Great Analysis (4.00 / 1)

I agree with everything you wrote.  I am an Obama supporter, but if Hillary beats Obama for the reasons you state, I am OK with that because it will show me that she has more of what it takes to win the White House. 

I agree that Obama still has time to turn this thing around, but I have to tell you talking to a lot of voters here in California he has not sealed the deal. 

---

by: paida @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:48:47 PM CST

Fortunately, (0.00 / 0)

Obama is not listening to any of the "wise advice" he is getting from the OPEN LEFT community.  Clinton's people have been proding him in not so subtle ways to get him to take off the gloves.  For the most part he has resisted and that is why he is doing as well as he is.  Unfortunately, as I have noted in a couple of other comments, the race is over.  You can pretend it's not if you want to, but please tell me how he overcomes Clinton's dominant poll numbers in the upcoming large states now that he hasn't been able to run the table in the first four states and dry up Clinton's cash?  He won't have that much momentum going into Feb. 5th and Clinton can match his funding.  What you should be concentrating on now is how to heal the very real anger against the Clintons among many of Obama's supporters (myself included), anger that is more than warranted by sleazy Clinton tactics, but that will suppress the vote in the general election if it is not addressed.

---

by: historyrocks @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 13:20:16 PM CST

Doing as well as he is? (4.00 / 1)

I don't get that comment.
He's got just as much money as Hillary. The traditional media love him. He came off the IA victory with not only momentum but a campaign dynamic (who is the change candidate) that favored him. And now he's lost 2 elections in a row that he should have been well positioned to win.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 14:17:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

OK, here's the deal. (0.00 / 0)

Yes, he raised a lot of money and yes he garnered a lot of positive national publicity, but he was also going against a Clinton campaign that had been in the field for decades  and that had (according to the polls)a large built-in lead among Democrats.  He was able to win in Iowa because Iowa is a very anti-war state and Clinton wasn't able to fudge her record enough.  But all along Iowa was going to be Clinton's worst state.  In New Hampshire Clinton had a lot of things going for her, including a very pro-woman political culture.  I just read an interesting take at pollster that the polls had Clinton losing because they didn't take in the fact in their screens that women who favored Clinton, but had temporary second thoughts, came back to Clinton instead of not voting at all.  I just don't buy that the reason Obama came very close in both New Hampshire and Nevada instead of winning is because of his above-it-all posture, or his Reagan remarks.  He just couldn't get enough momentum outof Iowa to overcome Clinton's built-in advantages.  So we are stuck with the most strident national security candidate among the top three. 

---

by: historyrocks @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 14:54:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Excuses. (4.00 / 1)

I said this the other day in an exchange re Edwards: I think progressives should get out of the habit of making excuses as to why their candidates lose, and be more results/reality based in their analysis. Hillary had some advantages going into this campaign, but so did Barack, and they both have had the resources and ability to get their message out and run a strong campaign. Barack's campaign was perfectly positioned to win both NH and NV, and didn't do it. He still has a chance to win this thing, and if his supporters want him to win, they should stop making excuses and push the campaign toward new strategies. 

---

by: Mike Lux @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 16:38:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't Expect It From His Supporters, Mike! (4.00 / 1)

they should stop making excuses and push the campaign toward new strategies.

 

9 out of 10 think "constructive criticism" is an oxymoron.  They neither take it, nor give it.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 17:30:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No excuses, just reality (0.00 / 0)

IT'S OVER.  Apparently, anyone who doesn't agree with the statements of the posters on Open Left isn't reality based.  That's a good circular argument.  You didn't address the statements I made, but simply dismissed them and said Obama was perfectly positioned to win.  He had a long shot chance to win, but he wasn't perfectly positioned to win, especially in New Hampshire for the reasons I noted.  Anyway, stick with your illusions if you want to.  I'm am simply more reality-based than you and know when it is over. 

---

by: historyrocks @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 20:23:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh Yeah! (0.00 / 0)

And as I said before, we are stuck with the most strident national security candidate.

---

by: historyrocks @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 20:30:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think that old man mummy McCain's got it on the GOP side. (0.00 / 0)

And Hillary will definitely have it after the heavily latino Feb 5th states, unless Obama gets off this continuous courting of a black vote he already has and goes after latinos

No way he's going to even be competitive in California, Arizona, and New Mexico losing the latino vote 65-25.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

---

by: avenged savant @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 13:30:31 PM CST

Hispanics. (4.00 / 1)

There are 2 key swing groups in this primary. One is white liberals, as Matt's post the other day so well documented. The other is hispanics, and in the campaign's first test Obama failed miserably at appealing to them. You are right: if he can't improve his percentage there, he's done.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 14:13:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama's mix of strengths and weaknesses (4.00 / 2)

Mike,

I think you raise good points about elements of Obama's campaign and message. I'm struck by how much your characterization ("above-it-all professor of history... floating so high above the nasty world of partisanship and politics that regular voters, especially the blue collar voters who actually face the gritty realities of the real world, are rejecting him") is both accurate in key respects, and also so different from the qualities I saw in Obama as I listened to the speech to which Matt's prior post links.

