Barack Obama has a big problem.
If the Democratic presidential race is between him and Hillary Clinton--sorry, Senator Edwards--it boils down, in a way to this: Clinton says, believe in my resume; Obama says, believe in me.
Clinton is pitching herself as a woman of experience who can start working for you and our children on Day One. Look, 35 years of policy wonkery and advocacy. Look, a record of accomplishment. (Fill in the number of children in fill in the state have health insurance because of her.) Look, years of traveling overseas as First Lady, years of hard toil--including working with (gasp!) Republicans--in the Senate, and years of doing political battle in the trenches. All of this is measurable and confirmable. A voter can easily evaluate her case and judge whether she's right for the job.
Obama is selling himself as...himself. That is, Obama is insisting that he has the ability to create a new politics--a transformative, overcoming-the-divide politics--because of who he is, because of his character and considerable personal attributes. Sure, he points to his past as a community organizer and civil rights lawyers and to his work in the Illinois state senator and the U.S. Senate to bolster his argument that he possesses the right stuff. But his is not a campaign of resume-waving. He's running on his soul. And Obama goes further than asking voters to hire him as their advocate. He issues an invitation: join me in this grand cause to change politics, change government, and change the nation. He speaks of his campaign as a movement and compares it to the great social movements of America's past.
With Obama, it's not about his career highlights, it's about him. To buy his case, a voter must believe in him, have faith in him, place hope in him--must have (or feel) a connection with him. And this is where the problem kicks in.
In the small and early states, a presidential candidates can forge a connection with voters. There are direct interactions: meet-and-greets, town hall gatherings, rallies. Word of mouth can spread. And the media in the early states devote extensive coverage; even couch potatoes come into regular contact with the contenders. In both Iowa and New Hampshire, Obama was able to create a bond with a great number of voters--many of whom had been able to interact closely with him or his campaign. They could hear him speak. They could look him in the eye. They could experience Obama--in real time, in real life.
After Nevada and South Carolina, that's going to change. The election will be shaped by Supersaturated Tuesday, February 5, when two dozen states, including some of the largest in the union, will hold primaries or caucuses. No candidate will be able to reach large number of voters in an up-close-and-personal manner. There will be big rallies in California and elsewhere. But the people who show up will be a minuscule fraction of the electorate, and these events may not receive extensive local media coverage--absent Oprah or a newsworthy mishap. (California television news is notorious for shortchanging political coverage. There are, after all, so many car chases to chase after.)
At this stage, the candidates will be reaching voters mainly through commercials. A television spot is a fine medium for a candidate to share his or her resume, to list his or her accomplishments. It is much tougher to convey the intangibles of hope, faith, and transcendence in a 30- or 60-second spot. The bottom line: advantage to Clinton.
In the mad scramble that will ensue after the South Carolina Democratic primary on January 26--with the candidates flying back and forth across the country in an intense nine-day dash--Obama may find it difficult to connect directly with voters in the fashion he needs to. He proclaims, let me lead you in a noble cause, and many Democrats are already sold. They have been inspired. They are part of his crusade. But others might need to feel the buzz viscerally before jumping on the Obama Express. Can Obama jazz them up from a distance--when he's hopscotching from one state to the other, responding to Clinton's criticisms (or attacks), and keeping it all together?
Prior to the primaries, Obama did move thousands of Democrats, who flocked to his website and donated generously. He did not shake the hand of each one. He did not have to. And the enthusiasm he generated set him up well for Iowa and New Hampshire. But as New Hampshire demonstrated, he needs to expand beyond that base. And that means reaching voters who have not yet felt the Obama magic. How to convince them from afar is a profound challenge. (To be clear: I'm not predicting he will fail. I'm not predicting anything at all about this election. Not anymore. I'm merely noting Obama has much unique heavy-lifting to do in the next three weeks.)
When Supersized Tuesday first materialized, political observers made the obvious observation that it would favor any candidate with big bucks, extensive organization, and/or establishment backing. But it also gives an advantage to any candidate with a conventional (and, thus, easy-to-convey) message. And that isn't Barack Obama.
