Although I have criticized most every serious candidate in this campaign — and Barack Obama more than most (as the candidate getting the most media coverage) – I do share Rich Lowry’s congratulations for Obama:
Even if we’re going to hear it over and over, it’s trueâ€â€this is a historic moment. That an African-American has a better than even chance to be the next president of the United States is an amazing thingâ€â€and heartening about this country’s capacity for progress. Also, on a more mundane level, Obama out-campaigned, out-fundraised, out-strategized, out-classed, andâ€â€yesâ€â€out-spun the Clintons. What a campaign. He and his team should be very proud.
In an update, Lowry credits Pete Wehner, former deputy assistant to Pres. Bush, with making the key points in December 2007:
At the outset of the campaign, Obama neutralized what were thought to be the two great advantages of Hillary Clinton: fundraising and organization. Once Obama had achieved a level playing field there, the race would be decided on who is the better candidate. And in my estimation, it’s not a close call: Obama is a far more impressive (even if more inexperienced) political talent.
As someone who has consistently stressed the importance of organization to campaigns — and Obama’s edge over Clinton in this regard — I would go further now on the issue of fundraising.  That Obama was at least competitive with Clinton in fundraising in 2007 also had much to do with organization. Many people know that Obama built on the online efforts pioneered by (ironically) John McCain and (unironically) Howard Dean to organize a vast pool of small donors and volunteers. But that is only part of the story.
In December 2006, Obama went to NYC, where he wooed George Soros and heavy-hitting Democratic fund-raisers who had backed John F. Kerry in 2004, but were were officially uncommitted for 2008:
Within ten days, Obama had announced his intention to run and Clinton was officially in. A story in the Times reported that Obama had nailed two A-list New York donors: Soros and Wolf. But though Soros’s backing was a symbolic coup, it’s Wolf who has emerged as Obama’s most copious cash collector in the city so farâ€â€hosting two high-dollar cocktail parties, making countless calls, harvesting more than $500,000.
Wolf is now the CEO of UBS Americas. Swiss banking giant UBS has written off more debt from the subprime mortgage crisis than any other bank; a number of Obama’s top bundlers are with firms mired in that mess. Such bundlers raised at least 22 percent of Obama’s money during the first half of 2007, because of the hopeyness. But I digress.
As befits the campaign of the one-time community organizer and Alinsky acolyte, by autumn the campaign had rolled out “Obama University,” where top fundraisers trained new bundlers to tap their friends, family and business associates for contributions. By October 2007, Obama already had more than 300 bundlers who had each raised at least $50,000 apiece on his behalf.
As impressive as all of this is, Team Obama also benefitted greatly from the hubris of Team Clinton. As Joshua Green wrote for The Atlantic:
Instead of launching her presidential campaign, even informally, Clinton and [campaign manager Patti] Solis Doyle insisted that no one so much as mention the possibility of a White House bid until after she’d been reelected to the Senateâ€â€a move insiders now concede was a serious tactical flaw that allowed Barack Obama’s campaign to take off unchallenged. The error wasn’t simply letting Obama get a head start in raising money. It was failing to realize that the world of political fund-raising had changed dramatically since Bill Clinton had last run for president, in a way that put a premium on different kinds of fund-raisers than the ones to which the Clintons had ties. Campaign-finance reform had banned the large, six-figure “soft-money†contributions the Clintons once relied on from people like Ron Burkle, Steve Bing, and David Geffen. In their place, small, “hard-money†donations took on far greater importance, and a new generation of fund-raisers able to corral many people to write four-figure checks suddenly became the true prize. But many of themâ€â€people like Mark Gorenberg, Alan Solomont, and Steve Westlyâ€â€were not as well known to the Clintons. “I think of the difference as being between ‘writers’ and ‘raisers,’ †Gorenberg, a venture capitalist who was John Kerry’s biggest fund-raiser in the 2004 election, told me last year. Like Gorenberg, many of the new hard-money fundraisers are tech moguls who hail from a wealth center, Silicon Valley, that barely existed during Bill Clinton’s last run.
