The other day I mentioned that I had a nagging skepticism about Obama's electability in the general election, were he to get the nomination, which deserves an explanation.

First, let me just say that anyone who accuses skin color as some part behind the reasoning will find themselves banned--there is zero tolerance for accusations of racism. I don't even view Obama as black or with racial distinction. Identity-wise, I can understand why he's seen as such, but in that regard (and I have two kids with this same beauty), it points to a bright future when such fallacies such as 'race' become historical dust, and racism ceases. One day, let's hope. Having black skin is not totally gone as an electability issue, but it's as negligible as being a woman, a southerner, or a northeasterner. You can ask Harold Ford if you doubt it's still an issue in certain races-- but nevermind, because he would have to say otherwise in public, and I hope one day he will be able to win in Tennessee-- but it no longer is an insurmountable hurdle to being elected President.

The skepticism about Obama's electability isn't grounded in empirical polling (which are too early to matter); instead, it's more just a feeling that, given how well he's positioned his candidacy with the media's blessing, he's setting himself up for being torn down without a partisan base to rely upon for pushing back.

Yes, right now, Obama does pretty well among Republicans & Independents. But there's been more and more of a dissonance growing between Obama's campaign and among progressive partisan Democrats.

Obama has certain strengths, you cannot deny that his brand of personality-based politics has been very effective. I can see, from the point of view of the Obama campaign, why they would rather grow their own movement that's centered around Obama, instead of around a progressive Democratic partisan movement. It allows them a lot more control of their message and campaign actions. It even, I think you could argue given the potential numbers of Obama supporters, become a more organized force locally, but that's unknown. He's got the qualities and the campaign is fully maximizing this advantage in the primary.

And his ability to parlay that into a 'working together' bipartisan  general election campaign has a compelling electability attraction. But the weakness in his campaign, his shunning of a partisan base of Democrats, won't become obvious until it is fatal to those chances. That's the nagging suspicion that arose again when I read through the "liberal views could hurt Obama" piece on Politico.

As a Democrat that just wants to win (and fight the progressive battles once we have a formidable majority), it's very compelling to listen to voter testimonials out of New Hampshire and hear a young conservative voter tell you his favorite's are Obama and Giuliani. It gives us a chance among voters that tend to not give the Democratic Party an opening. But then you listen to that voters number one issues, abortion and taxes, and I question how deep his support for Obama might actually be once the rightwing propoganda machine moves into attack mode.

Obama provides the opening, but through something as simple one of those asinine candidate questionnaire's that we wrote against practicing in CTG, which he answered in '96, it's easy to envision his losing that opportunity.

Obama's campaign answers such questions:

"Do you support capital punishment, criminal prosecution of juveniles as adults, mandatory sentencing?" No

"Do you support state legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?" Yes

"Do you support Medicaid funding of abortions, insurance coverage of abortion for state employees." Yes

"Do you support parental notifications for minors seeking abortions, or any other restrictions on abortions." No

Obama's defense, which has become emblematic, is to blame his staff for being cast as a liberal:

All have the right answers from the POV of a liberal, but these are all deal-killers among conservatives. Just his positioning on guns puts into very questionable status such states such as West Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, and Pennsylvania, along with the entire southwest/rocky mountain region.

That's true, and in black and white like this, I question as to how his 'mainstream democratic' viewpoints play out in a general election.

This questionnaire in and of itself is just one thing, but Obama's response to it coming out is unsettling in it's pattern of positioning himself above the partisan fray. Obama has never faced a serious Republican challenge. Not one. Obama has no experience of the hostile and polarized political environment that he'd enter were he to win the nomination, and he has distanced himself from partisan Democrats during his campaign for the nomination. I don't think it's spin to question how Obama might actually do once he confronts Republicans on the campaign trail, instead of across the table in those bipartisan negotiations he longs for making happen.

My guess is that, once he's personally experienced the confrontation of the Republican machine, it would totally transform the way Obama views campaigns. Rather than viewing partisan progressives as something to Sister Soulja while he appeases the non-partisan media machine, he would come to realize the value, in today's partisan environment, of engaging partisan Democrats as part of his campaign. He'd prepare to battle with us, rather than trash us as tokens of the past.

He'd also learn that there is not a middle voter to seduce, that about 95% of this country goes in leaning, and though they might take a glance the other way, they ultimately find a reason, thanks in large part to the Republican propoganda machine, to not go against their initial lean.

It's not spin to be skeptical of Obama's chances. Edwards, who has been through this in 2004, realizes the value of partisan alliance and has positioned himself accordingly, through both message and online tactics. Clinton, who has been through the battles in the 1990's, relishes the chance to go to battle once again, this time with a partisan online movement behind her.

For Democrats that think about how a campaign might position itself best to win, the question really comes down to this: Do you believe that this nation is going to transcend partisan politics in 2008?  

If you believe that's true, and are willing to bet that personality-based politics can rise above partisan-politics, then you are probably betting on Obama's campaign strategy. If you think like me, that a campaign having it's partisan-base in order is the number one priority, than you are in alliance with the campaign strategies of Edwards and Clinton. It's really a question of whether the Democrats are going into battle in 2008 as Obama's personality movement or as a progressive partisan movement.

Update [2007-12-11 15:10:4 by Jerome Armstrong]: LOL, predictably, another pitiful staffer goes under the bus instead of Obama taking responsibility for having changed some positions:The "aide" was actually the Campaign Manager, writing such first-person comments as: "I have not previously been a candidate."

Update [2007-12-11 15:25:36 by Jerome Armstrong]: Asking, "how will Obama fare against the right-wing hit machine?" Tom Watson suggests "not so well" as one part of the answer - and "not nearly as well as Hillary Clinton," as the second part:

Meanwhile, in another poll, John Edwards does the best among all Dems at crushing the Republicans.