Today's Article
Falsely attributing
Obama's success in
the Democratic
contest solely to
soaring rhetoric and
record-breaking
fundraising denies
reality.
Obama's success in
the Democratic
contest solely to
soaring rhetoric and
record-breaking
fundraising denies
reality.
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Obama Out-Thought Clinton To Win Nomination, Say Experts
By Cliff Montgomery - June 4th, 2008
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) was able to claim the presumptive Democratic nomination last night for one
reason: He employed a more modern, better-reasoned campaign strategy than his rival, Senator Hillary Clinton
(D-NY).
The Clinton camp essentially bet the house on a quick "Super Tuesday" knockout punch. But Obama's staff
built a grass-roots campaign which maintained a long-term focus on both key congressional districts in a
number of states and seldom-used party bylaws.
Party rules award more delegates to long-time Democratic districts, and allow a candidate who attracts at least
15 percent of a state's primary vote the chance to win delegates, even if the candidate has lost in that state.
Obama utilized such opportunities to continually win much-needed delegates.
The Obama campaign also utilized a strong Internet presence which reaped great dividends in both money
and exposure. In fact, the presumptive Democratic nominee has raised over $1 million a day during 2008,
primarily thanks to small donors via the Internet. The Net presence has helped Obama raise over $265 million
as of April 30th for his presidential run.
By contrast, Clinton has raked in almost $215 million as of April 30th--and at times she's been forced to lend
her presidential campaign millions just to stay up with Obama's record-breaking monetary pace.
The Obama camp thus simply out-thought and out-fought the tenacious Clinton, and utilized its superior
understanding of both arcane political rules and modern communications to take the presumptive Democratic
nomination from a former front-runner who appeared to possess every advantage.
"Without a doubt, their understanding of the nominating process was one of the keys to their success,"
Democratic strategist Tad Devine told The Associated Press (AP) last Friday.
Though Devine is not publicly affiliated with either presidential candidate, Obama and his campaign managers
clearly have impressed the political expert.
"They understood the nuances of [the Democratic presidential race] and approached it at a strategic level that
the Clinton campaign did not."
Thus falsely attributing Sen. Obama's success in the contest solely to soaring rhetoric and record-breaking
fundraising denies both proven reality and common sense.
Obama utilized the Democrats' delegate awards system to cushion his losses, and maximize gains from his
many wins. Clinton instead appeared to work for large victories in a relative handful of "big states", and often
essentially conceded states that leaned toward Obama.
The example of Kansas--and how each camp approached this state--reveals much about the difference in
strategies.
Obama's Kansas win eliminated any gains Clinton had enjoyed through her New Jersey victory, even though
Kansas offers only a third of the delegates of the coveted New Jersey prize.
How did the Illinois senator do it? A grass-roots Obama team built a strong win in Kansas, while another kept
the vote fairly close in New Jersey.
Jeffrey Berman, the Illinois senator's press-shy national delegate operations director, spear-headed the
delegate effort. Berman previously had tracked delegates for the presidential bids of former Rep. Dick
Gephardt.
Berman spent much of last year finding chances for Obama to add to his delegate count.
"The whole Clinton campaign thought this would be like previous campaigns, a battle of momentum,"
Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Thomas Mann told AP on Friday.
"[The Clinton campaign heads] thought she would be the only one who could compete in such a momentous
event as Super Tuesday," he added.
They were wrong.
It was Sen. Obama who won most of the 23 "Super Tuesday" battles on Feb. 5th. After that, Obama's
grass-roots strategy helped him rake up 11 straight wins in the next two weeks.
It was a "one-two punch" to the Clinton campaign, and it gave the Illinois senator an unbeatable lead among
Democratic delegates.
Now the question is whether Obama and his team can use such a deft understanding of the modern political
process to win the White House in November.
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
By Cliff Montgomery - June 4th, 2008
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) was able to claim the presumptive Democratic nomination last night for one
reason: He employed a more modern, better-reasoned campaign strategy than his rival, Senator Hillary Clinton
(D-NY).
The Clinton camp essentially bet the house on a quick "Super Tuesday" knockout punch. But Obama's staff
built a grass-roots campaign which maintained a long-term focus on both key congressional districts in a
number of states and seldom-used party bylaws.
Party rules award more delegates to long-time Democratic districts, and allow a candidate who attracts at least
15 percent of a state's primary vote the chance to win delegates, even if the candidate has lost in that state.
Obama utilized such opportunities to continually win much-needed delegates.
The Obama campaign also utilized a strong Internet presence which reaped great dividends in both money
and exposure. In fact, the presumptive Democratic nominee has raised over $1 million a day during 2008,
primarily thanks to small donors via the Internet. The Net presence has helped Obama raise over $265 million
as of April 30th for his presidential run.
By contrast, Clinton has raked in almost $215 million as of April 30th--and at times she's been forced to lend
her presidential campaign millions just to stay up with Obama's record-breaking monetary pace.
The Obama camp thus simply out-thought and out-fought the tenacious Clinton, and utilized its superior
understanding of both arcane political rules and modern communications to take the presumptive Democratic
nomination from a former front-runner who appeared to possess every advantage.
"Without a doubt, their understanding of the nominating process was one of the keys to their success,"
Democratic strategist Tad Devine told The Associated Press (AP) last Friday.
Though Devine is not publicly affiliated with either presidential candidate, Obama and his campaign managers
clearly have impressed the political expert.
"They understood the nuances of [the Democratic presidential race] and approached it at a strategic level that
the Clinton campaign did not."
Thus falsely attributing Sen. Obama's success in the contest solely to soaring rhetoric and record-breaking
fundraising denies both proven reality and common sense.
Obama utilized the Democrats' delegate awards system to cushion his losses, and maximize gains from his
many wins. Clinton instead appeared to work for large victories in a relative handful of "big states", and often
essentially conceded states that leaned toward Obama.
The example of Kansas--and how each camp approached this state--reveals much about the difference in
strategies.
Obama's Kansas win eliminated any gains Clinton had enjoyed through her New Jersey victory, even though
Kansas offers only a third of the delegates of the coveted New Jersey prize.
How did the Illinois senator do it? A grass-roots Obama team built a strong win in Kansas, while another kept
the vote fairly close in New Jersey.
Jeffrey Berman, the Illinois senator's press-shy national delegate operations director, spear-headed the
delegate effort. Berman previously had tracked delegates for the presidential bids of former Rep. Dick
Gephardt.
Berman spent much of last year finding chances for Obama to add to his delegate count.
"The whole Clinton campaign thought this would be like previous campaigns, a battle of momentum,"
Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Thomas Mann told AP on Friday.
"[The Clinton campaign heads] thought she would be the only one who could compete in such a momentous
event as Super Tuesday," he added.
They were wrong.
It was Sen. Obama who won most of the 23 "Super Tuesday" battles on Feb. 5th. After that, Obama's
grass-roots strategy helped him rake up 11 straight wins in the next two weeks.
It was a "one-two punch" to the Clinton campaign, and it gave the Illinois senator an unbeatable lead among
Democratic delegates.
Now the question is whether Obama and his team can use such a deft understanding of the modern political
process to win the White House in November.
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!