Why Obama Had to Select Biden
By Sam Copeland on August 26, 2008 at 5:10 PM in Barack Obama, Joe "Bro" Biden, Political Strategy
“Sam Copeland” on Political Strategy
A couple of folks who commented on my last post on 14 reasons why Biden was a poor political choice for Vice President argued – either in resignation or rebuttal – that Biden was the best choice available to Obama. I don’t necessarily disagree with that.
The question is: Why has Obama put himself in a position where Biden became his best choice? The answer reveals why his campaign is, at best, falling apart at the seams.
From a political strategy point of view, Obama’s “A list” of VP candidates were Senator Clinton (unites the party; helps secure women’s votes, especially soccer moms and older women), General Wes Clark (appeals to both those on the left and center-right), Senator Jim Webb (reinforces change message, puts Virginia in play), and Gov. Ted Strickland (it is hard to win the Presidency without Ohio). Obama refused to consider some (Clinton and Clark), whereas for others (Webb and Strickland) Obama did not provide the leadership that would inspire them to take the political risk of serving as the VP nominee. In other words, they removed their names from consideration.
Read the rest ->
Among Obama’s tweedledee triumvirate, Senator Evan Bayh did not play well with Obama’s leftist base, and Gov. Tim Kaine flunked his focus group tests in Norfolk. (Norfolk, VA is part of Tidewater, a critical region where Democrats must do well to off-set the western half of the state, which goes Republican). That leaves Biden. Of the three, at least Bayh put a state in play – Indiana.
Why did Obama have to select a lower tier candidate – a candidate who has twice left the Presidential sweepstakes (in 1988 and 2008) in early rounds?
One answer that is often given is what we can politely term Obama’s ego. Top talent candidates such as Clinton and Clark would threaten his self-image as a one man crusader – the star of his own Saturday morning action-adventure cartoon series. A big ego can be a serious liability in making political decisions. It prevents one from seeing the world through the eyes of others, and that lack of realism and perspective-taking undoubtedly leads to political blunders.
It is these political blunders that have put Obama in the position where he had no other option than to select Biden. To win the nomination, Obama has made a series of tactical decisions that now constrain his choices. In the process he has failed to lay down a strategy capable of winning in November.
A real strategy consists of a goal (e.g., win 51% of the vote; transform the electoral map) and the means and resources to achieve that goal (i.e. a message that reaches out and unites enough voters to achieve one’s goal). This simple definition shows why Obama is in trouble.
First, Obama is unclear on his goal – to win 51% (enough electoral votes to gain the Presidency) or to transform the electoral map? At the beginning of the primaries, one reason touted by the Obamablogs for supporting Obama was that he would transform the electoral map so that we would not have any more close elections. Now, as anyone who can read a poll knows, that dream of electoral transformation is long gone and Obama finds himself in a dogfight for the same key battle states fought over by Gore and by Kerry.
This lack of clarity of goal has resulted in a befuddled overall strategy because each goal – 51% vs. transformation – requires different means to the end. If your goal is to win by at least 51%, then you must do what is needed to appeal to the citizens in the key battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, West Virginia, New Mexico, and Missouri. Specifically, you make it clear how your candidacy will benefit soccer moms (those who side with the GOP on class, but the Democrats on gender), blue-collar workers, and Latinos. In other words, you tell Americans how we can build our middle-class and how we can enhance our national security. (Kerry lost soccer moms on national security). Of course, this is the platform of Senator Clinton and the political strategy of Mark Penn. It is why she won more votes overall than Obama and won big in the big battleground states. It is also the right policy for making our nation stronger.
The goal of electoral transformation requires a “big idea” that either brings in new voters (as did Jackson in 1828 and McKinley in 1896), unites previously disparate groups (as did Lincoln in 1860 and FDR in 1932), or trades-off one group of voters for another larger group (as did Nixon in 1968 when he traded liberal Republicans to gain a Southern Strategy). Obama has not advanced a big idea capable of creating this transformation. Instead, he has pursued his goal of transformation by a series of tactical maneuvers – ad buys and visits to targeted states – that have been for the most part ineffective. As others at No Quarter have noted, he is drawing back from these ad buys. And one more thing – the notion that Obama is bringing in the youth vote is overblown (his numbers in this regard have not exceeded what Bill Clinton did in 1992) and appears to be fading (as indicated by a recent poll showing that he has lost 12% of his youth support over the last few months).
