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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Obama may very well lose because of Republican lies. But they could beat Clinton by telling the truth. (Not that they'd resort to that.)
very good post
and so true
The Democratic party isn't broken. Such claims are offered by media talking heads and bitter Clinton loyalists. Look around and see that Democrats are three-for-three in congressional contests this year, contests in traditional republican backyards.
Also in numerous polls, results show that the American public is overwhelmingly on the side of the Democratic party on issue after issue. Even the issue of "National Defense", an issue republicans have relied on, the public backs the Democratic party. Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton and John McCain in national polls, and Obama is seen as the most trustworthy of the three.
And just today, John Edwards and NARAL have endorsed Barack Obama, and the superdelegate flood to Obama continues. Signs that democrats are surrounding themselves around the democratic candidate, Barack Obama.
Broken? I think not.
thanks you for your thoughtful analysis. I just see another Gore/Kerry/Edwards parade of guys who could not beat George Bush!! Not even after Bush had 4 years to show what an idiot he was. The Clinton's know how to win a GE, but that doesn't trump the holier than thou boys club regime, those too good to fight back guys who know how to alienate middle class voters.
The illogic of the dimiminishing Clinton fan club knows no bounds. I always thought that a candidate got elected because rightly or wrongly people voted for that person instead of the other possibilities.
Silly me.
At first I had no particular reason to dislike Hillary except for a distaste of dynasty politics - however over several months both she and Obama gave me numerous reasons to prefer one over the other.
They did it themseleves - but their surrogates didn't help either.
Hillary's worst enemy continues to be her own so "last century" behavior, aided and abetted by many of her own advocates. The reason at least half of the democrats don't like her is that her campaign reminds them of everything they despise about Rove and the republicans.
If people would still vote in more of the same McCain after the last 8 years of Republican rule - I doubt if picking Hillary, or anybody else would make a difference.
Kristen, I was rooting for Hillary too. Not because I liked her necessarily, but because I felt she had the best chance to win. I still do. But I realized something very important. The primaries aren't designed to find the most electable candidate. They are designed to find the candidate that best represents the party.
Obama is that candidate.
Like me, I'm sure the party wise have crunched the numbers and came to the conclusion that Obama is going to lose the general. But they've also envisioned the Party with the Clintons back on top and that prospect scares them more. So they've made a decision to sacrifice the White House to preserve the integrity of the Party and have another go when one-term McCain is sent out to pasture.
Unfortunately for us the Republicans nominated their most left leaning candidate despite themselves. If they nominated Giuliani, Obama might've had a chance.
Interesting comment. I must respecfully disagree, however. I don't believe that Obama is the candidate that best represents the party. Hillary is ahead in popular vote, and imagine how far ahead she'd be if the caucus states held primaries instead! Obama represents the party LEADERSHIP, but not the democrats of this country. He represents a large portion of the readership of sites like this, but not of middle america. That is the painful lesson awaiting us in November.
But no need to wait in suspense: the trail markers have already been dropped. Why can he win in the general when he has not won primaries in most of the states required to win in the general? Obama campaign is one of fantasy and denial, and forward we march to our defeat.
Hillary Clinton is 500.0 votes behind in the popular vote count after WV
This "fuzzy math" of suddenly including Florida and Michigan is yet one more reason that a Clinton will nevert be back in the WH
Sen Clinton signed a pledge and even said on the air these votes will not count
As a Floridian I can factually tell you most people did not vote for Pres cand they voted for the property tax amendment
that is why Florida (and Mich) are the ONLY two primary states where more repubilicans voted than democrats
and in Florida case over 500.0 ballots cast for the property tax amendment were BLANK on the presidential candidate
We are just ending the reign of a president whose word means nothing - we are not going to trade that in for another one
SO Hillary will -by your logic-would lose MInnesota, and Wisconsin and Illinois and Missouri and so on and so on--you look for any evidence that might make Hillary look to be a stronger candidate and never think thru the faultiness of the logic...pr
I'm sure the party wise have crunched the numbers and concluded that you know nothing. When the Repugs lose Hastert's seat, a seat in a solid repug district in Louisana, and a very solid seat in Mississippi, just how in Hell do you think they will win the Presidency? It could only be the result of racism and I believe we have progressed since I was a child in the 1950s. Grow up.
By "experience" I presume you refer to Hillary's ill-conceived vote for AUMF, her unwillingness to own up to that, her vote for Kyl-Lieberman, THAT experience? Yeah, we need more of that for sure.
Thank you.
Despite having all the advantages a presidential candidate would want, Hillary Clinton has lost the toughest political fight of her life.
What national campaign has John McCain won? He lost to Bush in 2000. McCain won this year not by some great message or golden promise to guide the country towards the future, but rather he won by default because of a historically weak republican field. He promises more of the same Bush policies, polices that are on the wrong track in the minds of the country.
