What's Next For Obama

Here is the Obama campaign's first take on its next moves:

(1) Fight fight fight. Aggressively contrast Obama with Clinton; make the contrasts sharper; throw elbows where needed.

(2) Adopt an underdog’s crouch; run the campaign as if it’s a life or death struggle between the forces of good and evil;

(3) Try to force voters to see the Obama campaign as a movement that is threatened by the establishment, much like the civil rights movement was threatened by the establishment;

(4) Use Obama’s force of personality

(5) Try to urge black voters in South Carolina not to let Clinton and Washington take “this moment” away from you

(6) Figure out what the heck happened to their field program; why they lost women

(7) Allow Clinton to have her victory for a day, and then re-engage.
..

Comments

The Obama campaign shouldn't change anything; what happened last night was a fluke, a manifestation of events beyond their control, and the worst thing they could do was overreact to it.

Posted by lampwick | January 9, 2008 11:21 AM

I'm not sure they should change much either, though I think he can be, and should be, tougher on her when she's in the lead. I am a lifelong Republican--and my vote is the Democratic Party's to lose. Nominating Hillary will do that. My reaction to last night was to donate to Obama's campaign--my first ever donation to a Democratic candidate.

Posted by CMC79 | January 9, 2008 11:26 AM

Shorter Ambinder: "What's next for Obama? Be more like John Edwards."

Posted by dry_fish | January 9, 2008 11:27 AM

The only change I would advise them to make is to make clearer the fact they have a very detailed program, just like Clinton is. For some reason, the media believed that "where's the beef" meme because Obama talks in generalities in his stump speech but he has actually has proposed very concrete stuff.
And women women women. But be careful when you throw elbows now. It seems Dems rally around the Clintons when they are attacked (90s flashback ?).

Posted by Benjamin | January 9, 2008 11:28 AM

CMC79, my reaction is the same. I've never donated or volunteered before, but after last night I've done both. I was cheering Obama from afar but now realize now every little bit counts.

I can't ridicule my fellow Americans for swapping dynasties if I've done nothing to stop it myself.

Posted by matthewcc | January 9, 2008 11:29 AM

Obama may need to be more aggressive but that could backfire if he is not careful. Think about it for a minute: is there anything more that can be said bad about Hillary Clinton that has not alread been said for the last fifteen years? What can Obama add to that? The risk is that he will just sound churlish.

He is the underdog so this will encourage SOME people to take a look at him just out of a sense of fairness and to make sure they are not overlooking something. Additionally, the underdog is kinda expected to be more aggressive regarding differences with the frontunner.

What movement are you talking about? There is no movement in America beyond getting us out of Iraq and on that he is no different than any of our other candidates. There is no status quo establishment in the Democratic party that wants to stay indefinitely in Iraq. And his campaign of 'hope' comes down to his his hope of winning the White House.

Posted by ken | January 9, 2008 11:42 AM

I am a republican and I want to help Obama.

I am pulling for him!

Posted by Texas Star | January 9, 2008 11:43 AM

There are a lot of things Obama can't do.
He can't pretend that this is a fight between good and evil because he will come across as shrill and it interferes with his basic message that a new majority of people working together is possible.
He can't go down to South Carolina and pretend to voters who hardly know him and only recently are beginning to warm up to him that Hillary is trying to take something away from them when we all know its only him they are trying to take it away from.
He can't sound as angry as john Edwards because that isn't hope that's red hot desperate anger and there is Dean-like/Edwards-like ceiling on how far that can go and how well it can do.
And he can't get wonkish because he is courting the left and the independents and republicans by not being specific.
His message is repetitive and can lose its power through repetition. And he can be a cartoon of himself easily. The cadences get exxagerated and the balloon can pop. He really can't make an amazing new speech every week and a t.v. audience gets bored quickly.
The Clinton message that hope is not the same as specifics and hard work will peel off voters for the next 48 states if the obama people don't retool. The person who says last night was a fluke can just as easily claim that crazy Iowa was a fluke: it was his neighboring state after all.
He might keep going like he was or it might already be over or any where in between going and dead: even schrodinger can't tell us for sure

Posted by michael | January 9, 2008 11:47 AM

is there anything more that can be said bad about Hillary Clinton that has not alread been said for the last fifteen years?

