Fear Not Barack: Stumper Readers to the Rescue

[metta 0]

Note: Suggestions from Obama cult members

No. 5 is the smartest..

Fear Not Barack: Stumper Readers to the Rescue

Andrew Romano Last Thursday, I told the good readers of Stumper to imagine they were political consultants newly drafted by Barack Obama to reinvigorate his dispirited campaign. "How should Obama spend the last few days before Tuesday's critical votes in North Carolina and Indiana?" I asked. "How should he tweak his message, if at all? And how about after May 6?"

The advice, of course, came fast and furious. Over the weekend, I sifted through a few dozen smart, substantive suggestions, and here's the most interesting stuff I found:

1) Grab the microphone. This was by far the most common response, and it's easy to see why. Obama's at his most Obamaesque when delivering a "Soaring Speech on an Important Subject ®"--see the 2004 Democratic convention, election night in Iowa or his Philadelphia address on race. But because the media storyline has centered on Rev. Wright, Bittergate and Obama's "Bubba Gap" for the last month, the Illinois senator has appeared--at least when slotted into that storyline on CNN, MSNBC and at the Pennsylvania debate--as small, defensive and even peevish. So his supporters want him, as reader mayshays put it, "to get back to where he once belonged"--to seize the spotlight with a lengthly, substantive, uplifting address that will show him at his best while forcing the press to relay his message, which has been buried for weeks beneath an avalanche of snippy soundbites and speculation. "Bring back the Obama razzle-dazzle," said "Over 60 Women's Libber for Obama."

For many readers, "give speeches" was more of a media strategy than a true change of course. "The problems Obama is facing are based on one thing: noise," wrote zbbrox. "People are... losing confidence in him because they see everyone else losing confidence in him. He looks out of control, and at the mercy of the nattering from the press and the Right Wing... Obama needs to fight all that noise by making speeches. His speech on race was incredibly effective at countering the initial burst of hand-wringing over Wright. He should quit playing it safe, and move back into that mode--the mode of a serious mind talking to Americans about serious issues as though we were adults capable of understanding complex issues... He needs to talk big and stir things up if he wants to generate the kind of news coverage that'll drown out the endless Wright-Bowling-Bitter nonsense."

That would work in theory, I think--the press would undoubtedly obsess over a big, national speech. But isn't a call for more speeches sort of putting the cart before the horse? What, pray tell, would Obama speechify about? According to mayshays, "instead of answering attack adds with short quips and hum-drum parries, [Obama] should stand in front of a microphone and offer oratory addressing the issues that underly the smear... I say when Clinton comes calling with accusations of elitism, Obama should answer with a speech about Class." It's an interesting notion. But by pivoting from a specific attack to a big, abstract idea, Obama might end up playing right into Clinton's hands. She constantly complains that while he obsesses over "speeches," she delivers "solutions." Wouldn't a sweeping address on class give her yet another opportunity to portray him as an out-of-touch, ivory-tower snob?

Readers had two suggestions for avoiding this trap. According to Phil Sandifer, Obama should play the pundit. "He needs to lay out the mathematical and political fact that Clinton's campaign is holding on in the hopes that a disaster will hit and fragment the party--and, in fact, that she's trying to engineer that disaster," he writes. "Then he needs to end by saying that he is willing to campaign for as long as it takes, but that all he's seen since Texas and Ohio is a candidate who is trying to pull the party apart. He should point to his fund-raising since February and point out that he could have been using that money to run against John McCain instead of against a fellow Democrat." Others, however, say the senator should use the spotlight to reframe specific policy proposals. "I think he should go into 'enemy territory' like Kentucky or West Virginia to talk about environmental policy, energy, and the economy," writes thisniss. "It is one of the places where Obama's policies could do the most good. It is also, ironically, the least friendly area for him politically. He needs to get in there and explain how his proposals are genuinely different from those of his rivals... To go onto the doorstep of King Coal and talk about his proposals for green jobs would show off his intelligence, his guts, and his willingness to tell the hard truths that most politicians avoid."

Personally, I'd choose thisniss's tip over Phil's. As reader venaru puts it, the last thing Obama needs at this point is to "be philosophizing about the process while he is inside the ring and taking punches"; I'd leave the mathematical arguments, which sound both defeatist and detached, to his surrogates. Instead, I'd advocate for that big, "enemy-territory" speech on the environment, energy and the economy, which both counters Clinton's "speeches not solutions" attack and positions Obama as the "transformational" truth-teller he wants voters (and superdelegates) to believe he is. But there's still a problem: how to get the press to pay attention. Pundits love to talk about race and class. Policy? Not so much. Obama gives similar speeches all the time, actually; on Saturday, for example, he spoke in Indianapolis about "helping working families succeed in the global economy." But it didn't get much coverage. The trick here would be packaging--playing up the "enemy territory" aspect and sounding at once "big think" and "small bore." Your move, David Axelrod.