I'll be out of town for a few days. See you next week--after Nevada.
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Comments
You're right. Obama inpires and he can't be in all states at once on super Tuesday. On the other hand, he's already running in California and that's a week away so maybe he's got a plan up his sleeve. I woundn't be suprised, he's that smart.
Posted by: Neil
| January 18, 2008 6:58 AM
Obama can preach and his followers can faint, and scream "Hosanna" till the fishes and loaves multiply and the water turns to wine.
The fact remains that his unremarkable resume makes him ill-prepared for the Presidency.
Posted by: JoeCHI
| January 18, 2008 8:01 AM
Obama has not made any big mistakes, yet.
Maybe he just lets HRC and her camp of Hbots shoot themselves in the foot.
If he runs close or beats the numbers the HRC camp will get all ugly and nix her support - so far so good, eh?
Posted by: capt
| January 18, 2008 8:53 AM
Each time I hear about experience from HRC I wonder if first lady experience qualifies - should the GOP run Laura Bush?
That can't work in her favor.
Posted by: capt
| January 18, 2008 8:55 AM
Accounts of the Electoral Death of John Edwards Are Perhaps Premature
Posted by: capt
| January 18, 2008 4:32 PM
Is Obama a Reaganite?
Posted by: David B. Benson
| January 18, 2008 5:18 PM
"Reaganite"
Is that a kind of rock?
Mineral?
Posted by: capt
| January 18, 2008 5:36 PM
I'd have to disagree.
Clingon is selling herself, Obama is selling a movement. Hence her stating that "she found her voice" when Obama said " Yes We Can". Also, she feels that the presidency is somewhat owed to her. That's a one person show. I see this totally the other way around.
Hilary 35 years of experience? I don't know why people are buying this.
Posted by: Beve
| January 19, 2008 3:51 PM
Obama's problem is that the recent great social movement has been populist conservatism, the Dems advantage is on policy, even now according to Pew in the abstract they are many more conservatives than liberals, even if many conservatives are 'liberal' on policy.
Posted by: GeoffRobinson
| January 20, 2008 4:04 AM
Give the Candidates the MLK Test
Posted by: capt
| January 20, 2008 11:45 AM
First of all..to those who question HRC's 35 years of experience and how being Firs Lady counts, remember how much more involved she was in many facets of the administration than any other First Lady with the possible exception of Eleanor Roosevelt. Reguardless of the outcome, do you think any other President would have trusted his wife with attempting to reform the health care system of this nation? I'm not saying she isn't inflating her accomplishments to some extent, but she does have more time in the trenches of government and policy than almost anyone else in this campain (McCain being the only exception). And take it from a youngest sibling, watching your predecessor's mistakes first hand is the best way to avoid repeating them.
Second...I don't really hear Obama trying to sell a movement. I hear him using some rhetoric of a movement, but where is his call to arms? When has he ever said anything specific about what his movement is or what it will do? So far it's just and inspirational pep talk designed to bolster his image and make the electorate love him. Just saying "Yes We Can" doesn't mean he want's "Us" to do anything other than vote for him.
Americans need to stop voting with their hearts. This is not a race for Student Council President.
Posted by: michael21
| January 21, 2008 1:59 AM
Luck vs. experience
Sometimes Presidents need a little of both
By NIGEL HAMILTON
Providence Journal
Much has been made in the Democratic presidential campaign of "experience" -- Hillary Rodham Clinton's versus Barack Obama's.
From the biographer's and historian's perspectives this is an interesting point. Clinton's first political experience was as a Young Republican, then as a student activist alongside her boyfriend at Yale Law School, Democrat Bill Clinton. Following him to Fayetteville, she taught law at the University of Arkansas and then became a corporate lawyer, once he stood for Arkansas attorney general and governor.
Her successful work for education reform in Arkansas was conducted on behalf of her husband -- as was her ill-fated health-care reform when he became president. Yes, she constantly gained in experience as a wife, a mother, an activist and a lawyer -- but her own trajectory as an elected political official dates only from 2000, when she stood for the U.S. Senate in New York, four years before Obama stood for the U.S. Senate in Illinois.
