Obama Brand: Truth or Consequences

June 23, 2008 9:58 AM

Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC News Political Contributor

In analyzing communications, connections and acceptance by voters in politics or even consumers in business, the most important element is the "brand".

The brand being what is the core value encapsulated in the candidate through which voters accept or reject what is communicated.

In politics, while mechanics/tactics (advertising, mail, grassroots, etc.) are important, they pale in importance to the brand. And what is crucial in any campaign is protecting at all costs the brand of the candidate –- the authentic core of who the person is, why they are running, and how they would lead.

Obama's brand is new to the political marketplace and it is especially in need of protection by him and his campaign.

What is his brand?

From my perspective it is something that involves a new kind of politics, something that doesn't involve political expediency, something that gets past the spin of Washington, something that involves truth and inspiration in order to get the job done.

That is why I believe Obama and his campaign made a blunder flip flopping on public campaign finance for the general election.

Obama had said for many months he would abide by public financing in the fall and now has decided against doing just that. As Liz Sidoti of Associated Press wrote, "Barack Obama chose winning over his word."

Not a good thing at all for his brand. Is it lethal? Probably not, but it's a mistake.

The more interesting thing is that he didn't need to do this.

The way the system works he could have outraised and vastly outspent McCain in the next 90 days before the Democratic convention because primary dollars are still in place. After the convention, he basically only has eight weeks left and spending a little less than $90 million dollars (which is the public finance amount) effectively is going to be all but impossible.

The urban myth in presidential politics (which media consultants don't like to hear) is that paid advertising is key -- it absolutely isn't!

The most important part of the campaign is not gross rating points, but the narrative in the free press. And Obama could have gone along with public financing and still raised millions of dollars for the DNC which could conduct grassroots organizing on behalf of the entire ticket. And if you look at the polls generic Democrats do much better than Obama himself.

Politically, on behalf of both his brand and the effective conduct of the campaign, it was an error for Obama to choose tactics over truth.

By the way, isn't that exactly why most people in this country are upset at the current administration????

June 23, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (266) | TrackBack (0)

How Obama Won and Clinton Lost

June 03, 2008 6:20 PM

Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC News Political Contributor

A year ago, Hillary Clinton was 30-points ahead over any rival in the Democratic primary. She had outraised everyone at that point by more than a two to one margin. She had the backing of the majority of the Democratic establishment. She had the backing of a popular former President who happened to be her husband. And she lost.

So what happened?

Like any story, the reasons and causes aren't easily reduced to a one paragraph explanation and there were multiple causes for why Clinton lost. I will reflect on just on a few from my perspective.

This is a race that Clinton could have won and should have won, and came very close. And her gender ultimately didn't have much to do with the loss.

The following is my attempt at explaining what happened:

1. She ran for months and months as the candidate of experience and the electorate overwhelmingly wanted change. She wasted many resources and much time arguing and building a case based on experience, and two-thirds of Democratic voters wanted change. She tried turning this around late in the game and Obama owned it at that point.

2. The political environment of this race was much different than 2004 or 2000. In those elections, strength was the key attribute the country was looking for. The country desired more of a father figure. Today, the country is looking for more a a healing presence, someone more nurturing and demonstrating an ability to bring the American family together –- more of a mothering persona. The country wanted a Mom, and Hillary gave them a Dad. She tried to hard to demonstrate her toughness and strength and voters wanted more caretaking and sensitivity.

3. Presidential campaigns are always about understanding voters fears, but then asking them to vote their hopes. Clinton did an unbelievable job speaking to voters fears but she never crossed the bridge to speak to voters hopes. She got stuck in the fear equation and voters needed her to move to hope at some point.

4. The Clinton campaign based their tactical strategy on the idea that this would be a short race and big state victories early would decide it quickly. This primary became a long race and every single caucus or primary mattered. Clinton scrambled to retool the campaign based on a longer effort, in the midst of a heated primary. 

5. Hillary Clinton never separated herself enough from Bill in the course of this race. Voters wanted to see her stand on her own two feet, and understand that on her own she could do the job and it would be her presidency. Every time Bill showed up on the radar it reminded voters that she wasn't on her own.   And couple this with fact that Bill Clinton, while having a great political ear and voice advocating on behalf of himself, seems to not be as adept at advocating on behalf of someone else. 

6. The country is looking for something new and hip and next generational, and this is especially true for voters under 30 (the 9/11 generation). Barack Obama gave voters this, and Hillary didn't. Obama was the Ipod of this election, while Clinton was the Walkman. The Walkman is reliable and easy to use and works great, it just doesn't have the hip factor that an Ipod does.

