WP,pg1: Obama Faces the Test Dean Failed: Broadening Support

[DeepModem Mom]

Obama Faces the Test Dean Failed: Broadening Support
By Anne E. Kornblut and Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 17, 2007; Page A01


Despite a big fundraising edge, Sen. Barack Obama has been unable to close a double-digit deficit in polls. (By Charlie Neibergall -- Associated Press)

He raises tens of millions of dollars over a few months. His supporters are passionate, almost fanatical. And his grass-roots movement threatens a more established rival.

A description of Howard Dean in 2003 or Sen. Barack Obama today?

Obama campaign advisers -- many of them campaign veterans who watched Dean's slow rise and rapid descent at close range -- reject the comparison, arguing that their candidate and organization won't repeat the mistakes of the former Vermont governor.

But as Obama has shattered fundraising records over the past few months while continuing to trail Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) by double digits in polls, the challenge for the senator from Illinois has become clear: He must turn the intense devotion of his backers into a force that can win primaries, expanding his base of support beyond the narrow band of Democratic elites who backed Dean....

***

Senior advisers to Obama say they are not troubled that he has not overtaken Clinton. They talk often about a "sequential strategy" that focuses exclusively on building a robust campaign organization in Iowa, where a caucus victory could provide a springboard to success in the New Hampshire primary and the early nominating contests beyond.

They argue that Obama's potent fundraising -- if managed wisely -- will allow him to compete directly with Clinton in the raft of states holding primaries on Feb. 5. And, they say, he is holding his own in the early-voting states on which his strategy depends.

"The national polls are irrelevant," David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, said in an interview last week....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/16/AR2007071601831.html

[zbdent]

1. all it will take is one time of Obama trying to raise his voice over the din ...

they already have the "audio" on Hillary ... mocking her voice regardless of any consideration to physical afflictions which could cause issues ...

and Edwards' hair ...

but hey, Giuliani is "pro-life" ... (despite all of his public statements and stands being otherwise ...)

:eyes::puke:

[goclark]

2. The article goes on to say...

"If they were affecting us -- hurting our ability to raise money or build campaign infrastructures around the country -- maybe we would be concerned, but they're not," Plouffe continued. "History reliably suggests it is not an indicator of how these elections are going to transpire."

Although Clinton has maintained a double-digit lead in many national polls, Cornell Belcher, one of Obama's pollsters, said the race is much closer in the early states where residents know more about Obama.


Keep going Obama! :bounce:
The people aren't giving their hard earned money to see or be near a Rock Concert Band Member, it is a different kind of Rock Star this time.

It is a new Intelligent fresh voice.
A voice for Truth and Justice.
It is a voice that says, " It's a New Day in America and in the World!"

:bounce:

[19jet54]

3. The Rookie

can rake in the money, but is just a little shy in the experience department? NO WAY!

[saltpoint]

4. Gotta say, I think the article's characterization of Howard Dean as a "failure"

is a gross distortion of the truth.

I regard Howard Dean as a distinct success, someone who brought a torrent of new people onto our registration lists and to our party as a whole. Some candidates are far, far greater than the sum of their totals in the Iowa caucuses.

Senator Obama is a hell of a smart guy. Certainly smarter and more sharply focused than the writers of this article. I'm not worried about him at all. Senator Clinton's lead is less the point than the fact that one of maybe five or six of our Democratic candidates will be the next President of the United States. The article misses that finish line with the distraction of funds and polling.

Broadening support is what a campaign seeks to do. And the campaign isn't over by a long shot.

[Larkspur]

5. Howard Dean was a trailblazer on showing Dems that they can raise large sums of small $$

via the Internet and thus find a new way to match or exceed Republican fund raising prowess.

[saltpoint]

7. Absolutely. He pulled a lot of oxen from the ditch and pulled a very

heavy wagon a long way to the benefit of many.

Nice to run into again on DU, Larkspur.

