home

Obama's Biggest Mistakes (So Far)

It's game on. 59 days until the election. I don't think this week's polls are indicative of much since both sides will be rallied by their respective conventions. I think we need two weeks before polls become reliable indicators of voters' intentions in November.

Today, I'm wondering, what were Barack Obama's biggest mistakes in the campaign to date and how many can he rectify in the time remaining?

Since we now have fewer opponents to the Democratic ticket on the site, I'm going to ask readers who intend to vote for the Dems in November to weigh in.

Here's my list: [More...]

1. He should have waited to run until 2016 when he had assembled a stronger record to back his charismatic appeal. (obviously can't be fixed now.)

2. He shouldn't have focused on the small caucus states. While it won him the nomination, he failed to have a plan for the larger swing states he will need in November. To date, I'm still not seeing enough of an effort -- or results -- in PA, Michigan, FL and Ohio.

3. He put too much emphasis on southern states with large AA populations that are unlikely to go Democratic in November.

4. Even in larger states, he focused on the metropolitan areas with greater percentages of non-whites. He needed to sell himself to rural voters across the country.

5. He should not have dropped out of the Michigan primary. Once he did, he should have quickly accepted Hillary's offer of an early and fair resolution of both MI and FL -- including a revote. His delaying tactics and refusal to commit made him appear to be playing unfairly and alienated millions of Hillary supporters, as well millions of FL voters.

6. He shouldn't have brought Oprah Winfrey in to make his case, which was the beginning of his rock star image and appearances in arenas instead of more traditional campaign venues.

7. He should have addressed and sharply criticized the press for its treatment of Hillary, thereby not alienating so many of her supporters when he won the nomination.

8. He shouldn't have played "guess who" and "it's a secret" so long with his vice presidential nominee and he shouldn't have picked Joe Biden, the definition of old style politics in Washington. He should have picked Hillary to maintain the buzz and the excitement. Aside from Hillary, he should have picked Gen. Wesley Clark.

9. He picked the wrong campaign themes -- hope and change-- targeting the young-- but leaving older voters with the perception he had no substantive policies to back them up. They were too amorphous. So amorphous, in fact, that now John McCain has effectively co-opted them. It will be tough for Obama to get them back.

10. He's been less visible since the primaries, except for a day and a half at the convention. He came in Wednesday night. Even though it's tradition for a candidate to arrive later in the week, he said he wasn't bound by traditions. He should have come in Monday and done meet and greets and used the expanded personal media coverage to make inroads with Colorado voters. His vacation in Hawaii should have been postponed.

11. He needed to fight back harder against the assertion by pundits and candidates that Palin was as experienced as him -- and against Republican attacks at their Convention this week that he is too inexperienced for the job. His campaign people should have prepared and passed out concrete examples of his legislative and other achievements.

Right now I still see him as winning, but I believe in order to do so, he has to win the big swing states rather than count on winning the little ones like Colorado and New Mexico.

John McCain has been to Colorado umpteen times in the past few months. He's working the state hard. McCain would have had an easier time if Romney was on the ticket, since Colorado Republicans favored Romney over him in the caucuses 65% to 35%. But now he's sewn up the evangelical base and Colorado has a very high percentage of evangelicals -- mostly, but not all in Colorado Springs.

McCain/Palin will be campaigning in Colorado Springs tomorrow. Since I'm now fascinated by the huge overnight support of the Palin-enthused evangelicals and radical right for McCain, and the impact it may or may not have nationally on the election in November, I'll be attending the event (as media for Salon.com) to see it for myself.

So, back to my list of Obama mistakes. Did I miss any? Do you disagree with any? Which can he fix? What else does he need to do?

< Overnight Open Thread: This Is Our Country | Imagine The GOP Convention Without Sarah Palin >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Hmm (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Cairo Faulkner on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:42:27 AM EST
    1. I agree, Hillary was by far the best candidate. But, I don't think Obama would benefit so well from the freshness that he does now. He feels new and energetic (though Palin has somewhat weakened that, I think). Nonetheless by 2016 he wouldn't be the new, sweeping leader he is now, he'd be just another politician. I can see why he gambled on now.

    2. Agreed, though I think the caucuses was the only way he was going to win this.

    3. Definitely.

    4. Yep.

    5. Agreed.

    6. I tend to agree, but I think his rockstar image is good for him as well as bad. It's open to mocking and satire, but it also creates a sense of speciality: this is no ordinary politician, this is a movement not a campaign, etc.

    7. Too bloody right.

    8. Absolytely. You know, take a step back. Just look at this in simple terms: he got 18 million votes, she got 18 million votes. It's so obvious who he should have chosen. She was the only option available to him frankly. This nomination wasn't even close, it was right down to the line. We've all just accepted that he hasn't chosen her as if that was one of the fair options to him. It's unbelievable that he didn't choose her, and I reckon it might have lost him the election. All he had to do was tap her as veep, and go out there and storm the country.

    9. Well I think, linked to his freshness, this change and hope meme is often good. You can only use it once every ten years or so, but Obama seized on it. In fact, I disagree: I think Hillary should have picked up this theme.

    10. Yeah. I think he should have been there for Hillary's speech. Did you notice McCain arrived at the end of Palin's? It's a good image.

    11. I would agree...but does he really have any?


    Jeralyn, i agree with (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by hairspray on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:43:52 AM EST
    everything you wrote absolutely. As for Cairo Faulkner's belief that Obama would have been old news by 2016, I don't agree.  If he had been a dynamic VP as I am sure Hillary would have allowed him to be, he would have had 'experience' which would have given him what he doesn't have now. And he would not have lost the AA vote either. He might have even struck a deal for Hillary to run one term and he succeed her.  She would be 65 by the time ended and might have been very happy to have taken an ambasador to the UN job or something like that.  As for what to do now, probably the only thing he has left, point out the failings of the GOP, not just Bush.  Tell the US how much 'victory'
    in Iraq has cost us and just what we got for it.

    Parent
    Jeralyn's list (2.00 / 1) (#180)
    by OisforOpportunist on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 05:22:18 PM EST
    Well, Jeralyn's post looks like a laundry list of many (not all) of the reasons not to vote for The One and his sidekick Joe (I've never seen a right wing Republican nominee to the Supreme Court that I haven't voted for) Biden.

    My advice to all principled Democrats who abhorr and are disgusted by what The One and his campaign did to Hillary during the primaries, the convention and afterwards is to skip the presidential slate and vote straight Democratic for the rest of the ballot. This way you could get a solid Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate (veto proof) and hog tie Mcain and Palin during the next 4 years. Let's pave the way for Hillary in 2012.

    HILLARY IN 2012!!!!!

    Parent

    It's time for the Republicans to own their failure (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:56:23 AM EST
    I think he should have used that line (along with the Bush/McCain photo) in EVERY ad starting in June.

    I like it. (none / 0) (#11)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 05:00:02 AM EST
    It's time for Republicans to own their failure. I see it. Plastered everywhere.

    Parent
    Can we add Palin to the photo? (none / 0) (#13)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 05:01:15 AM EST
    And a polar bear or two?

    Parent
    I've got a bunch (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by Grace on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 05:00:56 AM EST
    1.  Never tried to get Hillary voters after she dropped out.  

    2.  Went on a trip to Europe and a vaction in the middle of the race.

    3.  Has dismissed Palin as a small town mayor when she is the Governor of Alaska.  (this isn't good)

    4.  Didn't vet Hillary.

    5.  Didn't pick Hillary for VP.  


    Maybe Hillary didn't want to be VP. (none / 0) (#14)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 05:02:21 AM EST
    Maybe she decided she'd rather stay right where she is.

    Parent
    Yeah, but it would have (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Grace on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 05:07:09 AM EST
    been a lot better if she had said it.  

    As it stands, he didn't want her and didn't vet her.  

    Parent

    I just can't go here (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 05:14:35 AM EST
    The only options before me are Obama vs. McCain. I have to go with Obama. I have to . All my energy is going there. I say leave it to the historians to figure the Clinton thing out, but right here, right now, we don't have time.

    59 days Jeralyn said. That's all we've got, or another 4 years of the same.

    Parent

    if so (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Chisoxy on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 05:17:56 AM EST
    He should've made it clear she was never in the running. Or have her do it.

    Parent
    oops (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Chisoxy on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 05:20:03 AM EST
    I meant as early as possible, rather than the whole "she'd be on anybody's short list" plus the delay, only for it to come out that she was never vetted. Give people time to come to terms with it.

    Parent
    it has been reported that (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:27:04 AM EST
    this was all decided when the two of them met in person after the primaries.  Supposedly Clinton told Obama that she wanted to be considered for VP.  But, that if he wasn't going to seriously consider her, then she did NOT want to go through the vetting process.

    If that is accurate, then I think it was a big mistake to not announce that right away by BOTH of them.

    Parent

    When has a person who applied for (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:09:36 AM EST
    a job ever jointly announced with the would-be employer:  hey, I didn't get it.

    Parent
    could have announced (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:12:52 AM EST
    that she didn't WANT it and put all the speculation and "hopes" of many of her supporters to rest and gotten that story OUT of the media.

    Parent
    That's fine if she didn't want the job. (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:51:30 AM EST
    But what if she did?  I would not expect her to lie about her wishes.  

    Parent
    you are suggesting (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:17:14 AM EST
    that it is better for someone who doesn't get a job that they wanted to continue to let their friends and family (supporters) assume that you are still under consideration for and still might get the job.  Maybe you should even "pretend" to go to that job everyday too instead of actually letting your family ever know that you aren't getting that job.

    Parent
    That was not reported as such. (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by hairspray on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:50:59 AM EST
    There were several news reports quoting insiders as saying she offered to be VP at the close of the primaries but asked not to have a faux vetting process if he didn't want her. The insiders were people in her campaign. He didn't want her because of his and his supporters egos. So drop that may she didn't want it.  That was a BIG mistake on Obama's part, one of 10 as Jeralyn points out.

    Parent
    Not securing the base (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 05:10:47 AM EST
    Pandering to the fundamentalist was a mistake. (especially now with Palin) He should have focused on securing his base before he tried to expand it. It upset many within the Dem Party at a time when he needed support.

    He should have focused (5.00 / 8) (#20)
    by Grace on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 05:26:47 AM EST
    on the Dems.  They were already at least 1/2 way in his pocket.  

    Instead, he chose to ignore the Hillary voters -- the "blue collar, bitter guns, middle class, etc." voters.  

    He decided to do an outreach to the evangelicals instead -- which was really silly because McCain picked someone who nailed the evangelical base in one outing.  She won't have to sweep through twice.  They are her little gooslings from the moment she said "hello."  

    So, Obama is back -- stuck with us.  The blue collar voters he has avoided ever since he first started campaigning.  I don't really get why he avoids so many of us.  Is he scared?  I really don't understand why he is so bothered by campaigning in the blue collar areas.  Really.    

    Parent

    I keep saying (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by BernieO on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:00:10 AM EST
    that ignoring the Hillary voters is at the heart of the Dean/Axelrod "western strategy" which we keep hearing about. This strategy seeks to deemphasize the importance of these people to focus on the knowledge and tech workers in western cities like Denver. I am not making this up. As I have said several times before, everyone needs to read Ryan Lizza's New Yorker article about this western strategy> We party faithful need to nip this in the bud. It is stupid. These workers already vote for Democrats so why in the world would we want to drop the working class for them? Clinton appealed to both, which is the not only the most practical, it is the most principled strategy.
    I have heard one discussion of this on NPR's Fresh Air. It is available in the archives.

    Parent
    I think the Palin pick (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:31:34 AM EST
    might allow McCain to hold on to many voters in the west.  There are a lot of evangelicals in the west.  And a lot of indys as well.  And, I've read analysis before taht western voters don't have as much problem with female candidates as others do.  It's the "frontier woman"  image.  And Palin has that fontier woman, western attitude of freedom with guns and hunting and snow mobiles all wrapped up.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#73)
    by BernieO on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:52:17 AM EST
    and I hope this keeps them from being more successful in the west than in places like Pa, Ohio and WVa, because I think this strategy would be an abandonment of the basic principles the party has always fought for. As I said before, the kinds of people that this new strategy is supposed to attract - "knowledge workers"- already vote Democratic anyway.

