In the last Democratic debate, Barack Obama was asked how he would stack up against Mitt Romney and the Republicans in a discussion on the economy. He tartly replied that given the recent Republican economic record of running up a 4 trillion dollar national debt, he thought he'd stack up pretty well. He also said of Mr. Romney, "If you look at our two campaigns, I'll match my campaign management against his any day. He hasn't gotten a very good ROI." Much has been made of Obama's inexperience, but if his campaign is any reflection of how he'd govern, by every measuring stick it bodes well. But more importantly, the Obama campaign is a story that points to a sophisticated evolution in campaign tactics--tactics that reflect the changing political landscape of the 21st century.
If some of you find your eyes glazing over as you read this, don't worry about it. Get back to your well-adjusted lives. But for freaks like me who love the whys and wherefores of campaign success and failure, welcome to Politics 501. This is my Valentine for you. I just listened to a stunningly cogent analysis of the Obama and Clinton campaigns by Fox News's Major Garrett on Rebecca Roberts' s XM radio show, 1600. He explained how Barack Obama's campaign has forced the Clinton campaign into her Texas firewall strategy. And it got me to thinking about a speech I heard Howard Dean make at a campaign rally for John Kerry in 2004. Before I get to that, however, let's take a brief history lesson.
1994: After 2 years of Bill Clinton's first term, a stung Republican party gets off the mat. Led by a new force in American politics--the "values voters"--Repubs take control of Congress in the mid-term elections with their "Contract with America".
1995: In a public showdown over the budget, President Clinton dares the new Congress to shutdown the government. The Repubs, led by Newt Gingrich, back off and an era of deep polarization begins.
1998: In the middle of the largest economic expansion in the country's history, the President can't keep his pants zipped, providing Repubs with the PR opening they need. Caught in a lie about his peccadilloe, the President suffers through impeachment hearings. He serves out his term but he becomes a liability for Al Gore who runs for Potus in 2000.
2000: The political polarization extends to the Supreme Court who vote 5-4 to install George Bush as President, in a non-precedential ruling. Virtually unheard of in the history of the Court.
2001: Promising to change the tone in Washington, Bush and Cheney ratchet up the polarization.
2003: A former Vermont Governor named Howard Dean runs for President. He loses the nomination to John Kerry, but he is the first politician to use the Internet as his primary fundraising tool.
2004: Polarization reaches it zenith with the kneecap job on John Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The ultimate misnomer. Bush is elected to a second term. Polarization complete.
2005: Howard Dean becomes Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He starts building a new strategy for Democrats in the upcoming mid-term elections. He calls it "a 50 state" strategy. First, he raises ridiculous amounts of money. Then he creates ground organizations in "red" states. The idea is to: 1) force Repubs to use valuable resources to fight in areas they have traditionally carried; 2) then make them more vulnerable in swing contests; 3) field moderate candidates who can compete in the red states.
2006: It works. The Democrats take back the House and Senate.
2007: A young Senator from Illinois stands on the steps of the statehouse in Springfield to announce his longshot candidacy for Potus. Hillary Clinton announces her candidacy for Potus and instantly becomes the "inevitable" Democratic nominee.
January, 2008: Barack Obama shocks the pundits and pollsters with a victory in the Iowa caucuses. Suddenly, he becomes viable.
Fast forward to the present. Obama holds Hillary to a draw on Super Tuesday by winning a majority of "smaller" states. He then becomes the front runner after an 8 and 0 primary run that sees him take the lead in the delegate battle. The Clinton campaign circles the wagons.
So, how did this happen? Simple, really. Barack Obama took a page out of Howard Dean's playbook. He used the Internet to raise huge amounts of money from a vast army of small donors. Knowing that he wasn't going to lock up the nomination on Super Tuesday, he took a 50 state organizing approach. He set up field operations in "red" states like Idaho, Kansas and the Dakotas, guaranteeing victories and delegates. He figured if he stayed close on Super Tuesday he could win a war of attrition after that. Obama also got lucky. Hillary's team, led by the now-departed Patti Solis Doyle, spent recklessly in Iowa. And perhaps as a result of hubrus, the Clinton campaign believed they could deliver the knockout punch on Super Tuesday. Instead, they found they were getting rope-a-doped by Obama--and that they were wearing down for the later rounds. They woke up on Feb. 6th with few resources and almost no ground operations in the next slate of contests.
