Now That Barack is No Longer the Anointed One, Will He Fight or Fold?

Flush with victory from Iowa, Barack Obama's campaign begin to think not of victory in the remaining Democratic primaries and caucuses but of the general election and in preparing to move into the White House in January 2009.

Ironically, he opportunity was there for the taking and over the weekend between Iowa and New Hampshire even long term Clinton supporters, and on ground leaders, didn't see the way to win the Granite State as late as Sunday.

But win Clinton did.

And then she won again.

And again.

What happened? Hubris, plain and simple.

There were widespread and deep criticisms of the manner in which the Obama campaign was being run over the summer and into the early fall, most of them fair. Many felt, including myself, that the 2008 Obama Campaign was a personality-driven repeat of the Edwards Campaign in 2004 -- David Axelrod's lastest incarnation of a personality uber-alles campaign.

Looking at John Edwards now, you can't help but wonder if he wants to say: Barack, I was in your shoes four years ago and I learned two things. A great stump speech only gets you so far, and hope isn't a strategy.

Barack's message of hope and vision and of a changing world is without a doubt inspiring, and for the first time in quite a while, we have a Democratic candidate who has had the marketing and the speechwriting of the finest order. For far too long, we've been the product party only to be outmarketed by the right, now we have flipped the equation and it was a breath of fresh air to many Democrats.

For those of us who suffered through 2000 and 2004, it was as if we had reached a crucial, George Lakoff-induced high. While both Al Gore and John Kerry were incredibly qualified, incredibly serious and would have both made great Presidents, the presentation, advertising and marketing was pathetic.

Worse than pathetic.

The Kerry Campaign managed to spend $100 million plus on advertising and marketing and go backwards from where Gore was in 2000. 2000 was also a disaster for the Democrats.

So it is not surprising that reasonable people got caught up in the hope and vision not just of Obama, but of a candidate who had the ability to express his hope and vision. The victory speech in Iowa is the single best political speech I have ever seen in person or watched live in my life, end of story.

Riding that speech, and riding that momentum, it was on to Iowa.

In the snows of New Hampshire, Barack Obama had the chance to put the Clinton dynasty to rest, and hubris got him. They took their feet off the gas, they thought they had won, and they let a champion off of the mat and back in the game. Once the champion is back standing, only trouble lies ahead and trouble is what Obama has.

His situation, of course, is far from desperate and the race is far from over, but it's how the campaign is reacting is what would concern me if I was an Obama supporter.

The best analogy I can think of is of a very spoiled child who has just gotten their favorite toy taken away from them. They are pouty, whiny and wrong.

But those who were inspired by the message of Barack should not be disappointed in it, but they should in the messenger's campaign.

Why would you spend more time attacking Democrats than Republicans?

Barack has insulted President Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry while praising Ronald Reagan? Why? The hubris that said I have already won the nomination and am moving onto the general.

Why would you consciously ignore the netroots, the land where hope and passion lives in the party? Why? Hubris, and the knowledge that you are truly not as progressive as they are, and the hope the distance will make the differences less apparent.

Why would you repeat right wing talking points, "social security is in crisis?" Who knows? I think this is just pure stupidity.

And who can you not be ready in California? Hubris as campaign offices open two weeks before a must win primary.

Now the news comes that Obama has broken the pledge not to campaign in Florida, and Hillary will eat his lunch.

With the whining of Nevada still ringing in their ears, when Obama again got outworked, outflanked and outfought, Democrats around the country are looking at two choices.

Hillary Clinton is showing us she knows how to fight.

Barack Obama is showing us he's not ready for prime time.

More and more the campaign is about Barack's personality and just like John Edwards in 2004, another David Axelrod creation, personality alone doesn't win The White House.

To make matters worse, the problem is Barack has to talk about hope and working together while he fights a tougher opponent than he. Last night at the debate, I saw a lot of sniping and yelling; it wasn't especially a stellar evening for either candidate but it was more unseemly for Barack than for Hillary. He's about hope, she's about the fight.

This chasm is an incongruity that the Obama campaign had never planned on overcoming. But they must. And they must grow up along the way -- and attacking Republicans might be a good idea instead of attacking Democrats.

Otherwise, two weeks from tomorrow, hope will be all that's left.

Comments

[klondiker]

Great post!

Ever since Iowa, Obama has started to talk about himself in historical terms. Dropping comparisons with Kennedy and Reagan. Acting like he is some transcendent figure who will change the course of history. In short, he's started to believe his own hype.

On the other hand, you almost never hear Clinton talk about herself in such grandiose terms. She is - ostensibly - all about policy and proposals and plans. She comes across as much more pragmatic than Obama.

But, maybe what the country needs right now is a dreamer. I don't know. But the point is that a dichotomy has been drawn with Clinton as doer, Obama has thinker. AND, Obama shares some of the blame for building this narrative.

[Swopa]

Excellent post. I touched on many of the same points in a post here two weeks ago, and elsewhere back in September.

Like James, I like Obama, which is why it's frustrating to see his campaign strangled by a misguided strategy.

[secondedition]

Obama is the one being attacked. He is responding to those attacks by a fellow Democrat. In my opinion, Senator Obama needs to do two things, one slap down the idea that we need the Clinton's in order to get this country back on track. Going backwards instead of forwards is never a good idea. Second, challaging the Republican's on the economy and jobs and on real security. He needs to get away from the Healthcare issue. Basically this is the only real issue Clinton is running on. She has had a lot of time to hone her message on it. Find a weakness and attack it.