    Parent
    that "already vote dem anyway" (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:02:40 AM EST
    is what the dems keep saying about the blue collar base.  But, they are wrong about that.  That "blue collar base" that voted for Clinton in the primaries is made up of a lot of Reagan democrats.  That group is socially conservative.  the McCain/Palin stance on social issues will not hurt them (may even help) with the small town, blue collar, Appalachian voters in places like western PA, southern OH, WV, KY, AR where Hillary performed so well in the primaries.  It also won't hurt the repubs inn places like NC where I live.  There are "pockets" of liberal dems here in metro areas.  But, the majority of dems and indys in NC are socially conservative.  They vote for dems in state and local elections.  But, not for president and rarely for the senate.  I would be amazed if Obama even comes close to taking NC.  And, I think the Palin pick will help Dole keep her seat in the senate as well.

    Parent
    Small Town USA Loves OBAMA! (none / 0) (#47)
    by FLA on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:07:09 AM EST
       

    The blue collar voters he has avoided ever since he first started campaigning.  I don't really get why he avoids so many of us.  Is he scared?  I really don't understand why he is so bothered by campaigning in the blue collar areas.  Really.


    I disagree.

    Obama having a 'blue collar' problem is an untrue meme. He's in Scranton (alone) today.


    Check out this video of Obama being mobbed in small town Indiana: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhWFHJy5u4U

    Parent

    I didn't even know. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:50:07 AM EST
    I live 30 mins from Scranton out in the country rural area. When Hillary was coming, we knew everytime when she would be here. Usually Bill would call us, sometime Rendel. Until I read this, I did not know he was going to be in town. I know Biden was here last Monday. I read it on the Scranton Times site after his visit.

    Parent
    Getting mobbed and getting votes is (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by stefystef on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:06:20 AM EST
    two different things.

    Parent
    correct (none / 0) (#95)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:22:32 AM EST
    repugs by the boatload will go listen to Streisand in concert and pay dearly for the ticket to see the "super star".  But, they won't vote the way she wants them to.

    Parent
    The fact that he is in Scranton is anecdotal (none / 0) (#144)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:39:46 AM EST
    Like it or not, the RNC signaled it is going to stick with the "bitter" and "clinging" line precisely because it is so damn effective... and it has the added benefit of fitting into their traditional narrative of an elitist DNC.

    He's made enough gaffes/out-of-touch remarks with and towards small-town America (bowling, brie, arugula) that I really expected him to be making more of an effort to be visible reaching out to those voters.

    You might not like the meme, but I think it may unfortunately be true.

    Parent

    Blue colar America (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 05:27:26 AM EST
    I think the other big mistake was WV. He should have campaigned hard there. Then his surrogate's (Donna B for one) talking up the new party left a lot of blue collar Dem's wondering why they were being dismissed. It also reenforced the elitist label.

    Not picking Hillary as VP (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 05:59:55 AM EST
    is the single biggest mistake.  Obviously too late to fix that.

    I agreee with the rest of Jeralyn's and Grace's lists.

    I agree this was the biggest (none / 0) (#122)
    by Makarov on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:51:43 AM EST
    but don't agree with the rest of the lists. Caucuses were how he won the nomination.

    His second biggest mistake, committed long before, was trashing the legacy of Bill Clinton. We saw a 180 reverse on that during the convention, but I don't know if that late change, to embrace the peace and prosperity of the 90s and congratulate Bill for them, will be enough to completely solidify the Democratic base and gain enough independents to win.


    Parent

    Google P. Cronin's (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by hairspray on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:58:26 AM EST
    Primaries and Caucuses and then tell me if reform minded Democrats who know about integrity in voting are thrilled with a candidate who makes his biggest wins in red state caucuses under rules HAVA would find illegal.

    Parent
    He didnt pick Hillary as VP (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by ig on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:02:37 AM EST
    He would have unifed the party and Palin would not be a factor, just by that single decision.

    Disagree (none / 0) (#62)
    by FLA on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:32:58 AM EST
    Hillary is no ones second banana...It just wouldn't have worked and would have undermined Obama's core message of change by keeping the 'Dynasty' meme alive.  She's 1000% for Obama - no doubt!


    I know, I know...what does Biden not do exactly this?

    Not nearly as much and he is more a governing pick for after the election is over.

    Hillary, if she wants it, can have any role in the party after her awesome performance last week!  Her legacy is assured.

    Parent
    Ahhhhhh, no (none / 0) (#119)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:48:09 AM EST
    Hillary personifies change!!  

    Parent
    Excellent list (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by andrys on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:05:54 AM EST
    I have so many thoughts on this.  Even One important change could have put him in the White House.

      I suspect you'll have over 200+ notes by the time I wake up, and since I didn't go to sleep the night before, it's time!

      Thanks for an interesting topic.  The changes he'll need will be attitudinal and maybe involving problems he's not aware of at all.  

      But, must Zzzzzz.

    I agree with most or all but (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by robrecht on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:08:45 AM EST
    I'm less sure about 2, 3, 4, and 6 since that's part of what got him here, and without him being here we couldn't even ask these questions.  Could he really have gotten here without the caucuses, the southern states with large AA populations, metropolitan areas of larger states with greater percentages of non-whites, and the Oprah-emboldened rock star aura?  Not so sure.

    The one thing I cannot help but add is that he should have led more on key issues in the Senate.  This ties in with #1, but he still could have used his 2004 convention speech celebrity status to take a more public role in opposing Iraq.  And while I cannot help but add this on account of my conviction about how wrong the Iraq war is, if you look at where we are now, I'm not sure how this would have played out if he had not succeeded in getting Congress (and himself) to grow a spine.  Wasn't going to happen, no how, no way, no McCain, but he could have been a great Senator leading up to 2016.

    Now my biggest hope is that Hillary will not run for governor of NY but take up the mantle of Ted Kennedy and bring his vision to greater success.  She too was wrong on Iraq, even more wrong on Iraq early on, but if she helps the Congress to actually play the role they've been given by the Constitution she can ultimately do more good for this country than as president for 4-8 years.  Ironic that Kennedy supports Obama but Hillary can now push his/our agenda further in the Senate.

    These were all successful (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by litigatormom on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:07:07 AM EST
    strategies for getting the nomination -- and Hillary made a huge mistake in not focusing on the caucus states -- but I am afraid that Obama's success in focusing on caucus states and red states has made the campaign think that they can do the same thing in the general.

    There seems to be very little emphasis on FLA and OH, and all this emphasis on CO and VA.  I'm not saying that Obama shouldn't be trying to pick off red states. But he seems to be writing off two huge states. Please tell me I'm wrong about that, and that now that the conventions are over he's going to be all over it.

    I generally agree with all of the points Jeralyn listed, but this is my 2d biggest worry in terms of the general. My first is that Obama still needs more specificity in what he means by change, particularly now that McCain has had the gall to claim that he is a change agent. He can't just claim that McCain is an extremist (which is true and should be said) -- he needs to define the ways in which McCain is an extremist, HOW he is the same as Bush, and HOW he plans to change direction.  Enough of this crap about post-partisanship.  McCain also has had the gall to claim to be post-partisan. Show that McCain is in fact a partisan, and proudly claim the mantle of the Democratic party and explain the Democratic proposals that will actually effect change.

    Parent

    Virginia (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Coral on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:47:27 AM EST
    McCain's pick of Palin, energizing the right-wing Christian base, makes VA an extremely unlikely win for Obama. Home base of Jerry Falwell.

    This is a game of chess. With the VP pick, which I imagine was totally unforeseen by the folks running the Obama campaign, the GOP has made a master play.

    Democrats -- except for the Clintons -- have for the last few decades dismissed and taken for granted blue-collar, everyday folks. The folks Tom Frank talked about in "What's the Matter with Kansas."

    Obama people, and the DNC, did it again this year. I hope there is time to switch gears.

    Parent

    yep, in hindsight (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:51:33 AM EST
    Hillary made a mistake with the caucus states.  But, I think the reason she did that is because she never thought for a minute that Obama would carry 90% of the AA vote.  That alone was what stopped her from being able to counteract the caucus states.

    If Clinton had been able to hold on to a larger percentage of AA voters, the states she won, she would have won by more and picked up more delegates.  States like MO that she lost by 10,000 votes, she would have won.

    In all came down to what districts you won and by what percentage in order to gain the "extra" delegates.

    Remember the dems strange rules for apportioning delegates.  In a 4 delegate district, the result was going to be 2-2 unles one candiadte could get over 65% of the vote.  Obama was able to do that more often in AA districts.  And, the AA districts were also given a larger share of the delegates because of past dem voting records.  So, there were more delegates to be had in distrcits that were more favorable to Obama.

    That is how Obama was able to keep Clinton from gaining very many delegates in states like PA and OH and other big states.

    Parent

    Which is also why (none / 0) (#157)
    by DaleA on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:14:54 PM EST
    Obama can now be the Repub's Affirmative Action Candidate. Just waiting for this to come up in the ads. Obama is a very bad choice.

    Parent
    If 2 was the only way he could win ... (none / 0) (#191)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:28:13 AM EST
    ... and I agree that that was probably the case, then the real mistake was running at all.  Error 2a was almost failing.    

    I think Obama/Biden's problem is that Obama's red-state caucus primary strategy has left him short crucial electoral support in states like OH, PA, and FL, among others, the Democratic and cross-over electorates of which he effectively sandbagged.  It could turn out to be a Phyrric victory.  

    Parent

    Dissing Bill Clinton's record (5.00 / 11) (#28)
    by BernieO on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:14:46 AM EST
    Bill Clinton proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Democrats know how to govern. He cleaned up the deficits caused by Reagan's tax cuts and pro, based on the insane notion that tax cuts pay for themselves. Clinton proved that raising taxes on upper income people is good for everyone, including them. They more than made up what the tax cost them because the economy was so strong. Record numbers of people - 6 to  7 million - moved out of poverty because of policies like increases in the earned income tax credit, better access to health care, job training, child care, decreasing the dangerous income inequality that is a threat to a healthy democracy. AND WE HAD A SURPLUS which we could have used to begin solving the coming Social Security shortfall.

    I have only heard Obama say this once - in his acceptance speech. Before that he actually said  the lower classes had been left behind under in the 80's under Reagan AND IN THE 90's under Clinton! He praised Reagan, yet trashed the best, most successful president we have had in many years. Obama and the rest of our party leaders bizarrely cannot wait to destroy the Clinton legacy whn they should be taking a page from the Republicans' book and using Clinton's legacy the way Republican's do with Reagan's. That is the best argument we have - and, unlike the believers in Reaganism, we can prove Clintonomics works and Reaganism doesn't.

    FYI Laura d'Andrea Tyson, an advisor to Bill and now Obama, was a guest on the Colbert Report this week and she gave some interesting facts about how much better people have fared under all Democratic administrations. Check out the video clip. Dems should be shouting these facts from the rooftops!

    Not only should he avoid dissing Bill, (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Jake Left on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:01:05 AM EST
    he should be campaigning on a return to Bill's term in office.

    He lacks the professionalism that would let him embrace someone else's record.

    Parent

    Too harsh (none / 0) (#189)
    by robrecht on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:16:19 PM EST
    As pointed out above, he has indeed started praising the Clinton legacy with his convention speech amd he will now continue to do so.  Obama's dilemma was that he could hardly be rah rah Bill Clinton when running against Hillary.  He stopped short of praising Reagan's policies, and was lukewarm in his assessment of Bill's genius.  This was too harsh or too coarse in not showing respect for Clinton.

    Could he have completely embraced the Clinton years?  Theoretically, yes, especially if he had actually taken a leadership role in opposing the Iraq War once he reached the Senate.  Then maybe he could have praised Bill but insisted on the need for more forceful change, ie, more forceful Democratic leadership.  But we all know Obama was not yet mature enough for this heroic role.

    Parent

    Total Agreement... (none / 0) (#132)
    by santarita on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:43:20 AM EST
    In fact, I think Obama should start now with a compare and contrast - where we are now versus where we were.

    Trahing Pres. Clinton may have been necessary to win the primary but it's foolish now.

    Parent

    I mostly disagree. (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:32:09 AM EST
    2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 are all part of what was obviously a successful primary run.  Suggesting that they are mistakes sounds to me a little like sour grapes, or like some of the folks who come around here saying "You know, what bothers me about Obama is that when's people say he's a Muslim he doesn't just say 'So what's wrong with being Muslim'".  In other words, helpful advice that isn't really very helpful.

    There has always been a dichotomy between running in the primaries and running in the general election.  I think Clinton really ran her primary election with an eye on the general election, with the result that she's not the candidate.

