Dear Sen. Obama,
I applaud the fact that you took the opportunity at the CNN debate of Jan. 22 and on Good Morning America, as aired on the same day, to call the Clintons on their volley of lies. (Note: I will henceforth refer to Hillary as "The Clintons" since there are two candidates on that side.)
However, I don't think it is a good idea to insert any of this in a set of prepared remarks, as those made for your speech on Recent Economic Developments.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/CGC7v
In that speech, you rightly call Clinton on the fact that she copied aspects of your economic stimulus package --just as she has attempted to plagiarize countless aspects of your campaign--, that she triangulated by condemning a bankruptcy bill she voted for, and that she flip-flopped on the merits of NAFTA.However, this is not the appropriate context for such observations. Criticisms of the opposing campaign properly belong in statements to the press and debates or in remarks by your surrogates - not in formal policy messages to voters, particularly on the anxiety-producing subject of the economy at a time of brewing crisis.
Remember: the voters have to come hear YOU - not a debate. To be sure, you can answer questions about the Clinton campaign they may ask later on, but the opposition should not be part of your introduction to an audience. Do NOT let the Clintons get under your skin. Do not build a Clinton theme wall into your speeches, where it can grow into overhanging moss, casting its rolling, spidery mess over the cheers and joy of your campaign. Do not let those two narcissists creep into the texts of your stump speeches, the hallways of your rallies, the faces of enthusiastic voters. Vanquish the Clinton shadow when you are on your own.
You are clearly and rightfully very angry with them for their lies and manipulation, their breathtaking addiction to fairy tales - which they spin all too well, not you - but do not let the voters see that in your conversations with them. You are distressed (as we all are) but if you overdo the rebuttals, you will lose your focus - something unusual in such a visionary as you. Here is a reality check; do not lose sight of the final goal.
These written remarks are a disappointment coming from you. They make you look like a regular politician, injecting "mud" into policy. You are clear in describing the economic situation but are vague in enumerating your SPECIFIC remedies. Instead of taking three paragraphs to carefully outline numbers and allocations and beneficiaries, you have used up that same amount of space to debunk your opponent without explaining to us more specifically why you are the best steward of our economy. We want what is INSIDE the package - not a pronunciation on who wrapped it first. It would be naive to not respond to the Clintons, and you rightly have. However, after last night's food fight, the public needs time to recover, and so do you.
You are attempting to fight a war on two flanks, but as Hitler's example shows (I apologize for the use of Hitler in this example, but I am describing a military strategy), you cannot expect to conquer east and west, when east and west are joined as allies. You therefore need TARGETED attacks. An army of two is larger than an army of one, so you will never match the Clintons in brute force. Your only option, then, is to play the tactician. Use your weaponry effectively but sparingly. I was happy to hear Tom Daschle quoted as saying that President Clinton's volley of lies (the hysterical rantings of a narcissist whose chief ambition is not to get his wife elected but to defend his own legacy) was not presidential behavior. That is good. Let Daschle or Plouffe or others do most of the talking for you on that.
The Clintons can make anyone’s life miserable. However, when telling voters how an Obama presidency can improve THEIR lives, do not mention your own.
Here is what I think will happen as of this writing, from here to the Democratic convention in August.
To begin with, I forecast that Sen. Obama is MORE LIKELY to become the democratic nominee than Sen. Hillary Clinton. His chances are above 50 percent, although I am not ready to predict the exact probability. Challenging as the nomination process is, though, I am confident in predicting, with 100 percent certainty, that if Obama comes out on top, he will win the presidency. There is not doubt in my mind about that.
The second point of importance is that this nomination race will go on until the very end, and superdelegates are likely to play a more important role than in the past. I would not be terribly surprised if the ultimate outcome was decided at the convention itself, so fasten your seatbelts, because we have a long ride ahead of us.
Hillary will win the Nevada caucus (Jan. 20). We have a large organization there, but she is better known, has the support of the democratic establishment, and the Obama campaign has been putting less effort into that state than in others. (A telling sign of this was that he made a visit to California earlier this week, right in the heat of the Nevada contest.) He has the support of the Culinary Workers' Union, but union members are under no obligation to follow the leadership's recommendation. This RELATIVE lack of involvement by the campaign may be the result of a strategy - which I consider wise - to emphasize other states. The campaign, like those of the oppostion, has to pick its battles.
Obama will score a commanding win in South Carolina (Jan. 26), adding momentum to his campaign as he enters the Feb. 5 contests. Black voters have been buoyed by his support amongst whites in Iowa; a loss in Nevada, which has a high Latino population, will probably mean less to them as they examine Obama's electability. Blacks' chief concern in assessing Obama's viability as a nominee concerns the white vote.
On Feb. 5th, and going forward, Obama is likely to score many victories in heavily black southern states like Georgia (Feb. 5), where he has strong support and also in "red" states, where his organization is very strong and where he has received some key superdelegate endorsements. The other reason for his good performance in red states is because Hillary attracts fewer independents and republicans. However, we may face another challenge in McCain, who also has crossover appeal, albeit to a lesser extent than Our Candidate (But, as a nominee, McCain will be the hardest republican to beat because he is also an independent-minded maverick; however, the similarities end there).
Hillary is generally stronger in the large states and the Southwest, whereas Obama is strongest in the interior and the South. I predict that we will win a larger number of relatively smaller states; added together, they are likely to secure our victory.
Here are some thoughts on a few other states:
--In the South, Alabama (Feb. 5) and Tennessee (Feb. 5) are likely to be ours.--We could very well win Kansas (Feb. 5), where a lot of state legislators have endorsed Obama (politicians being opportunists, these endorsements likely reflect the feeling among that state's democrats).--We may also win Minnesota (Feb. 5), Colorado (Feb. 5), Oregon (May 20), South Dakota (June. 3), Wisconsin (Feb. 19), Alaska (Feb. 5), D.C. (Feb. 12), Hawaii (Feb. 19) and, of course, Illinois (Feb. 5), by a mile.--California, being a Feb. 5th state, is likely to go to Hillary in general, but since that state's delegates are allotted in proportion to a candidate's win, we will gain much because we will swipe a significant number of delegates and SUPERdelegates who have endorsed Obama. Albeit to a lesser extent than California, we will also win the backing of some delegates in New York (Feb. 5), which also apportions its delegates in proportion to the vote.--I have no idea or opinion on what will happen in Texas (March 4), with its 228 delegates; we will know more in the next few weeks.--Hillary win will New Jersey (Feb. 5) and Pennsylvania (April 22), although her margin of victory in the former will be embarrassingly small.--Finally, I predict that we will do very well in New England. States like Massachusetts (Feb. 5) and Vermont (March 4) are likely to go Obama's way.
--In the South, Alabama (Feb. 5) and Tennessee (Feb. 5) are likely to be ours.
