great points (0.00 / 0)

The current state affairs is something like this: Obama's in a good situation that looks bad.

I'd far rather be in Obama's position than Clinton's.

Having said that, he could use a bold move to take charge again. He needs to play some offense.

I've suggested in a diary that he should pick and announce a veep. That would certainly be a bold, unconventional move with an enormous upside.

---

by: Matt H @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 19:38:58 PM UTC

I'm not sure about that but... (0.00 / 0)

He should hit back and say he that this is a campaign about vision and change.  He needs to see he is ready to be President and use Rendell's words against him...selectively editing the part where Rendell says Hillary is just more ready but both are ready.  He then needs to say he thinks Hillary would be an excellent VP and would be a great asset in helping moving OUR vision of America forward.  We need her to join US in changing Washington... yada yada.  

Diffuses the narrative she is trying to put out there that Obama would be great as her VP by turning it back around on her.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 20:14:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I just think that the race tends toward Obama, in general (4.00 / 1)

The big mistake the Obama people made was allowing Clinton to throw them off message: they should never have engaged the national security debate beyond calling Clinton on her Rovian scare tactics.  By engaging, they let the media carry this attack far further than it otherwise would have.  When people don't have to deal with all the Clinton chaos and negativity, them pretty naturally find a home with Obama.  


The Politics of Bruno S.

---

by: Descrates @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 19:43:29 PM UTC

Fluid race for some, not for others (4.00 / 2)

This race has hardened for many Clinton and Obama supporters, probably something like 40-45% for each, with a much more fluid and shrinking bloc of 10-20% who go back and forth.  What puts them in one side or the other?

1.  Who's up--people like winners, and each draws support when they win, Obama more so because he has won more contests.  But there is also

2.  Sympathy for the underdog--I think this is more a factor in solidifying support than winning converts, especially as the race goes on.

3.  Doubts about Obama--Clinton and her people were somewhat successful in moving some in the fluid middle toward her.  But she has often overreached here, exaggerating her own experience, and this leads to

4.  Clinton fatigue--Clinton's movement gets slowed when people see her as cold, calculating, overly and nakedly ambitions, and when Bill rears his head, reminding people of what they didn't like about the Clinton years.  This also leads to

5.  Hope for the future--Hillary's "hope is for losers" riff is really grating.  It plays with her base because it mocks Obama, but it isn't very inviting to waverers, let alone Obama supporters.  It drives people back to Obama.

This oscillation will slow, and in Obama's favor if he makes no real missteps.  Personally I think there is a ceiling on Hillary's support, and it isn't 50.1%

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 20:42:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Short term gain (4.00 / 1)

I'm just guessing, but I'll throw a few ideas out there.

I don't think the "throw everything at an opponent including the kitchen sink" strategy works for long, particularly in a primary where voters are predispositioned to like both candidates.  In a short burst it looks like Clinton is strong and Obama is weak.  But over time it looks like Clinton is angry, desperate and has no message while Obama's general "above it all" approach looks calm and reassuring.

It also seems both sides have gained from public sympathy the moment they seem down.

Lastly, I think Clinton's victories last week had more to do with controlling the news cycle than any specific attack.  It seems with Obama's victory over the weekend and all the talk about FL and MI she has lost that control, though I'm less certain Obama has gained it.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 20:00:16 PM UTC

I hate... (4.00 / 1)

I hate her rally speeches were she starts SCREECHING to the audience.  Its as if she is yelling and thinks its exciting but is just really annoying.  It makes me think of my mom yelling at me.  Total turn off.  She is so much better in a normal conversation mode than big rally mode, whereas Obama is the opposite.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 20:16:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah (0.00 / 0)

I hate when women do that screeching thing. It's a good thing there aren't too many of them in important position.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 20:58:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good old fashioned sexism (0.00 / 0)

If Andy Sullivan dies, you should apply for his job.

---

by: Jason C. @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 22:46:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good for you (4.00 / 2)

But really, what do I know? The truth is, I am probably just guessing those were the causes because those were the fights I focused on during February.

I wish more pundits would have the balls to once in a while say, "you know what, I have no freaking clue what the hell the voters are thinking."

Our Dime Understanding the U.S. Budget

---

by: dmineau @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 20:05:29 PM UTC

But... but.... (4.00 / 1)

They are Very. Serious. People. How could you expect people so serious and important to say something like that? What are you, logical or something? Freaking unappreciative peon!

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

---

by: JewishJake @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 20:07:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It was her comments about McCain (4.00 / 1)

...and against Obama that have turned Dem voters. It will continue to do so.

---

by: Crumpley @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 20:15:20 PM UTC

Mo. (0.00 / 0)

Obama's return is very impressive. The polls are up and the momentum keeps on coming. He is trending higher and higher on intrade.
I think this maybe because we are seeing somekind of inbuilt solidity increasing in how Obama is being percieved, especially as he is wrapping up this nomination.