    On 1, I disagree strongly.  The very worst thing you can have, at least as a Democrat, is a long legislative record.  The Republicans eat that kind of thing up for lunch, turning every single vote you make into a tax-raising, job-killing vote.

    As for visibility (10), to the best of my knowledge he's been campaigning in his eighteen states every single day.

    I think his biggest mistakes have been:

    1. Being born black, and with an Arabic name.  Not much he could, or probably wants, to do about that.

    2. Being ungracious in his treatment of Clinton, at the very least after her concession, if not before.  I think this has really dampened enthusiasm for him within a significant portion of the base.

    3. Possibly, not selecting Clinton as his running mate although that's something of a chess game involving later moves by McCain that might not have been foreseeable.

    Other than that, I think he's run a very good campaign.

    Flexability (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:35:51 AM EST
    The list is good. There are key mistakes that still can be minimized before Nov.:
    #'s 2 3 4 and 10

    Whether the Obama camp will change course on them remains to be seen. There seems to be an arrogance within the camp in regard to strategy.

    No mistakes if he wins... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ineedalife on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:39:35 AM EST
    Just things he could have done better. All the primary strategies weren't mistakes. They were the only way he could win. Even with Hillary fighting with one hand behind her back and two of her states taken off the map.

    I only fault Obama for the sexism. Even then it is a tragic flaw, a part of him that he isn't fully aware of. He might recognize it in another man but not right in front of him in the mirror. He failed to put it down in his supporters because he doesn't get it. But will it be the Shakespearean flaw that brings him down?  He keeps dissing Palin and pricking the wound. But somehow, in this year, I see him muddling through.

    Myself, in my blue state, I will cast my protest vote to try to send a message. Maybe he will get it. His treatment of Palin tells me he didn't learn anything fundamental from the primaries. Perhaps he is past learning and set in his ways. If my state gets competitive I will vote for him. But if my state is competitive, he is lost anyways.

    I also blame him for playing the race card (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by ineedalife on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:53:11 AM EST
    I forgot about that in writing my post. It was a cold, calculated, political ploy to hurt the Clintons, and by extension  their supporters.  Maybe Obama felt that was the only way to win but sometimes you cannot put the genie back into the bottle. Americans, most importantly independents, know the Clintons aren't racists. If the resentment, that will certainly be stoked by the Republicans, takes Obama down I will not cry any tears for him.

    Parent
    I should have added above... (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Mshepnj on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:48:40 AM EST
    I agree with your list.  This in particular:

    7. He should have addressed and sharply criticized the press for its treatment of Hillary, thereby not alienating so many of her supporters when he won the nomination.

    YES! But sadly it isn't just Obama but the silence and denial of the Democratic party hierarchy during the primary. I predicted to a friend that only after Hillary suspended her campaign would the Democrats speak out against the sexism. The sexism helped Obama in the primary and they were willing to let it do its damage to Hillary.  Of course, I wonder if they ever considered the damage it did to a large part of the Democratic base.

    When I read Joe Biden's comments the other day about the sexism faced by Sarah Palin, I thought it was disappointing that he would take the Media to task for their treatment of his opponent but keep silent when one of his own, a loyal Democrat and long-term public servant - Hillary Clinton, was being subjected to the same or worse during the primaries.

    That mistake has left a lot  of us lukewarm about Obama/Biden and the Democratic Party at this point.

    agreed! Standing by during (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by jpete on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:38:06 AM EST
    Racist or sexist attacks is horrible.  Being silent about bigotry lea bed Obama vulnerable too, because he stands to lose votes.

    Parent
    Loose talk, for lack of a better expression (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by rghojai on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:57:32 AM EST
    I have been discouraged by various things Obama has said that feel like playing fast and loose or at least doing so with language.

    He said McCain's call for a series of town-hall meetings was a great idea (People can contend that saying something's a great idea doesn't mean it's gonna happen, but it feels slippery.), talked of having passed nuke-safety legislation that didn't pass and it feels like the stories relative to Wright, Rezko and Ayers have changed, that he told something along the lines of limited truths. We know about FISA, too.

    Each of those things--or even some of 'em--aren't concerning in themselves and nobody's perfect, but together they cast a questionable light. To me, they open up a not-unreasonable contention that he's more about saying what people want to hear than about being forthcoming.

    Obama and Mistakes (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by obiden08 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:58:02 AM EST
    1.  I don't think this was a mistake.  This moment is the moment for him and his message. Not sure he or it would have worked at any other time.

    2. I don't think the caucus states were a mistake.  He had a strategy and he had to follow it.  Remember he came into this with a severe name recognition deficit compared to Hillary.  He went back to his organizing roots, started small, and built from there. I don't know of any other strategy that would have worked for him.

    3. I think he had to go for votes in those Southern states. He gained delegates and he put those states in play, if not for him at the top of the ticket, then for others downticket.  Again, I think he realized that in order for the change we want, he's going to need help.  His winning alone won't do it.

    4. Again, he played to win delegates much like Axelrod/Plouffe are saying he's now playing to win electoral votes.  You have to stick with the strategy.

    5. I, too, wish he had played in Michigan. He needed to the face-time with the voters there. I think the fault here lies with the DNC though. They should have penalized the early states like the RNC did instead of asking the candidates to pledge not to campaign. Given his name recognition deficit, I don't see how a re-do primary without a lot of campaigning/organizing time would have helped him win the nomination.

    6.Oprah didn't bother me.  I think she helped in Iowa.

    1. I agree that he could have spoken up about sexism but not just to keep the Hillary supporters happy.  It would have been a way to demontrate even more his "new kind of politics."

    2.  No, he had to pick his own VP and he had to pick him/her with a thought to winning and a thought to governing.  I feel this strongly.  McCain was strong-armed into taking Palin. And if they win, they're in for a mess.  He probably already resents her, even though (maybe because) he needed her so much.  She's going to resent him if, God forbid, they win and he banishes her from the West Wing.

    3. Disagree totally. Hope and change are what he brings.  If the election were about anything else, he wouldn't be the nominee.

    4. I would agree if he were a machine and not a man.  I wasn't sure about the European trip but I think it worked and will prove invaluable once he's in office.

    5. I go back-and-forth on the fighting back and how it should be done.  I thought he should have pushed back harder against Hillary in the latter primaries but fighting her harder in the end would have only alienated her supporters more, so he pulled back. I think he has to balance his "new politics" with fighting back.  I'm ready for the "New face of compassionate conservatism" ad with Palin's face on one side of the coin and Bush's on the other.  The announcer will say, "Look what it gave you the last eight years.  That's not change we can believe in."  

    All that said, I've decided I'm going to trust his campaign.  I believe they have a plan and I hope that if Palin has thrown a monkey-wrench into it, they have re-calibrated.  I guess I'd better go give more money.

    Regarding your #2 and #3. So Obama really (none / 0) (#155)
    by hairspray on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:10:33 PM EST
    did anything to win?  I thought that was what was wrong with Hillary. Chickens have come home to roost?

    Parent
    obiden08 (none / 0) (#183)
    by sallywally on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:52:02 PM EST
    #7: How about speaking against the mysogeny (hating women virulently, more than mere sexism) directed to Clinton BECAUSE IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO as well as being politically a positive move?

    #8: I think Obama was strong-armed into taking Biden by the Dem machine which found him out of control and floundering. He needed the experience and emotional colorful factors after he (and the machine) had dumped the main source of excitement in the campaign: Clinton.

    I also think Obama was strong-armed into putting something concrete into his acceptance speech for the same reasons.

    #10: He fought perfectly hard against Clinton all the way through, albeit in underhanded ways, using the media and the SDs to put him over the top while misdirecting attention on Clinton's possibly using SDs, which he knew all along would not happen.

    His "postpartisan" schtick has been exposed for what it always was: a sham. With as extreme a partisan as Sarah Palin, he cannot win withoug fighting back, and he is not well armed to do this himself.

    The Repubs have their plan in force, and are already working to discredit the media if they do the least bit of accurate reporting, and of course using both McCain and Palin as down-home folks to take the big swing states away....

    After calling Clinton a whiner, the right wing whine machine is in full force on behalf of poor little Sarah Palin...she who in such a macho manner shoots wolves from an airplane...cowardly and vicious in the extreme. Kind of like Cheney shoot birds who've been herded into a pen....

    So they had to put Hillary in to provide the first response to Palin. They need Clintons so badly during this campaign - they need people who know how to fight the fight as the right wing brings it to them, and postpartisan against hyperpartisan is exactly the wrong way to go.

    Obama and the Dems had better wise up about this very fast, and get some pros in there to take on this fight. No one can do it better than Bill Clinton, and I hope the DNC takes Obama in hand, recognizes and reverses the failure of their attempt to rid the Dem Party of the Clintons, and moves full speed ahead using the best resources they have.

    Parent

    Focus on the future (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by themomcat on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:01:53 AM EST
    Obama needs to focus on solidifying his base. The Republicans have done it with nominating Palin. Paul Krugman has an excellent op-ed about resentment and how the Republicans are really good at using resentment against the Democrats.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/opinion/05krugman.html?hp

    Not just the future (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by litigatormom on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:13:50 AM EST
    Dems need to make voters RESENT the Republicans. They've screwed the pooch and now they want to be given yet another chance to "fix" things by screwing the same pooch.

    The Audacity of Asking for Second Chances should be driving a tidal wave of range.  

    Parent

    Not sure if anyone answered, will you vote Dem (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by fctchecker on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:14:45 AM EST
     As a staunch Hillary supporter,I've been saying for months that I wouldn't,

    But, in this instance Hillary was right, (with Palin on the ticket), there is no choice now.

    I see Biden as filling the Pres shoes before Palin could ever fit the bill.

    McCain showed us he would do anything to win in November, compromise his integrity. No way is he going to win over Hillary voters like me.

    At least Obama was true to himself, and did not kowtow to the pressure of Hillary supporters even with the potential to lose because of it.

    This is the most facinating difference between the two: is Obama more of an egotist and McCain more of a pragmatist? Or did McCain kowtow to extreme right pressure, while Obama stayed his ground?

    Will these actions alone define the result in November?

    I can't even fathom how horrific four more years of Republican rule would be.

    So, I will vote Dem.

    It's about winning (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:15:01 AM EST
    Objective analysis of politic's is not aiding or abetting the enemy. The bigger enemy is blind faith. This election is closer than any Democrat would have projected a year ago. There's still time for the progressive community to have a constuctive voice.

    If Obama had FIXED (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:22:16 AM EST
    numbers 1 - 7 as you suggest, he would probably not have won the nomination

    you are beyond chattering (none / 0) (#143)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:32:29 AM EST
    this post was directed to people to Dems who intend to vote for Obama. You may return in 24 hours TimNGuy.

    Parent
    12. HE DARED TO RUN (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Oceandweller on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:31:41 AM EST
    isnt it ?????

    To be honest (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by zvs888 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:36:34 AM EST
    I think Obama's primary strategy was the only way for him to win.

    But other than the primary; I think he has made two mistakes that you pointed out.

    The first was FISA and the second was not picking Hillary for VP.

    Those two are the mistakes that could cost this election (left not energized enough + Hillary voters) that actually matter.

    Any other thing is water under the bridge.

    Sticking up for Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Fabian on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:56:06 AM EST
    against sexism should have helped him, not hurt him - unless there are lot more CDSers out there than I think.  The only people it would have hurt him with are the most hardcore Hillary haters.  Then they would have had to NOT vote for Hillary's only credible opponent.

    Nothing but opportunity lost there.

    Parent

    Very energized (none / 0) (#80)
    by Todd on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:00:50 AM EST
    Not quite sure I agree after the last couple of days.
    After the Palin Pit-Bull speech and McCain's pasty old guy speech, I think Dems are very energized.

    Parent
    Obama's next big mistake (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by tootired on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:55:48 AM EST
    might be sending Hillary on the attack against Palin. Madeleine Albright said, "There's a special place in hell for women who don't help other women." No one expects Hillary to help Sarah Palin, but sending Hillary to attack her would set off a backlash among many women who are not voting for McCain, but are not voting for Obama either. If Obama feels the need to send a surrogate to go after Palin, he should send his guy pals. Hopefully, Obama will listen when Hillary tells him she's "too booked up already". She gets this even of he doesn't.

    You know (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Todd on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:04:57 AM EST
    You know, I think the best contrast to Palin from our side may be Schweitzer. He's so smart and knowledgeable about energy. he's a gov, He's very charismatic, and that syrupy drawl will be able to throw daggers while they look like paper airplanes. i think he is the perfect foil. The press will make a Hillary/Palin confrontation into a farce beauty pageant.