Barack Obama has just about wrapped up the democratic nomination. He has built a movement throughout the country, energized first time voters to get involved, and he has appealed to democrats and independents and republicans, all deeply wanting change in Washington. Barack Obama has run a marvelous campaign, and unlike Clinton and McCain, Obama has not run his campaign into debt. That says something about his management abilities. And despite having the kitchen sink thrown at him, Obama has refused to participate in the politics of personal destruction. He had ample cause and plenty of ammo to throw at Clinton, but he remained above the fray. That says something about the character of the man.
Change is in the air. You can feel it and see it and taste it and breathe it. And as an American, I'm proud to say I own it.
Forrest Gump might say that change is like a box of chocolates
A couple of weeks ago I commented that the superdelegates need to pledge to resign their elected office and/or give up being a superdelegate forever if the candidate they voted for wins the nomination and loses the election. That would certainly focus their minds on what's important. So far, we've had supers jumping on the Obama bandwagon when he wins big and then Edwards jumps on when he loses big in West Virginia to lend a hand. I don't believe anything they say any more.
I thought the Supers had a right to independently judge the field and choose the candidate they felt best deserved the nomination. I guess they lose that right the instant they vote for Obama.
Was that your thinking when Mrs. Clinton had more supers than Mr. Obama?
Let's face it, the Democratic Party has been broken since LBJ, and the Clintons have only made it worse. Like many of the programs it valiantly defends, it needs to be reformed, not preserved in nostalgic amber.
The Obama campaign isn't just about putting Democrats back in the White House, it's about fundamentally re-thinking the way the Democratic Party wins elections. As we've seen in the primary, Hillary Clinton is a typical modern Democrat with one electoral strategy based on targeting certain demographics and no recourse if it fails. Obama doesn't tailor his message to demographic groups, instead focusing on increasing turnout.
Obama is not going to do well against McCain with older white voters no matter what he does. But this is already a high-turnout demographic, and Obama does well in a lot of historically low-turnout demographics. It's a lot easier to get young people to vote than to get old white people to vote for a younger black man instead of an old white man. Demographics are stubborn, turnout is highly variable.
The U.S. record turnout since industrialization is 63% in 1960, when JFK won. If we set a new record this year, Obama will almost certainly beat McCain. We achieved our lowest turnout since the middle of WWII when a Clinton faced an old, cranky Senator. We don't want to do that again. Anything we can do to increase turnout helps the Democrats, and Obama is the master of turnout.
It's true that reps and dems are the same, they all believe in the politics of fear.
Just like the apostate article 2 days ago.
Just scare them and they'll eat out of your hands.
But Clintons lost and that's that.
Obama will give the appalachians the economic help and education the region desperatly needs.
Reminder: Clinton lost Kansas 74 to 26, that's a 48 point difference.
But yeah she was still the best candidate.
Just calm down and vote Obama if you're a Dem.
The Kristen logic would seem to mean that the most electable is the one I want him or her to be. It then becomes obvious that those who believe Paul or Huckabee or others now left behind, are most electable should start posting now. Start blaming those who are backing todays leaders, for not understanding who will really win in November. Any of us in a little riding somewhere that voted for someone other than who Kristen says will win, knows that their candidate is really who would win in the big states, the little states, the areas of mostly white or black or latino. They would win the battle against the swift boat attacks and whatever else will be thrown at their candidate. The fact that one candidate has acquired more delegates than the other certainly should not stand in ones way. That nonsense only relates to why there are primaries. Really, this outline seems to make little sense, but then sometimes what one is smoking can make almost anything make sense.
Kristen,
You are right. This is the clearest thinking I have seen on HuffPo in months. Thanks for for keeping your wits about you and not drinking the Kool-Aid.
no, she drank the "tirade" instead...
Kristen Breitweiser,
This post is probably the most realistic and cogent post I have read here at Huffpost.
Your asking the hard cognitive question that will be vilified at nauseam here by emotion.
This is the "rocks are hard and water is wet" veracity that will be ignored until it happens.
Well framed post.
OC
the hard "cognitive" questions? what can do to get the unhinged demographic back? please, cogitate and get back to us.
tirebiter,
I would be glad to cogitate and get back to ya but....but would you rephrase the request please?
Thanks,
OC
Have you really read the label on the Hillary box? Perhaps you've ignored the small print where she argued for the Iraq war. Perhaps you've overlooked her willingness to adopt republican talking points when it serves her purpose. Maybe you've ignored the Clinton war-chest filled with money from insurance companies and HMOs and Washington lobbys. Maybe it matters little to you that Clinton is all too willing to lie or stretch the truth, very much like those in the White House now. Maybe you don't care about her affiliation with the DLC.
You claim that there are no surprises with Hillary, no baggage left unexamined. Perhaps. But everyone is familiar with that baggage, and there's no rule against republicans regurgitating all that baggage in a general election.
You argue that Hillary is a hard worker and a smart fighter. I ask you, what hard work has Hillary Clinton ever done in her life? In her thirty years of experience, what is her greatest accomplishment? It is a myth to claim that Hillary Clinton is a smart fighter. What great fight has she ever fought and won? In her biggest political fight, the fight for the democratic presidential nomination, Clinton was out-campaigned and out-hustled, and despite being the establishment candidate, she has lost to Barack Obama.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