Obama, having been previously elected to the Illinois Senate, in 1997, is therefore a more experienced elected politician than the former first lady, though a political generation younger. The real question is therefore: What experience best fits a candidate to become a modern president?
*****
An interesting take.
Posted by: capt
| January 21, 2008 9:18 AM
"Americans need to stop voting with their hearts. This is not a race for Student Council President."
No reason to minimize either candidate as both are qualified.
Preference is not "out of line" and if both are qualified one might just vote their heart without being belittled or dismissed.
Just a thought.
Posted by: capt
| January 21, 2008 9:20 AM
Let's see what the esteemed Senator Clinton has done and not done:
1.Took Arkansas from 50th to 49th when she was education czar.
2.In charge of failed health care plan.
3.Never received a security clearance in the White House.
4.Allowed marital dalliances of the worst kind, eschewing the feminism to which she is so holy and wholly wed.
5.Was basically a non-factor on all White House policy decisions between 1993 and 1998, according to all sources.
6.Made a Faustian bargain to become New York senator.
Now let's see at what she really excels:
1.Hiding billing records
2.Firing career travel office employees
3.Turning $1,000 into $100,000 in cattle futures trading
4.Ordering FBI files on political enemies
5.Denigrating the bimbo-eruption women
6.Securing pardons for clients of her brother
Yep, David, that's certainly the kind of "experience" I'd want in a President.
Tom
Posted by: Tomcantu
| January 21, 2008 12:27 PM
"Allowed marital dalliances of the worst kind, eschewing the feminism to which she is so holy and wholly wed."
Allowed, enjoyed, encouraged or ignored - still marital issues belong to only those involved.
I always steer clear of others marital issues. Couples usually have more in common with each other than shows on the surface. No telling what constitutes the bond.
There is no moral highground being judgmental about other's relationships. We all face challenges in that area to one degree or another.
Posted by: capt
| January 21, 2008 12:45 PM
There is no moral highground being judgmental about other's relationships. We all face challenges in that area to one degree or another.
Only one problem with that, the Clintons are asking us to let them do it again. Hid the interns now!
Posted by: LBH
| January 21, 2008 1:19 PM
"There is no moral highground being judgmental about other's relationships. We all face challenges in that area to one degree or another."
Normally, I would agree with you, but this is a woman who prides herself on her own accomplishments. Alas, her whole career is built on the back of her accomplished if somewhat flawed husband.
Please name me one accomplishment of hers past the age of 25 that hasn't been directly related to her husband. Her promotions at the Rose Law Firm were even directly tied to President Clinton's political fortunes.
Quick, can anybody name Golda Meir's husband? How about Maggie Thatcher's? Indira Ghandi's? These were all strong women who made it on their own. Senator Clinton is nothing more than a reshod Maria Eve Duarte, aka Eva Peron.
The great irony is that, for her better good, she had/has morphed into Tammy Wynette, the image she most despised, betraying every idea and ideal she espoused along the way. She is the quintessential little woman, allowing her man to do anything he wants because, quite simply, she cannot survive without him.
And this is an icon of feminism?
Posted by: Tomcantu
| January 21, 2008 2:00 PM
"She is the quintessential little woman, allowing her man to do anything he wants because, quite simply, she cannot survive without him."
If you're trying to make a point - you diminish the facts with wild assumptions.
I don't have to defend anybody to sense the pettiness of your words.
Maybe she is a freak and watches from a closet?
Makes no difference to me.
Use the old rubber v. glue argument from grade school. The small minded words reflect worse on you than they will ever have an impact on others about her.
Just an observation.
Posted by: capt
| January 21, 2008 2:06 PM
I will ask the question again - what has she accomplished on her own since age 25?
Remember, this is a woman who said she embarked on dangerous journeys. Later we find that the most "dangerous journey" also included her daughter and Sheryl Crow.
This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue. This woman would be a pathetic joke were she not a serious bet to become the next President of the United States.
I don't believe my words to be petty - they strike at the very heart of her existence.
