Four years ago at this time when I was volunteering for the Howard Dean campaign, the Dean people had already had an office opened here.  The office was on Lexington near Grand Central, and it was always full of activity.  Dean was making a serious effort in New York, as the national campaign thought that with Dean being a native New Yorker, he could go over the top here.  One would wish that Obama would open an office and invest similar money here, but you can understand why that isn't happening. 

Four years ago New York was going to be the main event on its primary day, and Dean was a native New Yorker.  There was a real reason to make a serious push here.  Next year, there are twenty states that might be holding primaries or caucuses that day.  Wouldn't Obama be better served to invest his money in california, new jersey, illinois, missourri and elsewhere, rather than spend valuable resources trying to pull an upset here?  Obama has to make sure he wins Illinois (not a given since Hillary is also from there) and make sure he wins at least one other big state.  I just think California and New Jersey are better targets. 

I think New York democrats supporting Obama, who is a terrific candidate, might be better served to canvass and push for him in New Jersey.  That is a state he can win more realistically.  So why not canvass the streets of Newark instead of the streets of Brooklyn? 

I have reasons to worry about Mrs. Clinton, none of which involve Iraq or her husband.

The first, which isn't really her fault, is that Republicans are so hostile to her that they would probably resort to the usual game plan in Washington -- just screwing things up even if it hurts the country just so she will take the blame. I think it will be hard for her to get legislation through.

Second, Democrats pretend to be a party of principles but are really a party of a small group of narrow interests, most of whom have lined up behind Ms. Clinton. You and are are alike in finding those interests, like the corporate interest that back Republicans, have done very well for 20 years.

Third, she is generationally suspect. Obama should be hitting the generational equity issue hard, particularly on health care. Although her husband, unlike Presidents before or since, did cut the budget deficit OVER THE BUSINESS CYCLE.

On election day, when all of us show up, Obama wins easily. On primary day, I don't think so. Kind of like how all those incumbent Dems and Reps in the legislature stay in office.

When Obama said in that debate that he'd be willing to meet with various foreign leaders that we have issues with, without preconditions, the right wing media had a field day with it.  All you had to do to see what they'd do with Obama in a general is read the NYPost the following week or the other right wing rags.  They had Obama in a tank smiling goofily ala Mike Dukakis.  They ridiculed Obama mercilessly as some radical.  Obama's numbers subsequently went down.  The problem in a general election is that when you have a candidate who is not well known, it is easier to make such mud slinging stick.  Remember that most of the electorate never heard of Obama until four years ago and many are still getting to know him now. 

Obama needs to convince voters that he will not be marginalized or radicalized by the right in a general.  That the right wing media will not simply be able to run ads saying, "what do you REALLY know about this guy?"  and "he could be dangerous!"  Ads that will make people who still don't really know him wonder. 

Whatever they can say about or do to Hillary is nothing they haven't already said and done about her.  People are familiar with her.  So the ads they can run against Obama wouldn't work against Hillary.  Nobody is going to believe she'd be dangerous with her hand on the red button. 

How does Obama counter this?  How does Obama convince democratic party voters that in a general election he cannot be succesfully villainized, radicalized and made suspect by the right?   Obama isn't going to win the nomination unless he proves he is electable in a general.  I do not think his choosing to not accept further opportunities to debate hillary is a step in doing this.

Although on the other hand, Obama's choosing not to accept further "joint appearance" invitations could also be seen as his saying that these appearances distract from the debate instead of helping the debate, because they focus on the sporting aspect of it.   So I see both sides of this issue.

Newt Gingrich and Bill O'Reilly both were interviewed predicting a Hillary/Obama ticket.  Maybe that is just their wishful thinking.  But what would you think of a Clinton/Obama ticket?  I think it has potential but I am worried that either of them as nominee are going to get ripped for not having executive experience, and for being Senators, thus D.C. insiders.  In both cases, they should probably be looking for a mayor or a governor, somebody outside of D.C.  Mark Warner of Virginia might do, but he's thinking about running for the senate.  Bill Richardson is a better choice, because he also has foreign policy experience.  I don't think Richardson is liberal enough to be the nominee, but he certainly seems more likely to be VP shortlist, regardless of whether Hillary or Obama are the nominee. 

