Obama's Strategy: Emulate Reagan

Conservative Icon's 1980 Bid Is A Blueprint For An Insurgent Campaign

(Politico)  By The Politico's David Paul Kuhn

---

Awash in money and publicity but behind in the polls, Barack Obama, advisers say, is planning a classic insurgent's campaign to wrest the Democratic nomination from Hillary Rodham Clinton — one that relies on a surge of momentum from early-state victories and faces a make-or-break test in the South Carolina primary.

Obama is touting a new and unconventional brand of grass-roots politics, but his strategy borrows from precedents set by a previous generation of Democrats such as Jimmy Carter and Gary Hart. His advisers also invoke as inspiration a surprising Republican: Ronald Reagan.

"Now, it is blasphemy for Democrats," Obama pollster Cornell Belcher said of Reagan, "but that hope and optimism that was Ronald Reagan" allowed him to "transcend" ideological divisions within his own party and the general electorate.

The upbeat message, Obama advisers say, won't prevent the candidate from stepping up both veiled and explicit contrasts with Clinton, who he hopes to portray as an old-hat conventional politician whose varied positions on the Iraq war reflect calculation rather than leadership.

Obama's need to transcend conventional politics is evident by looking at the practical hurdles to his nomination. He boasts best-selling books and magazine cover spreads and — most relevant to his 2008 ambitions — is winning the fundraising race in both total dollars and with a record number of contributors.

But bundles of cash and good buzz have not eroded what most national polls show as a durable double-digit lead for Clinton, built largely around her nearly two-to-one advantage with Democratic women.

This has Obama relying on a carom-shot candidacy, in which, come January, he will need to exploit Clinton's weakness in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, then have nearly all the bounces go his way in other early contests if he hopes to compete credibly once the race goes national with voting in half the states on Feb. 5.

Obama strategists say for now they are not running a national campaign but are depending on what senior adviser David Axelrod calls "a sequential series" of victories.

This is why Obama is already on the air with television ads in Iowa and New Hampshire and so far is out-spending Clinton in every early state.

The trend includes more than twice as much spending in Iowa ($1.6 million to Clinton's $839,000) and nearly three times as much in South Carolina ($350,000 to $120,000) in the first half of this year.

The South Carolina Democratic primary electorate is usually more than half African-American, and Obama advisers predict these voters will back one of their own to give him an essential victory a week before Super Tuesday.

History suggests the hazards of this momentum-based approach. Nearly every Democratic nominating contest for the past 40 years has featured some variation on the same script: reform candidates trying to use grass-roots energy and media momentum to beat rivals with more traditional profiles and, usually, more support from the party establishment.

Occasionally it works, as when George McGovern won the Democratic nomination on an anti-war message in 1972 or when Jimmy Carter bounced off an Iowa victory to become unstoppable in 1976.

Usually it doesn't work, as reflected in the experiences of candidates such as Eugene McCarthy, Jerry Brown, Bill Bradley or, most recently, Howard Dean, who in 2003 was riding a wave that looked much like the one Obama is trying to surf now, before wiping out once voting actually began.

A close parallel to the strategy Obama is trying to execute (with a different conclusion) is the one that took Gary Hart to the brink of a major upset of Walter Mondale in 1984.

Hart stunned the party establishment when his future-oriented "new ideas" message led to a big victory in the New Hampshire primary. Mondale soon rallied by saying Hart's supposed new ideas reminded him of a fast-food hamburger commercial: "Where's the beef?"

Obama's hope is to answer that question most fervently by emphasizing that he opposed the war in Iraq from the outset.

Hart, who in addition to his own insurgent campaign also managed McGovern's in 1972, sees new vitality in the old strategic model, questioning Clinton as he once did Mondale.

"There still is an enormous number of people in the party who are unhappy with [Clinton] for what they perceive to be her vacillation on the war and her reluctance to confess error," he said in an interview. "People who care about these things remember when, remember how, remember who took leadership.

"She's one of the best-known women in the world," Hart added. "She's been in the White House for eight years. She's a senator from one of the largest states. And 60-plus percent of the Democratic Party wants somebody else."

It will be a challenge for Obama to become that "anybody but Clinton" candidate, an urge that is another common reaction to Democratic front-runners.

Obama advisers, speaking privately, acknowledge that the race likely will hinge on whether the debate is on Obama's terms (Who presents the fresher and more compelling face for the future?) or on Clinton's (Who can give voters the most reassurance about ability to do the job?).

"If the debate is about changing politics and moving the country in a different direction and bringing people together, we like our odds in that debate," said a senior official in the campaign, who insisted on not being identified in order to discuss strategy candidly. "If the debate is primarily about who is going to be a strong, tough leader, that debate, quite frankly, is probably going to benefit Hillary Clinton."

Obama's goal is to draw contrasts with Clinton without drawing blood. "There is a difference between contrasting and attacking," Belcher said. Obama is relying on his oratory to portray himself as the aspirational candidate — "we're more interested in looking forward, not in looking backward," Obama says on the stump, inferring that Clinton is the anachronistic choice. In response, Clinton invokes the 1990s prosperity under Bill Clinton to argue that "yesterday's news was pretty good."

