« Once Upon A Time, John McCain Actually Liked Mitt Romney | Main | (Updated) Clinton Campaign Pulls The Misleading South Carolina Ad.... »

Obama's Feb 5 Strategy Develops....

24 Jan 2008 12:22 pm

So how does Barack Obama campaign after South Carolina?

The outlines of a strategy are becoming visible. Obama and his surrogates will operate under the assumption that the more aggressive Hillary Clinton campaigns, the more outbursts Bill Clinton has, the more voters in interior red and purple states will find the Clintons off-putting and that the negative feelings will obscure the Clinton mantra that only she (and he) can stand up and protect their interests.

Advisers believe that the more the Clintons poke at Obama, the more sympathetic he becomes, and the more she plays into his contention that she's a divisive, polarizing figure; Obama's polling shows and his campaign's strategists sense that it reminds Democrats in the interior of the country of the Clinton of yore: cold, unlikable, sarcastic -- and coastal. In states like Arizona, Kansas and Idaho and Missouri, Clinton will scare off independents and will lose support among younger women, in particular.

Also: Obama's brain trust believes that Clinton's decision to essentially cede South Carolina to him will backfire, as it will allow him to demonstrate that Iowa was not a fluke -- he can turnout young voters everywhere -- and, that African Americans will resent her refusal to participate in "their" primary.

The coastal prizes of California and New York will be tough, but Obama may well do better in enough congressional districts to keep the margins close -- better, Obama's team believes, than Clinton will do in the interior of the country.

Purple and Red-state surrogates abound: Gov. Janet Napolitano and Sen. Claire McCaskill will argue, in subtle terms, that only Obama can unify the country, which will be interpreted as a knock against Clinton's downward pull on other Demcorats on the ballot.

The concern is out there: one reason Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, carefully tended to by the Clinton world, has stayed neutral is that she fears that having Clinton on the ticket would hurt other Democrats in her state, a Clinton adviser who spoke to Sebelius said.

Once again, the campaign has one theory and the national political press corps has another.

The coverage so far has centered on the notion that Obama allowed Bill Clinton to break his stride and mess up his head, forcing him to spend half of his stump speech reciting and rebutting Clinton allegations. His unsurprising assumed victory South Carolina would reinforce the perception that Obama appeals only to young, rich, white people and to black voters.

Obama's campaign manager and surrogates are hosting a conference call later and will fill in some of the details.

Comments (33)

I thought the rumors were Sebelius was going to endorse Obama right after she gives the State of the Union rebuttle:

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/9625

There has also been a lot of chatter in the echo-chamber that is the blogosphere that Sebelius could be a potential Obama running mate.

Personally, if they're thinking that they should go ahead and say it the day after the State of Union. It's certainly unprecedented to announce a running mate before getting the nomination, but it's also unprecedented to have to run against two would be co-Presidents. Obama needs his wing(wo)man now.

The reason Obama can't rush to announce the VP pick is that he has to give Edwards some reason to align with him after Super Tuesday, and the logical bribe to have waiting would be the VP slot. I think Edwards would bring little to the ticket at the national level - but it would be pointless to alienate him before the convention. Better to keep him hoping, rather than drive him into Hillary's arms. I think that a red state woman like Sebelius or Napolitano would be a much better pick in many ways, but in this poker game you can't show the cards too quickly.

"The coverage so far has centered on the notion that Obama allowed Bill Clinton to break his stride and mess up his head, forcing him to spend half of his stump speech reciting and rebutting Clinton allegations."

Has it? I hadn't noticed, except for the "FoxNews All-Stars"; they have said this. We'll see the test of that interpretation of events in S.Car. Obama did not spend much time at all rebutting the Clintons in NH or NV, and lost the popular vote in both states. If Clinton comes in 3rd in SC, will the press continue to say that Obama has been "psyched out"?
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1433

zavulon,

Obama can offer Edwards the AG slot. Much more powerful than VP, much more for Edwards to actually do in office.

"His unsurprising assumed victory South Carolina would reinforce the perception that Obama appeals only to young, rich, white people and to black voters."