    Parent
    That could be the nail in the coffin. (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Jake Left on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:08:33 AM EST
    If you pit Hillary against the girl from Stepford Alaska, we will lose. Hillary is smarter, a better human being, and unlike palin, has a real concern for the people of the country. But the media would love this. It has ratings war written all over it. Rove is just salivating over this possibility. The media circus that would result would drown out any concept of looking at the issues - The next 59 days would be a personality contest.

    Democrats need to send someone against palin who has no personality, who has all the facts, can argue well, can hold his own in the media shouting wars, and who will continually bring the message back to facts. Surely we have someone like this.

    Parent

    It is ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by BernieO on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:55:46 AM EST
    to say that Palin does not have real concern for the people of this country. The Democrats in Alaska have worked with her against the Republican power base to clean up corruption in that state. She is well liked by them.

    I think she does care, but that she is wrong on most points about what would be good for this country. There is a big difference. I wish people in our society would get away from thinking that just because someone disagrees with our beliefs that they are bad people. There are people who are involved politics for themselves and will abuse power to get power and wealth (think Ted Stevens, Karl Rove, Tony Rezko)but a lot of people are very sincere. It is up to us to make persuasive arguments that win people over. Demonizing never helps. Republicans do a much better job of making their case and framing issues. We need to step up and do a much better job on this instead of just whining about how mean the Republicans are.

    Parent

    Our society is inundated (none / 0) (#159)
    by hairspray on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:33:33 PM EST
    with sports and sports metahphors.  Therefore everything is either winning or losing or black and white, and unfortunately the younguns (usually) haven't learned to move beyond dichotomous thinking.

    Parent
    I'm assuming that you are (none / 0) (#196)
    by Jake Left on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:19:36 PM EST
    supporting Bernie's idea that my post is uninformed. That you think I'm a "youngun" who lacks subtlety. I'm over 60. Been supporting the progressive movement for over 40 years. Can't name two professional football or baseball players who are still playing.

    And yes, I believe there is some winning and losing going on. There is a class war, and if you make less than a couple of hundred K per year, you are losing that war. The dichotomy is between those who use power and money to get more power and money by making the lives of others less bearable and by making the world a more dangerous and fragile place to live.

    Some of those are Democrats. Most of them are republicans and the republicans who aren't a part of the power users are trying to become a part of that group or are letting their lesser motives rule their voting.

    Obama's rhetoric aside, the goals and aims of the republican party are not as good as those of the Democratic party. The Democrats fall short of perfection but the republicans would take us to worse places.

    That is not a sports metaphor. That is not jejune thinking. Please explain what ways the republican party platform and goals are superior to that of the Democrats.

    Parent

    Not ridiculous at all. (none / 0) (#195)
    by Jake Left on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:07:32 PM EST
    If you look at her record as mayor and governor, her crusades have all been about privileging corporations and exploiters. Her tax cuts have all been in favor of wealthier citizens and mostly in favor of large companies. Her taxes have been regressive. She cut the property taxes and raised the sales taxes. Saying that she helped clear up some of the corruption is only part of the story. She helped stop some from benefitting from government misuse and started benefitting others.

    As far as sincere republicans go, I know several. But my findings are that the heart of their sincerity is not from a good place. They sincerely believe in school choice because they don't really want their children going to school with "those" people. They want choice for the minorities that don't "act" like minorities. They believe in lower taxes for themselves, but don't mind that the taxes they do allow (sales taxes) are regressive and punish the less affluent. They support the war to protect America but don't want their children there and don't want the government to spend money on schools and aid to other countries. They believe in "gettting the government off the backs of businessmen" so that they can slide on environmental and safety laws. They don't support climate issues, supporting Exxon science rather than environmental specialists because they want cheaper gas and fewer regulations.

    They are not "evil". They do lack awareness. Sometimes of even their own motives.

    Tell me how someone who cares about people can support someone like mccain or bush.

    Parent

    Um, I don't know about this idea... (none / 0) (#161)
    by aafan on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:43:40 PM EST
    In Obama's treatment of Hillary,  we do not see "change."  We see more of the same, old sexist treatment of women.  And in McCain's elevation of Palin, we see someone who takes women's aspirations seriously, and that he has respect for women that Obama did not show...even if McCain does not support Roe v. Wade, which pro-lifers think is infanticide (equal rights for unborn women, etc).  I think that now we see a strong need for Hillary to get out there and take Palin apart.  Even though, when I see Palin up there, it makes me heartsick to think that we could have had Hillary for VP.

    Obama must show that McCain-Palin is Bush's third term, including Bush's incompetence.  If McCain and Palin can look new and principled and competent, and if Obama looks new and unprincipled  (FISA!) and foolish, then, watch out.

    Parent

    re #11 (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:12:37 AM EST
    don't you think if there was an impressive list of concrete examples, the campaign would have put it together by now.

    They have been fighting back the last two days about community organizing.  And, how have they chosen to do that?  By talking about community organizing in general.  Why didn't they publish some "stats" about what Obama accomplished during his tenure as a community organizer instead?  That was the charge that was made by Palin.  That she had actual responsibilities.  So, Obama's response should have been something along the line of saying...  here are the concrete list of goals i started with, here are the stats that existed at the beginning of my role as an organizer, here are the stats when I left that prove I accomplished what I set out to do for the community.

    I think "community organizer"... (none / 0) (#104)
    by EL seattle on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:42:33 AM EST
    ... can be a tricky phrase.  Sort of like "fireman".  It implies in many people's minds a visible sort of action-related job.  Someone in the fire department who improves the communication system so that it speeds up fire team response by 30% is doing a fantastic job that saves lives, but many folks might not consider that person to be a real "fireman" because they don't run into burning buildings.  People have an image of "community organizer" as being more of an on the street sort of job than it necessarily is.

    I think Obama's team should come up with some people who can testify as to how his actions as a community organizer helped them personally. Their on-camera testimonials would be the best weapon they could use to stop this from becoming a punching-bag for the right.

    Parent

    But did he (none / 0) (#175)
    by denise on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:31:47 PM EST
    actually help people?

    Parent
    Community organizing (none / 0) (#134)
    by eortheain on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:05:56 AM EST
    One possible -- even likely -- reason why the Obama camp hasn't produced such a list is that he may have few accomplishments to show.  Plus, it would put Ayers and other poisonous figures in the spotlight again, which is unlikely to help Obama.  

    Parent
    do you think (none / 0) (#140)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:21:16 AM EST
    that is also the reason that they don't use the "Chicago Annenberg Challenge" project to showcase Obama's ability to manage a project budget of 100 mil

    Parent
    Annenberg (none / 0) (#147)
    by eortheain on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:52:38 AM EST
    I really don't know.  I just find it surprising that he isn't showcasing his accomplishments as a community organizer..

    My best guess is that the Annenberg challenge was a mixed success -- that it accomplished a few things, but at a cost few would consider reasonable.

    Parent

    Unfortunately, he didn't accomplish (none / 0) (#192)
    by BlueMerlin on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:53:32 AM EST
    anything.  That is what he has written in his autobiography (number one, or number two, I'm not sure which).   Community organizing was a flop.

    Parent
    To me (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by sas on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:13:06 AM EST
    his biggest mistakes are:
    1. playing the race card at every opportunity
    2. allowing the so-called progressives to be sexist with never an admonishment
    3. not pick Clinton as his running mate
    4. not insisting on do-overs in two primaries
    5.  and most important - not having any achievements - either for the people of Illinois, or in the Senate, that he can specifically cite to quiet his detractors when they say he is the most unprepared candidate in the history of the US


    The Middle Class (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by cpa1 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:13:59 AM EST
    One thing everyone I know is worried about is that Obama will not raise taxes on the wealthy, cut taxes on those making smaller incomes and once again screw the middle class.

    They are afraid he will raise their FICA taxes, give SS and Medicare to more people even illegal immigrants and all the cost will be borne by the middle class.  Having Wright and Farrakhan in his back pocket doesn't make the peole I know feel secure.

    Further (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by sas on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:19:16 AM EST
    Why is he expecting Hillary to carry his water against Sarah Palin.

    Is he really this dependent on others?

    Where's Joe Biden?


    I think he's been fairly tone deaf... (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:23:45 AM EST
    ... to how the people who are resistant to his message perceive him. I understood how the "political rock star" aspect of his campaign helped him against Hillary in the primaries, particularly prior to the Wright incident. But his campaign has remained excessively grandiose well past the point where a lot of people started to see that as a liability, and they have not done much to reign that in.

    Similarly, I don't think he's been very successful at countering the accusations of elitism that sprung up in the wake of the "bitterness" controversy, nor at recognizing and addressing the feelings of Hillary supporters that they and their candidate were not being respected.

    Two things Obama can do now: (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by hairspray on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:41:27 PM EST
    showcase Bill Clinton's sucesses and promise to bring those days back again, and make McCain and Bush twins.  Point out over and over again how much this war has cost us in terms of lost opportunities of our own (national stature, personal and country wealth, independence from foreign entrapment for starters).  He needs to point out how we lost the opportunity to put this country on the road to energy independence and wealth back in 2000 and while the hour is late, it is going to start as soon as he is elected.

    Parent
    I agree with this..... (none / 0) (#117)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:27:27 AM EST
    ...I'm not sure how he can change it though. But since I am one of the people for whom the whole "rock star" thing didn't resonate, I thought that his acceptance speech (the speech itself and not the venue) was a good start. I liked that it was policy specific. I guess I'm a wonk, but those are the kinds of things that inspire me.

    Parent
    Yes! (none / 0) (#185)
    by sallywally on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:00:02 PM EST
    After McCain's speech last night (dull and obnoxious as it was), Obama's spectacle in the Mile High Stadium really seemed a bit of pretentious overkill.

    They felt Bush was successful with spectacle, but perhaps forgot that everyone is sick of Bush!

    Parent

    Great analysis, Jeralyn. (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by EL seattle on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:24:50 AM EST
    I don't disagree with anything on the list.  I would add this to it, though:

    12.) Obama's move (in June) to merge much of the Democratic National Committee into his own campaign's Chicago headquarters.  Since he has so little experience and stand-alone gravitas of his own, this offered fuel to the suspicion that he might just be a tool for a "corrupt Chicago machine".  

    It seemed more like change you should be wary of than change you can believe.

    And don't forget crackpots! (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by BernieO on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:30:31 AM EST
    I grew up in a small town on the Ohio and the issues that the mayor has to deal with are complicated. We went through the move of a major employer to an outlying area which really hurt our wonderful downtown area. The mayor had to fight for state and federal funds to help with renewal projects to bring tourism, new businesses, fight poverty, etc. He  had to deal with frequent, severe floods, road controversies, you name it. And there were plenty of difficult people to deal with.
    Community organizers do a great job, but it is not the same as answering to your entire community, even if it is small.  

    The Money (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by dissenter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:01:07 AM EST
    I agree with most of the above and will add this...His obsession with controlling all the money is going to be a huge blunder. He doesn't want money going to 527s. He doesn't want money going to outside groups. This is patently stupid.

    Outside groups can do a better job because they 1) understand the audience better, 2) understand what sells better locally and 3) outside groups don't have to worry about the repercussions of negative ads.

    If he doesn't get past being a control freak, he will pay dearly in Nov.

    And yes, I am going to vote for him because Sarah Palin is a nutcase but I will be taking a shower directly after casting my vote.

    I would agree with everything but add (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by esmense on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:10:14 AM EST
    he missed an opportunity with his acceptance speech. Too much emphasis on the optics, too reactive to criticisms and perceived weaknesses, too much Democratic boiler plate, no high impact/easy to remember theme, no genuinely new policy proposals. It was all beautifully done, but when you look beyond the visuals and the eloquence you find that, in terms of policy, he's running as a generic Democrat, or for Clinton's 3rd term. There is no positive, well-defined vision for the future. (I was reminded of the I Ching Hexagram "Grace" and its arning; "beautiful form suffices to brighten and to throw light upon matters of lesser moment, but important questions cannot be decided in this way. They require greater earnestness.")

    Is it too late for him to come up with a powerful, easy to understand theme with clear, new proposals address specific challenges of the present and the future? Is there a venue in which he could effectively present such a theme.

    Probably not.

    McCain's campaign suffers from the same problem. The difference in style can obscure the fact, but both of these candidates are, in different wasy, too reactive and backward looking.

