There has been a lot of negative commentary, both in the traditional media and the blogs, about Obama's appearance at the Saddleback Church. Some didn't see the point of him going to a stacked forum, some didn't think he did very well overall, some were critical in both regards. While I didn't think he was as sharp as he could have been in terms of his performance, I think there were some very good things about him going to Saddleback. A couple of points on this:
A couple of things from the past few days have caught my eye from Obama world, both of which struck me as really good signs in terms of how the campaign is thinking, at least in some aspects of their operations:
I noted that Greg Sargent mentioned me among several others because I joined the Facebook group opposing Bayh for the Vice Presidential nomination (now up to over 3,200 members). I hadn't been planning on writing on this topic because many others have been doing a good job of it, and because on most things like this my preferred mode is to communicate my views privately to my friends inside the campaign, which I've already done. But since I've been outed, I thought I'd write a quick post as to why I joined the group.
I read Matt's post here with a lot of interest because I think he represents how a fair number of activists are feeling right now. I thought it was important to lay out some thoughts on the relations between the Obama campaign and progressive activists, and try to encourage some dialogue from both sides.
There has already been mountains of material written about the politics of race in this campaign, and there will be mountains more before it is through (and, for that matter, in the months after no matter what the result), but the latest back and forth has stirred me to weigh in. Having grown up in a working class neighborhood in the Midwest, and spent years talking politics in the labor halls and bars of Iowa, I have lots of thoughts about the working class white folks of middle America that McCain is targeting with this bullshit.
Having not been impressed with the hilarity of their satirical cover, I hadn't bothered to read the actual New Yorker story on Obama that was inside, but a colleague thought it was interesting and gave me a copy to read. And, you know, the story inside was in some ways stupider than the cover itself.
I have a real problem. I have all these great ideas for posts (at least, I think so) and no damn time to write them. The last few months before a Presidential year general election are always really intense, and this year I'm writing a book and helping launch the big new health care coalition, too, so I am completely crazed. Apologies for not writing much lately.
I wanted to take a moment to reflect on the idea of building a bigger movement.
Every two years, after the election is over, Democrats have a big debate, but they take two different forms. If we lose, it's a debate why we lost, with the DLC and their allies always arguing, without fail, whether there is a single bit of data to back them up, that it's because Democrats went too left and too populist. If we win, it's a debate over what to do with our victory, with the DLC-style Democrats warning vigorously against over-reaching, and cautioning Democrats to be slow, careful, and incremental in whatever policy changes they pursue.
If, as seems quite possible (I'm too superstitious to say likely) today, Obama wins and Democrats pick up several seats in both the House and Senate, the debate over what to do with the victory will be joined especially fiercely. For the first time in sixteen years, and the only time over almost three decades, Democrats would control the Presidency and both the House and the Senate by significant margins. With a new President having run on the themes of hope and change, the expectations among the public for real change will be sky-high.
That's why this debate will be so crucial. Establishment insiders, and their cynical allies in the media, will be doing everything possible to stamp out the flames of hope and change, but the public will be expecting our party to step up to the plate and actually deliver the goods. Insiders will be yammering on about filibusters and bureaucracy and Obama's inexperience and committee jurisdictional battles, and how hard it is to get things done. And Democrats' "wise men" will be counseling Democrats to not over-reach, take your time, don't do anything too fast, don't do anything too big or bold or dramatic.
Given the size of our problems heading straight at us down the highway like a Mack truck, and the expectations of the general public, Obama and Democratic leaders need to be bold and big in their approach. The don't over-reach Democrats are going to start their calls for caution immediately- I would predict an op-ed in the Washington Post will appear on November 6th, the Thursday after the election, from Al From or Bruce Reed or Joe Klein or David Broder, or maybe from all of them, advising Democrats to be very slow and careful and bipartisan in their approach to issues. We in the progressive movement need to be ready, assuming such a wonderful Election Day comes as we hope, to immediately and vigorously engage the debate as to why we need big change, not the politics of caution.
Lost in the hubbub of Obama doing lots of things that irritate progressives in recent days are two very significant pieces of good news about the potential of an Obama Presidency:
I think I need to take some of my own advice about understanding the different roles that various folks are going to play. Or perhaps I should, in the words of the classic line from Desperately Seeking Susan, "Just take a valium like a normal person."