The perception among Clinton supporters you mean?

Surely a nonpartisan observer would note that Hillary was winning South Carolina before she ramped up her negative campaign against him. Surely they would not that Hillary used to be winning among blacks in South Carolina. Surely they would note that she has appealed mostly to older, poor white people and to Latino voters.
Surely.

So, basically, the Obama goal for Feb. 5th is to:
(1)win (by a sizable margin) southern, midwestern, and southwestern primaries and caucuses.

(2)Keep Clinton's victory margin thin in big coastal primaries of CA, MA, NY, NJ.

(3)Win (or at worst, split) the President's Day primaries of DC/MD/VA.

(4)Win a key battle in Wisconsin to restart the momentum engine for March 4th.

(5)Win Ohio, keep it close in Texas on March 4th.

(6)Win decisive engagement ("Yorktown") in Pennsylvania on April 22nd.

i wish somebody would bring up the controversial Clinton pardons. sure Obama once associated with someone now convicted for fraud as a slumlord, but he has made efforts to return contributions and take responsibility. Much better than the Clinton camp that pardoned associates guilty of felonies

Political rope-a-dope?

I like it.

Obama is toast and he knows it. To call up media to inform the media about the strategy is just a sign of pure desperation. Camp Obama is hurting in the news and this will just be another botched attempt to change the news cycle.

Besides, it’s not like the Rezko thing is going away soon.

Counting on this strategy seems odd ... if this keeps happening, the Clintons will continue to dominate news cycles, and people just won't have enough exposure to Obama.

At present, Obama would get about 43% of the delegates between the two of them. If he can get to within 48%, I think he's in good shape with favorable territory between the WA caucus, LA primary, the Maine caucus, and then DC/MD/VA, where he'd get at least a split. In between, and he can try to make a comeback, but it's dicey.

I like it. And he doesn't even have to bend the truth to fit reality. He is getting bullied by the Clintons with flat out fabrications of his record and Democrats everywhere are not liking it. This onetime Clinton lover is reminded of everything she hated about the 90s. The thought of enduring this petty food fight for another 4 or 8 years is nauseating. Go Obama!

Why in the world no one has ever investigated the fact is, in 1963, not only was Hillary Clinton a republican, but she was also a staunch supporter of republican Senator Barry Goldwater, well known as a segregationist and one of the most vocal senators adamantly against the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is why he lost in his presidential bid to Lyndon B. Johnson?
She described herself in her memoirs as ‘an active Young Republican’ and ‘a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit.’

Why Hilary the Goldwater girl had her law school memoir sealed?

Robert,

Because, at the time of the March on Washington, Hillary Rodham was beginning her junior year in high school.

Because, at the time of the March on Washington, being a Republican was more about anti-Communism than about race-baiting.

This entire notion that red-state surrogrates and one-time flings like Napolitano and McCaskill will argue that she is "polarizing" will backfire, because Evan Bayh, Mike Beebe and Ted Strickland can take care of that. Bayh can say that he served in one of the reddest states, IN and Ted is from OH.

What does McCaskill know? She lost the Governor's race in 2004 and won in 2006 because of EMILY's List and NOW.

Winning TN, CA, AZ, CO is more important than winning ID and KS. Plus, are blue dog Democrats going to vote for a black man? Iowa was a fluke because the older voters there did not vote for him and in these states, the Democrats aren't young and hip.

As for younger women, Clinton will win them because of the economy and the Clinton camp is not stupid to make these decisions of letting Bill go off; if they knew that this would damage them, then they would stop this. SC will not backfire because it is the black primary and the blacks rallying around their Jesse Jackson will serve reminders to the whites to support one of their own.

The strategy is not so much a strategy, but a reality. I am a former Bill Clinton devotee, who has become totally disillusioned by the antics of he and his wife. I have been in the OBAMA corner, but if he does not get the nomination; I like many other disgruntled voters, have adopted the ABC strategy: Anybody But Clinton

"SC will not backfire because it is the black primary and the blacks rallying around their Jesse Jackson will serve reminders to the whites to support one of their own."