--We could very well win Kansas (Feb. 5), where a lot of state legislators have endorsed Obama (politicians being opportunists, these endorsements likely reflect the feeling among that state's democrats).
--We may also win Minnesota (Feb. 5), Colorado (Feb. 5), Oregon (May 20), South Dakota (June. 3), Wisconsin (Feb. 19), Alaska (Feb. 5), D.C. (Feb. 12), Hawaii (Feb. 19) and, of course, Illinois (Feb. 5), by a mile.
--California, being a Feb. 5th state, is likely to go to Hillary in general, but since that state's delegates are allotted in proportion to a candidate's win, we will gain much because we will swipe a significant number of delegates and SUPERdelegates who have endorsed Obama. Albeit to a lesser extent than California, we will also win the backing of some delegates in New York (Feb. 5), which also apportions its delegates in proportion to the vote.
--I have no idea or opinion on what will happen in Texas (March 4), with its 228 delegates; we will know more in the next few weeks.
--Hillary win will New Jersey (Feb. 5) and Pennsylvania (April 22), although her margin of victory in the former will be embarrassingly small.
--Finally, I predict that we will do very well in New England. States like Massachusetts (Feb. 5) and Vermont (March 4) are likely to go Obama's way.
So what do the rest of you think?
I have compiled some basic information on how the democratic caucus works in Nevada. Please feel free to comment or add additional information:
Who is eligible to Vote?
All participants must be Democrats registered to vote in the precinct. A list of registered Democrats will be available at the caucuses. If you are not on the list and are not registered to vote, you will be able to register as a Democrat at the caucus.
• Seventeen-year-olds, who will be 18 by the general election on November 4, 2008, will be allowed to fully participate. They will be required to fill out a voter registration card and register as a Democrat if they have not done so already. • Participants may register to vote at the caucus. Republicans, nonpartisans and others can change registration to become a Democrat that day.
Source: Nevada Democratic Party
When will the voting take place?
On January 19, arrive by 11:00 am to register.
How does the caucus process work?
There are 33 delegates at stake. Here is how the Nevada Democratic party translates votes into delegates:
-- For caucuses which elect one (1) delegate: No groups may form, the delegate must be elected by the whole caucus
-- For caucuses which elect two (2) delegates: Viable groups must contain 25% of attendees (# eligible attendees X .25)
-- For caucuses which elect three (3) delegates: Viable groups must contain 1/6th of attendees (# eligible attendees, divided by 6)
-- For caucuses which elect four (4) or more delegates: Viable groups must contain 15% of attendees (# eligible attendees X .15)
Caucus participants will indicate which candidate they support. The precinct caucus chair will then announce which candidates have the most support and which candidates do not have enough support to meet the “viability” threshold. Caucus participants who support a candidate who is not viable and has not met the threshold of support to continue will then realign themselves with their second choice candidate. Based on the size of the presidential preference groups in support of one candidate or another, the delegates to the county convention are apportioned.
Source: Office of the Nevada Secretary of State
How are delegates apportioned?
Party caucuses meet in each precinct to choose delegates to county conventions. The delegates selected are not bound to any candidate. At the county conventions on Feb. 23, delegates to the state convention are chosen.
Friday 18 April - Sunday 20 April 2008: The Nevada State Democratic Convention convenes. On Saturday 19 April 2008, the State Convention chooses 25 of Nevada's 33 delegates to the Democratic National Convention.
Sixteen district delegates are to be allocated proportionally to presidential contenders based on the support among the delegates to the State Convention from each of the State's 3 congressional districts.
Congressional District 1: 6
Congressional District 2: 6 (Washoe 3, Rural Counties 1, Clark 2)
Congressional District 3: 4
In addition, 9 delegates are to be allocated to presidential contenders based on the support among the delegates to the State Convention as a whole.
The remaining 8 National Convention delegates consist of
These 8 delegates and will go to the Democratic National Convention officially "Unpledged".
Source: The New York Times, The Nevada Democratic Party, Thegreenpapers.com
IOWA *
Date of voting: Jan. 3
Type of election: Closed Caucus
Deadline for registration: Can register at the caucus site
Who can vote for Obama? Democrats only
Deadline for changing parties: At the Caucus site
Caucus begins: 6:30 PM
Number of delegates: Pledged: 45 Not pledged: 11
MICHIGAN **
Date of Voting: Jaunary 15
Type of election: Proportional Modified Primary
Deadline for registration: 30 days before election date
Who can vote for Obama? Democrats and those registered to vote but NOT REGISTERED with a political party
Deadline for changing parties: At the voting booth
Number of delegates: 128 Pledged: 128 Not pledged: 29
NEVADA
Date of voting: January 19
Doors open: 11: AM
Deadline for registration: At Caucus site
Who can vote for Obama? Registered Democrats
Deadline for changing parties: ????
Number of delegates: 25 Pledged: 25 Not pledged: 8
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Date of voting: January 8
Deadline for registration: Meet with the Supervisors of the Checklist no later than the day prior to the filing period for the Presidential Primary
October 12, 2007): This is the last day you can change your party affiliation before the Presidential Primary.
Who can vote for Obama? Democrats and “undeclared” voters, BUT undeclared voters MUST declare that they will vote democrat at the polling booth.
Deadline for changing parties: October 12, 2007
Number of delegates: 22 Pledged: 22 Not pledged: 8
SOUTH CAROLINA
Date of voting: January 26
Type of election: Proportional Open Primary
Deadline for registration: 30 days before the primaries
Who can vote for Obama? “Participation is open to all voters who wish to participate as Democrats. All voters in the primary and all participants in the precinct meetings and caucuses shall sign the following statement prior to voting: "I do solemnly swear or affirm that I am a registered voter of this precinct, I consider myself to be a Democrat, and I have not participated in the 2008 Presidential nominating process of any other political party".”
Deadline for changing parties: (see above)
Number of delegates: 45 Pledged: 45 Not pledged: 9
FLORIDA †
Date of voting: January 29
Type of election: Proportional Closed Primary
Deadline for registration: 29 days before the election
Who can vote for Obama? Only registered democrats
Deadline for changing parties:????
Number of delegates: 185 Pledged: 185 Not pledged: 25
FEBRUARY 5 STATES
ALABAMA
Deadline for registration: ?????
Who can vote for Obama? Open – any party
Deadline for changing parties: N/A
Number of delegates: 52 Pledged: 52 Not pledged: 8
ALASKA
Type of election: Closed Caucus – 5:30 PM – 7:30 PM
Deadline for registration: between now and February 5, and to change parties
Who can vote for Obama? Democrats
Deadline for changing parties????
Number of delegates: 13 Pledged: 13 Not pledged: 5
ARIZONA
Deadline for registration: January 7
Deadline for changing parties December 17
Number of delegates: 56 Pledged: 56 Not pledged: 11
ARKANSAS
Deadline for registration: 30 days before the election
Who can vote for Obama? Open to all parties
Deadline for changing parties ?????
