I am on business travel this week. I'm typing this during a brief break I have, and I am in my hotel room. As a result, I haven't been able to do more than a cursory check of Daily Kos for the past four days. As a result of THAT, I have missed all of the diarying and commenting and trolling and arguing and hand-wringing that has inevitably taken place since Sunday morning.
I've gone through some of the recommended diaries and have caught up with front page posts for the last 18 hours or so and I do think it's time to add my voice to those who who are caught somewhere between distress and determination.
So go with me.
There are a few things I think I have known throughout this primary season and a few things I have learned. Most of this is strictly opinion-based, and it's MY opinion. So take that for what it's worth. With that as caveat, I'll begin.
The 50-State Strategy Works.
It does. And of the two Democratic candidates, it's been Barack Obama who has proven that out. He's won in states with remarkable Democratic turnout where there had been little to no attention paid previously for as long as I can remember.
But it MAY not work enough. I hate to say that out loud, because honestly - it's like a painful death through my worst fears made reality to do so. But it may NOT. While the news media is breathlessly inaugurating Clinton's comeback, they are also, in more subdued moments, providing some actual analysis. And there are a few things that seem to be universally accepted.
- NEITHER Clinton nor Obama have a path to 2,025 delegates at this point and the margins required for EITHER to do so are highly improbable.
- It is totally conceivable that the popular vote race will tighten with Clinton holding Obama close by virtue of wins in "big" states.
I'm not saying I like this. I'm just acknowledging the possibility. And if comes down to where the delegates are still uneven but close and the popular vote is close, we have a dilemma - one which pits the traditional (focus on big border states) way of doing things against the new (50-state strategy) way of doing things. I hope it's clear that I embrace the latter for a variety of reasons that have everything to do with building a lasting, thriving constituency and very little to do with an actual candidate.
Going Negative Works.
That's been the most difficult thing for me to grapple with over the past few days. I'm not trying to delude myself here - and I knew when the press picked up on "3am" and the Candidan issue and the Rezko reporting that Obama was in trouble - it was a question of the timing, not the veracity of the claims or their relative importance to the question of whether or not most or any of it speaks to a candidate's ability to lead effectively.
My heart and mind screamed that people should see through these ads - but honestly - I know a lOT Of smart people who would consider themselves more connected to politics and campaigns than not. And their level of knowledge of ads and claims made in recent days was marginal at best. I'm not saying that that's right - I'm just saying that that's reality. Most of America can't tell you what all the data points are on the NAFTA/Canadian Consulate issue are. Most can't tell you the salient details of the Rezko non-issue. They simply click on the news for 15 minutes or 30 minutes in the morning or late afternoon and see what they see and move from there.
THAT IS THE WAY IT IS.
And because of that, all the negative stuff, regardless of how irrelevant OR relevant, sticks. It's time to accept that fact and try to figure out where the line between integrity and effectiveness actually exist. Fuck I hate that I just said that.
The Media Love/Hates A Frontrunner.
They do. Always. The media isn't "in bed" with the Clintons or "soft" on Obama or favoring one over the other. The media is favoring its own income and ratings. So building up a candidate - ANY candidate - and then tearing that candidate down - casting the race as an exciting, breathless, unpredictable rollercoaster ride - is EXACTLY what the media is going to do without question at all times.
Rather than rail against it (and railing is fine and trying to support those in media who do NOT generally embrace this modus operandi is GREAT), it's better to try to figure out how to work an advantage within the confines of reality. It just - IS. I know that sucks. But it's always better to understand what you're up against and plan accordingly than simply stamping our feet and decrying the unfairness of it all. As I like to say, it is what it is.
Going Forward.
This is a tough one. I think Obama has a few problems that he needs to get out in front of and fairly quickly. In no particular order, here's what I'm thinking about.
- Obama MUST find a way to prove that he can win a "big state" that is NOT his home state. PA would be that state to my line of thinking.
- Obama MUST continue to deny Clinton wins and even close contests in states that are more traditionally "his" - e.g., every other state that is NOT PA. I think this is a somewhat easier task given Obama's track record in ground-level organizing.
