A Successful Test Run of Obama’s Presidential Campaign

Guest Post by Anonymous Liberal

Are you curious what a Barack Obama presidential campaign would look like? Well, anyone who lives in Massachusetts already has a pretty good idea. That’s because Deval Patrick, who just won the gubernatorial race there—becoming only the second black governor in U.S. history–did so by borrowing Obama’s chief political consultant, David Axelrod, and using the same playbook Obama is likely to use if he runs for president in 2008. Patrick ran a campaign promising a new kind of politics; he ran on the twin themes of hope and change, much like Bill Clinton did in 1992, and perhaps most notably, he capitalized on the widespread feeling among voters that his campaign represented an historic moment for their state and their country. All in all, it was an extraordinarily effective campaign. To get a sense of the general aesthetic of the campaign, take a moment to watch Patrick’s final campaign ad (click on “TV Spots” and watch Ad #14), which ran during the final week of the campaign. It’s a simple ad, but a very effective one I think.

For those of you not familiar with his story, Deval Patrick was the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division during the Clinton administration, and he later served as the General Counsel for the Coca-Cola Company. When he announced his candidacy for governor in 2005, he was considered a dark horse candidate. The presumptive favorite for the Democratic nomination was Tom Reilly, the popular and well-respected Attorney General. Also in the race was Chris Gabrielli, a well-known and well-financed businessman who had been the Democratic nominee for Lieutenant Governor in 2002. The primary campaign was heated and produced a flurry of television ads by all the candidates. Despite being attacked repeatedly, Patrick stayed positive and stuck to ads featuring him talking directly to the camera (often with Barack Obama standing in the background). When primary day finally arrived, Patrick stunned his opponents by winning in a landslide.

But that was only half the battle. Despite its reputation as a liberal state, Massachusetts has a long tradition of electing Republican governors. The state hadn’t elected a Democratic governor since Michael Dukakis twenty years ago. The general election quickly turned nasty when Patrick’s Republican opponent, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, began running a barrage of attack ads accusing him of, among other things, supporting rapists and cop killers. Patrick defended himself, of course, but he managed to stay above the fray and on message while doing so. He lamented what politics had become and told Healey that she was “a better person than the campaign she has run.”

Patrick’s campaign was overwhelming positive and hopeful in nature, and he ended up winning easily, a result which I think bodes well for Barack Obama. I know what you’re thinking: Massachusetts is hardly representative of the country as a whole. That’s certainly true. But then again, Massachusetts is an overwhelming white state with a somewhat checkered racial history. It’s also, as I said, a state with a well-established history of electing Republican governors. And Patrick didn’t just win; he beat the sitting Lieutenant Governor, who’s as moderate a Republican as you’ll ever come across, by a whopping 21 points.

And while Patrick is certainly an able politician, he is nowhere near as naturally talented or charismatic as Obama. All of this is a long-winded way of saying that I think Obama should be very encouraged by Patrick’s success. The Massachusetts gubernatorial race gave David Axelrod the chance to do a test run—in both a primary and general election setting—of what are sure to be Obama’s principal campaign themes. And it was a smashing success.

What I think the pundits and prognosticators fail to fully appreciate at the moment is the extent to which Obama’s entry into the race—if it happens—will entirely shake up the usual dynamics of presidential politics. Let’s put aside for the moment the fact that Obama is an exceptionally gifted politician, and just consider the following. In 1988, Jesse Jackson won 15 states and picked up almost a third of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention. And he did that without picking up hardly any white votes. If Obama were to run, he might well be able to replicate Jackson’s success among black voters, and he would almost certainly do exponentially better among non-black voters. In other words, he would be a formidable primary candidate.

But I think Deval Patrick’s success hints at an even more interesting dynamic that will arise if Obama should manage to secure the Democratic nomination. If that should happen, it will be THE story. And not just here in the U.S., but around the world. Obama would be the first African-American to win a major party’s presidential nomination. He’d be just one momentous day away from becoming the leader of the free world. No matter what else happens in the campaign, no matter who his opponent is, that single story line will dwarf all others. Throughout the campaign, media coverage will be dominated by discussion of the historical significance of the election. Newspaper and magazine headlines will scream “Is America on the Verge of Making History?” Throughout the country, there will be a pervasive sense that we are on the cusp of a dramatic and important historical event, that we’re about to take a bold new step forward as a nation. And believe me, people will get caught up in it. It will be a potent political phenomenon. Obama’s opponent, whether it be McCain or Romney or whoever, will have to try very hard to counter the sense that he is standing athwart history yelling “stop.”