On a note. There is talk of a Obama tour to Berlin, Vatican, Israel, Iraq and possibily Asia/Africa.
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield...

---

by: PrinceO @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 20:18:18 PM UTC

Respectfully, the race has been a near-certainty since at least Super Tuesday. (4.00 / 1)

Obama's failure to land the knockout blow shouldn't distract from the fundamental nature of the race right now.

In order to win the nomination, Clinton needs a near-blowout win in Pennsylvania, a favorable resolution to the FL/MI situation, respectable showings in NC and IN... and that only gives her candidacy a fighting chance to convince the supers late in Denver.

It's a nice scenario for the media to cling to, but it's not a realistic path to victory. Clinton is perhaps 10% to win right now. She still needs a massive Obama gaffe/misstep.  

---

by: Tom Gilpin Jr @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 20:24:11 PM UTC

yep (0.00 / 0)

i worried heartily about how he couldn't close the deal until i suddenly realized that no one was closing any deal and the whole concept was irrelevant.

---

by: aiko @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 00:08:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

people were fooled by the media talking up her wins in OH and RI (0.00 / 0)

It just took a few days for it to sink in to people that despite her Karl Rove style negative campaign against Obama she made virtually no progress towards winning the nomination by winning Ohio and Rhode Island while losing Vermont and Texas, stupid MSM narratives notwithstanding. Reality finally sank in when he again crushed her in Wyoming. Now people can clearly see that her campaign is full of sound and fury signifying nothing and the more ridiculous statements she makes about thresholds, going after pledged delegates, and the veep spot, the farther she'll sink. It's almost like she's trying to let Obama beat her in Pennsylvania and end this.

---

by: redwards95 @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 20:36:32 PM UTC

Not only that (0.00 / 0)

She got a few delegates, but then so did he.  And she alienated many more people to get them, while he got his by being inclusive.  This si a losing strategy for her in the long run.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 20:44:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If Obama is the people's choice (0.00 / 0)

and a lock for the nomination, then why isn't he demanding a revote in Michigan and Florida?  He should welcome the chance to campaign in these crucial states, if only to lay the groundwork for a battle with McCain.  

---

by: Upstate Dem @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 20:55:15 PM UTC

short circuit (0.00 / 0)

It feels a bit like the press are hooked in -- to the press? The "campaign narrative" is generated by the press (if, like me, you don't own a television, you'd have trouble verifying the "narrative" stories) -- and now they are speculating on themselves?

A certain amount of feedback in a system can be sustained, but I'm waiting for the howls of distorted punctuation marks and random alphanumeric strings that may well start appearing in the New York Times once they finally purge the last contact with the actual reality that usually acts as a source of low-entropy text.

---

by: sdedeo @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 21:02:12 PM UTC

Unfortunately I think the Clinton campaign has done well (0.00 / 0)

They had a series of attacks and a strategy up their sleeves and pulled it out just at the right time. This included the 3am attacks, their media bias narrative and a few other things. They attacked Obama in the first few days of March and their strategy, while a successful one, did not have the potential of having a long-lasting effect. So they did it when it mattered, just a few days before TX and OH. It had the desired effect for them and things are back to normal now, which means Obama is ahead again.

I just hope they don't have anything else for future critical races.

On a separate note, I get the impression (like many have said) that there is no great momentum in effect for either party as far as voters are concerned. Hillary seems to win the states she is supposed to win and the same goes for Obama. Look at NH, NV, CA, MA and now TX and OH... all states HRC was always certain to win, but polls fooled us into thinking that Obama had a chance in the last few days, but the original CW stood. Expect to see this again in PA.

---

by: bmozaffari @ Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 22:57:41 PM UTC

Fear you're right, Hope you're wrong (0.00 / 0)

Agree her triangulation on the phone call, NAFTA, and media bias worked, but I'm not convinced they had as much control over it as you give them credit for.  To me, it was more luck than design, and I doubt they'll be able to repeat its success (which is not to say that they won't try -- witness the whole McCain and I are commander-in-chief material and Obama's not business). Even a stopped clock is right twice a day; but given  Hillary, Penn & Co.'s serial blundering before and since, I suspect they'll return closer to form by the time PA votes.  

---

by: ched @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:46:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

negative campaigning (0.00 / 0)

and the kitchen sink works well over the short term but has a back lash effect on the long term. she got what she needed for the moment-a win in texas and ohio-but now what?

---

by: aiko @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 00:06:37 AM UTC

OH and TX were primarily demographics-based wins (4.00 / 1)

The MSM has made last week all about the success of attacking, and it looks like the Clinton campaign believes that, and has over - reached as a result.

The primary reasons why Clinton won in both states were based on holding onto her core demographics in states destined to be more favorable.

1) Latinos were nearly 1/3rd of the TX vote, which was a record. Kudos to Clinton to getting out her base.

