Campaign Blog: News & Updates

I wonder if this is what they mean by running on hope. 0% in in NC and they're calling it for Obama. Clinton up by 14 (19% in) ... "too early to call." Yeah, the MSM sure does love them some Clintons.

UPDATE: Heh ... Crowley posits one theory as to how the early NC call helps Hillary.

UPDATE 2.0: Rutenberg covers some of the drama inside the media bubble on calling Indiana.

Though I found it ironic timing that Obama would make his "Great Divorce" speech re: Reverend Wright mere days after offering the DVD of his speech where he previously refused to dissociate himself from Wright as a fundraising tool ... there's something to Obama's latest comments that does deserve to be highlighted. And I leave it to Mark Daniels to tell it.

... and with flying colors.

Read the whole thing. It's as concise as possible while still richly highlighting several strains of the Clinton hatred among both the new left and the old media. Reductionist theories about liberal media bias simply don't justify the treatment of the Clintons in the media.

Sully falls in love with Obama's state map of the results in the Presidential primaries. Meanwhile, I'm reminded that cartography is more art than science. While the predominant use of colors used by the media have been dark blue for Obama and light blue for Clinton, not the significantly stronger and lighter shades of blue used by Obama. And the split outcome in Texas? Check the width of the Obama blue compared to Clinton blue.

For my own sake, I thought a county map might be somewhat telling:

By no means my best work, but for a government map, photoshop, and limited time to color in the lines ... it'll do for now. I colored in just the primary states here (any objection to Maine being included and Washington not?) View and judge for yourself.

UPDATE: Oh, and for the record, my color coding is the same as used by CNN. I had the Edwards counties grayed out, but apparently made a snafu in the process of making a JPG of it. My bad. I'll correct eventually as I update with the next primaries.

From who else?

And today, we found that he can fight back, and take a stand, without calculation and in what is clearly a great amount of personal difficulty and political pain. It's what anyone should want in a president. It makes me want to see him succeed more than ever. It's why this country needs to see him succeed more than ever.

This, after Obama sees his position in an otherwise favorable state like North Carolina slip into competitive status thanks to Pastor Wright's latest tour. Yeah, clearly the two had nothing to do with one another. But I guess it doesn't sound as transformative to suggest that Obama might be reading the polls rather than Wright's speeches.

John Judis on Obama's hurdle, post-PA ...

,,, if you look at Obama's vote in Pennsylvania, you begin to see the outlines of the old George McGovern coalition that haunted the Democrats during the '70s and '80s, led by college students and minorities. In Pennsylvania, Obama did best in college towns (60 to 40 percent in Penn State's Centre County) and in heavily black areas like Philadelphia.

Its ideology is very liberal. Whereas in the first primaries and caucuses, Obama benefited from being seen as middle-of-the-road or even conservative, he is now receiving his strongest support from voters who see themselves as "very liberal." In Pennsylvania, he defeated Clinton among "very liberal" voters by 55 to 45 percent, but lost "somewhat conservative" voters by 53 to 47 percent and moderates by 60 to 40 percent. In Wisconsin and Virginia, by contrast, he had done best against Clinton among voters who saw themselves as moderate or somewhat conservative.

Obama even seems to be acquiring the religious profile of the old McGovern coalition. In the early primaries and caucuses, Obama did very well among the observant. In Maryland, he defeated Clinton among those who attended religious services weekly by 61 to 31 percent. By contrast, in Pennsylvania, he lost to Clinton among these voters by 58 to 42 percent and did best among voters who never attend religious services, winning them by 56 to 44 percent. There is nothing wrong with winning over voters who are very liberal and who never attend religious services; but if they begin to become Obama's most fervent base of support, he will have trouble (to say the least) in November.

The primaries, unfortunately, are not going to get any easier for Obama. While he should win easily in North Carolina, where he benefits from a large African-American vote and support in the state's college communities, he is going to have trouble in Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, where he will once again be faced by a large white working class vote. He can still win the nomination and lose these primaries. Pennsylvania was the last big delegate prize. But if Obama doesn't find a way now to speak to these voters, he is going to have trouble winning that large swath of states from Pennsylvania through Missouri in which a Democrat must do well to gain the presidency. That remains Obama challenge in the month to come.

