Barack Hussein Obama

[August1991]

Oh, come on. Obama's success during this campaign might be unprecidented, but it's certainly not unplanned or unanticipated. People have been talking about Obama as a strong contender for the 2008 Democratic nomination ever since his landslide win over that idiot in the 2004 election.

Sorry, about six months ago, Obama was one of several candidates. Moreover, Obama is remarkable because his campaign hasn't just been successful - it's turned into a charismatic crusade. This wasn't predicatble even three months ago.

To suggest this is something Obama could have only imagined in his wildest dreams is ... I would say hype, more or less. It seems like the sort of thing a candidate might say about himself during a "humble victor" type speech, or a "we're still underdogs" type rally. They didn't just dream it, they knew this was possible.

Obama's campaign success is not hype. He has the votes to prove that he's been successful (at least among Democratic partisans).

A considerable amount of the campaign's considerable resources has been devoted to experts and to researching opinions and perceptions, people whose full time job has been to help plan out how to build this momentum and how to maintain it.

Kimmy, the careful planning that you describe is possible now. Obama and McCain both know now who their opponent will be. They're both aiming for a single date in November and the rules for election are clear.

Three months ago, no one knew anything about anything. Obama didn't have the kind of money he has now. Primary elections come in dribs and drabs, one candidate wins, another loses, another drops out. Tactics are constantly different and even whole strategies change. (eg. Hillary's campaign manager).

Primaries are like fighting an insurgency. The Fall campaign is like a ground war.

So, Obama's campaign up to now has largely been "make it up as you go along" with a few basic themes.

-----

Here Bubbler, you'll like this:

I admit I'm a rebel. In 1976, as a young voter, I supported the insurgency campaign of Ronald Reagan, when the entire Texas Republican establishment was backing President Gerald Ford. In 1988, I supported Jack Kemp's attempt to derail Vice President George H. W. Bush. In 2000, I rooted for maverick John McCain against Texas' favorite son, George W.

I may be a rebel, but I stayed loyal to my party. It took the Bush presidency, a Republican Congress and the irrelevant content of this year's Republican primary debates to push me over the edge. I am now officially a swing voter.

I'm not going to argue the merits of the prescription drug law introduced by a Republican president and passed by a Republican Congress, except to note that it was the largest expansion of a federal entitlement program in history. Republicans introduced a needed tax cut but then kept it when the nation entered an expensive war.

Under Mr. Bush, the federal deficit has climbed $2 trillion. Federal spending has gone out of control. (Meanwhile, the Republican candidates for president showed no sign of fiscal responsibility, falling all over themselves to pander to the anti-tax crowd, with not one mention of the looming fiscal crisis in Medicare and Social Security.)

I began to wonder, if Republicans are going to behave like Democrats, why not take a look at the real thing?

That's when I encountered Barack Obama.

...

Dallas News

[kimmy]

Sorry, about six months ago, Obama was one of several candidates. Moreover, Obama is remarkable because his campaign hasn't just been successful - it's turned into a charismatic crusade. This wasn't predicatble even three months ago.

There have been only 3 candidates of any note in this race-- Clinton, Edwards, and Obama himself. Edwards was way out of his league from the start, trailing Clinton and Obama badly as far back as a year ago, in every poll you can find except for in a few Deep South states where Edwards had a hometown advantage.

It has long been known that this was a 2-horse race. They've known for a long time who their only real opposition was.

Obama's campaign success is not hype. He has the votes to prove that he's been successful (at least among Democratic partisans).

The success is not hype. What is hype is the suggestion that they couldn't have imagined this was possible. They knew exactly that this was possible.

"We never thought we would make it this far!" is something that Obama will say during his humble-guy gracious victor speech. In truth they've known for a long time that they had an excellent chance of making it this far.

Three months ago, no one knew anything about anything. Obama didn't have the kind of money he has now. Primary elections come in dribs and drabs, one candidate wins, another loses, another drops out. Tactics are constantly different and even whole strategies change. (eg. Hillary's campaign manager).

The Obama campaign had no trouble raising money. If you'll think back 3 months, you'll recall that it was Hilary, not Obama, who was revealed to have had fundraising trouble.

As for the constantly changing playingfield, certainly. But none of that disputes the key role that the advisors and strategists play. In fact, it underlines it. The number of man-hours that will go into analysing each upcoming primary in minute detail, studying the issues most key in getting votes in that primary, analysing the latest news, the latest actions from the opponent.

Hilary got a new top expert because her previous top expert was getting beat soundly by Obama's top expert.

-k

[Leafless]

I have lost faith in their system.

And I have lost faith with the fickleness of the American people.

[bush_cheney2004]

And I have lost faith with the fickleness of the American people.

Then find another nation and citizenry to have faith in....America does not exist to realize your bloated expectations.

