People shouldn't be so quick to assume Obama is 'playing chess' and everyone else is 'playing checkers'. Obama's decided to start a media campaign to support the stimulus bill and fight off republican attacks because he and dems feel they are losing the media war.

From the Huffington Post:

Officially, the White House says it is not concerned with how the legislative process has played out. But, in private, party officials have grown acutely frustrated that the Obama White House, Democratic National Committee and congressional Democrats have not mounted a more effective defense of the stimulus package as Republicans seek to tar it as a "spending bill.

It looks like Obama and his team have been flying blind and without a plan since this thing started. It showed.

Part of the problem seems to be purely administrative. The communications shops at many Democratic outlets are currently in transition stages, owing to new administrations or individuals taking over the institutions.

There have been "zero marching orders" to "push back on the negative, push the positive, or undercut Republicans," said one Democratic official. "I assume it's taking some time to organize internally too..."

Obama had decided to mount a more aggressive media campaign to win the spin wars because he feels he's losing them.

Barack Obama is slated to sit down with the five major television news networks tomorrow, a media play that is almost certain to be part of a broader effort to sell his stimulus package to the American public.

The president will conduct interviews in the Oval Office with ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and FOX News on Tuesday afternoon, according to the official White House schedule. The sitdowns come at a delicate time for the president, with concern mounting in Democratic circles that much of the debate over the stimulus has been dominated by the GOP.

Republicans winning Spin war.

But the man who asked that question -- NBC News' Chuck Todd -- seemed unimpressed by the answer. Appearing on MSNBC later that evening, he described private conversations with Democrats who "admit the Republicans have won the spin war here."
"They are calling it a spending bill, not a stimulus bill. It's not being called a jobs bill," he added. "I think that's why the congressional Democrats have been dragged over here tonight, to have another conversation about how to strategize this thing. [Democrats have] lost the core message of what this bill is supposed to be about."

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._ n_163305.html

I'm very happy to hear this. Its pretty close what I suggested should happen in my 'Permanent Campaign' diary that was slammed to high heaven.

During the Clinton and Bush years, people frequently bemoaned the 'permanent campaign', the notion of continuing a full blown campaign even after you've won office, and the coarse atmosphere they claimed it inflicted on Washington. But as we've witnessed the failure of Team Obama and congressional democrats to beat the GOP in the media wars and ultimately to win bi-partisan support and ownership of Obama's stimulus plan shows, its necessary. Maybe because he campaigned on changing the hostile culture in Washington, Obama has neglected to bring his vaunted campaign style to the White House. Whatever the reason, its clearly becoming an issue.

Many of us recall that throughout the 2008 campaign, the Obama campaign was continuously lauded for its preternatural campaign discipline, polished management style and coherent campaign message. But these qualities are glaringly absent from the Obama administration and democratic leadership's strategy in support of the stimulus plan. At times it appears that they don't even have one.  

To be fair the stimulus bill's passing through the house of representatives last week was a success but the democrats large majority in congress pretty much guaranteed it passage. The part that should concern everyone is its failure to get bi-partisan support after Team Obama publicly promised to do just that.  Why make the promise if you obviously didn't have the votes? And why set such an ambitious goal if you're not going to mount a cogent media campaign. It seemed direction less. Not at all like the 2008 campaign.

The failure to continue a full force and well messaged campaign in support of the bill came across as painfully amateur and allowed the GOP and the media to go on a tear--giving them both an ample amount of mud to sling. It also helped the GOP carve out a reason to oppose the bill.

Did Obama's team think his dinners and parties would sufficient to win bi-partisan support? Or did they think the publics support of the bill would be enough to smack down nay sayers and
convince congressional republicans get on board? Or is this apart of Obama trying naively to 'change' Washington through the shear force of his personality?

Most congressional republicans team Obama tried to win over were from overwhelmingly conservative districts and didn't give a hoot if the bill passed and the few moderates obviously felt that the GOP sufficiently damaged the bill that they could withhold their support.

There was clearly a failure to prepare, organize and execute a campaign on the part of the Obama administration and the congressional democrats and its led to embarrassment and an emboldened opposition.

So maybe its times Obama quit trying to reject the old ways of Washington or charm an institution into supporting him. Maybe Obama should take a page from Clinton and Bush and bring back the permanent campaign.

Thoughts?