Posted by MarcST

According to this moron Obama is like Jessie Jackson.. Excuse me I don't recall Jackson graduating from Harvard, being a Senator, winning a state that was 95% white and only having children in wedlock ..

My friend you’re a fine representative of your candidates core constituency.. The LOW INFORMATION VOTER..Call me when American Idol is over..

What does McCaskill know? She lost the Governor's race in 2004 and won in 2006 because of EMILY's List and NOW.

Eh... she's not exactly a failure here. She was elected statewide as auditor and was successful in that role; she managed to knock off an incumbent governor in the primary and only narrowly lost the general election to another statewide officeholder; she then segued from that into a victorious challenge to an incumbent senator (who also beat an incumbent senator after narrowly losing a governor's race, only to the man that McCaskill beat).

Anyway, setting all that aside, Obama's path going forward still seems pretty tough. Looking at February 5th, I can see him winning: Alabama, Alaska, Georgia; Idaho; Illinois; Kansas (he's got to be working Sebelius hard, and the rumor was she's leaning towards him. I imagine he'll play up the 'son of Kansas' thing, too); Massachusetts (upscale, and having Patrick and Kerry should help); Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota; Oklahoma.

That still leaves Clinton with Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York. My gut says she takes Colorado's caucus, though I think it's winnable for Obama, too, and I'm sure he's working overtime to try to get Ritter's endorsement. Depending on how the various CDs go, that still gets her the lion's share of delegates. Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania all seem like locks for her.

Obama has this Rezko thing going on but did you know about Hillary and Peter Paul. Check this out:

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=111113

Obama will win NoCal but his CA outcome depends on how many students show up in the cities and how many republicans and independents vote for him in republican areas.

remember the Dem primary is the only one that's OPEN to independents.

remember CA, largely a blue state, has voted Reagan and Arnold repeatedly. It has a large non-ideological swing vote.

Will feminists vote for Clinton or do they feel betrayed by her standing up for Bill so much.

Obama is done, stick a fork in him. He did not get the core democratic voters supporting him, and it is now been established that he is the AA candidate more than the white candidate.

He did not get the core democratic voters supporting him, and it is now been established that he is the AA candidate more than the white candidate.

Posted by rosie | January 24, 2008 3:33 PM


Well, well another low information voter.. Obama won Iowa which is 95% white... Obama lost NH by 2%..Another 90% white state... Jeesuz Christmans!!! Rosie you can put your race card back up your sleeve....

"Also: Obama's brain trust believes that Clinton's decision to essentially cede South Carolina to him will backfire, as it will allow him to demonstrate that Iowa was not a fluke -- he can turnout young voters everywhere -- and, that African Americans will resent her refusal to participate in "their" primary."

Is this really smart for the Obama people to be raising expectations that Obama is going to win in SC? Shouldn't they be lowering expectations?

You touched on this but it bears emphasizing: Obama should be maniacally focused on turning out young voters (anyone 45 or under) on February 5th. There are enough out there for him to win.

Hillary grew up in a Goldwater Republican home, was a Goldwater Girl in 1964. For a while she was active in both Goldwater and liberal camps, comparing them. During the Black march era, she was a student at Wellesley and worked hard getting some Black goals met there: more Black teachers etc. Iirc by graduation she had pretty well phased over into the liberal camp. She campaigned for McGovern in 1972.

There was nothing contradictory in supporting most of Goldwater's policies but disagreeing with him on some civil rights issues. Iirc Goldwater's position was not anti-black but anti-government, anti-bussing.

Where were you in 62?

Re: "remember CA, largely a blue state, has voted Reagan and Arnold repeatedly."

CA only became a blue state in 1992 when Bill Clinton won it.

Arnold only won because of his Kennedy wife. His supporters used to say "Maria will keep him in line." Yeah, right.

Hillary and Bill are very popular here with all groups, so I think she'll win. Especially because she's focusing on the economy.