[Regulus de Leo]

And I have lost faith with the fickleness of the American people.

The people in any democracy are fickle. Read, Aristophanes play The Knights for his characterization of democracy who he literally personifies as "Demos" a cranky nearsighted old man who has servants (politicians) who steal from him and tell him lies. Funny play.

Obama is maybe a character like 'the sausage seller' who outwits all the other unscrupulous politicians.

Edited February 25, 2008 by Regulus de Leo

[BubberMiley]

And I have lost faith with the fickleness of the American people.

Why did you have faith in their fickleness to begin with? That's a strange thing to have faith in.

[August1991]

There have been only 3 candidates of any note in this race-- Clinton, Edwards, and Obama himself. Edwards was way out of his league from the start, trailing Clinton and Obama badly as far back as a year ago, in every poll you can find except for in a few Deep South states where Edwards had a hometown advantage.

You say all that with hindsight. Clinton was well ahead in most polls last year. Obama's campaign could have easily fizzled. Edwards' campaigned could have done well.

It is easy to make a mistake in the primaries. Ed Muskie and Howard Dean are classic examples.

But none of that disputes the key role that the advisors and strategists play. In fact, it underlines it. The number of man-hours that will go into analysing each upcoming primary in minute detail, studying the issues most key in getting votes in that primary, analysing the latest news, the latest actions from the opponent.

Hilary got a new top expert because her previous top expert was getting beat soundly by Obama's top expert.

You make it sound as if this is like manufacturing an automobile. If it were as simple as that, Romney would be the nominee because he had enough money to buy whatever expert or expert advice he needed.

I don't know if you've ever seen a good documentary called The War Room about Clinton's 1992 campaign. When you see James Carville speaking in NH, it's clear that he's making it up as he goes along. General Foods has the time and patience to test and roll out a new breakfast cereal. Politics is not the same at all. Certainly not the primaries.

A sitting president may be able to do what you suggest and there are a few other exceptions. Nixon in 1968 comes to mind. But Obama's campaign just doesn't fit this at all. He has provoked and is riding a genuine and spontaneous grassroots campaign. In hindsight, it's understandable but no one three months ago predicted how strong it would be.

Here's a random article from October 2007:

In the nine months since launching his insurgent campaign for president, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has seized on a slew of issues in trying to set himself apart from Senator Hillary Clinton of New York. But with Clinton's dominance unabated, there is little evidence Obama has made headway on any of them.

Poll after poll shows Clinton not only leading the Democratic field, but also leading on issues on which Obama has sought to gain advantage. Likely voters say that they see Clinton as the best candidate to fix Iraq. They trust her over her rivals to solve the healthcare crisis. And they believe she would bring change to Washington.

Boston Globe

But let's go to David Axelrod who is Obama's campaign manager:

Counter-punching, as Mr. Obama’s advisers are quick to say, is a tricky business. If Mr. Obama goes toe-to-toe too often, he risks appearing edgy and even defensive, not to mention turning off those supporters who harbor affection for his rival. But let too many blows go unmatched, and he risks appearing passive, not to mention ending up unconscious.

Mr. Obama faces a third dilemma: He must occasionally swing back at the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, without appearing to overlook Mrs. Clinton.

His advisers survey the rumors, and discuss attack and counterattack, nearly every day.

“The worst thing you could do is be presumptuous,” said David Axelrod, chief strategist for the Obama campaign. “Mrs. Clinton is very formidable.”

“It’s more an art, an alchemy,” Mr. Axelrod said about the moment when a candidate decides to toss a jab. “There is a certain amount of instinct involved.”

NYT

The Fall campaign is more science but politics is still art. No one knows what comes out or whether it will work.

[kimmy]

You say all that with hindsight. Clinton was well ahead in most polls last year. Obama's campaign could have easily fizzled. Edwards' campaigned could have done well.

It is easy to make a mistake in the primaries. Ed Muskie and Howard Dean are classic examples.

Sure, lots of stuff could have gone wrong. But that doesn't actually do anything to dispute the fact that Obama has been recognized as one of the frontrunners for a year (and in fact, viewed as a likely contender going right back to his landslide victory in the '04 senate race.)

Howard Dean

YEAARGGH!!

You make it sound as if this is like manufacturing an automobile. If it were as simple as that, Romney would be the nominee because he had enough money to buy whatever expert or expert advice he needed.

I don't know if you've ever seen a good documentary called The War Room about Clinton's 1992 campaign. When you see James Carville speaking in NH, it's clear that he's making it up as he goes along. General Foods has the time and patience to test and roll out a new breakfast cereal. Politics is not the same at all. Certainly not the primaries.

