Whose Job Is It Anyway? Clinton or Obama

Enough already. All through the weekend and throughout the first day of the Democratic convention, we seem to have heard nothing but commentary on "What Hillary has to do in her speech" and "What Bill Clinton has to do in his speech" and how much pressure is on Hillary and what they (Hillary and Bill) HAVE to do in their speeches. Excuse me -- who is running here?

How about what Barack Obama has to do in his speech on Thursday -- could we focus just a bit on that and not what the Clintons have to do on Tuesday and Wednesday. Obama is the candidate, and it is his convention -- and all those voters and supporters of other candidates are out there waiting and prepared for him to win them over -- not for someone else to just hand them over.

And frankly, in this case, I believe the media and general punditry industry is as much responsible for the "perceived" trouble and tension and the focus on the "problem" as the actual participants -- not to mention that I defy anyone out there to actually show me a single quote, video sound bite or reference from Hillary Clinton since she withdrew from the race that in any way criticized Senator Obama, indicated she would not support him, or indicated she was angry with him or his message. Without any actual evidence of specific negative attitudes about Senator Obama being expressed by the Clintons, or specific statements indicating they would not support him, everything else is pure speculation.

Yet, the media coverage frames the debate as if the supposition premise of the Clintons not supporting fully Barack Obama becomes the "given" that then launches the discussion pro or con. It is an arrogant assumption that is not fair, not productive, and not professional -- but it does help keep stories alive and drive ratings -- based on intelligently phrased speculation.

Well here's some information that is not speculation. As CNN and other networks reported on Monday, 66% of Clinton supporters now support Barack Obama. But that number was at 75% back in June. In other words, since Clinton withdrew and has thrown her full support behind Barack Obama, his support among Clinton voters has gone down -- not up.

Why do you think that is? Is it possible that during that period many of those voters have made their independent judgments of Obama himself, and based on that have made their current judgments? In fact, I still argue that Senator Obama's failure to define himself to the American people in general is still a core component of the problem he is now having in poll numbers all over the country - both in general numbers and in specific key battleground states where he should right now have a 10 to 15 point lead given the state of the Country. And that failure to adequately define himself has allowed others to define him to the American people instead as they have filled in the gap.

Senator Obama still has time to do that, and he certainly can make major strides in that area on Thursday night when he gives his acceptance speech. And that is why I think it is ridiculous to focus so much on what the Clintons have to do and overlook or downplay what Obama has to do in his speech.

And his job will not be easy. Back to that earlier poll I cited. I can add some independent validation to the poll's conclusions as for the last two weeks, I have done my own independent surveying of female supporters of Hillary Clinton, and in talking to almost 100 of them who would identify themselves as frustrated Clinton supporters, this is what I was able to discern.

First, for most of these voters, their reasons for not enthusiastically supporting Barack Obama has nothing to do with measuring how enthusiastic the Clintons support him now and has everything to do with what they think happened in the past. And they tell me that their concern is not whether Hillary has convinced them to support Obama but the fact that, in their minds, Obama has not convinced them to support him.

And this is interesting, the fact that the media continually focuses on Hillary's job and task ahead to accomplish this objective rather than focusing on Obama's job and task to accomplish this goal is only making these voters more angry, not less so.

Have you listened to the commentary on what Hillary has to do in her speech, and what she has to balance in her remarks -- she would have less pressure being put on her speech if she were the actual candidate. If the Democrats think that Hillary and Bill have to bring every supporter they have over to the Obama campaign with a peak level of excitement and then campaign more intensely for Obama than they would do for themselves -- if that's the measure of what's needed with no emphasis on what the actual candidate has to accomplish -- the Democrats will lose in November.

In fact, many of the Hillary supporters I talked to don't care what Hillary says or does at this point -- they do not support Obama, and unless Obama himself can win them over between now and November (I think he has to try) -- they are not coming over. That's what they told me and that's why I can certainly vouch for the results of that recent Poll.

