Advice For Barack Obama

By Keith Boykin, in politics
Monday, October 1 2007, 10:43AM

Barack Obama is riding high. He's raised more money than any other candidate -- black or white -- has raised at this stage in a presidential contest. He's capable of drawing huge crowds on the campaign trail, including an amazing turnout at a rally last week in New York City in Hillary Clinton's backyard. And he's even pulled ahead in one poll in the crucial state of Iowa. But the one thing he hasn't done is to convince the majority of Democrats to vote for him.

That's the dilemma for Barack Obama. How do you translate money, crowds and enthusiasm into votes? Normally this wouldn't be a challenge for someone in his position. But Obama is up against a formidable competitor in Hillary Clinton, who by most accounts is the presumptive frontrunner in the race. So if I were giving advice to Barack Obama, I would tell him one thing. He needs to fully distinguish himself from Hillary Clinton and the other candidates.

Change v. Experience

Much of the political discussion in Washington these days has focused on the choice between Clinton and Obama, which has been framed as a choice between experience and change. Clinton supposedly has the experience and Obama supposedly is the candidate of change. If you can just figure out which the people want the most, then you can figure out who is most likely to win, according to this logic.

This is really a false choice. Democratic voters want change, but they also want someone with the experience to get elected and make that change happen. So in a sense, the party wants both. And in that sense, Clinton has a slight advantage over Obama. She's perceived to be the candidate with experience, but because she's a Democrat she also gets some benefit of the doubt as an agent of change from the policies of the Bush Administration.

That wasn't always the case for Hillary Clinton. When the race first started in January, many observers weren't sure that Clinton, who voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, could fend off the concerns from the anti-war left who wanted an end to the failed Iraq War. But through a series of deft moves on her part, Clinton has crafted an anti-war position that mollifies the left and co-opts the views of her Democratic opponents.

That's a big problem for Obama. Barack Obama was supposed to be the agent of change in this race, but as Clinton has moved closer to the left on the war and health care and other issues, she hasn't allowed much daylight to exist between herself and Obama. That means Obama hasn't been able to distinguish himself substantively from Clinton.

In the most famous policy difference between Clinton and Obama, the Illinois senator said during a debate that he would be willing to talk directly with leaders of countries considered to be American enemies like North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela. That comment was quickly challenged by Clinton, who said she would not be exploited by these leaders. But at the end of a 2-week public debate there really wasn't much difference between the opinions of the two candidates. Both would talk to enemies, but they differed over the mechanics of how it would happen.

Is There A Difference Between Barack And Hillary?

Here's a quick test. Aside from the decision to go to war, name one major issue where Clinton and Obama disagree? I'm not sure what that issue is. They both agree on raising the minimum wage. They both want to expand health care to the 47 million Americans without insurance. They both want to end the war in Iraq. They both support affirmative action. They both support a woman's right to choose. And they both support civil unions over same-sex marriage.

Even on the issue of the war, Clinton has caught up with Obama. That's because neither one of the candidates demonstrated much leadership in cutting off funding for the war earlier this year. Both candidates refused to disclose how they would vote on the funding bill until the last moment when they cast their ballots in the Senate. At the very end of the voting period, Barack Obama quietly walked into the Senate chamber and cast his ballot to cut off funding for the war. A few seconds later, Hillary Clinton walked in and also voted to cut off funding for the war.

That was it. There was no fanfare, no advance press releases or press conferences. It was just a quiet vote, and suddenly Obama and Clinton didn't seem much different from one another.

The same problem arose with gay and lesbian issues. When General Peter Pace, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced that he felt homosexuality was immoral, it took Hillary Clinton a full day to disagree with him. That was a golden opportunity for Obama to distinguish himself from Clinton. But he did the same dodge and weave as Clinton. Finally, after criticism of both camps, they each denounced Pace's comments.

Similarly, the LOGO presidential forum exposed another weakness for Obama on LGBT issues. On the one hand, Obama is running as the candidate of change, but on the other hand he's adopted a position against marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. How can you say that you're the candidate of change when you're not willing to fight to change the laws that allow discrimination against a key constituency group in your party, asked one panelist at the debate.

Here's the rub. Obama is not really running as the candidate of change. He's positioning himself as an electable candidate of change. After all, if the Democrats really wanted change they would vote for Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel. But those guys aren't considered to be electable. So Obama has to prove that he's electable and that he's an agent of change.