Obviously, this is only a short list of causes from my own perspective, and equally as important was Obama's candidacy, his message, and his campaign's tactical successes.

But in the end, this race was in Hillary Clinton's hands and it is a race she should have won, no matter her opponent.   

And dealing with a loss where you didn't have to lose, but for your own actions, is heartwrenching. I do feel for the process she must be going through and will go through. Peace to her.

June 3, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (1018) | TrackBack (0)

Hope vs. Fear

May 27, 2008 8:58 AM

Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC News Political Contributor

So, Barack Obama slowly moves towards locking up the nomination and begins to turn his sights on John McCain.

McCain has a big week with denunciation of conservative pastors, release of medical info, and his wife releasing last years taxes while he interviews first three prospects for vice president, and Hillary Clinton seems odd woman out struggling to understand her lost dream and putting her foot in her mouth related to a Kennedy assassination and claiming sexism is responsible for her troubles.

Hmmm, so where do we stand and what can we understand from all this?

As I have mentioned before, Clinton looks like to me that she is tired, slightly desperate and going through the stages of grief from a lost dream. She has been in denial, moving through anger and sadness, but seems stuck in bargaining, while still needing to get to acceptance.

Maybe someone can set up a 12 step program for politicians who have a hard time coming to terms with leaving the stage. First step as always is admitting you have a problem.

I feel for her as her arguments for staying in get more and more convoluted and rather bizarre. Using her logic, no losing candidate should ever drop out. Huckabee should have stayed in because you never know what could happen. Or Biden or Dodd or Edwards or Richardson should have stayed in the race because who knows what might happen?

My guess: acceptance in the stages of grief will come on or around June 3rd.

To me, in a exceptionally simplified explanation, the Democratic primary race boils down to hope vs. fear. All voters have a combination about wanting their leaders to understand and feel their fears (whether it be about the economy, or health care or the war, etc.) but ultimately the majority of voters want to vote their hopes.

If one was to factor out certain demographics in this race (African-Americans supporting Obama; older white women supporting Clinton), then one is left with the following data: voters under 30, voters with college education or higher, and more upper income Democrats by and large support Obama from state to state. This group has reason to be optimistic whether because of youth or opportunity or circumstance, and appeals to hope resonate very strongly.

Contrary to this, Clinton gets voters over 30 who make less than 50k and don't have college education.  And this is true from state to state. It's not an Appalachian problem as some have suggested. It's just that there are many more of these type of voters in those states than in other places. These voters are much less optimistic, have been through many struggles without much showing for it, and pure language of hope doesn't connect well.

Obama is very good on the hope side of the equation, but many of these Clinton voters don't get a sense he understands their fears. And Clinton has been very good on the fear side of the equation, but hasn't connected on the hope part.

As the likely Democratic nominee, Obama is going to have to show he understands these voters fears and struggles, before they are open to a language of hope. This is absolutely imperative as he moves towards the general election against John McCain.

The best candidates in national politics ultimately show they feel and understand voters' fears but then ask them to vote their hopes. Kennedy did this well, Reagan did this well, Clinton did this well, and even President Bush did this well at times.

Obama, if he is going to win, will have to learn from the primaries that while the conclusion is hope, he needs to walk with voters fears for a bit.

May 27, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (459) | TrackBack (0)

End Game: Clinton's Exit Strategy

May 07, 2008 2:02 AM

Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC News Political Contributor

In the aftermath of the Indiana and North Carolina Democratic primaries, I have at least one observation having watched the results and Hillary Clinton's speech.

What do President Bush and Hillary clinton have in common? Neither had an exit strategy ready.

The curtain on the long Clinton Broadway campaign is coming down. It hasn't hit the floor yet, but it's real close.

The math and the money and the message and the momentum are all now basically and inevitably against her. And her remarks after the results became clear show she is unprepared to accept defeat at this point and exit.

The writing is on the wall but it looks like she doesn't want to read it.

It will come but may take some time to accept reality.

Barack Obama cleared the last big hurdle he needed to clear this week. He had to show the superdelegates and the Democratic party that he wasn't damaged goods and could take hits and walk through adversity. That through the last month's struggle he could bounce back, that he could learn and grow as a candidate, and then win after that. 

Obama's convincing win in North Carolina proved that he is ready for primetime and can fight the good fight headed into November. And that is one of the most important lessons in this presidential process.