This same dynamic played out in the Massachusetts gubernatorial race, albeit to a lesser degree. You could tell that people just liked the idea of Deval Patrick. It wasn’t about the issues. People just liked the way Patrick made them feel. They liked the idea that they were making history by voting for him. They liked what his candidacy said about their state and how far it had come. And they liked the fact that Patrick represented something new, different, and hopeful.

Please don’t interpret this post as an endorsement of Obama’s candidacy. I don’t plan on endorsing anyone until much later in the game, if at all. But I do think, without question, that Obama would be a formidable presidential candidate, and I’ll be fascinated to see how things shake out should he decide to run.

Thanks A.L. That is a unique and enlightening perspective that I had not heard an iota of news about. After all these Bush years of negativity and fear we are due for an adjustment toward the positive.

  • not that it’s really relevant, but i can’t help but note every time deval patrick’s name comes up that his dad was pat patrick, long-time saxophonist for the sun ra intergalatic solar arkestra!

    i mean, if the son of a member of the Ra’s great band can become a governor….

  • I for one would like to see a more thoughtful evaluation of the actual positions and actions of the candidates rather than a review of how they make people feel. Bush made a lot of people feel comfortable, Reagan did that in spades. Unfortunately, the marketing was WAY better than the product, and they were both utter disasters. Think about that.

    I’m sick of feel-good marketing. Looking at the Democratic leadership, IMO we need better candidates, not better marketing. Note that I have no idea whether Obama is a good man, but all this marketing business makes me very uneasy.

  • I’m sick of feel-good marketing. Looking at the Democratic leadership, IMO we need better candidates, not better marketing. Note that I have no idea whether Obama is a good man, but all this marketing business makes me very uneasy.

    I sympathize with this sentiment, and I think this will be Obama’s chief hurdle in securing the support of many primary voters and particularly the endorsement liberal bloggers and commentators, who rightly care more about substance than style. But the general marketability of a presidential candidate is a crucial consideration. That person can’t do any good unless he (or she) can be elected.

  • A really, really great post. I think there a lot of people waiting to cast affirmative, positive votes, not defensive, fear-based votes. Obama could really resonate with voters who are turned off by the last few cycles.

  • Obama is the read deal, folks. If he is going to marketed as “candidate of hope, it’s only because he doesn’t need a makeover to be that candidate. He certainly provides inspiration and hope unlike any other elected official in recent memory. He brings people together, and that’s a quality that can’t be underestimated. I’m not saying that he’s ready to be prez, or even that he’d have my vote. It’s too early to know. On the other hand, it would be very shortsighted to not consider what he could bring to the table. An Obama victory, against all odds, would literally change the world. For better, of course.

  • Not enough experience. Too young looking. The first black president will not be young smooth and handsome. He will be avuncular, wizened, older and have more experience. That’s from A to B. Hear me now and listen to me later.

  • Whatever you say about Deval Patrick using Obama’s political guru, one factor that appears to be overlooked is that Massachusetts is a very blue state. Would the same tactics of hope and change and so forth work nation wide?

    And yes, I think Obama would be one hell of a President, much better than Hillary who has absolutely no qualifications to run for the presidency, IMO.

  • If David Axelrod-like campaigning is on the ascendent, that’s just another nail in the James Carville coffin of campaigning with clever, smarmy soundbites and the triumph of the candidate with the fewest negatives rather than the most positives. Bye Jimmy.

    I’ve often heard it said that American is generally a positive and hopeful nation. A positive and hopeful campaign would be a welcome change.

  • In today’s world of sound bites and one liners, PR or perception seems to count for a lot. Doubt if one could get elected without marketing because so many people vote with their emotions.

    But… I too wish we could ban the type of ads that now predominate. debates that included 3rd party candidates with real non corporate ideas.

    And while I’m wishing….
    Wish we had instant run off elections so people could vote for the best candidate on the ballot without living in fear that the worst would then win. Wish we had campaign & lobbying reform so that our politicians did not have to be limited to independently wealthy or corporate apologists. Wish we could get rid of the electoral college process and have a one man one vote. .. etc etc

    Back to the marketing:
    So we may now have the choice of feel good/positive marketing (the Obama road) or feel afraid and angry marketing (the terrorism & war ploy ala neocons) or feel holy marketing (the religious non thinkers). Take your pick. The feel good/positive sounds the best of the lot to me.

  • Fallen Woman,

    “Obama will not be the Presidential candidate in 2008. He will be Hillary’s running mate. ”

    I disagree. Hillary has support but is also highly disliked. Any campaign involving Hillary will be a mud slinging cagematch. As AL’s post shows, Obama’s strength lies in a different tone and attitude. The two are not compatable.