I get very worked up in Presidential election years. Once every four years, the country makes a determination as to whether I have hope (not a sure thing, not a done deal, not an easy ride, but at least some hope) for moving forward and making progress on the burning issues I care about, or whether for the next four years I have to spend all my time in defense mode, hoping that the next Republican President won't succeed at utterly shredding the Constitution, won't get us into WWIII, and won't let another four dangerous years pass by with no real progress on the climate change that is cooking the planet. And I know all too well that even if we stave off utter disaster under a Republican President for another four years, that there is no hope that anything positive will happen on making the economy healthier, or getting universal health care, or bringing more people out of poverty, or any of the other issues I care the most about.
Because I get so worked up, I go very much into war mode, and get obsessed about winning the election. I generally spend the other 43 out of every 48 months focused on a wide variety of fronts- media work, organization building, grassroots organizing, Senate/House/state leg races, etc.- that I think will help build the broader progressive infrastructure, but in these last five months I tend to get very, very focused.
In that kind of war mode, I am very focused on the whole winning and losing thing. I never assume that any lead is safe (I've seen plenty of them slip away over the years), and never want anything to happen that helps the Republican or hurts the Democrat. I consider myself on the Democratic candidate's team, whether I'm on their campaign staff directly or not, and I'm ready to go to war with anyone attacking my team, from whatever angle, for whatever reason. That's why I have been getting so testy at progressives attacking Obama and his campaign team right now.
It's also why I don't get too worked up about Obama tacking right as a campaign strategy. As I've written, I don't think it's necessarily the best strategy, but it's not surprising to me and I don't think it's disastrous. It's the conventional strategy in a Presidential - the strategy that the overwhelming majority of general election candidates of both parties in American history have done throughout the years. Frankly, for them to do anything else would have been pretty surprising.
So if I get testy between now and Election Day with my fellow OpenLefties, forgive me. My first instinct is always going to be to attack anyone who attacks my team. I will try to remain philosophical, understanding that people have different roles to play (unless of course I think someone is actually doing real damage to Obama's chances- then watch out...).
I know that we are all going to get irritated with each other these next few months. I will try to stay calm, and hope that those with a different mindset will be understanding of where I am coming from as well.
Warning: this is one of those brutally frank posts that may well piss you off. Sorry about that
Having been trained by an associate of Saul Alinsky when I was still in high school, I have always had strong views about what it means to hold politicians accountable (I've written about holding Presidents accountable in the past here). I have a very different perspective on the matter than Matt Stoller and many of my friends in the netroots. (I hope we'll still be friends after I put this post up.)
Although I am a big believer in the 50-state strategy and generally spreading the map, for many years now I have been consulting for some Democratic donors and progressive groups on how to maximize their political resources, so I have a tradition of creating a top 10 list of states for maximum investment in state parties, outside efforts, and campaigns in these states. I factor in the following things to my ratings:
• Presidential race importance (I factor this in even in the off-years, but obviously it gets maximum rating points in a Presidential election year)
• Competitive Senate races
• Competitive House races
• Competitive Governor races
• Competitiveness in terms of control in state legislative chambers
• Whether Secretary of State and other election administration officials are friendly, whether they are on the ballot
• Strength of state party
• Strength of outside organizational efforts I am aware of
• Relative costs of campaigning in the state (weighting inexpensive states a little higher because of the bang-for-the-buck factor)
• Ballot initiatives/referenda on the ballot in the cycle
I generally think Chris Bowers' analyses are spot-on accurate, but there have been a couple of things lately I need to quibble with. One is his dismissal of the possibility of Scott Kleeb winning in Nebraska. I disagree with that strongly, and will do a post as to why sometime very soon. The other is his post on Obama's first general election ad, which is the topic of this piece.
I will start by admitting that I might well have been confused by some of his fundamental points, but rather than just ask him privately about what he meant, I thought it would be worthwhile to go ahead and have an open debate here on OpenLeft. So Chris, if I'm misinterpreting your arguments, feel free to push back at me.