Obama cannot get all of those voters. But the final percentage of Clinton supporters who do not vote for Obama simply cannot remain at 27% (including those unsure) -- it must come down. I don't think there is anyone in this business who doesn't believe that Hillary will do exactly what she needs to do and Bill will enhance that effort with his own performance.

So find another scapegoat -- and while you are continuing to overlook other real problems, go ahead and continue to overlook the race issue when trying to figure out why Obama is now neck and neck with McCain. That approach could be almost as productive as continuing to insist that Hillary and Bill have the biggest assignments and the most pressure and the most to accomplish at this convention.

But once Hillary and Bill are done and everyone exits "stage left", the only ones left will be the voters and Barack Obama.

The spotlight cannot be turned on someone else. Obama must walk right into it and shine in it. I believe he can do it, and I think he will. But to the world and the media, if he doesn't, don't blame the Clintons. That's the media's job, and they seem fully up to the task.

For more Huffington Post coverage of the Democratic National Convention, visit our Politics @ the DNC page, our Democratic Convention Big News Page, and our HuffPost bloggers' Twitter feed, live from Denver.

Comments

[interestedinpolitics]

Senator Obama has written not one, but two, full length non-fiction books...one is autobiographical and the other addressed policies and his underlying philosophy. His website, for well over a year, outlines, with many details, his proposals for addressing the very critical issues facing us now and in the future.

Prior to Michelle's speech, the pundits were describing what she HAD to do, and the pundits have also discussed what Sen. Biden HAS to do wit his speech tonight. If what the pundits are saying annoys you so much, watch the convention on CSPAN without the commentary. If you are really willing to listen, perhaps some of your questions will be addressed.

Sen. Clinton gave a very good and gracious speech last night. If she is not saying what you want to hear, perhaps you need to re-examine your support for her, because her positions on issues has not changed. She does not want to see more wars, fewer jobs, and the return of back street abortions. She sees a future that includes health care for all Americans, equal pay for equal work, and the resoration of our civil liberties. If those goals do not sound worthwhile to you, by all means vote for John McCain, and you will have 4 more years of the last 8 years. And good luck to you and yours.

[Daisy1111]

Wait - so voters have to go buy his autobiographies?

[rsdem2008]

YES YES YES CARL - FINALLY........ THE RIGHT ANALYSIS. Media.... please listen to Carl or you are wasting air time at the most crucial time in our politics.... please stop the obsession with Hillary and analyze what "Obama" is not doing right and what he is doing right.... Its too important of an election.... you seem focused on Hillary and McCain.... wrong two to focus on .... its Obama and McCain.

They say... friends help you get your foot in the door, but you have to earn the job.

Well.... Hillary has more than done her job (far more than Teddy ever did for Jimmy). So... its "your time" Mr Obama.... step up and earn my vote. I am open but i haven't been spoken too. and you simply expect Hillary to deliver it for you???

I am not a 25 year old starry eyed voter (I wish i were... voting on "change" is not enough) but I am past that stage, have a family.... what are you going to actually "do"??? I went to an ivy league... and I know when i hear ivy leauge babble.... I have learned more in real life than ever before.... So if you want my vote... tell me something that gives me a reason to vote for you ....

My vote is not for anyone to give away..... b/c Hillary told me to...... glad CARL said it finally!!!

[Soothsayer08]

As a black Obama supporter I ask you what more can Obama do to define himself? Over and over I hear the pundits say we don't know who Obama is. Today I heard Joe Scar on MSNBC say the same thing. He also added but we know who John McCain is, and I thought yes you think you know him because he is white. The fact that Barack Obama is a black man is the unspoken X factor contibuting to any "so called" loss of support. All some are seeing is Barack's color and it ends there. John McCain has lied, changed positions, made gaffes, stopped being a straight talker, but none of this is even mentioned. Barack has told his story over and over and any enlightened voter can also check out his website for more info. He is the American Dream epitomized. But people still claim to need more answers. At least that's the excuse they are using, and it's a flimsy one at best.