With Hillaryland in silent mode, Obama got first crack at those donors. “Not a lot, but some people, were losing sleep about Obama as early as last winter, keeping an eye on his moves and tracking his hires and outreach,†a Clinton insider admitted to me last spring. “There were two reasons nothing happened. First, by admitting he’s a factor, you’re giving him the credibility that you don’t want him to have. Second, everybody thought he would flame out. They didn’t think he could pull a money team and enough talent together to mount a serious challenge.â€Â
Of course, Obama did just that, relying on the new donor class Clinton had ignored.
The Obama then spent the money collected shrewdly, using community organizers to assemble volunteers, particularly in caucus states, with an eye to winning cheap delegates. In contrast, Clinton stuck to the big, expensive states, pouring money into polling, media, consultants, etc. — and not in a well-managed way. Obama’s strategy — strikingly similar to the McGovern campaign of 1972 — was clearly seen to be paying off by Super-Duper Tuesday.ÂÂ
By the following weekend, Obama had an edge of 113 delegates  one which is difficult to erase in a generally proportional method of delegate allocation. By the end of February, Leon Panetta was publicly criticizing Camp Clinton for not creating an efficient ground operation or showing wisdom in deploying its available resources, as well as for having no strategy for a race beyond Super-Duper Tuesday.ÂÂ
The Clinton disorganization sputtered on, but its successes were more the results of favorable demographics in states like Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. — and Clinton’s belated realization of how to appeal the forgotten middle class (as I had suggested in mid-February). But even had they figured it out then, the Democrats’ proportional allocation of delegates had nearly sealed her fate.
In sum, Obama and his team built their campaign’s strategy and tactics around their strengths (organizing, personal charisma) and the Clintons’ weaknesses (arrogance, and the related failure to understand how national campaigns had changed since 1996). There is more to the story than that, of course. Hillary’s vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq was a 10-ton anchor in a Democratic campaign. In a cycle where the public is demanding “change,” the Democratic identity politics of the fresh-faced black candidate trump the woman who carried the old brand of her husband, and so on. But Obama’s charisma and organizational skill explains — as much or more than any other factors — why he (and not the other candidates) became the repository for the NotClinton sentiment quickly enough to obtain critical mass.
Update: The Washington Post has a long story today on the Obama campaign, reporting that after a “wildly successful fundraising blitz, members of his inner circle began… building a new strategy based on message, money and, above all, organization.” The story credits David Axelrod with “the idea that Democrats’ campaigns should revolve more around personality than policy.” And later reports:
“It’s the story that hasn’t been written yet, how Obama did everything right, targeting caucuses, targeting small states, avoiding the showdowns in the big states where he could,” said Bill Ballenger, editor of Inside Michigan Politics, who watched the strategy play out in microcosm in his own state, “and how in the end Clinton did so much so wrong.”
Well, it’s a story that wasn’t written in the estabishment media, anyway.
Even if we’re going to hear it over and over, it’s trueâ€â€this is a historic moment. That an African-American has a better than even chance to be the next president of the United States is an amazing thingâ€â€and heartening about this country’s capacity for progr
But, do you think that’s going to mean anything is so far as race issues? No, see O!’s presidential run revealed how racism is still alive and well in AmeriKKKa. Remember, now we can REALLY start the discussion about race. @@.
It’s nauseating.
See there, you could have been the ever erudite pol and written something similar.
But you didn’t.
If I agreed with more of Obama’s policies, then I would be more excited about his win. As it is I can only manage to be half excited.
I would be excited if Obama had won on the content of his character instead of the color of his skin.
I love the opening statement, though: “Even if we’re going to hear it over and over . . .” the statement is true.
#1: I don’t agree. Everyone is pretty psyched, not resentful. And if he loses, maybe some people will talk about race, but most people will say that this is historic and pretty cool no matter what. The door has been opened. A black president or a woman president is no longer unthinkable. Yeah this whole thing brought out the best and a little of the worst in our natures. But the best totally overshadowed everything: We mostly talked about why we liked or didn’t like these two people and it largely had NOTHING to do with their race or gender. Did we want Kennedyesque inspiration with the downside that there was no experience? Or did we want experience with the downside of having 4-8 more years of the same drama and stress that comes with the Clintons? I think we have done a damned good job as a country. And like I said, McCain is an appealing candidate. He is hardly a dog-whistling dickhead. If he wins it will be because he is appealing to the American people.