[WilliamGossett]

The Democrats have imploded. As some commentator noted with their serious and vicious fighting they are both now unbelievable and as a result they have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. I was hoping for a Dem win but this will not happen. Neither Hillary nor Barack can lead us out of the Bush debacle and a Bush supporter - one who once said he wished that Bush could run again - is about to step in and continue for Bush (McCain).
How could this turn out more disastrous for those of us who wanted positive change???

[Gdebs]

Barak should do as FDR did----never use a word with more than 3 syllables if he could avoid it. Why trajectory rather than direction? Say it so it can't be distorted or misunderstood.

[horizonr]

Clinton has "won" only TWICE, since Iowa -- not three times, as you say.

But what the media has declared a "win" hasn't necessarily comported with what the Democratic National Committee defines as a win. By the DNC's definition -- the only definition that matters -- OBAMA is winning, if only slightly.

The purpose of state primaries and caucuses is to begin the process of determining how many delegates will vote for each candidate at the Democrats' nominating convention in August.

The delegate vote will determine the nominee.

In Iowa, Obama won 16 pledged delegates to Clinton's 15.

In New Hampshire, Obama and Clinton tied at 9 pledged delegates each.

In Nevada, Obama again edged Clinton, 13 pledged delegates to 12.

So right now, the pledged delegate count is:

Obama 38
Clinton 36
Edwards 18

When superdelegates -- Democratic elected officials, party leaders, and the like -- are added to these totals, Clinton leads Obama by between 50 and 100, depending on the source.

But this margin is primarily a reflection of the low- and mid-level Democratic establishment support that Clinton shored up in the first six months of the race.

And in any case, superdelegates -- once at the nominating convention -- virtually always defer to the voter preferences reflected in the distribution of pledged delegates.

So the pledged delegate count is the index we should be paying attention to -- and by that measure, Obama is leading by a hair.

This remains an extremely close race.

[AnninCA]

Bingo.

I like the positions of all of the candidates of 80% of all of their positions.

I'm looking for who can deliver.

[nisha]

I think Obama is getting over his well brought up inhibitions about fighting with a woman i cold blood, or nearly cold. Weird thing to have to do!I'm sure he can make mincemeat of her if he has to.

[Possum]

Mr. Boyce:
In 2000, Al Gore began 20 points behind. If he had run a campaign that was as bad as the CW says it was, he would have ended up 20 points - - or more - - behind Bush. Bush would have won in a landslide - - Bush v. Gore would not have have occurred.
It's very sad that we Dems continue to bash Gore's 2000 campaign - - all it gets us is more "personality uber-alles" type campaigns that sell themselves as necessary to "avoid making the same mistakes that Al Gore made".

[cktirumalai]

After the victory in Iowa and the optimistic polls in New Hampshire, the voters of the Granite State forced the euphoric Obama campaign into sobriety. Before that verdict I remember that a British Member of Parliament almost assumed that the next President would be an African American. The course of politics, like that of true love, is seldom smooth.

[Edmonsky]

I respect James Boyce views but l disagree with his logic. He seems to allow himself to be acutely blinded by his support of Hilary’s candidacy. He projects himself as one-dimensional in thought, if he has concluded that the reason why Hilary won in NH was due to Obama’s hubris. There are many factors that led to Hilary’s victory. In fact, it was only the polls that projected Obama’s victory prior to NH primaries. Does James know how long it took the Clintons to build political infrastructure in NH. Up to this point, Obama has done extra-ordinarily very well for himself to face down the most potent political machinery for the past 20-years in the country. It is sad that people like James have not come to terms that this nomination is headed to brokered convention. This is battle of who is going to get 2,050 delegates. On that score, and coupled with the fact that the two prominent contenders are well financed; the battle is joined beyond Feb. 5.

It is difficult for James to understand what transpired during last night’s debate. Senator Obama has put to rest the conventional held belief of fear that if he were the nominee, he would not fight back against Republican attack machine. Senator Obama showcased himself as capable of fighting the two Clintons at once. Obama has set-up Bill Clinton and dared him to miscalculate again by attacking him instead of campaigning vigorously for his wife as character witness. Obama wants to paint the two Clintons as characters that can lie and cheat in order to win back the Whitehouse. It is still not obvious to James that Democratic power establishments are beginning to show signs of coalescing around Obama’s candidacy, even though Bill Clinton has been a two-term president.

[Zenpilot]

These Democratic machinery hacks, I'm convinced, are more content on the outside, criticizing evil Republicans rather than actually winning? Why else do they get behind the Gores, the Kerrys and the Hillarys every four years? Mind boggling. Sure, roll the dice. Maybe Ohio will come through this year. Maybe Florida. Hillary already has a solid 43% of Americans who despise her, and that number will not go down.

[AreYouSerious]

Can everyone PLEASE stop saying Hillary can't win the White House? The more you spread this crap, the more people believe it. It gets the mentality in people's minds across the US that "Well I really like Hillary, but she can't win it, so I am just going to vote for ____ (which ever Repub gets nominated". Its like when no one votes for an independant, even though they really want to because EVERYONE is saying that the independant can't win. If everyone who REALLY wanted them voted for them instead of listening to this BS mentality, maybe the candidate would have a real chance.

[LawHoo97]

I think the D's are forgetting that if Hilary wins, there will be a Republican back in the White House.

[JimR]

Interesting opinions, but it's all speculation.

Also, Obama neither insulted Clinton, Gore and Kerry, nor did he praise Reagan. He said Reagan transformed America - and that's a fact, for better or worse.

But I agree that the Obama campaign should push his plans more.