     

    Exactly (none / 0) (#111)
    by dissenter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:13:59 AM EST
    It is called a message and he hasn't had one since day one. There is no "new deal" or "new frontier". I still don't know what he stands for except he says he isn't Bush. That really isn't compelling to the average voter. They want to know what he is about. I can't even answer that question.

    Parent
    Most people want Clinton's thrid term or (none / 0) (#162)
    by hairspray on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:44:43 PM EST
    hadn't you noticed?  His speech was a ringer.

    Parent
    Mistakes (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Realleft on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:18:12 AM EST
    I think his biggest mistakes were FISA and not choosing Sen. Clinton for VP, or at least not communicating well around either issue.  I can imagine a number of reasons that the VP pick wouldn't have worked, but the lack of any communication about it other than the failed tease made it gimmicky instead of serious.  FISA, well I still don't know what to say about that.

    FISA (none / 0) (#116)
    by CST on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:24:13 AM EST
    Lost him a lot of potential Ron Paul supporters.  And greatly diminished his standing with younger voters which makes it even less likely they will show up to vote.

    Parent
    Excitement on the far right (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Xclusionary Rule 4ever on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:35:13 AM EST
    Palin speaking in Colo Springs is like Barack speaking in Madison WI - her fellow book-burning-evango-fascists are excited? so what?

    My first comment on this excellent excellent site:

    1. He should have waited -agree -  I, too, thought, at first, that he and Hillary were too liberal to win in 08.  I'd love to be wrong

    2. I'm in a southern state (GA) and we have seen no ads and very little of him.  ever.  

    3. He shouldn't have brought Oprah Winfrey in- I disagree.  She is influential with the People Magazine low-info people.  This is, in part, like it or not, a personality contest.  Oprah was a big moment for him with a lot of women.  I hope she shows up some more before Nov.

    4. He shouldn't have picked Joe Biden, - disagree.  I always liked Biden for pres and I think they make a great team.  Barack's honest weak spot is foreign policy and Biden is deep on that.  At this point they look like serious adults ready to lead compared to "take your daughter to work day" on the red side.

    5. He picked the wrong campaign themes - strongly disagree.  The theme he picked is why he's where he is.  "Hope" and "Yes We Can" swept the blue nation off its feet.

    6. He needed to fight back harder against the assertion by pundits and candidates that Palin was as experienced as him -- disagree.  Palin is a joke and experience is not really an issue.  If it was all about experience we would be electing Cheney - what we want is someone smart and sane who believes in our government and wants to make it work correctly.  Barack is a smart guy with charisma and vision and that's enough.


    Campaign strategy... (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Oje on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:08:22 AM EST
    Obama has not run a basic Democratic "issues" campaign throughout the entire process. The slogan, "Bush's third term," is cute and may be effective, but it is not the substance of an "issues" campaign. Throughout the primaries, we heard Obama distinguish himself from Clinton with other slogans, like "politics of the past," but again, no real substantive discussion of issues.

    His campaign has not been tooled and his talking points have not been shaped by issues. As the general election roles on, his speechifying and his surrogates have not been calibrated to communicate policy positions in short, decisive statements in the way that past Democrats (in the primaries and past elections) often developed. Granted, 1 of those 4 campaigns in the past 16 years failed (I count Gore as a victory), but the Obama team went in an entirely different question that, I still think, tapped into the anti-Democratic culture of the media and the electorate of non-swing states.

    I agree with (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Andy08 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:13:54 AM EST
    1 through 5. Think 6 is irrelevant and agree strongly with 7.  Number 8 contains 2 different issues and should be split: the first part (the guessing game) is not a factor imo; the second part is a HUGE factor. The problem with 9 is that those were the only themes: the overriding reason. It'd have been no problem as part of a more comprehensive profound message. But as he run on them they tap on something too undefined. He confined himself too much to the primary voters rather than a more centrist theme. Worse, even for a centrist like me his FISA position reversal afterwards was astounding, very hard to swallow. That in itself should be listed as one of his biggest mistakes.
    #10 an $11 are too early to gauge; the national campaigns are really starting now after both conventions.
    Finally one HUGE mistake was going after the Clinton's and accusing them of racism -- through his surrogtaes-- that was too much of a low cheap blow that goes to character. And perhaps his biggest mistake so far has been his dissing in the primaries of the accomplishments of Bill Clinton's presidency emphasizing Reagan instead (for whatever reason). Bill Clinton was a DEMOCRAT president and the only president in the last 40 years to serve for two terms with high approval ratings and popularity. Big big mistake.
    He should have embrased the Clinton Administration achievcements for Day 1.

    Not a comprehensive list but a start.

    12. Failing to rally (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by mg7505 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:00:11 PM EST
    progressives around core issues, specifically the environment. This is a guaranteed winner, given we have superstars like Gore on our side. It's been a while since Gore endorsed Obama, but the two haven't been hitting enough campaign stops together. Even Gore's convention speech didn't make big headlines. Moreover, there has been a COMPLETE LACK of ingenuity on this account. Obama started the "Joshua Generation" for young evangelicals...but no "Green Generation"?

    13. Pandering to Evangelicals with the "Joshua Generation"-like projects. It's fine to include them, but seems like way too little bang for the buck, especially now that the Evangelicals are all flocking to Palin/McCain (er...McCain/Palin).

    I have a question.... (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by Oje on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:10:24 PM EST
    If Obama does not win the election, and McCain is the nightmare we all anticipate, is it now Obama and all of his supporters who were wrong about the single most important event in our lifetime: the 2008 general election?

    Obama's mistakes (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by AlSmith on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:47:28 PM EST

    Most of the things I dislike about Obama he probably shouldnt change- he is a shallow, populist candidate, if you take a way that what is he going to run on?

    Here are some mistakes that could be fixed:

    • the mechanics of VP announcement were terrible. A complete squib

    • he should have wrapped up the nomination earlier. I know everytime people say this they end up moving primaries earlier and earlier which is probably hurting us more than helping. He should have made a deal with HRC to be VP in May. I know he really doesnt want her in his administration but avoiding this really has cost him.

    • Win a debate with Hillary in April

    • He should have cut all Wright ties back last year and moved to a totally different Church. The fact that he had to readdress in late Spring was a big problem. And I am sure Rev Wright isnt done in this election yet.

    • Nothing specific in his big speech. McCain wasnt great but at least he gave us some specific things. I think he is lying about nuclear power.

    • The electorate dosent like big changes- which is why Bill Clinton lost congress in '94 and Bush lost it after taking on Social Security reform in '04. People get nervous when government is too much on the move. Obama should pick three specific plans to run on and stress just those. You can talk about other things if they come up, but stick to talking about the three things you are going to do if elected. Right now if you polled Obama's supporter I am pretty sure they know what he stands for but not really what he'd do. The situation with independents is probably worse.

    • claiming that he was never a Muslim. I think this will bite him.

    • the horrible iconography. And stop making your own seals.


    Obama's mistakes (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by S on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:02:42 PM EST
    Obama should not have staged essentially a hostile takeover of the Democratic party and introduced himself and campaigned from the start against the Clinton Presidency which included the loyalty and support of so much of the democratic base...

    ...especially since it now adds to the cynicism because he needs the Clintons and now chooses to point to the Clinton presidency as a successful democratic economic model, etc...

    ...he oversold the concept of 'change' - the country wants change, it does not want a revolution

    Really? You think it was a hostile takeover? (none / 0) (#181)
    by QueenTiye on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:10:14 PM EST
    Speaking as a nonpartisan, I have to disagree.  There were two camps in the party - two warring camps near as I can tell.  The Clinton camp and the Dean camp.  Clinton's camp, by virtue of Bill, had the establishment tone.  Dean's the anti-establishment challenge.  If Hillary had one, Dean would have been out as chair.  Instead - Obama won.  And that's why a lot of his strategy looks as it does - the party is consolidating around a new direction that a good half of the party has been resisting tooth and nail for some time.  This wasn't a "Hillary lost" kind of thing.  This was a
    internal dispute that got settled during the primaries.  Obama didn't strong arm - he simply acted in accordance with the new direction.  If he loses the election - no doubt the Clinton camp will come roaring back and asserting authority - but if he wins, the entire party will be positioned to work with the new party process.

    Looking at this as an "Obama" thing really misses the point.

    QT

    Parent

    They don't know how to take responsibility for the (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by pumapower on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:14:36 PM EST
    If Hillary were the nominee, the Democrats wouldn't be watching the Republican convention at this stage in the game.  The election would have been over and done by now.  
    Instead, we are stuck with a weak nominee who didn't give the party a chance to heal by denying the roll call to go through, and thereby making his 'selection' illegitimate.  This shows extremely poor judgment on the part of the nominee and the party.  We are now paying for it by losing the popularity contest that we started playing.

    In Jun/July, Obama should have solidified the Dem base instead of prancing around the world giving feel good speeches to foreigners.   He should have not flipped on FISA and continued to criticize Bush administration, and connect with average Americans about their economic anxieties.  He should have held town hall meetings with Hillary supporters to win them over with hard work and perseverance instead of going off to Hawaii for JFK type photo ops.  He should have did the political rounds to make sure that the role call count would reflect him as the winner so that we can let the primary process play out normally.  He did none of that.  And now the party suffers.

    Such is the failure of leadership and the poor judgment of the faux messiah.

    The only constructive thing left to do now, is to vote down ticket democrats in congress.  The Titanic that is the Obama campaign is on a certain collision course to doom.

    Obama's mistakes (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by lentinel on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:03:12 PM EST
    For me, one whopper of a mistake was Obama actually campaigning for Lieberman. This was in 2006 when we, progressives, were trying to finally put an end to the war in Iraq.
    Obama revealed himself to be a hack. He never regained his credibility.

    If that wasn't enough, he voted for FISA.
    He voted for the renewal of the Patriot Act.
    He was AWOL on votes with respect to Iran. This is important.

    Then there is his statement, an incredible one, just yesterday.
    He told O'Reilly that the "surge" had succeeded beyond our "wildest dreams".

    His acceptance speech didn't even mention the issues of the erosion of our civil liberties under Bush. One would have hoped that he would make it part of his platform that he would do whatever he could to restore our constitutional rights.

    He didn't say anything in his acceptance speech about trying to aggressively protect women's rights with respect to the control of their own bodies. This is important.

    Of course, these facts don't qualify as "mistakes" as the term is used. Mistakes are mostly defined as tactical errors.
    But they do define the person. Whoever Obama is, he is hiding it.
    He is happy to try to coast by on a media wave of stupidity and sophomoric emotion.

    Maybe he is a good person.
    I don't know.
    I don't even care.
    I think he is timid and bends in the wind.
    He is not someone I would want to rely on for anything.

    4 things Obama could do now to pick up votes: (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by jazz on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:15:57 PM EST
    1. Show integrity.  The way he played Florida/Michigan, the FISA vote, other things mentioned have left doubts about who he is or what he stands for.  His stand on issues don't matter if there are doubts about integrity.
    2.  Act like the candidate of change he started out to be.  He often sounds like a typical politician now.  He seemed to take a higher ground initially.  Claim that high ground.
    3.  Show passion about something other than winning.  You could see it in Edwards, Clinton, even McCain and Palin.  Put something on the line.
    4.  Stop triangulating.  Be the first to stand up for what is right regardless of what the polls say.  Oh wait, that's the same as item 1.  Guess I only have 3.


    His biggest mistake, to me... (4.57 / 7) (#2)
    by citizen53 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:37:00 AM EST
    is talking all about change, but then failing to continue this by his actions.  He veered straight to the middle like a regular politician, and thus refuted his claims, and the claims of his supporters, that he was different and transformational.

    I guess I should have added FISA (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:38:27 AM EST
    He may have alienated his more progressive supporters when he capitulated on FISA. Not to where they won't vote for him, but as BB King would say, the thrill seems to be gone.

    Parent
    Yes...FISA certainly did not help... (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by citizen53 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:41:35 AM EST
    him with the base.  There are things that are hard to look past when it comes to judging a candidate, even one who is supported.

    Parent
    With FISA, I reached my gag limit (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by lambert on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:00:54 AM EST
    Who Obama was demonstrating fealty to with that vote I don't know, but I do know that they are not my friends, and not friends to restoring Constitutional government, and that means the D and R are in essence agreed on that issue, as well as accountability for the acts of criminals in the Bush regime.

    Since I live in a reliably blue state, I can vote Green at the top of the ticket, which (at this point) I am planning to do.

    Therefore, please feel free to delete this message.

