Obama and Edwards supporters: a political strategy consideration question

Samantha

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-24-08 09:01 PM
Original message

Obama and Edwards supporters: a political strategy consideration question

What's going on? Is it within the scope of consideration Obama and Edwards have had a Tacit Agreement between the two of them since the inception of this campaign? I have no horse in this race, but I have been an engaged observer since the campaign started, hoping to identify a Democratic candidate to whom I can commit. Now that a few contests have been waged, I am asking myself if these two candidates have cooperated from its inception with the common goal of helping each other battle the Establishment Candidate, one supported by the conservative element of the Democratic party, the Democratic Leadership Conference. This question is based entirely on gut; thus no links are available to support it.

I have always been fascinated by the strategic element of political campaigns, so that is why I focus on questions such as this and invite conversation on it.

Suppose Obama and Edwards did at some point make a Tacit Agreement at the inception of this campaign. That agreement was prompted by the recognition by both parties that neither Obama nor Edwards acting alone had a snowball's chance in Hades to prevail against the Clinton machine and the power of the Democratic elite to facilitate the DLC candidate. The only possibility of collaborative cooperation that would enhance each's chances to survive and perhaps prevail over the Establishment Candidate would involve lending a political assist, a leg-up, to enhance the odds of both candidacies whenever possible. That political cooperation would have to be based on trust, confidentiality and reciprocity.

We saw this play out earlier when Edward and Obama appeared to cooperate in a debate in which Hillary was the apparent target of both. It was perceived by female voters in New Hampshire to have been a political gang banging by the guys on the defenseless woman. That perception and the voters' reaction, unfortunately for Obama, resulted in an unexpected Hillary win in New Hampshire, which required some tweaking of the Tacit Agreement. One tweaking prompted the idea that perhaps Edwards should unexpectedly in areas where it would not ricochet as electoral backfires, throw a couple of punches at Obama so that he, Edwards, appeared from time to time to strike both at Obama and Hillary. Just a political camouflage to stifle any suspicions of cooperation.

What would be the favorable outcome of such a Tacit Agreement, should it inure to the benefit of both Edwards and Obama? Obama, the candidate with presumably the greatest chance of racking up higher numbers against Hillary, might trump Hillary in close areas. The helpful hand of John Edwards would pull votes from Hillary in those areas. But what would be the Edwards payback? Obama would hit Hillary hard, very, very hard, in areas which Edwards numbers might rise even higher. Obama might lose a few points, but he would do this where he could afford to lose those points and still prevail. The loss of those few points would be compensated by the fact Edwards might place second, knocking their common opponent down to an unflattering third. South Carolina, for instance, comes to mind.

When the dust cleared, what might we see in its aftermath? A single primary remaining, the State of Florida, a state in which the candidates were committed not to campaign because that State moved its primary up to a date unacceptable to the DNC. No momentum at risk there. But the salient view staring voters in the face would be a damaged Established Candidate with diminished chances of sewing up the nomination on February 5th, a Primary Opponent with a-nearly tied record of wins against that candidate and tremendously improved national odds, and a Secondary Challenger with an unexpected 15% command of delegates which puts him in a position of Kingmaker at the convention. That negotiating ability might possibly propel the Secondary Challenger into the Vice Presidential Chair in 2009.

And that's one theoretical way two challengers could tacitly cooperate in an agreement of mutual political reciprocity in a way that allowed both to mount an incredibly successful campaign against the Establishment.

Is this theory a "fairy tale" (excuse me) or a possibility which merits some rumination? The "conventional wisdom" (excuse me again) decries the bad judgment of Obama in reacting to Bill Clinton's jabs while campaigning in South Carolina. Some say it is the reaction of a novice. But perhaps not, perhaps it is a strategy predetermined by two collaborating candidates for mutual benefit. I say neither Obama and Edwards are dumb candidates. I believe they are both smarter than all of the Talking Heads combined. They are quite capable, if any two people can, of cooperating in a way the voting public and the professional political pundits might not see in a Tacit Agreement which might ultimately choke the Establishment Candidate. They are just that smart. And Bill and Hillary Clinton, utilizing the techniques of past political Kingmakers in days-gone-by, such as Lee Atwater and his protege Karl Rove, did not have their eyes quite wide open to the innovative punches that might possibly be thrown in the Now. They might not have seen it coming.

It's just too hard to swallow that Obama and Edwards are just winging their way through an extremely difficult political quest such as this without a plan. I think there's a possibility this might be the plan. And if that part about Hillary not seeing this coming is an underestimation, perhaps she did and that is exactly why she turned the Big Dog totally loose.... If it's going to be two against one, let's even up the odds ...

I ask you - what's going on?