You Broke It, You Own It -- Obama Style

Those who are responsible for putting Democrats in the broken place we are in right now with regard to Barack Obama had better own it to the end. Leave those bumper stickers on and wear those campaign pins until the bitter end folks because YOU OWN IT. And people are going to want to know whose to blame.

And as for the superdelegates, just an FYI, we have the list with your names, you will be held accountable on Election Day and beyond, too. This time around, everybody's going to be looking for accountability.

Flash forward to Election Day 08. Can you imagine the backpedaling going on when it comes to explaining how Barack Obama -- the Democratic nominee by math not by sensibility -- loses key states? What will those pundits say? Can they turn to history and defend themselves by saying that Obama won Ohio in the primary? Pennsylvania? Florida? And what about West Virginia? No Democrat has won the WH since 1916 without winning West Virginia and we all know what happened yesterday. What will they use as their rationale as to why they reasonably expected Obama to win those states in the general? Will they be driven mad with their math and just keep repeating that it wasn't their fault -- it was math's fault? (Or will they fall back on the usual suspect and blame it on Hillary?)

Maybe they'll use the argument that Obama was supposed to re-draw the political map. That Obama promised that "all states were in play." And, what if he turns out to be wrong? What if Obama loses those red states (and even some of those key blue states)? Is it possible that after e-i-g-h-t years of George Bush, we will have another Republican in the WH? Is it fathomable that a Republican like McCain could win by a landslide? Right now Jerome Armstrong at myDD has an electoral college estimate with McCain winning 290 to 248.

In August when the Republican attack ads unroll with a screaming, ranting, raving, railing, and dancing like a chicken lunatic Reverend Wright juxtaposed with an angry Obama with an outstretched pointing finger overlayed by Obama's voice saying that he can't disown Wright anymore than he can disown his grandmother, will the superdelegates feel good and justified about their decision to try and kick Hillary out of the race before she won a state like West Virginia or Kentucky? Will those same superdelegates apologize for their bad judgment in thinking a candidate who lost 40% of the Democratic vote in a state primary -- a mere 5 months before Election Day -- should even still qualify to be the best candidate in a general election?

Will those superdelegates admit bad judgment in voting for the candidate that "said" he had good judgment but turned out to have bad judgment once he was aptly defined by the likes of Karl Rove? Because as of May 14, 2008, Barack Obama has yet to successfully define himself to the American people -- he is too busy defining John McCain. (Scary thought: maybe Obama hasn't defined himself yet because he can't. Look at his record. Look at what his colleagues say about him. He rides the middle. He goes this way and that. On the one hand. On the other hand. He himself in his autobiographies even admits to having trouble pinning down his identities -- whether that be individual, political, racial or whatever else.)

Has anyone truly and fairly presented the problem Obama faces by continuously saying "a vote for John McCain is a vote for another 4 more years of George Bush" particularly when most of us don't even know what a vote for Barack Obama would mean? Not to mention the fairly obvious fact that the whole reason McCain is able to run so strongly in 08 is specifically because everybody knows he is NOT George Bush.

A suggestion to Obama: when you are an unknown like yourself with no record to back up your flowery words, you might better your chances of people getting to know you by telling them WHY THEY SHOULD VOTE FOR YOU---not why they shouldn't vote for the other guy. Especially when that other guy John McCain has been in the public eye for years and enjoys a very well-cemented identity.

Just exactly what is David Axelrod's reasoning as to how Obama -- the candidate who "says" he represents change and "outsider politics"-- will fare against the well-documented record of a maverick like McCain who has actually spent his entire career bucking the political system and truly enacted change? Will Obama change his campaign theme? Yikes. Is the Obama campaign strategy being unveiled when Obama states that "a vote for McCain is a vote for Bush"? Because if that is the Obama campaign's idea of a "winning" strategy against John McCain, we are in serious trouble.

The truth is probably that nobody really expected Obama to get this far. Not even Axelrod. So they probably didn't (and still don't) have a cohesive strategy in place for how Obama can beat a guy like McCain. (Heck nobody even expected McCain to make it this far in the race. So, if anyone did think Obama would make it this far, they certainly didn't expect Obama to be running against McCain, that's for sure.)

So how will Axelrod run Obama against McCain? Have any of the superdelegates thought about that?

