Since you mention 2004, let's go back to the summer of 2003, at the same number of months we aways  from  the primaries now- Jul 2003- Who was in the lead? What was their message? How did it matter in terms of outcomes for 2004? If you are going to do horserace stuff, at least, please provide context. If you feel this year is a typical of historical analogy, please explain why? Also, you bring up Q3- how much money did the front runner in Q3 have versus how much money did the eventual winner of the  primaries have? Also, do the same for say another year- maybe 2000 and whenever we had a situation like this one we are seeing this year. Thanks.

Oh- and can you link up your discussion as to how you see HRC 'surging' in Iowa. Can you provide your polling data analysis for this assertion. Thanks.

I am also weary of politicians who spend too much time telling me what good people they are.  As high school English teachers like to say, "show, don't tell."  

Second, running and winning involves doing things that are perfectly moral and reasonable but that, when put under the highest scrutiny and brightest possible media lights, look shady to some people.  Basing a huge portion of your campaign on pro-active statements about your new kind of politics runs the risk of either a) meaning you run a ineffectual campaign (i.e. John Kerry dead in the water for a month after he was swift boated), or b) you are called a hypocrite and your strength is taken from you when your halo is tarnished.

Third, while I am strongly for putting our country back on a more optimistic and much less cynical track, that alone is NOT enough to get you through four years of an administration.  Restoring hope and optimism, the "new kind of politics," is ultimately about style of governance.  The most important thing is what you want to ACHIEVE while President.  If you go about your goals in an upright way, then the country will begin the path back towards hope and optimism.  Simply repeating "restore hope and optimism" ad infinitum will do neither.

I like Obama and if Clinton wins I will be pushing like hell (and completing any internet survey thrown my way in the affirmative) for him to be on the Clinton ticket.   But as a candidate he is too non-combative for my taste.   He needs to talk tough about the HUGE DAMAGE the Bush administration has inflicted on this country.  He needs to be out there mocking Cheney, talking about them in terms that leaves no question that there is nothing but disdain for these people.   Instead WE are chided for being too partisan, WE are told not to make this into a partisan thing, WE are being ridiculed for making the "other side" the "common enemy."   That is wrong.  Instead of ridiculing US Democrats who talk about these yokels with disdain he should be out there ridiculing THEM.  

Democrats at large have nothing but ridicule for Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsefeld, etc.   Obama is seriously out of sync with most Democrats on this, which is why he is strongest with Independents (who like "get along" bipartisanship.  

This sentence hits the nail on the head:

"Obama seems to be running more against partisanship than anything else, yet are there more partisan Democratic voters than the Iowa caucus-goers?"

Primaries and caucuses are much more partisan than a general election would ever be.  Bipartisanship does not work in primaries/caucuses.  It never has.  Democrats are NOT going to change that trend now, faced with the worst excesses and the biggest national disaster inflicted from the "other side," the "common enemy," we have witnessed in our lifetimes.

Well, it's tragic if the Bush years have convinced people that "likeability" and "competence" are mutually exclusive.

Just another one of those false binaries, but one that could serve the Clinton camp quite well.

for the GOP....

people are pissed at Washington and realize change is needed.

maybe people will realize this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwTECansV dI

Hasn't the country always gone for likable?  Last night the news was talking about the Bubba factor which is all about likable. What he has been doing you don't mention is really combat the rock star and fluff smears that have been thrown at him constantly.  The new ads not only fill in his biography but they remind people his popularity is not due to something outside of politics, but rather due to a great political speech made on one of its largest stages. And in the meantime he's been filling in the fluff slur with major policy speeches, a complete and easy to navigate website, and the Walk for Change to get people to start informing other voters of where he stands.

I won't be suprised Obamaniacs will whine to ban this front page article soon.

LOL.

'likeable' is great, but likeable, charisma alone won't win you elections.

Clinton had been governor for 12 years, Tony Blair had been shadow prime minister for a couple of years before both of these charismatic guys won elections.

I'm scratching my head when Obamaniacs believe the nation will elect a community organizer who's only been senator for three years.