When Obama said in that debate that he'd be willing to meet with various foreign leaders that we have issues with, without preconditions, the right wing media had a field day with it.  All you had to do to see what they'd do with Obama in a general is read the NYPost the following week or the other right wing rags.  They had Obama in a tank smiling goofily ala Mike Dukakis.  They ridiculed Obama mercilessly as some radical.  Obama's numbers subsequently went down.  The problem in a general election is that when you have a candidate who is not well known, it is easier to make such mud slinging stick.  Remember that most of the electorate never heard of Obama until four years ago and many are still getting to know him now.  I think the right wing media are loving the idea of running ads showing Barack on a surfboard out in Hawaii, just as they scored points showing Kerry windsurfing, because it will highlight things people don't have in common with him.

Obama needs to convince voters that he will not be marginalized or radicalized by the right in a general.  That the right wing media will not simply be able to run ads saying, "what do you REALLY know about this guy?"  and "he could be dangerous!"  Ads that will make people who still don't really know him wonder. 

Whatever they can say about or do to Hillary is nothing they haven't already said and done about her.  People are familiar with her.  So the ads they can run against Obama wouldn't work against Hillary.  Nobody is going to believe she'd be dangerous with her hand on the red button. 

How does Obama counter this?  How does Obama convince democratic party voters that in a general election he cannot be succesfully villainized, radicalized and made suspect by the right?   Obama isn't going to win the nomination unless he proves he is electable in a general.  I do not think his choosing to not accept further opportunities to debate hillary is a step in doing this.

Obama's support comes solely because he's new.  This enables anyone to create the image of him that they want in a political candidate.

 Surely he's is charismatic and has the same personality that brought Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton to national fame, but he's not an idealogue or have a command of specifics on any policy.

He is destined to get 25% of the primary vote, as the primary vote is controled by Democratic special interests and he only controls so much of the vote because he has no real record. 

If Barack were to make it to the general, even without all the necessary tools to be president, he could possibly win.  But he will never get the establishment vote over a candidate like Sen. Clinton, as she represents all that IS special interests in DC and would make the perfect puppet for them to have as President.

I agree that Gore is the best chance the Dem's have of winning and I would not put away my 2000 Gore for President pins quite yet.  As Primary Day nears, he will see a front-runner in Hillary who's negatives guarantee a loss in November and a neo-phyte candidate running out of steam and resources.  Gore can still step in late in Winter to capture the nomination.

 This is especially true if Rudy can hold off the right-wingers in the GOP primary and hold his lead.  Hillary cannot beat Rudy - maybe even in NY State.  The only Dem in position to win that race is Gore....

Barack Obama's great and he's a terrific writer, I really admired his book about his father, but when considering his candidacy there's a difficult question which we don't know the answer to just yet:

Is the american public, at this time in the country's history, ready to elect a black man president of the United States? 

We are only thirty years removed from the civil rights wars, there is still a lot of racism out there.  Look at the 2006 Senate campaign in Tennessee, where Harold Ford Jr. was leading in the polls and looked like he might become the first black man elected to the U.S. Senate from the South.  It would have been a historic moment.  It would have shown that race isn't an obstacle anymore.  But what happened?  The right wing media ran an ad showing a young white woman winking in the camera and talking of having met Ford at a party.  Ford's poll numbers sank immediately after that.  That one ad killed him.  Why?  Because the ad brought racial issues into the equation, and in a tight race in a conservative southern state, it made all the difference.

The right wing know that ad worked.  So what did we see in the past couple of weeks on You Tube?  The Obama Surfer Girl video.  Showing Obama in a bathing suit in the beach, and a white girl in a bikini talking about how hot he is.  If Obama is the nominee he has to expect a lot more of this, ads playing off of racial stereotypes.   It won't be proper, or fair to Obama, but the right wing mudslingers will do it.  Why will they do it?  Because, even if they won't say it out loud, they are going to think the answer to the question I posted above, "is the american public ready...."  is actually "no"   They are going to use every racial stereotype in the book.  They are going to go find as many of Barack's old white girlfriends as they can, and if they can't find them, they'll invent more "Obama surfer girls"  Its going to happen and it won't be pretty.