Clearly, Obama cannot run on "change" since McCain corners the market on "change" and being a "maverick outsider". More to the point, McCain, unlike Obama, actually has the long and very real record proving that he is, indeed, an outsider and a maverick bucking the system. Flatly, Obama does not have that same record or proof.

Will it be the economy? Given Obama's lackluster appeal to the lower-income and working class, I sure hope not. I can see the commercials now--it will not take a lot of effort to get the disenfranchised lunch-pail liberals to identify with a hard-worker like John McCain as compared to the elitist, Starbuck-drinking, RedBull swilling, arugula-eating, Blackberry-carrying Obama.

Of course, another choice would be for Obama to run on age. But that is dangerous for many obvious reasons. What? You don't think being coined as the "youth' candidate is a bad thing? Think again because the winning brand is not "youth" when we are in the midst of a recession and two wars. When the chips hit the floor on Election Day and gas is $10/barrel it will be realism not idealism that delivers the WH. And given the fact that Obama's base is already widely known to be made up of predominantly young voters, half of the Republicans work is already done for them. Yup, they would have an easy walk defining Obama as the choice for the young and naïve.

That leaves Iraq, right? A slam-dunk for Obama, right? Not so fast. After witnessing the defying of logic and the suspension of belief in what happened to John Kerry in 04, anyone who thinks Obama's "speech" about the Iraq war from the cozy confines of a Chicago suburb will assuredly prove that Obama is a better Commander in Chief than John McCain, needs to think again. And yes, I know that the vast majority of Americans are against the Iraq war. And yes, I know the Iraq war has cost us billions and contributed to our recession. And yes, I know that John McCain's words about spending another 100 years in Iraq are repeatedly used against him. But, remember what happened in 04. Logic can be defied. Belief (yes, even hope) can and has been suspended on Election Day.

Remember: John McCain is a veteran. John McCain is a former POW. John McCain is a war hero. Moreover, one of John McCain's sons is currently serving in Iraq. So, if anyone thinks McCain is going to mistreat or misuse our troops -- which include his son, they need to think again. Frankly, Obama will look like a fool against McCain because once again, McCain has his real record, history, and even his family to prove his sound leadership and true patriotism. And Obama merely has his words, hope and the video of his wife sounding unpatriotic which will be used over and over and over again.

And that's why so many Clinton supporters are reluctant to vote for Obama if he becomes the nominee. It's not because they are bitter. It is because they chose Hillary over Obama for two real reasons: experience and definition.

Obama can't gain experience in the next 5 months.

True, Obama can gain definition -- that is if he starts defining himself today and stops leaving his self-definition up to others -- namely the likes of Reverend Wright and Karl Rove.

To me, it's the difference between buying cereal for the picture on the box rather than the ingredients on the nutritional label. Clinton supporters want to know what they are eating for breakfast--they don't get swayed by the fancy packaging that often hides the sugar and artificial additives hiding inside. They check the label. They read the ingredients.

We know what we are getting with Hillary Clinton. We've read the label that has been on the box for years. And, yes, we may not like everything about her, but at least we know what we are getting when we support her. There are no surprises, no baggage left unexamined. Hillary has been in the public eye for years. She has a record that can be followed and seen in plain view. We know who she is. We know that she is a hard worker and a smart fighter who will never give up. And we have a pretty good idea of what she would do as president. Perhaps most importantly though, we know that she wins vital states that have proven to be essential to winning the WH.

But can we rightfully say the same about Barack Obama? He says he has good judgment. But does he? He says all 50 states are in play if he is the nominee. But what if they're not? He says he is a good leader. But how do we know that? He says he is the candidate of change. But what does that really mean? In truth, it's all just a lot of promises and hope that could very well end up short when pitted against John McCain next Election Day.

Comments

[sirclown]

favoring obama over mccain i mean.

[sirclown]

You're warning superdelegates against choosing Obama and freaking out about what kind of campaign he could possibly run... while so far he's run the smartest political campaign we've seen in a long time, and Hillary's has been a bit of a mess.

PS Yes, hateful math usually comes into play in deciding who won an election.

[JakeEasy]

So clearly true. We Democrats have done it to ourselves again. (Well actually we have had it done to us, but we should have learned better by now and not been so easily led.)

Good insight about how undefined he is and how he was never expected to go half this far. My impression is that he and his handlers were setting themselves up for later runs. Then the media made him a rock star and the neocons used him to knock off the really viable candidates. His handlers bought the product and ran with it. They have no idea what to do.