Number of delegates: 35 Pledged: 35 Not pledged: 12
CALIFORNIA
Deadline for registration: January 22
Deadline for changing parties: January 22
Number of delegates: 370 Pledged: 370 Not pledged: 71
COLORADO
Deadline for changing parties: December 5 (“to affiliate with a political party”)
Number of delegates: 55 Pledged: 55 Not pledged: 16
CONNECTICUT
Deadline for registration: By mail: January 31 (for new and unaffiliated voters to choose a party); in person: February 4
Deadline for changing parties: November 5, 2007
Number of delegates: 48 Pledged: 48 Not pledged: 13
DELAWARE
Type of election: Closed/Proportional Primary
Deadline for registration: January 12
Deadline for changing parties: October 31, 2007
Number of delegates: 15 Pledged: 15 Not pledged: 8
GEORGIA
Who can vote for Obama? Any party
Number of delegates: 87 Pledged: 87 Not pledged: 17
IDAHO ††
Type of election: Open Caucus
Deadline for registration: January 12 or on Election Day
Deadline for changing parties N/A
Number of delegates: 18 Pledged: 18 Not pledged: 5
ILLINOIS
Type of election: Open Proportional Primary
Deadline for registration: January 8 (grace periods follow)
Number of delegates: 153 Pledged: 153 Not pledged: 32
KANSAS
Deadline for registration: ????
Number of delegates: 32 Pledged: 32 Not pledged: 8
MINNESOTA
Number of delegates: 72 Pledged: 72 Not pledged: 16
MISSOURI
Type of election: Proportionate Primary
Deadline for registration: January 9
Who can vote for Obama? Any Party
NEW JERSEY
Deadline for registration: January 15
Deadline for changing parties: December 17
Number of delegates: 107 Pledged: 107 Not pledged: 20
NEW MEXICO
Type of election: Closed Caucus – Noon – 7:00 PM
Deadline for registration: January 4
Deadline for changing parties: January 4
Number of delegates: 26 Pledged: 26 Not pledged: 12
NEW YORK
Type of election: Closed Proportional Primary/ “Dual” Primary (delegates run too)
Deadline for registration: January 18
Number of delegates: 232 Pledged: 232 Not pledged: 48
NORTH CAROLINA
Type of election: Proportional/Modified Primary
Deadline for registration:
Deadline for changing parties ????
Number of delegates: 91 Pledged: 91 Not pledged: 19
NORTH DAKOTA
Deadline for registration? ????
Deadline for changing parties: N/A Number of delegates: 13 Pledged: 13 Not pledged: 8
OKLAHOMA
Deadline for registration: January 11
Deadline for changing parties: Not allowed only from June through August of an even numbered year (otherwise, presumably, allowed.).
Number of delegates: 38 Pledged: 38 Not pledged: 9
RHODE ISLAND
Deadline for changing parties: also 30 days before the election
Number of delegates: 21 Pledged: 21 Not pledged: 11
TENNESSEE
Type of election: Proportional/Open Primary
Number of delegates: 68 Pledged: 68 Not pledged: 17
UTAH
Deadline for registration: January 7 (by mail) and January 29 (in person)
Number of delegates: 23 Pledged: 23 Not pledged: 6
Sources: The New York Times, The Green Papers, Rock the Vote, various states' Election websites (many of which were sorely lacking in the most basic information), and some Democratic Party websites.
Here is a letter that Sen. Obama is circulating - or was circulating until Wednesday, November 14th, around the Senate for signatures.
The Honorable Max Baucus
Chairman
Senate Committee on Finance
219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Chairman Baucus:
We write to express our support for protecting recipients of the refundable Child Credit as part of upcoming tax legislation. The credit is important anti-poverty and pro-work tax policy that improves the fairness of the tax code and directs tax relief to children in low-income working families. Significant improvements to the credit were included in H.R. 3996, which was recently reported out of the House Ways and Means Committee. We hope the Senate will follow suit and address the pressing problems with the refundable Child Credit in a fiscally responsible way.
The Child Credit recognizes that raising children is expensive. Whether it is paying for child care, clothing, food, school supplies, or even health care, many working families struggle every month just to make ends meet. Unfortunately, as you know, the current structure of the Child Credit excludes more and more families from the benefit each year. That's because it indexes the income eligibility threshold for inflation, meaning that when low-income families see their incomes stagnate - as many have for the last few years - they also lose part or all of the Child Credit. (The credit is refundable to the extent of 15% of the taxpayer’s earned income in excess of the income threshold.) Thus, just as inflation pushes more and more families onto the Alternative Minimum Tax, it also eliminates or reduces many low-income families’ child tax benefit. If Congress takes no action, it is estimated that over 6 million children in working-poor families will get no benefit from the credit in 2008 because their families’ incomes are too low.
The provision that passed out of the House Ways and Means Committee will lower the income eligibility threshold from approximately $12,050 to $8,500 in 2008, a level low enough to ensure that all families with children that have a full-time minimum wage worker can receive a meaningful benefit (though still not the full credit) . It is estimated that this change would help about 13 million children, all of whom have working parents, and all of whom are low-income. At a time when so many American families are struggling, expanding the refundable Child Credit should be a priority.
We urge you to include a similar provision in any Senate tax bill as a step in addressing the broader goal of equal opportunity for all. If your staff has any questions please have them contact Ian Solomon of Senator Obama’s office at 224-2854.
Sincerely,
In his new blog, Conscience of a Liberal, Paul Krugman, the economics columnist of The New York Times, is critical of what he alleges is Obama's decision to make Social Security a "centerpiece of his campaign," arguing that it is a "bad omen" that Our Candidate may, after all, be anxious to please the Beltway.
Krugman is one of my favourite columnists but I find his argument both inaccurate and misguided, and I wish he had expanded on it so that I could better assess it. If there is one policy-specific centerpiece of Obama's campaign THUS FAR, it is foreign policy. On the domestic front, it is government transparency. Philosophically, it is an end to polarization. Indeed, beyond calling for an increase in the level of income subject to Social Security taxes, he really hasn't said very much about the program. Thus far, the Social Security debate among democrats has been shallow in substance but dense in politics because it has been taken up by the dispute over Hillary's unwillingness to commit to any proposal.
To post a comment on Krugman's blog, here is the link:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
Some other thoughts:
1) If anything, I wish Our Candidate would propose a more detailed plan on Social Security; I look forward to having him do so soon. Raising the income level subject to tax is a good step in bringing some equity in the general taxation system, but Obama does not address the real threats to entitlement programs, which, as Krugman correctly notes, is the cost of healthcare (and, by extension, Medicare, which really is in fiscal crisis).