I'm someone who appreciates what I'd describe as Obama's thoughtfulness and professorial willingness to engage in dialog (where you actually listen to, think about and respond to what the other person says) and consider various points of view. 

At the same time, I can understand that this may not be a political strength if adopted too often or in inappropriate circumstances. 

So, whereas I found myself puzzled and frustrated by the content and tone of some of the criticism I've read of Obama's Reagan comments, your take on it strikes me as close to the mark in terms of its real shortcomings. 

I also support and respect what I believe is Obama's sincere effort to bring more honesty and less "opponent-destroying" distortion to the political process, though this too carries some risk if not executed well--something your comments suggest may be happening.

Watching the speech after reading your insightful critique, I was struck by how the speech expressed a passion, toughness and willingness to fight that often seems missing from the professorial Obama and that fleshed out key elements of his nature and vision that often are much less visible in the presentation of his message of "hope, unity and more light rather than more heat."

My sense is that if Obama can imbed some of the more potent elements of his speech in more of his communications--and that this makes it through the media filters and fog of political war--he will have largely corrected the deficiencies you point to.  And, if he does, it'll be further evidence that he can learn as he moves his campaign and political career forward.  I think it'll also significantly increase his chances of winning the nomination and the general election.

I hope that happens, because I believe Obama's qualities and the key elements of his campaign and governing strategy are the right ones for this moment in history.  The challenge, as I see it, is for him to get better at applying them more consistently in the right mix, at the right time and in the right situation.  His speech suggests to me that key elements of your critique may not be lost on him.  Time will tell.

---

by: mitchipd @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 13:44:42 PM CST

The speech. (0.00 / 0)

You made some really excellent points. I believe that the speech was outstanding, and did show some grit as well as inspiration. The question now is how his campaign begins to reshape his lofty image.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 14:10:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's a good question (0.00 / 0)

I don't have a big-picture sense of this, but do think that there were portions of the speech that pretty clearly and compellingly added "fight" to "hope" and "passion" and "guts" to "empathy".  I'd try to find ways to reuse those sections in as many formats as possible since, in my view, they pretty well embody that "reshaped" image.  I'm not really sure what that means specifically, but suspect that experienced campaign hands can come up with more ideas than me.

---

by: mitchipd @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 16:48:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

falling (4.00 / 1)

I also support and respect what I believe is Obama's sincere effort to bring more honesty and less "opponent-destroying" distortion to the political process, though this too carries some risk if not executed well--something your comments suggest may be happening.

No one has been nastier than Obama in this campaign.  Leaving Nevada without a concession speech or any speech whatsoever, and then claiming voter suppression without evidence is absolutely vicious, mean-spirited, and probably dishonest.  We'll see what comes out.

You do not cross the line with accusations like that unless you have proof.  And frankly, Obama's union buddies were pretty bad on that score.

You and I have disagreed before.  You simply offer good faith to those who have repeatedly shown themselves bad faith operators.  Not so reality-based, my friend.

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 14:13:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm open to reality-based evidence (4.00 / 2)

Based on what I've heard, the picture of what went on in NV is unclear in terms of who did what and who exactly was to blame, with both sides accusing the other of crossing ethical (or maybe legal) lines, but with only anecdotal references as to what really happened. 

My guess is that both sides had instances of crossing the line, and I'd love to see the whole thing investigated by a neutral party.  If Obama's campaign was in fact the "bad guy" in this situation--especially if it wasn't just a few isolated instances instigated by some union members, but was actually approved (even tacitly) by Obama's campaign, and especially if the behavior of the Clinton campaign had not matched and preceded it--then Obama will lose major points regarding integrity and honesty in my view.

To my knowledge, however, it remains a very open question as to the real facts.  I admit to being more inclined to giving Obama's campaign the benefit of the doubt vs. Clinton's campaign, but I'm also open to the possibility that he's either a lot less honest then he claims or has a lot less control over his campaign than he should.  But I haven't seen anything that makes a compelling case that this is the case.  If you can direct me to something that does, I'd be happy to read it.

I think your characterization of Obama's post-Nevada behavior as "absolutely vicious, mean-spirited and probably dishonest" is way over the top, to the point that it drains any real meaning from the term "absolutely vicious."