2) White OH Dems with a high school education broke strongly for Hillary. These counties border Western MD and are somewhat like Appalachia demographically and in outlook. Even in VA, where Obama won 62-37 similar counties went 75-25 for Clinton.  They were a much bigger share of the electorate in OH, but the signs were there in VA. Watch for this in KY and WVA as well, and in southern IN, though I suspect Obama will take IN in total.

The attacks may have helped Clinton hold her base, but they provided only a short term, tactical advantage (my hunch). The press conference effectively endorsing McCain for CIC over Obama was seen by Dems as a bridge too far - providing aid and comfort to the enemy. The press doesn't get that, and continues to play the "Iron Lady" card.

Obama had 3 bad weeks of press, probably officilly starting with Michelle Obama's comments which were misconstrued, but not helpful politically. He also became very conservative, and repetitive. The skewering today - "how can I be unqualified to be CIC, but qualified to be VP?" was a sign of a return to his momentum.

The press will see it as a minor event, but it was major from the view point that he has begun to negate both the CIC attacks, and the too clever by half attempt to push him into the VEEP job.

And now, add the Ferraro comments, and Clinton is back off  message, and Obama is on...

   

---

by: NH Indie @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 00:11:48 AM UTC

she's in big trouble (4.00 / 1)

The wound has reopened: after a few relatively static days in super delegate-land, she has begun to bleed them again (or more accurately, Obama's gains have caused her margin to fall but I like the bleeding metaphor.)

Her latest argument requires her to at some point prove that super delegate are willing to take a chance on her over Obama due to whichever kitchen sink-inspired concerns they might now have. If the super delegates go back to trickling into Obama's column, she's dead meat.

In the end, also, getting abused by 23 points in Wyoming was a real buzzkill for her campaign. You could almost hear the wind whooshing out of the sails. We've talked a lot about Obama having so many chances to close but Hillary hasn't done it either. She had a chance to close on Super Tuesday and she didn't and now she had a mini chance to turn the corner, if not close, by keeping it close in Wyoming. And she failed.

---

by: Matt H @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 00:24:48 AM UTC

The Dwindling Shelf-Life of Spin (4.00 / 1)

I think the main cause of this dynamic is the decreasing impact of spin.  The Clinton campaign has put a lot of effort into spinning results -- South Carolina didn't matter, Super Tuesday was a win for them, March 4th was a big comeback even though it was essentially a delegate tie -- and after each election the press seems for a few days to buy into it.  Thus the reporting, all weekend, of Obama's "terrible" week (in which he had a net delegate gain).  

But the fundamental principle of this campaign seems to be that reality catches up fast.  A few days after each elections, polls, etc. essentially reflect that the electorate understood right away what really happened, even if the press perhaps did not.  

Part of the reason for this, I would guess, is that while the Obama campaign is not particularly focused on (or good at) the first round of post-election spin, they're willing to doggedly hammer at the basic facts over several days until the press picks them up (when given the choice, political reporters will always go with the claim that's substantiated by facts).

That is good; that is how it should be.  There's nothing wrong with spin, but reality trumps it every time--as long as our campaigns are willing to repeat the facts until they are recognized.  Our political press is, it seems, so used to the Rove era (and, to be fair, the one that preceded it) that reporters still assume whatever spin "wins" one or two news cycles becomes hardened CW, never to be questioned.

The electorate, it seems, is a bit more reality-based than that these days.  

---

by: apelavin @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 00:57:30 AM UTC

You bet there's a lag (0.00 / 0)

But there are also other forces at play, too.  For one, there are pundits who need to fill column inches on a deadline.  Pundits who may have their own favorite candidates and who, not incidentally, are being spoon-fed  a precious "narrative" by the Clinton camp. The entire First Read column/blog, for instance, reads like a Hillary infomercial, right down to the suggested August re-votes in Michigan and Florida (when both states have previously-scheduled congressional primaries).  Add to that the fact that these guys have a built-in reason to want this thing to keep going for as long as possible, and it's no surprise that they jump on any opportunity to promote juicy conflict stories like the ones the Clintons are so good at cooking up.

However, even assuming that no nefarious purposes are at play, while I definitely smell the same shift back from the Hillary bump reflected in the polls, I still wouldn't expect the MSM pundit types to write about it in real time, if only for the simple reason that it hadn't happened yet.  Even in the blog format, those guys are still writing yesterday's news. And my suspicion is that they can't away with publishing "gut-feeling" shifts in momentum, no matter how perceptible.

Thus, with any luck, the most recent Gallup and Rasmussen numbers will get their mention -- though I wouldn't expect them to get anywhere near the attention that Hill's mudslinging got.  Numbers aren't as salacious as mud wrestling.

As for the source of the Obama quick surge itself, methinks it stems from mainly from backlash against the Clintons' sharp right turn into the mud, and the line-crossing equating of herself to McCain on commander in chief readiness "threshhold," with dashes of disgust at the FL and MI about-face.  In those ways, at least, the media has actually driven the change, albeit unintentionally.

---

by: ched @ Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:24:59 AM UTC