Beneath this larger contest over message and public image, however, lie a number of tactical considerations.

Numerous polls show Clinton running third in Iowa, behind Edwards in first place and Obama in second. Obama's goal is to win that state or, in combination with Edwards, demonstrate that there is a powerful anti-Clinton constituency.

A weak showing for Clinton in Iowa would make New Hampshire a must-win for her. She has a lead there, including in a poll this month by CNN/WMUR. She won 36 percent to Obama's 27 percent and Edwards' 11 percent. The country's first viable female candidate wins 41 percent of women and splits men with Obama at 30 percent each.

If he is able to win or come close in Iowa, New Hampshire or Nevada, that would send Obama on to South Carolina. Rick Wade, an Obama adviser there, said an Obama victory in the state is "critical" to his chances.

Belcher flatly predicts: "We are going to outright win South Carolina."

Democrats debated in the Palmetto State Monday night. A July CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll finds Clinton leading with 39 percent and Obama at 25 percent. Other polling in June showed Obama leading.

Obama's greatest challenge in winning South Carolina is wooing black women, who are swaying between him and Clinton. "When you talk about the broken politics of Washington, the people who are most affected by it are single women, working moms," Axelrod said.

Obama's wife, Michelle, has already visited South Carolina several times. The campaign sees her as a key means to reach black women. By late summer or early autumn, Wade said the Obama campaign will be advertising in South Carolina, as well.

But Obama's campaign staff is aware that if they do not appear to contest the earlier electoral challenges, from Nevada to New Hampshire, they may lack the momentum to win South Carolina.

Dean fell prey to the same pitfall. His campaign never recovered after imploding in Iowa. After the first 2004 caucuses, John F. Kerry rode a wave of perceived electability from Iowa to the convention, not unlike many Democrats before him.

"The liberal wing of the Democratic Party falls in love with quasi-messianic figures who come along regularly with an exciting, aspirational vision for where the country must go, often coupled with an unpopular war, at least an unpopular war among progressives, and for a significant time they are ascendant within that liberal wing of the Democratic Party," said Steve Grossman, the chairman of Dean's 2004 presidential campaign who is now a fundraiser for Clinton.

Yet, Grossman emphasized, "when the broader cross section of the Democratic Party takes a somewhat more dispassionate look at the field and says who is ready to be president of the United States and bring the kind of vision and leadership to the job, those quasi-messianic figures tend to fall short. And the more established candidate tends to win, because people are looking for something rock solid and predictable when it comes to presidential voting."

[mudrose-2009]

He should emulate Reagan, which should put him six feet under and very, very cold.

[randalds]

You Obama are no Ronald Reagan
Posted by b48151 at 08:20 AM : Jul 26, 2007

Thank Gawd! The LAST thing we need is another Reagan!

[cmp271]

Emulate Reagan!!! Reagan was a REPUBLICAN!!!

I wish we had a better candidate to choose from.

On election day-NONE OF THE ABOVE!!!

[zootallures2]

Emulate Reagan? I wish they all would! He's dead by the way. Hopefully his atoms can now assemble into something less harmfull. And like the rest of these creeps, their souls will be to weighted down to escape the universes reject bin.

[thgdriver]

I have a question for the Senator from Illinois. You backed the legislation in that state that makes it a felony for an honest citizen to defend their homes with a firearm.

Senator Obama, In light of the recent home invasion and the rape and murder of that whole family do you still feel that law is a good idea?

It's a yes or no Question Senator, please, no Bull Shi! smoke and mirror answer.

[realpatriot1]

mudrose,

I need you to explain mudrose to me because I don't get your point. We've had a presence in the skies over Iraq since 1991. We've had an occupying ground force there since 2003. What does that have to do with what I was saying or what Obama was saying?

If I'm missing something please advise.

[mudrose-2009]

He points out that we pick and choose where we respond to genocide. Although you all accuse him of being a race-baiter, he doesn't point out the obvious truth that we tend to not respond where blacks are the victims, such as in Rwanda, Darfur, Burundi, and the Congo.
Posted by realpatriot1

We've had a presence in Iraq since 1991. I don't need you to explain Obama to me. I know precisely what he means.

[infidel_us]

"Obama's Strategy: Emulate Reagan"

Libs, please note. It doesn't say:
Emulate Carter
Emulate Clinton

Why emulate losers? :)

[realpatriot1]

mudrose,

Obama isn't saying there won't be genocide when we leave Iraq. He's saying that it's not enough of a reason by itself to stay.

He points out that we pick and choose where we respond to genocide. Although you all accuse him of being a race-baiter, he doesn't point out the obvious truth that we tend to not respond where blacks are the victims, such as in Rwanda, Darfur, Burundi, and the Congo.

The point is that we can sometimes respond in a limited way to stop genocide, but we can't afford to occupy countries for 4 plus years solely to stop genocide. As Biden says, where we can we should, but we need to use sound judgement as to the costs involved.

