Now that the outcome of the battle for the Democratic nomination has been settled beyond a reasonable doubt, it's worth looking systematically at the major factors that gave victory to Obama. After all, fifteen months ago, conventional wisdom viewed Obama as an audacious long shot. The very idea of a first-term African American senator with a name like Barack Obama defeating the vaunted Clinton machine seemed preposterous.
Here are my Top Ten reasons why lightning struck in the contest for the 2008 Democratic nomination (apologies to David Letterman ):
#10. Great Team. Obama assembled a great team that could work together. He stayed away from lobbyist insiders like Clinton's Mark Penn or McCain's Charlie Black, and choose political professionals who are committed to progressive values like David Plouffe, David Axelrod, Steve Hildebrand and Paul Tewes. From the first he insisted on one key rule: no drama. There was little of the infighting and division in the Obama operation that ate away at the Clinton campaign. Clinton had many capable staffers and consultants, but Penn's divisive leadership style and failures as a strategist doomed the campaign organization to dysfunction. When the brilliant Geoff Garin was tapped to succeed Penn as Chief Strategist in April, it was simply too late.
#9. All-State Strategy. Mark Penn was convinced that Clinton could sew up the nomination by Super Tuesday focusing only on the big states. In fact, some have reported that he mistakenly believed that California had a "winner take all" primary. Obama's team hunted for delegates in every nook and cranny of America - especially in the caucus states that Clinton really didn't contest. Obama ran an active, on-the-ground campaign in every contest, from California to Guam. As a consequence, as one anonymous Clinton insider reports, Clinton lost the nomination in February after Obama ran the table in 11 straight states.
#8. No Plan B. The Clinton campaign had no fall-back plan when it failed to capture the nomination on February 5. There was no money, no organization and no plan to contest the states that lie in the land beyond Super Tuesday.
#7. Excellence in Execution: Great Field. Obama ran the best field operation in American political history -- particularly in the all important Iowa Caucuses. His campaign left no stone unturned, or a vote on the table, in any state. It opened offices everywhere, hired and trained great staff, and managed through simple, streamlined structures. It would have been easy for Obama to squander the massive influx of volunteers who were mobilized through his inspirational message. But the campaign developed structures to integrate and effectively use volunteers, both on the ground and through the Internet. In particular, it developed highly sophisticated new Internet tools to allow volunteers around the country to participate meaningfully in voter ID and get out the vote operations.
#6. Explosive Obama Fundraising. Obama's ability to compete everywhere, to build great field structures and to out-communicate Clinton in the paid media rested squarely on the massive fundraising operation. Obama's traditional fundraising program ended up matching the vaunted Clinton fundraising machine. But the newly developed Internet operation provided a massive advantage. So far Obama has recruited over one-and-a-half-million donors. In other words, by the time the primary season ends, almost one of every ten Obama primary voters (so far there have been 16.3 million) will have made a financial contribution to his campaign. That is beyond unprecedented.
#5. Obama Out-Communicated Clinton Using One Consistent Message. Obama's message has been consistent from Day One. Clinton lurched from "experienced insider" to "populist outsider" from Margaret Thatcher-like "Iron Lady" to a "victim being bullied." And of course, Obama's huge small-donor-driven fundraising advantage gave him the ability to out-communicate her in the paid media - often by a factor of two-to-one.
#4. Hope and Inspiration trumped Fear and Anger. A core element of that Obama message has always been hope and inspiration. Early on, John Edwards hit an important cord of populist anger that is critical to any successful Democratic campaign. Right now especially, people want their leaders to be populist outsiders not "competent" insiders. But Edwards was unable to resolve that anger into hope. Obama touched the anger but also held out possibility. When Hillary "found her voice" as the fighting populist at the end of the campaign, she tapped into anger as well. She didn't hesitate to play the fear card -- both when it came to foreign policy, and by channeling the Republican frame that "elitist professional types" are trying to destroy your way of life. But she never managed to inspire and resolve that fear into hope.
Inspiration is the one political message that simultaneously persuades swing voters and motivates mobilizable voters who rarely come to the polls. The North Carolina landslide provided a striking example of how inspiration can generate massive mobilization at the same time it appeals to independent swing voters.
#3. Unity Trumped Division. Obama showed that appeals to division - whether from elements that stirred up fear that a "black candidate couldn't win" - or from his former pastor - could be overcome by America's overwhelming hunger for unity. Americans - and particularly young Americans - are sick of Republican appeals based on the things that divide us, particularly race. It isn't 1988 anymore. A whole generation has passed from the scene and been replaced by young people who simply don't get the passions that allowed the fear of "Willie Horton" to decide the 1988 presidential race.
