The Way I See Things

Even with more than a month available before the primary votes, the predictors and prognosticators forecast a loss in Pennsylvania for Senator Obama.

They're clear: The issue isn't IF he'll lose, the issue is...
By how much.

Even the oft-mentioned, mistakenly leaked, Obama campaign documents projected a loss in the Keystone state. The omnipresent assumption seems to be a loss is inevitable.
However...
I don't think it is.

Many characterize the states major cities as more favorable to Senator Obama; while they shade the less populated areas as more skeptical, more sympathetic to Senator Clinton and more resistant to a platform based on Change. There also seems to be an estimation that these voters are less sophisticated, less informed.

I do NOT accept this.

In dealing with people, while love motivates many, I've also observed that fear and ego are the foundation of action for a substantial number of others.

While sharing many of the priorities we all share--the economy, the safety and security of our nation, the future--those priorities may indeed take different forms. But make no mistakes here, their fears are ours, and their convictions about what should be done to eliminate those fears are valid.

People would like their fears removed. People like to feel smart and informed. People seek to make the best choices and feel that, ultimately, they've elevated our union, not diminished it.

ACTION PLAN
^ Foundation: Like every other state, Pennsylvania is not a monolith in how it selects its political leaders. I think it would be fair to treat it as multiple, small states. And that strategy would've afforded Senator Obama the opportunity to learn about the different regions and speak to each of their needs.

^ I would've recommended Senator Obama start in Harrisburg--FIRST, to establish he was there to campaign in the Complete Commonwealth; then I would've directed him to places like Altoona, Greensburg, State College, Breezewood, Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, Williamsport, etc; and THEN, finally, appear in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

^ I would've urged him to appeal to the intelligence of rural voters. Steve Kroft's '60 Minutes' was staggering as he exposed the lack of reliable, accurate information about Senator Obama. So, begin at the beginning. Let people know why he is campaigning to be president; what his credentials are; what his beliefs are so, when they do vote, they can do it with full knowledge not mistruths/half-truths/untruths.

^ For interacting with the residents, I would've suggested he organize Town hall-style meetings. A lot of them. Meetings where Senator Obama asks the people what they expect/require/desire of a president, where he satisfies them and where he falls short; and where they explain they can be integral, active contributors in a government of change, how a President Obama can help them become more involved in that process, and how they can help a president better serve the people. This makes his visit less an interaction with a poll/pollster and more one of interacting with real people, in a real conversation, with real questions, concerns and genuine answers.

^ I would've recommended that Senator Obama make a visit to all the Pennsylvania newspapers that endorsed him, including the local weeklies, and the 'City Paper'-type publications. Many people read the newspaper during the day, some still rely on it for their news. While visiting, he could speak to their editorial boards, get himself on their front pages--big picture, big headlines--and reinforce and reiterate his message.

^ Next, I would've directed him to the local radio stations--whether conservative or liberal--to get some air time. Be interviewed, be questioned, be there. Let people know that he was willing to answer--directly and candidly--the questions that anyone might have for him. And with those conservative stations, and their commentators, I would've suggested that Senator Obama issue them a challenge: He would appear on their show to discuss real issues, not fodder; engage in a dialogue; then allow all the statements to be reviewed/verified by a mutually selected research organization; when the processing of that information was completed, he would return, share the results with the listeners, and finally both parties would attest to--endorse!--the accuracy of the results. He'd 'win' whether the challenge was accepted or rejected.

^ All of this activity would've cascaded to the major media markets, so he wouldn't have lost any relevancy there. Senator Obama could also have visited a number of colleges to ensure the energy, vibrancy and vigorous support of young voters was maintained.

^ I would've encourage him to get some video cameras; get behind, not in front of, the lens; and make the shot about the people--their views, their ideas, their dreams--and let them talk about how he cam help them address all of those concerns.

^ Continuing with the camera theme, I'd would've arranged to link Obama supporters from other states--via video phones/iPhones/satellite links/etc--so they could demonstrate and dicuss why they support Senator Obama's campaign; explain their yearning for change; and explain why they support the main theme--'Yes, we can!' I think in showing other yet similar families, other yet similar communities would help to lower any resistance to his legitimacy as a candidate for president.

^ For TV commercials, I would've suggested he primarily use regular people to strengthen the delivery of his message. People that are, and will continue to be, ardent supporters of the Obama campaign. People who are union workers; working in, or residents of, nursing homes; people going to work/coming home from work; in the stores looking in their wallets; at the gas pump; at the computer emailing family in Iraq or Afghanistan; people on the bus/subway; farmers; truckers; etc. who are like the people in these areas where Senator Obama is projected to lose. People they can relate to; people like them.

^ To solidify his understanding of these people, and the importance of their concerns, I would've ensured that Senator Obama commit to returning and promise to do that. To return during the campaign for the general election, and to return after he was eleected president. I don't have the research but, intuitively, I think people are more inclined to trust people they know they can rely on. Senator Obama will have to address many more issues in the course of this campaign, one he should NOT have to address is his devotion to the People of the United States of America. In that, he should be beyond reproach. Letting people know they will be neither ignored nor forgotten would more than solidify that truth.

^ On the issue of faith, Senator Obama has (it seems to me) been continually/perpetually/eternally addressing his faith for over a week; however, that may not be enough effort to satisfy and reassure some people. I'd suggest he explore having other religious leaders--leaders that people know better, might see more regularly, and thus imbue with more respect--endorse and speak about him and the strength of his faith.

Above all, I would position him to concentrate on--to focus on--people that are eager for change but have reservations that he is their best conduit. I would advocate a focus on the people that aren't his core constituency...
But have the potential to be.

While I try to avoid sports analogies and metaphors, I noted one commentator comparing Senator Obama to Jackie Robinson. How Jackie Robinson was chosen not merely for his talent but because he was an exemplary representative as an agent of change for Major League Baseball--as the first, he had to be--in all ways--the best. I pondered this for a moment or two. And ultimately concluded that characterization was incorrect. Senator Obama strikes me as someone closer to, say, the 'Tiger Woods' of politics...
It's not merely a situation where he's 'The First'.
It's that his abilities are so superior to everyone else that preceded him he's redefined how the game should be played...
Except as I maintain, and reiterate...
Politics is not and should not--Ever--be conceptualized as a game. It is not an enterprise of teams or scores, victories or defeats. It is the institution that best represents the will of people working together for our common good.

It is NOT a competition...
But a coalition.

I think Senator Obama understands that.