And then she won again.
And again.
What happened? Hubris, plain and simple.
There were widespread and deep criticisms of the manner in which the Obama campaign was being run over the summer and into the early fall, most of them fair. Many felt, including myself, that the 2008 Obama Campaign was a personality-driven repeat of the Edwards Campaign in 2004 — David Axelrod’s lastest incarnation of a personality uber-alles campaign.
Looking at John Edwards now, you can’t help but wonder if he wants to say: Barack, I was in your shoes four years ago and I learned two things. A great stump speech only gets you so far, and hope isn’t a strategy.
Barack’s message of hope and vision and of a changing world is without a doubt inspiring, and for the first time in quite a while, we have a Democratic candidate who has had the marketing and the speechwriting of the finest order. For far too long, we’ve been the product party only to be outmarketed by the right, now we have flipped the equation and it was a breath of fresh air to many Democrats.
For those of us who suffered through 2000 and 2004, it was as if we had reached a crucial, George Lakoff-induced high. While both Al Gore and John Kerry were incredibly qualified, incredibly serious and would have both made great Presidents, the presentation, advertising and marketing was pathetic.
Worse than pathetic.
The Kerry Campaign managed to spend $100 million plus on advertising and marketing and go backwards from where Gore was in 2000. 2000 was also a disaster for the Democrats.
So it is not surprising that reasonable people got caught up in the hope and vision not just of Obama, but of a candidate who had the ability to express his hope and vision. The victory speech in Iowa is the single best political speech I have ever seen in person or watched live in my life, end of story.
Riding that speech, and riding that momentum, it was on to Iowa.
In the snows of New Hampshire, Barack Obama had the chance to put the Clinton dynasty to rest, and hubris got him. They took their feet off the gas, they thought they had won, and they let a champion off of the mat and back in the game. Once the champion is back standing, only trouble lies ahead and trouble is what Obama has.
His situation, of course, is far from desperate and the race is far from over, but it’s how the campaign is reacting is what would concern me if I was an Obama supporter.
The best analogy I can think of is of a very spoiled child who has just gotten their favorite toy taken away from them. They are pouty, whiny and wrong.
But those who were inspired by the message of Barack should not be disappointed in it, but they should in the messenger’s campaign.
Why would you spend more time attacking Democrats than Republicans?
Barack has insulted President Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry while praising Ronald Reagan? Why? The hubris that said I have already won the nomination and am moving onto the general.
Why would you consciously ignore the netroots, the land where hope and passion lives in the party? Why? Hubris, and the knowledge that you are truly not as progressive as they are, and the hope the distance will make the differences less apparent.
Why would you repeat right wing talking points, “social security is in crisis?” Who knows? I think this is just pure stupidity.
And who can you not be ready in California? Hubris as campaign offices open two weeks before a must win primary.
Now the news comes that Obama has broken the pledge not to campaign in Florida, and Hillary will eat his lunch.
With the whining of Nevada still ringing in their ears, when Obama again got outworked, outflanked and outfought, Democrats around the country are looking at two choices.
Hillary Clinton is showing us she knows how to fight.
Barack Obama is showing us he’s not ready for prime time.
More and more the campaign is about Barack’s personality and just like John Edwards in 2004, another David Axelrod creation, personality alone doesn’t win The White House.
To make matters worse, the problem is Barack has to talk about hope and working together while he fights a tougher opponent than he. Last night at the debate, I saw a lot of sniping and yelling; it wasn’t especially a stellar evening for either candidate but it was more unseemly for Barack than for Hillary. He’s about hope, she’s about the fight.
This chasm is an incongruity that the Obama campaign had never planned on overcoming. But they must. And they must grow up along the way — and attacking Republicans might be a good idea instead of attacking Democrats.
Otherwise, two weeks from tomorrow, hope will be all that’s left.
Your insights are excellent food for thought…you have hit the nail right on the head…given Axelrod’s one-note playbook (EdwardsbecomesObamabecomesPatrickbecomesObama), it may not be possible for him to do anything but what they are doing…it worked better on a state level than on the national stage.