Ms. Thatcher certainly was not quite popular among Brits, but that alone did not prevent her from winning three straight elections.

In the end, people will elect a competent leader, not an American idol.

Many people are waiting for Obama to take a big sharp bite out of the thugs who are in office and who have destroyed our country on so many levels.

And I do, quite frankly, get pissed when I hear Obama basically reminding us Democrats to rise above the cynicism.  We've had glaring weak spots in our newly elected Congress; Democrats are furious at Pelosi (hard to believe, but it's true) and Obama is preaching kindness and a new kind of politics.

He will be crushed in the general if he makes it that far.  Don't TELL us you're tough even though you're skinny Obama - SHOW us.  

"A second shift Obama may want to make is to go from running a general election campaign to running a Democratic primary campaign."

This is an excellent observation and one I have felt for a while about Obama.  He needs to come up with a message that appeals to primary voters who are more partisan than electorate as a whole.  If I were advising his campaign, I'd have him start by emphasizing much more forcefully his opposition to the Iraq War from the get go. His generally progressive stands on issues/voting record should provide him with other opportunities to broaden his appeal to Dem primary voters.

More than ever before, America wants a strong leader. Strength means taking hard stands and sticking to them. Strength means knowing your values and fighting for them unapologetically.

Strength is about political acumen and cunning, not policy competence. Strength is about experience as a trench fighter, not about having a good resume. Strength is about the killer instinct and the lover instinct, not about likability.

I see a number of issues where Obama's positions do not match or seem at odds with reality.  Here are just three:

1.  Consensus:

We see what Republicans candidates say in the debates, and how they support Bush's decision on Libby.  How will consensus be possible due to the gap between what we want and what they want, especially given their history of NEVER giving an inch?

2.  Lobbyists and PAC's:

Obama said this today in Iowa:

We don't take money from federal lobbyists. We don't take money from PACs. The reason is I don't want to be serving the drug companies' agenda or the insurance companies' agenda on a health care bill. I don't want to be serving the oil companies agenda on the energy bill. I want to be serving your agenda. People have responded and 90 percent of the donations we got are for a hundred dollars or less. Because you're ready to take your country back.

http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary .do?diaryId=488

Nice words.  But will Obama explain why he just recently adopted this position?  He DID take such money in his previous campaigns.  Does that mean he was serving the agenda of those contributors?

After all, he did vote to restrict class actions and for the Energy Bill in 2005.  Can this not be seen as serving the agenda of the powerful, rather than the people?

How many of the 90% even know about this, and that he continues to receive support from lobbyists other than in cash, and that they still bundle for him?

3.  Tax cuts:

Apparently, Obama is satisfied to allow Bush's tax cuts lapse.  This will not occur until January 1, 2011.  Why is he not for repeal at the earliest time?  These tax cuts hurt average people and unfairly benefit the wealthy.  Is this stance known by the 90% of the small donors?  Would they approve?    
 

The Libby commutation gave Sen. Barack Obama his first post-Q2 opportunity to reframe his candidacy, to signal a new strategy for breaking out of number two and winning the Democratic nomination. But instead, Obama framed Bush's decision to commute Libby's sentence in terms of his consistent new politics theme

Or in other words,

The Libby commutation gave Barack Obama a chance to stop acting like Barack Obama. But instead, he kept acting like Barack Obama.

Doesn't Obama know that he's never going to be able to impress bloggers until he starts acting like someone else in order to impress bloggers? Now, Hillary Clinton, that's the kind of campaign MyDD likes to see.

I have a question.

I am not all that political, nor am I all that fond of Clinton or Obama (or Edwards, etc), but I am confused.

Why, in this particular election - and I know everyone from the candidates to the bloggers try to play down the historic aspect of this electoral race, but still -  why is such importance still being given to Iowa and New Hamphshire... both virtually all white, conservative states?

Not that they shouldn't have their say, of course, but considering the demographics of those two states as well as the makeup of the various candidates, and the fact that the other, more diverse states have moved up their primaries, why are Iowa and New Hampshire still being treated as if they even matter or have the power to basically decide the entire election?

