3 of 4

Write now Article Tools

When Barack Obama began his campaign off the heels of his best-selling political manifesto, The Audacity of Hope, his goal was to furnish a hopeful image with the promise of change. The media perpetuated the idea of Obama as an inspirational leader, with many people speaking of him in almost messianic terms. He talked about lofty ideas such as "the politics of hope" - now a joke in press releases from the Clinton campaign. For a moment, it seemed that Obama was signaling a new era of unity politics, where political discussions would be centered on unifying issues like climate change and global poverty. People really believed he could and would unite a "divided" America and inspire young people to become more active in politics.

Clearly Obama drank this kool-aid as well. Rather than making an effort to gather support from traditional Democratic interest groups, he began running as a general election campaign. He took positions contrary to party orthodoxy, particularly on issues related to Teachers' Unions. Also, he never clearly defined "the politics of hope," allowing the Clinton campaign to assume it meant positive campaigning. Given that the Clinton campaign is incredibly well-organized and quite shrewd, they drew Obama out on a number of foreign policy issues, forcing a response. The substance of the debate may have favored Obama on these issues, but Clinton had already won. By drawing Obama out, Clinton was able to, in short, claim that Obama had abandoned "the politics of hope."

Obama has never recovered from this. The inspirational aura began to fade. His campaign thus far has been a projection of boldness with nothing substantively bold. Hillary Clinton, however, has actually made bold proposals. She defended the taking campaign donations from lobbyists on one hand, while proposing a far bolder health care plan on the other. Everything she has done has been done with gusto, which is the logical choice for a candidate attempting to project inevitability. While she gathers the core of Democratic interests to her camp, Obama has had little success in reaching out to labor unions, trial lawyers, and progressive advocacy groups like NARAL, AARP, and the Sierra Club. Union members, lawyers, environmentalists, teachers, senior citizens, and feminists, unlike college students, actually vote.

The Obama camp is beginning to get a clue. He's beginning to run negative ads, and he's focusing primarily on Iowa. There is no point in pulling punches when the Clinton campaign has already declared that he's abandoned "the politics of hope." If his is an insurgent campaign, then he should have adopted a conventional campaign strategy a long time ago. It doesn't take a scholar of Mao to understand that all insurgent campaigns must eventually adopt conventional tactics in order to succeed. He should have done this at his peak, not when Clinton's nomination has become more likely. He'll have to accept the risk of sounding desperate.

This could be unfortunate for Democrats, as Obama's positives among the public are higher than Clinton's. But given Clinton's numbers in head-to-head match-ups with the Republicans, perhaps it doesn't make a difference who gets the nomination.

Learn more about this author, Matthew Struhar.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Problems in the Obama Presidential Campaign for the 2008 elections?
We want to hear your view. Write now!