Lawrence.com

When last we spoke with him, Dan Watkins was guardedly optimistic about Barack Obama's chances to secure the nomination of the Democratic Party. That was way back in November-a political eternity ago-and the freshman senator from Illinois, in a historic and sometimes histrionic primary campaign, is now the presumptive nominee.

Watkins is a senior advisor for the Obama campaign who helped organize the winning Kansas caucus strategy, and is now also a delegate who will throw his weight behind Obama at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. He spoke with us in his Lawrence law office about the bruising battle with Hillary Clinton, plans for taking on John McCain, and the role Kansas may yet play-*cough* Vice President Sebelius-in the election ahead.

lawrence.com: You were predicting Obama would do well in the Kansas caucus and that the "little" states would add up in the delegate count, helping propel him to the nomination-care to gloat?

Watkins: Not really. I think the campaign speaks for itself in that regard. It was a lot of careful planning and understanding of the process-commitment of resources to places that sometimes tend to get ignored, like Kansas.

Was ignoring those places a fatal flaw of the Clinton campaign?

They had a couple of blind spots, and I think that was one of them. Ignoring the caucuses, and later discounting them, certainly caused problems. Senator Clinton likes to act like the only states that count are the ones that she wins.

Did Kansas play more of a crucial role in Obama's success than anyone anticipated?

I think Kansas played a role. Obama took about 31 of the 41 delegates out of Kansas. That being the case, this sort of margin is big. Look at it this way-Kansas offsets the 19 delegates she might get out of Florida.

What do you think of Clinton's argument that only she can win white people in the general election?

I'm not sure that's exactly her argument, but she makes clear that she has done better with certain demographics. That said, Obama does very well with white people. Look at Kansas.

Clinton's RFK assassination comment-do you give her the benefit of the doubt, or does the fact that she's alluded to it several times throughout the campaign give you pause?

It's just one of a string of tasteless comments she's made over the last several months. I'm not sure who she thinks she's communicating with, but she's not that tone deaf. She had said it before, but it didn't come off as such a clunker before. It's clear that she's been waiting around for a meteor to hit him. It hasn't happened. At some point I heard a wag say she and Bill would be out putting spike strips across Pennsylvania Avenue on Barack's way to the White House on inauguration day.

Her argument to super-delegates is, "You never know." Super-delegates might decide the party would be better off with her at the top of the ticket, but if you look at the trend of super-delegates since February 5, it's been staggeringly high for Obama.

In fact, quite a number of her people have defected. I don't see the super-delegates going against the process that's given him the lead up to this point. In fact, I think the party will run stronger with him at the head of the ticket all over the country. He puts states in play that I don't think she can-Virginia, North Carolina, potentially Mississippi, certainly New Mexico and Colorado. To think that only she can do this because only she can win Ohio is poppycock.

After South Dakota and Montana vote, do you think the undying zombie campaign of Hillary Clinton will finally return to the grave?

The Clintons have never quit running. Bill ran from governor to president. Hillary runs for Senate, runs for Senate again, runs for president-they were born to run. They don't know how to not run. They've never figured out how to turn off the machine. At some point, I think it's sinking in to a lot of their supporters and staff that they'll come to terms with the fact that they're not going to win the majority of delegates in Denver. I think that they've done enough damage to their brand that they need to come together with the rest of the party, and I think they will. I don't think there's any doubt we'll have a united front.

Has this protracted primary process-which has gone on for about as long as John McCain has walked the face of the earth-helped or hurt the Democratic Party?

I think it's helped. At times it's seemed awfully long, but it's been a long time since every state has had a primary or caucus and made a difference. I think that the activity from the race has registered millions of new voters for Democrats and energized a whole new group of people-18 to 29 year olds and others who have been disaffected from the process. Overall, it's been very good.

Is Obama actually going to compete for Kansas in the general, or are we kind of like Appalachia with fewer mountains for him?

I believe he will devote resources to all 50 states. Now, it's not realistic to think he could win all 50 states, but the Democratic National Committee's 50 state strategy has made a big difference in Kansas. We have two members of Congress, we've got Jim Slattery running for U.S. Senate who has a real chance against Pat Roberts-so I think the voter registration efforts and the get-out-the-vote coordinated campaigns run in every state will benefit from resources from the Obama campaign and from having him at the top of the ticket. He's not going to win Kentucky, West Virginia or some places where McCain is strong, but that doesn't mean you don't compete. I think there will be more Democrats elected because he's at the top of the ticket.

Would, say-oh, I don't know-Governor Kathleen Sebelius as a vice presidential pick put Kansas more in play?

Bill Clinton has always said that Kathleen is one of the most natural politicians he's ever met, and she's certainly done a lot in support of Barack. In terms of traditional political considerations, Kansas isn't really on the map. It's difficult to know what all will be factored into the choice, but Kathleen is certainly on a short list.

What is Obama's strategy against John McCain?

McCain was certainly the best choice for the Republicans among the people they had running, but he's got limitations. He's certainly not the maverick he was or might have been eight years ago. He was against Bush's tax cuts, now he's for them. He was a champion of campaign finance reform, but he's a little schizophrenic on that issue when it comes to lobbyists. He's admitted he's not that good on economics and his foreign strategy, no matter how you break it down, is more of the same. We can't kill every enemy out there-we're going to have to figure out ways of living and working with the rest of the world.

What would an Obama presidency mean for this country?

It represents a reawakening of our democracy in a bottom-up phenomenon that's very healthy. It's people realizing that they can make a difference and actually going out and doing it. That can translate into support on health care reform and lots of issues that affect the average American. You look back on the past eight years of a Bush presidency and Republican Congress that turned over the economics and regulations of the country to K Street, it went a long way to privatizing war efforts and weakening our position in the world.

You've got to say Obama will represent a fresh, thoughtful turn for this country. One of the biggest things is that phenomenon called the internet, which over the last decade has realized the strength of communication and the connectedness of people, and Obama has really figured out how to use it to empower people to participate in this campaign. I think we're just seeing the tip of iceberg. »