It has been an interesting few weeks watching events unfold as they have during this long wait between Ohio & Texas and the Pennsylvania primary. Clinton seemed to have won the day, despite the fact that Obama actually collected more delegates in Texas than did Hillary. The Clinton campaign's elbows have grown even sharper since, as have the Obama campaign's.There still is a marked difference in approach. Despite what the Clinton campaign believes, that is the advantage Obama has over them at this point, and it doers matter a great deal. The Republican Party learned something in the post- Watergate era of American politics. Character counts. Jimmy Carter won on this score and was also defeated because his outlook was painted as too pessimistic. Mondale was crushed largely because Reagan projected a stronger character than did Fritz.
Dukakis was a PR nightmare, from the ridiculous tank ride to the thoughtful answer to the infamous "your wife was just raped and beaten to death, what would you do?" question to Willie Horton. Gore was painted as essentially a self aggrandizing liar for his claim about 'inventing the internet'. Kerry was defeated because he seemed to weak, he would not/could not defend himself against people lying about his stellar military service, how could he possibly stand up to Al Qaeda.
The Clinton's are the only one's to have survived this line of attack. Why did this stuff work against the others but not the Clintons?
I was all of 10 when Jimmy Carter was defeted by Ronald Reagan. The first stirrings of my awareness of the larger world were beginning at that point. I remember the new flags that were raised each day the hostages were held captive, not to be taken down until they were released from the bondage of their Iranian radicals who had stormed our embassy. These flags becoming tattered and sunbleached as each successive week passed by. This alone created an almost inevitable sense around Ronald Reagan's campaign. Even I seemed to recognize it at the time, despite being all of 10 years of age.
(None of this means that I do not hold Jimmy Carter in some high regard, after all he has been proven correct on many of the issues we are wrestling with today. He is far from perfect. He has done and said a few things that puzzle me, but by and large he has been proven right on things like energy and so on. But being right does not mean you will win the Presidency, sort of the theme of this entry.)
Mondale was obviously a bad choice of candidate. He was Carter's VP for cripes sake, this is just an example of Democrats being stupid. He seemed like a nice enough guy, but, come on, he was second fiddle in a nightmarish Presidency.
Dukakis was doomed the moment he put that helmet on. People will not vote for a President that looks patently ridiculous. It just won't happen in modern politics. People might contend that Bush looks ridiculous with his puffed up, arms held wide, macho swagger bit. I am inclined to agree, since he really is nothing more than a rich kids son who has had everything handed to him his entire life, including the Presidency. However, the democrats failed to point this out, so his tough talk and tough walk sold many people.
Gore lost (by lost, I mean it really was only close enough for the Republicans to steal because) only in part due to the 'I invented the internet' thing. I never liked Gore, nor the Clintons for that matter. I went to work for Bill Bradley because I feared a Gore candidacy would lose and even if he won he would continue to lead us down the wrong path, a path I will outline later, in another entry, because it ties to my dislike of the Clintons as well. He lost because he ran a primary campaign, 'Stay and Fight', in the general election. It was the right message to bring down Bradley, it was failed out of the gate against Bush who ran the classic outsider campaign even though he had direct access to the White house for 12 of the previous 20 years.
Finally, we are familiar with the Kerry defeat. The number one lesson is never, never let an attack just sit out there unresponded to.
So how did the Clinton's break this trend amongst Democratic hopefuls? Easy, they played the character card. Bush I became the effete, elitist, out of touch with the common man guy who did not understand the financial plight of middle America. I remember Bush whining about the fact that some were calling him a wimp. Him a WWII fighter pilot that was shot down over the Pacific, the man who led the CIA in the 70s, the man who seemed to re-establish American military might with the successful Gulf War I was a wimp. Much like Kerry, Bush I did not respond to that very well and was beaten by Clinton.
The Clinton's beat Dole largely on a purely political level. Bill deftly tied every negative surrrounding his presidency, the 95 government shutdown in particular, solidly around the Republican congress' neck. When the Republicans nominated Dole, a member of Congress, it was lights out on that race.
This history is relevant to this race. Clinton's main argument in what is left of her campaign is that she knows this character thing will play huge and that Barack Obama falls into the classic republican trap if nominated. Of course the point she is missing is that, unlike these other Deomcratic candidates, Barack Obama is not running on being right on the issues, his whole campaign is about character and leadership.
David Brook's on Meet the Press sort of acknowledged this this morning when he expressed dissappointment that Obama did not respond the bittergate with a major address on religion and/or class in America as he had handled the Wright scandal with his speech on race. brook's may well be correct, Obama would do better with cross over Republicans and independents, if he took that more expansive approach, problem is he is trying to win a Democrat only primary in Pennsylvania right now, save those major addresses when the nation is really paying attention in the fall. At this point he just needs to stave off the image of being an elitist (he plainly is not an elitist, but image is key).
What is the one common attribute that each of the failing Democratic presidential campaigns share? Their policy issues line up better with what Americans really want than their Republican opponents. People don't really care about that though, send policy makers to Congress, they want leaders in the White House. Leaders must relate at some level to those they aspire to lead. So when the Republicans bring down a Democrat far superior on the issues Democrats are almost always dismayed and bewildered. I had that sensation in 2004, although it was over the shock of the ban a gay marriage being encoded in the Oregon Constitution that left me in that state, not the fact that Kerry lost.
Barack Obama breaks the old mold though. While he is right on the issues, that is not his main case for the White House. His main case is that the way things are done needs to change. Hillary's main argument, on the otherhand, is that she knows how to get policy passed, she has the exprience needed to navigate the system. Obama offers a vision of a better way, Hillary offers up 35 years of experience navigating the broken system.
Those who offer leadership, a real vision for how they would lead will always do better than those who offer the ability to pass various policies. It is the nature of the office and I would bet a normal reaction to what the two types of candidates are offering. the candidate offering their leadership, their vision to the voter inherently seeks to bring people together to get the job done. The policy maker argument fails because voters know that policy makers fundamentally decide who gets what, thus dividing people. it might be true that all Presidents make the policy makers choice everyday, but offering that up as leadership fails the test everytime.
Axelrod and Clintons new campaign strategist (gehrin?) had an exchange that clearly demonstrates that Obama gets that in a way the old Democrats don't. Axelrod spent just a moment explaining Obama's vision for changing the way things are done in Washington while Clinton's man fired back, 'which one of Clinton's policies do not represent change from the current administration?" That is not the point at all. I think this is the seminal reason Hillary's campaign has likely failed. They ran their campaign as if offering all the correct policies on all the correct issues combined with her years of service meant that she was both offering the change people would be looking for (different policies) with the ability to navigate the system.
People across the country, probably for most of our history, view goverment as a somewhat disfunctional system. Running as the candidate knows how to manipulate that system when your opponent is talking about plowing that system under is not a winning proposition.
]]>
Well today Wisconsin voters get to decide whether or not they feel politics as usual will win or not. The Clinton campaign has unleashed a full frontal assault in the old style slash and burn politics. Obama, doing as all politicians seem to do, including Clinton, lifted a few lines from a supporters speech. Obviously not the best idea while under the Clinton microscope.
