Stop Whining and Stand Tall - Like Obama. This is Political Warfare

As I noted in my New Hampshire primary predictions, I decided to drink the kool-aid and predict a landslide Obama victory in the NH primary. I was not alone in this. Pundits, the media, news anchors, bloggers, all were swept up in irrational exuberance over the prospect of an inspiring, historical moment. Swept away with the idea that America would nominate a black man to run for president and were he to win, give America a shining moment to believe that as a nation we have come far enough to deliver on Martin Luther King's dream, that we judged Obama by the content of his character, not the color of his skin.

I, like many other black people I'm sure, was captivated by the idea that I might actually see a black man become President of the United States in my lifetime. Something I never thought possible. Something I thought my children might see, but not me. As Obama says on his website "I'm asking you to believe". So I did.

Hillary cried, Bill lied. And then, after all of the hype and exuberance and high expectations, came the NH numbers and Obama narrowly lost to Clinton, by a mere 3%. Pundits, media, bloggers and Obama supporters were all befuddled, asking themselves "WTH happened"? The postmortems of the primary result have come fast and thick. Where did Obama come up short? With women primarily. The polling stopped 3 days before the voting, and didn't catch the movement that might have signaled the tightening of the race. The black blogosphere has been full of its own theories and one that has made its appearance repeatedly is the "Bradley Effect" theory. Across the Afrosphere, blogs like the field negro, Jack and Jill Politics, Electronic Village, Pam's House Blend and many others have opined that the Bradley Effect, a phenomenon where white voters give inaccurate responses to polling questions about support for a non-white candidate out of a fear that they might appear to others to be racially prejudiced, was to blame for the NH result. In other words, white voters were not going to vote for Obama because of his race, even if they said they were.

With much respect to these and other bloggers, ENOUGH. Obama is competing for the job of leader of the free world. This is political warfare of the highest order. You don't play for stakes higher than this and in addition, his life and the lives of his family are literally on the line. If he wins the nomination and ultimately the election, he ascends to a position that makes him arguably the single most powerful man on the planet. His opposition are the highly capable and well financed leaders of the one of the most formidable political machines ever seen in democratic politics. The road to the nomination is going to be a dogfight, there will be blood and lots of it. There will be victories and as in NH, defeats in this war for the nomination.

Do not cheapen the significance of his effort, win or lose, by naming racism and prejudice as the cause when he is unsuccessful or suffers a setback. Racism and prejudice are a fact of life. Colin Powell once said "you must outperform racism". The same way the market factors political instability in the Middle East into the price of oil, African Americans must factor prejudice and racism into our calculations and plans, and so must Obama. He must outperform prejudice where it is in evidence and more importantly he must outperform his opponents. He fought the good fight in NH and he lost. He congratulated his opponent, declared and demonstrated that he was unbowed and forged on to the battles in Nevada, South Carolina and the Super Tuesday states. No mention of racism or prejudice. None. He got beat. It ain't over.

We should follow his leadership. Barack did not give any credence in defeat to the idea that racism had held him back. Neither should we.

The Oprah Effect Revisited

In light of Obama's victory in Iowa and his strong showing in New Hampshire, its worth quickly revisiting Oprah's involvement for a moment. The MSM is so simple that they often miss the boat on whats really going on. In the case of Oprah's endorsement, people, including Dr. Laura, are also missing the boat.

The Obama campaign was very smart in obtaining Oprah's support and they were genius in how they used her. They went on a three state tour, before the IA caucus and NH and SC primaries and used her celebrity to the get the names, phone numbers and email of 60,000 potential voters. You had to give up your info for tickets, you got better seats if you volunteered, it was genius. They have been working those 60,000 voters ever since, and turned them into victory in IA, a very strong performance in NH and potentially a victory in South Carolina. Oprah was the sizzle and they provided the steak. She made the pitch and they moved in to close the sale. Very smart. It was not about a celebrity endorsement, it was about getting a shot at 60,000 voters and they totally succeeded.

That success is an intriguing predicate to a discussion about what else is possible in impacting public policy if the black elite and the political class joined forces to press for change on other public policy issues facing black America.

How Clinton Could Make a Comeback

From RealClearPolitics HorseRaceBlog

There are two features of the Democratic nomination process that could help Hillary.

First, Democratic primaries and caucuses allocate delegates proportionally. Candidates win "pledged" delegates based not on whether they win a state - but on how many voters support them. So, for instance, even though Clinton and Edwards lost Iowa, they still won a few delegates.