    To me (any most here I believe) a female and African-American ticket is a slam dunk move forward praise Jeebus opportunity. Unfortunately I think we learned from the Corker/Ford race that the GOP will pander to good old Christian White Men and see this as a sign of the End Times.

    Obama is smart and charismatic. So far I like him. Two years is a long time and much can happen. Too early to say.

  • I love listening to Obama speak and I do think that his message is a good one, but I share concern about experience. Clinton had 10 years of executive experience, was smarter than smart, and he didn’t exactly hit the ground running.

  • “[Obama is]…much better than Hillary who has absolutely no qualifications to run for the presidency…” – Meh

    Well than no Senator is good enough. Hillary has put down six successful years as a good senator after eight years as first lady of the United States after years of being first lady of Arkansas after a successful legal career.

    Those seem fine qualifications to me and certainly better than Obama’s two years as senator and some years in the Illinois house.

    Hillary will in all probability be able to make her own choice of running mate by winning (if she does) a vast majority of the delegates to the convention. I’d suspect she would go with Clark or Richardson.

    Or maybe I just wish she would 😉

  • I’m of the opinion that Obama is way too green – and too untested. I wouldn’t vote for him in the primary. I still don’t even really know what his politics are.

    As a MA voter, I wanted to add something about the governor’s race. I liked a lot of what AL wrote, but feel there’s more to it. Patrick came across as a mature, rational, thoughtful man of substance. His positive campaign was the cherry on top, but I believe people were responding to him personally. He is an optimistic speaker – but also a reassuring one.

    It made me proud to see Kerry Healey’s Rovian tactics fall on deaf ears in this state; you have to think other states would appreciate a break from them too. The positive campaign helped, no doubt. But Patrick was the grownup in the race, and I think that was what won it for him.

    (And Howard, I too love the fact that he’s Pat Patrick’s son.)

  • Meh is right on. What plays in Massachusetts isn’t always the song the rest of the country dances to.

    Insert something about emulsifying the hollandaise here.

  • Stop with the Hillary non-sense please.

    She is a political liability, talk about the right getting the base motivated. If she pics up the nomination, the right will act as if hell is just about to freeze over. She will be demonized like no other politician in history.

    Don’t believe me, say the word ‘Clinton’ to a modern day conservative. Warning, stand back cause their head might explode.

  • Anonymous Liberal, I think we can appreciate this post for the insight it offers into what a positive campaign can be as an approach and how effective it can be if it’s run properly. What I don’t think it’s evidence of is that a positive campaign will always be the right way to go so long as it’s just stuck to consistently and it’s able to hit just the right note. Rather, I think as always when you run a campaign you have to look at the particular context and the particular situation and make your strategy in consideration of that.

  • As A.L. said “And believe me, people will get caught up in it. It will be a potent political phenomenon.”

    There is another angle to this that shouldn’t be overlooked. I am a proud African American conservative living in a very red southern state. The notion of an Obama candidacy has broad and potentially unprecedented appeal not only to Democrats majority and minority but also to independents and a growing number of minority Republicans like me. Obama’s potential and Deval Patrick’s campaign not to mention overwhelming victory inspire us in ways and in places that no other Democratic or Republican hopeful ever could. Even I (a die hard African American Conservative) am tempted to take a sip of the Obama Cool-Aid. He has very real cross over appeal

  • “Don’t believe me, say the word ‘Clinton’ to a modern day conservative. Warning, stand back cause their head might explode.” – ScottW

    And this would be a bad thing because?

    Really, the idea that the Republican’t party gets a veto over who Democrats run for president is just absurd. Let them froth at the mouth. It will enlighten the rest of America of just how wingnut they really are.

  • Political talent wins elections more than any other factor. That is why somebody like Obama or Edwards cannot be counted out, no matter how strong a rational argument you formulate against them or their candidacy.

  • Fallenwoman,

    Obama will not be the Presidential candidate in 2008. He will be Hillary’s running mate.

    Interesting prediction. How did your 2006 midterm election predictions turn out?

  • He’d be just one momentous day away from becoming the leader of the free world.

    Sadly, this is a thought that will motivate many in the GOP to vote as well.

    I have to admit to liking the guy and the country does seem open to the idea of someone changing the rhetoric – which could be enough to get him elected. Reagan’s “Morning in America” concept rings a bell. I’m not overly concerned with the experience factor since Obama strikes me as the type that would surround himself with intelligent, experienced people, listen to them and do his own homework. While these may be novel concepts to certain people…..