2) Krugman implies that talking about Social Security amounts to caving in to President Bush's insistence on bringing up the subject in 2005 and labeling it a "crisis" which required urgent action in the form of partial privatization (read: destruction). Actually, Social Security has long been a program of both discussion and tweaking by policymakers, and that is how that venerable, beloved program has survived the trials and tribulations in its more than 70 years of existence. The last major reforms were in 1982, when a bipartisan commission (headed by none other than Alan Greenspan) adopted some changes - most a gradual increase in the retirement age needed to claim full benefits - so as to ensure the solvency of the system.
3) If anything, it is Krugman who is unwittingly letting the privatizers hijack the debate, for he is assuming that Obama's discussion amounts to political capitulation. That is neither true, nor does it have to be. Just as Obama has suggested that the GOP does not have a monopoly over the so-called values debate, Krugman should not assume that attempts by Obama –or any other democratic candidate- to discuss Social Security amount to political surrender.
Between Nov. 10 and Nov. 11, I set out to collect information about the party affilliation of diehard Obama supporters. The questions were posted on the main blogs run by the campaign, and I chose a period in which there would be higher-than-normal traffic of posters and lurkers so as to generate the highest possible number of responses. The occasion was the Jefferson-Jackson dinner, a marquee democratic fundraising event in Iowa which took place on November 10 and which generated great interest among Obama supporters.
My objective in this poll was to answer the question: is Sen. Barack Obama truly a candidate whose appeal cuts across party lines? By implication, then, how likely is he to win the White House if he becomes the Democratic Party nominee?
And the answers are a resounding YES, and VERY LIKELY.
First, here is the question I asked:
Which one of these best describes your political/ideological affiliation?1) Liberal/Liberal Democrat2) Centrist Democrat3) Conservative Democrat4) Moderate Republican5) Conservative/Conservative Republican6) Independent7) Libertarian8) Green/Other
By the numbers:
--104 of you responded;
--Together, those in the center of the spectrum -- identified as Centrist Democrats, Conservative Democrats and Moderate Republicans – comprised the largest pool of respondents, at 34.6%;
--The second-largest number of respondents – 30.7 % -- described themselves as Independents;
--Liberals or Liberal Democrats comprised 27.8 percent of respondents;
--There was one respondent identifying himself as a Conservative Republican, another said he was Libertarian, and five -- or 4.8 % -- identified themselves as “Green/Other, and
--Respondents who said they were independents were slightly more likely to describe themselves as ideologically conservative-turned –Democrat just for Obama than to say they were left-leaning. Other self-described Independents said they were ideologically eclectic, likely to vote on different sides of the aisle depending on the type of issue in question.
Some salient points:
--This is NOT a scientific poll; however, each of you only got to vote only once;
--You are all Obama supporters because you visited his web site to complete this mini-poll;
--The vast majority of those who responded are names that have posted here with some frequency, meaning that a vast majority of these responses most certainly describe definite Obama voters, and
--Trolls are not a factor because it is hard to sabotage a poll in which no answer helps or undermines Obama.
Dear HQ: Let me share with you a proposal I just posted on the main blog. This website is getting HUGE and, IMO, its features must be improved to reflect that growth. Here are a few suggestions. We are growing like wildfire and we have to get organized:
--Add bandwidth. This is the only website that I have trouble with consistently in the form of "cannot find server" messages or freezing of the screens. This, despite my excellent high-speed connection.--Add a search engine. This website is getting huge!--Have campaign staffers and volunteers offer their own live feeds of events such as speeches so that we don't have to wait for the MSM to use them. We not only want the speech but, also, the crowd's reaction.--Introduce more features in the text such as spell check, bold, italics, etc....--Add a feature that enables us to cut and paste text or images from Word, Exel, etc... or other websites into our own blogposts--Change the script! Those of us with myopia AND astigmatism AND a lazy eye need some help and understanding. Is this Arial 10 pt.? A bit too small. Times New Roman, Garmond or Arial at 11-12 pts. would be much easier to both read and edit. I am not joking when I say that you could attract more seniors tis way. As for me and other lifelong bats, we would be more likely to read the long posts.--Increase the size of the text in the comment title to at LEAST 12 pts., so that people are more readily aware of what the person wants to say--Create a video-specific archive of MAIN speeches. Barack TV should also be updated more frequently.--A video archive of television ads--An archive of morning clips, organized by news outlet or subject matter or date
--Add bandwidth. This is the only website that I have trouble with consistently in the form of "cannot find server" messages or freezing of the screens. This, despite my excellent high-speed connection.
--Add a search engine. This website is getting huge!
--Have campaign staffers and volunteers offer their own live feeds of events such as speeches so that we don't have to wait for the MSM to use them. We not only want the speech but, also, the crowd's reaction.
--Introduce more features in the text such as spell check, bold, italics, etc....
--Add a feature that enables us to cut and paste text or images from Word, Exel, etc... or other websites into our own blogposts
--Change the script! Those of us with myopia AND astigmatism AND a lazy eye need some help and understanding. Is this Arial 10 pt.? A bit too small. Times New Roman, Garmond or Arial at 11-12 pts. would be much easier to both read and edit. I am not joking when I say that you could attract more seniors tis way. As for me and other lifelong bats, we would be more likely to read the long posts.
--Increase the size of the text in the comment title to at LEAST 12 pts., so that people are more readily aware of what the person wants to say
--Create a video-specific archive of MAIN speeches. Barack TV should also be updated more frequently.
--A video archive of television ads
--An archive of morning clips, organized by news outlet or subject matter or date
It is my fear that if changes like these are not made quickly, the website will be unmanageable once the primary season kicks in and millions begin to visit www.barackobama.com every day.
Madison Avenue can surely do better for Our Candidate, particularly for what it costs to run an advertisement.
The ads are forgettable, spineless, amateurish, and neither original nor compelling. Brutal, but I am trying to speak like an average American who is undecided. They do not make Obama look like someone one would choose as the world's most powerful man. Rather, they paint the portrait of a glorified community organizer - not of a leader. The look and feel are the same in almost all cases: Obama speaking in front of audiences of supporters and delivering platitudes that do not even rise to the level of media sound-bites. They feel like documentary clips that get cut off after 30 seconds. They are strong on policy, which is good, but they don't really leave a lasting impression on people who are undecided.
Though hardly an advertising expert, I see no reason why the campaign cannot produce spots that are both specific on policy, colorful, catching, and emotionally impressive. Moreover, there is one area of expertise that I share with millions of Americans: viewership.
Those of you who are reading this blog post are most likely diehard Obama fans just like me. How we view these ads is skewed by the fact that we are familiar his style and substance and we are very familiar with his campaign and messaging.
Yet in order to assess these ads as mass media outreach vehicles, we must try to put ourselves in the shoes of the average viewer.
