What does Obama need to do?

[politicasista]

to win in SC and or beyond? Does he need to sharpen his message or just stick with the original plan? I hope he can get his Iowa-like momentum back. I really do.

He did pretty well in NV, but it still seems like the establishment wins every single time. (Trying not to let the GD gloating make me unhappy).

[wisteria]

1. I don't know.

Perhaps, play up the endorsements of the establishment Senators.Talk up his real experience. And, point out that another Clinton presidency will mean four or more years of Clinton policies and further divisions in our country. The Clinton's together will not bring unity. The Republicans will be on message and attack constantly. You know, I don't dislike Senator Clinton as an individual although I will not forget how she stabbed Sen. Kerry in the back, but the Clinton's collectively will not benefit our party in the long run. That is what I have done a lot of thinking about recently.

[sandnsea]

2. anticipate & deflect smears

They haven't said an honest word since this election started. He has got to do a better job, not only for the primary but to compete in the GE.

He won everywhere except Vegas, by the way. Rural white Nevada is where he won. Do spread that info around.

[karynnj]

10. He actually did well in NV

She was 25 points ahead about 2 weeks before the caucus. They also had the party support there. The fact that they were scared enough to get caught as involved in that law suit and with Bill's behavior at the caucus, you know they are not in the comfortable situation they thought they would be in. The fact is that very few people participated in the caucus - this means that party operatives with connections to Reid or people who need their favor likely were a significant part of those there.

South Carolina is a test. If Edwards stays in, Obama should win from all the polls. The question is how they will play this.

I think that Obama hit the right tone on his Bill Clinton comments. I suspect that in the more specific refutation of charges, he will use those high profile supporters best positioned to respond, as Kerry was on Iraq. It will be interesting to see how he uses all those red state Democratic Senators. (I hope at some point some union person takes up the despicable Clinton actions. They threw those union leaders under the bus - accusing them with a ferocity usually seen on the right of intimidation.)

[politicasista]

3. Thanks for the comments

I hate hearing the "fighting back" or "fighter" talk. :(

[MH1]

4. Anyone know what the SC polls are saying?

[JI7]

5. they should bring up the Clinton and Bush relationship

there are many pics and video to show it.

if they are going to use the Reagan comments against him he can do the same with Bush and Clinton.

[ginnyinWI]

27. it seems to me that all of this Bill Clinton coverage

would make people remember his two terms in not such a positive way. I suppose it is a calculated risk on their part, having him out there defending her.

It's better for Obama, because it might not seem sporting to attack a female, but Bill is a big boy and fair game. I don't think he should do more than defend himself, though--to give tit for tat will make him seem as bad as they are, and people will conclude that all politicians are the same.

[StoryTeller]

6. He needs to take charge of the conversation again

I'm not a political expert by any means, but what I see and hear is this:

Going into Iowa, Obama seemed to be controlling the conversation. "Change" and "hope" were the buzz words and ALL the other candidates in both parties jumped on the bandwagon.

Since then, it seems to me that Clinton has somehow grabbed control of the discussion and dragged it into all this nonsense about experience. And then we got bogged down by talk about race and law suits and what-not. When he is defending himself or responding to things, he's not controlling the discussion. And it seems like whoever is in charge of the discussion has the most energy and excitement. And media coverage.

I know there's a lot of people who think he didn't have enough substance with all the hope and change talk, but I believe he can talk details and still control the subject.

I would like to see him be more firm about controlling the discussion. I would LOVE to see him point out more often that we need to do the math--Hillary is claiming "35 years" of "experience." She's 60. That means that according to her, her "experience" started as a newly-graduated, 25-year-old lawyer working as a state congressional legal counsel. I don't know much about how all that works, but I would imagine that it was an entry-level position. It was not an elected position. It was not a position of high influence or a leadership position of any sort.

Also, I would like to see him pointing out that being a first lady is not the same as being in an elected executive position. She has vicarious experience--and that doesn't count. I've been married to a computer programmer for 11 years. I know a lot ABOUT programming, but it doesn't mean I, myself, have experience DOING it or am qualified to write software. Would you like my friend, the husband of a surgeon, to operate on you? I'm sure he is very involved in his wife's career and supports her and knows a lot from listening to her about what being a surgeon is like. But nobody in their right mind would give him a knife and say "cut me open."

