Zorn addresses the Obama detractors fairly well. While there are decent criticisms of him as a candidate, much of it appears to be bizarrely misplaced anger.
Rich makes a good point that I still haven’t internalized about the Rezko deal:
Apparently, nobody paid attention to the Blagojevich campaign. We had the most investigated governor in modern Illinois history (if not in all the state’s history) winning a race mainly by smearing a mostly honorable state treasurer as a George Ryan crony and a likely crook.
Besides, as I recall, that Whitewater thing went nowhere. It’s my opinion that she’ll have no qualms about using the Rezko deal against Obama, if she hasn’t already. Thoughts
Mea culpa, Rich is right. Blagojevich is really a Clinton wannabe anyway, just without the whole caring about policy and being a good speaker thing. He does have better hair though.
That said, it’s a good test for the team Obama will be putting together. When Clinton throws an elbow, how hard can he throw it back. I can say one thing for sure and that is I’m not going to be following anyone down the path of sitting around and insisting they people know better than to fall for dirty campaigning this cycle.
It also goes to the question Rich poses to Obama. I tend to think Obama’s story on the Rezko deal is credible and as such, the best way to kill it is to produce the previous owners and their real estate agent as well as the assessor for the property he bought directly from Rezko and get them on record supporting what he has said now. If he doesn’t the press will later and it’s always better to get it out now.
If there is any doubt about this rule, I have two words for the Obama campaign.
Blair Hull.
Things that are problems, but not by any means disqualifiers turn into disqualifiers if they aren’t fully exposed up front. As I mentioned in comments over at Rich’s the simple explanation is that if a former Harvard Law Review Editor wants to profit off his public position, there are a lot more sophisticated ways to do that than to enter into a real estate deal with a shady operator. People have disappointed me by doing such things in the past, I tend to think Obama isn’t one of those who is going to let me down on that account.
Arch says, “When Clinton throws an elbow, how hard can he throw it back.”
And Sheila Simon won’t hold much weight in Iowa or NH. Nor will Durbin for that matter. But BC will — and he’ll be working just as hard for HRC as he did in two New York Senate races.
I’m not too familiar with Axelrod attack ads. Has he done any? His bio and character ads are impressively emotive; they evoke a positive response from the watcher. But can he pull that off while playing defense and offense? (And is Axelrod even going to be with Obama? Didn’t he work on Edwards’ 04 prez campaign simultaneous to Obama’s Senate race?)
I’d love to see Bill Hillsman working on a big-name presidential race. He’s adept at concepting both character ads and attack ads. (I still love watching and listening to Wellstone’s old ads — chiefly “Looking for Rudy” and “Fast-Paced Paul” for TV and “Names” for radio. And no, I don’t work for Hillsman — don’t even know the guy, just know and admire his work.)
I do think he was pretty straight forward about the land deal and don’t think it will get much traction.
last week you pointed out that sirota was obsessed in his dislike of Senator Obama. I find that Atrios and MyDD seem to be in the same frame of mind. I find it troubling as they are behaving like righties and I’d think they would be a little more classy as we all support democrats. I don’t support Edwards but, I don’t think he’s garbage or worthless.
Blagojevich v Topinka = Apples
Obama v Clinton et. al. = Oranges
The comparison is hardly apt, and Rich does himself a disservice to put any weight behind it. Topinka was a Republican running in a big Dem year whose act never caught on outside of the hair salons and dumpling joints in Riverside. She was constantly caught with her foot in her mouth, and when she fought against it, she swayed from petulent to angry to flip. And perhaps most importantly, she offered no solutions, only complaints.
She never offered optimism, giving voters instead an easy target to dislike from the get go.
Besides, the Clintons can count. A pissing contest betwen Clinton and Obama in IA will benefit one person. John Edwards.
The point I was making, Buck – and perhaps I was not sufficiently clear – is that if someone is corrupt, RRB showed with JBT the best defense is an aggressive and relentless offense.
