Soccer Dad

(Democratic) party like its 1999 and other campaign considerations

An article in the Weekly Standard reports that

With a burn rate of $42 million a month, Obama's campaign can just barely sustain its current levels of spending. And what's leftover may not be adequate to run the kind of campaign he needs to win. Just consider despite all the money he's raised, Obama has been outspent on television by 3 to 1 in the last two months. All the stagecraft and theatrics has come with a hefty cost.

(h/t LGF linkviewer)

"Burn rate?" That brings back memories of the Internet boom of the late 90's. Still Marc Ambinder thinks the spending is for a good cause, and it's reason for the Republicans to worry.

These expenses aren't unusual. Sending 15 paid staffers to Texas is "flushing money down the toilet?" No. It's about organizing volunteers for New Mexico and other border states, and about helping Democratic candidates down the ballot. 2,000 field staff? Honestly, Republicans have reason to fear that number. Note that the Obama campaign will pay for most of its field staff directly, which is not normally how this happens. In 2004, most GOP field operatives came from the RNC; most Democratic field operatives were paid by the DNC.

The Obama campaign intends to run the equivalent of 18 major Senate race campaigns. Expensive? Yes. Unprecedented. Yes. Centrally controlled? Yes. Risky? Yes. Leaving nothing to chance? Yes.

(via memeorandum)

And here's a concrete example of that strategy.

(via memeorandum)

The Other McCain dismisses Ambinder's arguments. In the course of doing so he links to John Dickerson who is contemplating Sen. Obama's foreign excursion next week. After listing the positive aspects of the trip including:

Barack Obama has found a great new way to help voters imagine him as an occupant of the office he doesn't have yet. He's dropped the widely mocked faux presidential seal, but when he heads overseas Sunday, he'll take an accessory with real power: three television network anchors.

The anchors are a big coup for Obama as he heads to Europe, the Middle East, Iraq, and Afghanistan. They confer instant legitimacy. McCain, like Hillary Clinton before him, is arguing that Obama isn't qualified to be commander in chief, but the networks are treating him like he's already got the job.

Dickerson observes some of the risks such as:

Hubris Alert: Who does Obama think he is? He's not the president. He's not even his party's official nominee yet. Obama has no shortage of self-confidence. If the trip looks a little too presumptuous, voters who have doubts about his experience might wonder where he gets off acting a part they haven't given him yet.

...which is exactly the subject of this week's Krauthammer column, Obama's greatest admirer (or here)

There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?

Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.

I'm wondering if this will be a major point of attack by the Republicans.

Instapundit notes that some of Sen. Clinton's major contributors have been meeting with Sen. McCain's campaign. I noted a story 10 days ago that about 300 of Sen. Clinton's most generous supporters had not yet come around to support Sen. Obama. I wondered at the time how significant that was. If Sen. McCain can make enough common ground with them, I'd guess that it would be rather significant.

Finally there's the matter of a recent Washington Post editorial critical of Sen. Obama's prescriptions for Iraq. The tone of the editorial leads NRO's Campaign Spot to speculate:

It's really hard to picture the Post endorsing McCain this year, but Obama is making their instinctive endorsement of the Democrat much more difficult. (According to Fred Hiatt, the last Republican that the Post endorsed for president was Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. Then the Post didn't endorse anyone until 1976 (Carter), and it hasn't endorsed a Republican since. It issued no endorsement in 1988.)

In the eyes of the Post, Obama has been wrong about the biggest and most pressing foreign policy decision facing the country, and continues to double down on a wrong position. Can they endorse a man who they have concluded is "ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome"?

This is something that I discussed a bit with Maryland Conservatarian who wrote:

In fact, is there any doubt as to how most newspapers will be writing their endorsements in the weeks leading up to the November election? I'd be willing to wager a healthy sum of money that collectively - without a single "maverick" among them - all the following newspapers will enthusiastically be touting the redemptive opportunity that America is presented with if only the populace will follow their editorial lead and vote for Barack Obama:

The New York Times; The Washington Post; The Baltimore Sun; The Philadelphia Inquirer; The Boston Globe; The LA Times, The Atlanta Journal Constitution and the Chicago Sun-Times.

Again, if just one of those newspapers deviates, I lose the bet. Think anyone in Vegas would take the bet?

I didn't bring up the possibility as a game. As Maryland Conservatarian noted, the Post did endorse incumbent Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich over Democrat (and winner) Martin O'Malley, and I believe it could happen here. True, the Post will have to overcome its strong pro-Democratic bias, but if it regards Iraq as a or the major issue of the campaign they'll have a hard time endorsing Obama. That's especially true given the treatment they gave Michael Steele in his unsuccessful race against Ben Cardin for the Senate, whom the Post endorsed two years ago.

The other candidate, Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, deploys platitudes and gauzy rhetoric to disguise a tissue-thin grasp of policy.

My guess is that the Post won't show the courage of its convictions and punt the endorsement, writing that both candidate have significant flaws. Steele deserved better.

If the Post would endorse McCain it would be damaging to Obama. The endorsement wouldn't be as important as what it would signal. If McCain gets the Post's endorsement it will show the Obama isn't reaching hawkish Democrats.

There you have it. These are four potential problems for Sen. Obama: his finances, (perception of) his ego, his failure to reconcile with Sen. Clinton's supporters and/or his failure to convince hawkish Democrats of his seriousness. I don't know that any of these are kryptonite. But they all have some potential to hurt him.

Posted by SoccerDad at July 18, 2008 12:38 AM