Consider one example: someone who as either has not yet made up her mind about whom to vote for or is tending towards another candidate but is curious to get to know Obama better. This person has more questions than answers about the election season, but there is one thing she knows for sure: there is a candidate named Hillary Clinton and another candidate called John Edwards, the man who ran on the Kerry ticket in 2004.
She now says to herself: let’s take a look at this “black man with a funny name,” to use Obama’s own words. However, her ability to study the candidate in depth is hampered by the fact that she has a family, leads a hectic life, has little time to watch the news beyond local and national stations, and is neither particularly political nor an avid newspaper reader.
She lives in New Hampshire but has family in Iowa whom she visits frequently. She attends no rallies. But she does see the following Obama ads:
"Believe": http://youtube.com/watch?v=rEWoDyahXT8 "Change" (a bit better): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIhQie6VlPo "Mother": http://youtube.com/watch?v=-aR3Gpsn4v4 "What If": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaU3fjVAFbE&NR=1 "Choices": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaU3fjVAFbE&NR=1 "Quiet": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A9wGzJHPUg "Need": http://nh.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaNHHQ/CnBD
"Believe": http://youtube.com/watch?v=rEWoDyahXT8
"Change" (a bit better): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIhQie6VlPo
"Mother": http://youtube.com/watch?v=-aR3Gpsn4v4
"What If": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaU3fjVAFbE&NR=1
"Choices": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaU3fjVAFbE&NR=1
"Quiet": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A9wGzJHPUg
"Need": http://nh.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaNHHQ/CnBD
What will this voter take with her after viewing these spots? Not much, I argue. The spots distill this extraordinary leader and his epochal policies into rather flat platitudes. This voter I profile is understandably unimpressed.
Obama’s thinking is certainly not conventional, but his ads are. Policy points are lost in the template, and the crowds of supporters have limited impact simply because all ads can be staged. Even the “mother” ad is dull if you don’t already love Obama the way we do. The story of his mother is typical of campaigns that, to sound brutal, seek to pull heartstrings. The fact that this spot pulls YOUR heartstrings and MINE is not really an indicator of how it will affect a more dispassionate viewer.
Let’s examine ads by two other candidates − Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. The purpose of this discussion is not to compare the merits of those campaigns with this one, but to contrast more and less effective ways of messaging a candidate’s particular point of view.
This ad “By The Numbers,” is from the Clinton campaign, and was aired during the CNN/YouTube debate that took place on July 23, 2007:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq6F8tE0-fE
Very simple, concise and easy to remember. Pink pages with a series of rather devastating statistics from the Bush regime are shown to music. There is an element of both humor and outrage both in the music and the font type of the writing that clearly reflects the mixture of emotions with which Hillary herself speaks about her two chief campaign messages of ‘I Will Put An End to the Bush Era,’ and ‘Vote For Me Because I Am a Woman.’
Now, let’s watch Edwards’s superb “Hair” commercial. It is one of the best I have ever seen from any political candidate running for any office. It was also aired at the CNN/YouTube debate for that debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1qG6m9SnWI
It is poignant, angry at injustice, and the message is that, instead of focusing on the superficial, we should worry about poverty and the war. By superimposing what the campaign wants to show as a superficial criticism of a $400 haircut with devastating scenes of Katrina, the ad coveys Edwards’s thinking with uncanny precision.
And here is the ad that Our Candidate submitted to CNN/You Tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y48LMXKxJwc
Whose ads are the most memorable? Most certainly not Obama’s. Although this one is better than some of his others, it does not leave any salient message beyond crowds, and ‘Vote For Obama.’ Our Candidate may be memorable but his words, in this ad, are not. Finally, the music is the type one would expect to hear at a Democratic convention: friendly, generic crowd pleasing and otherwise dull.
I propose that the campaign fork out a few million to Messrs Saatchi & Saatchi, or some such firm, and roll out a series of high-impact ads whose key subliminal message is "electability." That would be the best use of campaign funds. Because as long as we get ads like these, voters and pundits who think that Obama is a lightweight may manage to convince others to think the same.
I have been moved to write this post by a prescient NPR story that forced me to emerge from my cocoon of denial, according to which the polls say nothing about Obama whatsoever and everything about the mainstream media, its biased commentators and methodologically flawed surveys.
That is only about 70 percent true. This post is intended to address how we can work the remaining 30 percent gap that separates Our Candidate from victory.
First, I would like to direct your attention to this piece, which appeared on NPR's October 25th airing of "All Things Considered"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15604110 NPR's objective in this story is not to give a comprehensive view on how Obama is perceived, and I think they make that quite clear. Rather, it is to explain why so many people like Obama but are hesitant to cast their lot with him. They profile two groups of people and ask them why this is so – or not.
NPR -at least the NATIONAL network- is, IMO, one of the last reducts of Old Media that actually does research before reporting, so I hold what they are conveying in high esteem and have no reason to believe that they are trying to undermine Our Candidate. Not all pieces have to be positive in order to be legitimate and well crafted.
Naturally, I disagree with what the skeptics cited say about Obama - that he lacks substance, is not much different from Hillary, and is trounced by her in the debates. These people have clearly not listened to or understood Obama despite their assertions to the contrary. However, the views they express are widely held by non-supporters. One can rightfully argue that they are mistaken; nonetheless, in the annals of campaigning, even stupid or misinformed voters (assuming these are either, which they may not be) must be courted in the interests of victory.
What these voters say also provides a good starting point, as we opiniâtres and self-styled soldiers of Obama set about honing our grassroots messaging strategy for the remainder of the campaign. The piece, like all clouds, has a silver lining in that it enables us to understand how best to tackle the skeptics' views. In bombarding Old and New Media with comments and blogs, we must do the following:
First, what we have been doing all along, which is by correcting factual errors. Second, by countering claims that Obama lacks substance. Not by arguing with other posters, though, but by citing either his policy points, or VERY SPECIFIC aspects of his biography that help illuminate the substance behind the man. Third, by highlighting the policy and philosophical differences with Hillary. This could be done by our pointing out such things as Senate votes and statements. It may help to go to Hillary's website and read her platform so that we can quote one view against the other. It is tempting to merely point to differences in character (as I have done myself a million times) but that will not convince voters who have no trouble with lack of integrity, or who believe that any attack against Hillary is pure politics. Finally, we must demonstrate that the notion that Hillary is trouncing Obama in the debates is largely borne of media distortions, not facts. Listen to what people say when they express this view. Trounced how - by better oratory, better synthesis of ideas? We can respond by quoting Barack and demonstrating how his arguments carried the day, while her responses failed to address a particular question and left many potential voters unimpressed. (The last debate was a disaster for Hillary.) In other words, we passionate Obama-ites have to become temperamentally muted but equally direct and incisive in our responses.