Rich,
I did marginally misunderstand (rather than attempt to intentionally malign) your point, and to a certain extent I can agree with that. The relentless offense is very Clintonian. But I would still contend that Bill Clinton’s team fired the arrows, while Bill himself delivered faith, optimism, etc.
Hilary’s team may fire flaming arrows, but believing in a place called Park Ridge doesn’t have the same aura.
Obama may not have the monopoly on optimism, but that message, along with his “rock star” status, and the fact that it is a multi-candidate field, makes the math a lot different.
The point is broader though Buck–what has Bush done each election–taken down the opponent on their perceived strengths and Blagojevich ran against someone on his biggest weakness.
I think Hillary is a lot weaker with the base than anyone thinks, but the thing she can do is usher in John Edwards or just run a scorched earth campaign.
It seems ludicrous to me that Clinton would ever run against someone as ethically challenged on a land deal. Hence, it’s genius. Too many operatives will dismiss it and then be slow to respond.
The way to avoid the problem is full disclosure up front and a whole bunch of nastiness in waiting for when she does try to use it. First, make sure the press is inoculated from the story and then be ready to hit back hard in paid media when it hits.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you (or Rich). To be sure, Bush (well, Rove) tied Dems in knots with his political jujitsu – and Blagojevich was able to do the same.
This, however, is where I differ on Obama’s susceptibility to the same treatment:
1) it is a multi-candidate primary, and while I don’t discount the potential of the Clinton crowd to deal in spite, I really don’t think they’re in the business of delivering the nomination to John Edwards, who at this point has to be considered the favorite in IA. It simply isn’t an ends that justifies their means. Now if their data shows they can knock Obama out early to set up a one-on-one with Edwards, then the story changes. But based on what is now known, there just isn’t enough there there (this lends credence to your idea to nip it in the bud now).
1a) it’s a multi-candidate field. Gephardt’s calculation that he had to knock off Dean and Dean’s response assured both would lose and left Kerry, by then the organizational guy, to win and left Edwards literally unabated to woo rural voters, deal with Kucinich, and pick off unviable caucus-goers and make the biggest splash of the night. Now Gephardt is a special case, as IA was a must-win for him. But given the Black guy v Southern guy dynamics of SC, and the labor politics of NV, IA and NH are pretty important for HRC too.
2) Primary voters are a self-selecting group – this goes double for Caucus-attendees. A scorched-earth campaign that might deliver victory in a general election, when many voters are getting 100 percent of their knowledge of a candidate from paid media won’t have quite the same effect. And while people have been holding Obama up as above politics, I believe these voters are more apt to punish Hilary for her sins in office than Obama for what is at present an isolated incident of a politician being a politician.
In short (ha-ha), I just don’t know if I believe such a campaign against Obama would have the efficacy it had against Topinka (or Gore – who I believe could be the real wild card, but that’s another topic for another day, or Kerry).
Buck, 2004 had a multi-candidate field yet everyone attacked Dean… And look where he ended up in Iowa after having been the front-runner and the buzz for months, and then check where he went from there.
Multi-candidate fields mean nothing to front-runners and the instant they announce it’s HRC and BHO and everyone else. I think even Johnny Sunshine gets relegated to pretty low on the totem pole against those two. But it’s December 2006, not December 2007.
Much remains to be seen.
Kerry and Edwards largely kept their powder dry against Dean — the biggest face-offs were Gephardt v. Dean and Club for Growth v. Dean, the latter of which I might argue did more damage, fostering the perception that Dean was a coastal elite and his volunteers were lefty pinkos (recall CFG was responsoble for the “Latte drinking, New York Times reading, Volvo driving, etc. ad).
Going solely on past performance and recent polls, “Johnny Sunshine” is relegated to first place in IA right now. And announcing in New Orleans is a stroke of genius.
The most important point you raise is the date. Right now, it’s all about organizing, and little else matters.
[…] My advice in December was to get it all out and be more than forthcoming beyond what the press expects. Apparently someone thought that wasn’t a good idea and they keep getting to talk about Rezko. [link] […]