- At some point, he's going to HAVE to get negative without appearing to be negative. That's a tough one. There were many things that I felt his campaign could hit back on hers during the last few days. At all costs, another "NAFTA/Canadian" incident has to be avoided. That was the first time I really felt like his campaign was disorganized with respect to its reaction and message control.
- Obama will need to re-assert his electability. I don't doubt that he is electable and infinitely more electable than Clinton with respect to McCain - but I feel we're on the cusp of a message that could work for Clinton, that she's the only one "tough" enough to take on the Republicans, where "tough" is more or less code for dirty or deceptive. Clinton has never put herself forward as the candidate of hope and inspiration and change, although she has tried to co-opt that mantle from Obama. As such, Obama is going to be overly scrutinized with even the appearance of negativity. It's a classic case of being constrained by a strength. So the line he walks will be tighter than that which she walks.
- Obama needs to reclaim his underdog status. The timing on this needs to be carefully chosen so that it doesn't peak in advance of when it's really needed.
- The Obama campaign needs to seriously start working on the "big state" meme and the whole issue of FL and MI. Perhaps they already are - but the rhetoric coming out of the Clinton campaign is headed squarely in that direction. There is nothing negative or nasty about highlighting the fundamental unfairness of seating the FL and MI delegations as-is, and it's a message that can be turned into a campaign ad that plays to voters' inherent understanding of unfairness. The beauty of that, particularly, is that Clinton's own interviews and live comments can be used to underscore the point.
Your Part.
So, do you live in DE, NJ, MD, DC, WV, VA? If so, PA isn't that far away. Volunteer for Obama's campaign, regardless of where you live - and especially if you live with proximity to PA. You can also find events in PA and see if you can participate. You can always make calls from wherever you are in the country. Every little bit helps. And finally, cash is king. It is critical, and it works. So give what you can, if you can.
Let's pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and OVERWHELM the Clinton offensive with effort, hard work, and donations.
Update [2008-3-5 12:12:34 by RenaRF]: Great comment by Pager below:
I'm with you.
But we need to get our own facts straight first on a couple of things so that we aren't perpetuating our own myths.
Obama has won big states, besides his home state. He won Washington, Virginia, Georgia, Illinois and Missouri.
Kos had a great diary up on this yesterday. I suggest every Obama reader take another look at it.
The Big State Myth is indeed, just that...a myth.
Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.
Edward R. Murrow
Pager is EXACTLY right, and the merits of the wins highlighted in the comments need to be underscored and emphasized, particularly because some of those states are traditionally red and more than a few are also going to be swing states.
Update [2008-3-5 15:20:20 by RenaRF]: oscarsdad has absolutely one of the best "going negative" counter-arguments I've ever read. It's in this comment, but I'm also posting it below:
If you compare the margins of victory last night to what Obama's campaign had predicted in that leaked spreadsheet:
Ohio: Clinton 53, Obama 46 (Actual: C 54/O 44)
Texas: Clinton 51, Obama 47 (C 51/O 47)
Rhode Island: Clinton 57, Obama 42 (C 58/O 40)
Vermont: Obama 55, Clinton 44 (O 60/C 38)
The Obama camp made these predictions LONG before Clinton went negative. They were AMAZINGLY close to what actually occurred.
How much did going negative work? If you attribute ALL of the difference between the predictions and the results to going negative, it could account for a 3% change in the margin in Ohio, and a similar 3% change in the margin in Rhode Island.
No, the evidence is not there that going negative worked. What changed was the publicly-released polling, Obama's internal predictions were spot on.
The truth is that either candidate is going to have tough fight against John McCain. I don't see how anyone can believe Clinton matches up better against McCain: she's running on experience and national security, the two things McCain is certain to beat her on. Meanwhile, Obama is running against the Iraq War (which she is less credible on), the promise of restoring our image around the world (she doesn't believe the UN is capable of dealing with difficult issues), and some desperately needed hope for America's future.
Yes, let's get real.