So I think Obama would be a fine nominee.  But can he get elected and is the public ready for the kind of insensitive racial ads that are sure to follow, and will they react to them the right way or the wrong way?  This is what must be considered.

Rock, To say that I agree with your "ATM" description is a few thousand words short of an understatement. I'm writing to let you (and others know) that there is a campaign office in NYC -- exactly one, it's small and it's all about the money.

I acknowledge the value of pragmatism. Yes, the early primary states matter. Yes, it's good to make money. Yes, NYC has a lot of it, and the New York office has pulled it in.

I have been fully on board with Obama since January, but it was last Wednesday's Brooklyn stop that convinced me some changes are needed in the way the campaign's run. I've posted my experience on the sidewalk (as far as my party of four made it after 1 and 1/2 hours) and the odd communications from the campaign that followed it. They're up on http://www.thinkobama.com, a URL I grabbed enthusiastically on February 9.

I've started speaking up, because what we're seeing in New York (worse than neglect, it is the cash, carry, and disconnect) may not be isolated to us. People here are being turned off, and New York voices are often heard in other parts of the country. The operation of this campaign needs to demonstrate some organizational excellence, and that comes down to more than a fat FEC filing. It's also about building a national movement, and giving all would-be constituents a feeling of being heard and valued.

I'd also think about the recent remarks of Dukakis (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0fa504c4-51da-11dc-8779-0000779fd2ac.html). The national campaign can't start too early.

There really is no reason not to pursue Democrats around the country now. Prove what you can do in the general election by supporting a national campaign. The volunteers are ready. Isn't that why we throw the cash in piles when the ATM card arrives?

I'm another Brooklynite for Obama and I commend you for getting out there with Brooklyn for Barack. Is your feeling shared by other members of the group? I'd be interested in finding out.

I tried to add this comment to the Daily Gotham instance of your post yesterday, so I apologize if you've read this before, but I'm trying to connect with some constructive critics of this campaign in a timely way.

Face it, many outsiders see New York as hopelessly corrupt politically, and worse as a rigged game that you can only win by having the right connections.  If you are the Obama campaign, and your opponent is one of New York's Senators, and she has almost all of the state's political establishment and power brokers in her back pocket, why are you going to bother playing here?  Outsiders don't win in New York politics.  History has shown that the only way to win reliably in New York is to get down in the snake pit and play from the inside.  This is sad, but it is also true.  I do not think it is a matter of disrespect that Obama doesn't want to play here.  It is a matter of pragmatism.  If the playing field isn't level and there's no way to get to the endzone, then this isn't the place to play the game.

Obama is only going to raise money here.  He is going to spend that money in South Carolina, Florida and elsewhere.  Brooklyn for Obama is wasting its time in Brooklyn.  Obama isn't going to win Brooklyn and it wouldn't matter if he did.  New Jersey takes place the same day.  That is where Obama can win, if he brings out substantial votes in the african american communities in places like Newark, Hoboken and Patterson, and it is where Obama's supporters based in Brooklyn can do the most practical good. 

Rock you were the one who started that by calling me names.  You call someone an idiot and a jackass and don't expect to get called on it?  At least my criticisms of you are valid.  Do not act so high and mighty that you are above taking criticism.  Otherwise it will just prove you are a narcissist.  Which the evidence already strongly indicates anyway.

All I want to do is contribute to the discussion.  I'll participate in these discussions just as you do, and if you just leave it alone and keep the postings on topic we will have no problem.  You have no say on when and where other people post.

What is wrong with Obama's supporters in Brooklyn helping him win in New Jersey anyway? 

I am not from NY but it seems to me that Barack Obama' campaign must be aware that NY is unlikely to be in play during the primary. IA, NH and SC are in play and as early states, will dictate to a strong degree what happens in all subsequent states. I too would love for Barack Obama to come to my state (TN) and spend time walking though neighborhoods and speaking with me. However, I am realistic. NY is not an early primary state and until it becomes one, it is unrealistic to expect that any of the candidates will be there. Notice you don't see Hillary or any other candidate campainging in Chicago or any other part of IL. They come for fundraisers ((although not many) and then they leave, knowing that its Obama country and they have no shot.

