MyDD :: What Obama must do to win both the nomination and the general

What Obama must do to win both the nomination and the general

by wasder, Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:40:00 PM EST

The good thing for Barack Obama, if one can find a silver lining in the double teaming he is experiencing from Clinton and McCain, is that the kinds of attacks and innuendos that the Clinton campaign is leveling at him right now mirror the ones that McCain will attempt if and when Obama wins the nomination. So I think he must treat Clinton as a general election opponent at this point, directing his strategy towards the electorate as a whole and assuming that this will work against HRC as well. I just don't see how he can win if he gets down in the mud with Hillary at this point, trading accusations and personally answering all of her questions. That isn't to say that he needs to sit back and take all of her crap, but as many people have been writing on this site and others, he needs to get powerful surrogates (Dodd, Kerry, Kennedy, Sebelius, Daschle)to do the kind of defense (and occasional offense--tax returns, Norman Hsu to counter the Rezko stuff etc) that he needs to fend her off and at the same time begin crafting his GE message. Because, no matter how long it takes, it is highly likely he will be the Democratic nominee and the sooner he can begin the process of appealing to the entire nation the better off he will be. So it is my hope that the Obama campaign can use the continued presence of Clinton in the race as a testing ground for his GE message and use that extra bit of market research to come out of the convention roaring towards the presidency. I also urge all of the Obama supporters here and elsewhere to dip into the wallet one more time and provide Barack with the necessary juice to take this thing all the way!

Tags: Obama, general election (all tags)

Permalink :: 27 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: What Obama must do to win both the nomination (2.00 / 0)

And just so you know, if Obama gets his way and wins this nomination, I will be one democrat who will definitely not be voting for him. Sorry but he is just not ready to be president. Is not that I don't like the guy, I like him fine although I find his supporters to be such insufferable snots that they have forever soured me to him.

Still, he is not qualified, and that is the honest truth. He needs some more knowledge to actually do the job. I don't think the American electorate will elect him. The thing is that if he would have given himself and his supporters some more actual experience then he could have gotten my vote, but now? No. Just because he is a good campaigner, he has had plenty of experience at running for office, he just hasn't enough at actually doing the job.

democrat voter

by democrat voter on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:47:41 PM EST

Re: What Obama must do to win both the nomination (none / 0)

I am sure you have been told this before but not voting for somebody because of the tone of the comments made by their supporters on political blogs is a pretty lame reason for not participating in the democratic process (I assume you are talking about sitting out rather than voting for McBush). I for one will certainly vote for Clinton if she is the nominee but I will not be as active likely at the grass roots level. Also, your analysis about time spent running for office unwittingly plays into an anti-Clinton talking point played up today in the NYT--that if Hillary can't run a smooth campaign its hard to see how she can run the country effectively. Pointing out the Obama is a good campaigner is similar to saying that he will be a good manager of our country so thanks for that.

by wasder on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:53:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Obama must do to win both the nomination (none / 0)

The honest truthiness of your opinion does not really bother me, but your cry-baby approach to blaming his supporters for your choice is what really gives me doubts about your sanity.

If you really want to know more about him, tell me just what kind of information you are missing. He is qualified, in my opinion, so I can only guess that you have some kind of criterion that Clinton meets and he does not or that you just don't have the right information. Which one is it?

by marcotom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:54:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Obama must do to win both the nomination (none / 0)

Yes, you'll vote for him. You may complain and make noises between now and Nov., but you'd pull the lever all the same, just like 95% of Hillary supporters.

Our current situation is too dire to leave in Republican hands. And you know it.

Clinton has no more experience then Obama does. Please recall that she was not elected to anything whatsoever for the period 1992-2000.

by Cycloptichorn on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:13:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Obama must do to win both the nomination (none / 0)

You are no more than a republican troll, and you must be treated accordingly, i.e. ignored.

And I would say this to you even if you were an Obama supporter.

by haystax calhoun on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:39:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama can Be Both Tough and Positive (none / 0)

He absolutely has to say that he has the right judgment to be CiC. He has to challenge her claims to be "Ready on Day One." His surrogates need to do better. Dashchle was ok on mTP; Bill Bradley was great; Kerry was solid. We need an answer to Wolfson. It seems that for very Obama surrogate on cable, I see three CLinton surrogates. Remember, Obama is essentially running against a former President (Bill Clinton), a Republican nominee (McCain), and a First Lady/Senator who will do anything to steal this from him (HRC). He needs surrogates but also the Internet/Blogs to do some lifting for him.

by chatters71 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:48:28 PM EST

Re: What Obama must do to win both the (2.00 / 0)

