Good post. And you're dead on about Edwards. His piling on at the debate and comments about Clinton after the "tears" incident were bad. I like the guy and the populists message, but he probably needs to pull out of the race.

No need for Edwards to pull out. In 1992 Bill Clinton had yet to experience the Gennifer Flowers public revelation at this point and he recovered after losing some primaries. The ill-advised comments shouldn't be that much of a handicap. Some people are talking about him like they did Hillary 36 hours ago.

Just a footnote to an insightful piece: Clinton did not attack Obama's 'rise' as a fairy tale. He dismissed Obama's claim that he unwaveringly opposed the War in Iraq as a fairy tale. Now fairy tale is an load term, chiming w/ the general Clinton attack on Obama's hope theme, so the meme was doubtless that Obama's whole pitch is a fairy tale. But the literal antecedent of fairy tale was clear.

The Clintons were responding that they believe Obama has gotten a free pass by the press, not during the debates.

The fact that no one checks him on his strong lobbyist ties is a testament to that. I hated that Edwards couldn't get more traction against him as the anti-status quo vote b/c people believe Obama's rhetoric.

But Obama didn't get through 15 debates without substance.

The debates aren't the issue.

The press has failed to scrutinize Obama's policy positions closely--except for Paul Krugman who did a very good job evaluating Obama's health care policy and found it lacking. Hillary Clinton has had far more negative press than Obama has had.

Last night, Obama put five solid paragraphs of pure substance into his speech

Five whole paragraphs! That settles it; let's just go right to the coronation, er, inauguration of President Obama!

When you implement a strategy that includes a run to the right in order to capture independents in the two early open contests you better come up with something better than five paragraphs to signal your new approach.

After resurrecting the crisis meme, framing universal healthcare as government coercion that punishes poor people and boldly claiming that unions are special interests trying to thwart change it is not a big surprise that Obama keeps losing among Democrats.

It was a brilliant strategy for defeating a formidable candidate that had most of the early institutional support. Now that it has collapsed maybe Obama needs to remember why he is a Democrat and campaign accordingly. If Obama is worried about jeopardizing his promise to indies and Rs at this stage he will get trounced on February 5.

Nice post.

And for folks mocking the 'whole five paragraphs' of policy substance, c'mon--he's delivering a stump speech. It's good to show in your stump speech that you have some substance behind your inspiring rhetoric, and to show that you're conversant with the substance. But the stump speech probably isn't the place to go into pages and pages of details, making everybody's eyes glaze over. Obama has detailed policy statements posted on his web site for people who are interested. He's not substance-free.

Also--his strategy 'collapsed'? Again, c'mon. He won Iowa by a very wide margin, and he lost NH by 3 points. The NH loss was surprising and disappointing, and maybe he should think about how to tweak what he's doing. But claiming that he's 'collapsing' is wildly overblown. I'd give Clinton and Obama about a 50/50 shot each, maybe with a slight edge to Obama.

stop! I'm not going there. I have no idea what the "defining moment" or "turning point" was.

Thanks.

You're the first political commentator I've read who hasn't expounded in great detail on that subject.

The fact is, we just don't know and it really doesn't matter. We've got a race on our hands and I'm glad for the end of talk of Iowa being vital to Obama or Hillary collapsing.

Let the candidates battle for votes in California, Kansas, South Carolina and New Jersey.

"wine track candidate" is a senseless phrase. it plays into the world view that says W should be president because people want to drink beer with him. enough of the alcohol generalizations.

""wine track candidate" is a senseless phrase. it plays into the world view that says W should be president because people want to drink beer with him. enough of the alcohol generalizations."

I don't know, I think it gets at some real rifts in the Democratic party. The problem with it is implying that Hillary is, therefore, the "beer track" candidate. Of course, assessing how well Hillary represents and is likely to represent her constituents, might make the whole thing worth it.

After all, Obama's objection to the health insurance mandate is rooted in the notion that he can better represent the "real interests" of the beer track (or whatever) than she can. Maybe he's ultimately not right about that, but at least he seems to recognize that there's a problem with the grand policy schemes of Harvard policy maestros. And that, if it's a matter of balancing the checkbook on the backs of the unemployed and underemployed and that segment of the so-called "middle class" that never qualifies for government assistance but can't really float themselves economically, then maybe he shouldn't do that.

Politically morally, it seems to me you shouldn't do that. We have a market economy, like it or not. You get the costs down as low as you possibly can and then you let people decide what they should and shouldn't pay for. If that offends your delicacy, then work to fund a real "universal" plan, not one that sleazily obfuscates its true nature by conveniently hiding its effects down there in the beer track, where people's expectations for life and politics are already way too low.

Yuck.

I agree with winer, the phrase "wine track candidate" is derogatory, meant to imply a distinction between the educated elites and real Americans.