BILL CLINTON's LABOR SECRETARY SPEAKS OUT:

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/01/bill-clintons-old-politics.html

posted by Robert Reich | 8:07 AM

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Bill Clinton's Old Politics

I write this more out of sadness than anger. Bill Clinton’s ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks on Barack Obama are doing no credit to the former President, his legacy, or his wife’s campaign. Nor are they helping the Democratic party. While it may be that all is fair in love, war, and politics, it’s not fair – indeed, it’s demeaning – for a former President to say things that are patently untrue (such as Obama’s anti-war position is a “fairy tale”) or to insinuate that Obama is injecting race into the race when the former President is himself doing it. Meanwhile, the attack ads being run in South Carolina by the Clinton camp which quote Obama as saying Republicans had all the ideas under Reagan, is disingenuous. For years, Bill Clinton and many other leading Democrats have made precisely the same point – that starting in the Reagan administration, Republicans put forth a range of new ideas while the Democrats sat on their hands. Many of these ideas were wrong-headed and dangerous, such as supply-side economics. But for too long Democrats failed counter with new ideas of their own; they wrongly assumed that the old Democratic positions and visions would be enough. Clinton’s 1992 campaign – indeed, the entire “New Democratic” message of the 1990s – was premised on the importance of taking back the initiative from the Republicans and offering Americans a new set of ideas and principles. Now, sadly, we’re witnessing a smear campaign against Obama that employs some of the worst aspects of the old politics.

ANN:

is everyone who doesn't agree with you a low information voter? that's a little self-serving, isn't it?
A wrinkle in Iowa is that it was the man's neighboring state; tsongas won NH from next door too, Ann. It's possible the guy sweeps Feb 5 but he doesn't have months to camp out there and 100 million dollars to spend in every state.
Polling and exit polls do indicate that Obama's key constituency SO FAR is with rich white people and black voters; I've read that this week in NYTIMES and the Wall Street Journal and seen it repeatedly in Ambinder's blog, sullivan's blog on CNN MSNBC the boston globe and my local paper: is that too low information?
he is down to 8% of white women voters in SC projected. that kind of sucks for him.
He didn't win many of the sub groups in NV and he was supposed to win.
The few points he lost by in NH was supposed to be a double digit lead AND the indis and switch hitting Republicans that all third party type candidates and campaigns like Obama depend on didn't show.
Perot voters and Dean voters are still wondering what happened to thier saviors, why the rest of us low informations voters just couldn't get on board: they are still saying shoulda coulda woulda ann and one thing that definitely turns off people to these type of campaigns is that the people who push them seemed so incredibly condescending to those of us who only read a few papers aday and don't have the same access to the truth you do.
Jesse jackson ran one of the most spirited and most interesting campaigns ever, full of great speeches great visuals and a message of keeping hope alive. he gave an electrifying convention speech that people rightly talked about for years AND so I like you don't understand how any low information people could ever compare him to Obama: especially because he didn't whine.

The swing vote in California is strongest in the Central Valley followed by the Inland Empire.

LA and the SF Bay area have strong Dem. establishment votes, although the latter also has a good ultra-progressive swing vote.

AMERICA...IT IS TIME TO TURN PAGE!!!

First, I have been a loyal DNC member my entire life. However, this year’s presidential campaign had made me wonder if the DNC and my vision, and view points are in alignment with each other.

Sen. Obama’s message of hope and unity are extremely powerful. People need to hear something positive and inspiring, in order to motivate the American people to take action in our electoral process and allow people to believe in our federal government and its role in our lives.

Second, it is apparent to me that the Clintons are willing to do anything and say anything, in order to get them back into the white house. This is not necessary. Sen. Obama has some innovative and wonderful ideas. His ideas should be heard because that will show Americans that we have 3 viable candidates and the Democratic Party have better ideas than the republicans. But, we are not able to hear his ideas because the Clintons are distorting Obama’s record, stance and issues, shamelessly. They change their message and distortions depending on the crowd that they are speaking to, further dividing different groups of people within the party.