You know, I think sometimes when we scan newspapers, cable news shows, blogs etc for interesting stories, we get a skewed view of reality. We think that the cranks screaming about race and gender are much more important than they are. Hell yes people are going to write and talk about how horribly racist and sexist the US is. Yeah, that shit is on people’s minds, especially after this primary. But really, we are not as obsessed with it as the talking heads and the people of the interents think we are.
It is true, and it is one more step towards the fulfillment of a promise. We all tell our children, or I suspect we do, that they can be whatever they want to be when they grow up. It’s a good theory, and I believe it’s true, but all theories need to be proved out or they cease to be good theories.
#4: He did win on the content (or the shiny bullshit patina of “character” that politicians wear). He didn’t win because he is black. Why is it that there is always that diminishing dig? Even if you think he is an absolute Marxist cockboy, he is not some dolt who just wandered into the nomination and was handed a win because America Feels Sorry For Teh Blacks. His campaign was organized, they stayed on message, they seduced the media like champions, and they raised a fuckload of money.
That is why he won. If he loses in the Fall, it will be because he fucked up one or all of those things, not because America Stopped Feeling Sorry For Teh Blacks.
Damn, I said I was going to stay away from these conversations.
Well, Lisa, there’s definitely that.
If there was any serious opposition, he would lose the general. With McCain as the GOP nominee, B. Hussein Obama doesn’t have to work as hard to win. He should probably stay quiet about his policies, and try to burn his Senate voting records, just to be sure.
He should definitely keep M’chelle at home.
I am happy that Obama won, but listening to my coworkers gush on about it is making me want to projectile vomit. Someone was actually weeping as they talked about his speech last night. Get a motherfucking grip, bitches.
My co-workers get really mad when I projectile vomit on them.
And they slayed Her Inevitableness, The Hildabeast. No small feat, that.
O!
Once in a Lifetime
#12: Yeah vomit is an ineffective tool for winning friends and influencing people. But it might be helpful in bringing people out of Obamafugues.
#13: Agreed.
Yeah, but the media is a slut. You don’t really need to seduce her.
I wonder if Hillary is embittered this morning?
Can divorce papers be in her future?
OOPS!!! Sorry, IFU!!!
Once in a Lifetime
…and the days go by.. Same as it ever was.
He didn’t win because he is black…. Even if you think he is an absolute Marxist cockboy, he is not some dolt who just wandered into the nomination and was handed a win because America Feels Sorry For Teh Blacks.
Lisa — everything confirms his win is based on a congregation of guilty upper class [Democrat] white yuppies and 90% of the black vote, preached to by a pro-black media. That translates into “won because he’s black.” I didn’t say he wasn’t well-organized, charismatic, articulate and clean — or even a Marxist cockboy.
some dolt who just wandered into the nomination and was handed a win
That’s how he got to be a U.S. Senator, though.
Even if you
thinkknow he is an absolute Marxist cockboy,The fact that the Democrat’s nomination fight went all the way to June 3 before finding a winner – all the way to the bitter end – tells me that Sen. Obama is in a lot of trouble come the general election. If the Democrats are deeply divided and won’t line up behind a winner just to be on the winning side, then it does not bode well for the independents to line up behind Sen. Obama.
Sen. McCain won the nomination early – clearly he is acceptable to the Republican Party, and I think that bodes well for independents to get behind him.
Lisa,
He won because he’s smarter and tougher than Clinton, because the ACORN/SEIU people know how to work the idiotic caucus system and because the Clinton’s are extraordinarily well hated within their own party, having parked it in a cesspool while Bubba played in the Oval Orifice. Being black was certainly a piece of the puzzle but the takeaway is that it wasn’t a negative which stopped him, not that it was the sole reason for his win.
My weight estimates on the balance scales are:
1)ACORN/SEIU beat the crap out of the NEA organizers – with help from Dean and especially from Brazile.