I think Obama has not come into New York much has been the Hillary factor.  it is fine for candidates to tread on others ground to fundraise but, they hardly ever stay around.

I live in Illinois and came through Politico link.  And yes, it is Obamastate here.  A few candidates have come once or twice for part of a day in Chicago but, little else.  It like an unspoken rule.  I am guessing this is why Obama does not stick around NY.

It's Hillary's turf.

Maybe you or someone else needs to let Obama know that it would not be bad form to come there and go into the streets and see the people.  that many want to see and talk to him.   That New York people are very excited about him and want him to come.

This could be little more than something like this. 

You definitely will hear from me soon, thanks for your reply. Before making the call, I had to read your three-part Obama series. I will definitely share thoughts by phone, but this is a post inspired by the read: http://thinkobama.blogspot.com/2007/08/race-race-and-people.html

To TNDem,
I am by no means a regional chauvinist, and my belief that Barack should be willing to spend more time pressing the less affluent flesh in NYC extends to your state, as well, if those hands are waiting.

That said, Brooklyn is not just another town in NY state, it's a city unto itself with about 2.5 million residents (compared, say, to Chicago's 2.9 million). It's launched a serious grassroots movement --revisit "The Hottest Ticket" post on this blog-- that pulled Barack to Brooklyn. If Democratic strategists had taken in the WH in '00 or '04, I might be more willing to play by the old rules, but Campaign Obama claims to be selling something new.

Why make the people wait? In the same way that Barack jumped into this race because the time was right, regardless of his relative lack of preparation, he needs to ride the groundswell while it's rising, because it might not stay up.

To Justin Neely,

I may not have stated my point as clearly as I intended, so allow me to address this again. It isn't personal. From what I have seen, there is a huge demand for Barack Obama even still at this point. Similar to Bill Clinton, he has a certain charisma that draws people in and even here in my southern state, people would line up to hear him speak. That said, there are about 4 months until the first vote will be cast in the IA caucus. Any day that a candidate spends outside of these early states better somehow move the campaign forward. My guess is if he could, he would be in places like NY, CA, TN etc. It's just not possible. You are not going to see any candidate, Hillary included, spending much time in Brooklyn, no matter how large, unless it is a fundraiser. I'm sure that if either Barack or Hillary are the primary candidate, they will visit but before that. It's not happening.

BTW, if you feel that he "jumped into this race because the time was right, regardless of his relative lack of preparation", why do you even want him to come to Brooklyn?

One of Obama's big problems is that the two states that go first, Iowa and New Hampshire, are two of the *whitest* states in the country.  Look at these demographics from the Census Bureau (quickfacts.census.gov):

IOWA

Whites 94.9%   Hispanics 3.7%   Blacks 2.3 %   Asian 1.4%

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Whites 96.1%   Hispanic  2.2%    Blacks 1.0&

You look at those numbers and the cold hard reality is that it might be almost impossible for a black candidate to win in either one of these states.   When was the last time a democratic candidate won the nomination while losing both Iowa and New Hampshire?  It hasn't happened in recent history.

So I disagree with Rock's assertion that only physical or character assasination can beat Obama.  The calendar can beat him.  You have to get to New York for New York to matter.  I think there was a hidden agenda at the DNC meeting last week over the primary schedule.  Many of those on the committee taking a hardline on Florida, trying to force them to move their primary back from January 29th appear to be Obama supporters.  Whereas the Florida state officials pushing to keep that primary on the 29th, as even the Times pointed out, are almost all Hillary supporters.

Put simply, Obama needs a win, and a big win that will get lots of media play, before the Feb. 5th Super Duper 22-state primaries, which includes New York.  Iowa and New Hampshire are long shots.  South Carolina, the last big primary before Feb. 5th,  is his big chance.  A state with a large african american democratic voting bloc.  But what if a big Obama win in South Carolina is completely or partially overshadowed by Florida is the same day, and Hillary, who is way ahead there, wins big?  Moving Florida to the 29th seems like a powerplay to kill any momentum Obama could get from South Carolina. 