Then, again, perhaps the words are petty, as they convey a woman of petty accomplishments, petty virtues and petty ideals.
Posted by: Tomcantu
| January 21, 2008 2:28 PM
Read her bio:
"dictum sapienti sat est"
Your words are hateful and very small.
No reason for that.
Posted by: capt
| January 21, 2008 4:38 PM
I hold no personal animus towards Senator Clinton. Sadly, this intelligent, hard-working woman is the personification of all that is wrong in American politics.
As once said the immortal Gertrude Stein, "There is no there there." Senator Clinton will say anything, do anything to get elected.
My words are admittedly small, however, to describe a person of small achievement, small virtue and small ideals.
And, so, I will ask again: what do you consider her major accomplishments?
And I agree with you. What say we enlist Rosalynn Carter and Laura Bush to run? At least they are faithful to their beliefs.
Perhaps I need to amend the previous sentence. A precursor needs to be, "At least they have beliefs."
Posted by: Tomcantu
| January 21, 2008 4:58 PM
"Everybody believes in something and everybody, by virtue of the fact that they believe in something, use that something to support their own existence."
~ Frank Zappa
Posted by: capt
| January 21, 2008 5:33 PM
Your words are hateful and very small.
No reason for that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This coming from the guy who calls Bush a Nazi, murdering, lying, stealing, drunk coke snorting, stupid draft dodging republican whore.
You're such a hoot!
Posted by: LBH
| January 21, 2008 7:12 PM
I think it is easy to enumerate the faults of either candidate. But it is also beside the point, and with no purpose since, by now, I don't think anyone will be moved off their candidate by a list of what he or she allegedly did wrong, so why bother....and, really, who cares anyway?
More interesting is whether Corn is right about how it will effect the outcome of the Feb 5 primaries. The conventional wisdom is that the bunching up of primaries favors the institutional power of state parties which in large proportion seem to be going Clinton's way. Clinton was adroit in NH and NV; people will dissect those wins for years and hold it up as evidence of Bill's genius--no doubt they will find their way into his obituary...But for 8,000 votes in NH, the game would be a little different today. But Obama did not win NH and NV and he did not build the momentum he needed, and he has not been able to persuade the unions and the independents and the republicans to believe in him enough to come out in sufficient numbers to change the game, at least not yet....
Of course the conventional wisdom has been wrong before, and if it is in this case Obama wins, it would signal a major shift in the country's thinking--a break from the Clinton orthodoxy, a rejection of 51% rule. Such a change may also be something that the Clintons are unprepared for. I just don't think they know how to harness the energy that Obama creates. They can split and dissect and pit X against Y, to the advantage of Z; they are very very good at it. They can win our sympathy when they suffer the vicissitudes of "right wing talking points"; they can get us mad at the "thuggery" of Obama's campaign in NV, even while bragging about how wonderful his candidacy is for the country in SC--no small feat that. But mobilize the youth vote? Mobilize the African-American vote? Persuade independents and the disaffected to believe in government again? Can they even say the word "hope" with a straight face or without conjuring up memories of this sad primary cycle and that guy, now a professor in Chicago, called Hussein Osama something? I just don't see how they do it. Politics is for them a very pedestrian activity--the moral philosophy, the principally arguments about "the good" just don't come easily to them. Hillary is brilliant in the debates (Girl, Interrupter) but on the stump she leaves me hanging. Hey, I could be wrong, but hope does not seem to be their m.o.
So what do we have to look forward to in this post-hope world that the Clinton's are creating? I imagine the Clintons, Restored, will preside over a party held together with tape and staples in the face of a fierce and entrenched Republican party drifting more and more into some hyperconservative maelstrom (the party of Reagan and optimism now the battling demons of torture and xenophobia, how sad); Bill and Hill will face some of the worst challenges we have faced in a generation, all with little or no joie de vivre, all with little or no moral authority, all with the barest of majorities. And the young voters who have come out by the 1,000 for Obama, now dejected and despondent at how the country is really run (you cannot argue that many of the Clinton's tactics to stay alive after Iowa have been cynical in the extreme, any more than you can question the fact they they have worked!); The next generaton, sitting in the empty dark convention halls littered with confetti, will turn to less trivial pursuits than politics.