2) Focus on McCain, not Clinton. Call it Inevitability 2.0--by training his fire on the senator from Arizona rather than his rival from New York, Obama would prove his mettle as a partisan brawler while implying that he's already won and Clinton's already lost. "To the extent that Hillary is brought before him by the media, he should respond with pity for her and her inability to accept reality, and then turn the focus back to his real opponent, John McCain," writes Saltydog_o. "He needs to realize that he doesn't have to choose between accommodating and attacking her. Just ignore her the way you would an angry child who tries to get what they want through tantrums... You don't have to respond to every cry and twitter either. Just let 'em waste their energy until they're spent and decide to give it up."

Of course, "respond[ing to Clinton] with pity" would probably produce a bit of a backlash among the 49 percent of Democrats who have supported her so far in the primaries--and who rightly note that Obama hasn't wrapped up the nomination just yet. Obama can't afford to look condescending--or to further divide the party. That said, he doesn't need to diss Clinton to shift to McCain--especially if he uses to pivot to focus on policy, killing two birds with one stone. "I think Obama needs to reassure working class voters by clearly describing the differences between his policies and those of John McCain," says bigpapiforprezo8. " Since Obama and Hillary differ only slightly, this is his greatest chance to show that he is electable...Hammer home how much better you will be than McCain. He needs to ignore Clinton, all she does is drag him down... He will win the nomination because superdelegates will not overturn the one with the most pledged delegates, [so] Obama should start running a general election style campaign now."

Or, as Mike in Sac put it, "take on McCain. Beat him with a dead Bush. Fight and get tough. Run serious TV ads and take him on with real conviction. You have to show you are ready to battle. Be strong and resolute as a Commander in Chief would act."

In all fairness, I'm pretty sure Obama agrees. He's attempted to turn his attention toward McCain several times already, and continues to spend at least as much of his stump speech drawing contrasts with the Republican as he does addressing Clinton. But the fact is, she's still running against him, and voters in Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon et al are still trying to decide between the two of them. So he can't ignore her as much as he'd like. Still, I think a sharper, higher-profile partisan tone on McCain's policy proposals--and perhaps some pugilistic advertising--couldn't hurt.

3) Keep your eye on the prize. And by that I mean "superdelegates." Neither Clinton nor Obama will clinch the nomination by the end of regulation, so it's up to these party poobahs to put one of them over the top. Two readers posted fascinating strategies for swaying the uncommitted. According to Mike in Sac, Obama should "turn to supporters and get them to write letters to all of the uncommitted superdelegates for which they are constituents. Have set and scheduled days where your supporters all are asked to get together visit these superdelegates office together. Having a few hundred people show up on their door step would get their attention." I agree. This would be a wise--and potentially effective--way for Obama to utilize his massive 2-million-person voter database to put some grassroots pressure on the late deciders; there's no way Clinton could compete. Reader "angelic" offered up a complimentary superdelegate suggestion: "break out all the defectors from the Clinton campaign who're now on his team and run a blitz of commercials featuring them discussing why they switched to him." Both former DNC chair Joe Andrew and former Ambassador to Chile Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon flipped from Clinton to Obama in recent weeks, and Robert Reich and Bill Richardson sided with the Illinois senator after serving in Bill Clinton's cabinet. Asking them to address the remaining superdelegates--to say, in effect, we've seen both sides and here's why Obama is better--sounds like a good idea to me.

4) Show your softer side. "Obama needs to regain the appearance of loosening up and enjoying being out on the campaign trail," writes revolved. "People are attracted to someone who is happy and having fun, not scowling and irritated." Some favorites from the photo-op file:

tv123: "Two words -- RACHEL RAY! Loved the Rachel Ray interview -- it spoke to women and average people! More pieces like that, please. Let us get to know your family more, your extended family, your friends, your home, etc."

rato: "Let him go to 60 Minutes and talk about which fast food he can't say no to. I already know he is brilliant--now I want to know he is like me. [And] make a surprise visit to Iraq and play basketball with the troops."

Mike in Sac: "Wear jeans on the days you aren't speaking to crowds. Getting seen looking like the average guy would not be so bad once in a while. You need to cultivate that Poker playing image and invite all of the media to your place for your famous chili."

yupik1: "Surprise Hillary at one of her stump locations and have a talk with her in front of her supporters... Maybe even a stop at a 7-Eleven and show off his knowledge of a coffee dispenser."

5) Drop out. Several commenters--coughClintonitescough--suggested that Obama call it quits. "Tell [the American people] that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified person to defeat John McCain and has the best plan to set to the task of fixing this broken government," wrote jonstorm. " Admit that you need time to learn more about yourself and the electorate and offer to learn from Mrs. Clinton."

Hmm. Something tells us they aren't listening in Chicago.

Any thoughts? Disagreements? Amendments? The comments are all yours.