So why is the Obama campaign letting her get away with claiming first-ladyhood as experience? They're letting her control the discussion about this and define what "experience" means. By her definition, "experience" actually means "life experience" because she's counting anything and everything since law school. Why aren't we having a discussion on what sort of experience qualifies one to be president?

He's going to keep getting smears and attacks. I would like to see him spend a very BRIEF amount of time at the beginning of speeches quickly rebutting whatever the smear du jour is, and then saying something to the effect of "Look, these sort of ridiculous attacks--what else can you expect? This is what we need to change about our national politics. This is why I would be a better president. So, now I have answered these latest attacks. I've responded. Now it's time to talk about what's really important, which is..." and then get the conversation back to where HE wants it to be. He does this sometimes that I've heard, but I think he could do it more often and more firmly (but nicely.)

I want to hear more about what "we're" going to do in this new presidency. I would like him to talk more about what he envisions the role of the American people to be in effecting change--in detail. Most of us don't know how to be activists and most of us don't have the resources to do so. So when he talks about how change happens by us putting pressure on the government, what does that actually look like and what is his role in helping that happen? We need to have this explained to us in very concrete, practical terms--beginner level.

I'd like to see him demonstrating in a public setting his abilities to bring people together and to listen to them and to help solve a problem. Other candidates do Q&A sessions. I'd like him to do some sort of forum where we get to see him in action demonstrating his problem solving and listening skills. I don't know how this could be done, but this stuff is what makes him unique, and I think people would be interested to see it.

I also don't think a lot of people really understand what a president's job is. We've seen such a dysfunctional parody of the executive branch for so many years that I don't think a lot of us non-wonky people really grasp what a president can and cannot do. Even things like setting policy--a president doesn't actually do that! And Obama is running based on qualities that would really make for an excellent president, but other candidates are taking advantage of the confusion to say that he's too idealistic or too inexperienced. Actually NONE of the Democratic candidates have true executive experience. They only have legislative experience, which is a totally different branch of government. And in legislative experience, I believe Obama actually has the MOST. (Right?)

He made a lot of these points in an hour-long interview with the San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board last week. I watched the interview but forgot to bookmark it. Sorry. It was too long an interview for most people to sit through, but if he would take some of those points that he made and work them into all his speeches, I think it would be good.

And finally, I don't care what anyone else "out there" says. He should NOT start being nasty. I think the sort of humor approach he did in Nevada last week is a good way to handle it. I would like to see his campaign be quicker to respond to negative stuff against other candidates and insist on fairness from his supporters and surrogates. I think he could have done this with the LBJ comment. It was a dumb remark for her to make and I can see why people got offended. But it truly wasn't a racial slam in context. It was simply stupid and insensitive. And the "fairy tale" flap was silly--the context of the statements were clear. It was just petty and pouty. There wasn't any reason to let it veer off into a racial argument. If he had spoken up quicker and helped calm people down, he would have come off to most people as very classy and fair. This would have only made the Clintons look even more petty and mean. Plus, it would have let him keep control of the conversation. And even if it didn't help him, it's still the right thing to do. I would like to see a quicker run to doing the right thing, the fair thing, and the honorable thing.

I'm not trying to criticize. Over all, I think he handled it pretty well. I just think that these are some ways he can take back control of the national dialog instead of letting Clinton set the agenda for discussion.

But then again, I'm not an expert and could be completely so far off that I'm not even in the same solar system anymore. I'm certainly open to becoming better informed about it all.

[Inuca]