What I found troubling was that many of the phrases Chris referenced as conservative frames were in my view very appealing phrases that have been hijacked by conservatives. Here are the phrases Chris listed as "conservative frame" phrases:
Now that, as expected, Obama got a little bit of a bump from the primary fight being over and the Hillary endorsement, he seems to have established a small lead in the 2- to 6-point range, depending on the poll. While I am pleased that Obama has the lead, I have to admit that this gives me a new worry, which is that the campaign will get too cautious; Democratic Presidential campaigns have a history when they get a lead of starting to get cautious. It happened to the Kerry campaign when they got a small lead in the spring of 2004; it happened to the Gore campaign when they opened up a lead after the 2000 convention; it happened to the Clinton campaign/White House in 1996 when they opened up a big early lead on Dole, which had less disastrous consequences for Clinton himself, but certainly hurt the Democratic drive to retake the House; it happened to Dukakis is 1988; going way back, it even happened to Carter in 1976 as an early lead of more than 20 points shrunk to a 2-point margin in the final tally.
As I have written in the past, caution seems to be endemic to the last couple of generations of Democratic politicians, and it is natural for a campaign with a lead to want to be careful about making mistakes that blow that lead. I would argue, though, that the biggest mistake we could make this year is one of caution. Here's my thinking:
1. What got Obama this far is that he was the change candidate. If he gets too cautious in his policy and his campaign strategy that makes him look like a typical politician. The more Obama looks like a typical politician, the more a comfortable old brand name like McCain looks appealing: experienced, independent, a maverick who will challenge both parties, a war hero who's been serving his country since before Obama was born. In a conventional game with two candidates who seem like conventional politicians, that McCain brand starts to sound pretty good.
2. The electoral college math also trends toward McCain in a conventional game. Even with a narrow lead in the national popular vote, Kerry states Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire are big challenges to win, and none of the Bush states that seem most likely (except maybe Iowa)-Ohio, Virginia, Missouri, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada-are easy at all. If Pawlenty is on the ticket, that makes Minnesota tough. It is only when Obama is making major gains in the overall vote, or when he is challenging the traditional voting patterns, that this race goes from being a tough-to-win nail-biter to a solid victory. It is hard to make those kinds of gains, or challenge those traditional voting patterns, without having a bold, risk-taking candidacy.
3. The change Obama is promising is not going to come with squeaking out a narrow Presidential win and only picking up a couple more seats in the Senate and House. If in this year of overwhelming Democratic Party brand advantage, we only squeak by with a narrow win, it's not going to give the big change agenda Obama is promising much momentum. And with the mood of the public, and the big problems there at our doorstep, if Obama doesn't deliver on his big change promises, there will be massive hell to pay for the Democrats in 2010 and 2012.
So what do I mean by being bold instead of cautious? I am talking about a campaign mindset that rejects the conventional wisdom both in terms of policy and tactics. Obama should push McCain hard on the policy debate, propose big policy changes on multiple fronts, push the ideological advantage we now have aggressively, and force McCain to react to their agenda. And on tactics, think big and gutsy as well. Spend real time and resources in states like North Dakota, Montana, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Call for nationwide days of action by supporters on key issues. Hold web-connected rallies and events all over the country on the same day. Genuinely deal with McCain on a negotiated series of unusually formatted debates and town halls. Give speeches in front of hostile audiences. Run ads that have edge to them, that don't look like every other political ad.
Let's make the campaign-the issues Obama presses forward, the events and tactics and speeches Obama does-be as exciting and different as the country wants the new President to be. We can win this election by a landslide if we don't get cautious and start playing prevent defense.
I was going to stay out of the VP debates, because as I mentioned the other day the formula for getting it right is really complex, and I could easily make a case pro and con for a bunch of different folks. But because it is all everyone wants to talk about in DC these days, I have continued to think about it as I have listened to everyone's arguments and counter-arguments, and I have decided that I do indeed have a favorite. Since I know all of you are just dying to know what I think (okay, maybe not, but what the hell), here's my argument.
Really good table in the Washington Post yesterday (based on an Urban Institute/Brookings study), worth getting around to all your friends who don't make over $603,403 a year.
