I took some flack a month ago for the snarky “It Takes A Potemkin Village”remark on Hillary’s vaunted campaign skills. But events in the past few days lead me to believe that Obama’s organizational strength is much stronger than the MSM understands. This fact is dawning on The New York Times, Adam Nagourney, who has consistently overestimated Hillary’s operation. In Florida and Michigan, Obama’s troops have checkmated Clinton’s attempts to change the rules in the middle of the game.
The Clinton’s also were depending on the Rev. Wright controversy to sully Obama’s reputation, but his speech in Philadelphia seems to have changes that dynamic. As Democratic consultant Tad Devine said,
“Obama, confronted by an issue that was boiling, seemed to wade into it with a speech that was in many ways profound,” Mr. Devine said. “As a result, now these people who were so interested and awakened by his candidacy are back with him again. Instead of this being a setback, it becomes an opportunity.”
Finally, I believe that the Super-delegates are politically aware and still believe Clinton would be a polarizing face at the top of the ticket. If Obama can do well in Pennsylvania and win Oregon and North Carolina, then the elders like Pelosi, Gore and Edwards will probably call on Clinton to abandon the race and let the party unite behind Barack.
6 responses so far ↓
Barack Obama News » Blog Archive » Obama’s Organizational Strength // March 20, 2008 at 8:24 am
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
Patrick Freeman // March 20, 2008 at 8:37 am
One can only hope. The more I see of Hillary, the more shrill and divisive she seems. I just do not see her attracting the uncommitted and independent voters she would need to defeat McCain, even with all his personal shortcomings and appalling ignorance of the wider world. Obama has proven time and again to be a superb speaker and his campaign to be about just what I think most intelligent voters realize is needed — bringing us back together to work constructively on the challenges facing the United States. The contrast with McCain, one-on-one, will be starkly revealing: old-school arrogance and fear mongering versus a forward-looking optimism based on what we have been, who we are, and how we intend to approach the future.
Thanks for your posts, Jon. They keep me thinking.
Zhirem // March 20, 2008 at 10:31 am
I got a clue as to the Obama ground game way back last summer at a small town and small county Iowa fair. I was an Edwards man, and still am I suppose, but Obama had at least a dozen campaign workers there, at such a small venue.
I think Obama sealed the deal with that last speech. I think Clinton knows it. And I think that Obama will thrash McCain come November. The differences between the two will indeed be stark as Patrick suggests. I sincerely hope th at Obama has the chops to back up his soaring and lifting oratory, but I think he will fair quite well on-stage against a man that exhumes the ‘You kids get off my lawn!’ kind of old-man crazy.
- Zhirem
Chris Trebaol // March 20, 2008 at 2:48 pm
There saying now that she’s taken a 7-8 percent lead over Obama in the polls, but then again I hate polls with a passion. They asked 1,208 democratic voters, and they found a growing support for Hillary. They then did a poll of 4,000 general voters, the results showed McCain leading Obama by a 7 point margin, and Hillary nearly tying him. What is all this nonesense, if these polls are a true barometer of public opinion then what the hell has she done to suddenly look less hissy and mean?
Fentex // March 20, 2008 at 5:54 pm
It occurs to me, having recently met an Obama volunteer at a party (that’s someone visiting New Zealand, a world away from New York where they volunteer) that Obamas apparent organizational success isn’t organized so much as it’s volunteered.
If Obama is supported by a broad selection of people representative of the generally intelligent and compassionate U.S electorate that has found themselves motivated by him, then his success may just be a reflection of their motivation.
A person acting out of the joy of doing something they think worthwhile will put more effort and concentration in than someone working halfheartedly or simply for money.
If the people working on Obamas behalf are well motivated and supported by numbers of similarly motivated volunteers constantly spending their time thinking and more importantly acting on his behalf then it doesn’t require orgainzation to get results.
One could almost assumme strong organization would hamper success among volunteers as a rigid table of organization and enforced chain of command demotivates independent action and initiative.
There’s a price to be paid for even good top down orgainzation and it may be that Obama benefits more from the strength of peoples desire for his success than he does from his lieutenants skills.
I Stand By My Prediction « Jon Taplin’s Blog // May 6, 2008 at 4:46 pm
[...] 6, 2008 · No Comments What seems like a century ago, I said that Obama’s steady organizational strength would prevail by June. If Obama can do [...]
Leave a Comment