After the wonder and honeymoon of putting a woman in the WH--hallelujah, it's about time, seriously--passes, we will probably look fondly back to the first Clinton White House as a time of hopeful optimism. Until we wake up, shake off the daydreams, get a reality check, and remember that this is 2008, not 1992, and we are staring down the double-barrels of two more terms of 51% rule.
Posted by: zimerino
| January 21, 2008 7:54 PM
But Bush is a Nazi, murdering, lying, stealing, drunk coke snorting, stupid draft dodging republican whore.
All true and correct. The truth is still the truth. (although I never have called him a whore - that would be an insult to whores)
The small words used today were mysoginstic and gender biased.
That is small minded.
I am no HRC supporter but claiming she did nothing before meeting Bubba is factually false.
Seems like you always have a problem teling the truth from the lies.
Do you really think Bush never lied? That his grandpa wasn't a Nazi investor building the Bush nestegg off the backs of holocaust victims? That Bush didn't go AWOL? etc. etc. etc.
ROTFLMFAO!!!
Always a hoot - indeed.
Thanks again!
Posted by: capt
| January 21, 2008 8:38 PM
Huh? I thought Rush Limbaugh was the Nazi. Sorry, but the classics never get old ;).
Posted by: eyes_open
| January 21, 2008 9:58 PM
Nice to see Corn has comments on his blog again.
Not so nice to see that some of the same moronic trolls from the old blog are still wasting space in the new place.
Posted by: Green Akerz
| January 22, 2008 1:39 AM
All true and correct. The truth is still the truth. (although I never have called him a whore - that would be an insult to whores)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just goes to show your maturity level and limited capacity of brain waves~
Always a hoot indeed!
Posted by: LBH
| January 22, 2008 12:45 PM
Do you really think Bush never lied?
Do you really think the Clintons have ever told the truth?
Morons
Posted by: LBH
| January 22, 2008 12:47 PM
The small words used today were mysoginstic and gender biased.
Hillary's the one who has brought gender and race into the debate. Just like a minion to fall into her power play. At least Obama has some integrity, to bad you fools are going to elect the most corrupt couple in the history of politics because of your bigotry towards Obama. Just like the Grand Old Wizard party of Sen Bird.
Posted by: LBH
| January 22, 2008 12:53 PM
"Do you really think the Clintons have ever told the truth?"
Trying to change the subject?
I never posted anything like your posts that Bush never lied.
Do you now admit Bush lied?
You are learning .
Posted by: capt
| January 22, 2008 12:57 PM
That is a good thing.
Posted by: capt
| January 22, 2008 12:59 PM
Do you now admit Bush lied?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, I'm not sure. What proof do you have?
Was he convicted of lying under oath? How about lying to a grand jusry? Impeached for lying? Lost his law license for lying? Pardoned criminals to keep them from lying? Caused a close associate to commit suicide to conceal lies? Had close associates go to jail for refusing to reveal the lies? Had a top fundraiser support Obama becuase he said they can't be trusted? Have Obama call you lyers on national TV?
This is your party, past, present and future~
Posted by: LBH
| January 22, 2008 1:18 PM
You are learning .
~~~~~
The only thing I've learned from you Capt is how much hate and bitterness you have inside you.
I've learned to feel sorry for you and all libs that keep the pharameuticals companies, that sell prozac, at a all time profit.
Posted by: LBH
| January 22, 2008 1:23 PM
Hey, did anyone notice last nights debate when CNN anounced that the surge is working and political progress is being made? That has to hurt when the Clinton News Network has taken the Murtha line on the war.
Posted by: LBH
| January 22, 2008 1:25 PM
Hey Capt,
Why is it that the Dems won't support a balck man for Pres?
Posted by: LBH
| January 22, 2008 1:27 PM
Why did the Dems last night spend a quarter of the debate defending there praise of Ronald Reagan instead of Jimmy Carter? That was too damn funny.