In the same piece, NPR quotes a recent poll (not identified) supposedly showing that half of Americans have not yet made up their minds about whom to vote for. It is not clear whether the survey refers to all voters or only Democrats, but these findings, if true, give us ample room for maneuver regardless of which group was polled.
If we adopt this strategy, we may succeed in recruiting more people who are conservative in their vote and not necessarily anxious for change, but for detail. These may not be people whose approach to the nation's future we value highly, but a key tenet of what I refer to as the Obama Doctrine is that his movement can accommodate supporters who disagree with each other. Reining in these voters could propel Our Candidate to victory by a landslide.
I can think of one missed opportunity; missed because I, for one, failed to seize it. There is one frequent NYT Caucus Blog participant who may have been persuaded but who now backs Hillary after staying on the fence for a long time. I was remiss in seeing this and not doing something about it. She has become a true Hillary fanatic.
To understand how Sen. Obama can continue to deal with the Gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, one has to understand what I will call the Obama Doctrine. There is no doubt that McClurkin's views on gays are disturbing. Obama quickly issued a statement unequivocally disagreeing with them, but explained that the singer's views reflect a broader struggle within the black community (in this case) to come to terms with homosexuality both in the home and as a societal phenomenon. The Tenets of the Doctrine Obama's point is that McClurkin deserves a seat at the table of political dialogue; that one cannot ignore homophobia by sweeping it under the carpet, and then wonder why it is there, why one's attempts to whitewash dissent didn't work, and why there is still dirt on the floor that lies beneath that carpet you so assiduously spent an entire morning cleaning. When the Senator talks about unity, he is not saying that it already exists. The Obama Doctrine unequivocally states that one cannot achieve unity and change unless one is willing to directly engage those with different views. It is in this context that Obama states that he would consider meeting with dictators without pre-conditions, a stance embraced by Nixon and FDR, and one that paved the way for some of the best moments in American foreign policy. The exercise of leadership and courage always involves risk and forays into untrodden ground. Thus, Obama's acceptance of a financial contribution or a form of support from McClurkin is both sound of doctrine and morally legitimate AS LONG AS OBAMA DOES NOT SUPPORT HIS VIEWS AND SAYS SO PUBLICLY, which he has. In a similar vein, amongst the hundreds of thousands of us who donate to the campaign, there are many who do not agree with Obama himself on everything. Indeed, it is the Senator himself who frequently points out that, as President, he may at times disagree with us and we may disagree with him. Yet either way he will still fight for us, not against us. That is where the Doctrine is intended to lead, and it reflects the direction of Obama's political ideology. While most politicians support a laundry list of issues first and join a party or caucus second, Obama does the opposite because he recognizes, as few politicians do, that any policy platform must first rest on a philosophy before resting on solid grounds. Obama is embracing McClurkin as a citizen, not as a thinker. His message of unity is thus exposed in its splendid admixture of strengths and challenges. “There are easier choices that you can make in this election," Obama says. "People who will follow the well-worn grooves…people who will deliver pretty much more of the same.” A Risky Proposition The real risk in supporting Obama is NOT that voting for a half black, young, first-term U.S. senator with a "funny name" may not put one in line with the winner of the election. Rather, the fundamental risk lies within ourselves; in how willing we are to vote for a break from decades of mediocre leadership and political stagnation for which both Republicans AND Democrats are to blame; in how willing we are to confront the growing pains associated with uniting a country under common goals while, at the same time, agreeing to speak with those we disagree with. This has been done before by our great leaders and it can happen again, but only if we have the courage to abet change.
To understand how Sen. Obama can continue to deal with the Gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, one has to understand what I will call the Obama Doctrine. There is no doubt that McClurkin's views on gays are disturbing. Obama quickly issued a statement unequivocally disagreeing with them, but explained that the singer's views reflect a broader struggle within the black community (in this case) to come to terms with homosexuality both in the home and as a societal phenomenon.
The Tenets of the Doctrine
Obama's point is that McClurkin deserves a seat at the table of political dialogue; that one cannot ignore homophobia by sweeping it under the carpet, and then wonder why it is there, why one's attempts to whitewash dissent didn't work, and why there is still dirt on the floor that lies beneath that carpet you so assiduously spent an entire morning cleaning. When the Senator talks about unity, he is not saying that it already exists. The Obama Doctrine unequivocally states that one cannot achieve unity and change unless one is willing to directly engage those with different views. It is in this context that Obama states that he would consider meeting with dictators without pre-conditions, a stance embraced by Nixon and FDR, and one that paved the way for some of the best moments in American foreign policy. The exercise of leadership and courage always involves risk and forays into untrodden ground. Thus, Obama's acceptance of a financial contribution or a form of support from McClurkin is both sound of doctrine and morally legitimate AS LONG AS OBAMA DOES NOT SUPPORT HIS VIEWS AND SAYS SO PUBLICLY, which he has. In a similar vein, amongst the hundreds of thousands of us who donate to the campaign, there are many who do not agree with Obama himself on everything.
Indeed, it is the Senator himself who frequently points out that, as President, he may at times disagree with us and we may disagree with him. Yet either way he will still fight for us, not against us. That is where the Doctrine is intended to lead, and it reflects the direction of Obama's political ideology. While most politicians support a laundry list of issues first and join a party or caucus second, Obama does the opposite because he recognizes, as few politicians do, that any policy platform must first rest on a philosophy before resting on solid grounds. Obama is embracing McClurkin as a citizen, not as a thinker. His message of unity is thus exposed in its splendid admixture of strengths and challenges. “There are easier choices that you can make in this election," Obama says. "People who will follow the well-worn grooves…people who will deliver pretty much more of the same.”
A Risky Proposition
The real risk in supporting Obama is NOT that voting for a half black, young, first-term U.S. senator with a "funny name" may not put one in line with the winner of the election.
Rather, the fundamental risk lies within ourselves; in how willing we are to vote for a break from decades of mediocre leadership and political stagnation for which both Republicans AND Democrats are to blame; in how willing we are to confront the growing pains associated with uniting a country under common goals while, at the same time, agreeing to speak with those we disagree with. This has been done before by our great leaders and it can happen again, but only if we have the courage to abet change.
And not necessarily in this order:
1. "Sen. Clinton, you have tried every which way to use my ideas as slogans, as though by simply repeating something someone else has said you can feel it. You cannot say something just because I say it, or because it sounds catchy. You must believe it. Leaders do not merely speak; they believe."
2. The hallmark of leadership and political courage is being able to actually say what you think loud and clear. Triangulation is the refuge of fear. And fear over what other countries will think when you discuss nuclear weapons is the refuge of a follower.
3. Earth to Hillary: Bush is not running for re-election. If you keep spending most of your campaign criticizing him instead of proposing your own ideas, I will have to wonder whether you are running against a ghost.