Obama’s oratory skills don’t hold a candle to Deval’s – small criticism, I know, but I just had to correct the “best ever” line. I’ve seen several better stump speaches by the Governor in person =p
<
p>However, I must say I love this line:
<
p>
<
p>btw – overall, your piece is spot on. There’s a reason why Hillary tends to win the Democrats and Obama the independents in primaries. It’s only too bad that Barack didn’t get the memo: you have to win democrats in a democratic primary.
I really like Deval, but I’ve never seen him give a barn-burner, certainly nothing like Obama’s DNC speech or his post-Iowa (or even post-NH) speeches.
I’ve always thought of Patrick as a sort of “hot” orator–not fiery perhaps, but full of energy and enthusiasm and electricity. I think my favorite part of his stump speech of his was the “just words,” section:
<
p>Obama I find to be more of a “cool” orator – more put together and collected. Frankly, Obama’s Martin Luther King day speech recently was one of the best speeches I’ve ever seen. Regardless of who you support, you have to recognize the sheer rhetorical power Obama harnesses. I think it’s worth watching all the way through if only just for the sake of learning political rhetoric. And by the way, when I talk about using religion imagery with progressive ideas/ideals, this is exactly what I mean. The metaphor of the walls at Jericho is simply extremely powerful.
<
p>
That video cut out. Here’s a better one:
<
p>
Obama’s Jefferson-Jackson day speech in Iowa, without notes was outstanding. Deval has never had that platform, but he has never risen to that level as well
That, along with a few other of his speeches, I think are far more fiery and powerful. Then again, this is all subjective and as I’ve said a few times on BMG, the “purple America” “bipartisan solution” concepts always rub me the wrong way. However, trying to ignore the content of the speeches, I think Deval’s are more powerful. Deval’s a bit more fiery, while Obama is more of a story teller IMO. This is a rather trivial debate, though, since I’m sure we’d all like to be able to deliver a stump speech as well as either Deval or Obama.
…was always going to be a rough day for Obama with NY, CT and NJ voting plus the Clinton lead in California and Florida…he was going to be hard pressed to keep up with the pile of delegates she will get from these bigger states. The smaller ones will probably be largely a delegate wash with the three candidates slicing up the vote in the rest of the super Tuesday states.
<
p>I have wondered for awhile now what was his strategy to overcome that day?
<
p>Here is Feb 5th…
<
p>Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho (D), Illinois, Massachusetts, Minesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico (D), New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia (R).
<
p>Anyone have the schedule for the next few weeks after that into early March?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
The calendar opens up for Obama later in the month of Feb. He has a much better chance to win on the 12th…DC,MD,VA and the 19th HI,WA,WI. So you never know. It might be fun seeing the candidates running around PA in April for three/four weeks.
<
p>Hopefully all three will stay in the race right up to the convention. I am still voting for Edwards Feb 5th.
As you say, it would always be hard on Obama that day. Spuer Tuesday was always going to be hard for the non-establishment candidates – in money, name and organisation.
<
p>But, he has to money to stay in it in all those states and beyond. He can take a lot of delegates that day and drag it out further. And after the Clinton nastiness he should stay in it to win it.
I like Hillary Clinton a lot, for the virtues you mention, though I think she’s too hawkish on foreign policy, very likely to accept Bush’s expansion of executive power, and probably a greater electability risk than Obama or Edwards. And, I have misgivings about the personality cult around Obama.
<
p>But Obama can’t win in your analysis. If he tries to act above the fray, he’s passive and outfought. If he fights, he’s petulant and “insulting Democrats.” Either way he’s
uppityhubristic.<
p>And you claim Obama isn’t as progressive as the netroots. Maybe, but is he less progressive than Clinton?
<
p>Be partisan, by all means. But be credible.
A fighting liberal is something we need in these parts. Hillary is a fighter, but for herself.
<
p>Obama should stick it to the Clintons – all day, every day and let the chips fall.