But how can you prove that you're the candidate of change if the frontrunner keeps stealing your thunder? It's happened over and over again. Obama announced his campaign online. Then Clinton announced her campaign online. Obama spoke at a black church in Selma. Then Clinton spoke at a black church in Selma. Obama voted to cut off war funding. Then Clinton voted to cut off war funding. Obama held a fundraiser with Oprah Winfrey. Then Clinton held a fundraiser with Magic Johnson.

Now is the time for the Obama campaign to make the case for change. If Barack Obama wants the party to take him seriously as the candidate of change, he has to offer something more than the fact that he's not Hillary Clinton. We get that, and for some voters that's enough. But for many other left-leaning Democrats, they will be waiting to see at least one major policy area where Obama is willing to say that he's not the same as Hillary Clinton.

Comments (18) reveal

Comments conceal

Derrick from Philly
October 1 2007, 12:04PM

It's October 2007. It's still possible for something unexpected to happen in the race for the Democratic nomination, but the closer we get to the primaries, the more it looks like the former Goldwater girl is going to win. I think there going to have to beg Obama to say publically that he does NOT want the vice-presidency. She'll end up choosing Bill Richardson. If she was smart she'd ask Colin Powell to be her runningmate "for the good of uniting the country." It aint crazy. It's been thought about before--having a vice presidency from the other party. Choosing Richardson over Obama may offend some black voters. Powell would make her unbeatable.

MidwestGuy
October 1 2007, 12:12PM

Keith, good analysis.

I think that he does need to distinguish himself but unless he becomes a Gravel or Kucinich, I don't see how that happens. Hillary has the machine behind her and that's her biggest advantage. That machine influences perception.

It has been hard for Obama to get press coverage. Over the last few weeks he has delivered both a foreign and tax cut policy. It got little play in the media and was totally eclipsed by Clinton's coverage of healthcare plan and the ensuing 5 in 1 talk show blitz.

I was a bit put off that w/all the substantive issued covered in the most recent democratic debate, the press was more interested in who landed the biggest punch against Clinton. So now it seems to not be about issues, but who can hit Hillary where it hurts.

Unless he comes out swining, I don't know how he can combat that machine. So he's left to his own vices.

Trent
October 1 2007, 12:35PM

I think if we want experience, Biden and Richardson are probably the most experienced in several areas including foreign policy. If we want change, Kucinich or Gravel are most likely to bring it about. But if we want a winning team that can bring both experience and hope for change, I think a Clinton/Obama ticket would do the trick, assuming Powell is out of the question, which I think he is. (BTW...I'm still pissed at Powell for helping us to get into this mess in Iraq...he lost all my confidence and admiration...he should have resigned in protest.)

cward[TypeKey Profile Page]
October 1 2007, 1:06PM

While other candidates may embody the shroud of charisma (Obama) or the proper pedigree (Clinton) this should not be enough for YOU and it falls short for me. We are electing a president and this should not be a reduced to a juvenile popularity contest.

I will not be sidetracked and/or blinded by the aspiration to elect the first African American or woman as President. These two above issues are blinding and polarizing the American people, when issues of importance should be in this election.

I am a Democrat who truly believes in dealing with the issues facing the poor and the middle class, expanding health care, fighting corporate greed and improving education. For me, I proudly say: “John Edwards for President in 2008.”

It is a shame that more black people are not (at this point and I hope it changes) considering John Edwards. Please do click on my name and read the various articles and information on my blog concerning John Edwards, thanks!

atreyu
October 1 2007, 1:26PM

John Edwards? The guy who says black men in America have two options, death or prison? Oh yes, sign me up for the fatalistic candidate.

Troy
October 1 2007, 1:30PM

Note to KB: If only someone caught LeBron James as a Solid Gold dancer on SNL and put it on YouTube -life would be perfect:)

Kenneth Winfrey
October 1 2007, 2:31PM

Obama also might have distinguished himself a bit by voting "Nay" on the proposal to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist group. He didn't vote on it at all.

Clinton distinguisehed herself though--she voted "Yea," an act that IMO only further inflames relations with Iran...

MidwestGuy
October 1 2007, 2:56PM

CWard, change/experience/electability/race/gender are the reasons I've heard people support Clinton and Obama. That's more than what you would seem to suggest.

I've read a lot about Edwards and actually went to your weblog. But they are plans, i-would-like-to's, i-believe-ins.