[nyobserver]

Right. So how does the "American Dream epitomized" make a great president, again?

Was there something about his experience governing that I've missed somewhere? Help me out here.

[1440minutes]

Folks, as a Republican who wants McCain to lose, I can say with great certainty that both camps made big mistakes. Hillary has done her damage. Perhaps she can come out and apologize for the "we wuz robbed in Florida and Michigan" narrative, and say in no uncertain terms that Barack won fair and square. Barack needs to give more credit to Bill Clinton. After all, Bill Clinton was far more fiscally responsible than W. or any other recent Republican ever has been. That includes Reagan.

Now it's up to Democrats to fight like he!! to prevent these mistakes from being fatal.

I type this as a Ron Paul antiwar fiscally conservative Republican who wants McCain to lose so the real conservatives can have a fighting chance to take their party back.

Now beat the fake conservative, John McCain. If you fail, then I guarantee that we will fail in evicting the the neocons from Republican Party.

[Shannon2008]

During the Democratic primaries, Hillary went out to these rural areas saying that both she and Senator McCain were qualified to be Commander In Chief and Barack Obama was not.

In the interests of the party and her own self interests, she should go back out to these communities and make the case that Senator McCain shouldn't be the next President of the United States and that Barack Obama will deliver on so many of the promises she made to her supporters.

Barack is going to have to go out to these communities and assure these voters that he has their interests at heart and that he is going to work hard for them.

[Soothsayer08]

You are correct. What are the voters to think ? One minute she is touting McCain and now telling people to vote for Obama.

[gavrielle]

Elections should be about policy, not personality. I didn't care for Bill Clinton when I voted for him the first time, but he did the job I hired him to do and I respect that. Kerry didn't rock my world, but I voted for him too. If you want Democratic policies enacted then vote Democratic. If you want Republican policies enacted then vote Republican. Stop playing about with the fate of a nation by kvetching about ephemeral hopes and dreams based on whom you "like" more. It's immature as well as dangerous.

[riley85]

Great article...For Obama supporters I suppose it is always easier to blame his problems on anyone or anything but him.
But there is absolutely nothing Bill and Hillary can do to give Obama the experience he lacks, they can't hide his shady associates, or can't change his many flip-flops, or give him a backbone.
Obama made the decision to give that rediculous speech in Berlin and act like an egomaniac in front of huge crowds.
As Obama supporters are fond of saying--this isn't about the Clintons. Fine, then accept Obama's weaknesses/mistakes and put the blame exactly where it belongs.

[truthbearer247]

The true idiocy projected by the MSM and accepted by some is a misappropriated focus on the vague spectrum that is experience. One might equate Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, and Cheney, with experience, but such faith in carnivore like dinosaurs has been a catastrophic disaster. Experience only matters if it’s coupled with sound judgment and an ethical foundation. Obama himself is a melting pot of cultures, a grass roots organizer, editor of the Harvard Law Review, constitutional professor, and has been elected to both houses of congress. Thus, I can assertively and emphatically state that Sen. Obama has both the experience and judgment needed to secure the promise of a "city on a hill", ultimately ensuring our faith and hope in the belief of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 85 % of this nation acknowledges the Republican direction is the wrong direction. The GOP response is a divisive one, littered with trivial assertions of guilty by association hoopla, and scare tactics. These rove-like tactics are an embarrassment to your party and this nation as a whole. "Ridiculous speech in Berlin”? Considering the volatility that spans the seven seas I think it is profoundly important that we regain our standing in the world. How can you find comfort in electing leaders that graduate at the bottom of their class, yet ascend to power based on the connections of their patriarchal lineage? And I bet you are offended by affirmative action!

[nyobserver]

Yes, he's been "elected" to public office (as with W. and a litany of idiots). But what has he accomplished exactly? Therein lies the rub.