8. Wonderful post, StoryTeller

And I agree, taking "charge of the conversation" is key. The problem is that I am not sure how it can be done, and I am not sure the Obama people know it either. The Clintons are masterful at controlling what is being covered in the media, and at pushing the right buttons to divert the conversation in ways that are in obvious and not so obvious ways beneficial to them. They want to pull Obama down in the everyday dirty political muck (actually even dirtier than usual). Everybody gets dirtied in the process, but the dirt affects Obama more negatively than it affects the Clintons (at least short term, and that's all they care). Even if Obama and the people around him try to be as fair as possible about all the BS being thrown their way, they have to respond, and when they do, the way it is being perceived by most (and being pushed by the media that always likes a dogfight) is that both campaigns are at each other's throats and wallowing together in the mud. And when this happens, the Clintons WIN. The whole race baiting is a perfect example of what I mean. Obama and most of the people around him were extremely careful and moderate in their response. Nevertheless, the perception was/is that both camps were equally involved in mud slinging, and BOTH camps had to "agree to a truce". Even worse in my opinion, is that, truce or not truce, the damage was already done, and it may be irreparable. The Clintons may have succeeded in changing the perception of Obama's campaign, and all that he stands for, from one of inclusivity, to US vs. THEM. I was very distressed by the poll results in NV, the huge imbalance in the hispanic vote, and to a certain extent, the even greater imbalance in the AA vote. And a SC win, unless Obama gets a significant percentage of the white vote (which, based on polls, does not seem to be the case), will be interpreted in the same light, and might not provide enough of a boost for Feb. 5th. Anyway... I hope I am wrong (please tell me I am wrong!), and I am trying to stay hopeful.

[StoryTeller]

9. I agree with your thoughts

It's damned frustrating. Whether he likes it or not, he's sort of trapped into a very dysfunctional relationship with the Clintons. If it was a friendship or marriage, a therapist would recommend setting clear relational boundaries. But I don't know how you do that in this situation. Any ideas?

[karynnj]

11. Wonderful

What you describe would be such an incredible positive inspirational run that Obama can do and HRC or JRE really can't. I agree that if he can use his eloquence and his activist roots together actually leading people towards the change it could be amazing.

I love your prescription for dealing with these attacks. It would have been much better to have let people see the fairy tail comment for what it was - "a petty and Pouting" rant because he thought HRC was losing. You are correct doing so would have given him the higher ground and he would be seen as classy. It is amazing that the Clintons have already severely damaged their greatest asset that they had before the race - the respect routinely given to an ex-President and First Lady by their own party.

It is so good to see you here with your amazing always thoughtful comments.

[ginnyinWI]

13. expose the tactics

The problem is that when you just answer tit for tat, defending a charge, it might just validate the argument that the one who has the most "experience" should be president. And then when you get that one answered, they just throw another one at you.

I like the strategy of going up one level and talking about the overall strategy your opponent has of distorting the truth, spinning and smearing the facts. I've seen Obama doing this and I like it. You can touch on ways they are spinning facts, but when you go to the heart of it and expose the tactic, that's when you take away its potential to hurt. Give people a general idea of what's going on in your opponent's camp and how they are out to discredit you. Then whatever comes along will be seen in that light.

I'm maybe not explaining this very well, but do you see what I'm saying?

Like when Reagan said, "There you go again!" it made people distrust whatever his opponent had to say after that.

[wildflowergardener]

15. Reagan

"Like when Reagan said, "There you go again!" it made people distrust whatever his opponent had to say after that."

Uh oh, you're a reagan lover are you?
:sarcasm:

[ginnyinWI]

18. good one!

:rofl: ;)

[plantwomyn]

26. Great advice for the campaign

I agree completely with your advice that "He should NOT start being nasty." Stay above the fray and stay away from racism dialog and point out the "stupid and insensitive" the "petty and pouty". "If he had spoken up quicker and helped calm people down, he would have come off to most people as very classy and fair" Exactly! He does need to answer the negative fast, whether by other campaigns or his own. Don't let the MSM use any quote but one coming from Obama himself to describe his position.
I think Michele can help but they can also use the website and press releases better and do essay type answers to these attacks that take the high ground and make other candidates look petty. When the campaign or the candidate is asked a question that just drags the nonsense the MSM keeps in the headlines, they should direct the questioner to the essay and then talk about what Obama think is really important. Don't give them any fodder. Yes, control the conversation.

:hide: Don't tell mopinko I was here.

[FrenchieCat]

7. He should discuss specifically what he did as a community activist,

as a civil right attorney, and speak more on growing up without a father.

He needs to focus also on his work on the death penalty act that he did in the State senate.

He needs to relate to SC population in terms of eonomic stimilus and other issues that would be aimed at them specifically.