    Parent

    ....and renouncing public funding (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by rise hillary rise on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:13:04 AM EST
    I thought that it was symbolically bad. reinforces the big money/elitist theme even though they claim millions of small money donors. it wasn't enough to say that he'll push for change after the election.

    Parent
    Yep. After FISA (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Jake Left on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:11:26 AM EST
    I'm voting for him, but my usual 20-30 hours a week of volunteer work leading up to an election is dropped to just a few so far. Tired of being used. Tired of voting for the lesser of two the same.

    Parent
    Carpe Diem (none / 0) (#79)
    by Reckless on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:58:02 AM EST
    Love the site, Jeralyn.. my first post here tho' reading here daily for years.. rather than add to your list, I'll offer suggestions he CAN change going forward.

    Agree with most of your thoughts.. esp. his waiting til 2012 or 2016, preferably as Hillary's VP, almost guaranteeing 16 years of Democratic White House control. And frankly, he could use the experience.

    Hillary was hands down the smart pick for VP. Now, he should offer her a cabinet position and make it public, and possibly other cab spots, but definitely get Hillary on board. That would kill the hockey-mom mania in an instant.

    He needed a breather after 18 months of campaigning, but this week was the week to take off while all media oxygen is on RNC.. leaving his VP/surrogates around to fight back.

    Most importantly, he needs to understand that half of this country's voters are, well.... stupid. And that ANY republican candidate knows that, plays to that and wins like that.. get down in the mud and sling it with both hands.. Americans love a fighter ... whatever it takes to win - enough highminded losing campaigns! The only goal is to win.

    Lastly, don't try to remake the voting map overnight(western strategy), stick to the tried and true winning strategies with 90% of your effort.

    Again, I read you daily .. can't say that about many sites.

    Parent

    Forgot something (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Reckless on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:03:30 AM EST
    Every ad between now and election day should include a picture of Bush and McCain hugging, together, etc.. every single ad without exception.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#99)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:26:51 AM EST
    They should show it so much that it gets burned into everyone's retinas, so you see it even with your eyes closed.

    Parent
    I don't think half the country is stupid (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:41:39 AM EST
    It is inherently problematic even saying that and I do believe that hurts Obama campaign.  That is how you loose votes.  That was what hurt Obama so deeply when he delivered those memorable words in San Fran re: small town/blue collar voters.  This is how GW won.  Recall, GW was plain spoken, unlike Gore and Kerry.  I agree with all other premises and agree with Jeralyn's synopsis. You see, it is not just a women problem now; it is the small town/rural/blue collar/hunter votes that are in jeopardy.  All those folks who never had the opportunity to attend private prep school and the Ivy league.  

    If possible, get Hillary front and center to counter Palin.  As I posted previously, Clinton is the one with credibility to counter the Palin phenomenon, not that I think Hillary owes Obama anything.  However, she could be pivotal in this the next two months. Get every accomplished woman Democrat to join in.  

    Got a call from female lawyer friend, who like me, was an ardent Hillary supporter.  She LOVES Palin.  I reminded her over and over that Palin is far to the right and represents nothing for which Hillary has worked so hard.  

    Voters need to be reminded over and over that Palin and Hillary are not fungibles; that Palin does not really represent women's issues.

    Obama set the stage for another media darling to enter (Palin) and for the MSM to to start anew with the swooning.  He did this; he fed into the rock media scenario, devoid of substance, dismissive of real experience.  Now he has to eat his words and live with the monster he has created.

    I think he now needs to be the traditional politician and remind the voters that this is not American Idol contest.  Fine that he and Palin can deliver a good speech and have great punch lines, but this election is far too important to be relegated to that. It is not a contest about who delivers the best speech.        

    Parent

    you make the sme mistake (IMHO) (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:00:46 AM EST
    that too many are making about Hillary supporters.  Just how many of the voters who supported Hillary in places like western PA, southern OH, WV, KY, AR, IN, NC, MO do you think are pro-choice?  They are socially CONSERVATIVE dems.  They are the Reagan dems.  The family values dems.  Do you think the reason Clinton won Catholics in he primary by large margins was because of her pro-choice position?  Do you think that the repug position on abortion bothers these voters?

    Parent
    I am in Massachusetts (none / 0) (#126)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:19:11 AM EST
    Friend/lawyer who called and loves Palin is absolutely pro-choice, as are other friends.  This is a huge problem, IMHO.  I think Palin extends beyond the usual pro-life voters.    

    Parent
    even more so (none / 0) (#127)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:25:11 AM EST
    since you are in MA, it doesn't really matter. Obama can't lose in MA.  What really matters is what the Hillary voters and Indy voters in the swing states think.  Most of the swing states are swing states precisely because they have either a large percentage of indys and/or a large percentage of conservative dems. If Palin can convince your pro-choice friend in MA to like her, just think how well she must play to the conservative dems who backed Hillary by HUGE margins over Obama.

    Parent
    You are exactly making my point! (none / 0) (#129)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:31:00 AM EST
    My daughter, a Hillary supporter too, (none / 0) (#165)
    by hairspray on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:07:36 PM EST
    loves Palin.  Her take is that she speaks to many women and doesn't believe that she is that doctrinaire.  She loves that she is so straight arrow even tho she doesn't agree with her on choice.

    Parent
    Got that right (none / 0) (#193)
    by BlueMerlin on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:08:56 AM EST
    and I'm one of them.   Palin is authentic and she walks the talk.   I'm as pro-choice as they come but I respect her view on this.   In fact,  as I get older and contemplate death, I realize what a gift life has been.  

    Anyway, you can go on votesmart.org and look at her public speeches, letters, and declarations.   She is a fiscal conservative but she increased funding for education.  She does not 'hunt' wolves from the air.  In fact, no one in AK does.   The Fish & Game department culls the packs from the air.   Yes, still horrible to imagine but part of wildlife management that happens in many states that have large numbers of wild life.   She believes global warming is happening and is a problem, and established a cabinet-level commission to address it in AK.  

    Will I vote for Palin?  Probably not.  But I think wistfully of how close we Dems came to putting a woman in the white house.   And the thought of a soft-voiced steely-eyed woman staring down the Putins and Ahmadinejads of the world is terribly appealing.   Think of the message that would send, not just to the dictators of the world but to the Chris Wallaces and Keith Olbermanns as well.

    Parent

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#156)
    by eortheain on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:12:24 PM EST
    I think Hillary will have trouble countering Palin in the red states.  She's not particularly believable portraying herself of an outdoorwoman, hunter or defender of gun rights, for example.  I found it insulting when she tried since it was so transparently false.  People notice when you play them for rubes.

    It is really the same problem that Obama has after his "bitter" comment; it is perceived as what Obama really thinks, since it's consistent with his actual actions.

    I'd rather not that Obama and Hillary try to be something they're not, pretend to have values they do not have.  Bob Somerby has stressed countless times how lethal the phoniness charge is; how many times the MSM has portrayed D candidates as phonies and frauds.  For that reason, I think it would be a major error to actually be a phony and fraud; it'll repel far more people than it will fool.

    Far better would be to have someone else counter Palin; a conservative democrat who doesn't have to fake it, and can win (say) pocketbook arguments with ease.  

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#177)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:27:32 PM EST
    up to a point.  What I fear most from what I ama hearing is that her own supporters really like Palin.  

    Just think of it, if you add up all those who voted for Hillary and Obama in the primaries, Dems have a really excellent chance of winning.  Now I realize GE is winner take all and no caucuses, but the Dems had record votes in the primaries.  That has to mean something!!  

    I agree with you that many Red state rural voters are just going to love Palin.  She has their creds, no doubt about it.  Hillary surely did well in many areas and with many groups that one would not have expected.  

    I think people forget that her mother barely graduated high school.  Her grandfather worked in a mill.  Her father was first generation to attend college.  She, herself, got a National Merit Scholarship to attend college.  Her family, though considered middle class, were not all that wealthy.  She got a government guaranteed student loan so she had to have been income eligible.  

    Don't be fooled by Yale Law School credential.  Hillary was far from the privileged class.

    Parent

    Cred (none / 0) (#197)
    by eortheain on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:48:31 AM EST
    Thank you -- you're right.  I didn't mean to imply that Hillary lacks blue collar cred, and I'm sorry it came out that way.  Rather, I was trying to say that the gun issue is poison for both Hillary or Obama in the red states, and they only harm themselves more if they pretend to be pro-gun.  (And don't get me started on the issue of having Handgun Control, Inc., and its ilk start fake pro-gun groups).

    Obama's "Even if I want to take them [your guns] away, I don't have the votes in congress" yesterday won him how many votes in his hand-picked crowd? How many for Democrats down-ticket?

    Parent

    Whoa! (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by aafan on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:04:47 PM EST
    Being Senator from New York is much better, and more powerful, than being in a Cabinet.  Why would she do that to herself?

    Parent
    Great for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:30:34 PM EST
    Not so great for Hillary, I think.

    Parent
    Now that is a job that I bet she would (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by hairspray on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:09:55 PM EST
    refuse.

    Parent
    I disagree about asking Hillary to serve in his (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by jawbone on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:14:50 PM EST
    cabinet--it might help him going forward, in some small ways, but it would not necessariy help the people of the country. Cabinet officials are notoriously unable to institute change; they are held to the proposals of their presidents. Acting on their own gets them ignored or removed.

    We need a strong junior senator from NY, a liberal sounding and acting senator, to push for universal health care and other progressive legislation. It's not going to come from either administration--but, with support and pressure, it may come from the legislative branch.

    As I've said before, I want her as the Lioness of the Senate, with full-throated progressive/lib calls to action. I want her there to temper judicial nominations. (I love the sound of "lioness" and refuse to call her the Lion of the Senate. Anyway, that belongs to Ted Kennedy.) I want her there to fight for our Consitution rights, our civil liberties, to temper the lust for power in the executive branch.

    Parent

    I should have said... (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by citizen53 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:38:46 AM EST
    that it is a mistake because people have shown that they are ready, quite ready, for someone to act boldly.  Obama can be susceptible to the charge that he will say anything to get elected.  To promise change, then engage in business as usual.

    Parent
    I agree with #1 (1.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Melchizedek on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:25:31 AM EST
    His biggest mistake as a Presidential candidate was... running for President. I would suggest he also erred in getting way too many votes for Hillary to win.  I mean, getting a lot of votes is a cardinal sin for any candidate.

    This site has become its own best parody, I swear to God.

    So how did he get all those valuable (none / 0) (#169)
    by hairspray on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:19:45 PM EST
    red state votes?

    Parent
    more aggressive (none / 0) (#1)
    by lynnebrad on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:31:48 AM EST
    I would like to see him more aggressive in responding to the lies of the Repubs. I think he should have called out Romney (talk about an elite) and the others who mocked Michelle...something like let's see, you spent how many millions to get how few votes???

    We all want to see more fight in him.

    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:37:06 AM EST
    Now is not the time to put on the Professor or philosophical hat. Voters want to see someone who they know will fight for them.

    Parent
    McCain pounded the Fighter meme (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Fabian on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:45:37 AM EST
    for all it was worth.

    Maybe Obama really believes all that postpartisan spiel?

    People want fighters.  Leave the love to the poets and philosophers.  We want politicians to do what we can not accomplish.  We can love our neighbors, but we can't save their jobs or help them get health care.

    Parent

    Maybe that is part of the FISA problem (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:03:34 AM EST
    People want fighters.
    We were expecting Obama to fight for our FISA concerns. He had said he would. He promised to and in the end, he didn't even give it a good fight. It does not matter that there might not have been enough votes anyway. That attitude by any Democrat is bad and been used too much lately. We at least wanted him to stand by his word and fight for us. He didn't. He caved in a blink of the eye. It says, what will he do in the future? Fight or roll over? So FISA, IMO, was a big mistake. First, because it was wrong, and secondly, because Obama did not fight for us.  

    Parent
    Respectfully Disagree (none / 0) (#56)
    by FLA on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:23:59 AM EST
    I think he should have called out Romney (talk about an elite) and the others who mocked Michelle...something like let's see, you spent how many millions to get how few votes???



    Obama is winning...Winners must stay classy and focused!

    He should and will ignore Romney, Rudi, Huckabee, and Palin.  He only needs to respond to McCain and let his surrogates mop up the second and third tier players.

    Parent

    BINGO! (none / 0) (#158)
    by Pieter B on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:15:22 PM EST
    Staying "above the fray" and leaving the cut & thrust to others makes him look both elitist and weak.