Obama has been in the mud for a very long time trashing the Clinton admin every chance he gets, I can't support a guy that makes those kinds of claims that the only successful democratic president is somehow an evil man and his wife too, boo hoo. The mud slinging of Obama is well known, he has been spreading it for months now. How is that working for him? He can't even carry the base of the democratic party and come Nov. if he is the nominee, I predict a disaster for the party.

democrat voter

by democrat voter on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:51:08 PM EST

You're wrong. (none / 0)

Democratic voters don't buy that stuff. The more mud Obama (and his surrogates) fling - old mud, mud that looks like the 1990s - the more he looks like the same-old, same-old. When you advocate "more mudslinging" as a solution to his current position, you ignore his weakness: blue collar voters. If Obama wants to win the nomination and the general, he has to connect with blue collar voters who are much like those in Ohio when he campaigns in Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Maybe Obama supporters should focus on figuring out how he does can make that connection in a real and substantive way instead of 1. insulting those voters (repeatedly, and twice on Sunday); and 2. advocating mudslinging based on old, debunked Republican talking points.

by mgee on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:51:28 PM EST

Re: You're wrong. (none / 0)

How did Obama insult them? Quotes, links?

by marcotom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:55:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're wrong. (none / 0)

"Maybe Obama supporters..." I did not say that Obama has insulted blue collar voters. His supporters online have, however. And there was a certain je ne sais quoi in Samantha Power's comments about the Ohio electorate that suggested some internalized elitism with regard to blue collar voters.

That said, I really was suggesting that y'all spend more time figuring out how to connect with blue collar voters and less time figuring out how to smear Clinton. The smears don't work. When Plouffe calls Clinton the most secretive politician alive, I laugh and laugh and laugh. Uhm, Darth Cheney is our VP? Seriously: Obama has already won the "We hate Hillary Clinton" vote.

by mgee on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:01:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're wrong. (none / 0)

His supporters can insult whoever they want. Clinton's supporters can insult whoever they want and they do that too, by the way. I won't try to make an argument against a candidate from how his supporter act, that is plain stupid and Clinton would have lost her GE vote a long time ago if I did.

by marcotom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:04:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're wrong. (none / 0)

I'm not "plain stupid" and I'm not arguing against Obama on the basis of stupidity among his supporters. If that's what you read from my post, you're wearing much more partisan glasses than I am.

Instead, I suggested that Obama supporters might want to spend some serious time figuring out how he can connect with blue collar voters - because that's what he needs to do. I made some constructive suggestions elsewhere on just that point. I'm not inclined to make too many of them, because I support Clinton over Obama in the primary, but I want him to be able to count on that support if he is the nominee and would love to see y'all spend more time with the question: "how do we reach blue collar voters?" and less time on other things.

by mgee on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:10:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's more like it! (none / 0)

You make a good point that bears repeating often. I think that the best way for Obama or either candidate to get the attention of "blue collar" supporters is to chain together the ECONOMY and the WAR.

$3 billion/ day and how many TRILLIONS total?
Come on people, it's obvious enough.

War advocates promised job creation, lower gas/oil prices, peace in the Middle East, etc. They have no cover now.

by haystax calhoun on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:49:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's more like it! (none / 0)

Dude! (or Dudette!--not sure which), this is an excellent and very well received point in this thread. This should be an easy way to get blue collar voters to pay attention---the reason why the government can't afford to give them health insurance is because we are pissing our resources down the drain in Iraq, and HRC was complicit in the decision to make this happen. Great point and something we should hope to see more of from the Obama camp. I don't think I have seen them spell it out this way.

by wasder on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:09:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're wrong. (none / 0)

Fair enough point that tonally there have been a few Obama surrogates whose language suggests a kind of elitism, I doubt that it stems from Obama himself. Given his work as a community organizer it strikes me as far fetched that he himself would take for granted the needs or interests of blue collar workers. That being said, I can acknowlege that he needs to do more to reach those workers and to get surrogates on the air that speak to them more effectively. I truly believe that his plans for the country and his approach to government work in their favor much more than the corporate-driven, lobbyist powered formulations of the Clinton campaign.

by wasder on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:09:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're wrong. (none / 0)

Let me say this: neither Clinton nor Obama are unreconstructed populists. Mother Jones isn't in the race. And both are about a billion percent better for workers than John McCain and the unholy cabal of the Club for Growth and John Hagee and whatnot.