Tradition?

(not that that point was made in this particular posting, but it's just a question in general that's been puzzling me).

I would say that now isn't the time for "act 3" if he wants a boost in the polls, he can't have so much time that the bump goes away.  We also have to remember that the boost only matters if it shows in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina.  I would put ads out in New Hampshire and South Carolina soon if I were him, although he doesn't want to drain his bank account early.  

Something Obama is doing.  They bought 500 tickets to a minor league baseball game in Iowa (Iowa Cubs - Farm team for Chicago cubs)  Some deal with advertising will be laid out there.  Maybe it'll turn more heads in Iowa.  

This post makes a very good point, which I hope Obama supporters will take in the spirit of constructive criticism.

What Obama said about the Libby pardon was true, but he missed an opportunity to add a new dimension for his campaign at the start of a new quarter. It was a perfect, high-profile opportunity to sound old themes, and connect them to some new ones.

The one thing that stands out like a sore thumb in this post is the repetition of this canard:

She's in the unenviable position of being the front-runner; Democrats never nominate the front-runner.

In short, from 1984 on, when the Dems have had a broad and consistent front-runner--in polls, fundraising and party support, that frontrunner invariably wins the nomination.  This is a formidible challenge that Obama and Edwards both face, and it doesn't serve them to disguise it.  (Again, for the record, I am undecided, but definitely prefer not to have Clinton be the nominee.)

Who is writing this stuff for Mr. 'Hope'?

Frank Luntz?

Obama is framing Bush's criminal act of commuting 'Scooter's' sentence as 'partisan politics...' Thanks Senator for putting Bush's action on a par with...oh, say Jim Webb beating 'Maccaca' Man in their race for the Senate; thus, in one stroke, undermining what remains of our political process and directly equating a criminal act with said process.

I really, really wish whoever is actually writing this dumb shit for Obama would get their head out. He's sounding more like polite version of Lieberman every day.

Simon's point is well taken, but I'd argue for him to find me a general election where the more likeable candidate lost.  Of course, for Obama, that does nothing for him in the primary.  However, Ronald Reagan proved that if you stay where you are long enough, people will come to you.

"America wanted likable, and it got likable.

It also got the Iraq war, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the scandal at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center."

America got all that not because Bush is likable but because Bush is a partisan who cares more about his party and cronies than our country, its wellbeing, or its laws.  Commuting Libby's sentence is an example of Bush once again acting on behalf of his buddy/party rather than the country.  Bush is incompetent not because he is likable; rather, Bush is incompetent because he disregards competence for partisanship.

I think Obama's statement got it right.

Now, maybe his statement could have been worded stronger than it was, but a partisan statement would have been contrary to Obama's overall message.

Nice post, Todd.  Intelligent discourse in the comment section, too.

All in all, this is MyDD at its best: no accusations of being Hillarybots, drinking Koolaid, or the typical misogynistic BS that Clinton supporters are normally subjected to.

Happy 4th of July, MyDD!

Good question this post raises: what will/should be Obama's next act (or phase)?

Too bad so many of the commenters just use the thread to restate what they do not like about Obama.

Obama's campaign at times seems unhurried, especially to "we the obsessed", who, unlike 95% of the public, obsess about daily and even hourly updates to the campaigns.

Not too long ago Obama was chided on these pages by Matt Stoller for not asking for campaign contributions! Yes, Matt claimed Obama was not "making the ask." But the campaign had asked a few times and did so more frequently as the quarter progressed. This week the big news is Obama's unprecedented success at both asking and receiving.

But the "what's next" question is still a necessary one.

Obama provided part of his answer at his website and in the e-mail that followed the announcement of the Q2 contributions: organizing. Obama said he will work to organize supporters to actually work on the ground, spread the message, get the votes out.

The campaign seems to be focussed on doing the fundamentals: money, organization, message.