4. If you insist on straddling the fence on the issues, such as in the case of going to war in the Middle East, voting for and against torture provisions and being for and against meeting with dictators without pre-conditions, how about straddling the fence politically and reaching out to all Americans, not just the most partisan, Republican-hating Democrats?
5. Apart from co-engineering two political disasters --the war in Iraq and your failed health care reform of the 90s-- what other experience do you have to be president of the United States?
6. How do you represent change? Because you are a woman?
7. You wonder aloud where the politics of hope --and not smear-- went whenever you are criticized. Those politics disappeared on the day you called me names like “irresponsible" and "naive."
8. (If Hillary alludes to Obama’s standing in the polls as an argument for his criticism of her): Which polls are you referring to? The ones conducted by your friend at CNN, the ones that do not call cell phones, the ones with the 5 percentage-point margin of error, or all of the above?
9. My standing in the polls versus Mrs. Clinton's? Not bad when you are running against two candidates in one.
10. Could you please just answer the question?
To the Obama campaign:
You are all too aware of the importance of converting enthusiasm for Our Candidate into votes.
I suggest that you set up a digital reminder system that supporters –of all ages and levels of Attention Deficit Disorder- can sign up for. College students may be especially helped by this. It would be a free service (this is where the campaign's formidable coffers come in handy) that would enable the campaign to send text messages or e-mails reminding people to vote.
Subscribers could choose options based on their privacy comfort level, ranging from simply getting a reminder to vote on the day before and the date of their state’s primary or caucus – in which case the subscriber would only have to disclose a contact address or number and state of residence – to receiving several reminders as milestones like registration and absentee ballot submission deadlines approach.
Supporters could go so far as to give the campaign the address of their voting precinct and get that address texted or e-mailed back to them on primary election day. They could choose options of how many reminders to get: one only on the day before, or one two days before AND the day before AND the day itself, etc.
The system would have to operate independently of an e-mail list that supporters get of general campaign activities so as not to dissuade those who hate having their e-mails and cell phones bombarded. Users could choose to receive those too, but many may prefer to hear nothing from the campaign except for one reminder to vote in the primary election.
The commercial with the message “Life Comes At You Fast” should not really make us laugh – unless we care to laugh at ourselves. Human beings of all brain sizes do very primitive things.
Consider the following nightmares:
A supporter who remembers that today is primary day gets ready and leaves the house. She looks in her purse, where she “swears” she had the crumpled up Post-it Note with the address of the voting precinct on it; the one that she stuffed in on the previous calendar year (or was that in a different purse?). She finds nothing, but her bulging wallet catches her attention. She glances at her watch. Lunchtime! She walks to the nearest café and orders a sandwich, then runs to work. No vote cast. After standing on the street scratching his head for a full five minutes and losing several dozen hair follicles in the process, a supporter vaguely remembers having left his crumpled up piece of white lined paper with the voting precinct address on it inside his favorite pair of jeans. He starts. But those get washed every week and he got that address off the Internet before Christmas! Oh well, nothing to be done. He doesn’t even have the precinct phone number to call for the address and dialing the operator costs a fortune. He is frustrated. He shrugs his shoulders, walks down the street and goes to meet a friend. No vote cast.
A supporter who remembers that today is primary day gets ready and leaves the house. She looks in her purse, where she “swears” she had the crumpled up Post-it Note with the address of the voting precinct on it; the one that she stuffed in on the previous calendar year (or was that in a different purse?). She finds nothing, but her bulging wallet catches her attention. She glances at her watch. Lunchtime! She walks to the nearest café and orders a sandwich, then runs to work. No vote cast.
After standing on the street scratching his head for a full five minutes and losing several dozen hair follicles in the process, a supporter vaguely remembers having left his crumpled up piece of white lined paper with the voting precinct address on it inside his favorite pair of jeans. He starts. But those get washed every week and he got that address off the Internet before Christmas! Oh well, nothing to be done. He doesn’t even have the precinct phone number to call for the address and dialing the operator costs a fortune. He is frustrated. He shrugs his shoulders, walks down the street and goes to meet a friend. No vote cast.
May these remain just that - bad dreams.
Now is the time to retire your stump speech comments about experience. By constantly alluding to it, you are keeping the label "inexperienced" in people's heads no matter how well you argue against it.
Your message is that you do not have the type of experience that Washington players like. And that, you suggest, is one reason for people to vote for you. But that may be a misguided perception of people's rationale for wanting change. It is also an argument that, inadvertently, calls into question -in the minds of those undecided voters, that is- your true commitment to change.
Why? Because by telling voters that you want change, and that you do not have Washington insider experience, you are implying that if you DID have Washington insider experience you might be less amenable to change.
The logical implication from this train of ideas is that EITHER your message of change comes from inexperience, and that if you knew "what you were talking about" you would not say such things OR that you are not serious about change and have to allude to your Washington inexperience as a sales pitch.
This country's body politic is cynical, as you know all too well. If there is a negative way to interpret a politician's remarks, people will choose that road.
Of course, those of us who support you know that the above is the opposite of the truth; that you want change because you feel, from the bottom of your heart, and in your head, that it is necessary. Yet the public may be reading you differently. Rightly or wrongly, people do believe that it is possible to be in Washington for a long time and still want change; they may remain unconvinced that you would be equally amenable to change if you were to reach the White House and become the Insider-in-Chief.
Keep speaking of change alone. And of wisdom and judgment, both of which you have in abundance. But realize that your argument about Washington inexperience, while good on its face, is actually counterproductive and can be used against you in argumentation terms alone.
Insisting on that line of self-defense may also be responsible for keeping you from gaining in the polls as much as you should - even if they are distorted. I doubt whether Sen. Clinton will keep hammering on your supposed inexperience. She has everything to lose and nothing to gain by attacking. But by constantly re-stating your retort, as you have been doing, you are continuing an argument when the other person has left the room and can no longer hear you.
And the pundits love to pick on arguments. Every time you say that Washington insiders call you inexperienced because you have not been in Washington long enough, they (being Washington insiders themselves) repeat that and stop there without continuing and explaining your defense.
Pundits are no Einsteins but, unfortunately, they matter because they move the polls and the public.
So drop the subject of attacks on your "inexperience." It muddles your message. Make it simple. As you say, you DO have experience, and it is of the right kind, so frame this subject in the way you have done every other: on your own terms and in your own time.
I once had a French teacher who used to tell us to never ask how a word was misspelt, because that could stay in our minds even if we knew it was wrong. That was such a valuable lesson. Never speak about what others contend you do not have. Do not make allusions to how others define you.
As always, good luck!
Pamela Mercer
Washington DC
As you grow your campaign and make your foray into large and diverse states like California, I believe the time has come for you to campaign heavily in inner-city neighborhoods – particularly historically black ones.
