January 17, 2007
What Will Be Obama's Campaign StrategyThe recent formation of Barack Obama's presidential exploratory committee has many people speculating about his electability due to his apparent inexperience, and lack of a record.
His inexperience speaks for itself, and I wouldn't bank on his electability either. But, since he is most recent Democrat to officially declare his potential candidacy, and the media eating it up, it's a good time to ask these questions.
The question I plan to ask (and offer an answer to) now, is what Obama's campaign strategy will be. What would be his strategy? As a resident and voter in Massachusetts, I witnessed firsthand Deval Patrick's successful quest for governor. Based on what we've seen so far, I believe that Barack Obama's potential presidential campaign will be in the mold of Deval Patrick's.
Deval Patrick's campaign was full of platitudes and rhetoric about "hope." His campaign slogan, "Together We Can," became the instant response to tough questions about how he planned to accomplish his expensive plans for the state. Deval Patrick also ran as an outsider who would allegedly reach out to both parties in order to get things done. He probably campaigned just as much against "politics as usual" as he did against his Republican opponent, Kerry Healey. Meanwhile, those of us who back Healey were instinctually branded racists for not backing Patrick. His race, combined with his "message of hope," made him the "feel-good-about-yourself" candidate. I can't tell you how many stories I heard of Healey supporters who asked Patrick supporters why they were voting for him, and got some fluffy response about how good his "together we can" message made them feel.
And we're already starting to see Barack Obama do the same thing Deval Patrick did, as is evident by the welcome message on Obama's exploratory committee website. He says, "I've been struck by how hungry we all are for a different kind of politics." And that "we have to change our politics, and come together around our common interests and concerns as Americans," and laments the partisanship that exists today and how "our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common sense way." Fluff, not substance.
In the end, what does that mean? Just as Deval Patrick is now learning that "together we can" doesn't balance the budget or pay for all the ridiculous programs he wants to introduce to my state, Barack Obama's fluffed-up message about changing politics doesn't hide his inexperience or lack of a record.
PREVIOUS: Barack Hussein Obama: The Feel-Good-About-Yourself Candidate
UPDATE: I'll be on BBC Radio this afternoon to discuss Obama.
Posted by Matt Margolis on January 17, 2007 11:09 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/majority.cgi/4599
Comments
Let me guess this straight... Obama's candidacy is "laughable" because of his lack of experience. But you're endorsing a guy who has never served in Washington and only served 4 years as an elected official (Governor of Mass).
Obama will also have served 4 years as an elected official IN WASHINGTON by the time he would become president. This after 6 years as a state senator.
I'll also assume your voted for Romney as governor, despite the fact that he had never been elected to political office prior.
Something's laughable here, and it's not Obama's candidacy.
The must be really scared of Obama...
Posted by: Tom Shipley ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.gopbloggers.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 17, 2007 01:44 PM
I love how liberals always claim (without fail) that anytime one of their own is criticized it's because of fear...
come on down from your high horse!
personally, I don't know much about Romney or what kind of governor he is, but his four years as governor of Taxachusetts is more substantial than Obama's two years as a Senator. let's see.. a head of state vs. a glorified fundraiser and commencement speaker? no contest!
Posted by: KCJ at January 17, 2007 03:34 PM
KCJ,
I say he fears Obama for a couple reasons:
1. The amount that has been written trying to diminish Obama as a serious presidential candidate. He's not going after him because he doesn't think he can be a serious contender.
2. The fact that his main argument used, and the basis of Matt calling Obama's campaign "laughable", is lack of experience. And the man Matt backs for president has LESS political experience than Obama... and zero time spent serving in Washington DC.
Now, I'm not saying being governor is not good experience. I'm sure it is. But any reasonable person will look at the experience of both men and conclude they are relatively green. But one not dramatically more so than the other.
Obama was also a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago prior to entering politics. Personally, I think having an expertise in our nation's constitution looks pretty good for on presidential candidate's presidency.
Fact is, Matt is endorsing a candidate who has less political experience and arguably is less qualified to be president than Obama.
And Matt, did you vote for Romney for governor when he had zero political experience (save for 1 losing senate campaign)?
Posted by: Tom Shipley at January 17, 2007 03:57 PM
The thing about not having much of a legislative record is that there's less fodder to attack.
This worked to W's advantage in 2000.
Obama, I think, is wise to be taking his shot at the White House now. I doubt his chances will ever be better, so it makes perfect sense. He has the buzz, women think he's hot, he's been showcased by his party over and over, he has amazing national name recognition, and his record is short enough that there's very little to criticize.
I believe Obama makes a very formidable candidate, able to attract votes from the middle. His opponents should not underestimate him or his ability to draw in voters. In spite of assertions to the contrary, he's no lightweight. Painting him as one is a perilous exercise.
Behind closed doors, I'm sure that Hillary's team is crapping their pants over this. Romney/Gingrich/McCain/etc should be similarly concerned.
Posted by: Dr. M at January 17, 2007 05:00 PM
Post a comment
