I completely agree with this.  Look at how he ran his primary campaign.  They had a plan, and over 18 months, stuck to it, to the T.  And it worked wonders.  I'm ABSOLUTELY SURE that they're running their general election campaign the same way.  Axelrod, et al. mapped out their general election campaign months ago, and I can guarantee you Obama isn't paying one ioda of attention to the polls right now. Contrast that with McCain, who was on the record today or yesterday saying that he's perfectly happy with his campaign right now, that "we're only a couple of points behind in the polls."  You notice Obama hasn't attacked McCain yet, besides saying he's running for Bush's third term (and that's hardly even an attack, especially compared with the lines McCain's been using in recent weeks).  He's staying above the fray.

Well, if this is how it all plays out, then dbhuff should be deemed visionary.  Some of us see the polls differently and are cautious as Judis advises.  Aren't you being a bit naive or idealistic, dbhuff?  You write as though the Obama camp can forsee any problematic scenario between now and November and neutralize it.  A more compelliing case for you to make would include backup plans and damage-control strategies, just in case the road gets bumpy.  I sense that you want to put our minds at ease about things and I appreciate that.  But seeing things your way doesn't put my mind to rest or raise my confidence in Obama winning the White House.  Hard-work, plan Bs, going on the offense, and taking nothing for granted does, on the other hand.

p.s. Europe is not the electorate Obama wants to introduce himself to.  People there won't be casting votes.  Obama's electorate is right here at home.  I trust that is what you meant.

TammyA --  I think you dismiss dbhuff a bit too quickly.  If we learned anything from the primaries -- particularly the Obama campaign's careful planning for the caucuses -- it is that long-term planning is the key to his success.  He doesn't need to win by 10-12 points.  He only needs to be ahead by one (electoral) vote come election day.  It is way too early to tell whether a long term approach along the lines that dbhuff suggests will succeed.  This doesn't mean they have a week-by-week plan until election day, but it does likely mean that they have three or four boxes they want to check by the end of the summer.  

In the meantime, unless Obama falls below 4-5 points consistently in the polls, I don't see why he needs to change anything.  And any hand wringing about him constantly being above the same margin seems incredibly foolish to me.  

Tammy,  it's worth noting that Obama and his campaign have displayed very good political foresight thus far (e.g. organizing well in advance in many states during the primaries while his opponent scrambled to catch up)  I'm not sure what more you'd have to see in order to be convinced that his campaign knows what it's doing (preemptive note to tep: I'm talking about running a successful campaign, not about policy).  The fact is that you can't run a Presidential campaign by switching to plan B every time you have a bad week of polling; running a successful campaign requires taking a longer view of things.

I don't mean switching to plan b after a bad week or on issues that don't play well.  I mean having a dialogue about about alteratives or backup strategies to attacks.  Anyone who wants to argue that the Obama campaign has it all figured out should be able to identify their counter strategies for repub attacks or candidate missteps.  Blinding ourselves to these happening is not helpful.  Today, Obama said he was on a finance committee that helped Isreal re: Iran. He was not.  A bill he sponsored got passed by the committee.  He made this gaffe on the world stage.  Will it matter?  I don't know.  But we gotta stop thinking that nothing will get in this man's way to the white house and that he will breeze by any repub attack/challenge.  We are too close to be that confident.

Incidentally, there is nothing in my first post that suggests I think Obama should take things week by week or ignore a long-term strategy.  You are parsing my words.  I am asking that the general types of protections I suggest be built into the strategy and that we, his supporters, acknowledge and embrace them ourselves.  I'm surprised at just how hard it still is for peeps here at TNR to see these things.  I thought it was a anti-Hillary/primary type of denial but it's living on strong.  

Tammy, I'm sort of confused as to what your point is.  Campaigns don't go around announcing their contingency plans to the public.  The only evidence that a campaign has a plan B comes when they switch to plan B.  So if you aren't saying that Obama should have switched to plan B and didn't, I'm not sure what your concern about a lack of contingency plans is based on.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.  If so, please clarify.

How many likely voters are telling the polltakers what it will take to not vote for Obama because of his race? It is a wild card, one I doubt the most experienced and expert pollsters can quantify now or by election day. Whatever influence race may have in the final count, popular and electoral, it is probably going to surprise a lot of folks. Including us.

After watching Olbermann highlight McCain's attempt to "explain" his "new" timeline for "The Surge", which is apparently really "The Counterinsurgency Operations" which were started well before we sent in additional troops, I think Obama's plan might actually be to just sit back and polish up his general image while McCain continues to hang himself left and right.