Hillary says Ronald Reagan was one of her favorite Presidents. Obama says Regean had all the great ideas. Poor Jimmy, he didn't even get mentioned.
Posted by: LBH
| January 22, 2008 1:30 PM
Would you think me credible if I said "Clinton might not have lied because he didn't know he was lying"?
In the most humble and simple objective sense - apply that to your defense of Bush - and there you have it.
Posted by: capt
| January 22, 2008 1:33 PM
Stewart Debunks Bill, Mocks Media Coverage In Nevada
Huffington Post | January 22, 2008 10:20
Last night on "A Daily Show," Jon Stewart mocked the coverage of the Nevada caucus and the media's reliance on overused gambling terminology ("You have to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em," for instance). He also debunked Bill Clinton's claim of dirty campaign tactics.
Whoops another lie exposed.
Posted by: LBH
| January 22, 2008 1:35 PM
Would you think me credible if I said "Clinton might not have lied because he didn't know he was lying"?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
God, did you really say that? I fell off my damn chair when I read that. You are full of laughs silly boy!
Posted by: LBH
| January 22, 2008 1:36 PM
Would you think me credible if I said "Clinton might not have lied because he didn't know he was lying"?
The Clinton's should hire you to work for them. That was better than tahn anything sleaze ball James Carville could have come up with.
Posted by: LBH
| January 22, 2008 1:38 PM
Would you think me credible if I said "Clinton might not have lied because he didn't know he was lying"?
I'm still laughing~~ But, I bet Obama isn't as amused as I am. Waht a shill!
Posted by: LBH
| January 22, 2008 1:39 PM
The comments that I hate this or that are not necessary and make no point. I can't tell if you are trying to insult me or project yourself and your ideas on me? Either way, as much as I appreciate your concerns it is more creepy than anything. Who cares what I like or hate? If you really do - just quit it, it is not about me.
It doesn't move the ball down the field in any sense.
If you cannot stick to the candidates and the issues don't expect any interaction from me, the personal attacks only mean you can't win on the point or can't make valid point of discussion.
Just like attacking HRC for being a woman, it exposes your weakest spots.
Thanks!
Posted by: capt
| January 22, 2008 1:40 PM
The economy is great!
The surge has won the occupation!
Bush never lied!
Fer sure amigo!
Posted by: capt
| January 22, 2008 1:42 PM
Would you think me credible if I said "Clinton might not have lied because he didn't know he was lying"?
I wonder if Hillary bought that one when Bill told her; Honestly Hillary, I did not have sex with that women.
It was my cigar -Har Har Har!
Posted by: LBH
| January 22, 2008 1:42 PM
The economy is great!~~~~~~
The economy is slowing as all economic cycles do, even Clinton had a down turn. However, it is a great time to buy as the market is selling- econ 101. Oil is going down and mortgage rates are going down.
The surge has won the occupation! ~~~
Almost, patience friend, patience.
Bush never lied! ~~
Still waiting for that proof!
Posted by: LBH
| January 22, 2008 1:51 PM
White Americans ready to elect black president, poll shows
Barack Obama's prospects of beating Hillary Clinton to the Democratic presidential nomination received a boost yesterday after 72% of white Americans told a CNN poll they believed the US was ready to have a black president.
The poll will make glum reading for Obama's rival for the nomination, Hillary Clinton, however: fewer than two-thirds of respondents thought the country was ready for a female commander-in-chief.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corp poll, which was published on Martin Luther King day, found notably fewer black Americans (61%) than white believed the US was ready for a leader who shared their skin colour.
Posted by: capt
| January 22, 2008 2:02 PM
Fred Thompson (R) has pulled out of the 2008 presidential race.
YAWN!
I think Fred needs a nap.
Posted by: capt
| January 22, 2008 2:47 PM
Fred Thompson (R) has pulled out of the 2008 presidential race.
YAWN!
I think Fred needs a nap.
I agree on that one, too bad Edwards can't take a hint.
White Americans are ready for a black Pres. It's the Dem party that isn't ready my friend.
Posted by: LBH
| January 22, 2008 4:04 PM
Post A Comment