    A lot of undecideds will go for scrappiness over nobility.

    Parent

    He's walking the tightrope. (none / 0) (#167)
    by aafan on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:10:01 PM EST
    Angry black man, on the attack, does not seem like a good strategy.  (You see how Palin is getting away with things that Obama could not get away with!)  Are you saying he is too cautious on the tightrope, and needs to take some more risks?

    Parent
    Strength (none / 0) (#190)
    by lynnebrad on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:22:45 PM EST
    He needs to emanate strength. He may be in the lead, but it is not solid. As someone said, people want their leader to show strength. Say what you will, but he had his harshest attack on the Repubs with his convention speech and got a pretty big bump in polling.

    Calling out Romney for attacking his wife...shows strength and everyone will support that.

    He has to do it. He should be like an attack dog on Bill O'Reilley in these Factor interviews. He showed some strength, but he should not be letting O'Reilley cut him off. He should tell Bill: "Bill, you can either be quiet and let me answer your question, or I will just sit here and you can answer your own questions." and "Don't interrupt me."

    Parent

    Dear Jeralyn (none / 0) (#8)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:45:11 AM EST
    I'm too tired right now. But my first reaction is it's not over yet. Quit trying to rethink what we did wrong before we even have the election. Quit focusing on why he's gonna lose, and help him win. Please. There's still time. Please.

    Stop pointing out his mistakes. You have a very influential blog. His enemies may be watching. Maybe they haven't figured them out yet. Wait til after the election. If we win, wait til after the party. If we lose, go ahead. Go for it. Point out the mistakes you see.

    Why do we need to uphold a (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by TN Dem on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:41:48 AM EST
    false perfection to promote a candidate. You say his enemies may be reading and cite that as a reason to stop discussing shortfalls voters see. I think you, like Obama has on several occasions, underestimate his 'enemies'.

    Perhaps this blog is an attempt to help Obama. Pointing out where he may have erred in the eyes of voters he needs this fall may be open the door to healing and give him time to win them over. Of course, he would have to give those voices some credit to reap the benefits of a blog like this...I'm not holding my breath...

    Parent

    Later for the post mortem -- why? (none / 0) (#49)
    by obiden08 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:11:40 AM EST
    I think we're getting uneasy, maybe even a bit fearful. We're so close to victory.  In the last two elections, we've been close and it feels as though victory was snatched away from us. We fear it may happen again.  We almost can't believe we will win.  

    But I agree with those saying now is not the time to assign blame.  Now's the time to dig in and keep fighting.  Make phone calls, give money, go to meeting and see what we can do to make a difference.

    We can't give in yet and we can't re-fight the primaries. If we keep looking back, we lose because we've given up.  In some ways McCain's speech tonight was looking back at what was instead of looking ahead to what can and will be.  Let's not follow his lead.

    By the way, I'm a new poster here but a long-time reader. I've enjoyed reading your posts.

    Parent

    Ridiculous. (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by rooge04 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:13:00 AM EST
    Last I checked Democrats uphold Democratic values--including valid criticisms. "Enemies may be watching?"  What does that even mean? It sounds like something Bush would say when trying to explain why the Democrats couldn't criticize the war. I would suggest that being MORE like Bush and his followers does not behoove Obama at all. Nor pretending he's infallible. Because "enemies may be watching?" Sounds like a Republican meme.

    Parent
    so guitar, why don't you (5.00 / 7) (#65)
    by cpinva on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:41:05 AM EST
    point out why he's going to win?

    Quit focusing on why he's gonna lose, and help him win.

    frankly, your posts are pathetic. if you are representative of sen. obama's base, he's truly doomed.

    jeralyn, i don't think there's a whole lot sen. obama can do, he hasn't got much to work with. his resume', while not quite as thin as palin's, is still nearly transparent, and he's not running against palin, he's running against mccain.

    he wasn't going to get the fundies anyway, regardless of what he did. any time spent on them is time wasted.

    he needs to sincerely reach out to all those clinton supporters that he and his campaign completely alienated. i don't think he has a clue how to do that. they won't vote for mccain, but they won't vote for obama either.

    his primary strategy (just barely) won him the nomination, sort of. that he got trounced in the states that actually matter in nov. should have been a big clue to the SD's. they're either really, really stupid, or really, really scared. you make the call. the clinton's can help, to a point, in states like PA, OH, MI & FL. however, obama ultimately has to show those voters they can trust him, and only he can do that.

    the bottom line: the democrats made what should have been a cakewalk into an actual contest, by nominating sen. obama. he compounded their error, by selecting biden as veep. i honestly am not certain he can pull this out of the hole they've all dug, he just hasn't the experience.

    Parent

    Look (none / 0) (#176)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:45:18 PM EST
    All I care about is winning. And in order to win we need to stand strong together. No more crying over lost opportunities. It may be unfair, but it is what it is. There's no changing it, there's no going back Let's take whatever good we've got and push it forward. Pointing out our obvious flaws gives those against us power against us. Kinda like when you're wearing a great dress but you've got a big zit on your face. If you walk into a room crying about your zit, no one will notice your dress. Let's win.

    Parent
    You seem to think that (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by BernieO on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:44:05 PM EST
    analyzing what he has done wrong so far is a wasting time instead of helping learn what to avoid doing between now and the election. It's not to late to change and start doing things like  touting Bill Clinton's legacy. It's not too late to back off from sexism or elitism.

    Of course the big problem is that Democrats as a group don't seem to learn from their mistakes. I was aghast at the elitist, sexist stuff coming from their mouths this week. By now guys like Harry Reid should have learned that saying a woman is shrill is a red flag to a lot of us. There was enough anger and discussion about pundits calling Hillary shrill that Reid should have learned by now. I have heard other Dems say Obama is more qualified because he went to Harvard while Palin only went to a state school. Great talking point since vast majority of Americans went to Ivy League schools instead of those horrible, low brow state universities.

    Will we ever learn?  

    Parent

    It seems like you and I (none / 0) (#184)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:55:16 PM EST
    are almost in agreement, except for 2 issues that I can see.

    The first is the charge of sexism in regard to Palin. Palin IMO is not who she says she is. She comes across like a buck nekid emperor to me, but it seems if you  point out her inconsistencies  you're get accused of sexism. I don't think it would happen if you pointed out the very same inconsistencies in a man.

    I never said Obama was more qualified because he went to one of the best universities in our country, I said he was smarter, cuz he made it in and did very well. Smarter, I think he's smarter. I he's very smart. Very, very smart.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 6) (#78)
    by JAB on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:57:10 AM EST
    Because Republicans won't be able to figure out Obama's weaknesses if we don't write about them here.

    Parent
    Sshhh.... "His enemies may be watching" (5.00 / 6) (#114)
    by sj on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:17:23 AM EST
    I am so tired of this admonition, because clearly his enemies have no brains or thoughts of their own.  If we don't say anything, they'll never notice.  As if.

    If we can't speak the truth when we see it how the heck can we get any better?

    Parent

    Large Corporationss and Negative Tactics (none / 0) (#22)
    by john horse on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 05:53:50 AM EST
    Another disadvantage of Obama is that the mainstream media (MSM) has this tendency (despite recent protestations by Palin and the GOP to the contrary) to give the GOP pass after pass.  Think about the great job they did prior to the invasion of Iraq (sarcasm alert).

    Another disadvantage is that Obama does not have the support of large corporations, such as the big oil corporations and war profiteers like Halliburton. (another sarcasm alert).

    Finally, the GOP are masters of the low road - negative campaign tactics and demogougic appeals to their base.  Negative tactics also work.

    It only costs your soul.

    Don't quite agree (none / 0) (#30)
    by Todd on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:23:58 AM EST
    My first reaction to reading your post was, well if he hadn't done some of these things he wouldn't have won the primary. Also I would think that the strategy for the general is going to be a bit different than the primaries, as I'm sure it will be. Remember, the general public doesn't give a hoot about any of this til now, the end of the conventions. Political junkies, blogs and the press yes, but not the public. Shooting off too much in August is a bit of a waste. Just to state I was not an Obama supporter in the primaries nor was I a Hillary supporter, I was hoping for Gore and then was an Edwards supporter (so you can take my judgement with a grain of salt LOL) During the Hillary/Obama contretemps I really didn't have a preference as I thought they were both very worthy Dems, That's not too say I wasn't disgusted at times with tactics from both sides. That said, I do think that Obama's caucus strategy may have some dividends. There's infrastructure now in these states for the general. And don't forget the two first States that Obama/Biden went to after the convention were Penn and Ohio. So I think you may be premature to say they are not going to focus on the swing States. Generally though, I think we would have a list like this if Hillary had won also so I've put the primaries behind me. The real contest begins now! And we need, all of us, to make sure we have Democratic Administration come Jan 09.

    Humor (none / 0) (#34)
    by DanR3 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:37:08 AM EST
    He needs to show more of his sense of humor.

    It's linked to his touchiness. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Fabian on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:51:47 AM EST
    Also to his lack of experience, not professional or political, but in the school of hard knocks.  He hasn't developed the thick hide of a seasoned pol yet.

    Parent
    Agree with Gentlyweeping (none / 0) (#38)
    by Rover1 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:42:01 AM EST
    The biggest difference between Republicans and Democrats is that repubs are single minded in their support. It's all check -your -brain- at- the- door devotion. We don't need to do a post mortem on the Obama campaign right now.

    He's a strong, smart candidate who has a lot more to offer this country than McCain. Stop tearing him down.

    What??? That is Bushian. (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by rooge04 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:09:44 AM EST
    Pretending that our candidates are perfect is the GOP way. Not the Democratic way.  Pointing out mistakes is NOT "tearing him down."  It sounds creepy to even read that!  

    Parent
    At this point in the race, (none / 0) (#41)
    by bocajeff on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:50:23 AM EST
    Picking what Obama did wrong in his campaign is like asking what Michael Phelps did wrong in Beijing. I'm  sure he probably made some mistakes, but he did win all of the races...Winning is what matters...Let's have the autopsy in November.

    Obama may lose Florida (none / 0) (#50)
    by ding7777 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:12:50 AM EST
    Obama "Jerusalem [...] must remain undivided" statement and then flip-flopping on it.

    Florida is going to be saturated with Obama's flip-flop and Biden cannot undo Obama's rookie-like mistake.

    Please (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Todd on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:55:33 AM EST
    Please. Palin was in church just a few weeks ago listening to the head of Jews for Jesus. Plus she was a Buchanin supporter. Nuff said.

    Parent
    Nuff said? Hardly (none / 0) (#112)
    by ding7777 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:14:00 AM EST
    Biden and Hillary are in Florida to convince Jewish voters that Obama is indeed a friend of Israel regardless of his self-inflicted "undivided Jerusalem" flip-flopping statement.

    And I wouldn't play the Jews for Jesus (Rev Wright) or Buchanan (William Ayers) card too fast, especially when Obama is at the top of the ticket.

    Parent

    Guess the new talking points come Monday (none / 0) (#124)
    by JAB on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:01:07 AM EST
    I was flipping channels on the TV last night, and flipped into Glenn Beck (yuck).  What was the first graphic under the talking head?

    "Rev. Wright"

    What was the second?

    "If Obama is such a reformer, how come he didn't take on the Chicago machine?"

    Now Beck has a small audience, but guess what's going to be all over the media by Monday?

    Parent

    To your second point (none / 0) (#179)
    by abfabdem on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:54:34 PM EST
    a columnist in today's Chicago Sun Times (Steve Huntley, a Republican) writes:

    "Obama has never dared to cross the Democratic Party.  He had the chance two years ago when his friend and REFORM (emphasis mine) candidate Forrest Claypool challenged the Democratic organization by running for Cook County Board President. . . . Obama decided not to disturb the power structure and withheld his endorsement.  Claypool lost."

    Parent

    Race card -- NOT! (none / 0) (#59)
    by obiden08 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:30:30 AM EST
    I don't think he dealt it, and whatever was wrong between Bill and the AA community, Bill fixed in his speech.  I don't know any AA person who thought (or thinks) Bill was racist.  Bill's legacy is in tact.   Hillary's is, too.

    And I think if you asked Hillary after this election is over if there are things she wished she had done differently in the primary, she'd have her own list.

    I'm not sure everybody's wounds around these issues are healed yet so I'm going to leave it alone.  I'd rather see us move forward together.

    don't forget (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Nasarius on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:54:34 AM EST
    I really don't want to get dragged back into the primaries, so I'm not going to go there, but don't forget Obama's "[they're attacking me because] I don't look like other Presidents." He played the race card very explicitly, and with very little justification.