[BeyondGeography]

8. I agree

Obama looks for common ground with conservatives on the basis of their principles so that real change may result, not some bi-partisan legislative ephemera that means nothing to people. Fiscal responsibility, moral responsibility, open government, respect for privacy, respect for the law, avoiding imperial overstretch in foreign policy...these are all themes that Dean touched on in in his characterizations of what the Republicans used to stand for in his 2004 run. The two are similar in that they show real respect for the intellectual side of their opponents where it is warranted and seek to avoid MSM-abetted discussions on trumped-up hot button issues.

Dean is a critical figure in the party; a lot of what he did right in the '04 run has been eagerly embraced by the Obama campaign.

[saltpoint]

9. Great post. Thank you. The common ground between what is

very good about both the Dean and the Obama campaign.

Yes.

[jackbourassa]

6. I love how Washingtonians and supporters of Hillary Clinton...

...try to make her lead larger than it is. 12% is hardly insurmountable, especially given the fact that Obama will have more money than Hillary. After all, Lieberman had a LARGER LEAD at this same stage in 2003. Polls this early don't matter. They never have, never will.

Obama would be stupid to try to swing for the fences (in order to erase a small 12% lead) this early. He's doing exactly what he should be doing: building up his organization and national infrastructure, and raising more money than Hillary. That's what you do at this stage of the campaign and he's doing it better than Hillary.

Then come December and January, he can run an effective national campaign against Hillary.

Things are good, no matter what spin the Clintonistas are trying to put on it.

[jobycom]

10. Dean's downfall wasn't broadening support, but broadening exposure.

The situations are very different. Dean had been in the race for a long time, and there was no clear frontrunner until he began running away with the endorsements just before the primaries. He had a strong base, but the nation had not seen him yet. The endorsements made him into the "everything for everybody" candidate--a stage all frontrunners go through. Of course, Dean wasn't everything for everybody, he had a clear focused message, and once people saw that, he lost those who didn't like the message, or the focus, or who just weren't inspired by the real Dean, as opposed to the Dean they thought he would be. All frontrunners go through that drop in support, too, as they get more exposure and people see them as they are, rather than seeing them only as the hope to beat the other guy.

Deans biggest problem was that his surge came too late, so that his drop came just as the primaries begin. He was plummeting in the polls before Iowa, then finished a distant third, and that killed his chances to win. Those who want to blame it on the media's overplay of the "scream" weren't watching his plummet before the scream. Certainly it didn't help him, but he was falling before that. Instead of his pep rally scream speech meant to inspire his core followers, he needed a great speech to inspire those who weren't on his side yet. Edwards did that with his "Two Americas" speech that night.

It wasn't Dean's support which killed him, it was the exposure that came with it, and his inability in the short time before the primaries to regain that support. If he'd peaked a few months earlier, he would have fallen, then had more time to build back up. Since there was no beloved frontruner before Kerry won Iowa, Dean would have had a real shot.

Obama is in a completely different situation. He is a lesser-known name chasing a well known front-runner, and right now the whole campaign season is in a lull. Obama really can't move up much, because there are no events to promote him, and people just aren't watching closely right now. He won't fall too much either. So he'll have his chance come fall, when the real action begins. Meanwhile, he keeps building his cash reserves to prove he's a real player, so he'll be poised nicely to make a run in the fall, just as Hillary starts getting more attention and probably dropping a bit because of her front-runner status. The thing with Hillary, though, is that they can't do as much to her as they did to Dean. She's well known, she's faced the eatgrinder like no candidate in history aside from her husband and arguably Gore, and now she's being falsely attacked by her own side. If all that hasn't killed her, she might not drop with exposure. Quite the opposite--those who fear her may decide they like her.

Or not. My point is that Obama is in a completely different situation than Dean was, and the comparison is silly. He will get his chance, and when he does, he will have a financial edge that Dean never had. And he's running from behind, which is often a good place to be in the primaries.

And there is Edwards, campaigning in the South for voters that would otherwise vote in the Republican primaries. Many of the southern states have open primaries. That's a smart strategy, especially if Obama comes on strong and splits the rest of the nation with Clinton.

Just random thoughts before I go to work.