#2. Change Trumped Experience. Clinton Chief Strategist Mark Penn's fundamental strategic error was to position Clinton as the "Experience" candidate, when America desperately wanted change. Eighty percent of the voters think America is on the wrong track. They want change in general - and most importantly, they want change in the way special interests dominate Washington. Mark Penn, the consummate lobbyist-insider himself embodied the very thing people believe is wrong in Washington. It's no wonder he made this catastrophic strategic blunder.
#1. Obama is an Extraordinary Candidate. Inspirational, articulate, brilliant, funny, attractive and naturally empathetic - his history as a community organizer, his experience abroad, his beautiful family, accomplished wife, and adorable kids: Obama is the kind of candidate any campaign manager would want in any year. But he is perfect for this year. While the Clintons represented the Bridge to the 21st Century, Obama is the 21st century. His own, multi-cultural story is the future of America. As the campaign tested him, he showed he was cool, deliberate and effective under fire.
In the end, people vote for people. Campaigns are ultimately about the qualities of candidates --about whether or not people want them to be their leaders. Potentially, Barack Obama could become an historic, transformational leader. But John McCain has many qualities that are attractive to swing voters as well. Nothing is preordained. Now it will be up to every Democrat, every Progressive, to take advantage of this historic opportunity to make Barack Obama the American President who leads the world into a new progressive era of unprecedented possibility.
Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on amazon.com
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
Three words: IRAQ WAR VOTE!
That's what finished her. Had she opposed the war, had she apologized for her vote, or admitted it was a mistqake, she'd be sailing off to Denver by now. It was that vote that opened the flood gates for an unknown Illinois Senator who wasn't even in the Senate when Hillary cast that vote but who was known to have opposed it. Without that vote, he might never have run, and if he did, he'd never have gotten this far.
But there's one more thing that I don't see mentioned often--Hillary's explanation for her vote. In essence, she said she voted for the Iraq war measure because she believed or trusted George Bush's word that this wasn't a "war" bill--when everything about it, including its name and Bush's rhetoric said it was. (At least John Kerry and John Edwards said they were misled by the intelligence.) Only a fool or a liar would say openly that she believed George Bush. As it turns out, Hillary is both--a liar because no one with any intelligence would believe George Bush (as opposed to the intelligence, a major difference) and only a fool would say this publically while running for President as a Democrat..
One Word:
Oprah!
a better link
http://youtube.com/watch?v=M5tw1nbxoys
One question: If Barack Obama is the nominee of the Democratic Party, with all the very loving media attention, and so many endorsers, and so much money, WHY CAN'T HE CLOSE THE DEAL ON THIS NOMINATION? Why has it taken so very long for him to even get this close to the nomination?
One question: If Hillary Clinton is this phenomenal candidate, who had an heir of inevitability about her, and the much hyped "Clinton Machine" behind her, with her national appeal and the Clinton brand name...WHY CAN'T SHE CLOSE THE GAP ON THIS NOMINATION? Better question....why couldn't she close the deal after New Hampshire?
And one more question: Why can't she apologize for her Iraq war vote? Is it because Hillary, like George Bush, can never admit a mistake?
He can't close the deal because we have two outstanding candidates. In any other election year, Hillary Clinton would be, by far, the best candidate. Obama was 30 points behind Clinton just 6 months ago. Clinton was way ahead in Super Delegates, fundraising and organization. Give him credit for overcoming much of that by Super Tuesday, and becoming the front runner. The deal was essentially closed before Pennsylvania, but Clinton chose to stay in the race, even though she had no chance of winning the nomination.
Because he's a gentleman. He wants to give Hillary every chance possible to make her case. How many other candidates would do that? None! Evidently, you don't appreciate someone being just plain nice.
Obama's always had people like you, others in the MEDIA, his driven pundits etc. etc. etc. etc. who have been visious FOR HIM! All the while - he's basking in this act of saintliness! Notice he has a slip every once in awhile when he lets down his guard!? Like today - May 15th when he PUT OFF - just brushed off a sincere and significant woman reporter all the while calling her "Sweetie!" He never did answer her question and ALL the huge throng of auto workers at the event who wanted to know his position on their JOBS! Nope he skipped out within SECONDS of telling the "little sweetie" he'd be back!
Wow. I guess the Hillary camp is still slinging mud even after Obama has all but secured the nomination. Thats alright though, because I think McCain would make a great president.
NOT!
Clinton saying Obama can't "close the deal"--now that's funny! Maybe she should look into the mirror and do a little soul-searching. He's done just that, while she hasn't.
This article is an insult to the intelligence of Obama supporters.
Hillary voted to authorize the Iraq invasion, which was the stupidest policy decision ever.