    Parent
    Pointing out missteps is (none / 0) (#66)
    by rooge04 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:44:56 AM EST
    what makes us perpetual losers? LOL.

    Self Flagellation is useless...in more important (none / 0) (#69)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:48:53 AM EST
    news, the unemployment rate hit 6.1% this morning, the highest in 5 years.

    Every day we must say, "make the Republicans own their failure."

    Re what else can he do (none / 0) (#93)
    by Munibond on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:18:56 AM EST
    I think Obama/Biden should talk about how they would exercise executive power to address domestic problems.  People seem to be buying into the idea that split government isn't all bad and that a Democratic congress can mitigate McCain's conservative policies, but, to cite but a few examples, it is the executive branch that can most efficiently initiate better regulation of the banking and securities industries and that could also reverse some of the policies that have resulted in consolidation in the communications industry.  Also, it is the executive branch that we rely on to enforce laws designed to protect the environment, consumer and worker safety, etc., and to be competent to address national disasters.  I would like to see some advertising that ehphasizes how essential it is that the republicans be removed from executive power ASAP.

    Ummm. (none / 0) (#101)
    by manfred on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:30:38 AM EST
    Doesn't that list leave him as having done almost nothing right?  Clearly he has run a brilliant campaign.  He started way behind Senator Clinton and caught her -- largely because his people just understood how the process works better than Clinton's (remember Penn not getting the delegate distribution?).

     As for taking Clinton or Clark -- no way.  Imagine the daily Bill watch in the case of the former -- and the rehashing of the old dramas.  And I LOVE Wes Clark, but he is an absolutely ghastly campaigner.  Now, I will admit, the guy I think he should've taken is Anthony Zinni -- he could pull the same "I'm a hero so I am immune" crap that McCain always pulls.  

     To be honest, I'd say that Obama has been virtually flawless on large issues -- sure there have been small missteps (e.g. Michelle Obama's artless phrasing about her love for country).  If the media can actually publicize Palin's real record, Obama will skate into the White House.

    I just want to say (none / 0) (#102)
    by Lil on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:33:17 AM EST
    I don't know how you can stand the thought of being at the Colorado Springs event; I admire your willingness to walk among them.  As for Obama, I wasn't too happy about last night's mistake of saying the surge was pretty successful.

    Why Obama shouldn't have waited for 2016 (none / 0) (#109)
    by TANK1 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:12:47 AM EST
    There was no need for him to wait for 2016.

    I thought he did an excellant job during the primaries of registering and increasing the size of the Democratic Party. I like that over a million donors are donating amounts less than $500 to the campaign.

    I also was encouraged to see his organizational skills at work in the causas states. I think he is ready to be President.

    #4 isn't quite right. (none / 0) (#125)
    by eustiscg on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:06:23 AM EST
    First of all, Obama has an incredibly developed rural outreach program, as noted by the Associated Press a few days ago.

    Second of all, in the primary, Obama tended to do better, not worse among rural voters compared to Clinton.  For instance, it was his victories in rural parts of Nevada that led him to get more delegates out of the state even though Clinton dominated the large cities.

    On Super Tuesday, Clinton won California by a 9-pt margin, but exit polls showed Obama with six-point lead among rural voters in the state.  In fact, that night, Obama won every state that has a rural-to-urban ratio higher than the national average--with the exception of Arkansas, of course.

    Everything in the past put himwhere he is now (none / 0) (#130)
    by magster on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 10:31:40 AM EST
    For instance, had he not pandered to Iowa by removing his name on the ballot in MI, would he have won IA? Without IA, he would not be here now.

    So the more important mistake ID's should be the ones that he can apply in the general election, for instance: did caving on FISA gain him any less contempt from the GOP? NO!  So be a proud progressive (the convention hopefully showed that maybe he knows this now).

    Wow.. I disagree with a lot of that... (none / 0) (#137)
    by QueenTiye on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:08:34 AM EST
    1. He should have waited to run until 2016 when he had assembled a stronger record to back his charismatic appeal. (obviously can't be fixed now.)

    Hard to call that a "mistake" - and not sure I believe he could have run the campaign of change he is running now in 2016.

    2. He shouldn't have focused on the small caucus states. While it won him the nomination, he failed to have a plan for the larger swing states he will need in November. To date, I'm still not seeing enough of an effort -- or results -- in PA, Michigan, FL and Ohio.

    Two different issues here - perceived "effort" in large swing states, vs focusing on caucus states.  Job one - get the nomination.  Job two - get the electoral votes.  That there are two different strategies is entirely the fault of the Democratic party leadership.  The primary process should lead the winning candidate to an inherent strength in the general.

    3. He put too much emphasis on southern states with large AA populations that are unlikely to go Democratic in November.

    Perhaps this will be seen as a mistake - if he loses. If he wins, then even if these states don't go "blue" this year - this will have been one of the best longterm investments in the party ever.

    4. Even in larger states, he focused on the metropolitan areas with greater percentages of non-whites. He needed to sell himself to rural voters across the country.

    See my comments above, re: caucuses.

    5. He should not have dropped out of the Michigan primary. Once he did, he should have quickly accepted Hillary's offer of an early and fair resolution of both MI and FL -- including a revote. His delaying tactics and refusal to commit made him appear to be playing unfairly and alienated millions of Hillary supporters, as well millions of FL voters.

    I will partially agree.  I think everyone bungled this.

    6. He shouldn't have brought Oprah Winfrey in to make his case, which was the beginning of his rock star image and appearances in arenas instead of more traditional campaign venues.

    A recent study shows that Oprah's endorsement brought in a large number of votes.  Hard to call that a mistake, whatever the consequences.

    7. He should have addressed and sharply criticized the press for its treatment of Hillary, thereby not alienating so many of her supporters when he won the nomination.

    Agreed.

    8. He shouldn't have played "guess who" and "it's a secret" so long with his vice presidential nominee and he shouldn't have picked Joe Biden, the definition of old style politics in Washington. He should have picked Hillary to maintain the buzz and the excitement. Aside from Hillary, he should have picked Gen. Wesley Clark.

    He controlled the media cycle for a good amount of time, and is probably hoping for another media grabbing idea that will win back the news from Sarah Palin.  Moreover - the effort likely garnered new contact information from supporters.  For a campaign that is so reliant on turn out from traditionally low turnout voters, having instant communications tools is a huge plus for the campaign (I imagine there will be lots of "GO VOTE" text messages on November 4)

    9. He picked the wrong campaign themes -- hope and change-- targeting the young-- but leaving older voters with the perception he had no substantive policies to back them up. They were too amorphous. So amorphous, in fact, that now John McCain has effectively co-opted them. It will be tough for Obama to get them back.

    Maybe.  He'll have to defend the turf, that's for sure.

    10. He's been less visible since the primaries, except for a day and a half at the convention. He came in Wednesday night. Even though it's tradition for a candidate to arrive later in the week, he said he wasn't bound by traditions. He should have come in Monday and done meet and greets and used the expanded personal media coverage to make inroads with Colorado voters. His vacation in Hawaii should have been postponed.

    I don't know enough about politics and conventions to disagree, but I absolutely disagree about the vacation.  Sometimes you have to take a breather - and he has small children.

    11. He needed to fight back harder against the assertion by pundits and candidates that Palin was as experienced as him -- and against Republican attacks at their Convention this week that he is too inexperienced for the job. His campaign people should have prepared and passed out concrete examples of his legislative and other achievements.

    Agreed 100%.  BUT - in the haze of the Palin excitement, I'm not sure anything he said would have gotten any attention.  I think the hard hitting has to come now - in national and local advertising.

    QT

    I am (none / 0) (#141)
    by JThomas on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:24:57 AM EST
    sure glad all these poster are 100% on board for Obama/Biden so that they can objectively analyze Obama's screw-ups.
    This is a very positive approach to defeating the regime that has led us to 600,000 fewer jobs in 2008 and todays news that the troop withdrawals from Iraq will be suspended.

    Obama's mistake? Maybe assuming that all democrats actually do want the Bush/McCain regime out of office.

    Going home to Hawai'i was fine! (none / 0) (#151)
    by aafan on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:00:54 PM EST
    It's where he grew up!  It's where his grandma lives.  It's where his mother's ashes were scattered.  For cryin' out loud, let him take the kids to see great-grandma and go to the beach. If he had said, look, we're going to grandma's, it would have been a big hit with voters of all ages.  Did he say that?  Maybe he didn't want grandma in a media firestorm, so he couldn't talk about her.  Maybe grandma caused some problems for his narrative, what with her being vice president of a bank, and it makes him seem more privileged.  But heck, she's grandma.

    As far as his mistakes, I speak from the heart, as someone who voted for Hillary with my heart and with my head (and not with my uterus!)  When I see Palin up there on that stage, I think about what we could have had, and what was lost.  It's making me ill.

    Several commenters here missed this part (none / 0) (#152)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 12:08:32 PM EST
    of my post:

    Since we now have fewer opponents to the Democratic ticket on the site, I'm going to ask readers who intend to vote for the Dems in November to weigh in.

    If that's not you, please comment on another thread.

    I will be cleaning this one of attacks on Obama by those who don't intend to vote for him.

    The point of the post is to suggest ways he can fix the mistakes he did make in the next 59 days and win the election.

    Some, as I've pointed out, are not fixable. Others are. I'd like to focus on those.

    Will vote for Obama (none / 0) (#170)
    by DaleA on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:22:43 PM EST
    if he clearly and substantively puts his whole campaign behind the No on 8 effort in California. By this I mean that he unequivocably denouces the effort to take away marriage rights from gay people. This is a simple pro-progressive way of looking at the election. Does this count?

    Parent
    Why Dems Loose!! (none / 0) (#168)
    by cdelarge on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 01:12:32 PM EST
    Instead of trying to focus on winning in November, you guys would rather tear down our opponent.  Get over it - Hillary lost - please move on.

    Good. (none / 0) (#172)
    by Fabian on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:37:54 PM EST
    Hillary needs to get back to being Junior Senator from NY and not chief water woman for the Obama campaign.

    Obama won.  Get over it.

    Parent

    Campaign Finance (none / 0) (#188)
    by Strick on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:37:42 PM EST
    One thing I don't see in a quick scan of the posts.  McCain comes out of the conventions with a huge advantage in cash on hand and reduced operation costs due to a smaller campaign organization.  He's probably going to be able to seriously out spend Obama over the next two months.

    This could be a very significant factor in the race.

    McCain's Money

    those aren't 'mistakes' (none / 0) (#194)
    by neindoch on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:06:31 PM EST
    if you think these are 'mistakes', you just don't understand where Obama's coming from

    better familiarise yourself with such terms as Saul Alinsky, community organiser, ACORN, grassroots, Public Allies, etc

    Obama's campaign stategy & tactics only baffle people who assume he's a conventional Democrat who's just more charimatic, visionary, etc

    whole 'nother thing going on here

    Biden (none / 0) (#198)
    by eortheain on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:59:32 AM EST
    About #8, Joe Biden: Let's talk about WHY Obama picked Biden and, more importantly, how Biden helps Obama win.  

    I can think of quite a few reasons to pick Biden as a VP (e.g. experience), but those don't help Obama win.  (Obvious example: how does it help Obama that his VP is far more experienced than he is?)

    and who r u to decide that? (none / 0) (#199)
    by and who the hell r u to decide on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 02:44:29 PM EST
    so r you saying that you smarter than SENETER Obama and all the people around him?.. you think you're the smartest one, don't ya?

    first, how would Obama choose Hillery? she lost against him! duh! if people want her she would have won. she is a loser and that's a fact!!

    second, the choice of Joe Bedin is good for Obama because his weakest point is he's "inexperienced" so he brought one that been there for a long time to balance.

    third, why r you picking up on the smallest things rather than what he has offered your country? all what we care about is what is he going to do for us? who got the better, realistic, and beneficial plan? and who does all that?.... Obama!!

    you r just republican who's trying to turn people against Obama.

    can your smart a$$ tell me what McCain offering you if you don't own a big co-operation??

    we need change not more of the same and that's what we all care about beside you and the losers who agreed with you.  

    and what's wrong about his theme? he's our hope and we do need change. if the theme wasn't effective McCain wouldn't steel it! and start to use the "change" in his campaign.

    this man knows what he's doing, you will never be smarter than him... put that in your head

    stop making things up and seriously, get a life!!