[karynnj]

12. This would be a great time to speak of his real activism

He needs to define who he is and it would be a good time to do it - because a portion of the Edwards people will likely feel the need to chose between Obama and HRC. Edwards has run as an activist - he started the race saying it was also a grassroots anti- poverty movement. He, however, had no real experience as an activist. Many people who picked Edwards because of that may, after a period of grief, like what they see in Obama.

[Inuca]

14. Excellent point n/t

[Tulkas]

16. IMO He needs to take on Bill Clinton (or have his wife do it)

Sen. Obama can't get his message across because he is constantly forced into correcting Bill Clinton's distortions of his positions and/or record.

I created a thread about a "Spouse Debate" that is my best guess on how to deal with the former President.


Barak is in a 3 on 1 right now. Edwards wants to be #2 so he is attacking, then the Clintons are double teaming him and nobody is challenging Bill. He only makes those statements at rallies or other safe settings. Sen. Obama is good, but I don't think he can win against a three on one, Bill needs to be addressed quickly.

[rox63]

17. He's been on the defensive a lot lately

He needs to somehow switch the dynamics of the race and play offense for a while.

[Inuca]

19. He has been forced

to be in the defensive. Maybe I am just do not understand how the game is being played, but I do not see how he can have all this garbage thrown his way, and not respond somehow, especially in this post SBVT era. I guess an alternative is others (not part of his campaign) to come to his defense and answer some of the allegations. I am not sure I want to there in more depth...

[Nancy Waterman]

20. Raise the spector of GOP attack on Loose Cannon Bill in the WH

You can believe the GOP will go crazy attacking Hillary based on her bringing Bill back to the White House. His out-of-control behavior of the past month reminds people that she can't control him, that no one can rein him in, and that he is a loose cannon with a temper problem. The GOP will be all over this. I think Obama should hit hard on this point. It happens to be true. They are already talking about it on the pundit shows and what a mess it will be having two power centers in a new Clinton WH. It is a real turn off to voters and will help elect a repub, especially John McCain.

He should say: Bill Clinton's recent behavior has everyone talking, not about Hillary, but about him. People feel he can't be reined in and fear how that will unfold in the White House. The Clintons are giving the GOP attack material by how they behave. No one wants a loose cannon in the WH.

[wisteria]

21. Very good idea.

And, why not remind people just how bad the Clinton administration was after the scandals and the Republican attacks. Do we want to go backward and have to relive this all again? he needs to put a huge dent in the Clinton armor.

[Tulkas]

22. He should try to stay above that fray, but surrogates should say it

He needs to stay on message.

Bill Clinton knows exactly what he is doing. He is making Sen. Obama respond to attacks instead of spreading his message. Barak is inspirational and uplifting when he is not trying to explain away distortions. The Clintons are neither inspirational or uplifting. They know they may lose if he gets his message out.


Get surrogates to counter attack both the Clintons. Stay on message.

[Inuca]

24. YES!!

But they must be heavy-weight and effective surrogates. In spite of all the nice talk and with all due respect, you cannot have Michelle counter Bill and expect to win.

[Tulkas]

23. Superbowl adds couldn't hurt (assuming he can afford them)

I heard the going rate is 2.7 million for a 30 second spot. That is a lot of money but I would hate for him not to do it and wish that he had. It might even be a good idea to run two adds, 5.4 million, geeze. I hope all the news channels toss in some free coverage reporting on his add buy. (if he did it)

Maybe he can make a fund raising add, touting how so many people send him $50.00 or $100 to support his campaign of hope while Hillary takes money from lobbyists. With any luck he could draw in some donations to help offset the cost.

My only real fear is that it gets buried in a bunch of over the top adds for Pepsi or Budweiser.

[Nancy Waterman]

25. Surrogates to some degree

He could smile and say "There they go again." But he should also connect their tactics to the Republicans since it is exactly the same play book: take a kernel of truth and spin a web of lies around it. It is hard to refute because there is that kernel of truth. Rove did this over and over again.

"There they go again. My opponents seem to like using the republican playbook of spinning the facts to their own purpose."

Demcrats should be told in no uncertain terms that these are the tactics they so reviled from Rove: the lies and the spin. Do they have the courage and dignity to rise beyond the stench.

Then the surrogates need to hammer harder.