Several posts here saying they would not vote for him. I will. I voted for Dukakis and Gore and Kerry. I voted for Democrats that I knew would lose. I'm tired of if, but will do so again.

[colossus]

Wow, I was so disappointed when I read this. It's a crock. Hillary is so divisive and untrustworthy that I'd have to hold my nose to vote for her (but I'd do it anyway. I see what a McCain presidency would be). Obama's the first politician I've seen in ages that doesn't make me sick. Something to remember: better to have someone with some good experience than a whole lot of bad experience (ie. health care reform, Iraq war vote, robbing the White House, Travelgate).

[sef2121]

Your article is right on. From the outset, like her or hate her, you know that Hillary is devoted to certain causes: healthcare, children, equality and a fair tax code. Her work on international human rights is not too shabby either. After all this campaigning, I still cannot name one thing that Obama is passionate about besides him being a rock star. He has not focused and mastered issues of personal and moral importance to him like Hillary has. He has not fought for anything or stood up for anyone. He sued people to get them off the ballot in Illinois so he could win the Senate seat and then proceeded to vote along party lines and never take a stance on any issue as a freshman Senator. The war speech, if backed up by action, would have meaning for me. Obama has 0 accomplishments-ask his supporters-they will mention the war speech and his presidency of the Harvard Law Review. Not enough. Hillary hasn't been perfect in what she has done, but she has DONE and will continue to DO. Obama will lose, and the Dems will have no one to blame but themselves.

[USMAMule]

Here's a suggestion. Go to his web site and do some research into what he's about and what his positions are. There is PLENTY of reading material there. And it is a good idea anyway since being familiar with your nominee's platform will help when discussing politics with those you encounter between now and November.

And BTW, if Senator Obama was passionate about being a rockstar he would have taken up the guitar, not spent years helping the poor and unemployed in Chicago, and tehn Illinois, and tehn teh Senate. He has more time in elected office than Hillary Clinton. .

[MaineMike]

"Those who are responsible for putting Democrats in the broken place we are in right now with regard to Barack Obama had better own it to the end." You're right! If the Clintons had run a better campaign, then Hillary Clinton would have won the nomination. Now we know who to blame.

Since the Obama campaign has run a better* primary campaign than Clinton, why assume that Clinton could run a better general election campaign against McCain? The Clintons have been through two presidential campaigns already. They have the "experience". They started with more money and around 100 Super Delegates. So why did they lose? Sure, blame the media. Unfortunately the media will be hanging around for the general election too.

*better = Since the official metric is delegates, since Obama has more delegates, then he has run a better campaign.

[Adrienne4Dean]

It's premature to assess which campaign was smarter when MI & FL still haven't been factored in. In addition, it's how and where he won those delegates that's the issue. That's what SDs are supposed to consider. There's a big difference between mobilizing a relative handful of activists to win a caucus vs winning a full primary. Hillary has done better in the type of elections that will be held in November, and in the states that Democrats have any shot at all at winning.

*****A

[MaineMike]

Delegates are delegates.

[TruthIsAll]

Kristin,

I am one of your biggest supporters and have the gretest respect for you and all you have been through. I read your book. But you are wrong in your assessment. You fail to realize that Election fraud has caused Obama to lose a net 1 million votes in the primaries (Operation chas, voting machines, etc.). He should have clinched by now. The latest Gallup poll has him beating Hillary by 55-36%, the largest spread ever. And I would not assume, as many pundits say, that Obama will not win the big BLUE states. He is beating McCain and swamping Hillary.

Tthis is why he will win the GE. Read it. I know that you will appreciate the analytics.

Obama Landslide: A Preliminary 2008 True Vote Projection

http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/2008ElectionCalculator.htm

The 2008 Election Calculator projects that Obama will win the True Vote in a landslide: 71-59m (54.1-44.7%). The model calculates the true vote based on vote shares applied to returning 2004 voters and the allocation of uncounted votes. But election fraud will reduce Obama’s recorded vote margin to 64-61m. The landslide will be denied, just like it was in the 2006 midterms in which the Democrats won 10-20 more seats than official results indicate. Obama is expected to do better than Kerry did in 2004 among blacks, Hispanics, new voters, moderate Republicans and Independents. He may not do as well among other, white Democrats.

