This is a transcript, the chat is closed.
Bob Shrum, author of "No Excuses: Confessions of a Serial Campaigner" appeared on MPR's Midmorning program.
From The man behind the candidates:
He has advised Democratic presidential contenders on everything from what ads to run to what talking points to hit. Consultant Bob Shrum says what makes the difference for a particular candidate is deep down character.
Bob Shrum joined us on Thursday, 08/16/07 for a chat. Read the questions and answers below!
____________________
Julia Schrenkler
Minnesota Public Radio Interactive Producer
This is a transcript, the chat is closed.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 32
Bob replied
Since I comment on the candidates for MSNBC I can't speak extensively on personal favorites. I have to say that Hillary Rodham Clinton has displayed immense character in the face of adversity. She was under withering right-wing attack in which she helped save her husband's presidency during the Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment process.
Barak Obama's life is a story of character - of someone, example, turning down some of the most lucractive legal jobs in the world to become a community organizer and in 2002 speaking out against the war in Iraq.
I have no doubt that John Edwards does genuinely care aobut the millworkers and middle class folks he grew up with in rural North Carolina.
I could cite similar examples for almost every one of the other Democratic candidates; Joe Biden stands his ground on the Iraq war - his position is more nuanced and equivocal than the primary voters probably want, because he believes.
Bob replied
I think he has no chance of being the Democratic nominee, but he is certainly a more powerful presence than he was in 2004.
Bob replied
First of all, after your success in the Ellison race, you should probably be giving advice instead of seeking it.
YOu probably already know this, but I'd say there are three things that campaigns have to recognize above all else:
1) Strategy is often necessity: John Kerry had no choice other than to abandon New Hampshire for Iowa in January 2004
2) Candidates need to be themselves. It doesn't mean that polling isn't important, it does mean that you poll to decide how to present your case most persuasively, not to decide what you believe.
3) Sometimes you may lose, and I do mean you: Candidates win elections, and consultants are often blamed, often justifiably, for losing.
Bob said:
You don't seek the Vice Presidency, at least not until the final round once you have a nominee in place when you can lobby for it, but only in the most discreet way.
Biden is unlikely to be the Vice Presidential nominee because he doesn't bring a big state with him and Democrats are likely to look at 2000 and 2004, when VP nominees like that were chosen, and decide to follow instead the example of John Kennedy who picked Lyndon Johnson.
So look, for example to Gov. Strickland in Ohio or Sen. Nelson in Florida, or maybe Sen. Jim Webb in VA.
Why isn't Biden doing better? In fact, he's doing well in the debates. He's knowledgeable, witty, and has belied his reputation for being long winded by famously giving two one-word answers so far. There's just not enough oxygen to accommodate more than Clinton, Obama and to some extent Edwards, who sometimes seem to have to fight for his place on center stage. And not incidentally, the press doesn't have the resources to focus on more than the top two or three candidates.
Bob's response:
I think Hillary Clinton can be elected president and that most of the people who would vote against her because she's a woman probably - almost certainly - wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway.
I don't think the voters who will decide this election have deep doubts about her strength, her experience or her capacity to be Commander in Chief.
You mentioned media coverage. Your statement, "the press doesn't have the resources to focus on more than the top two or three candidates." gave me pause, imagining a world of unlimited press resources. What other outlets would you recommend to candidates?
Bob's response
Howard Dean initially broke through in 2003 because of the power of the Internet. The press then started paying attention to him.
A strong Grassroots movement on the Internet could propel a candidate who isn't in the first tier into it, but most of that Internet energy right now seems focused on Obama, although Joe Trippi, Howard Dean's former strategist and now Edwards' will deploy every device he can think of to build a stronger Internet movement for his candidate.
When I say press resources are limited, that's partly a product of cost-cutting in News organizations and partly a product of the fact that we have big, multi-candidate fields in both the Republican and Democratic parties - something that hasn't happened in a long time. (In that "long time" - the first Bush had his challengers in 1988, but he was always the front-runner and likely nominee.)
I'd be happy to do it when I'm there.