The complaints here are about message. Will it shift? Obama also signaled a (perhaps too gradual for the impatient among us on the daily campaign watch) shift to a tougher primary rhetoric. He said "I may be skinny but . . . " and his campaign referred to Hillary as a quasi-incumbent. We'll see. Perhaps the shift will not be signaled by any dramatic gesture, but like the fund raising will be rolled out beneath the radar of the Stollers but in plain view of the intended audience.

The pace of the campaign will really accelerate after Labor Day. The pace then will make these look like the dog days of summer that they are. That makes the next two months the best and only time to gather forces, build organization, and make "quiet" moves that will enable a campaign to execute come the fall frenzy.

Still and all, a great and difficult question posed in the post. Thanks for the chance to opine about possible answers.

Bush was "likable"?

Sorry, Roger Simon doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

Another thought to throw in here.  I think Obama is in a short waiting period.  What I think he is waiting for now, is to see if some Edwards support/supporters "abandon ship" so to speak.  

Edwards had an amazing push at the end of the quarter to raise 3 million dollars in a week or so, extremely commendible, and I salute his supporters for such an amazing outpour of support.  

However, in the overall picture, he raised 10 million less than Hillary and Obama again for a second quarter in a row.  The only reason I think it is worth waiting to see if there is a shift in support is Edwards is being dubbed a 2nd tier candidate and his lack of showing in the national polls (although I agree they are baseless for the most part.  He still has a shot in Iowa).  I know to most bloggers it doesn't affect their views, but one can't help but think it takes a toll on a significant ammount of support nationwide.  

Will a block of Edwards support leave?  If so, where will the majority of it go?  I think if you were looking for a solid bump, this would be a place to check.  

Very good post. As an Obama supporter, I always want to see constructive criticism of Obama in order to make him a better candidate.

I agree. Obama has to really shift gears in the third and fourth quarters, toughen and sharpen his overall message.

Obama still has boxed himself into a corner. Realistically, the only way to gain on a strong front runner is:

a) For the front runner to royally screw up

b) Go negative.

We haven't seen anything from the Clinton campaign that suggests they are going to screw up.

If Obama goes negative, he wipes out his entire "can't we all just get along" schtick.

Hillary won't go negative, but if Obama strikes first, he'd better be prepared.  That's all I have to say.  

We'll we are organizing, no I am not part of the campaign but I run a group. And we have been talking to Chris Miller the Midwest field director for a long time and now we are having official regional organizing events, and this is in Minnesota where we don't yet officially have a early primary. And by regions I'm talking about state regions. So we'll be having organizing meetings around the state and building the campaign. Unlike Clinton and Edwards he has no political machine from past national campaigns. He hasn't been building one for years. He is running a very grassroots campaign but it's still being build. He's working on ground game and fundraising to get the message out. Plus he is stumping around the country. He is not worried about national polls right now. He is worried about building a campaign and preparing still.

He doesn't need to change his message, his message is perfect. Sure he can roll out some more policy details but he is doing that.

Obama's campaign is fine.

Democrats never nominate the front-runner.

I wouldn't go that far. Edward Kennedy couldn't knock off front-runner Jimmy Carter in 1980. The 1984 race was wide open, but despite a tough challenge from Gary Hart, front-runner Mondale won. (The only reason Hart ended up threatening was his win in New Hampshire. Mondale won Iowa.) In the 1988 cycle, Dukakis was the front-runner and won the nomination. In the 1992 cycle Bill Clinton wasn't the front-runner, so that's an exception. In 2000, Al Gore was the front-runner and defeated Bill Bradley for the nomination. In the 2004 cycle, Kerry started as front-runner, lost his front-runner status to Dean, then surged to win the nomination.

In short, the front-runners tend to win more often than not. Which is hardly a surprise, since to win the nomination you have to be a front-runner at least at a moment in time, and it's a lot easier to do that if you're the front-runner at several moments in time.

1
For those who are skeptical of Obama's specific critique of partisanship:

*Do you really believe that bitter partisanship began in January 2001?

*Do you really doubt that bitter partisanship has been the M.O. of both parties, at least since Reagan?

*Do you really believe that bitter partisanship is not a crippling problem?

*Do you really believe that we live in an either/or world in which the only alternative to bitter
partisanship is meaningless bipartisan compromise?