It's basically a variation of the typical Republican talking points.

Tim - I didn't say Obama's campaign collapsed just his "knockout" strategy -
Run right, distance self from Dem groups, appeal to reps/indies sweep Iowa and NH wrap up primary before February 5. (new voters and AAs were the projected multipliers) Obama's best chance to win against the institutional candidate was an early decisive victory not a protracted campaign. They were hoping to repeat the Kerry sweep and effectively end the race before February 5.

It was also high risk because he need to target Dem groups and policies to pull it off.
I am not mocking the change of rhetoric just pointing out how much phase 2 of the Obama campaign will need to differ from phase 1.

Some Obamabots are still stuck in talkingpoints from phase 1. Somebody better update that code.

I must disagree with you. The specifics of his health care policy matters.

Indeed the history of how his health care policy came about matters even more and is more telling.

When it was first issued, it did not have a public plan component....the absolutely essential component to making sure we have a way to transform a private health insurance industry i=into single payer. The health care wonks howled and complained and they grudgingly put it in. It lead Krugman to suspect that Obama wasn't really serious about health care reform.

Below is more from Krugman's blog

December 19, 2007, 9:08 am
Interesting Obama history
I’ve been alerted to an interesting Boston Globe article about Barack Obama’s role, when he was in the Illinois legislature, in the attempt to get the state committed to universal health care. It turns out that the story very much prefigures the debates we’re having right now.
Obama later watered down the bill after hearing from insurers and after a legal precedent surfaced during the debate indicating that it would be unconstitutional for one legislative assembly to pass a law requiring a future legislative assembly to craft a healthcare plan.
During debate on the bill on May 19, 2004, Obama portrayed himself as a conciliatory figure. He acknowledged that he had “worked diligently with the insurance industry,” as well as Republicans, to limit the legislation’s reach and noted that the bill had undergone a “complete restructuring” after industry representatives “legitimately” raised fears that it would result in a single-payer system.
“The original presentation of the bill was the House version that we radically changed - we radically changed - and we changed in response to concerns that were raised by the insurance industry,” Obama said, according to the session transcript.
To be fair, the piece also says this:
During debate over the Health Care Justice Act, Obama also attacked the insurers, accusing the industry of “fear-mongering” by claiming, even after he made changes they wanted, that the bill would lead to a government takeover.
This story gives a lot of context to the debate over health reform now. Obama clearly sees himself playing the same role as president that he did as a state legislator — as a broker among groups, including the insurance industry, as someone who can find a compromise solution that’s acceptable to a wide range of opinion.
My thoughts: being president isn’t at all like being a state legislator, Illinois Republicans aren’t like the national Republican party, 2009

The most important quality a leader must possess is the ability to inspire. There is plenty to be read on Obama’s positions on everything from the War to his tax plans–check out his website or pick up The Audacity of Hope. Hillary is a brilliant woman with many wonderful ideas–which is why she’s so good in the Senate. You can have all the ideas in the world but if you can’t inspire people to follow you, where are we? I love Hillary.
Lower Costs by Modernizing the U.S. Health Care System
Reducing Costs of Catastrophic Illnesses for Employers and Their Employees: Catastrophic health expenditures account for a high percentage of medical expenses for private insurers. The Obama plan would reimburse employer health plans for a portion of the catastrophic costs they incur above a threshold if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers’ premiums.
Helping Patients:
Support disease management programs. Seventy five percent of total health care dollars are spent on patients with one or more chronic conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure. Obama will require that providers that participate in the new public plan, Medicare or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) utilize proven disease management programs. This will improve quality of care, give doctors better information and lower costs.
Coordinate and integrate care. Over 133 million Americans have at least one chronic disease and these chronic conditions cost a staggering $1.7 trillion yearly. Obama will support implementation of programs and encourage team care that will improve coordination and integration of care of those with chronic conditions.
Require full transparency about quality and costs. Obama will require hospitals and providers to collect and publicly report measures of health care costs and quality, including data on preventable medical errors, nurse staffing ratios, hospital-acquired infections, and disparities in care. Health plans will also be required to disclose the percentage of premiums that go to patient care as opposed to administrative costs.
I only posted the text above to say “how specific do you want” The devil is in the details, which in policy, initiates in congress. Policy wonks that understand nuts and bolt (Clinton) are better suited for the senate. Secondly, the oval office is occupied by one person, the rest of the west wing has yet to be decided by either candidate. They will flesh out all the details on platform issues when the time comes. Third, when JFK said send a man to the moon, it was technically impossible; who was saying then “Where are the details” Inspiration is just that. Go to his website for the substance

http://obamarama.org/category/heres-the-beef/

http://www.barackobama.com/issues