Where the Primary Battles Go From Here: Obama's Strategy and Hurdles Ahead
Submitted by jimbuie on Sun, 01/27/2008 - 3:17pm
Is a fresh progressive breeze blowing through the land? Is momentum now with Barack Obama?
The response of Democratic primary and caucus voters over the next few weeks will determine whether there's a fresh new wind sweeping through the land that will put Barack Obama on the road to the Democratic nomination, or whether voters find the experience and caution of Hillary Clinton preferable.
Obama's next hurdle in terms of precedent-setting is to win more contests than Jesse Jackson did in 1988. As the Left Coaster
points out in "The Taming of the Shrew in the Twenty-first Century":
Jackson won 11 contests in 1988: seven primaries (Alabama, the District of
Columbia, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Puerto Rico and Virginia)
and four caucuses (Delaware, Michigan, South Carolina and Vermont). Jackson also scored victories in Alaska's caucuses and Texas's local conventions, despite losing the Texas primary....Some news accounts credit him with 13 wins.
Even so, Jackson lost the 1988 nomination to Michael Dukakis. Obama must be able to repeat Jackson's feat and sweep the Southern states, except for Arkansas, where Hillary will have an advantage. He must win his home state of Illinois handily, though Hillary grew up there. Hillary must win her home state of New York, of course.
With the help of the Kennedys, Obama should win Massachusetts. "In a particularly dramatic coup for Obama," Senator Edward Kennedy endorses him Monday, the Boston Globe reports. Teddy follows Caroline Kennedy, who wrote an op-ed in the New York Times, "A President Like My Father," endorsing Obama. Caroline followed legendary Kennedy speechwriter Theodore Sorenson, who endorsed Obama last fall, after his 26-year-old assistant Adam Frankel, who worked with him on his memoirs, became Obama's speechwriter. Ted Kennedy provided crucial support to John Kerry in Iowa, and in garnering the labor vote in 2004, where he squeaked out victories over John Edwards in early primaries.
The Kennedys might also help Obama in New Jersey and Connecticut, where they still have many followers and admirers, and Louisiana, where Teddy's wife Victoria Reggie comes from an influential political family. Teddy's endorsement, considering his long experience in Washington, should help to deflect the charge that Obama is not experienced enough.
Jonathan Singer, on MyDD.com (my direct democracy), points out that "Obama has been getting significant support from red state Democrats in
recent weeks -- Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill, Arizona Governor
Janet Napolitano, and South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson, to name a few."
California is the big enchilada. The mayor of LA is strongly for Hillary, and she's supposedly strongly favored there -- a delegate-rich state. If she loses California, she's toast.
Shortly after Super Tuesday, Obama will need to win Nebraska and Washington State. If after Super Tuesday, John Edwards drops out and endorses him, that would help a great deal.
On Feb. 12, Obama will need wins in DC, Maryland and Virginia. Then there's Hawaii, which as a native he should win handily, and Wisconsin, Senator Russ Feingold's state, home of the progressive movement, with strong anti-war sentiment.
The nomination fight might not be decided until Tuesday, March 4th, when Ohio and Texas vote. A double win by either Clinton or Obama on that date will probably put the nomination within their grasp.
Related:
Transformational Leadership Is What America Needs in 2008
Racial Healing Marks Obama's Campaign
Trackback URL for this post:
http://bluenc.com/trackback/8834
- jimbuie's blog
- Login or register to post comments
You'll have to pardon my skepticism
but transforming this nation is going to take a lot more than soaring rhetoric. Only John Edwards has clearly stated how he intends to transform Washington and motivate Congress to do what needs to be done. He is the only candidate that continually speaks to the issues of poverty and homelessness and proper treatment of our veterans and seeks to change our economy in ways that address the coming crisis of a nation that can no longer count on endless supplies of cheap oil. What I've heard from Obama is always what needs to be done, but not how he plans to do it with succinct concrete plans.
The people that show up at rallys and folks who post here and elsewhere on political topics are engaged. The vast majority of Americans aren't engaged...and even though they may be motivated to vote for high sounding ideas, it's questionable as to how much they're going to be willing to actually do to create the grassroots change Obama talks about. Change has to start in Washington...and will radiate out to the people only if there are specific actions for the people to take to support that change. If change really started with common everyday citizens, we'd have already stormed the White House and tarred and feathered Bush long ago.
So...forgive me if I'm not as enthusiastic as you. People like what Obama says...because it's easily translated by each person into what they individually hope for. Both "concave and convex...ideally suited for either sex" so to speak. But...where are the specifics?
We aren't going to change this nation without some sacrifice from all of us...changes in our lives that will significantly alter what we've come to accept as normal. Edwards has said we need to be patriotic about something more than war. It's going to take a collective willingness to make these changes and sacrifices. "Fired up and ready to go" is a good chant, but it doesn't say much about what those changes and sacrifices may be...where exactly we're fired up to go, or how we're going to get from here to there.