*What about progressive consensus? If you agree that this is the ideal, do you really believe that a
Democratic president can forge a progressive consensus without the help of reasonable independents
and Republicans?

*If this is the political reality, why shouldn't a Democratic candidate for president be telling Democratic
voters the truth about this reality and seeking to persuade voters that he, in Obama's case, is the one who
best understands this reality and has the leadership skills to use this reality to govern the country according
to progressive ideals?

2
Anyone who indulges and spreads the shameful fiction that "Barack Obama" = "Can't we all just get along?"
simply isn't being bothered to listen, read, watch, or pay attention to him in any serious way.

This is bad faith, and it needs to stop.

"...puts the country's progress ahead of the bitter partisanship of recent years."

Dailykos posted responses from all of the candidates, and there was Obama, once again, insisting on placing some of the blame on the left.

"Bitter partisanship" sounds as if both sides are equally responsible.

That simply isn't true.

The right have been bullies who have broken the law and controlled the media.  

Obama's need to act as if we're all equally responsible for the mess things are in leaves me deeply suspicious of what kind of president he would make.

So it's true.

I told a friend that I'd just joined MyDD, and she dismissed the site as an Obama-bashfest, a place where most of the people find convoluted, ridiculous reasons to criticize him.

I support Obama, but only just recently. No one who knows even a little bit about what he has accomplished to date in his life could ever consider him lacking in competence.  And it's only because the other candidates are so lacking in the ability to bring people together that Obama herein gets criticized for it.  These folks are just attacking where their own preferred candidates are weak.  They are grasping at straws, trying to justify their own allegiances, in the face mounting evidence that they backed the wrong horse.

Responding to this kind of thing with an attempt a reasoned debate is a waste of time.  This kind of "concern troll" piece arises not from the deliberative mind, but from a well of unrecognized emotions.  

Obama supporters should ignore these meaningless posts. Stop being defensive.  instead, go read this; you'll remember just why you're supporting Obama.

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/re marks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

Read the whole thing, then dig up the Senate speech of John Edwards regarding the same issue.  Contrast and compare, and then let's talk competence.

It's noteworthy that once again we have another anti-Obama post. The drumbeat continues. I guess all this demonstrates that competence is a MyDD issue as this campaign against Obama progresses and proves ineffectual.

I don't think it makes sense to compare Obama's and Hillary's styles directly.

They're in the same race, but each of them has unique hurdles.

Hillary sounds tougher than he does because she has to prove she can play with the boys.

Obama probably runs the risk of sounding like either of two "types" of black men we've been conditioned to see on the political landscape: the Angry Black Man or the civil rights activist, if he starts swinging the partisan bat.

When you see the numbers about how many people feel like they don't know enough about him yet, you see how tricky it is for Obama to feel like Phase I of the messaging has gotten through and now he can begin Phase II.

Crafting rhetoric and message is like navigating between Scylla & Charybdis: you have to look at what each candidate's musts:

Must be seen as
Must avoid being seen as

Throw in the territory that other candidates have carved out for themselves, plus what works with your personality and what you've said for years, and it isn't easy to thread that needle.

There is nothing wrong with partisanship.

Extremism in the defense of liberty is not a vice.

Obama is not ready for this campaign.  That should not be surprising.  He lacks the relevant experience.  It takes a lot of experience to know when to attack and to be able to tolerate the reality that some people will like you less when you do so.  

Hillary can tolerate being disliked and that may be one of the most important traits of a successful candidate and president.

It's early. Obama has the funds and needs to keep his powder dry somewhat. Only he can be the change candidate in this election. Though HRC recognizes the change theme is powerful in this election (see change campaign signs), she won't get there by virtue of who she is, where's she's been, and the fact that she is overly reliant on Bill's accomplishments as president in the 90's.

Once the Obama camp begins to draw a brighter line on past vs. present and Iraq with HRC, she  will begin to slide. Reminders of Billary and their baggage already in the news with the commutation and pardons is red meat for the right and I don't think Dem primary voters really want to revisit that episode.