Second, about 20% of all delegates to the Democratic convention are "super" or "unpledged" delegates. This quirky provision - which does not have a corollary on the Republican side - has its origins in Chicago, 1968. In the wake of that disastrous convention, the DNC formed the McGovern-Fraser Commission to recommend improvements for the nomination process. McGovern-Fraser suggested that the process be opened to rank-and-file Democrats on the principle of "one Democrat, one vote." The reforms contributed to George McGovern (the same McGovern from the commission) winning the nomination in 1972. The party establishment did not like this. So, it added the super delegate provision to serve as a check on the party rank-and-file.

This year, according to the indispensable Green Papers, there will be 798 super delegates at the convention in Denver. They include all elected members of the Democratic National Committee, all current Democratic members of Congress (including non-voting delegates), all sitting Democratic governors, and past party luminaries (e.g. former presidents). Unlike pledged delegates, who are bound to particular candidates, super delegates are free to vote their consciences.

Here is how these rules could help Clinton.

Suppose that Clinton stumbles early, but rebounds later. By the end of the nomination period - she draws even with Obama in the primaries. She wins 45% of the aggregate vote. He wins 45%. Edwards, who in this scenario dropped out some time before the end of the season, wins 10%. That could yield the following count among pledged delegates:

Obama: 1,464 delegates
Clinton: 1,464 delegates
Edwards: 325 delegates

This leaves the 798 super delegates, who can support whomever they choose. Let us suppose, in this scenario, they divvy up the way the Hill reports declared members of Congress have so far split their support between the three major candidates: 62% for Clinton, 25% for Obama, and 13% for Edwards. That would change the delegate count to:

Clinton: 1,967 Delegates
Obama: 1,664 Delegates
Edwards: 420 Delegates

A candidate needs 2,026 delegates to win the nomination. In this scenario, Clinton goes from being tied for first to having a solid lead, and just 58 delegates short of the nomination. If she could persuade about three-fifths of the Edwards' super delegates to back her, she would win.

Now, this is not a prediction about what will happen. It is simply meant to illustrate that the rules of the nomination process give Clinton two advantages.

First, the proportional allocation rule buys Clinton time to get her campaign back on track. This is critically important. Most people assume that February 5th will be the end of the nominating season. Not necessarily. Remember that 44% of all pledged delegates will not be allocated until after Super Tuesday. Clinton could use the proportional allocation rules to keep the delegate count close through February 5th - and then draw even with Obama toward the end of the season. Perhaps as the press starts to examine him with the scrutiny that they give to frontrunners, Democrats will come back to "old rough and ready" Clinton.

Political Season's New Hampshire Primary Prediction

All right. After some deliberation and thought, here are Political Seasons' prediction for the New Hampshire primary.

Democrats:

Political Season has decided to drink the Obama kool-aid for the NH primary. Based on the poll data at Realclearpolitics.org, and Obama's gaffe free debate performance last night, we predict he will win the NH primary and that he will do so running away. Political Season projects Obama to be the winner with a margin of victory as big or bigger than Iowa. We predict Hillary will take second place and Edwards will come in third with a vote performance weaker than in Iowa.

Republicans:

Political Season is predicting that John McCain will be the winner of the New Hampshire primary and may win it walking away in terms of the margin of victory. Romney appears to be fading and trending downwards in the polls. Although post debate focus groups in New Hampshire seemed to respond well to his performance, we do not think it will be enough to turn the tide for him in the time remaining against McCain. Huckabee will make a third place showing. While he appears to be achieving some upward movement, we believe his identification as an evangelical in the minds of NH voters will cap the extent of upward movement and that he will not benefit from an Iowa bump anywhere near what his democratic counterpart, Obama, has experienced from his Iowa win.

Debate Warfare - Real Time Commentary

I'll be issuing my New Hampshire predictions after the debate

Unfortunately I was out at a going away party for a dear friend and started my debate coverage late. So I only caught the end of the republican slugfest as they were asked about Obama. Clearly they were consistently talking about Clinton as thought she would be the nominee and the moderators interjected, wait a sec, what if Obama is the nominee? Another body blow to the idea of the inevitable Hillary nomination.

8:30 pm - I caught the tail end of the republican debate where the republican candidates were talking about Obama. Their responses were a good preview of the major attack points against a potential Obama nominee - tax and spend liberal, wants to create welfare state, no executive experience, no national security experience, wrong on life, wrong on same sex marriage.