I was delighted to see in Sunday's Washington Post that senior operatives for McCain seem to have convinced themselves that ideologically this is the same kind of center-right country that Republicans have thought it to be for the last 40 years. Given that Republicans won seven of ten Presidential contests in those years, that the three Democrats who won were Southern moderates, and that the GOP had control for both houses of Congress for a 12-year run before the 2006 elections, it's easy to understand why they believe that. Many D.C. Democrats secretly or not-so-secretly believe it, too.
I'm less sure about that view of recent history, but it's not my intent here to argue whether it's true, because even if the country has been center-right these past four decades, one thing I am certain of is that it no longer is.
I make this case at length here, but if you don't want to check out all those facts and figures, my premise is this: the country made a fundamental shift in their views of conservative ideology in 2005, and is now substantially more progressive ideologically than it used to be. The Iraq/Katrina/Social Security privatization/Terri Schiavo toxic swamp of the summer of 2005 caused a tectonic plate shift in our politics, as more and more voters realized how flawed conservative policies are.
In terms of a partisan basis, the country essentially moved from about a third Democratic, a third Republican and a third Independent in 2004 to a ten point-plus margin for the Democrats now, and that partisan edge is also reflected in where voters are at on most of the major issues.
If McCain's people truly believe that this is a center-right country in 2008, we will win this election easily. Their best hope is not to portray McCain as a maverick conservative, but as a maverick reformer instead, independent of conservative philosophy. The problem with that, of course, is what that does to his base vote, but I still think it's his only hope. Right now, though, he is apparently trying to project himself as a center-right candidate, and I think he will suffer for it.
Conversely, our best shot- both for Obama and for winning sweeping margins in Congress- is not to shy away from bold contrasts with Republicans, but to make an ideological case. That goes against the instincts of those of us who came of political age in the disappointments of the law few decades, but right now I'm convinced that being bold in our positioning is exactly the way to go. The complicated thing for us is that Obama's post-partisan message makes for a complicated fit with a strong contrast in ideologies, but I still think it can be done by emphasizing the out-of-Washington nature of his message- wanting to move beyond the stale battles of the past, but to do it in a way that clear, strong progressive policies are achieved. He is using that formula in many of his speeches- talking a lot about universal health care and getting us out of Iraq and McCain's embrace of Bush's policies- and I think that kind of message is the best way to go.
I have argued repeatedly that there are a lot of swing voters in small-town America, and that Obama needs to win a decent share of them in states like Ohio to win the Presidency. Winning the percentage we need is going to take a lot of work, and there is no single issue or gimmick that will magically bring them over, but one idea I want to push is a revival of the old Clinton bus tours of the 1992 campaign. The bus tours, a stroke of genius suggested by Clinton campaign manager David Wilhelm, was the most successful campaign tactic of that storied campaign.
One reason that I like it is that it combines going directly to rural voters- literally and symbolically- with a natural strength of the Obama campaign, which is to generate big crowds and excitement wherever he goes. I also see it as an embodiment of the 50-state strategy that I think makes sense for Obama to pursue. Finally, I think we could have some fun by contrasting Obama's bus tours with the "Straight Talk Express" bus rides of McCain. Doing this kind of road show, big-event-in-the-public-squares in town after town along the highway creates a sense of buzz and excitement that people in those towns talk about for months afterward, and seeing the other people in your community come out of the woodwork and get excited to listen to a candidate makes voting for him later more appealing. A lot of decisions about voting in small-town America are made in the conversation of the local cafes that everybody hangs out at and passes the gossip in, and I guarantee that every local café within 50 miles of an event in the towns along the trail will be buzzing for a long time after with discussions of who was there, who stood alongside the road, who got to shake Barack and Michelle's hands. People will talk about how nice it is to see the young people in town interested in getting involved, and will laugh about which local folks got their picture on national TV. And, yes, they will talk about Obama's speech, and who agreed with what parts of it.
When I went home to the Midwest a couple of weeks ago, I did my usual conversations with folks in several small town diners in northwest Missouri, southwest Iowa, and southeast Nebraska. People there are nervous about Obama, don't feel like they know him well enough yet, but they are open to him and feel like the country needs a change of direction. The bus tour is a great way to signal that he cares enough about small-town folks to make the effort, and will make folks feel like they are getting to know him better.
