Hmmm, this is interesting. When I read this I moved immediately into criticism mode, but I want to back up and think on it for a second. I do wish he had said more, but I think he also earns points for being candid. Read it yourselves folks. Lemme know what you think.
UPDATE: I basically agree with what's said below, and think Wolfson gets points for being straight. It feels like what he's saying is they never took Obama seriously. Whenever you see a huge upset, that's mostly the case. My buddy Jelani Cobb explains it this way, "Clinton was Tyson. Obama was Buster Douglass." It's not that Obama was unbeatable. But he came up with a perfect strategy--one that still would have probably failed had the Clinton campain been in top form. Having never thoroughly studied your opposition is like a boxer not adequately training.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I found it hard to believe he'd never watched an Obama speech or spoke to supporters before. That just seems nuts--how can you run a campaign when you don't even know how voters are seeing your opponent? And not just in polling data, but in real words from real people.
But it would explain a lot, no?
I can live with it. He took the requisite amount of time to get over himself and then adopted the company line, like a good trooper. Nice warm and fuzzy touch!
I simply don't believe a word of it.
The claim that Wolfson never actually watched Obama in action seems entirely plausible to me. The general incompetence of the Clinton campaign betrayed a fundamental ignorance of the forces Obama was appealing to and of the techniques he was employing so skillfully.
If the general description of the Clinton effort, as described by Wolfson in his op-ed, is correct, I'm willing to grudgingly cut him some slack for being such an asshole. His seemingly sincere praise for Obama, once he'd gotten over his own disappointment, is unstinting and welcome.
I was surprised he was so honest, especially about the source of the Clinton campaign's disdain for Obama's big events.
If this means no more backhanded slaps at Obama on Fox News, then great.
I remember reading an article (can't remember by whom) describing the situation around Clinton's non-concession speech at MSG, and from the interviews with aides on site, you really got the sense that they were all so caught up in their cocoon they really had no idea how it all appeared to the general viewing public, and were completed unprepared for the backlash.
It does explain a lot as you say, they were simply disconnected, and given all the post-mortems evidently not even listening to each other, much less people outside the campaign.
The first couple lines in his piece go a long way in explaining the failings of the Clinton campaign. Hell, I am not even a democrat and I could see the appeal, but then again, I didn't have a complete Obama embargo going on. This is the same thinking that you saw in 2004 when liberals on the coasts woke up and couldn't believe Kerry lost. They took no time to figure out why people think and vote the way they do.
This probably led the Clinton people to have a one dimensional view of why people supported Obama and explains why so many of their attacks backfired. They ran a republican type campaign in a democratic primary (3AM ad, gun talk, tying Obama to Jesse). That message might work with some independents, but it isn't persuasive with a left leaning audience
Well, he said he hadn't heard an Obama speech in person, which, working for the Hillary campaign, isn't that surprising. And doesn't mean anything to the incompetence of their campaign (they were incompetent in many ohter ways). Does Tony Dungy watch Patriot games in person?
Might be a falsehood, might be truth, doesn't matter now! Howard Wolfson know that he has to go to Canossa and kiss the ring. He wants a future in the new democratic party, and i understand his motives.
Struck me as honest. I think that the Clintonion skepticism/denial of Obama's movement was almost an imperative for them. I mean how do you convince voters that the other guy is all hype if you don't believe it yourself?
Does Tony Dungy watch Patriot games in person?
No, Dungy doesn't see the games in person, but he certainly watches films instead of reading stat sheets. Dungy can't dismiss Tom Brady as just a pretty boy or rock star, like Clinton dismissed Obama early on.
it IS interesting!!! and I find it easy to believe that Wolfson is being completely candid. I was an early supporter of Obama. Not in the "-mania" category; just relieved to hear intelligence and spontaneity in everything he said, always via media--TV, press. But then I saw him in person BY ACCIDENT (at a train station in PA) from a distance of at least 200 ft. The experience --the way he electrifies a crowd-- was so remarkable and totally unexpected that I travelled --driven mainly by skepticism!---to the next train stop, only to watch it happen all over again. I'll add that I consider myself a Socialist Libertarian (complicated!) and hate the two-party system, so I would vote for Obama regardless of his party affiliation. Wolfson's piece demonstrates the blind-sidedness aspect of party affiliation.
Wolfson on Obama's address: " Then came Thursday night at Invesco Field. During the campaign, we scoffed at events like this, mostly because we were not capable of producing them. A cross section of voters waited for hours to enter the stadium and take their seats. As one friend put it, it looked more like an American convention than the convention of any particular political party."
The above remarks nails it, he is very candid. The most critical point " we were not capable of producing ..." I thought this with the results from the N.H. primary, and believed that they may loose; after Bill Clinton's remarks in S.C. to the effect that; "they may loose this thing" I was convinced that they would loose(friends and relatives thought I was nuts). In part I believed it was over due to Obama's concession speech in N.H. He showed his grit, and knew that Clinton's victory was not as what was being called by the MSM. I had no horse in the race but was very annoyed with the Clinton's and/or advisors as they did nothing to counter Obama 's themes that captured the essence of the times. Simply said they knew they were in trouble and did not do anything about it, and ,perhaps, were incapable. For those of you who can, look at Obama's appearance on Tavis Smiley program in Sept. 2007, Obama laid out his campaign very clearly. Hubris seem to have been the problem, Wolfson does merit points on candor; Clinton's role is significant but was diminished by the road she chose......
It's a nice piece, but when he's writing for TNR and on his personal blog only about the positives of Sarah Palin, rather than any Obama-friendly framing, it's clear that he's still the same guy who would say that not counting votes in Michigan and Florida-- votes that his candidate agreed not to count-- was somehow evil, wrong, undemocratic.
In a word: He's a talented flack.
It's a wonderfully written article. You immediately sense that the author thought so, too, and got carried away by his own words. Maybe he even shed a tear, like a novelist when the heroine dies.
In light of this article, it'll be interesting to see how Wolfson carries out his duties over at Fox News. Wolfson was as much of a pit bull type advocate for Clinton as any candidate has ever had. If he's a true convert, that should be relected in his perfomance at Fox, even to the point of him being dropped for not towing the conservative/anti-Obama line there.
The Tyson/Douglas analogy is lazy thinking IMO. He was in a blood rage. Douglas's mother died the night before the fight. He had no fear that night. He fought to prove to the one person in his life whom gave him unconditional love that she was right. Douglas never won another fight. But that night he proved to his mom he was a contender.
Obama was never the bottom of the barrel let's make some money fighter. He believed in organization and management from day one. It led to his win in the Illinois Senate and to every win since then.
If Obama is any fighter it is Sugar Ray Leonard. The fight the first one against Hitman Hearns. It was 14 primaries in a row in after a series of back and forth body blows(Iowa and New Hampshire). If the Referee wasn't the Democratic party the fight would have been called.
I suppose the subtitle is nice "How I learned to stop worrying and love Obama."
It is not a glowing endorsement, but hhe seems to be trying as the Clintons are.
No, Dungy doesn't see the games in person, but he certainly watches films instead of reading stat sheets.
Um, he said he did watch them on TV, some times with more attention than other times
Do y'all remember how in Exodus it says, several times, "Pharoah hardened his heart..."?
Y'all are reminding me of that. Not everyone has your experiences. You've never had something you thought was just a fad end up important?