Funny, Bill Clinton could have made the same argument in 1996: "hey, they've spent 4 years beating me up over Paula Jones and Jennifer Flowers. I've already proven there's no sex scandal that can knock me off my game!"

Posted by anonymous | January 9, 2008 11:49 AM

PS: Where in the HELL is Al Gore ?

Posted by Benjamin | January 9, 2008 11:50 AM

I think micheal has a very good point with this:

" His message is repetitive and can lose its power through repetition. And he can be a cartoon of himself easily. The cadences get exxagerated and the balloon can pop. He really can't make an amazing new speech every week and a t.v. audience gets bored quickly."

I heard it said that at New Hamphire campaign stops Obama stump speech started to sound like he was preaching to people while Hillary started listening to people and answering with specifics concerning the questioners specific problems.

I guess it could be said that no one beats Obama on asperational talk and no one beats Clinton on policy wonk talk.

The safer route may be to stick with policy instead of rhetoric this year.

Posted by ken | January 9, 2008 12:33 PM

I agree--where IS Gore? I am curious just how deep the split with the Clintons was after 2000. I'd like to think he'd endorse Obama, but Edwards' rhetoric is similar to the "people vs. the powerful" slogan of his 2000 campaign. It would be funny if he endorses Obama because he'd be on the same side as his old opponent Bradley.

Matthewcc,

I wonder how many people are like you and I: reacting now with dismay at Obama's loss, but with fury at Clinton's victory? It may be odd for a Republican to support such an overt liberal like Obama, but I think there is a potential in this election for Obama Republicans to emerge as a force much like Reagan Democrats. And I think the GOP as it is needs to be destroyed--it needs to drive itself off a cliff like the Tories in the mid-19th century, so it can be remade as a new party.

Posted by CMC79 | January 9, 2008 12:47 PM

There is no disguising that Hillary is a strong candidate and the Obama campaign needs to stay true to the message that it has been delivering. America needs a new leader with the goal of uniting the country and uniting the US with its allies throughout the world. Barrick Obama inspires hope that we will once again feel profoundly proud to live in the best country in the world. Haven't felt that way in a while. Also remember the famous line "its the economy, stupid".
This will be a tough fight.

Posted by ann | January 9, 2008 12:51 PM

mathewcc, Hillary Clinton, like Bill Clinton before her, is bulletproof when it comes to right wing attacks. For fifteen years conservative republicans have been targeting her with lies, smears and misogynist riducule. Why just this morning on AM radio here in Los Angeles the five am hour was dedicated to sexist humor concerning all things Hillary capped by the offer of a 'Hillary Holiday Nutcracker' for caller number whatever.

I for one am sick of all your sides hateful shit. Most of America, in my opinion, agrees with me and this rebounds nicely to Hillarys favor.

Obama is a fine liberal candidate and may make a good progressive President but my money is on Hillary Clinton.

Posted by ken | January 9, 2008 1:03 PM

Barack would be well advised to adopt some townhall formats where he answers questions, instead of just relying on this amazing oratorical skills. He needs to nail down details on his view of the economy and what, if anything, he would do about it. (Remember - "it's the economy, stupid.") He should stay positive, but continue to turn the experience-argument and any other criticisms on their head, and he needs more energy in the debates. He was tired and flat vis a vis Hillary last Saturday night. He should point out her weaknesses (like her vote for Iraq War), but must not make ad hominem attacks.

He should never "go negative." He is more than a candidate - he is history in the making, a movement, a new type of leader who will put an entirely different face on America, one we desparately need. He is a true spirit, fighting for a "new majority."

Finally, I think that independents like me will determine who the next president will be, and Hillary will not inspire enough of us to vote her way to beat a solid Republican candidate. I guarantee that if Hillary is the nominee, the campaign will be nasty and divisive and many people lose interest in disgust and not bother to come out for Hillary (besides the dem base).