I'll put my marker down on LtBlue-57. That's what I think Hillary has to get to make the most convincing case that Obama has a genuine problem in the big states and likewise that she still has a strong case to make for the nomination. Mind you, I think she can hang in the race with even the most modest of wins, just that her argument is weakened and voters in the remaining states start to move toward just wrapping things up.

If there's one reason for caution in the latest batch of polls, it's that the undecideds strike me as incredibly high. I'm not sure if that's reflective of a possible Hillary romp among undecideds, an Obama surprise win, or just that it reflects folks equally unsure of even voting - and hence, not really a factor in the math.

UPDATE: Polls closed and the early exits don't look like they're going to show the resounding victory Team Hillary is hoping for. A victory ... just not a convincing one.

A talking point I'll gladly echo here:

(via Wash. Post podcast)

Ed Kilgore, clearly on a roll today ...

I for one would respect Joe Lieberman as a Republican with enlightened views on a variety of issues more than Joe Lieberman as someone claiming to represent a fictional group of "loyal Democrats" supporting John McCain.

Make it two. As problematic as I might find several factions of Democrats/Obamanauts, there's absolutely no reason I see for supporting McCain.

... and that comes from one who once did.

Talking about economics here, not the cruddy music that the generation spawned.

I never thought I'd live to offer such a hearty "Amen" to a Krugman thought, but sentiments like this make it easy for me:

Mr. Obama: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration."

There are, indeed, towns where the mill closed during the 1980s and nothing has replaced it. But the suggestion that the American heartland suffered equally during the Clinton and Bush years is deeply misleading.

In fact, the Clinton years were very good for working Americans in the Midwest, where real median household income soared before crashing after 2000. (You can see the numbers at my blog, krugman.blogs.nytimes.com.)

We can argue about how much credit Bill Clinton deserves for that boom. But if I were a Democratic Party elder, I'd urge Mr. Obama to stop blurring the distinction between Clinton-era prosperity and Bush-era economic distress.

If November rolls around and I'm in no mood to cast my vote for Obama, you can go ahead and mark this as one of the key reasons for not doing so.

ADD-ON: Left Coaster's Eripostle has a pretty thorough documentation on the 'Middle Finger of Hope'. Several of them go beyond the mere dissing of the 90s and I don't necessarily hold all of them as a terminal case against Obama's campaign. But the grand sum of the ones that come close is pretty aggravating.

back to some newsy-blogging ...

How's this for a political "wowser" of sorts?

Former Senators Sam Nunn and David Boren, two leading members of what I guess will be the penultimate generation ... of white southern moderate Democratic legislators announced their support of Barack Obama today.

Well, this certainly brings my generation of Southern Dem on board the Obama bandwagon. And while I've yet to acquire a taste for the kool-aid, I'd be lying if I said there wasn't a bit of impressiveness over this news. Mind you, there's always been a bit of distaste for the Clintons on the part of folks like Nunn & Boren. Back in the day, I tended to attribute it to at least an ounce of jealousy aimed at Bill. Now that it's Hillary, my leading guess is that the recollection of her from the White House days is far harsher than her days as a Senator. Maybe, maybe not.

For now, I'll be a bit curious what this does for the Obama-Nunn rumors that have been percolating here an there. For the record, I'm not a fan of that combination. But Boren was typically more my style of senator than Nunn was back then, anyway.

(h/t Yglesias)

ADD-ON: A former Nunn staffer (and favorite blogger of mine) suggests that, at a minimum, Nunn could be a big deal in the General if used properly.

Kentucky Republican refers to Obama as "that boy." Really, what more do I have to say?

Well, what more that TPM hasn't already uncovered anyway.

UPDATE: Rep. Davis apologizes. Attaboy ;-)

Funnyness in the inbox ...

If you're masochistic enough to want to be alerted every time a Democratic superdelegate commits to candidate, subscribe to this Twitter feed. You also may want to check out this video of paint drying on a wall, or this one of water coming to a boil.

Kudos to the fine folks at techpresident.

» WaPo: Tavis Smiley Will Cut Ties With Joyner Radio Show

One of Sen. Barack Obama's toughest African American critics is quitting his long association with a national radio show after facing a backlash from the program's listeners.