In any case, Obama is surely not thinking about New York on Feb. 5th.  He is just hoping he's won somewhere by then, and that on that date he wins enough other states just to survive.  If New York was going to put him over the top it would be different.  As it is I can't see a point in him spending even a dime here. 

TNDem,

Thanks for elaborating on your earlier comment. I understand that your observation is not personal, but a particular (and reasonable) pragmatic/strategic view of Obama, and the CW's, four-state approach to the primary. The challenge that I make to the campaign's application of that strategy is their early failure to adapt to on-the-ground realities.

Since we're on Rock's thread, I'd like to single out three points he included in the original post that reflect what I mean:

1. "[...] Obama should be different. If he strives to be different (and he is), he has to be consistent. He also has to lead by example."

2. "Believe me when I say that these events will make both mainstream and national media [...]"

3. "The efforts of his passionate NY/NJ volunteers should be harnessed by some experienced staffers. he needs to hire such staffers real soon. He should open offices in the tri-state areas ASAP. He has the money; he can afford it."

On point 1, the campaign has set a high bar for itself. They have to be ready for wild and premature success. Managing volunteers is a challenge, and staffers may want to focus elsewhere, but they are dealing with more than a charismatic leader. They are managing a celebrity.

That word has been used against him, but it is a fact that -- unlike the uber-charismatic Bill Clinton at the time of his run -- Barack is a celebrity in a celebrity-obsessed culture. It was something he may not have asked for, but to keep this national visibility an advantage, not a liability, he must extend his campaign farther and faster than any other candidate.

Point 2, on a related note, since he is already running a national media campaign (what magazine hasn't put him on its cover?), the NYC area is a particularly useful place to be involved in events on the ground. The concentration of industries with voices that travel (media, entertainment, finance) is disproportionately high, so what happens here will be heard at a volume not true of some other places.

But this leads me directly to Point 3, which is that the idea is not to suggest that Barack needs to spend so very much more time here himself. He does, however, need to build a larger, more visible, and more responsive official campaign presence. That will enable him to make more of the time he does spend.

In terms of popular perception, you can't be the leader in funds raised, and then suggest that you don't have the money to man a well-staffed office in a city that is also one of the world's largest economies. In my last phone call with the campaign, they actually emphasized that they're "not a big company" and implied that they're short on resources to deal with something like the overbooking of the Brooklyn event.

I'm a supporter, inclined to accept their pride in their low campaign funds burn rate (a feature of Plouffe's last media dispatch), but even I cringed at this dose of "awww shucks." They raised the money here, they can hire a few more staffers.

Either it is a different kind of campaign, or it's a different kind of candidate running on some tired, old assumptions. The strategy should be flexible and adaptable -- it's not just old or new. Expand the pie with some of that $50m+ war chest, don't make it a zero-sum game.

In answer to your final question, when I wrote that he entered the race in spite of being relatively unprepared, I didn't mean that in any pejorative sense. I think it's great that he was not intimidated by his lack of preparation (and by that I don't mean inexperience on the national stage, I mean that he didn't have a Clintonesque fundraising or campaign machine primed to go).

There were some stumbles early on at the Obama store, and with his site roll-out, as well as logistics around his first Manhattan stop, and the first official campaign meeting, that I all let slide as part of the campaign getting up to speed. The Brooklyn event, though, struck me as time to start a reality check on how well his campaign is running, so changes can be made before it is too late.

Thanks again for your comment, and I hope this elucidates some of my concerns.

rock we'll be fine if we both just stick to the substance of the posts and keep the flaming out of it.  If I see a topic here I wish to comment on, I will do so, and I am sure you will as well.  The fact that either of us posted the item is irrelevant to the subject being discussed.  perhaps we are both a little too thin skinned.  I have no desire to get further into personal attacks  I just want to talk politics.  So just let it go Rock and so will I, agreed?

I do think as it pertains to Obama, that he could do with more non-traditional campaigning.  Thinking outside the box so to speak.  Which might be why he is cutting back on the debates/joint appearances.  Those environments make it difficult to not come across as typical politicians.