I really don’t think there’s a huge difference between Clinton and Obama. They’re both playing to the general election audience, anyway. If people want a more progressive vote, they’re better off voting for John Edwards.
A lot of good commentary in your post. Very insightful.
I really don’t see a difference in Obama’s campaign rhetoric since Iowa. Sure, the crowds have grown and the pundits did a 180, but he’s been the same throughout. HRC, on the other hand, turned into Sensitive Fuzzy Hillary when it looked like she could get some votes out of it. On the ground and at the top, the Obama volunteers and staff took nothing for granted in New Hampshire. Your piece lacks any evidence of “hubris” in Obama’s camp.
<
p>Your piece is straight out of the Clinton talking points, and plays loosely with the facts.
<
p>Also:
<
p>”But win Clinton did.
And then she won again.
And again.”
pretty sure she’s only won two primaries.
<
p>Also:
<
p>Obama’s not breaking the Florida pledge– he did a 50 state ad buy, when a 49 state ad buy is impossible. Plus, what do you care being from MA?
Just because the Clintons are dirtier – does not mean they are tougher. Obama didn’t tear up and win the sympathy vote.
<
p>So the Clintons get a pass when they attack Democrats, when they triangulate their own party. But Obama points that out and now he is attacking Democrats.
<
p>You say Obama attacked Kerry. When? And if he did why did Kerry endorse him over his running mate from 2004.
<
p>The Reagan comment was an historical fact. He was transformative and just because we are Democrats, we should be man enough to admit that. Clinton didn’t like it because he thought all those Republican ideas he stole over the years were actually his – let us recall the V-Chip, protecting our young people from sex on TV, and then came Lewinsky and all everyone heard about was sex on TV. Can’t V-Chip the Starr Report on the night time news.
<
p>And what are you saying about not being ready in California. Obama had offices in more places quicker than Clinton – that is a fact. All 22 states are covered for Obama. I got family in Caly and they have been in those offices volunteering for Obama. You don’t know what you are talking about.
<
p>The one thing you may have remotely correct is the point about New Hampshire. Obama stayed all positive in New Hampshire and let up on the nuanced critique he had been making in Iowa about Clinton. He shouldn’t have. He should have hammered em into the dirt then. Instead he tried to be above the muck and the Clintons got lucky – they don’t even know why they won in NH.
<
p>And as far as getting out organised in Nevada – Obama had offices everywhere there – even in Republican northern Nevada, in little Elko. There is a reason he came out of Nevada with more delegates 13 to 12 – organisation. And sadly the Latino vote wouldn’t give a brother a chance. That killed Obama. I don’t get why Latinos like the Clintons. Clinton signed a welfare bill that cut legal immigrants off from benefits – yes, taxpayers. They have not done anything special for immigrants ever. Name a bill, a law. Hillary got herself into all types of trouble vacillating on the immigrant licensing bill – while Obama actually supports it. Hell, Obama comes from immigrant stock, has lived all over the world. Obviously he couldn’t get that message out.
<
p>Hillary may know how to fight dirty. But is that really what we want. Is that what the netroots wants. Lies and innuendo at the expense of ideas and positivity.
<
p>And I have no clue what you are talking about when you say Obama has ignored the netroots. He has raised more dough online than anyone – with more small donors than anyone. Young people actually came out to vote – young people turned on like never before. What are you talking about?
<
p>The social security commentary of Krugman is a joke. Yeah, so Obama has a social security plan that raises taxes on the wealthy. The Clintons attack that plan for hitting the middle class – bull of course. Who is the real progressive.
<
p>Next time, before you pump out a whole lot of bull from the Clinton dung farm, know the facts buddy.
The Reagan thing is a pretty reliable indicator of whether people are analyzing fairly or just hacking it up for their candidate. If you pretend that recognizing Reagan’s success = agreeing with Reagan’s policies, you’ve checked reason at the door. We expect candidates to exploit things like this, but it’s kind of silly to try it on each other.