This lack of clarity has lead to a strategy of “drawing to an inside straight.” He is making a feeble attempt at reconfiguration while hoping that his middle cards – the battleground states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida, in particular – will somehow magically appear on the next deal. I guess that is what is meant by the audacity of hope.
In contrast, Senator Clinton has a strategy for winning the at least 51% of the electoral votes needed to become President and has articulated a vision of America that would serve, much like FDR’s New Deal, to reconfigure the political map.
Second, Obama has as of yet to develop a message that reaches out and unites enough voters to achieve his goal (which now of necessity is hope to get 51%). The message at his convention will be one of coming together for change. This is nice, but unless he specifies what he means by change, his message will fall as flat as a new dishwashing detergent offering 23% more hope that your dishes will be cleaner and brighter.
Developing this message will not be easy for Obama. Policy is not his strong suit. (This is why he lost votes every time he debated Senator Clinton). Once he starts to give detail, his plan is subject to intense attack in the politically charged environs of a Presidential campaign.
Of even greater concern, Obama has made a series of tactical decisions that now constrain his choices. In order to secure the nomination, Obama said what he needed to say to pander to the left-wing and others without regard to the long term political consequences of that pandering. In other words, in the spirit of the very best of demagogues, Obama told his target audiences exactly what they wanted to hear. He has become Backtrack Barack for a reason. Now he has to live with those decisions.
I am sure that No Quarter readers are smart enough and have been briefed enough by posts and comments to know exactly what I mean by this. But let me give two examples, for those who may not regularly read this blog.
1. Obama was for NAFTA before he was against NAFTA before he was for NAFTA again. He became against NAFTA as a result of political expediency when faced with the need to win a primary in Ohio. Now, what position on NAFTA should he take to win in states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania where NAFTA is an especially important issue? Answer: it really doesn’t matter because McCain will play the soundbites to show that Obama took a different position with the goal of reinforcing the image of Backtrack Barack.
2. During the primaries, Obama shifted his position on Iraq from “smart withdrawal” (which was similar to Senator Clinton’s) to “immediate withdrawal on timetables” to appeal to the left. Obama has taken about 7 different positions on Iraq, each designed to appeal to whoever he is talking to. For example, during his Senate campaign, he called for a surge and said that withdrawal on timetables would be wrong. One problem with taking positions for political expediency is that one rarely thinks through the implications of the position. For example, when asked if he would send troops back into Iraq if al Qaeda was present, Obama said yes. (He had to or else he wouldn’t have looked strong). When he did, McCain pointed out that Al Qaeda was in Iraq right now, making Obama’s position look foolish. Now, which position should Obama take on Iraq? Answer: again, it really doesn’t matter because McCain has all the video clips he needs to reinforce the image of Backtrack Barack.
What does all this lack of strategy have to do with the pick of Joe Biden as the VP nominee? Everything. If you do not have a clear political strategy, you do not have the decision criteria for making good decisions including selecting a VP candidate. If you are Barack Obama it means you are forced to make decisions based on your lack of leadership to inspire great VP candidates and your ego to exclude them.
Some of you may be wondering how I feel about Senator Clinton not being considered for the VP slot. I’ll express my feelings in football terms since life is merely a metaphor for football.
I am a big Pittsburgh Steelers fan. The Steelers just spent $100 million on a franchise quarterback named Ben Roethlisberger. Now, suppose the coaching staff of the Steelers decided to start in the Super Bowl some high school quarterback who happened to win the Giant Eagle Food Store’s Be-A-Quarterback-For-A-Day contest. My reaction would be, “You gotta be kidding me; you are crazy.” And when I found out that this wasn’t somebody’s idea of a joke, I’d turn away in disgust and turn the channel to ESPN-2 to find out what is up with the professional bowlers’ tour. I don’t want to see “Big Ben” backing up some promotional contest prize winner.
Hillary Clinton is my franchise quarterback. She knows how to run the offense, and she has the guts to stay in the pocket long enough to get off the play no matter the hit she will take. I don’t want my franchise quarterback backing up some self-promotional contest prize winner. Hillary Clinton in the VP slot is the political gift that Barack Obama doesn’t deserve and was too foolish to accept.
by Ronald Scott
* More novels by 
* 
(
)
- You'll have access to 18 million movies, TV shows, songs, magazines, and books, as well as ultra-fast Web browsing with Amazon Silk -- faster than iPad. Full e-mail and document access and a keyboard. Fire can transmit what is on your screen onto a connected TV or monitor without an accessory. It runs Flash (iPad doesn't). 
Pingback: Revenge Voting « Bud White’s World
Pingback: Revenge Voting : NO QUARTER