Barak opposed that.
We've been waiting over 5 years for a candidate who opposed that stupid decision.
You are absolutely correct. Hillary lost the nomination when she voted for war, and sealed the loss when she sided with Bush in declaring the Iranian guard a terrorist organization. No more disastrous wars!
How does that apply to "proxy wars" the U.S. has fought for/with Israel?
This is a very interesting article. With all of these great attributes and a three to one spending advantage over the last half of the primaries and an effort to demonize Hillary Clinton, making her into a rabid racist, all willingly supported by the media like this Huffpost "all Obama all the time" and a Hillary campaign which could not have been more dramatically mismanaged, the Obama, the great candidate, has not yet secured the nomination. When he does secure it, which is at this point a virtual certainty, he will have blown off the results in Florida, fought a re-vote in Michigan and secured the lions share of votes in areas of the country not likely to vote Democratic in the general election, regardless of this "new map" to victory that Obama envisions. That concept of a new map to Democratic supremacy in the general, I fear is utter fiction.
This Obama victory feels more like a victory in world wide wrestling as opposed to an Ali over Foreman "rumble in th jungle" style triumph. If the Democratic primary system mimicked the general election, even in the slightest, Hillary would have secured the nomination month ago. Instead, and smartly so, Obama's campaign has played the system in place brilliantly. The problem is that all of the ten great attributes Mr Creamer credits to Obama, maybe meaningless in the general election and John McCain will win and I couldn't take four more years of this current nightmare.
hey notmy...
don't be too surprised (or upset) if a whole hell of a lot of states that "aren't likely to vote democratic", to use your terms, DO in fact do that very thing! Aside from Arizona, and possibly Mississippi, the remaining so called 'red states' are pretty much in play this time around. You rethugs have poisoned your own wells and your party of greedy, selfish, brainwashed idiots is going down in flames, and the few any of the rest of us are going to mourn its demise!
This is a response to itsnotmyfault - you are mistaken. Many people have underestimated Senator Obama and look where its gotten them. He started a race against the most formidable political team in the country, perhaps the world. The Clintons are infamous? or famous? depending on whether or not you are a fan. However, no one can deny how powerful they are and they have powerful friends. But he wasn't fazed by any of it. I'm a fan, and many times, I thought he's done! But not him - he's not done and he won't get beaten in the general election and that will be a great thing for all of us because he is real, he's not a phony and he means what he says - and that my friend, is wonderful!
By the way, nobody's painting Clinton as a racist. They're merely saying they don't mind playing on peoples' prejudices to get elected. In my book, that's just as bad.
Clinton pushed the message that many people will not vote for Obama because he is black, thereby making him politically inferior. She promoted the idea that race should be considered when weighing each candidate's chances in the general election. If that's not a racist argument, then what exactly is the definition of the word?
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
I doubt she has any personal animosity toward black people, but she clearly put forth the message that her race makes her the superior candidate.
I have to agree with all the people that have pointed out the rampant fallacies of this post. Obama has a 3:1 spending margin in great part because Hillary Clinton is shelling out so much money for an expensive campaign staff. He hasn't been OUTRAISING her 3:1. The fact that she's gone broke paying for her staff still says something about her horribly mismanaged campaign. The paid the biggest money for the best minds, and instead got a lot of insiders and old-school hacks. She should have known better. If this is the kind of staff she assembles to campaign, I'm not exactly excited to see her cabinet and White House staffs.
And Obama didn't blow off the results in Florida. Like others have pointed out, he agreed to the same rules and Clinton. She tried to change them at midnight, and Obama called her out for cheating. As he should have. Clinton has similarly fought revote or recount methods that don't favor her. Obama isn't the only demon on that front, so let's get our facts straight on that. And certainly no worse than Clinton discounting the validity of the conservative states that "don't matter," or discounting the caucuses. I continue to find it amusing that Clinton supporters are so pissed at Obama for "not wanting people to vote" when Clinton is the one crisscrossing the country talking about all the irrelevant states and their irrelevant voters. Like THAT'S a winning strategy.
How can so much wrongness be crammed into such a small amount of space? Obama HAS won the nomination, agreed to the same rules regrading MI & FL as HRC (only he has consistently abided by them), already HAS redrawn the electoral map and will do so again in Nov. "If the democratic primary system mimicked the general election, HRC would have secured the nomination month (sic) ago" - as Dems, we certainly know about that! Ask Al Gore!