My prediction is that slowly and assuredly superdelegates will move in his direction in the days ahead and that this will confirm his status as the Democratic nominee.

He now has a larger delegate lead than he had before the string of Clinton victories over the last six weeks. That is an undeniable fact. 

Clinton will come to this conclusion at some point soon. It might take days. It might take a few weeks.  But that truth will be faced. First in her head and then in her heart.

So, hopefully one of her campaign generals is putting together that exit strategy so she can implement it soon.

May 7, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (545) | TrackBack (0)

Wright Way or the Right Way: What Obama Needs to Do Now

April 30, 2008 8:54 AM

Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC News Political Contributor

So, let's focus on Barack Obama and his campaign and see where things stand in aftermath of latest Rev. Wright events.

First, what Rev. Wright has done in last few days is, in my view, one the starkest examples of somebody acting to solely serve his own ego. It obviously didn't help Obama. It didn't help African-American churches, didn't help African-Americans, and certainly wasn't a positive step for race relations in this country. It was all about Wright's own self. 

Second, Obama's statements in last 24 hours of being passionately critical of Wright and saying he was out of step with America were the only choice he had left. It was his only option and he seized it well.

Third, if Obama proceeds to get the nomination, then this period will have been crucial for him as a stepping stone to winning the presidency in November. This issue has been vetted and now the conclusion is at hand. It will not be able to be effectively used in the fall campaign. While it is a negative today, that is a huge plus in the general election for Obama.

So where does Barack go from here?

The biggest damage to him is that he held a brand of being an unconventional candidate in a time America wants a shift from the conduct of politics as usual. But he and his campaign have seemed very conventional of late. 

The Obama camp relied on paid advertising when most of us have known since 2004 that paid political ads are ineffective at best in a presidential race. He has outspent Clinton by more than two to one in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania and lost all three. And his campaign appears to be targeted at base Democratic primary voters exclusively.

My suggestions:

1. Return to the unconventional and unexpected. Take some risks on events and don't worry about Indiana and North Carolina stops. This is a national campaign and Obama needs to have some events or speeches that nationalize the race again. For example, hold a big march in Washington, D.C. Confront McCain in Arizona.   

2. Devote less campaign resources to paid ads and more to press communications and grassroots. He should only use paid ads as a vehicle to feed press stories. Start running the general election campaign now and target ads at McCain.

3. Rebuild his bipartisan credentials. Show he can win and do well bringing a diverse coalition together for November. Forget that this is a primary. Right now it's all about convincing superdelegates, party leaders and activists that he is prepared for the general election.

4. Go back to having fun. Don't look so burdened down by the campaign. Show voters that you enjoy what your doing and that you have the energy and humor they want to see in a candidate. Voters want a candidate who enjoys the trail and the battle, not one that seems beleaguered by it.

Obama is still on track to secure the nomination, but he definitely doesn't want to barely limp over the finish line. 

April 30, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (105) | TrackBack (0)

Lessons from a Tough Campaign

April 14, 2008 6:57 PM

As we head into the debate this week in Pennsylvania -- only a week from the Democratic primary there -- let’s take a look at lessons learned this week in this rough and tumble campaign.

Hillary Clinton was again hounded by questions of her honesty regarding her exaggerated “storytelling” of  her 1996 Bosnia trip and her husband added to the fire by fumbling in his explanation of her misstatements.

Barack Obama got in a bit of hot water of his own over comments at a so-called closed event (more on that later) about “bitter” working class folks and the political causes they support.

So what does all this mean?   My initial take is that neither story was good for the candidate but the two incidents happening so close together are a wash. They both take a hit. Clinton’s hit would have been more damaging if Obama hadn’t hit himself again so soon.

When these kind of things pop up in a campaign you have to look at them in two categories:  first, bad news or mistakes can be just a momentary news cycle distraction that don’t have anything to do with the overall narrative of the race (and thus they quickly pass without much effect) – or, they can add to voters’ perceptions of the candidate that have already developed or are developing.  The latter category is the worst case scenario for the candidate.

Rightly or wrongly, some voters question Hillary’s trustworthiness.  That perception is fairly embedded in her image, and when the Bosnia incident came up, it gave those people evidence of something they already believe. 

For Obama, while being an elitist isn’t embedded yet in his image, it is a developing story line for him and one that his opponents may try to build on.  And the comments he made about small town voters make a case for that emerging image.  I think this storm will likely pass, but if he makes more missteps or misstatements in this vein,  the elitist narrative could become as damaging to him as the truthtelling narrative is for Hillary. It’s not there yet, but more could do it.