2) Clinton’s utter putridity
3) The weight of the black bloc in early primaries offsetting the increased turnout by NOW nags.
That said, he’ll be a lot easier to beat in the general than the Horrid Harridan would have been. The ACORN/SEIU benefit doesn’t scale and the location and concentration of the prog fiefs isn’t material to changing weights within the Electoral College. BHO’s commie roots – from red diapers to The Right Racist Reverends Wright and Pfleger are going to finish him off.
Why do upper-class white people have to feel guilty to vote for a black guy? That is a tad specious, dontcha think? I give white people a teensy bit more credit – even the rich dilettantes. And though there some conjecture by other white people as to why any white person would be crazy enough to vote for a black guy, I would not say that that is evidence either.
And please, please, PLEASE refrain from this crazy “negros all vote for their kind” thing. Who do you think black people have been voting for up to this point? Thats right…Teh Crackas! We love you guys. I don’t think it is racist at all that for the FIRST TIME EVER an inspiring, qualified and viable candidate comes along who happens to be black and a whole lot of people get excited to see such an amazing thing. It is unsulting to imply that there is some “black media” that controls the stupid, unthinking minds of Teh Blacks. What black media are you talking about? Snoop Doggy Doggs Fizzle Televizzle? Ahem, we watch the same TV, read the same newspapers, and listen to the same radio that you listen to.
If Obama had sucked, then some other candidate would have gotten those votes. Give us some credit. This is what was discussed yesterday on another thread – the exhausting, frustrating practice of having to explain OVER and OVER again to people that you are not [insert broad, inaccurate assumption based on race here] and that most [insert race, gender, religion that is demeaned by the broad and inaccurate assumption here] are not like that either.
To the extent that they’re racists if they don’t, there’s some validity to it. Which is not to say that it’s true, just that the meme is being peddled hard, designed to create that guilt. And of course, Hill did it too with the sexism bit.
#24: Totally agrees Rick (except for the last part – I think he will be surprisingly challenging to beat – but we will see).
I think his race was definitely a factor in his favor – but not the sole – or even the most important – reason for his success (or we would have had that dreadful Jesse Jackson as dem nominee a long time ago).
Pablo I think the initial smackdown that Obama recieved from the black “establishment” community neutralized that. Hell, if Andrew Young and Julian Bond – very very respectable black people whose asses guilty white liberals kiss regularly – can announce that Hill and Bill are blacker than O! and that black people OWE them their vote, then I count that as the key that would unlock my Chains of White Liberal Guilt.
But, pablo, you are probably right in that the liberal white peeps have been really excited to get “voting for a black guy” as a notch on their “I am so totally hip and down with your struggle” belt.
The day that a key to unlocking the Chains of White Liberal Guilt is available will be the day that there is no monetary incentive to keeping those chains shiny.
Lisa, re: #28, it’s BS either way, but they’re still floating the Bradley effect/Wilder effect stuff, and some touchy feely white folks vote O! just to prove to themselves that they’re not racists. Touchy feely and dumb, but there you have it. Still, it leaves them on the side of JUSTICE, and we all know how good that feels. Way better than guilt.
I gotta run, Lisa, but seeing as how you are a goddess with sugartits:
Why do upper-class white people have to feel guilty to vote for a black guy?
They don’t. The ones who vote in Democratic primaries, however, are a particularly guilt-ridden liberal subset.
And please, please, PLEASE refrain from this crazy “negros all vote for their kind†thing.
I didn’t make that kind of blanket statement. Exit polls show that in these particular primaries, however, “blacks” voted around 90% for Obama.
It is unsulting to imply that there is some “black media†that controls the stupid, unthinking minds of Teh Blacks.
The term I used was “pro-black media” by which I meant the MSM. The bias of the MSM toward Obama has been well-documented at this site and others. I don’t see a higher percentage of “blacks” than whites as stupid and unthinking.
If Obama had sucked, then some other candidate would have gotten those votes. Give us some credit.
I’m not sure who the “us” is, “blacks” or Democrats, but either way it’s relevant to note you are talking about a particular subset who belong to Obama’s party.