Barack, by contrast, is an inspiration with crossover appeal - the right man to end years of abject failure by Dubha.

Posted by DH, a lifelong independent | January 9, 2008 1:16 PM

There are a few things the Obama campaign needs to do if they want to win in this upcoming month.

First of all, they have to thread the needle with regard to taking on Hillary as a woman. He needs to highlight his leadership and judgement, draw distinctions on policy, but be super gracious to her personally, set a tone that nothing that can be remotely construed as sexist or misogynistic can be tolerated from supporters.

If pundits like mathhews insist on talking in terms that others perceive as sexists, Obama needs to distance himself or even condemn the remarks.

The problem for Obama is that even if he and his campaign behaves perfectly - and they probably will - stuff perceived as sexist coming from ANYWHERE - teh right wing, the media, other candidates, etc - will help HIllary to Obama's expense. It's not fair, but it is the truth. Many women voters have been treated badly by men at some point or another in their lives and to the extent that they see HIllary as a vicarious vehicle for payback is the extent to which HIllary's identity politics has the ability to trump Obama's appeal to what is in the best interest of the country.

So memo to all the people who don't like Hillary on a personal basis and who enjoy a media megaphone: STFU. Seriously. You all are going to be responsible for her nomination if you make this into a gender war, which she will win in a dem primary considering that females are the majority and the "male vote" is split.

The second major thing that Obama needs to address is complacency. I think we saw that with people thinking this was in the bag in NH and independents going to McCain where they thought their vote would make more of a difference.

The thing that Obama needs to say in his speeches as we go forward to Tsunami tuesday is that "Every delegate counts" Meaning, the fact that delegates are awarded on a proportional basis, not winner takes all, is that it is deadly to think that because Obama is a little ahead in a poll in a state that one can be complacent because a narrow win may only lead to a net gain of a handful of delegates over Hillary. Obama needs to counter any misperception that just winning a state is enough. First, there may be a hidden pro-woman, anti-black Bradleyesque vote in secret ballots to deal with, but beyond that, the needs to get as many delegates as possible much be the message, as this is likely to be a dogfight for every last delegate. This has to be the message to all the field people and organizers and voters themselves. Ignore polls when they are up and when they are down. Always operate as if you are about 2 points behind. I like the underdog mantle...Obama can credibly claim it, for sure.

Posted by RKA | January 9, 2008 1:28 PM

Hillary can always count on the man-hating, Oxygen and The View watching, militant lesbian vote.

Posted by Billary | January 9, 2008 1:35 PM

But Obama has not embraced the civil rigths movement. IN fact many of the civil rigths leaders are with Clinton for this reason.

Obama has made snide remarks throughout the campaign about not fighting the "old fights", "from the 60s".

Obama has barely said a peep about the Jena 6. He has ignored it.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | January 9, 2008 2:42 PM

Maybe Obama could try to win over some Democratic voters for a change instead of just trying to win over Republicans and Joe Lieberman supporters.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | January 9, 2008 2:44 PM

Michelle Obama: you time is now; get thee to South Carolina and don't come back until you've won it.

Posted by Michael's Mom | January 9, 2008 3:37 PM

RKA's sentiments resemble my own.

As to Dickie Flatts comments, consider that Obama is a new style of leader. His commitment to civil rights is evidenced in his prior work as a community organizer and civil rights lawyer. Fair point on the Jena 6, if he has not addressed it (in fact, though, I think he has). My point here is that an overtly Jesse Jackson-style leader would not be successful, though on racial/civil rights issues, I think Obama is in the right place. Obama has gotten Jesse's endorsement in fact. I think he has handled "race" well, in a new way, as far as national politics is concerned, and it is exciting.

But this race is not primarily about "race" per se, but a successful Obama campaign is helping to put race in the right perspective in this country, which is phen'obama'nal!

Posted by DH, a lifelong independent | January 9, 2008 5:17 PM