I listened to Obama’s Reagan moment on numerous occasions. Each time I was more disgusted than the next. He wasn’t just recognizing Reagan’s success. There was a whole host of offensive things littered in there. At the very least, we should be able to depend on a Democrat to be elected who won’t praise Reaganism – the sort of policy ideas and machismo that got us where we are today. We need a Democrat who’s willing to figuratively stomp on that grave and truly pave a new movement in American politics. We have a chance to do that today – populace so pissed off at the political status quo that they’re willing to listen – we just need the right Democrat to do it. I would submit that person is not Obama.
All of the attributes of Reaganism in the quote flow from “I think they felt like…” and “what people were already feeling…” In other words he was speculating on why majorities responded to RR (60% in ’84!). You can disagree, but you can’t say he was praising the policies.
<
p>I don’t think we get a majority by stomping on graves. Many of the same people who are mad at Bush are not going to give up their fond memories of Reagan. I think we need a candidate who can be firm about progressive principles without asking independents and moderate GOPers to overturn their entire sense of history and identity.
He knew what he said and meant what he said. It’s precisely the comment that I can’t stand – he left himself just enough room so his diehard supporters wouldn’t jump ship (and defend that kind of putrid crap), but plenty of room to lure in anyone who’s fallen in love with this myth of Reaganism. It may help get Obama elected, but it does absolutely nothing for the long term progressive movement or the Democratic Party. We can’t prop that myth up, even if it’s tangently. We need to reject it, every day, all the time. It’s why we are where we are – rejecting it is the only way to bring the country into a different direction.
<
p>
<
p>Maybe I should be specific. By saying we need to stop on the grave of Reagan, I’m not saying we actually need to trash the guy. We need to stomp on the grave of Reaganism – of Reaganomics, of this kind of free-wheeling neoconservative foreign policy that’s ruining this country – and making the world worse for the wear.
<
p>We also need to end this concept that DC needs to get more bipartisan. The problem, indeed, is that Democrats aren’t partisan enough – our lack of party control has lead to a lack of progress on core Democratic issues. We’re giving the kind of people we need to recruit as long term loyalists no reason to believe in the Democratic Party, because we’re doing nothing on Iraq, nothing on health care, nothing to improve education or help the middle and working classes.
<
p>Maybe it would be nice to be able to be all nicety nice, purplse and bipartisan, but it’s just not going to happen. Republicans have made a career in being able to turn the Democrats against each other, while they stand strong and get what they want. We need a Democrat who will challenge Republicans and everything they stand for – who will stand tough to the Democrats who seemingly wish in secret that they really were Republicans. We need a Democrat in office who’s tough stances will stand in contrast to everything Republicans stand for – truly giving the American people a choice they’ll jump to make. All of that means we need to challenge Reaganism: the ideas and the policies that grew out of that administration and which have wreaked havoc on our world today – only by doing that will we actually capture the Independents and even moderate Republicans in the same way that Reagan did in 1980 (a long lasting realignment in the making). Praising Reagan isn’t the way to do that.
Well, we disagree on how best to respond to this political moment. One of the interesting things about this election is that the three leading candidates differ very little on policy, but are so clearly distinct in style. It puts the focus on the expected method of governing and how we believe that will affect results.
<
p>I think there’s a difference between bipartisanship and developing a language that allows people to join a new coalition. I think the importance of changing the narrative can be exaggerated, to the point of being unrealistic. Cultural identities and ideologies like self-reliance are too deeply ingrained. I think the naivete lies not in Obama’s message of hope but in thinking a majority will jump to the starkest, most triumphalist expression of our views. The press will not be on our side in this scenario.
Obama is not just seeking a bland bipartisanship and compromise – he wants to build a new majority – he’s seeking to talk to voters beyond party – putting what we can do together before party positioning. Roosevelt did this, Wilson did this, Jackson did this…
<
p>I never voted Republican in my life but it would be nice for a Democrat in my young lifetime to actually be a figure that people of all stripes looked to up. There is no way that happens with Clinton. No chance. She is the ultimate base politician and sadly the fact that we actually have a candidate in Obama who appeals beyond the base to indies and disgruntled Republicans should be cause for celebration. Instead, Clinton’s establishment machine poohs-poohs that – hoping the play on fear and party allegiance to stop him. Sad really and I am surprised that so many folks here at BMG don’t see that.