    ScottW – it’s interesting though, ask that same conservative WHY they don’t like Hillary and they can’t give an answer. The right has so programmed their minions to hate her and Bill that they can’t voice a reason. It can’t be just their policies because there are certainly more liberal politicians. Heck, Bill ran a more conservative campaign than GHWB. Scandal? Please. The powers that be on the right hate them because they actually think, are charismatic (at least Bill is) and are intelligent, hated qualities all. But the Koolaid drinking followers just do what they’re told.

  • Btw, I agree with Jonathan Alter – can someone please tell Hillary to stop clapping like that at her victory celebrations. And stop with the annoying speech delivery. She even annoys me. That said, I still think she’d make a damn good president, just an annoying one.

  • I went to college with Obama and knew him, tho’ not well. IMO he synthesizes the sizzle and the steak very much like Bill Clinton or RFK. He’s very thoughtful about policy (think Gore without the Dutch Elm Disease) and a very inspirational speaker. Who else comes even close on our side?

    It feels to me as if the skeptics are trying too hard not to like him. I think his moment is now (or in two years, at any rate.)

  • #25

    I disagree. I’m a Democrat and I don’t think that Hillary would make a good President. First of all, she will not be elected. It will be a landslide AGAINST her. She has too much baggage and a lot of people just don’t like her. Second, looking at her coldly and objectively, she has done nothing that would make her presidential timber.

    (1) She was the wife of a sitting president, period. When she was as such, Hillary chaired a health care reform committee that made recommendations in secrecy and, of course, the Republicans were rightfully able to call the proposals contained therein “bureaucratic welfare state” proposals. She sought and received no input from anybody, not even Republicans that were interested in compromising on health care. (I forget at this point, but most Republicans believed that in 1992/1993, it was time for a national health care plan.) It was her way or the highway and, predictably, Americans lost out on the chance for a decent health care plan for the nation. This experience, I believe, has caused the perception in American eyes that she is unable and unwilling to compromise when she is in power. I think a lot of folks soured on her at that point.

    (2) She has a lot of baggage that is rather unexplained, such as Whitewater. Remember the missing package that suddenly “turned up” in the White House? No one had a recollection of where it came from and for such a smart and detailed lady (supposedly) she was considerably vague about her role in Whitewater. Republicans will continue to have a field day with this since it gives the impression (rightly or wrongly) that she is ethically slippery.

    (3) Since she has been Senator, has she accomplished anything of note? I think most intelligent people understand that she is simply biding her time until she has the ability to run for the White House. She’s just marking her ticket on our version of the cursus honorum. In other words, she’s using the Senate as a stepping-stone to higher power. Also, what I remember, and what a lot of folks will remember, is that when Bush gave that 9/11 speech in Congress, the news cameras flashed to her face at an unguarded moment and she looked… bored. She looked like she was mad as if she understood that 9/11 was giving Bush a lot of political mileage that she would have to postpone her quest for the Presidency.

    (4) Saint Hillary. She has an all consuming quest for the Presidency. She is so convinced of her own rectitude that she absolutely cannot conceive why anybody would oppose her being President. She is the ultimate in meritocracy. She believes that good schools and good connections are stepping stones to doing the right things. But, of course, her belief and understandings are not always moored to reality. I think that she has very little conception of the real world, unlike Obama. I don’t think that the nation needs another saint, much more than it needs a real person who hasn’t been sheltered and who doesn’t understand real world concerns.

    Come to think of it, Bush qualifies as a would-be saint (the Republican version, anyway, including the neo-con ideas about spreading democracy on the cheap) and look where we are. I’ll take a real person with an earthy sense of humor, like Lincoln who asked that a barrel of whiskey be sent to Grant because Grant was winning battles during the Civil War.

    These are the few things that come to mind about Hillary and those are why she will never be President. Or if, against all odds, she does, she’ll make the nation go through a miserable time (a crusade, anyone?) just like Bush is doing with his Iraq misadventure.

  • She sought and received no input from anybody, not even Republicans that were interested in compromising on health care. (I forget at this point, but most Republicans believed that in 1992/1993, it was time for a national health care plan.) It was her way or the highway and, predictably, Americans lost out on the chance for a decent health care plan for the nation.

    I’m no expert on the Clintons’ Healthcare reform, but I’ve Hillary does seem to bring people to a rage on both sides. Found this interesting article: What Happened to Healthcare Reform? Not to say that it is the last word, but doesn’t seem to support your contentions.

    What was she convicted of in Whitewater? How much was spent investigating? So you’re telling me after many years and tens of millions of dollars you want to spend more of our money trying to figure out whether something untoward happened? –That’s how I would respond.

  • Meh #27 – Thanks for that. I can’t say that I agree but I think I hear where you’re coming from. The “ethically slippery” point probably resonates the most, like she seems to fail some type of smell test.