In criticizing Obama’s remarks about small town voters, Hillary Clinton drew a line between Obama and Al Gore and John Kerry, who she said lost the last couple of general elections is because of “elitist” attitudes. Is that fair? I don’t think so.

Elitism had some impact on both of those campaigns but it did not lose those elections.  Kerry lost because at a time the country wanted a strong and decisive leader, he gave them a flip-flopper.  And Gore lost the electoral college vote because he was seen as an ultra-cautious politician in his decision making who was part of an administration that wasn’t viewed as honest and didn’t respect the dignity of the office. 

Keep in mind that both of the Democrats that Hillary called elitist won Pennsylvania in the general election in 2000 and 2004,  and won the working class vote in that state!

Finally, if the Obama campaign (or anyone campaign) learned one lesson this week it is this:  there is no such thing as a “closed” event anymore. 

With camera phones, and tiny recording devices, and YouTube, etc, campaigns should open up every event to the press.  It is likely to be reported on   by  citizen journalists anyway!  And with the expectation that every event is open to the press, the candidate will stay disciplined at all events.  I don’t understand why Obama is doing these small fundraising events these anymore since he has such deep pockets in the money he has already raised, and can certainly raise more money at less cost over the internet.

Finally, stay tuned for the ABC News debate this week and watch t see if the candidates further add to these developing or developed perceptions of their personas. That is the importance of this debate in my view.

And one more time, the lesson of the day is this: there are no secrets any more in this age of technology. 

April 14, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (67) | TrackBack (0)

Does Experience Really Matter?

April 08, 2008 7:26 AM

Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC New Political Contributor

At a time when Hillary Clinton falls further and further behind in the delegate count to Barack Obama, and the chances of her winning the Democratic nomination look more and more like drawing to an inside straight, let's take a look at how the general election stacks up.

There has been a ton of discussion on which Democrat is stronger in a race against John McCain so let's take a look at some key things to remember when looking forward to the fall.

Hillary Clinton, obviously, has a broader experience in the rough and tumble world of national politics. She has been through more wars and battles than Obama, and would seem to have an “experience” advantage. But has that always been the best predictor of success??? When looking at recent presidential campaign experience over the last few decades, it seems that candidates with less national “battle” experience seem to have more success in winning elections.

In 2000, Bush had much less experience than Gore on the national level, and won the race. Bill Clinton, in 1992, had much less experience than then President Bush, but ended up winning. Jimmy Carter had basically no national campaign experience in 1976 against then incumbent President Ford who had much more experience, and Carter won.

So with polls bouncing around this year, and experience not the best predictor, what should we look at?

Many Clinton advocates (including Gov. Rendell of Pennsylvania) say that since Clinton is more defined and Obama less defined to the public, that this means she is a stronger candidate in the fall. I would actually argue the exact opposite. I would much prefer to have a candidate with more “maneuvering” room with the general public and be able to run a little freer of set attitudes so the margin for victory or loss is broad.

Hillary Clinton’s margin for defining herself and open running probably is around 8 to 10 percent of the public -- meaning that 90 percent of the public is already either solidly for her or solidly against. And best case for her is those numbers are even. So she is fairly defined, and not in a way that helps her positively in the fall.

Obama, on the other hand, has around 20 to 25 percent of the public who aren’t solidly for or against him. Therefore, he has a greater ability to run free and better determine his future. I would rather have a candidate less defined going into the fall than one defined nearly completely with a large amount negative.

This is why if you gave the McCain campaign folks truth serum, they would say they prefer Clinton to be the Democratic nominee because most of the work has already been done for them. Though the longer this Democratic process goes on in a bitter battle, the Clinton folks are making sure Obama may also be weakened going into the fall.

April 8, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (149) | TrackBack (0)

Electability in November?

March 24, 2008 8:43 AM

Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC News Political Contributor

There has been much discussion in the 2008 presidential campaign especially as it relates to the Democratic nomination process. And there seems to be a concerted effort by the Clinton campaign to point out weakness in the Obama effort related to November electability.

Let's take a look at some insights gleamed from the last 20 years of elections.

One argument being made is that there is a relationship between primary win in states and ability to win those states in the Fall.

For example, the Clinton campaign likes to point out they won Ohio and Obama lost it, and that this bodes badly for his chances of winning that state in the Fall. The Obama campaign points out wins in red states in the primary process trying to prove their strength.

To put it bluntly, there is no relationship between primary success in any given state and November success in those states.