[Gma11]

I have never seen such a bunch of pre-rational narcissists as the Clintons and their supporters.

Hillary did an excellent job last night. Finally. And I admired her again - admiration I completely lost in February. Hopefully they will begin to put the welfare of the country before their own egos.

[ignrnthllblly]

Have you ever had that dream where the world-renowned conductor is guesting with your city's orchestra, but you can't enjoy the performance because a procession of local yokels keep interrupting to instruct the maestro how to hold a baton?

Yeah, me neither. But damned if I know why.

Folks, he ain't brought the horns in late one time so far.

[democratsaint]

if bo loses there will be scapegoats ,the top will be the clintons. the dnc has to much to lose if bo loses.and it cant be because he was a bad candidate.which he is. 90% of the blacks voted for him.if 90% of the whites had voted for hc we would be drowning in racial charges. btw if she had gotten 30-40% of the blacks like she did in first few primaries she would have won.bo needed the 100% black vote to win.will that help him in nov nope.

[Daisy1111]

Excellent piece, Carl. You verbalized everything thought I had tonight.

BO has to close the deal himself - there are no scapegoats.

[CAPTAINSKIPPY]

Thank you for putting the Obama problema into correct perspective; winning the election is the nominee's problem. If he does not have the leadership and sufficient appeal with members of his own party to win their support, he cannot expect someone else to provide that for him. He has about 10 more weeks to show what he has and can offer, not much time considering that polls showed Sen. Biden as not that well-known, despite his long tenure. Don't forget that HRC voters tend to be older; we understand the value of experience.

[lunchbag]

Hillary represented to her followers (now known as PUMAs) a hope, a fulfillment of their dreams and ambitions. In other words, their version of the 'Messiah' their agent of change.

The enemy to those who are fanatics for Hillary, is Obama. Obama defeated Hillary not McCain, and as such they see his defeat in the upcomong election as succes for a renewed campaign in 2012 for thier candidate and their hopes to win. Waiting 4 years is of little concern, they want their vision, their change to occur.

So, it's Obama's job to win them over, because if he can't, he can't win enough of the undecided/­independen­ts to win.

[CindyV]

The enemy is not Obama. The enemy is the DNC and it's leaders Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi. They undermined the primary elections by making backdoor deals with the superdelegates to give the nimination to Obama. Look, neither Hillary nor Obama got enough pledged delegates to win the nomination outright. Superdelegates started lining up behind Obama. Even as he lost Pennsylvania, New York, California, and Texas. It doesn't make sense. Why would superdelegates flock to a losing candidate? The only thing that does make sense is that deals were being made. Then a black congressman and superdelegate to Clinton changed his vote to Obama. He said he was really sorry but felt "forced" to support the black guy. So this is what I'm pissed about. I don't think the DNC was fair. The best candidate will not be the nominee. And because of the DNC interference in the process, we may lose in November.

[JonathanDS2U]

People have been accused of fighting ghosts when they fail to look directly at the most direct presence in front of them, and instead feel the lingering impact of things that are gone. Why things can contain a lingering impact isn't a subject one can properly cover in this space. However, it is the kind of thing that can yet be used constructively in the current situation: the lingering impact of Hillary versus the direct presence in front of us, Obama.

The lingering energy can be deposited, it can be deposited into something that can yield value in a more structured and constructive way: Hillary should use 30 seconds of her time tonight to introduce a new TV spot for Obama. Such a TV spot can embody the lingering memory of Hillary at what will become her moment of greatest relevance, her speech tonight. The TV spot can be replayed, and if it's strong enough, channel the memory of Hillary's greatest relevance in a truly constructive way. If it matters enough, they can put such a TV spot together in half-an-hour.

[XME]

What do you expect? The media has an odd facination with the Clintons. They do have to do their part, and there is expectation on them, because they did a LOT of damage during the primaries, but in the end Obama must bring it home.