Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
THE INEVITABILITY PROBLEM. Over at Slate we're seeing a big picture of Barack Obama looking very sad, accompanied by the headline, "Is it Time for Obama to Panic?" John Dickerson gets it right: As I reported, Obama rocked the house at the SEIU candidates' forum Monday, but that kind of soaring rhetoric and shouting, activist delivery isn't enough to get him elected. It won't translate to more general audiences, and while it proves Obama is an inspirational speaker, it doesn't prove he can govern. Dickerson suggests several tactics to help Obama overcome the growing feeling of inevitability around Hillary Clinton. First, he could attack Clinton more explicitly, or dig deep and publicize any dirt on her he can find. Alternatively, he could take the high road and let John Edwards roll in the mud with Hillary. Lastly, he could renew excitement by beating the rest of the field in fundraising again this quarter.
The problem is that we've seen Obama try all of these strategies already, to no concrete jump in his poll numbers. Then again, it's still early. It was around this time in 2003 that most pundits decided John Kerry would never be able to revitalize his campaign.
--Dana Goldstein
COMMENTS (9)
I'm pretty unmoved by this stuff. Obama started by casting a wide net, focusing on process-oriented details in terms of policy and leaving the rest vague, trying to pull in non-traditional voters. Since then, he's been doing standard coalition building.
Step 1-elites. He's doing really well there. Check
Step 2-the black vote. He's been trending up and up there, as well. Check.
Step 3 is going to be working class voters and maybe seniors. And that means more policy specifics, more boring details and droning speeches and such, but as we can see, he's doing just that. The Iraq speech. The Wall Street speech. The Tax speech (with its bonus senior and working-class panders).
If he can be as successful with those target groups as he was with blacks and elites, he's got a great shot. And I suspect that the timing of this is rather deliberate. All of a sudden, post labor day, there are very presidential images of him floating around, giving a serious FP speech, he's kicking ass at the SEIU forum, he's giving tax cuts to blue collar Dems and Seniors.
Seems to be part of a big, targeted push.
Posted by: mop | September 19, 2007 12:56 PM
It's such a cliche, but it really is all about Iowa. It's his neighboring state. He's run more than $2 million in bio ads. If he wins it outright, he wrecks Hillary's momentum and goes one-on-one with her in the "national primary." If he comes in second to Edwards, he fights on but with no momentum shift. If he comes in third or if Hillary wins Iowa, it's over.
Posted by: Dave | September 19, 2007 1:01 PM
Obama is an inspirational speaker, it doesn't prove he can govern.
But the same could be said about Clinton - without the inspirational speaker part. We don't know how well these candidates would govern. We can only gauge them by their statements. That's always been true.
The media is poll-obsessed. They want to know who will win and they want to know, now. They don't care about much else.
Dickerson's suggestions illustrate that point. They are all standard gotcha campaign tactics. None focus at all on the principles or style of governing, or on ideology.
Obama's best bet is to have more disputes with Clinton over specific policies. Like the recent ones over whether we will speak with adversaries like Iran, whether we will continue our Cuba embargo or whether and how we will act if we find OBL.
Posted by: Jinchi | September 19, 2007 1:04 PM
got that title spelled right?
or do you mean
'the inevitab*ilit*y problem'?
Posted by: kid bitzer | September 19, 2007 1:20 PM
Prove he can govern? Precisely how does one 'prove' this via speaking style in September 2007? Did the Idiot Occupant we have now deliver any such 'proof,' ever? What the hell are you talking about, really? And BTW, I'm an Edwards guy. He hasn't 'proven' it either; nor have Hillary, Rudy, Fred, or anyone else piling out of the GOP clown car. And as for 'translating,' God forbid anyone show some passion! Might offend 'centrists' or David Broder.
Posted by: Nick | September 19, 2007 1:36 PM
It was around this time in 2003 that most pundits decided John Kerry would never be able to revitalize his campaign.
Actually, it was well past this point -- Kerry bottomed out in November/December, firing his campaign manager, running in single digits below Al Sharpton in the polls, and prompting Mickey Kaus to make (yet again) a fool of himself by starting a pool, just before Christmas, IIRC, on when Kerry would quit the race.
I also agree with Dave. Obama wins Iowa, all of Hillary's "feeling of inevitability" vanishes overnight.
See (again) Kerry, John, 2004. Among other examples.
Posted by: Gee | September 19, 2007 2:34 PM
I'm still having a very hard time undertstanding why Hillary Clinton would be any Democrat's first choice for nominee. The historicall bad Bush presidency is apparently making people forget that the Clinton's are not progressive Democrats; they are Republicans of the non-insane variety.
Posted by: brewmn | September 19, 2007 2:40 PM
I just can't understand why any Democrat wants Clinton as the nominee. Apparently, eight years of unprecedented awfulness has made progressives forget that Clinton the First governed as a circa 1973 Republican.
Posted by: brewmn | September 19, 2007 2:44 PM
"The Tax speech (with its bonus senior and working-class panders). If he can be as successful with those target groups as he was with blacks and elites, he's got a great shot"
Why is it pandering if it's seniors and working classes but not pandering if it's elites (ie., "bipartisanship" and "process")
You must think us old folks are senile already.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2007 6:53 PM