Wednesday
Feb202008
Progressive think tank, NDN, holds discussion on "Unchartered Political Terrain" with Joe Trippi
Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 3:24PM
The progressive think tank, NDN, held a discussion on the “Unchartered Political Terrain” in the 2008 Presidential Campaign. Speakers included Joe Trippi, former chief strategist for John Edward's presidential campaign, and Amy Walter, editor in chief of the Hotline at National Journal.
Trippi gained notoriety for popularizing the internet as a political campaign tool while hired as the campaign manager for former Governor Howard Dean during the 2004 presidential election. At the discussion, Trippi told the audience that political campaigns are fundamentally shifting strategies of garnering funds and support from a traditional “top-down” approach to an increasingly popular “bottom-up” method. He said that the Dean campaign proved the effectiveness of online social networks and grassroots campaigning. He said the Clinton campaign is in trouble now in large part because it failed to adopt an Obama-style bottom-up campaign. According to Trippi, Obama has raised more campaign money than Clinton with only about three percent of his donors maxed out compared to ninety percent of Clinton's donors maxed out.
Amy Walter built off of Trippi's address saying that Obama had no choice on how to run his campaign. She said that Obama did not have the resources or connections to run a top-down campaign. She also noted that Clinton was in a position that made it much more difficult for her to run a bottom-up campaign since she already had already established important connections throughout her years in the White House and Senate. Walter said that Obama “stole” independent voters from the other candidates while depicting McCain as very unpopular with independents. However, she warned that Obama's success with the bottom-up strategy in the primaries may not necessarily work to his advantage in the general election.
Trippi gained notoriety for popularizing the internet as a political campaign tool while hired as the campaign manager for former Governor Howard Dean during the 2004 presidential election. At the discussion, Trippi told the audience that political campaigns are fundamentally shifting strategies of garnering funds and support from a traditional “top-down” approach to an increasingly popular “bottom-up” method. He said that the Dean campaign proved the effectiveness of online social networks and grassroots campaigning. He said the Clinton campaign is in trouble now in large part because it failed to adopt an Obama-style bottom-up campaign. According to Trippi, Obama has raised more campaign money than Clinton with only about three percent of his donors maxed out compared to ninety percent of Clinton's donors maxed out.
Amy Walter built off of Trippi's address saying that Obama had no choice on how to run his campaign. She said that Obama did not have the resources or connections to run a top-down campaign. She also noted that Clinton was in a position that made it much more difficult for her to run a bottom-up campaign since she already had already established important connections throughout her years in the White House and Senate. Walter said that Obama “stole” independent voters from the other candidates while depicting McCain as very unpopular with independents. However, she warned that Obama's success with the bottom-up strategy in the primaries may not necessarily work to his advantage in the general election.
Don't baby Obama
Talk Radio News Service Bureau Chief
After last week's Pennsylvania debate between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, my very good friends on the left were screaming.
ABC moderators George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson were being denounced as traitors, knaves and, in a few instances, things that cannot be mentioned in a family news website. The complaint was that for the first 45 minutes of the debate, the questions were mostly issue-free and centered on Obama's negatives and such matters as his relationships with the incendiary Rev. Wright and ex-SDS weathermen Bill Ayres.
Some on the left say that it was unfair, unbalanced, tilted against Obama and favoring his opponent.
I agree.
I disagree.
Yes, it was unfair; yes it favored Hillary and indirectly, McCain. Yes, it was a radical departure from previous debates.
And yes, it was in Barack Obama's long-term interest that he be subjected to an onslaught of unfair and unbalanced questions, bias and a strong tilt against him.
Why? Because George and Gibson offered Obama a mere light appetizer of what he can expect in the general election. Because Obama had better get used to the big time of opposition research and negative ads, of Republican 527s, of whisper campaigns and anonymous Internet "mail" campaigns. Obama and his people better get used to the fact that once inside the big tent of national politics, he won't be able to declare, as he did at a recent press conference, that "eight questions" about Chicago sleaze ball Ton Rezco are "enough" and just walk off the stage. Taking umbrage doesn't work in a national debate, any more than staring at his watch did for George Bush No. 41.
The old line that, "Life is short, and then you die" is truer about presidential politics than any other endeavor. Just ask Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, Al Gore or John Kerry.
I plan to fight like hell for any Democratic nominee. But hell is a notoriously hot place, and all George and Gibson did for the Democrats was raise the temperature to general election levels.
My fellow Democrats take note: We are doing our candidate no favors by babying him now.