With regard to your last paragraph, I'd be interested to see a list of bad faith actions you attribute to Obama. I'd be even more interested if it was sourced and documented.  I really would...I'm not at all interested in supporting someone who is fundamentally and consistently full of shit, I just haven't read anything that has made this case with credibility to match its emotional content.

I'm not sure I understand the point of your criticism regarding offering good faith, but I assume you mean that trusting people who are dishonest is a mistake.  I agree with that. 

Assuming you also mean I'm relatively slow to accuse someone of bad faith when I don't really know the facts of a situation, even when others are making such accusations, I'll plead guilty to that. 

That doesn't mean I'll step aside and let them have their way if I disagree with them and can do anything about it, or stop arguing the merits of my case. 

But it does mean that I see accusations of bad faith as steps that should generally be taken only when backed by real evidence.  Otherwise they're likely to do more harm then good--not only for anyone falsely accused--but also for convincing the many people that are relatively neutral or uninformed. 

I also think that such accusations can and often do distract from the substance of what's at issue, and what needs to be done to address it.  If someone you're attacking can convince folks they're NOT acting in bad faith--or that you (or one of your allies) are or have done so as well--then you've spent energy and credibility without even getting to the substance of the issue the bad faith accusation revolves around.  I think this happens way too often in the political arena, and is a game that Republicans actually love to play, because it rouses plenty of negative emotion on all sides and distracts from real issues.  They love the fog of political war, because it neutralizes everything, and keeps citizens from focusing on and understanding what's important and beneficial for them, and who is really saying and doing what.  And it feeds nicely into the MSM he-said-she-said narrative, which only makes the fog more dense.

I agree with you that we disagree on this.  In my view, you're too quick to claim people act in bad faith, and the wording you use (e.g., "absolutely vicious") often strikes me as over the top in terms of casting people as "evil" and in black and white terms. I think that aggravates all of the risks I cited above.  And if Obama's behavior in Nevada was "absolutely vicious," then what does that leave you to describe someone like Karl Rove, to distinguish him from Obama, assuming you don't see them in the same category of political misbehavior.

To reiterate...regarding Obama's honesty and integrity, I'm open to being convinced.  While I see the value of his candidacy and do respect him based on what I've seen, read and heard, I'm not a "religious believer," nor interested in joining a fan club, or defending "my candidate" blindly because I've got so much emotional investment in them.  I just think Obama's the best choice among the current options, and has enough positive potential to generate some "hope" that he could rise to the occasion and become a very good president for this moment in time.

---

by: mitchipd @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 16:30:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Matt (0.00 / 0)

It's interesting to read your take, as that is the impression I had after Nevada. But I haven't followed the campaign as closely as you and wasn't sure that I had as much information as necessary to make that assessment.

His campaign seems off the mark with the loss (of popular vote) in Nevada. It would be so easy just to be gracious in defeat, even while attacking Clinton's positions and going after a portion of her demographics.

---

by: coral @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 16:36:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Agree with your analysis, as usual (0.00 / 0)

Mike, I really love your posts, (probably because I just agree with them.) 

I appreciate that you've "been there" - and many, many times at that...I don't think a lot of people understand what that means, judging from the strange, intellectualized, microscopic level of detail of some conversations in the blogosphere. 

I hope more senior progressive political operatives will raise their voice in the 'sphere as you have.

---

by: Crab Nebula @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 14:52:42 PM CST

I agree with most of your analysis (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Korha @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 15:02:04 PM CST

Quick add: not sure about Reagan (0.00 / 0)

I'm not sure at all that the Reagan thing had nearly the effect that analysts, blogo and otherwise, say it did.

But I agree with your meta-take in the final paragraph 100% - and the Reagan comment could be read as part of that.  Or it could be good dog whistle, too. (Unfortunately, D's heard the whistle).  Hmm, I guess then it wasn't a dog whistle..........

---

by: Crab Nebula @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 15:06:11 PM CST

Think of The Lost Opportunity Cost (0.00 / 0)

I'm not sure how much impact the whole Reagan thing had directly.  But I think it contributed to clouding the opportunity for Obama to define the narrative his way, and the fact that it got away from him--regardless of merits--revealed a weakness of his approach.

So, the substance may have had an effect, but far mor likely was simply the dynamics, and loss of control.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 18:17:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Tonight she took you seriously (0.00 / 0)

To see if Obama could get down in the nitty gritty.

She stunned him early.

He maintained his balance and did ok with humor

But the Reagan stuff will hurt him. 

He won an endorsement according to Krugman.  And lost a lot of mileage with Democrats.

---

by: rajshaman @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 23:25:41 PM CST