A couple of days back, our own Valerie Bauerlein and her associates with the WSJ had a piece that described rather well what was different about Barack Obama’s campaign in South Carolina. And no, I don’t mean that he’s been more inspiring or any of that stuff you’re tired of hearing me say.
I refer to his tactics — or perhaps, given the scale of what’s at stake, I should say his strategy. An excerpt:
In early voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire, campaigns use rallies and personal appearances to get votes. Now, the nominating races have moved to bigger states, including much of the South. Candidates here rely on endorsements from powerful politicians and preachers. It is a tradition that has evolved since the 1960s to garner support among poor blacks who look to their preachers for both spiritual and political guidance. And it is the way Mrs. Clinton, like countless Democratic politicians before her, is running her campaign in South Carolina.
Mr. Obama, in contrast, is trying something many observers say has never been done here: He is circumventing entrenched local leadership and building a political machine from scratch. His staff consists largely of community organizers — many from out of state or with no political experience — who are assembling an army of volunteers. It is a strategy often used by labor organizations and in neighborhood and town politics…
"If he pulls this off — and I think he will — Barack Obama’s organization will be studied and replicated in this state for many years to come," says Inez Tenenbaum, a former South Carolina superintendent of education who has run four statewide races in the past decade. She is one of the few prominent state Democrats backing Mr. Obama.
When I originally read that story (I actually referred to it back here), the strategy part didn’t strike me, possibly because it seemed self-evident. But after a colleague called my attention to it again, I realized it was probably worth sharing.
There’s little question Sen. Clinton has taken the traditional approach, lining up (and listening to advice from) such longtime party stalwarts as, well, as Don Fowler, and getting the Darrell Jacksons of the world on the payroll.
Meanwhile, Obama has built this huge, very young, staff — as I’ve noted, the children of people I’ve known in Democratic circles for decades, rather than the parents — that has gone straight to the people, rather than the usual gate-keepers.
Could this be the model for a new kind of politics in South Carolina? Maybe — if Obama gets the nomination. If he doesn’t, it will likely be discarded as the innovation that didn’t work — even though, in South Carolina, it has worked thus far.
Related Posts
Hillary is the opponent of choice for the Republican Party. Rupert Murdoch who owns FoxNews and now the Wall Street Journal, held a big fundraiser for Hillary. Rupert Murdoch, one of the most rightwing tycoons on the planet, holding a fundraiser for a democrat? This does not pass the smell test. Obama or Edwards! Otherwise the general election will be endless reruns of Juanita, Jennifer, Paula, Monica,Travelgate, Whitewater, Vince Foster,on.and on. If that,s not enough. Consider this. Bill Clinton could have had a fine legacy, but he threw it away. His serial recklessness made us all vulnerable. His serial recklessness allowed a couple of sociopaths to take over our government. For all the hopes we had, Bill Clinton’s legacy to us in the end is Bush/Cheney, the most disaterous administration in history. America is wounded. Let’s all unite around her and show some love. The Clintons will just unite the rightwingers and bring back the hate. Please! Let’s turn the page.
I doubt seriously that Hillary will be getting involved with Juanita, Jennifer, Paula, Monica, etc. I’m sure a lot of people including Rupert Murdoch will try to bring all that stuff up, but I have faith that the American people are smart enough to realize Hillary is not spelled B-i-l-l.
Let’s hope it works. The less baggage anyone brings into the presidency on Day One the better.
The list of contributors (with amounts) to each campaign is open to the public – how about the list of paid consultants (with amounts)?
The more transparency, the better.
Hillary can’t claim to be a model of feminism while being a doormat for a cheating husband.
Hillary can’t claim to be so smart while claiming no recollection of all her oversight of scandalss involving stolen FBI files, WhoDB, the Travel Office, Whitewater, Vince Foster, illegal campaign donations from Red China, etc.