"How many likely voters are telling the polltakers what it will take to not vote for Obama because of his race?"

Olbermann had Chuck Todd on tonight, to explain some new survey results. Apparently, in a head-to-head between McCain and Obama, it is a slight (+3) advantage for Obama. However, they also asked about a head-to-head-to-head-to-head and included Barr and Perot; Obama's number stayed at 47% but his lead shot up to +13. Todd's conclusion was that there is a fairly significant "Not Obama" vote out there.

They admitted that they only asked the 4-way question of about half their respondants, which increased the margin of error.

I knew it was out there, but I still find it stunning...

The Republicans seem to have mastered the art of winning presidential elections (7 of 10) even when the odds favor Democrats. For whatever reasons, they mostly win and Democrats are left scratching their heads.

I don't care how it looks now in july or what the polls say, I hope the Obama camp are prepared for a dog-fight because history have shown that the GOP can take any issue, even when it's disadvantageous to them, and hammer the Democrats effectively with it.

What makes me the most nervous is that things look very good so early, almost like it's too good to be true. Did you guys forget how king George bumbled and mispoke his way through the election of 2000 but landed in the White House?  And this was against a supposedly superior, well spoken, policy whiz Al Gore.

Let's cross our fingers and hope that Obama can deliver very effective counter-punches. He'll need to.

"Let's cross our fingers and hope that Obama can deliver very effective counter-punches."

I've been thinking the same thing for months. Fortunately, in my (limited) estimation I think we nominated the candidate best qualified for solid counter-arguments. It remains to be seen if his desire to keep *his* campaign clean will be a net positive with Main Stream Americans.

AlanSP - I agree that Axelrod is a brilliant strategist and that he and Obama have played their hand very well. My point is simply that it's just not a very strong hand. He's a weak candidate. Neither his record nor his character impresses people who are not predisposed in his favor, eg Democrats who believe he's jumping the queue and simply isn't ready for the White House, and older voters of all stripes who value seniority, battle scars, hardwon experience etc.

I salute his team's discipline and, far more important, extraordinary good luck to be able to, yet again, pit Obama against an even weaker candidate (cf Geri's polyamorous hubby, Alan Keyes, Bill Clinton's purple rage performances).

scrubby -  the way McCain's going, Obama won't need to punch at all. He can continue his patented rope-a-dope combination of evasion and BS and let McC punch himself out.

Then again, if Steve Schmidt's as sharp and tough as they say, Obama wil have one helluva fight on his hands. My own $0.02 is that it will come down to the economy, specifically, the price of gas, meat, milk etc. If gas falls below $4/gal., we're in trouble. At current prices, even Obama can pull this one out.

tep, you dismissed Obama's defeat of Hillary in a primary WAY too easily ("Bill Clinton's purple rage performance")  And sheer years of experience in elected office is overrated.  Sometimes you don't need to taste very much of the pie to know it will be a delicious pie.  Just  smelling it can be enough.

Let's see, a Liberal, Black, highly educated (elite) man is winning consistently by 5% over the all-american white war hero for the first time in our country's history and the problem is what?  Where would the posters here be happy, 25%?

Tep, how is McCain not the biggest BS artist in the race with his "the surge was the surge even before it was the surge" line of reasoning.  If you do not like BS, then BHO is the lesser of 2 evils in this case and I still have yet to see you write how BHO could ever satisfy you.  The great thing about our country is that if you don't think the candidate is good you don't have to support them or write incessantly about them.

We could do worse than admit tep is correct, even though he should have chosen a less combustible phrase than "[Obama] He's a weak candidate."  The WSJ/NBC poll does support a claim that at this time Obama has yet to obtain a commitment from all of those who agree with him . So Obama isn't frail or or feeble but he is weaker with a group who should be committed. However, I'll wager that Barack only suffers in the same age demographic(s) that he failed to capture in the primaries.  Obama has probably secured voters under fifty and needs to obtain the same confidence with voters over 60.  That is a challenge because the 60+ group would be skeptical of a 46 year old, or a first term Senator, or an African American. Combine all three and three months is a narrow window to get the job done. A person who has been sold on Obama has already overcome the hurdle of age, race and experience. But it could be dangerous if one does not recognize a huge block of voters are at risk. Obama must demonstrate greater strength exists in the 60+ demo. It doesn't matter where we assign blame (the voter, the opposition or Obama-his team). Obama will win in November with a less than overwhelming turnout from the older demo but if they tip against him he will lose. As a cautious optimist I tend to worry about remaining obstacles to success. Locking down the 60+ vote is a necessary condition for an Obama win and I'll only be secure when I see that group is committed.

