I Cogitate

Recent Posts My Best Blogs Archives Favorite Quotes Links Contact
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 link RSS feed

Recent Posts My Best Blogs Archives Favorite Quotes Links Contact