Here is a sample from the AP:

AP: Obama Touts Ability to Bring Change

Wednesday July 4, 2007 7:46 PM

By MIKE GLOVER

Associated Press Writer

OSKALOOSA, Iowa (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday that while he thinks highly of former President Clinton, voters weary of Washington-style political wrangling want to avoid ``the same old thing'' as Campaign 2008 unfolds.

``I admire Bill Clinton, I think he did a lot of fine things as president and he's a terrific political strategist,'' the Illinois senator said in an interview with The Associated Press. ``What we're more interested in is in looking forward, not looking backward. I think the American people feel the same way. They are looking for a way to break out of the harsh partisanship and the old arguments and solve problems.''

Obama spoke as the former president stumped across Iowa on behalf of his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. The presence of a former president on the campaign trail was getting heavy attention, and the Clintons were campaigning on a slogan arguing they were best prepared to bring change to the country. Obama dismissed that argument, however, saying he thinks voters are looking to turn the page - and not return to an earlier political era.

``I think I'm in a position to bring about the change that people want,'' said Obama. ``Change can't just be a slogan. Change has to mean that we're not doing the same old thing that we've been doing.''

Obama's critics argue he lacks experience, and Clinton's backers point to her eight years in the White House and her tenure in the Senate as evidence she's qualified to be president. Obama dismissed experience that's rooted in Washington.

``What I know is the kind of experience I have outside of Washington as a community organizer working with families that are struggling, as a constitutional law professor, as a state legislator dealing with the very issues that affect people, people find that experience at least as relevant, maybe more relevant, than experience in Washington.''

In the interview, Obama declined to criticize Clinton directly, however.

``Hillary Clinton is a capable person and an experienced person and she's got a good track record as a senator from New York,'' said Obama, who said his history is one of pushing for change - not building a resume.

``I would not be in this race if I didn't think I had the capacity to bridge divisions along partisan lines, racial lines, religious lines, that was unequaled in the field,'' he said.

Obama cemented his status in the top tier of the Democratic field last weekend when he reported record fundraising of more than $32 million. But he declined in the interview to label the race a two-person battle with Clinton.

``What I'm confident about is, we're going to be able to run a very competitive campaign, we've got the resources to do it, we've got the volunteer base to do it and we've got the right message,'' said Obama.

He said the attention given his fundraising prowess overshadows the organizational strength he's developed.

``Obviously it's going to be hard-fought race,'' said Obama. ``It's not going to be just one or two candidates who are competitive. I think you still have a very strong field and it's still very early.''

Obama said that more important than the amount of money he raised was the 250,000-strong donor base that he's built.

``We've got the kind of support that can be sustained over a long period of time,'' said Obama. ``We are a change-based campaign, we are a grassroots based campaign. That kind of energy and excitement on the ground, I think that translates into votes in what I think could be a close race.''

Obama was joined by his wife, Michelle, and two small children on the campaign trail, moving through a long series of colorful Independence Day events, standing on front porches and munching barbecues.

``This is the family weekend for us,'' Mrs. Obama said, as the family loaded up into a recreational vehicle heading for another campaign stop. ``Family is first.''

In a brief meeting with reporters, Obama dismissed comments earlier in the day by President Bush, who warned against moving quickly to pull troops out of Iraq.

``The president has stubbornly denied the facts on the ground there for a long time,'' said Obama. ``That's not what that the American people are looking for.''

One flaw with your analysis.

Obama is NOT as well known in NH and IA as your post would suggest.

Name ID is one thing.

Depth of knowledge is another.

I would like to see Senator Barack Obama mention and support more international affairs.  Problems like global poverty are affecting each and every one of us on a daily basis.  The U.S should not forget the commitment made towards the U.N. Millennium Goals (a pact of ending extreme world hunger by the year 2025) in 2000. According to The Borgen Project, an annual $19 billion dollars is needed to end world hunger by the year 2025. To my sense, it is almost unacceptable to have spent so far more than $340 billion in Iraq only, when we have more than war immunities to change the world and eliminate poverty.