Tavis Smiley said yesterday he will resign in June as a twice-weekly commentator on the syndicated "Tom Joyner Morning Show" after more than 11 years with the program. He cited fatigue and a busy schedule in a personal call to Joyner on Thursday night, but Joyner indicated otherwise on his program and in his blog yesterday, writing: "The real reason is that he can't take the hate he's been getting regarding the Barack issue -- hate from the black people that he loves so much."

I can't claim to have followed Tavis' situation all that closely before seeing this. But this certainly echoes of the approach that some of the locals are using with Rep. Jackson Lee. Funny ... I thought the Obamanauts were supposed to move beyond political bickering.

This is still at the core of my problem with the Obama campaign. A lot of candidates promise a transformation. Some even campaign in a way that warrants the belief that they may. But politics isn't what transforms society. It's a useful tool, but it's not the engine. So the letdown is as inevitable as it is foreseeable.

Inevitably, political transformations are just semantic cover for transfers of power. And that can no doubt be exciting for folks who feel disaffected by politics. But it's a power grab by any other name. It's not transformative, it's just a politically-induced rush. And from the looks of how this power is being put to use in some quarters, it's more than a little off-putting.

» Fast Company: The Brand Called Obama (Ellen McGirt)

There's a handful of ways to read this article. And since I'm not doing any work for a Presidential campaign, I try and read this with a curiosity for what it might mean for candidates at lower levels. Typically, that's made difficult by virtue of the disparity in the nature of the effect a campaign will have. In short, running for President isn't like running for Senate or Congress or State Rep and so on. Down-ballot tends to be territory fraught with less attention and fewer details.

Still, it's hard to come away completely empty-handed from reading McGirt's article. From the key selling point of the article:

The fact that Obama has taken what we thought we knew about politics and turned it into a different game for a different generation is no longer news. What has hardly been examined is the degree to which his success indicates a seismic shift on the business horizon as well. Politics, after all, is about marketing -- about projecting and selling an image, stoking aspirations, moving people to identify, evangelize, and consume. The promotion of the brand called Obama is a case study of where the American marketplace -- and, potentially, the global one -- is moving. His openness to the way consumers today communicate with one another, his recognition of their desire for authentic "products," and his understanding of the need for a new global image -- all are valuable signals for marketers everywhere.

"Barack Obama is three things you want in a brand," says Keith Reinhard, chairman emeritus of DDB Worldwide. "New, different, and attractive. That's as good as it gets." Obama has his greatest strength among the young, roughly 18 to 29 years old, that advertisers covet, the cohort known as millennials -- who will outnumber the baby boomers by 2010. They are black, white, yellow, and various shades of brown, but what they share -- new media, online social networks, a distaste for top-down sales pitches -- connects them more than traditional barriers, such as ethnicity, divide them.

Obama has risen above what he calls a "funny" name, an unusual life story, and -- contrary to the now popular (and mistaken) notion that nobody sees race anymore -- a persistent racial divide to become a reflection of what America will be: a postboomer society. He has moved beyond traditional identity politics. And whether it's now or a decade from now, the new reality he reflects will eventually win out. Any forward-thinking business would be wise to examine the implications of his ascent, from marketing strategies and leadership styles to the future of the American workplace.

McGirt highlights an article in Australian Journal of Public Administration by Harvard's Stephen Bouwhuis that outlines the "adaptive" style of leadership. Since the full article is behind a pricey paid firewall, here's McGirt's explanation of it:

Craig Newmark, the founder of Craigslist, has long considered himself a political independent. An Obama encounter at a campaign event inspired him to take up arms for the Democratic candidate. But he can't quite explain why. "I'm still struggling to articulate what it is about him beyond the issues that I care about," he says. Newmark then fumbles his way to this realization: "I see him as a leader rather than a boss." A leader, he notes, gets people to do things on their own, through inspiration, respect, and trust. "A boss can order you to do things, sure, but you do them because it's part of the contract."

What Newmark is describing is more complicated -- and more modern -- than it might appear. There have long been leaders who are bosses, and bosses who are leaders. Having a vision and inspiring or instructing others to follow that vision have long been hallmarks of business and politics. But Obama epitomizes a new way of thinking called "adaptive leadership," which is now being taught at Harvard's Kennedy School, among other places. This approach, as Stephen Bouwhuis recently wrote in The Australian Journal of Public Administration, is effective in handling problems that necessitate "a shift ... in ways of thinking across a community." While a visionary puts forth a specific plan to be implemented, an adaptive leader works with constituents to devise one together.

Obama has tapped into this adaptive-leadership vein by inviting voters in with his "Yes we can" slogan, then reinforcing it with attacks on the complacency and withdrawal from politics of many Americans, particularly the young. "Change will not come if we wait for some other person," he said on Super Tuesday, "or if we wait for some other time... We are the hope of the future." Marty Linsky, professor at the Kennedy School and cofounder of Cambridge Leadership Associates, is among those who've taken note of Obama's adaptive style. "Obama often proposes process plans that involve a trust in the community at large," Linsky says. The potential ramifications for business leadership are enormous. The cult of the imperial chief executive officer still reigns in most C-suites and boardrooms. But winning tomorrow's talent -- and tomorrow's consumer -- may require a dramatically different approach.

Here's where it gets tricky. It's real easy to see some implications for Presidential leadership in this context. However, the nature of leadership seen and practiced in down-ballot contests is still there ... it just means there are different applications for it. Instead of resolving world conflicts, you might instead find a candidate needing to meet with groups of volunteers about how to engage different constituent groups.

There's still a practical benefit from watching this trend unfold even though it's not quite big enough to warrant a Rose Garden signing ceremony. And it's still one that campaign struggle with - how to cede control while still maintaining some semblance of control. That's an area where Obama's campaign has, I think, succeeded over the Howard Dean experiment from four years ago.

Even in non-political episodes, there's been a tug of war between what might otherwise be called fads like "User-Generated Content" and "Expert Content." And the struggle has always been to see how many brands really have an audience that works with them on adding to the brand. Those that don't sometimes learn a harsh lesson when they try to have customers create ads for them.

Beyond the Presidential level, seeking out territory where this is feasible for political candidates is tough. At the end of the day, you're competing with the mindset that suggests "Why not just do it ourselves?" And sometimes - maybe even most of the time, I'd argue - that default is worthwhile. But if you've done things right in any campaign, by the end of it, you'll find situations where the opportunities for creativity go beyond the campaign team. The challenge then - and the ultimate challenge in incorporating several of the lessons for how politics has changed since 2000 - is to do both.

There will always be a set of decisions that the campaign does itself and operates in a top-down manner. TV & Radio ads, both the production and the buy; political mail; stump speeches; etc .... These aren't the sorts of things you just open up to everyone right on day one. But what about field organization? ... house parties? ... neighbor-to-neighber phone/mail? Those are areas where there's room for more creativity and overlap is not exactly a bad thing.

McGint also makes the now-obvious corporate comparison to the current campaign:

"Obama and Clinton make an interesting contrast in brands," says Professor John Quelch, senior associate dean at Harvard Business School and coauthor of Greater Good: How Good Marketing Makes for Better Democracy. "Obama communicates that he loves people, and Clinton communicates that she loves policy." Consider Starbucks, Quelch says. "People love it for the experience, not for the specifications of the coffee." Obama, through his inclusive Web site and, yes, his lofty rhetoric, reinforces the notion that everyone is included and that this movement is actually a conversation to which everyone is invited.

I'm not so sure about this. Watch a busy Starbucks as the barrista juggles the easy orders (those where some of us don't impede with too many tweaks to our drink) ... and those who pretty much walk them through the making of the drink from start to finish. In short - both approaches are on display at Starbucks. And both a "top-down," authoritative approach is on display at the same time an "adaptive" approach is on display.

To my reading, that's the key ... the ability to do both. To walk and chew gum at the same time.

» WaPo: Clinton's Chief Strategist Steps Down

At long last, someone's identified a job actually lost due to free trade!

On a somewhat related note, the NYT editorializes on the bipartisan scope of protectionism. Of course, Bush seems to forget his past on this topic as he excoriates Democrats for taking the same position his campaign took in 2000.

Two items of interest along somewhat similar lines:

» First up is Michael Barone's "Academics vs Jacksonians" take on the current Democratic divide. There's already been a few good takedowns on this article[*], and it's easy to see the problems it has - a long, drawn-out, complex election with numerous sidestories and tangents ... and reduced into two simple paradigms of understanding. What could possibly go wrong?