When Clinton speaks about her political work, it is concrete and defined: she worked to register voters in 1972 in south Texas. She researched access to education for disabled children. Obama needs to define what "community organizer" means. What does that mean to someone in Steubenville, Ohio or Scranton, Pennsylvania? What did he do? For whom did he do it? Note: I'm not questioning his work, I'm just pointing out that he needs to define it in a concrete way in the minds of the electorate if he wants to connect with blue collar voters.

by mgee on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:20:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're wrong. (none / 0)

I am certainly not advocating more mud-slinging from him. I know he would rather not engage this way and I don't think it helps his "brand" any either to be getting into a tit for tat about any of this crap. I suggested a few lines of vulnerability for Clinton (mainly Hsu to counteract Rezko which is not a 1990's issue by the way--Norman Hsu played a much more major roll in Clinton's 2008 campaign than Rezko ever did for Obama) so that she will be forced to play defense as well. And I don't think that it can be Obama doing this.

I agree that Obama needs to do some outreach with the kind of blue collar voters you describe, both in the nomination battle and the general. My point is that this could be one and the same for him.

I hope I am not the Obama supporter you suggest is insulting people. Please point out how if so.

by wasder on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:58:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're wrong. (none / 0)

You're not; I was speaking generally, rather than specifically. Honestly, I do not believe that the Rezko crap (and, like Whitewater, it is pretty much crap. I knew a guy who did a bad thing and blah blah blah.) has any traction with the electorate. The Power and Goolsbee stories definitely have more traction; but more than that, his problem is among blue collar voters and if he wants to win, he has to connect with them - on a positive level, not a negative one.

by mgee on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:05:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What is "Experience" (none / 0)

According to Democrat Voter, Cheney and Rusmfeld have the experience, are qualified, and pass the test where Obama does not ?

C'mon Bill Clinton passed the test as Arkansas Governor.

I would say that Hillary doesn't have foreign policy experience. She's been on the Armed Services Committee sure. COuld she be CiC. Yes. Does she show better judgment than Obama. of course not.

What can you point to where Hillary's "experience" has shown her judgment to be vindicated.

AUMF/Iraw ? No.
Kyl-Liebermann/Iran ? No.
Pakistan ? No.

Peace in Northern Ireland -- laughed out loud by the Irish.

Opening the Macedonian borders for Kosovar refugees -- Well Sinbad, Sheryl Crow, and Hillary got there THE DAY AFTER the borders were open.

by chatters71 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:54:37 PM EST

Re: What Obama must do to win both the nomination (none / 0)

And for the record - the Hsu stuff won't fly - Obama recruited him too and Hsu hosted a fundraiser for him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090703047. html

by cmugirl90 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:54:40 PM EST

Re: What Obama must do to win both the nomination (none / 0)

Well, Rezko didn't fly either, but that didn't stop her campaign from bringing it up. Right?

by marcotom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:56:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Obama must do to win both the nomination (none / 0)

Regardless, there were 600,000+ dollars that Clinton had to return. This is fact. I am only suggesting this line of thinking so that Clinton will back off of Rezko and we can get back to talking about things that people care about.

by wasder on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:00:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Obama must do to win both the (none / 0)

Surrogates won't be able to fill in candidate Obama's inadequacies. They can smear, they can throw mud, but they can't answer the looming doubts about Obama, now that "experience" itself is seeing a resurrection from the dead.

Obama himself has to engage in the debate. This primary election between Obama and Clinton will only make them better candidates in the fall. If Obama emerges to be the nominee, then that means he'd have effectively answered Hillary's argument about CIC thresholds and national security. Then he could face McCain in the fall with an effective counterargument, and neutralize his biggest weakness.

On the other hand, if Hillary wins the nomination, then that means that Obama wasn't able to make the CIC threshold sale, or at the very least changed the framing. Then, we'd be better off not having Obama in the general election, because war hero McCain will make a similar argument that resonates with independents and moderate Democrats.

by Sieglinde on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:55:06 PM EST

re (none / 0)

We weren't at war in 1992. It was a much different world and the country was looking almost totally at domestic issues. That will NOT be the case this year. National security and the economy will share importance

by rossinatl on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:12:51 PM EST

Re: re (none / 0)

This is a specious argument. In 1992 we might not have been actively at war but we had just come out of the first Gulf War and those issues were absolutely in the discussion during the general election. It is actually quite similar this time because the current Iraq war (bizarrely and unfortunately) has fallen off the radar somewhat for the general electorate. But the point here is that neither Clinton nor Obama could make the case that either of them are significantly more experienced in national security issues than the other. so we must look for different factors when choosing between them. I for one prefer Obama's judgement, demeanor and intellect.

by wasder on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:20:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Obama must do to win both the nomination (none / 0)

I agree that Obama must maintain his position on the higher ground. It is a balance though, and he must remain firm and keep moving his message forward, and not be dsitracted by fending off bogus attacks.

by haystax calhoun on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:42:33 PM EST

I won't vote for Obama (none / 0)

I won't support him and for the first time I won't vote democrat if he's the nominee...sorry.

by nikkid on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:11:13 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.