"Edwards unveils an AIDS plan"
"Edwards in Texas poll"
"The night I met Edwards"

?

That's not very convincing. Inspiring? Sure.

Edwards amounts to an "idea" my friend. And I don't think he's a bad idea.

Are there any trees bearing the fruit of those wonderful ideas while he was making millions or did these ideas surface when he decided to run for office in '98? I've looked at your blog and J.E's and can't find anything.

I don't have a problem with where he is now. But let's not act like he spent his life serving the undeserved. He won personal injury cases.

Great ideas and won a lot of money in court.

And that's why you're proud?

OK

cward[TypeKey Profile Page]
October 1 2007, 3:10PM

Thank you for sharing!

Ostend Street
October 1 2007, 4:15PM

A Hillary Clinton, Colin Powell ticket sounds interesting. A Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama ticket might work also. Let the games begin!!!

Blue
October 1 2007, 4:19PM

I have no idea who I'm going to vote for at this point. While I think Obama is a handsome charismatic specimen, I don't think he is experienced enough to run this country ... and the same goes for Hillary. For me, the jury's still out.

MLee
October 1 2007, 6:32PM

Keith, you wrote about Obama “He's positioning himself as an electable candidate of change.” Is he electable? That is my problem. I know Obama would make a great president, and that he would surround himself with outstanding advisors. I strongly want to vote him, although I would have no problems voting for either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. I am afraid if Obama wins the Democratic primary we will have another 4 to 8 years of a Republican in office as president, which I cannot stomach. For Obama to win the general presidential election, he must receive a majority of the white votes. I am afraid that is not going to happen. When whites are polled they may say one thing, but they actually vote in their own self interest instead of in the interest of the country. For example, a few years ago in my state there was a state proposition to ban affirmative action in state and local governments and public schools and universities.

MLee
October 1 2007, 7:14PM

Continued.

...Polls taken just before the election indicated that the proposition to ban affirmation was losing by a large majority. When the people voted, it passed by a landslide, and everyone wondered “What happened?”

'dre
October 1 2007, 9:31PM

@derrick, not this black voter, since she seems to be the appointed one with all the coins she keeps raking in and a teflon skin, and not a shred of personality, and, I can't stand her on any level, the only way i could cast a vote for her would be with obama, or richardson, otherwise, i'm in the proverbial pickle. want to vote, but, can't stomach a single canidate in either party.

Solo
October 1 2007, 11:43PM

Wow! Another person who doesn't get it! Keith, Obama never had a chance of winning, Clinton had this locked up a long time ago. The Clintons own the Democratic party and will continue to for a long time to come. Obama was built up to later be knocked down after his usefullness had expired. Watching Hillary run uncontested to the Democratic nomination would not have made good TV so they needed someone to play the role of the noble challenger. Hence the rise of Obama!

wuu
October 2 2007, 2:09AM

Keith is wrong about the gay marriage issue. Obama supports civil unions that are EQUAL to traditional marriage in ALL ways when it comes to rights and benefits. The only difference is semantics between obama's civil unions and gay marriage. I believe Hilary's civil unions have limited rights compared to traditional marriage. I dont see why gays want to get "married" anyway. Its time gays started distancing themselves from the hateful church. Be liberated, leave the church, forget about its marriage blessing.

Thought Merchant
October 3 2007, 10:53PM

I disagree that Obama is riding high. He's doing horrible in the debates and his third quarter numbers are lower than Hillary's. I've have a post on my Blog about what I think about Obama thus far. Check it out and comment freely.

http://thoughtmerchant.wordpress.com/2007/10/03/maybe-hes-not-black-enough/

Alexander Robinson
October 5 2007, 8:25AM

wuu you are incorrect on two points. First, civil unions are not now nor will they ever be "equal" to marriage. We've been down this road before separate is not equal. Currently civil unions have no legal standing on the federal level nor is there in interstate recognition.

It is true the Obama supports federal recognition of civil unions however, setting up a separate track for same sex families is simply discrimination.

On your second point, gay and lesbian families are demanding access to civil marriage not the religious institution. You make the same error and assumptions made by religious conservatives. Yes, there are some same gender loving people who are working within their respective denominations to have their church solomize their unions; however, that is not what the law suites are all about.

Finally, gay people want to get married for the same reason that non-gay people see marriage: to get access to the rights and protections which only come with full marriage rights.


Post a comment