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

Obama vs. Clinton - the great debate begins!

Loyal Frökspoke readers will have by now guessed that I am following the U.S. 2008 Presidential election as closely as I can. And, in the interests of full disclosure, I confess that at this (still very early) stage of the game, I think Hilary Clinton is the most apt to win the 2008 general election, and is also the best choice for the Oval Office. Politically, I think she is the most electable; normatively, I think she is the most Presidential.

My good friend Warren, a colleague of mine from Waterloo, disagrees with this analysis. On his excellent blog, A Deliberative Dialogue, Warren has promoted Barack Obama as his choice from the current Democratic field. And because Warren is almost as eloquent, thoughtful, and humble as myself, I thought this would be the perfect opportunity for he and I to engage in a deliberative dialogue of our own: who is the more electable candidate? Clinton or Obama?

Warren has agreed to the idea, so he and I will be making our cases via email, and publishing the correspondence on our respective blogs. Hopefully this will stimulate some reader commentary and a thoughtful analysis of the candidates, the electoral process, and contemporary American issues.

Let the discussion begin! Here is my initial letter to Warren, establishing the terms of the debate. Warren's initial arguments to follow.

I think the thing to do would be to have the debate via email, and then publish the correspondence on our respective blogs. Sound fair? The question: who would be more electable in the 2007 general (not primary!!): Clinton or Obama? Or in other words, what will be the more electable characteristic: having experience? Or being a "force for change"?

I tend to think Clinton is the more electable candidate. So if you disagree, I think we could have a fun debate. Very respectful, of course.

Let me know what you think. Take care, -Ray

Thompson enters the fray - finally

Fred Thompson announced last night, finally, that he will be running for President. He did this from the sofa of the Tonight Show with Jay Leno while his fellow Republican candidates sparred in a televised debate. In my view he should have declared about a month ago, which would have given him the chance to win or place in the Ames Straw poll. But never mind, he's in the thick of things now, at long last. And he's going to be a contender. Mitt Romney, who has risen to the top of the field because of his strong debate showings and his appeal to values-voters needs to be particularly concerned, since Thompson will also be running on 'back-to-basics' conservative values. I don't think Giuliani needs to be as concerned; Fred's official candidacy could actually split social-conservative voters, which would actually help Giuliani.

Of course, the other Republican candidates sniped Fred for skipping the debate. Here are some of the shots fired against Thompson at the debate, as blogged by the Fix:

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee: "I was scheduled to be on Jay Leno but I gave up my slot for somebody else because I'd rather be in New Hampshire with these fine people."

McCain: "Maybe we're up past his bedtime..."

Former Gov. Mitt Romney: "Why the hurry? Why not take some more time off?"

Giuliani: "I think he has done a pretty good job of playing my part on Law & Order. I prefer the real thing."
(Note: Giuliani was once a U.S. Attourney)

Has Fred missed his moment?

U.S. Senator Fred Thompson announced yesterday that he will kick off his campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination on September 6th. This is not quite a declaration of his candidacy, but there has been no doubt for months that Thompson will run for the nomination. Even though Thompson is seen by many Republicans as a "Reagan-esque," strong-on-values candidate in a field of social liberals (Rudy Giuliani) Mormons (Mitt Romney) and wafflers (John McCain), and even though Thompson consistently places second or third in national and primary polls, he has not yet declared his candidacy for the nomination.

And you know, I can't explain why not. What is Thompson waiting for? In July there was real buzz about him: his celebrity, his appeal to bedrock values-voters, his polling numbers, etc. And yet, the only news we've been getting from his campaign has been tales of numerous staff departures. July came, and went, and still no declaration. He inexplicably decided to sit-out the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa earlier this month, where he would have been sure to take down a second-place showing or better. Instead, Mike Huckabee, a previously lifeless candidate, scooped up the second place spot behind Mitt Romney (due to a lack of participation from any other viable candidates), thus injecting the Huckabee campaign with buzz, media attention, and new life.

And apparently Fred's numbers have started to dwindle a bit. From the Fix:

...after a month of negative press centered around a number of staff departures, Thompson finds that momentum blunted somewhat. The inside-the-Beltway crowd -- in truth, never Thompson believers -- seem to be convinced that his moment has passed. Polling, both national and in key early states, shows Thompson in the game but falling slightly from his numbers in mid to late June and early July.

Has Fred missed his moment? No: he remains a powerful candidate, and one to watch closely. But I think he ranks third place now, behind Giuliani and Romney, whereas in July he might have tied Giuliani for second place. He's lost some momentum, and the Thompson campaign should be kicking itself for not striking when the iron was hot.