The Casey Endorsement
The Bob Casey endorsement of Obama is important, but I’m not sure that it does more than open a door for Obama. I think it says to white working class voters: “hear this guy out.” And in the past, Barack has always done well when he’s been heard out. But that “well” includes getting voters up to, but not including, the ones he needs to win in Pennsylvania.
Obama needs to win some voters who think things suck and are just going to get suckier. This is Hillary’s base — people who are skeptical of “hope.” People who are in position to give endorsements, such as elected politicians, necessarily cannot represent this point of view.
This is why I recommend he turn her skeptical message on its end by pointing out that he is both more hopeful and more realistic. He thinks we can change the future in big ways (hope), but he also believes that if we don’t change in big ways, we are screwed. This is the 2030 argument I think is the dividing line between generations. If you are going to be in your twilight years in 2030, fundamental change seems unnecessary. But if you are going to be running society in 2030, undoing the knots now, instead of making them worse, is important.
March 31, 2008 at 9:40 am
I agree that the Casey endorsement is of some, but not immense, use to Obama going forward. At this stage of the battle, it seems to me that endorsements come in three types and serve three different functions:
(a) Big Name Endorsements (e.g., Richardson). The goal of these endorsements is to captivate some press attention during one or more cycles rather than advocate to voters. Richardson is a great example because, to have any real voter impact, he would have announced before Texas’ prima-caucus. (Without any factual support for this whatsoever, I actually believe that Richardson held his tongue until after 2/12 as the result of either an express or implied agreement between Richardson and his buddy/guru Bill Clinton.) Instead, the endorsement only serves to give wonks an opportunity to skitter about allegiance and the perception of momentum. I don’t see any names out there that would do more than excite the media, either because they won’t commit (Pelosi is the chair of the convention–she can’t take a side now) or because I feel that, at this point, voters will shrug their shoulders over individual endorsements (to wit, NC polls actually show an Edward endorsement could have a NEGATIVE impact, and, while Gore is adored now, I see his blessing as more symbolic than voter-determinative).
(b) Podium Credibility Endorsements (e.g., Casey). The goal of these endorsements is to introduce a candidate to a location and/or voter population. As Drew said, “hear this guy out.” I’m actually not surprised that Casey endorsed Obama (he historically has gone toe to toe with Ed Rendell), and hope that having Casey on the podium in Western and Northern PA will help. But the endorsement won’t help by itself. I actually have been hearing from organizers in Western PA myself that they need more of an Obama presence there to capitalize on the Casey nod.
(c) Number-cruncher Endorsements (e.g., Rep. Al Wynn-MD). These are, for example, the “super-delegates” that have been courted by both candidates in the hope that sheer numbers will make a statement and/or inch closer to a nomination. I chose congressman Wynn (from a Maryland suburb of DC) as an example because he is such a lame duck that he actually recently announced his resignation from office to work in a private practice law firm before his term was up. Voters don’t care who Wynn supports, but the candidates sure do because, unless a “special election” is called to replace him with a replacement (the woman who defeated him is an Obama supporter), then Obama will have one fewer super-delegate vote at the convention than he counted on.