[111]

Obama beat Hillary. Hillary can't beat Obama = Hillary can't beat McCain. Period, end of story.
More people want Obama. Hillary lost. Hillary is making an ass of herself.

Obama managed a superior campaign, managed his finances better and maintained his integrity. Things that Hillary did not do. He has more pledged delegates, more superdelegates and he has won the popular vote - the math.

Go away! Take Hillary and Bill with you and their damned DLC, too.

I think I'll keep your name and will be sure to contact you when Obama wins. You own your crap forever, too.

[Neaguy]

All you fooled progressives for Obama had better rethink your mania for this deeply conservative man.

Even Ms. Breitweiser gets it. Sort of.
Better takes on Obama----the best anywhere---are found at the blackagend­areport.co­m
where they have been exposing Obama's corporate agenda for years.

[TheHoobie]

Gas at $10/barrel?! Yes, please! Sign me up!

I am insulted by Clinton’s clear---and chillingly amoral---i­mplication that we as Democrats should cater to this demographic:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=168561&title=indecision-2008-west-virginia

And that their vote is more important and valuable---and, as KB would seem to have it, better informed (in that they voted for the “correct” candidate)---than mine. I greatly resent the implication that in responding to Obama’s call to, among other things, heed “the better angels of our nature,” everyone who has voted for him is stupidly buying a cereal box without reading the label first.

It is worth noting that in 1992, Bill Clinton won the presidency with only 39% of the white vote, but with 83% of the black vote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1992

I think Hillary Clinton has focused on the wrong demographic, and in doing so has alienated not merely everyone with a conscience but also a number of far more valuable voting blocs, the ones Democrats are actually going to need in November.

[TheHoobie]

(continuing...)
The way you prove your electability is by getting more votes, by winning an election, and Senator Obama has done that according to every metric. Even if you count the Michigan and Florida votes exactly as Clinton would like:
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/05/08/why-florida-and-michigan-won-t-matter-in-the-end.aspx
And yes, as a “hard-working American, a white American”---a 38-year-old woman who makes less than $50,000 a year---from the great state of Illinois (21 electoral college votes to West Virginia’s 5), I am and will continue to be proud of and continue to own my primary and my general election vote for Senator Obama.

[cleek]

"Is it possible that after e-i-g-h-t years of George Bush, we will have another Republican in the WH?"

yes, it's completely possible, even likely, if people choose to electorally martyr themselves over Hillary Clinton's loss.

if you choose to let the Democratic party lose the Presidency by voting for McCain, or not voting for Obama, in November, you'll have no one but yourselves to blame - not Obama, not his supporters, not the media, not the party, only yourselves. come election day, the fate of the party and the country is in your hands, not their's. and you can choose to support the party (and having a Democratic President would help the party tremendously) or you can pout and pretend Hillary Clinton herself is more important than the things Hillary Clinton, a solid Democrat, is running for.

[JulieinVT]

Terrible piece. I am left feeling sad that you have turned your energies against Obama. You were much more impressive when you went after, justifiably, Bush.

[obscurant]

"And people are going to want to know whose to blame."
The above sounds best if read aloud in a thick jersey accent, a la the Sopranos.

"He says he is a good leader. But how do we know that? "
He's proven himself to be the more effective executive this election season, by far. Look at how his campaign is fairing versus his competitors, why doncha ya?

[scire]

This is a democracy Kristen. Whether or not you like it. Whether or not you think your judgement is more important and better than more than half the democratic electorate. Life is about taking risks. IF the majority of us were wrong, then we were wrong. That's life. Grow up and get over it.

[Antifish]

Great article! I watched Obama's response to Bush the other day and my heart sank into an icy pool of deja vu. This man cannot complete a sentence without interjection uh(s) between every four to five words. I found myself wanting to reach through the TV and help him in his struggle to pull the words from his brain. It is sad that a person who can speak so eloquently from a telepromter or give a rousing well practiced speech cannot, off the cuff, form a sentence without sounding like a complete idiot.

This, coupled with the growing list of gaffes, the Great Lakes in Oregon, needing more Arabic translators in Afghanistan, his campaign in 57 states, Kentucky being closer to Arkansas than Illinois, his future meeting with the President of Canada and yesterday, his speech of Sen Kennedy in the past tense is too reminiscent of the current White House occupant. It's beginning to look like we are being hoodwinked and bamboozled. Again.