What a bitter hateful rant. Full of excuses, full of blame, and a complete unwillingness to take responsibility.
itsnotmyfault, you criticize Obama because he played by the rules of the Democratic nominating process, and has been successful. Please remember that the Clintons had enormous influence in developing and implementing those very rules. They've pretty much run the party for the past 16 years. The results of the recent special House elections tend to validate Obama's concept of a new electoral map. You strive to be perceptive but your wrestling vs. boxing analogy falls flat. Sour grapes will bring you nothing. Now is the time to unite the party for victory in November. Won't you please join the winning team? Wouldn't you like to win for once in the 21st century?
- Jim Heaphy
so vote Obama and encourage your friends to do the same! remember #4 Hope and inspiration trumps fear and anger!
Hillary failed the first test when she selected Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and the rest to orchestrate the most dysfunctional campaign in recent history. Where was her vaunted judgement then? How did her so called experience help her in her deliberations? Is this a glimpse into what her presidency would look like? Of course, it is.
Bill and Hillary did play the race card and continue to do so. It was their own willingness to play their ends justify the means game and play it dirty. Let's not talk about anyone changing rules when Clinton first agreed with the other candidates and the DNC about Michigan and Florida. Now that she thinks they can help her, she has changed her tune. She didn't care about disenfranchising voters when she was confident she would win.
From the beginning Clinton has been a flawed, inconsistent candidate - she has lied (sniper fire in Bosnia?) she also might be delusional. She has stated that she will obliterate Iran should they attack Israel - placing herself to the right of McCain. Proving she is a hawk, she has always been a hawk.
A Clinton presidency would only mean more of the same. We can't afford more of the same.
Funny that the article mentions the Willie Horton angle, when the vaunted Al Gore was the first to use the Horton horror in TV ads aganst Michael Dukakis. Mr. Creamer might want to edit that paragraph.
Yeh, I get so tired of this myth.
In fact, while Gore did mention the furlough program that Dukakis implemented and he did mention that were problems with it, he not only didn't give names, i.e. Horton, he sure didn't broadcast a picture of a 'scary black man' across the nation's airwaves, ala bush and his disgusting scum buddies. It was Floyd Brown who dug up Horton and decided that it'd be such a good idea to get an extreme closeup of him and send that image out across the nation. (Although it was only paid for once, the media took up Brown's slack and rebroadcast the image a bunch of times, like they did with the swift boat liars.)
Excellent article - Obama has proven throughout his campaign that he is a great leader, knows how to delegate, knows how to share a vision and mobilize people to achieve that vision, knows how to get organized and stay organized, stays on mission, stays (for the most part) on the high road, tries to unify, creates hope, is focused and very, very bright. Wake up, folks! You can tell A LOT from the way a candidate campaigns. This is what kind of president he'll be, and what kind of president this country desperately needs. As a poster below says, America thirsts for COMPETENCE, and Obama is competent!
Just replacing a post that an over-zealous Huffington censor removed from this column the other day:
#1: The Obama campaign painted the Clintons as racists and leveraged that into a lop-sided vote from the AA community.
Hey, politics is hardball. Obama played the race card and appears to have gotten away with it.
But politics is also a long term affair, much beyond the outcome of any single election.
One great thing that Hillary has done is having created a very self-aware half of the Democratic party. Unlike what the Obama people think, this self-identification has nothing to do with racism, but everything to do with economics. The Hillary voters now have a much clearer perspective on what they are looking for in their representatives at the district, state, and national level.
Hillary is in the process of consolidating this base for the long road ahead. If she says that for now supporting Obama is the right course, then that is what most of us will probably do, although only as an expedient to prevent the Republicans from taking office. However, every candidate for every office will now be viewed as to how they behaved in the face of their constituents support for Hillary.
They both played the race card.
as a former western New Yorker who goes home once in a while and sees the devastation the lack of jobs has wrought I could never support Clinton for her broken promises. how is it in your neck of the woods?
The Clintons have played the race card, not Obama. That's a fact, not fiction. The Clintons played this campaign stupid and dirty and that is why she has lost so much support. She lost me when it became clear that they will do anything, say anything to win. They lie. They intimidate. She, like Bush, can't seem to admit when she has made a mistake. She even turned into Joe Lieberman at one point when stating that only she and McCain had the requisite experience for the job. She lacks grace and dignity.
Now that it seems so clear that she cannot win (to everyone but her) she has decided to act as a party uniter when it was she that split it. She doesn't care about the party, she's hoping that the party will forgive and forget the mess that she created. She's trying to make sure that she's not expelled from the party. She's trying to save her own hide, that's all.
As far as Clinton supporters having any influence anywhere - that depends on whether Clinton has a place in the party. Given her behavior, the jury is still out on that one.
Hillary with her MLK remarks and Bill's JJ remarks played the race card. Her hard working WHITE americans didn't help either.
Posted May 12, 2008 | 10:18 AM (EST)