Obama's folks argue he'd head stronger Dem ticket

Almost every campaign tries to set expectations and impressions of itself quietly behind the scenes. A favorite tool is the conference call where a campaign puts its supporters or experts on the line with reporters from around the country.

Today was Barack Obama's turn. On the line was Tom Daschle, former Senate majority leader and National Obama co-chair, Ray Mabus, former Mississippi governor, and Rep. Russ Carnahan of Missouri, historically a bellwether state in presidential elections. Also on the line was The Times' Robin Abcarian.

Not that this call had anything to do with countering a New York Times poll saying Hillary Clinton was more electable. But the point all three wanted to drive home was Obama's crossover appeal to Republicans and independents, which they felt would put more states in play for the 2008 election. "With Barack Obama at the top of the ticket," said Mabus, "I think you will see a much more favorable outcome for Democrats all the way down the ballot come November."

Obama, Mabus added, "is seen as the unifying candidate, the candidate who appeals most broadly across lines here." No data to prove this, but these guys are experts.

Noting that his home state of South Dakota is "bright red," Daschle said Obama was the best Democratic candidate to draw Republican and independent votes. "He addresses the yearning I see among people from all walks," Daschle said, "who want this country to come together, to build consensus, to find common ground."

Then Abcarian asked the $64 question: So does that mean that Hillary Clinton is bad for Democrats?

They all rushed to deny that. "I am not saying that," said Daschle. "The excitement level among Democrats is much greater than it is on the other side. The strongest in that strong field is Barack. He has the ability to help. It's just that he's so much stronger."

Contention made.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[MCLAIN]

NO TO BLACK/MUSLIM OBAMA- I DONT WANT TO HAVE AMUSLIM CANDAITE- BARACK HUSSIEN OBAMA. NO EPXREIENCE -CLITNON WELL EXPREINCE DONT THAT BEEN THERE.35 YEARS OF EPXREINCE. ADVOCATE OF WOMENS ISSUE AND THE CHILDREN.
DASCHLE IS WRONG AND TREATOR AND THE REST OF THEM- ACT LIKE DEVIL THEY DONT ACEPT THE TRUTH WHOS IS THE ESBT CANDIATE IND EM PARTY, DUH,

[Ronald Loui]

Oh Andrew, you know I only post because I think so highly of this newspaper. If I weren't so bullish on the LA Times, I'd just let patently unfair comments slide away, like the comments of our muckraking and incoherent friend, McClain, above. Surely the Top-of-The-Ticket deserves better.

So your spin matters to me. And sometimes you are right. Like August 13, when you corrected Obama's misspeak of the "President of Canada." TOUCHE! You led with the title "Another Obama gaffe," referring to (a) the ruling out nukes in a tactical situation and (b) the affirmation of long held US policy to bomb within Pakistani territory, given a chance at Al Qaeda leadership. But in retrospect, these were not gaffes. I see you did not include the alleged gaffe, (c) a willingness to meet with leaders of badly behaving nations -- oh wait, Rolling-On-The-Floor-Laughing-Out-Loud, you did include it. Who is the gaffer now?!!!

So now you think there are no "data to prove" that Obama has more crossover appeal. What would you accept as data? The fact that Obama regularly receives a large crossover vote when he runs in Illinois for elected office? The pollster.com numbers that have shown that all year, in head-to-head hypothetical competition against each Republican, that he wins with a larger margin than Hillary? The widely reported surprise late this summer that Obama was polling third among Republicans, ahead of John McCain? Are you playing with the word "prove"? What is the standard of proof you have in mind?

It's just bad rhetoric on your part. Mabus's claim is not even that Obama IS the unifying candidate, but that he is SEEN AS the unifying candidate. Surely we have all seen enough polling data to substantiate such a claim about his appearance. I agree that the recent NYTimes poll, the catalyst for your post, is a statistical outlier that deserves further scrutiny. Is it a new trend? Is it counter-evidence of a longstanding opinion generally held and only recently unveiled? Or is it just the NYTimes being pro-Clinton? (You and I both have additional data on that one.)

You know, California has a pretty good centrist governor who showed how traditional political lines could be crossed and progressive action could sensibly be taken. You would think that California's leading newspaper would find similar virtues when looking at candidate Obama. I am sure you don't want someone counting your pro- and con- posts someday and finding out you were more biased than you intended to be.

Wasn't Bobby Kennedy trailing in a California primary that he eventually won? I am sure all of you good journalists want to be on the right side of history, even if it is your legitimate right, and duty, to have your own opinions.

(I always respect the views of a regular reader. Meant that they provided no data.)

[Larry from Purdue]

I live in Indiana which Bush won 59-41 last time.

I don't know if Obama can win here, but I think he can push it closer, so that it will be within striking distance for 2012. Republicans here are reallly dissatisfied with their candidates, but Hillary would bring them back out of the woodwork.

I think many of them would see Obama as somebody who would give them a fair shake, even if he didn't agree with them.

[Buckley Jones]

I think the person who posted the ignorant comment above me should run for president, he seems like a pretty smart person judging by the fact that he has lied, and not really spelled one word right in his whole paragraph of incomplete sentences.