The entire civilized world has a responsibility to confront genocide, not just us. The unilateral committment of American forces into hostile situations should not be undertaken for humanitarian purposes alone where other issues of national interest are not compelling.

We succeeded in such an effort in Kosovo, but going forward we need a foreign policy which doesn't unnecissarily overburden our military with being the sole policeman of the world.

[mudrose-2009]

Obama wouldn't sink that low, and he proves it time and time again.

Posted by tru_america1

This guy's so low he has to look up to see down.

[name_verify]

Barak is magic and he is a negro and if you disagree you are a racist hater.

[mudrose-2009]

I wouldn't trust anyone that says, "we shouldn't stay in Iraq simply because we fear genocide". It's sheer sophistry. Just ask John Kerry who said it wouldn't happen in Vietnam. In 1973 the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam. 1975 Saigon Fell - Hanoi imprisioned a million Vietnamese without charge in "re-education" camps where an estimated 165,000 perished. Thousanda were abused or tortured. Laos and Cambodia fell in 1975,too. In 1978 some 40,000 Laotians had been imprisoned in re-education camps. 12,000 went off to a place called Phong Saly where it is said no one ever returns. The post-war horrors in Vietnam and Laos paled by comparison to Cambodia. 2 million died from starvation, disease, overwork or murder. Between 1975 and 1995 more than 1.4 million Indochinese escaped, nearly 800,000 of them by boat. 10% of those died at sea. Black Magic's blase cynicism about the possibility of genocide in Iraq is similar to Mr. Kerry's denial of the humanitarian catastrophe that followed America's departure from Vietnam. Who needs people who think like this?

[katg21]

hawksprings is one of those FOX "News" watchers who are in complete ignorance of the FACTS.
Posted by mh4cbs1 at 08:29 PM : Jul 25, 2007

And you are one of those liberal conspiracy theorists who lives in his mamma's basement.

[realpatriot1]

screen_name,

It seems apparent that the one with a "negro problem" is you.

There's help available for what ails you. You just have too man up to your problem and seek the mental health services you so desparately need.

[realpatriot1]

erasmus,

What seems immature to me is folks attributing what the media says about Obama to Obama himself. Obama has never compared himself to Kennedy or Reagan.

If you folks read the article you would realize that the Reagan comparison has nothing to do with policy or philosophy but relates to campaign strategy.

Understanding those 2 facts would deem most of the comments here irrelevant.

[lastdance2]

It was under the Clinton Administration.

That former : Defense Secretary Rumsfeld - Was involved in selling
a Nuclear Plant to : North Korea
Along with the technology to refine : Uranium and produce Plutonium.
The main ingredients of a : Nuclear Bomb.

More "Nuclear Bombs" In China
More "Nuclear Missiles " In China

China allied to : %u201CNorth Korea%u201D allied to %u201CSyria%u201D allied to: %u201C Iran%u201D
Each Country - Hostile to the - United States
Now ! ! - All exchanging Nuclear Weapon Technology

If you want a Nuclear : "Holocaust"
You vote : " Comrade Hillary"

"Comrade Hillary" :
Who invests money into (India) a country.
That allows men to : - Burn - women alive.
Because - of some minor infraction.

"Comrade Hillary:"
Who gives Visas, to people from India.
To come to the United States.
To Train for American jobs.

"Comrade Hillary's" - Patriotic - Gift to :
The American Work force.
if you more jobs, to leave United States
You vote : " Comrade Hillary"

"Comrade Hillary" :
The hopes - continuing dreams and aspirations of :
Criminal Corporate America.

"Comrade Hillary" - Citizen Bill
The favorite friends and allies of :
The Bush Administration and The Republican Party

If you want a repeat of the : Regean - Bush Administration
if you want a repeat of the : Bush - Cheney Administration
You vote : " Comrade Hillary"

Lastdance

[one_american]

Hillary and Obama have recently called each other "irresponsible and naive."

They are BOTH right about this, and nothing else.

[erasmus6]

Obama strikes me as being immature.
First he compares himself to Kennedy and now he is talking about Reagan. He just wants people to associate him with them because they were well liked.

[randalds]

The more populare he becomes, the worse the attacks will get. Hope he and his wife have thick skins.
Posted by kansas1946 at 11:41 PM : Jul 25, 2007

You could be right and he's been hanging back and sandbagging rather then attacking. He's raising and saving tons of money and could mount a come from behind blitz. There's still plenty of time. Personally I'm still hoping against hope that Edwards will pull of a miracle, but he seems to be dropping back too far.

[kansas1946]

I think Obama is going to be the one to beat. Hillary still has to answer for her stand on the war and about 80pct of the American people are opposed to it. Hillary is also polarizing with independents, Barack is not. I don't think folks care a rat's patootie what color the candidate is, as long as he/she is perceived as a diplomat who can mend our world relations. Obama is the guy that can do that. Hillary, maybe? The more populare he becomes, the worse the attacks will get. Hope he and his wife have thick skins.