I'm retired - you don't write a book like "No Excuses" until you are. You have to keep at it, get Ellison to talk to his colleagues for you and win good, high profile races. Good Luck!
What advice would you give someone who is interested in pursuing public office?
Bob advises:
Oh! Go out! Get involved in local politics, build a core group of friends, and when the opportunity comes... Take it. Even if its not the office you've been dreaming of.
It is very hard to enter at anything other than a local level or a state legislative race unless you have independent financial means or a strong base of supporters willing to contribute. But you can make a difference if you get involved and as the last two presidential elections have demonstrated all too painfully, every vote counts. And every extra vote you turn out can really matter.
Bob responds:
No. But, she's sounding more and more populist as the race goes on. This reflects the reality, in my view, that the center of political gravity in both the Democratic party and the country has moved in a progressive direction.
I'm amused when I hear commentators describe a proposal to withdraw from Iraq as quote "Left." unquote when in fact it represents a very clear majority of the country.
His inexperience works both for and against him, but I'd like to see him use that to his benefit.
"Not sure if this has been asked of the guest yet, but what,in his opinion, is the ideal Presidential and Vice-Presidential combo for the Dems in '08?"
Bob laughed and replied:
Any combination of Democrats for me, is better than any combination of the available Republicans. As I said earlier in this online chat, I suspect that the Democratic Nominee will be strongly inclined to choose a running mate who can help carry a big state or a crucial block of electoral votes.
And I think I have to say again: I can't pick favorites because in my retirement I not only wrote, "No Excuses" but in providing analysis for "hardball" MSNBC.
Bob, what advice would you give to Senator Obama regarding balancing a "tough enough" persona with his less hawkish style?
Bob says:
He can't do this in any one debate, or short period of time. The real test for him will come as we move through the fall. I believe he realizes that experience is a threshold question, not a binary one. He will never convince people that he has more experience than Hillary Clinton, but he can convince them that he has enough.
That's what JFK did against Nixon in 1960. '
He wants to position his so-called inexperience as a fresh perspective - which is why he constantly reminds voters that he had the judgment to oppose the Iraq war when Sen. Clinton, Sen. Edwards and others didn't. He is offering fresh if controversial perspectives on foreign policy for which he's been criticized, much as Kennedy was in the late 50's when he said the U.S. should no longer support the French attempt to hold on to their colony in Algeria. With voters, I think, Obama may have the better foreign policy argument both with not using nuclear weapons and the War on Terror, but taking out Osama Bin Laden - even if his positions don't conform to the preferred formulations of Washington insiders.
"This may seem trivial, but I'd love to know the weirdest/craziest/funniest thing you've seen on the campaign trail."
Bob laughed hard before replying:
I've seen a lot of them. I write in "No Excuses" about a moment when local congressman who was supposed to endorse Ted Kennedy in the 1980 NY primary. Jimmy Carter, being far ahead, (even though he would lose by 20 points two days later) the congressman simply couldn't get the words out. Kennedy looked at him and said, "Go ahead and tell the press; they wouldn't tell anyone else." Susan Spencer from CBS, with cameras rolling, told the congressman he was off the record. [Bob laughs] He just couldn't bring himself to say anything more and then Kennedy was offering alternation for consideration. Everyone laughed as Kennedy called the whole thing off as the travel party trudged back to the plane on a grey and rainy day. It was proof, in a line that Kennedy and I both love, that you have to take issues seriously, but never take yourself too seriously.
I think that's a pretty funny story, don't you?
Nora spoke of 'getting out the vote' and giving of finances to the DNC during the last presidential election. She then spoke of her disappointment of Senator Kerry not legally pursuing the Ohio election infractions. Your response blamed the Democratic electorate for beating up the losing candidates post-election. Your point is taken but you did not acknowledge her as an integral part of DNC success (if it is ever to be had). Your response embodies the removed attitude that I hear from the DNC. For example, I did not hear you acknowledge her disappointment, thank her for her work, her care, her contribution and her continued participation by calling you. This obviously struck a cord with me and my experience with the Democratic Party. I know you are offline but in the event you read this, I wanted you to hear my two cents.