And what I’d very much want, but Obama’s message is completely different and only has the tiniest chance of accomplishing what FDR was able to do.
<
p>Here’s part of what I’m trying to say: by talking about purple America, bipartisanship and all these other wonderful things, Obama may get more votes. I get that. However, it’s not going to translate into a greater Democratic or progressive movement. What FDR did was use fighting words and convince people of a new political philosophy – that the government has a role to play. He gave people hope, but it was by challenging the failed policies of the status quo. The result of what FDR did was felt far beyond his lifespan: his political legacy gave Democrats a majority all the way through Johnson’s administration – and the effects were still felt long after. There are still people who are alive today who vote for Democrats because of what FDR did in their lifetime, or their parents’ lifetimes.
<
p>But Obama is doing none of that. He’s offerring up nice rhetoric, without issuing the same kind of challenges and spirit that FDR courageously brought with him. FDR was a true leader, Obama’s a great speaker who’s trying to win an election.
The whole point Obama is making is that we need a broad-based coalition that appeals beyond self-identified Democrats – but this time on the progressive side of the equation.
<
p>I might have hated Reagan’s policies but he was able to put together a coalition and a new direction for America. He changed the tides (for the worse no doubt).
<
p>What Obama wants to do is the same but in a progressive direction. The Clintons basically swam with the conservative tide – they didn’t fundamentally altar its flow and look where it took us – culminating in the Bush monstrosity.
<
p>Now that the Reagan coalition is at breaking point, we have an opportunity to change the tide again and form a new governing coalition. The fact that the Clinton’s don’t even think in those terms is testament to their emphasis on tactics and lack of strategic vision. Obama actually believes he can convince people to embark on a new course. The Clintons only seek to deal in the realm of what they narrowly see as possible.
<
p>Its not a bad thing to be able to look at president’s from the other side and say, huh, what can we learn from their success. Believe me, the Clintons have stolen GOP ideas throughout their careers, but they have never set out a compelling vision of a brighter future.
…and precious little analysis. Mostly just weaving selectively chosen events into a well-paced narrative.
<
p>For example, Obama’s offices (supposedly) opened late in California. Ok…Since when did the timing of California campaign offices become a Presidential litmus test? Since the moment the author chose to weave it into their rhetorical tapestry. (Without a link, by the way. Could “California” have been rounded up from “Sacramento”? Could “campaign offices” have referred to the large warehouses which are secured at the last minute, to house election-day volunteers? These sort of facts only get in the way of a good barn-burner…)
<
p>The rest of the post is a whole lot more of the same. It may be fun to read, but analysis it ain’t.
has the emotional touchiness of the last gubernatorial election. Am I wrong in seeing a certain amount of true believer vexation in responses to Obama criticism? Responses that parallel some of the feeling of supporters of Patrick also had?
<
p>I think this is a great post. I’ve decided to vote for Edwards (not Hillary), but I don’t think Obama has helped himself in the last week or so. Similarly, his complaints have a little of the petulance that beset Patrick when he felt he had been put upon.
<
p>I don’t think less of Obama for his campaign’s faults. We have an idiotic way of electing presidents.
<
p>Mark
Your criticisms are exactly why Clinton’s lead in national polls has plunged from around 50-23-12 versus Obama and Edwards to around 37-35-15 last week. She makes the Dow and S&P look good. Should Obama win South Carolina, the specter of defeat that has trailed the Clinton campaign like a ghost because of her astronomical, incredible negatives (47% of the country say they won’t vote for her for President under any circumstances!) comes into clearer view.
<
p>Let me be more explicit. This argument puts Party before country, and elections before achievement.
