Over on the Reed alumni webconference, some folks were expressing dismay about yesterday's primary results. This was my reply:
My biggest concern about Clinton's campaign isn't so much about going negative. It's about her probable willingness, and the demonstrated willingness of her advisers, to run yet another triangulating, swing-state-oriented, overly cautious general election campaign. We need a map-changing campaign that is part of a fifty-state Congressional and party-building strategy. Sure, Obama won't win in Alaska -- but Mark Begich might knock Ted Stevens out of the Senate there. Sure, it'll be a nailbiter for Obama in Missouri -- but Jay Nixon will dominate the gubernatorial election for the Democrats there. (I can rattle off a dozen more examples of key senatorial and congressional races if you'd like.) And these things will only happen if the nominee doesn't run away from the party base. Those are the people who will work to win races, up- and down-ticket. They are the ones who will create a compelling message that is multifaceted yet coherent and that draws in lower-information voters. The general election is a war of turnout, not a war over the mythical moderate voter. Karl Rove proved that once and for all. Now we have to beat him at his own game, not by going negative but by getting better organized. And it is Obama, the organizer, who can take us that far. That's why I was an Obama supporter yesterday and that's why I am an Obama supporter today.