Up until now, you have strengthened your broad appeal to “the general public” (whatever that means) and, understandably for strategic reasons, the savvy early-state voters. Besides having established yourself as a great future leader, you have also positioned yourself as a president for all. Now is the time to begin breaking out by constituency, while keeping up the national, “generic” aspect of your campaign.
Whenever I hear the question posed: “Can America vote for a black president,” my answer is “Yes, but only if you vote for him.” A logical, silly answer, in a sense, but also one that speaks profoundly to your message of how we can effect change ourselves.
Now translate this exchange into one between you and a black voter. It could sound something like this:
Potential black voter: “Why should I vote for you – you won’t get elected. Time and time again, we have been made promises of a better life, better schools, better opportunities. Now you come and tell me that we can have a black president when we don’t even have good schools?”
Your answer, Senator, should be, “It will be different this time IF YOU VOTE. And if you vote, your vote will have been counted, heard, and you will have become a Public Citizen. You will have earned power.”
Consider this hypothetical exchange in the context of your message of hope, change, and optimism. If we white people with means are weary of the state of the nation, if we needed convincing before daring to hope, imagine how much help blacks need to become optimistic?
What to discuss:
In speaking at black inner-city neighborhoods, I suggest that you retool your stump speech in the following ways:
--After a brief stump speech, ask questions first, provide answers later. How do they perceive life? What do they want? What does government reform mean to them? How do THEY define change? As you hear the answers, as you gain a presence in their mind’s eye, you will take with you a piece of a constituency all the way to the White House. And they, like all of us who support you, will know it.
--Health care;
--Improving schools;
--Improving neighborhoods;
--Experiences you had as a community organizer and how you made a difference, and
--The need to bring the people closer to government, rather than government to the people – note the difference. These potential voters want to politically leave and go somewhere else. Rich whites feel more comfortable having others come to them.
--A note of caution on government reform, however: be careful with how you discuss lobbying. Washington lobbying, I think, is more of a middle class concern. Poor blacks I have spoken to say that those things are in the details, that the establishment never changes, that lobbyists and non-lobbyists are part of the same structure. Generally, unless asked, do not overly emphasize this issue until you have become a more familiar presence, especially because many of your proposals involve making documents available on the Internet, something that many Americans still do not have access to.
--Enfranchisement: You – not just your campaign aides, volunteers and advertisers, must talk about the voting process, explain ways in which they can make sure they are registered and that their vote does not get discounted because of technicalities. Speak of how elections in Florida in 2000 resulted in the marginalization of many poor blacks and how you will not tolerate that – how you will help them to make sure they are there to vote. Talk about the meaning of the word Democracy. Remind them of federal laws that make it illegal for employers to detain them from voting on Election Day. Tell those who cannot afford to take a minute away from work about how they can submit absentee ballots.
Strategy:
In general, move slowly, by stages.
--Begin by holding small, Iowa-like forums. Sit down with residents in the Watts district or, better still, areas of South Carolina, a state where, in my opinion, you have not sufficiently campaigned and cannot afford to take for granted. Do not hold rallies immediately, lest you be seen as equally inaccessible as your average politician.
--Do not initially try to recruit volunteers. First, arrive as your own man, as one human being talking to others. Set foot on terra firme before attempting to conquer the ground. Although you have had to plant volunteers in many areas that you have been unable to visit, you may have to change that strategy here. I am not proposing that you visit every neighborhood in a district before recruiting a single volunteer – just make sure that you have held at least one or two well-publicized events. In short, go by the motto that one uses in daily life: give first, and take later. That way, you build trust.
--Have aides distribute pamphlets about you at campaign events. These should include a brief biography, very specific policy points, and a section answering the question they will all have on their minds: “what can a black president do for black America?”
--Many residents will not have access to electronic media, or to your website. Make sure that campaign workers provide them with a mailing address and phone number where they can communicate their thoughts and suggestions with the campaign. Use the blogs posted by the campaign on the website to create paper newsletters that can be mailed out either to those who sign up or to neighborhood community centers.
--If possible, ask to be allowed to sit in on city hall meetings and neighborhood watch meetings in order to learn more about the issues, and to show people how much you really care. Although you are sending policy experts to many areas of the country in order to advise you on many issues, this situation calls for a more personal touch.
The overall value (besides votes, of course):
Visiting inner-city neighborhoods in the way I suggest offers you a golden opportunity that no other candidate has seized: to put change into action, not just talk about it. Enfranchising potential voters, getting them to act, listening to them, making your campaign accessible to them – all of these are actions that, for underprivileged blacks, are policy outcomes in themselves. Most of us whites interpret your intent to effect change as one that you will put in place come 2009. By breaking ground with black constituents, you are actually making change happen in 2007.
Presidential candidates have certainly campaigned in black neighborhoods in the past, but they have usually done so through large rallies only, and through demagoguery. You can do it through dialogue and education. That way, they will really see you for the extraordinary man that you are.
Expect this to be a slow process, though. Ironically, poor blacks may have more trouble trusting you than they do a powerful white public figure simply because they fear that white America will not let you triumph. It is hard to believe in something when you risk having your hopes dashed. Not everyone has your extraordinary strength and courage.
South Carolina - a snapshot:
The results of a poll conducted by Winthrop/ETV, released on Sept. 14, of 657 randomly selected African Americans in South Carolina show you winning the support of 35.4 percent of respondents, beating out Sen. Hillary Clinton, who received 30.7 percent of the vote. Your margin increased among men, but you were in a virtual tie with Mrs. Clinton among women. (The poll has a margin of error of plus/minus 3.82 percent.)
The full results are here:
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that this survey accurately reflects voter sentiments among blacks in South Carolina. If so, they are cause for only modest optimism, and demonstrate that much work needs to be done by you and your staff. A whopping 28.7 percent of respondents were undecided, including one third of females who were surveyed. Those figures represent huge numbers of potential supporters that you must tap into, and they suggest that, while the trend is in your favor, support for you is far below what it could be among blacks.
They may also suggest that, unless you increase your outreach efforts, many undecided blacks in South Carolina could eventually make up their minds - and choose a different candidate.
Here are some words you uttered a few weeks ago, as reported by Marc Ambinder in his blog on the website Atlantic.com:
"I guarantee you African-American turnout, if I'm the nominee, goes up 30 percent around the country, minimum.""If we just got African-Americans in Mississippi to vote their percentage of the population, Mississippi is suddenly a Democratic state," Obama said. He said Georgia would also turn Democratic and South Carolina would be in play.”
As things currently stand --and unless you visit more of these underserved areas-- I doubt whether your predictions will prove correct, even for the primary season.
Finally, please forgive me if I offend you by sounding as though you are not an expert in these outreach matters after decades of service to the community. I know how very much you care. The main value in what I say may be in that hearing something from someone else always helps. And hearing it from this and other supporters (see attached comments) may give your strategists the wake-up call we feel they need.
Good luck Senator!
Washington D.C.