<
p>To the first, you write, “Why would you spend more time attacking Democrats than Republicans?” Who cares if someone is a Democrat or a Republican? That’s not the point. The point is if they have ideas that will improve things — except to people who think that somehow this country can be improved if 51% of the voters give two stiff fingers to the other 49%. Not only is that transparently ineffective, we’ve actually been there and tried it the past seven years. How did that work out for everyone? Thank you, Mr. Rove.
<
p>To the second, you write of Nevada, “when Obama again got outworked, outflanked and outfought.” Since your focus is exclusively tactical, the implication is that Obama had better ideas, but lost the inside-baseball ground game to Clinton who, “outfought,” him with the aid of Party insiders that paid favors accrued by her husband and her over decades. Again, that’s the kind of politics that the Bush administration has been playing. True, Bush won. But have they improved life for a majority of the country, or even the slim majority that voted for them? Will they leave office respected or admired? The President’s current approval rating suggests No. (Oops, of course, the Clintons didn’t leave office respected to admired either, so I guess that may not concern you much).
<
p>I haven’t even bothered to demolish the absurd, “Obama has no specifics,” rubbish that is the talking point of the moment for Team Clinton. One need look no further than Clinton’s promise to make a plan for Iraq within 60 days of election for an example of her careful, deliberate vagueness on virtually every determinative issue in this election. This is just further evidence of the insincerity with which the new-well-bunkered campaign has started to operate.
<
p>It’s tragic, really. Senator Clinton could have responded to Obama’s challenge by reaching out and taking his best ideas. Instead, now that the going is tough, she appears to have chosen to fall into the warm embrace of the Democratic Party’s consultants and peep out at the world from behind the broad shoulders of her husband. The Empire Strikes Back is the name of the sequel, indeed.
that poll (47% say they won’t vote for Hillary) is from June of 2006.
I stand by the basic point.
<
p>A better criticism of the evidence I offered, however, is that in the most recent polls, compared to those of a week ago, Clinton’s lead has widened over Obama.
<
p>I still think the precipitous drop in support for her makes the Dow look stable by comparison.
A poll depends on who is sampled, and this CNN poll has limited predictive value and offers limited insight into electability because it fails to take into account 1) electoral votes 2) the breadth of the margin a president typically wins by.
<
p>Although it seems likely that the popular vote will be relatively close, Hillary doesn’t necessarily need to win the votes of 47% of the people in America. She needs to win the popular vote in several key states such as New York, Ohio, Florida, and California. It’s the electoral college that counts.Who cares if 10% of Texans vote for her? There isn’t a Democrat that’s going to carry that state or the Deep South.
<
p>Another issue is what does the 47% mean? The poll has a margin of error of 6 points. That means that particular poll number could be as high as 50% and as low as 44%. Also to consider is the depth of the responses. If only 44% of voters vote against her, she wins. Bush “won” 47.9%, and Gore 48.4%. In 2004, Bush “won” 50.7% to Kerry’s 48.3%. Bush won in 1988 with 53.4% of the vote. Dukakis lost with 45.6%. (Intervening elections involved 3rd party candidates).
<
p>Obama may poll better now, but that could change during the general campaign. His negatives are less stable because he’s less known. After taking a beating in the press for 20 years, it’s unlikely anyone new is going to figure out they don’t like Hillary. I predict her popularity will increase as she continues to campaign. John Sasso opined on this in the Globe, so I hope I won’t be accused of spouting Clinton talking points.
<
p>I think electability isn’t much of an issue. I’m not sure that the 47% actually means much in the context of elections. Maybe it does, but it needs to be examined in context, not simply accepted as significant.
<
p>Mark
<
p>
WASHINGTON – For the first time, a majority of Americans say they are likely to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday.
<
p>http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITI…
<
p>Mark
you sample and compare. 3 months ago Clinton was double digits ahead of Obama nationally, in New Hampshire, and in Nevada. Edwards was ahead in Iowa early on. Her win in New Hampshire was pretty close. It has always been my impression that her team was taking the nomination for granded when she announced.