A sitting president may be able to do what you suggest and there are a few other exceptions. Nixon in 1968 comes to mind. But Obama's campaign just doesn't fit this at all. He has provoked and is riding a genuine and spontaneous grassroots campaign. In hindsight, it's understandable but no one three months ago predicted how strong it would be.

Here's a random article from October 2007:Boston Globe

But let's go to David Axelrod who is Obama's campaign manager:NYT

The Fall campaign is more science but politics is still art. No one knows what comes out or whether it will work.

Of course not. But that doesn't change the amount of strategizing and coaching that goes on.

"Carville makes it clear he's making it up as he goes along." So, uh, was Carville running for President? Carville was managing Bill Clinton's campaign. People like Carville have jobs because the risks of letting the candidate himself make it up as he goes along are just too great.

With each post, you help me make my argument. Here you have Obama's campaign manager giving us some insight into the kind of advice he's giving. Fight back, but don't be too fiesty. Don't ignore McCain, but don't make it look like you're overlooking Hilary. You can't seriously doubt that Michelle Obama is getting the same kind of advice when she steps behind a microphone.

Each aspect of what the campaigns show to the public is designed by these experts, and reviewed at the end of the day to figure out whether they're doing the right thing or the wrong thing.

Why is Mrs Obama in front of a microphone in the first place? Because the Obama campaign wants her to be. What do they think she's providing the campaign? My guess is two things: "Keepin' it real" with black voters, as already discussed. And, perhaps, they believe that having Barack associated with a strong woman will help counteract whatever appeal Hilary might have with feminist voters.

And to bring this full-circle back to my original point: what Michelle Obama says each time she speaks in public *is* relevant to a discussion of this campaign, because she is *part* of that campaign. Her presence and her message is part of what the Obama campaign wants people to see, so discussing her as part of that message is entirely in bounds.

-k

[Leafless]

Then find another nation and citizenry to have faith in....America does not exist to realize your bloated expectations.

Then you obviously agree with the ways of the socialistic snake oil salesman, Obama.

[bush_cheney2004]

Then you obviously agree with the ways of the socialistic snake oil salesman, Obama.

Hardly....I have been preaching the reality of America past, present, and future ever since joining this forum. Anybody who wants to believe otherwise wrt lofty ideals is on their own.

[Regulus de Leo]

A Clinton is a Clinton is a Clinton. They pioneered the 'politics of personal destruction.' This one will backfire. So much for going out with grace, Hillary.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashoa.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1811

[Black Dog]

August

I'm not denying that image matters. It certainly matters as a way to convey truths. But there is something called the real world where real people hold values.

Most Americans are not designer label people. That's why WalMart is successful.

I've lost faith in getting any kind of tangible point out of you on this. What in god's name does "real people with real values who shop at WalMart" have to do with the paramount importance of image vs. substance in contemporary politics?

[Leafless]

A Clinton is a Clinton is a Clinton. They pioneered the 'politics of personal destruction.' This one will backfire. So much for going out with grace, Hillary.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashoa.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1811

Mr Obama, who was raised as a Christian by his white mother despite his Kenyan father being Muslim, has been dogged for months by claims he is secretly following the Islamic faith.

One would assume Obama would be extremely careful reinforcing claims that he is secretly following the Islamic faith.

Fully decked out as a Muslim, Obama it seems has no fear of negative repercussions and appears he is purposely flaunting the Muslim image.

Shame on Obama and hopefully Americans will recognize this arrogant, unpatriotic behavior and vote for a democrat that knows what America is all about.

[guyser]

One would assume Obama would be extremely careful reinforcing claims that he is secretly following the Islamic faith.

yes, extremely careful.....BOO!

Scared yet?

Fully decked out as a Muslim, Obama it seems has no fear of negative repercussions and appears he is purposely flaunting the Muslim image.

Shame on Obama and hopefully Americans will recognize this arrogant, unpatriotic behavior and vote for a democrat that knows what America is all about.

Shame on those who cant say what they truly feel huh? Come on, you can say it...........

I take it you think Harper/McGuinty are Sikhs since they too wore the outfit when opening the Temple in Brampton.

Harper wore a leather vest and cowboy hat......when did he "secretly" turn Gay ?

Oh the horrors, if not for the comedic writings.

[BubberMiley]

One would assume Obama would be extremely careful reinforcing claims that he is secretly following the Islamic faith.

It’s true that it might be a miscalculation on Obama’s part to not take seriously these attempts to paint him as a Muslim plant. John Kerry chose to treat the swift-boat attacks on his war record like the joke they were until it was too late. The problem with addressing them, however, is he might give a sense of legitimacy to the looniest elements on the right. It’s really a tough call.

[sharkman]

yes, extremely careful.....BOO!

Scared yet?

Shame on those who cant say what they truly feel huh? Come on, you can say it...........

I take it you think Harper/McGuinty are Sikhs since they too wore the outfit when opening the Temple in Brampton.