I would add one other thing: I love the fact that Obama started his general election campaign by going to Virginia, North Carolina, and Missouri. A bus tour in some states that wouldn't normally get campaigning from a Democrat would be a great symbol, but whether he does his bus tour or not, I think he should spend a lot of time in hard to win states. Obama clearly has the potential to stretch the map and compete in places Democrats don't normally compete in. Sources inside the campaign tell me they are looking at spending real resources in places like North Dakota and Montana, because they really think they can compete there. We competed in a lot of these states in the 1992 race- in part because we were far enough ahead that we were competitive in more places than usual, and in part because Perot changed the dynamics in a lot of states- and forcing the GOP to defend so many places did really stretch them thin.
The Obama campaign needs to be creative in reaching out to small-town voters and normally Republican states. I think bus tours would be a great way to do it, but even if the campaign doesn't want to do that, doing a lot of events in small towns makes a lot of sense.
I don't get why Hillary Clinton would want to be Vice-President, which seems likely seeing that allies (including her hubby) are beginning to publicly lobby for it. The Hillary Clinton I knew in 2000 was sick and tired of being the most influential adviser to a President, let alone a Vice-President with no formal role and a strained relationship with a President. She could well be the least influential Vice-President since LBJ to JFK, as opposed to one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, Senator. And I don't really see how it helps her win the Presidency in 2012 or 2016. She's already run as the ultimate establishment candidate, and lost in part because she couldn't overcome voters' desire for a fresh face representing change. Does being VP for eight years help that? If Barack loses with her as the Veep candidate, she probably gets saddled with part of the blame. So I don't get it.
As to whether Obama should offer it, unlike practically everyone else on the planet, I don't have a strong opinion on that topic. I can see it either way. Ultimately the VP selection comes down to an incredibly complex stew of electoral college math, fundraising math, party unity dynamics, insider deal-cutting, personal chemistry, pure gut instincts, and some kind of feng shui mysticism. I can make a strong case for and against 20 different possible candidates, including Hillary, and am happy to let Obama and his team pick whoever they think makes the most sense (although I would hate to have them pick a conservative like Sam Nunn).
I've been thinking about McCain's pattern of alternating his days lately, one day sucking up to the Republican base, one day sounding more moderate. He's trying to turn his big strategic dilemma in this campaign- how to excite his right-wing base that are still cool to him without losing the ability to reach independent voters who are turning against the Republican party brand in droves- into an asset by pretending to be Mr. Maverick. There are numerous dangers in that strategy, including irritating conservatives, weirding out independents, and just generally confusing the hell out of everybody. But one of the biggest dangers is highlighted by the now-infamous Tom Davis memo: that of turning the Republican party into an "everyone for themselves" bloodbath.
Davis' memo to his fellow Republicans, written after their third special election defeat, is fun to read because it is so remarkably blunt in cataloguing all the problems House Republicans are facing this year- horrible poll numbers, lack of enthusiasm, lack of money, stale message, etc. He has lots of ideas for how to get out of the mess they are in, and being a really smart political strategist, there is some quality thinking there. But it is important to note that he doesn't put much stock in even a successful McCain candidacy helping GOP congressional candidates much. As he writes:
This year, to the extent McCain is elected, it will be in spite of his party's brand name. McCain has to do his own branding and it is not consistent with Congressional Republican branding. Much of McCain's popularity is because he has stood up to his own party and shown independence... McCain's coattails will be short."
McCain's maverick act may end up impressing independent-minded swing voters, but I think there is a better chance that it will create a terrible negative vicious circle dynamic for Republicans: independents will be confused about who McCain really is as he veers from kissing the right-wing base's ass to acting like a moderate on some issues; GOP base voters will grow even more discouraged with McCain; and Republican congressional candidates will be set adrift in incredibly rough waters. The result could be one of those truly historic 1964/1980-style elections where one party (ours this time) completely dominates the electoral map.
There have been a number of elections over the years for Democrats where desperation has set in, and we have retreated into an every person for themselves, complete breakdown of party unity kind of year. It's nice to see that the shoe might finally be on the other foot for the historically far more disciplined and unified Republican party.