Alan.  I don't know how much clearer I can be.  My comments were made to dbhuff and people like you and others here at TNR who seem to think Obama's walk to the presidency is a done deal given his fabulous campaign team.  You guys don't discuss or consider Obama's potential problems and strategies, game plans, narrative shifts etc. (whatever you want to call them) to deal with them.  When anyone else does, they get bashed for being not pro-Obama enough.  That's fine, I suppose.  

Here's the best I can offer at this point: I will vote Democratically unless Obama picks Nunn, Webb or someone else who has been offensive to women, gays, or race and ethnic minorities.  In those cases, I wouldn't vote at all.  I am NOT enthusiastic about supporting Obama.  He is too inexperienced for me.  He's a great speaker and a smart, capable man.  He'll get good advice, but I am uneasy about his ability to make firm decisions and follow through.  He should have waited until he had more Federal experience  Sorry, but that's the best I can muster right now.

Now, if there cannot be room on the TNR blogs for people like me or Tep or any other less-enthusiastic Obama supporter, then I would say you don't have much of a blog.  The best dialogues come from disparate views and the free opportunity to express them.  That's how we learn and move forward.  Call me an idealistic academic, but that's why I bother to type here at all: so I can exchange ideas and learn from people like you.  Don't you want to as well?  Thanks for asking me to clarify.

Michael,

If he is suffering while winning by 5% is not that a good thing.  Also how many of the over 60 crowd are undecideds?  They seem to be a pretty decisive group in forming their opinions.  

Wow, comment of the day, I'm honored.

Actually, the thinking in my post is that Obama has several months to achieve certain specific objectives: intorduce himself to the elctorate that didn't see him in the primary, lose the 'scary black ma' image some have tried to pin on him, make it clear he is comfortable and capable on an international stage, etc. Unless the polls really show a plunge (and today's have turned around some) then they are just noise at this point. But more important, Obama is putting states in play with staff on the ground that were considered Red. VA for instance. I don't believe he's just looking for electoral victory, but also to make his Congress as friendly as possible. He knows there is a historic opportunity to really knock the GOP out, and he's really focused on that. He would be happy winning all the states he has targetted by one point, instead of trying to win some by 20, but especially he wants some Congress folks to win new seats (and be beholden to him!)

The polls matter a lot more now for what they show as strengths or weaknesses, not the actual number. In October, I would expect a fanatical obsession with polls but now, he's got longer term objectives to lay the ground work is all I'm sayin.

And Tammy, I only make this as my opinion, and you are welcome to give me yours. I've worked and continue to work on Obama's campaign, so yes I'm biased, but I also have seen some of what I talk about first hand.

Tammy, you forgot to add what are Obama's potential problems besides the fact that he is black, went to a black church and is married to a black woman, and has only been in the Senate for 4 years. None of these things can be controlled. Can you list in the past month since he has won the nomination where he has stumbled or made any significant mistakes (and pulling obscure mistakes, ie. he was on the subcommittee not the committee, doesn't matter). Contrast him with a flailing McCain (and I really don't know what other word to use)

That is the problem with you and Tep, you are making this completely a referendum on Obama and setting the bar that he has to clear so high it will be impossible for him to meet, meanwhile the bar for McCain is now set at ground level and considering how he is doing I am sure you will get your shovels out to bury it because it looks like he can't even clear it now.

Tammy,

My turn to clarify I suppose.  I don't think that Obama's election is a done deal.  While I think the deck is stacked in his favor, countless things could happen between now and November.  I have opinions about potential problems and how he should deal with them, and I have no objection to discussing them.  I also have opinions about the Phillies and what they should do (e.g. Greg Dobbs should be starting over Pedro Feliz).  In both cases, though, my opinion is of fairly little consequence.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it and I don't think anyone was objecting to talking about it.

Tammy,

I understand that you have general reservations about Obama but wanted to respond to one of them. You say you're "uneasy about [Obama's] ability to make firm decisions and follow through." Does the way that he ran his campaign during the primary offer any reassurance here? He decided on a long-term plan at the outset and he firmly stuck to it even when his big fundraisers put a lot of pressure on him in the fall because things weren't going well. His main opponent, meanwhile, changed messages constantly, reinvented herself several times, and allowed a number of key strategy decisions to be shaped schizophrenically by warring factions within her campaign. It seems to me that Obama proved his ability to make and stick to executive decisions during the primary.

Yes Hemlock.  Thanks and have a good weekend.  You too Alan.

Yes Hemlock.  Thanks and have a good weekend.  You too Alan.