Harper wore a leather vest and cowboy hat......when did he "secretly" turn Gay ?

Wearing a costume is a whole lot different than believing the particular faith you're dressing up for. Just ask those who freaked about Bush's born again status when they found he was running.

If Obama is a Muslim, he shouldn't be hiding it since one's faith makes up a big part of who one is. To hide it is being dishonest to the voter. But politicians hide all manner of crap from their past, so I wouldn't be surprised to find out he was doing this.

If true, it might not matter in the Dem primaries, but I don't think a Muslim would ever win the presidency in this present climate, and rightly so.

[BubberMiley]

What about if McCain is a muslim?

[sharkman]

What about if McCain is a muslim?

I still don't think it would matter in the Dem primaries.

[August1991]

What about if McCain is a muslim?

The NYT had four journalists spend months doing research implying that McCaain had an affair with a lobbyist eight years ago based on such evidence as she was thin, blonde and looked like McCain's wife.

Bubbler, if McCain can be accused of that, it seems a minor deal to find a photo of Obama dressed in Somali clothing.

I'm waiting for the photo of Obama snorting cocaine. That one will be a real vote winner for the Dems.

August

I've lost faith in getting any kind of tangible point out of you on this. What in god's name does "real people with real values who shop at WalMart" have to do with the paramount importance of image vs. substance in contemporary politics?

Awhile ago, we had a thread about how white people using black people to accessorize their lives or using them as a fashion statement. (I think this was around the time that Madonna adopted a South African kid.)

Young kids, usually on either coasts, are designer label kids. You know - the ones who wear embroidered Uggs or Burberry or Fifty Cent shirts or whatever is in fashion this year. These are the same kids (or older kids) who vote for Obama. He's a designer label candidate because he's playing on his identity, like a logo. It's symbolism over substance. No one really knows what he stands for or what he'll really do. He's a cool guy and that's enough.

OTOH, most Americans (Nixon's silent majority) don't care about designer labels. They shop at Walmart and buy whatever is practical and fits. [sociological aside]Most Americans are Protestant and have a Lutheran streak.[/sociological aside]

Most Americans are going to look at Obama and ask, "Where's the beef?" Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Americans don't like sizzle. But they also expect some steak.

With each post, you help me make my argument. Here you have Obama's campaign manager giving us some insight into the kind of advice he's giving. Fight back, but don't be too fiesty. Don't ignore McCain, but don't make it look like you're overlooking Hilary. You can't seriously doubt that Michelle Obama is getting the same kind of advice when she steps behind a microphone.

Each aspect of what the campaigns show to the public is designed by these experts, and reviewed at the end of the day to figure out whether they're doing the right thing or the wrong thing.

Why is Mrs Obama in front of a microphone in the first place? Because the Obama campaign wants her to be. What do they think she's providing the campaign? My guess is two things: "Keepin' it real" with black voters, as already discussed. And, perhaps, they believe that having Barack associated with a strong woman will help counteract whatever appeal Hilary might have with feminist voters.

And to bring this full-circle back to my original point: what Michelle Obama says each time she speaks in public *is* relevant to a discussion of this campaign, because she is *part* of that campaign. Her presence and her message is part of what the Obama campaign wants people to see, so discussing her as part of that message is entirely in bounds.

I surrender. (Not because I'm wrong but because we're saying the same thing while beating this dead horse.

Of course, Obama has advisors who examine what happened in the day and make changes for tomorrow. He has his stump speech that he repeats ad nauseum. They've tried all the different ways to organize the stage for best effect. Of course, what Mrs. Obama says or does is part of this whole show. My point is that this is not perfectly planned or controlled (or critical pathed or whatever the current term is). There's far more randomness to Obama's campaign than you seem willing to admit. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this kind of randomness was deliberately "planned". It's his strength and explains in part his appeal.

As a case in point, Obama does not need to "keep it real" with black folks. (I think Obama could praise the LAPD and it would have no effect on his black support.) So, no smart advisor would waste Mrs. Obama's efforts on such groups. If she does it, it's because that's what she wants to do.

Edited February 26, 2008 by August1991

[BubberMiley]

The NYT had four journalists spend months doing research implying that McCaain had an affair with a lobbyist eight years ago based on such evidence as she was thin, blonde and looked like McCain's wife.

Bubbler, if McCain can be accused of that, it seems a minor deal to find a photo of Obama dressed in Somali clothing.

The only problem is he wasn't accused of that and I've never heard the evidence you cite. The Times simply reported their evidence that his senior aides felt he was being reckless by generating an appearance that he was having an affair with the lobbyist. The story was then blown out of proportion in an attempt to unify anti-McCain conservatives who hate the Times even more and might feel the enemy of their enemy is their friend.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/...nted=2&_r=1