    The fact that she was the wife of a sitting president, however, means nothing to me. You say “period”, I say “so what?”. As I recall, she did seem to get overly involved in healthcare right from the get go and was neither an elected or appointed official. I don’t profess to recall the details however and so would defer on that issue.

    As for Whitewater, good lord that’s an old’un. How much did the investigation cost – $62 million and all they came up with was that the Clintons lost money on the deal and that Bill got a blow job. Multiple investigations showed that the Clintons didn’t do anything illegal or know about anybody doing anything illegal. Sure, we can throw “Whitewater” out there and it has such a negative connotation, but I would consider that an effective campaign by the Republicans to smear the Clintons.

    For her effectiveness in NY, I voted for her there but moved away (where I have the fortune to have Elton Gallegly represent me). But by all accounts, for being a junior senator in a minority party, she acquitted herself quite well and, noticeably, there was no criticism of her being a, ahem, reverse-carpetbagger. The point is that NO Dems got anything done nor, for that matter, did any Republican’ts, so I don’t think it’s a fair criticism.

    As for the Saint Hillary part, I don’t know what she thinks about it. She probably thinks she’s smarter than most (probably right), better at politics (probably right), and will do a better job than anyone else (if she wins, hopefully right). But I’ll bet that’s a characteristic that anyone who runs for president has, so again, I can’t hold that against her.

  • “She sought and received no input from anybody, not even Republicans that were interested in compromising on health care.” – Meh

    Actually I think she had quite a commission behind her and got a lot of input. And one thing that commission agreed on was the proposal they were putting forward was so carefully balanced that it could not accept amendment.

    Which of course killed it with the Republican’ts in the House.

    I think this was a case of the Perfect being the enemy of the Good.

    “First of all, she will not be elected.” – Meh

    Well, you see, that’s were I basically disagree. Her positives are higher than her negatives but you imply that all America will collapse before the Republican’ts lies about her and vote against her as if she was the Wicked Witch of the East. Well the Republican’ts made Nancy Pelosi out to be the Wicked Witch of the West and see where she is now.

    Maybe it’s time for Oz (America) to be ruled by the Witches (Clinton and Pelosi) rather than by the man behind the curtain (Rove) pulling the strings of the Great Wizard (Boy George II).

    Remember the Great Wizard was the fake, the Witches were real 😉

  • You may be right about his candidacy.

    But his politics seem too much like HIllary’s — ignore your base and cuddle with the conservatives. I’m not sure either really has progressive goals.

    And I don’t like his lack of experience. I’d rather have someone who truly knows something about foreign policy and a few other things starting out, instead of having someone get it in on-the-job training as the leader of our country and the world under the hostile eyes of the Republicans.

    So it might be true that he could win (as would be true of others, I believe), but I’d rather just see people run who I think could do the kind of job I want to see done when in the White House.

  • And if the point here is to talk about who is “marketable,” I’ll put in a plug for Clark. We’ve had bad luck with senators, which he is not, he hails from Arkansas — the South — and he has an amazing strategic mind that has spent the last four years figuring out how to win a presidential campaign (something he hadn’t worked on in 2004). He’s on the board of directors of votevets, which has put out the most amazing ads, so you can say what you want about this other guy’s “feel good” ads, but those votevets ones were extraordinarily powerful. Within the last year, one blogger has said that Clark has devised a strategy to win the election which takes out of play the states that have had trouble with their voting machines/recounts.

    So Clark can win.

    He can also be depended upon to figure out what needs to be done in our foreign policy and to move forward with a progressive agenda.

    In addition to his economics degree, and his executive experience as SACEUR in Europe, and his diplomatic experience as head of NATO, he has also been honored by most of the heads of state in Europe. And he speaks four languages. And he has a 100-year plan for the United States. And he has come out for our moving toward national health. And he has spoken out against what’s going on in Darfur and global warming.

    So I guess it’s fair to say that I’m not really interested in throwing Obama into the race to take media attention away from Clark. Not when I feel confident that Clark can win the general election and that Clark can make this a country to be proud of once again.

  • Catherine –

    I liked Clark in 2004 as well but his “deer in the headlights” look was a bit troubling. But, hey, maybe we DON’T want someone who always has the smooth answer.

    I don’t know, I’m just asking.
    (That was my Phil Donahue impression btw).

  • Sumbitch, CB, I hope you get your comments thing fixed. I forgot to copy it and this time it erased it on me. DAMN!!!

  • The ad you linked to was very, very good.

    Perhaps the most brilliant part of it was the *music*. Listen to it again.

  • Comments are closed.