessing greater charisma
than John Edwards or Clinton, it is not translating into successful
poll numbers.
My sense is Obama is failing to compel voters to go with him. Or may
the word 'enough' needs to be inserted into the previous sentence.
In a number of ways and to the casual voter, there aren't obvious
tremendous differences between the top three -- certainly nothing that
jumps out to those who don't spend their days and nights blogging and
reading blogs. This healthcare plan or that idea about curbing
government spending simply isn't an attraction.
What Obama has missed is differentiating himself from his opponents
regarding what he would do with the Iraq quagmire -- something he needs
to do if he wishes to truly be seen as someone different. Right now, it
appears Obama is winning those who take a liking to him but not those
who need something more concrete in order to move into his camp -- the
whys and hows of how he will be different and better offered in a
manner that drums up affiliation.
Here is Josh Marshall with what I see as an insightful take:
Obama
10.09.07 -- 9:49AM
Josh Marshal
Talking Points Memol
For months I've been quietly
hoping that Barack Obama would at least make a race of it with Hillary
Clinton. So I was more than a little disappointed when all the metrics
of conventional wisdom (in the wise and foolish senses) started showing
Hillary leaving Obama in the dust and becoming the dominant frontrunner
and presumptive nominee.
Folks who've been watching all
this closer than I have, like Matt Yglesias, say part of the issue is
that Obama just won't come out and say what his campaign is about. Says
Matt, "Watching the primary campaign, it keeps seeming to me as if
Barack Obama is making arguments that, while fairly clear to me, must
go over the heads of at least half of political junkies, to say nothing
of normal people going about their lives."
But the whole thing kind of
crystallized for me this weekend when I was reading Maureen Dowd's
review of Arthur Schlesinger's diaries in the Times. And, yes, it makes
me wonder about myself too that I'm picking up political insights from
Maureen Dowd. But here goes. It's her riff on Schlesinger's pained (or
perhaps self-indulgent reflection) on his defection from Adlai
Stevenson to Jack Kennedy ...
Kennedy has not been
“consecrated by inner conviction,” he writes, adding, “I also believe
him to be a devious, and if necessary, ruthless man.” But he suspects
that his friend Lauren Bacall is right that Stevenson has “a political
death wish...”
...But Stevenson is stuck on the
same mental pedestal that Barack Obama is on — “split between his
desire to win and his desire to live up to the noble image of himself.”
Go here for the remainder.
I'm not so sure Clinton did any defining of Obama but any newcomer
needs to project transformation. Sure, it is a fine line in running
against the DC establishment when you are a member of it but Obama is
failing regardless. Here's Ezra Klein's take on it all:
Why Obama Can't Attack
Ezra Klein
October 9, 2007
Ben Smith is correct to put
aside the question of whether Obama possesses the ruthlessness required
to run for president and instead focus on his strategy, "which hinges
on a message of 'unity' that is as much in line with polling and
message-testing as with his personality," and which has handcuffed him
into an above-the-fray vagueness.
The most remarkable political
triumph of this campaign was the Clinton campaign effectively defining
Barack Obama's "new politics" as "not attacking Hillary Clinton by
name." Obama, of course, could have defined the new politics however he
wanted, from a focus on transformative policy to a willingness to call
out the DC establishment. Instead, he let the Clinton camp define his
message in a way advantageous to them. And given that his campaign has
not been particularly bold on policy, he's been left with neither the
rhetorical room nor the substantive beliefs with which to tackle the
frontrunner. It was real incompetence on the part of Obama's handlers,
and it's called into question his skills and, yes, ruthlessness, as a
campaigner.
Here is David Sirota with some information I find very troubling:
BREAKING: Obama Says He Will Vote for NAFTA Expansion
David Sirota
Working Assets
10/9/07
Hot off the presses from MSNBC:
"Obama said he would vote for a
Peruvian trade agreement next week, in response to a question from a
man in Londonderry, NH who called NAFTA and CAFTA a disaster for
American workers. He said he supported the trade agreement with Peru
because it contained the labor and environmental standards sought by
groups like the AFL-CIO, despite the voter’s protests to the contrary.
He also affirmed his support for free trade."
The voter's "protests to the
contrary" are exactly right. The AFL-CIO does not support the Peruvian
agreement, and the labor/environmental standards leave enforcement up
to the Bush administration, rather than empowering third parties to
enforce them (like corporations have the power to enforce investor
rights provisions in these same trade agreements).
Obama is the first presidential
candidate to officially declare his/her support for the NAFTA expansion
moving through the Congress. His announcement is not necessarily
surprising, considering he was the keynote speaker at the launch of the
Hamilton Project - a Wall Street front group working to drive a wedge
between Democrats and organized labor on globalization issues. His
announcement comes just days after a Wall Street Journal poll found
strong bipartisan opposition to lobbyist-written NAFTA-style trade
policies.
Trade has been known to be a
huge issue in Iowa (remember Dick Gephardt in 1988), so this
announcement could very well ripple through the 2008 primary.
To oppose trade agreements that lack fairness
for the American worker, for foreign workers and for the environment is
not anti-free trade. Otherwise, it is a corporate giveaway. Obama is
losing me here.
In one of the comments posted after Ezra Klein on-lined his article,
the idea expressed is that Obama is actually running for 2012 or 2016
and that his current campaign is dipping his toes into the water for
wider name recognition. I have no idea if this is true -- only Obama
would know for sure -- but I do know he is floundering in offering
REASONS compelling enough individuals to vote for him. To Obama or not
to Obama will hinge on his being able to contrast or not being able to
demarcate.
top
RSS feed
|