Lastly, the DNC has a unique opportunity to take the party in a new direction and transform the landscape of politics in this new century. I hope you will take seriously people like me who are pleading with you and asking that you recognize this opportunity and support Obama. He has energized young people to be involved, he is bringing people from different parties to the DNC and has been running a phenomenal campaign. Obama is showing that he is of high moral character and is consistent in his views.

The Clintons had a chance to make government more ethical. Hillary had an opportunity to reform health care. Bill had an opportunity to catch Bin Laden. He also had an opportunity to end genocide in Rwanda. Well, they were not able to accomplish any of those things while in office. What they offered to the American people was a balanced budget, scandal, drama and a torn apart democratic party. Then, what have you seen during this entire campaign, the same ‘ol, same ‘ol.

This should be an obvious choice. The DNC and Obama should join forces and take the party and America into the future. I do not want to go backwards.
TIME TO TURN THE PAGE!!!
OBAMA for PRESIDENT 2008

Hillary is hands down the most qualified to be President!

Her 35 years of working for change are well documented and chronicled in her Whitehouse papers -Read for yourself: http://www.amazon.com/Dear-Socks-Buddy-Letters-First/dp/0684857782/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201244313&sr=1-5

I will be voting for the 1st Women President!

You GO Girl!

Lets not vote for someone based on their gender or race. Are we going back to 60s instead of 2010? It sickens me when someone says that (s)he will vote for Obama because he is black. Or if (s)he will vote for Hillary because she is a woman. He is not going to be the president for just AA. She is not going to be the president for just the women. Vote with your conscious. With your heart and head. Not based on gender or race.

It is wrong to suggest that Obama represents something due to his race, etc. Beyond this, it is wrong to suggest (as does the LA Times) that that type of "soft power" (with apologies to Joeseph Nye) is what is needed to win people over in the world that “hates” America. The anger in the world towards unprincipled US foreign policy is much deeper and therefore a mere black face with soft lines will not change it.

The correct reason to endorse Obama is for his intelligence and reasoning on not going to war with Iraq in the first place.

His was not an accidental judgement, but one that was tempered by his experience as a Christian American boy growing up in Asia among Muslims. He is alone among US leaders who can genuinely separate Muslims from those who are of that faith, who happen to be terrorists. He is thus alone in being able to guide America away from an unwinnable war with a religion of over a billion people.

No American leader has ever felt the world up close and personal as has Obama. He might be lyrical in the iambic pentameter (if that explains his hesitancy in debate and soaring heights in speeches!), but his substance and solidity are obvious to see as they are grounded with life defining knowledge that the world, however poorer, is not America’s enemy.

Obama is a fortunate offer to the American public in these extremely troubled times. Even if Obama is has been blown to the canvass by virtual colonies of young bees, who feel something very different, I am not sure the mature American public or its elite know exactly why this is the person for the times.

It is wrong to suggest that Obama represents something due to his race, etc. Beyond this, it is wrong to suggest (as does the LA Times) that that type of "soft power" (with apologies to Joeseph Nye) is what is needed to win people over in the world that “hates” America. The anger in the world towards unprincipled US foreign policy is much deeper and therefore a mere black face with soft lines will not change it.

The correct reason to endorse Obama is for his intelligence and reasoning on not going to war with Iraq in the first place.

His was not an accidental judgement, but one that was tempered by his experience as a Christian American boy growing up in Asia among Muslims. He is alone among US leaders who can genuinely separate Muslims from those who are of that faith, who happen to be terrorists. He is thus alone in being able to guide America away from an unwinnable war with a religion of over a billion people.

No American leader has ever felt the world up close and personal as has Obama. He might be lyrical in the iambic pentameter (if that explains his hesitancy in debate and soaring heights in speeches!), but his substance and solidity are obvious to see as they are grounded with life defining knowledge that the world, however poorer, is not America’s enemy.

Obama is a fortunate offer to the American public in these extremely troubled times. Even if Obama is has been blown to the canvass by virtual colonies of young bees, who feel something very different, I am not sure the mature American public or its elite know exactly why this is the person for the times.