Warren #1- Obama's charismatic, reformist advantage

Ray,

It sounds like a good idea, though to be honest my support for Obama has less to do with his ultimate electability as his qualities and suitability as president. I think that Hilary, based solely on numbers, money, and establishment support may be slightly more 'electable' than Obama. That said, if both have the strong potential to beat out the Republican candidate (and I've been thoroughly unimpressed with that entire field), than ultimate issues of 'who is more electable' of the two democratic candidates may be moot. But I think it could turn out to be an interesting debate nonetheless.

I do believe, however, that Obama has some key electable qualities that Clinton ultimately lacks. The most obvious is his charisma. In speeches his effect on the crowd is palpable and he comes across, I think, as a true arbiter for change. This ability to create a strong current of optimistic support with the American public, at a time when many are coming to believe that Washington is irreparably broken, is critical. It may just give Obama the ability to overcome much the growing cynicism of the American electorate, and he will be able to cash in on that feeling come election day. This ability to galvanize people shows through in his fundraising numbers: unlike Clinton, he raised more money from a large number of donors - each in small amounts.

Obama's ability to emphasize and embody the change many Americans want is going to play a key role in his electability. A great example of his difference with Clinton on this front occurred at the Daily Kos convention a few weeks ago, where both Obama and Edwards promoted their policy of not refusing money from Washington lobbyists. Clinton's response to the question, meanwhile, was pretty awful: in obvious contradiction, she claimed that many of these lobbyists were legitimate interests which deserved a chance to influence policy, but that they're lobbying efforts in fact had no influence on her whatsoever.

An obvious objection here is that the DailyKos convention is not an accurate representation of the core American electorate. True enough. But I do think that Clinton has ultimately failed, at least so far, in her attempt, echoing the strategy of the last President Clinton, to cover the centre ground. Rather than being seen as a bridge builder between parties, she's more often loathed by both the right and the left. Obama, conversely, has been continually flexing his by-partisan credentials. In the wake of Bush's presidential implosion talk of the "red/blue state divide" is finally beginning to wane in the US, and Americans are looking for someone who talks like a "uniter." Clinton, for better or worse, is seen as the opposite: ultra partisan and political.

It seems likely at this point Giulani will end up as the Republican presidential candidate, so it could be useful to imagine how this race will shape up. The fact is that Clinton and Giulani are actually pretty similar: they inhabit only slightly different areas of the political spectrum, both have political experience related to New York, and both have a similar level of charismatic appeal. So it is worth considering exactly how Clinton would distinguish herself from Giulani. After all, it is unlikely that the "experience" card would work as well against "America's Mayor" as it has so far against Obama. But it will be vitally important for Clinton to create wedge issues because, all other things held constant it seems likely that the American people will prefer Giuliani, on a personal level, to Clinton.

The differences between Giulani and Obama, meanwhile, appear more clear. Obama's opposition to the War in Iraq, for example, could play a critical role here. (As an aside, this opposition also represents a degree of judgement that the Clinton camp, despite all its rhetoric about experience, failed to match back in 2003). He could also employ a consistent and similar strategy against Giulani as he has against Clinton: establishment vs. change.

I could say more, but this seems like enough to get started. Look forward to your response.

Cheers, Warren