Now, as all the media outlets are starting to report, Hillary is having to start anew with fundraising and field ops.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/us/politics/14clinton.html?adxnnl=1&ref=politics&adxnnlx=1203008410-jxxuWrN3USUMXSKrBcyuXg
The Texas-as-firewall strategy has been a last resort. She has had no one on the ground in Texas. In a recent speech, she exhorted supporters to help her "build" her campaign there. A letter from her campaign supposedly came from a town called "Sugarland", Texas--except it's really "Sugar Land". And now the question is: Can she get it done? Who knows, but I would never underestimate Hillary Clinton. The bigger point is, if you look at the campaigns of the three major players left in this race, the candidate percieved as most green, most naive, and not up to the job of Potus, has far and away run the best, most efficient and most fiscally responsible campaign. And what the Obama campaign is doing, any politico will tell you, is very difficult. It takes time, energy and discipline to create the kind of national field op and fundraising network that is now pushing Obama to the finish line.
Today, the governor of Puerto Rico endorsed Obama. This will put a huge dent in Hillary's "Latino inevitability" that is supposed to carry her to victory in Texas. To be sure, it's still much too fluid to make any predictions, but people who study this stuff are starting to catch on to a new reality: the Obama campaign is not about empty hopes, "promises" or "platitudes"; it's about cold-blooded political calculation and expert execution of a bold, new strategy. A strategy that signals a new chapter in American politics.
Oh, and about that speech by Howard Dean. He said in effect, 'We can't let the Republicans corner the values argument with the American voter. We need to reach out to all voters in both red and blue states. And we need candidates who can deliver that message.' I guess Barack Obama was listening.
Can Hillary pull this out? Tell me what you think. Click on "comment", by pass the Google sign-up and hit the nickname or anonymous button.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hilary needs to get real. Instead of trying to convince people that she is the best candidate for president, she's decided to go on the attack against Barack because she is behind in delegates and has a very real chance of losing. I am very tired of this kind of politics, the kind where all you hear is bashing of the other candidate, rather than focusing on yourself and why you would make a better president. I used to say that whichever democrat wins the nomination will have my support, however, she is now starting to lose my support due to her recent change in campaign methods. I hope that Barack is confident enough not to stoop to Hilary's level and that he continues to pull the country together with positive hopes and goals, telling us how he will make an excellent president. That is what I want to hear as I'm sure most of the country does as well.
Well, let's be fair. I'm tired of this kind of political game as well....we all are because no one likes a negative campaign, but Hillary takes a beating just for being a Clinton and isn't that the same thing? Every time she does talk about why she is best suited for office, she's attacked by the pundits and the press with accusations of "clintonisms". The fact is that she does have more experience than Barack and she does have better political (international) relations than Barack and she's fighting to get into office to show the world that she can start working on day one. I'm not convinced yet that he is, and it's going to take alot more than rhetoric to get me to that place, so it's time he hear the more difficult questions. I'm not down on Barack, and if he's the nominee, I'll throw my full support behind him for obvious reason, but this is how he game is played and this is how you make it into office. He's going to have to start showing that he has thick skin...it's only going to get much, much harder if he wins the nomination. The vetting process is grueling and it will get much harder as time goes on. He's a great orator.....but let him start to really get into detail about the hows and whys and whens and then he'll get the support of the Clinton supporters when the time comes.
Hillary gets painted as a Clinton b/c she is one! I will not vote for her. I won't vote for McCain either so it's either Obama or a third party candidate.
Your rehearsal of history, Tom, left out the Welfare Reform Act. Slick Willy showed that he was willing to do anything for power. He jettisoned the poor by agreeing to this Republican initiative. The economy was growing so people on welfare were finding employment. It had nothing to do w/ welfare reform! Today, w/ the economy shrinking even willing homeless people cannot find jobs.
The end result of welfare reform was to deny all welfare benefits to singles and to limit the benefits to families w/o putting in place any safety net. Today the most severly disabled homeless people, the addicted and mentally ill, have no hope for help. They're denied Social Security Disability; there are few beds in mental hospitals and the prisons and shelters are increasingly mental health facilities. All of this is due to the failure of the Clintons, in their co-presidency, to stick up for the poor. We can't afford another Clinton regime.
NY4CHANGE
Time is ticking. The Republicans are licking their chops at the prospect of a Democratic showdown. It's time to show the country that a unified Democratic party is a viable solution to the coountry's woes. If the infighting continues John McCain will walk into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with little resistance and we'll be facing a long and ardious journey down the same path with which we've travelled. The American people are willing to "re-invent politics" with Obama but will more likely lean toward the party that remains united. We are not out of the woods quite yet.
Post a Comment