These are areas where I do have differences of opinion with Obama and the issues he will have to defend against if he becomes the nominee and faces off against the eventual republican nominee.

9:15 pm - Clinton and Richardson in particular sound like foreign policy geopolitical neophytes. Richardson's idea that the US can ask Musharraf to step aside is idiotic (see the cross post from Stratfor for the reasons why). Clinton's thought that we can ask Musharraf to share control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons is equally silly. Obama so far has not stepped in it, but all of them are foolish to answer so specifically a hypothetical and then expound on that. Obama did the best because he was able to give the most focused answer because he got the most focused hypothetical. None of them sound as though they have a hard geopolitical analysis.

9:35 pm - The moderator question on healthcare touched off a discussion that clearly highlights the tactical approach of Edwards tonight, which is to augment and amplify Obama's attacks on Clinton and defend his flank to some extent. Damaging Hillary is to his benefit. And he plays attack dog to Obama's statesman and I wonder if he's looking down the road to be a possible veep to Obama? Richards is highlighting his experience and calling for civility, and further seals his doom after the dumb answers on foreign policy, because as a tactical matter, his campaign benefits if Hillary is damaged too. Highlighting his experience draws out a plus for him, but I think only reinforces Hillary as a choice over him since you could argue hers is better and if you are going with experience, then go Hillary would go that line of argument. Playing for a veep spot under Hillary?

9:47 pm - The best answer on Iraq came from Obama. However, it did not contain any recognition of the geopolitical reality and role of Iran in our decision making there, or of the need to prevent Iranian hegemony in the region detrimental to our interests. Hillary's answer of starting withdrawal in 60 days is again a too tactical answer, as is Edwards answer about withdrawing and giving a number! Richardson continues with that by saying he will get them out in a year. Obama gave a better conceptual answer about what principles or assumptions he would use in making his decision and avoiding these specific answers about how he would end the war. I think its a mistake to lock themselves in now, before they know everything they will know on day 2 of the presidency.

10:04 pm - Richardson does not have sufficient killer instinct. He's asked if executive experience is necessary for a president, and he doesn't say yes! Then he goes on to tout his resume. Edwards is a better attack dog for Obama's change point than Richardson is for Clinton's experience point. Then he follows up by saying that youth is no detriment, which is a nod to Edwards and Obama. His debate warfare skills are not good. Edwards is talking about how this fight is deep inside him. He is being as one blogger called him "the angry white man". I'm not sure thats any better a political positioning on him than it would be on Obama.

Hillary demonstrates political killer instinct one second and ineptness the next. When asked if she can do things the others can't, she says a firm yes, then when asked again, she equivocates and says she is only making her case. I liked the first answer better, and why are you scared to say you can do something they can't? She does score points right after by referencing how Bill Clinton made major change to reduce the deficit, raise taxes and improve the economy. Obama makes a nice rhetorical counterpoint about the power of words to inspire and engage to counter Hillary's point that that is meaningless. Bill gets after Edwards about his anger and how you need a coalition, that his anger is not helpful. Richardsons tactics tonight don't make a lot of sense to me. He's not really differentiating himself at all, since talking experience does not really help him, but helps Hillary and if Hillary is dominant, he is out.

Obama and Hillary are talking craziness about carbon taxes and cap and trade initiatives. I don't know much about that, but what I do know is that I don't want to pay any more taxes! Curse their tax and spend ways!

10:38 pm - the democratic debate wraps and here's my take; Edwards further demonstrates his unelectability as he continues what is now beginning to sound like a strident, angry ranting against evil multinational corporations. Richardson's debate performance has done nothing to break him from the pack or distinguish him in my mind in anyway. He was a complete non entity, doing very little for himself and actually providing tepid support for Hillary. He tried to be above the fray with the consequence that he never got in it. Barack had a confident mistake free performance, no gaffes, though I found his carbon tax enthusiasm frightening. Hillary's performance was defensive. Mildly pointed attacks, frustrated entreaties that she's been making change for years, that she is a change candidate. It was the performance of someone not entirely on sure footing. In earlier debates, she was more confident and spoke with a more commanding assurance about the issues and she took more risks. Now, she's being careful. She wants to go to the body on Obama, but she has not quite figured out how to do it in a substantive way and not a negative one. If she doesn't figure that out soon, she may find her prospects eroding even further.