When Losing is Winning

Within moments of Barack Obama's victory speech in Iowa, the conventional wisdom dramatically changed. Much like John Kerry, Obama was expected to take an enormous bounce with him to New Hampshire, defeating Clinton there before truly running the table. The pundits expected it; the polls predicted it; but the win never came. Hillary Clinton had marched to an extraordinary comeback that night, besting Obama by three percent.

Even those who had envisioned an Obama victory from early on were discouraged. The expectation was that, despite his low national numbers, his win in Iowa would propel him to sequential wins, ending with victory on February 5th. This was certainly the core strategy of the Obama campaign. But having lost New Hampshire, and days later, Nevada, it looked as though Obama's chances were slipping away, inexorably.

But on the other side of an exceptional month for Obama, one thing has become clear: the loss in New Hampshire proved ironically valuable.

Obama has since become a stronger candidate. After Iowa, he quipped at a massive rally, "You're the wave, and I'm riding it," believing, like many, that the race would soon be over. After New Hampshire's painful upset, however, he recognized that he must work hard for each vote, not allowing the media hype to lift him into the clouds.

He built large, well-financed organizations in states that would have been ignored had the campaign calendar not been extended. These include Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Louisiana, among others, all sure-fire battleground states for the general election. Having proven that organizing on the streets of Chicago could translate on a national stage, Obama has been able to mobilize voters in record-breaking form. Those organizations will be crucial come November.

The extension of the campaign season gave Obama the opportunity to meet far more voters and hold far more rallies, helping him consolidate support around the country. In every state he's campaigned in, his numbers have risen dramatically, proof that the more voters get to know him, the more they approve.

Obama was also given the time to truly breathe in his new status, to reconcile the possibility that the presidency is actually within reach. After South Carolina, he became calm and confident, at ease with himself and the tasks ahead. Each of his one-on-one debate performances showcased a candidate who had learned a great deal, able to float between policy and poetry with grace and precision. And when treated as a front runner by both Clinton and McCain, Obama has been strong and agile, attacking aggressively without ceding the high ground.

Tactically, Obama has proven himself a worthy nominee to voters judging his electability. His team has crafted a near-flawless campaign plan, with a message that Obama delivers with consistent discipline. He is clearly a strong fighter, able to verbally strike when necessary, but always within the context of his broader appeal. He has built an unmatched fundraising operation, having shattered all records with a small donor base, one million strong. Perhaps, most importantly, he has demonstrated an ability to mobilize voters in a way no independent effort could match. In a year that could require unprecedented Democratic turnout, Barack Obama can deliver.

Beyond tactics, Obama has had the time to convince voters of his readiness to lead. After winning Iowa, voters nationally continued to view Clinton as the more substantive and capable candidate. By wide margins, she was considered a better potential commander-in-chief. Had Obama's momentum carried him to victory in New Hampshire, with the collapse of the Clinton campaign to follow, he would have inherited a party not yet ready to believe.

But through intensive scrutiny, top notch debate performances, countless stadium-sized rallies, and many millions of dollars in advertising, Obama has turned the tide. Recent exit polls have shown that he is now viewed as equally capable of commanding the military, and equally qualified to be president.

Having weathered the storm, Obama has emerged in a much stronger position for the general election. He has become a wiser candidate and has convinced his party that he is ready. Still, he's taking no chances. At a press conference on Thursday, in the midst of outspending and out-organizing the Clinton campaign in Texas and Ohio, he recounted the lesson he has learned above all:

"Remember New Hampshire."

Comments

[rickd24]

Even more ironic is the fact that if it weren't for the ridiculous polls, only losing by 3% would have been considered a great victory. Everyone forgets that he was WAY behind in NH right before his win in Iowa. The fact that he closed most of that gap in a short amount of time was overlooked because the polls showed him ahead. Because the polls were read incorrectly, the story was changed.

They should have been looking at the Keith number to realize that the race in NH was still wide open. For those of you that don't watch Olbermann, the Keith number is the margin of error + undecided voters. There are a LOT of primary voters that don't make up their mind until the last few days. A candidate that picks up a lot of late undecided voters can end up with a much higher percentage than the polls had been showing.

[asemeco]

On a different note...
Obama's remark, "You're the wave," reminds me of the old song's lyrics:
"tu es la vague, moi l'île nue"
See the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHiMDB19Dyc
May be Will.i.am should get to work on a new video...

[stellanoir]

As a semi fanatic for Tudor history I keep being reminded of how Queen Elizabeth the first's leadership was so enhanced by the caliber of most of her advisors.

OTOH Mary Queen of Scots really was surrounded by duplicitous, conniving, power mongers. That lack of discernment cost Mary her head.

Just saying.

Discernment in one's advisors is a hugely important facet of good leadership.

[KingGeorgetheTurd]

It pretty easy to see that Obama is a leader based on the facilitative style, while Clinton leads by the Authoritative style. Guess which one is vastly superior?

[apduncan1]

Well, she was also a Roman Catholic, that explains it all...

[desmirl]

Lets hope Hilary tanks big time in Texas AND Ohio and we can get the selection process over with. Obama can crush McCain. Hilary can't. And the next 4 years under a McBomb-Bomb administration is unthinkable.

[Nofuzzydreams]

Really! Contrary to Obama's claims, more Democrats will vote for McCain than more Republicans will vote for Obama. Polls clearly show that. And that will sink Obama. Hillary cannot win either because Blacks will not vote for her now if Obama somehow lost the nomination. They will likely stay home.

Separately, there have been very little written about Black superdelegates who support Hillary being threatened! Is that racism? Is it racism when 90% vote for their color of skin? There is just no other explanation for that.

Mark my word desmirl - McCain will be the next President. We dems have blown our chances by allowing someone who have not paid his dues to get in front of the line propelled by young people many of whom probably lalso ike the idea of getting ahead in life without paying their dues.

[thedave25]

I don't believe Dems would vote for McCain over Obama - that faction would likley vote for Nader...th­e McCain Dems are the ones supporting Obama, the Edwards Dems are the ones who my stay home or go to Nader

[Massconfusion]

Oh Fuzzy One,

What polls? Where you hiding this data!
Repubs in great number have crossed over to vote for HIL. Why? They find her easier to attack and defeat!

If a bunch of whiny ex Hills want to vote to worsen the country and continue the Bush Administration then please go - we don't need you!

The only thing more incompetent than Bush's last seven years have been Hil's last seventeen months!

[Countess]

While it is true that he is a very positive candidate we must give some of the credit for his advances to the reactionary and depressing campaign of the Clintons which has turned so many people off. She has rallied certain negative forces within the democratic party such as the minority that supports the war in Iraq and those who would never vote for a black candidate.

[bluesjones63]

Agree. But what about "forces" within the democratic party that will NEVER vote for Hillary, specifically African-Americans, the party's so-called base?

As an OLD, very southern African-American female, I am PERFECTLY willing to live/prosper through a McCain presidency. He is hardly the first white man elected to the position and probably will not be the last. Hillary has resorted to AMAZING/BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY tactics (fear and race-baiting) to win the party's nomination.

Hillary is proving at least 3 things: (1) Americans FEAR other Americans; (2) Americans are ANTI-INTELLECTUAL; (3) Republicans and Democrats CAN cooperate to defeat a worthy candidate.

She can HAVE the party's nomination. But I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER.