Trying To Revive Obama-Rama

(This is probably the “meta post from hell,” but I feel like I have to say this stuff.)

I think it’s pretty clear that the candidacy of Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination is foundering at this point; even a filthy, unkempt liberal blogger such as yours truly can see that, let alone some high-profile, nicely accessorized and meticulously coiffed politico. And even though the damage is definitely not terminal, I’d like to chime in with some thoughts on how to try and put things right.

(There were a couple of posts that helped me focus on this matter: the first is here from Open Left about how the campaign needs someone to help coordinate a competing narrative among us blogger types that we can keep trying to hammer over and over as opposed to the daily drumbeat of “Jeremiah Wright, flag lapel pins, orange juice without coffee, guns, bitter, Bill Ayers, bowling” etc., and the second here notes Hillary Clinton’s appearance with the local Indiana steel union…how she can act as a champion for these people given that NAFTA passed under Bill is chutzpah cubed.)

To begin, Obama should state that he will no longer appear on Faux TV and he should stick to his promise of no more debates. I don’t know if he’s getting a bit weary from all of the attacks, which would be understandable given that they’re coming from Hillary Clinton, her husband and former president, AND John McCain at this point, but he needs to buy time and regroup (short notice I know with both Indiana and North Carolina coming up in less than a week). Or, if he DOES agree to a debate, make sure it’s moderated by the League of Women Voters, and make it plain that that’s the only way you’ll participate. That way, when Hillary starts throwing her mud (to say nothing of the inanity of the network anchors and their silly, insulting questions), he’ll have a neutral individual telling her to knock it off.

Appearing on Faux TV is not going to get more of that “middle of the road, white, blue collar” vote that Obama will need in respectable numbers to win not just the nomination, but “the whole enchilada” in November. He should link his policy to practicality and use his formidable presentation skills to communicate this to voters not just in upcoming primary states, but across the country (also – and I’ve said this before pertaining to other candidates, and I’ll say it again concerning Obama – I want to remind the senator from Illinois about a tactic employed by Our Man Arlen Specter in PA, among others, and that is the “voter testimonial”…some of Specter’s campaign ads, which may be popping up again starting next year depending on his health, are people talking about the difference he’s made and why they support him. That is gold; use it as much as you can! Let them speak for you if you are able.).

To get that “middle of the road” white vote, Obama has to just be himself, and a bit of an edge from time to time wouldn’t hurt either (he should think of running for office as parenting of a sort, only your “kids” are all voting age or older – that might help).

Maybe Obama had too easy of a time knocking off Alan Keyes to win the Senate seat to begin with (I mean, who wouldn’t, right?), and he’s not totally sure of how to take on HRC at times.

Basically, he needs to remind the voters of this country exactly why he wants to be president; I mean, we already know, but the American voter is typically someone who, sheep-like, has to be schooled over and over to be made to perform a certain way to achieve a desired result (and I don’t automatically absolve myself when I say that – sometimes that describes me also). This is particularly true when there is so much else out there competing for people’s time and attention.

Now having said all of that, I want to go back to the second post for a minute (where Hillary appeared with the Indiana steelworkers) and note the following…

At an event in Indiana, Sen. Hillary Clinton got a ballsy introduction by the president of the local steelworkers union who said it's "going to take an individual with testicular fortitude" to deal with solving the nation's problems.

Interesting that “ballsy” isn’t in quotes, by the way; normal, acceptable language for a “news” organization, is it (quick - time for another blogger ethics panel!).

While Clinton cracked a smile and then burst into laughter behind him, union leader Paul Gibson called for a president who would take a "strong, hard look" at trade and continued, "I'm tired of these Gucci wearing, latte-drinking, self-centered egotistical people that have damaged our lifestyle." He backed Clinton saying "I know the entire executive board has not made a move yet to endorse whoever in this primary, Paul Gibson is going to do it right here tonight, she's standing right behind me.”

(Update: Here's some more rather interesting pandering on trade and manufacturing by Hil and Bill courtesy of David Sirota).

I’ve never met Paul Gibson. I don’t know how well he does or doesn’t represent and support his membership on matters such as contract rates and work allocation, benefits including overtime and health care, providing for retirees, and other issues. But based on this excerpt, he sounds like an idiot.

And he’s thrown the gauntlet right at the feet of Barack Obama, implying that he fits the ridiculous characterization noted in the story; I mean, even if I recognized who Gibson is referring to – and I don’t – I can’t imagine how his charge that these people “have damaged our lifestyle” could be true.

So here’s what Obama should do; he should say to Gibson, in essence, “are you talkin’ to me?”

And here’s why (as noted here)…

(Upon graduating with his law degree from Harvard in 1991) Obama worked on cases where the firm represented community organizers (he worked in community organizing in Chicago starting in 1985), pursued discrimination claims, and (worked) on voting rights cases. He also spent time on real estate transactions, filing incorporation papers and defending clients against minor lawsuits.[14] Mostly he drew up briefs, contracts, and other legal documents as a junior associate on legal teams.[14]

Basically, Obama could have cleaned up had he gone directly into the private sector after graduating from Harvard Law (probably fitting comfortably into Gibson’s stereotype if he chose to do so). But he didn’t. He instead worked on behalf of individuals of meager means, some of whom (but for a matter of geography) probably could have been members of Gibson’s local.

The whole “guns, bitter” nonsense was the beginning of Obama getting tagged as some kind of an “elitist,” as we know. But (in a similarity to John Kerry that is a bit haunting as far as I’m concerned) Obama is hardly that; I don’t know how anyone who traveled as much as he did and attended as many different schools as he had to in the process could come away with that attitude. If anything, it provided an extraordinary enrichment through personal sacrifice. And while his orbit is very different now, of course, it wasn’t always that way, and I honestly believe he’s learned the lessons of his early years based on his words and actions in this campaign.

Hey, I don’t know Barack Obama; I don’t know any of these people (though I was privileged to meet Patrick Murphy not too long ago). But I do know they’re hardly perfect, and I know what we see is largely the face they want us to see. But that is true of everyone in public life, including – and especially – the senator from New York (and as I said, it’s almost comical at this point for her to pretend that her route to winning the party nomination is one in which Obama is not utterly destroyed, something else I wish Obama would articulate more often to all who have ears to hear).

So in response, Obama should ask Paul Gibson who exactly he’s referring to, as I said. And if Gibson says it’s someone else besides Obama, then he should be told to make that plain the next time he decides to start acting like an imbecile (a comment like this coming in the wake of North Carolina Governor Mike Easley’s “pansy” reference here means apparently that our political discourse is picking up speed as it slides further into the gutter).

Obama should just stick to the “bread and butter” issues where he beats Hillary; the energy bill was not a good vote, but again, it helped his state, whereas the bankruptcy non-no vote by Hillary hurts a lot more people. And of course, he’s been right all along on the war (by the way, April has been the worst month for troop deaths – 49, I believe – since last September). And if he thinks Hillary’s mandate for universal coverage is bad, he should explain why in terms a four-year-old child can understand (Willard Mitt Romney did the same thing in Massachusetts, with questionable results). And there are a lot of other issues where Obama can speak with typical eloquence and remind voters that, “oh yeah, this guy gets it after all.”

And one more thing: I’m tired of watching Democrats, in essence, apologize for being smart. Obama was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review and was graduated magna cum laude from that university in ’91. That’s a strength, and it should be noted accordingly (subtly, I know). As for whether or not anyone who watches Faux News and takes it seriously will appreciate that…well, I think we just answered our own question.

At any rate, he’s received a lot of flak and dished some out, but he needs to “get his back up” a bit more (apparently the latest – and final, I hope – Wright speech showed that a bit). The voters of this country understand and appreciate trying to “remain above the fray,” but what they understand is someone responding with a bit of a “chip on the shoulder” also.

I’m just concerned because I watched the John Edwards candidacy get knocked off in part through a preoccupation with media nonsense to the point where it consumed any possible discussion of actual issues (in his case, he was also hurt by a pretty thorough media blackout), and I don’t want to see that again if I can help it. We have too many problems to fix in this country to let a scenario occur allowing John Sidney McCain III to get sworn into office on January 21st next year.

Update 4/30: I meant to link to this great related Daily Kos post earlier.

Update 1 5/1: This was some interesting nonsense by Gail Collins in the New York Times today...

The Jeremiah Wright event has raised questions about Barack Obama’s presidential campaign that go beyond speculating about how aging white voters are going to react. (As an aging white voter, I would like to report that we have moved on and are now concentrating exclusively on the fate of the farm bill.)

Obviously, Obama doesn’t share Wright’s racial paranoia. But the saga does play into Hillary Clinton’s most powerful argument: that he is not seasoned enough to be elected president.

So...Obama isn't "seasoned" enough because he doesn't share the "racial paranoia" of a controversial preacher undergoing what I would call an unprecedented amount of media saturation?

It's not even lunchtime yet, and I already have a headache.

Update 2 5/1: As Atrios sez, more like this.