This is what was discussed yesterday on another thread – the exhausting, frustrating practice of having to explain OVER and OVER again to people that you are not [insert broad, inaccurate assumption based on race here] and that most [insert race, gender, religion that is demeaned by the broad and inaccurate assumption here] are not like that either.
About 2 months into my Peace Corps service in Kenya, a volunteer from New York said to me (with a straight face), “You know, when I first heard your Southern accent, I thought you had to be a dumb hick, but you’re actually pretty smart.” About a year into my service one of my black friends said something that inadvertantly showed he didn’t see me as a person, but a “white” person (TWP). It’s happened a lot throughout my life, but I’ve found refuge from the bitterness in my guns and religion.
Cheers,
Yes! And then the long ordeal will be OVER, and justice will have been done. Or something like that.
#32: Okay, all excellent points. I think – no, I know – that you are right to an extent. Listening to some of my goofy-assed collegues this morning proves you right on both counts: There are horn-rimmed, hipsterish white people feeling very self satisfied that they have Done Their Bid for the Struggle. And there are black people who think Obama is the bomb-diggity for the same fucked up reason that they think that OJ is innocent (he just is, you motherfucker!).
But I do think that for the most part, he won because he captured us with his hopeyness, he was very well organized, and because the Democratic party has swung left since the Clinton Days and we are very keen to get back to our McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis madness. Yes, I admit it is madness, but it feels so gooooood.
About a year into my service one of my black friends said something that inadvertantly showed he didn’t see me as a person, but a “white†person (TWP). It’s happened a lot throughout my life, but I’ve found refuge from the bitterness in my guns and religion.
It is always so shocking and disappointing, isn’t it? You think “I thought this person knew me better than that…” Funny how easy it is for people to take one ass and project that ass’s traits onto everyone else…but it seems to be very difficult to take the everyday goodness one sees in people and extrapolate THAT onto everyone else.
Baracky never bugged me to the extent that he does now until the typical white person remark, followed shortly thereafter by throwing all of the people that had ever influenced his life under the back of the bus.
JD – I denounce you for writing “Obama” and “back of the bus” in the same sentence. Racist.
LOL. Thrown under the BACK of the bus? That takes mad skillz.
I think the important thing to take away from this thread is that Obama is an absolute Marxist cockboy.
And all the brilliant campaigning in the world won’t save a candidate from the absolute morass of Dumb Shit that Obama has stepped in without about $2 Billion in in-kind donations from the MSM, which has covered for him in a manner reminiscent of a Kennedy publicist.
That the Democrats would put forward a candidate with such a history of well-documented close association with bigots and terrorists, and who has a tongue with no mind of its own, just shows what having a pliant press corps dows to your critical thinking skills.
Other than that, I think Obama’s a loser, and I don’t give a rat’s ass how swarthy he is.
Having a pliant press corps takes skills. Why do you think that people employ armies of publicists, public relations experts, communications secretaries, etc., etc.? Because working the press is pure artistry. Ask Karl Rove, Dana Perrino, or any politician – especially John McCain. He is completely masterful with the press. Having a friendly press does not happen by accident. It happens because one is working their ass off to make it so – and only the best succeed at that game.
[…] Protein Wisdom – And you may ask yourself, “How did I get here?†[…]
Karl, with regard to the update I have a question – What is worse? To have a lousy candidate picked by winner-take-all primaries, or to have a convoluted system that leads to gaming the system more than actual campaigning?
My opinion is the latter is worse because of the stresses it puts on a coalition party before the general election through the possibility of a drawn-out nomination progress. Now the Democrats have five months (three months to Labor Day and the start of the real sprint) to cool the passions and patch things together when attention should be paid to campaign strategy for the sprint.
“But Olbermann said,. . .Phil Gramm
. . .evil. . .McCain. . .arrested”
Never mind, consistency, hobglobin.
[…] which is ironic given how the Democratic primary began (but didn’t end) as a contest between Clinton and NotClinton. How does McCain change that dynamic? Step one, let’s stipulate, involves not ripping off the […]
[…] leaves Obama’s organizational skill, which I have praised before — though not without noting that his campaign was seeded with venture capital from […]
It´s a very good website you have here,