The geographic disparity of Obama's results are certainly interesting stuff to analyze. And my own sense is that for all the urban/suburban clamoring for the transformative, post-partisan, post-racial Clintonian incrementalism that Obama represents, it's worth peeking into those smaller counties to see how it's playing. Here in Texas, it's particularly worth a double-check on some of those WD40 State Rep districts - not the least of which is the one we're defending as an open seat this time around.

Now, that's not to suggest that everyone living in Victoria is a Jacksonian and everyone living in the Heights is an academic. That would just be flat-out silly to suggest.

» Michael Sokolove has a good long read in the NYT Sunday Mag on how Obama's playing in Levittown, PA. The analysis isn't without it's own imperfections, but it strikes me as a somewhat richer means of understanding the same thing Barone attempts to deconstruct into "Scotch-Irish" vs "Eggheads."

---------------------------------------------------
* See Ed Kilgore, as always, for the essential takedown on all things Barone. Yglesias adds a nice short take, and the Electoral Map blog takes a look and Jonathan Chait adds his two cents in a broader take on the matter.

As expected, here's the Greater Travis County region: Hays, Travis, & Williamson counties. Easily Obama's best territory, which made the map-making very easy. Still, you can see a bit of the Obama fade in the rural areas on the north side of Williamson. It's worth pointing out that Obama won several of the Hill Country counties around these three. Ultimately, it'll be an interesting view to see what the broader map looks like in that context. But it'll have to wait till I have a statewide canvass.

w/o streets:

From Texas 2008 De...

w/ streets:

From Texas 2008 De...

Up next: the counties surrounding Harris County: Fort Bend, Brazoria, Galveston, Montgomery, plus Brazos and Jefferson. At some point thereafter, all I have to do is work in some time to do McLennan and Smith counties and I'm done with the canvass reports I've got on hand. Statewide canvasses tend to take some time before they're available online. Ultimately, that'll happen. But before then, I'll probably get to work on a Willett-Moody statewide map from 2006. Tell me I don't know how to have fun!

Two more suburban counties to the DFW area added to the mix. Obviously, I'm still protesting Denton County. But if the working draft of that county's map holds up, it stands out as one of the few counties in this region where Obama's support doesn't fade once you get to the more rural areas.

w/ Streets:

From Texas 2008 De...

w/o Streets:

From Texas 2008 De...

Nine counties to go. I've got enough of the counties surrounding Harris to give a nice parallel view to DFW, but I'm also itching to do Travis, Williamson & McLennan. If I get my hands on any canvasses that fill out the I-35 corridor any further, I'd love to include them. Unfortunately, Hays & Bell County's websites aren't all that helpful. Might have to email some folks.

UPDATE: Ask and ye shall receive ... Hays County canvass now in hand. Methinks an I-35 corridor mapping kick is in order now.

» WaPo: In Obama's New Message, Some Foes See Old Liberalism (Alec MacGillis)

One more attempt by the so-called "liberal" media to answer the question: "Is Barack Obama liberal?" Remind me again why this angle is so much more important than, say ... McCain not knowing who's training of AQI? In particular, I'm curious how certain thin-skinned Republican types who read this blog react to such snippets as "His proposals are mostly from the Democratic canon ..." when the rest of us know full well how they respond when accused of parroting "talking points." Furthermore, if the parties were switched in the reference to that quote, you know it would be a staple in the "proof" of liberal bias in mainstream journalism. But when it's not, all you get are crickets chirping.

As for Obama's dance around ideology, I'm certain that the Obamanauts will take great pride in knowing that their approach has the full endorsement of one of its former practitioners ...

Among those watching the criticism take shape is Dukakis, whose campaign ran aground 20 years ago after Republicans were able to paint the former Massachusetts governor, a relatively moderate technocrat, as a weak-willed lefty. He is confident that Obama can avoid the tag, but only if he is prepared to fight back more than Dukakis did.

"What's conservative about invading Iraq? What's conservative about a $400 billion deficit?" Dukakis said. "The terms have lost their meaning."

Remind me again how that approach worked for Dukakis? About all I'm missing now is a descendant of Adlai Stevenson to chime in.