The big reason is that, even with record turnouts in the primaries, only a small segment of the public goes to vote in the nomination process.

It looks like about 30 million people will vote in the Democratic nomination process; in November more than 130 million will vote!!! A much different electorate at stake.

And I can recall in the 2000 presidential campaign, George Bush won Iowa in the primary, then lost it in November. He lost New Hampshire by more than 17 points in the primary, but then carried it in the general election providing his electoral margin of victory.

There are many many similar examples of this in the last 20 years.

Mark Penn, Clinton's strategist this year and a major adviser for former President Clinton in the 1990s, and many other Clinton campaign folks, have stated many times recently that superdelegates (as well as Obama pledged delegates) should take into account electability in November in deciding who should be the nominee, and that Obama is the weakest candidate.

First, nearly every public poll out in last two weeks show Clinton and Obama with equal strength against McCain.

This is the case even after two very bad weeks of press for Obama. My guess is after a few weeks of favorable coverage, Obama will again be at an advantage over Clinton looking towards November.

Second, it is ironic the Clinton folks are raising this argument against Obama about electability.

They might recall that as Bill Clinton was headed towards winning the nomination in 1992, his electability in the fall was seriously in doubt. He was more than 15 points behind President Bush in May and June of that year, and in many polls he was in third place behind Ross Perot and President Bush!!!

And we know the end result of that campaign was Bill Clinton taking the oath of office in January 1993.

When talking about electability we should all keep in mind that each campaign will try to use arguments to show they are stronger, and that today’s polls are only a barometer of today.

Electability, like momentum, can be as fleeting a concept, as the deciding moments every week in this process.

This is still Obama’s race to lose at this point.

March 24, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (336) | TrackBack (0)

Opinion: Carrie Underwood Time

March 17, 2008 9:33 AM

Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC News Political Contributor

Ok, so there has been a ton of discussion on delegates and race and surrogates in the Democratic race, I want to move on to a different topic though it is political since it concerns the now former governor of New York caught in a sex scandal.

When is one of these wives of a high profile politician going to finally no longer be Tammy Wynette and start being Carrie Underwood?

Meaning when are we going to see a political wife take "a Louisville slugger to both headlights" (for those who are unaware of Underwood's "Before He Cheats" song) instead of doing the "Stand By Your Man" routine.

I am speaking only slightly as a metaphor. 

I have an unbelievable amount of compassion for Silda Wall Spitzer. I can only imagine what she is going through and how this has devastated her life and her sense of self. It's absolutely awful what these celebrity or political men (and it is by large men doing this) do to their wives. I don't know the dynamics of her or others relationships, but I do know the kind of hurt this causes, and the profound heart and soul affects this must have. 

And if you look back over the last 25 years, nearly every political wife has done the Tammy Wynette routine. From a President in the 1990s, to governors on both coasts, to U.S. senators; highly successful, beautiful, caring, seemingly independent professional women who have dedicated their lives to their husbands careers, have taken this abuse and then stood by their side in a public setting or press conference. 

And many of these women publicly subscribe to the mantra that "well behaved women rarely make history", but can't seem to give up the society role they somehow have bought into. 

Just one time, I would like one of these or future political wives, to gather their spouse's crap up, throw it on the front lawn, change the locks on the doors as well as their last name, and then hold a press conference of their own and tell the spouse to 'Go **** themselves'. 

Not knowing the dynamics of her family life and being accepting of decisions people make, I would think we would want our daughters to grow up with knowing if someone abuses them (and don't doubt it for a minute this kind of behavior by husbands is a form of abuse), they have the right to not stand by but to stand up. 

A psychologist could probably answer why these political women seem to consistently do the "Stand By Your Man" schtick, but my guess it has a lot to do with marriages to egomaniacs whose view of life is that all others exist to serve their needs and dreams, and in the process the wife vests her own sense of self in their husband.  And when the scandal hits, the wife doesn't have a repository of her own self esteem to tap into. My own lay analysis as I watch this unfold yet tragically time after time.

I don't judge these women at all and I send all my love and prayers to Silda Wall Spitzer. We should give these women and all other women facing this kind of thing our support and encouragement.

And let them know we have reached a point in society that its time for more Carries and less Tammys. 

March 17, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (19) | TrackBack (0)

Race, Religion, Gender Didn't Matter

February 28, 2008 7:30 AM

Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC News contributor

So, it looks like after Tuesday's contests in Ohio and Texas Barack Obama is about to turn from likely to inevitable nominee.

Going into the March 4th primaries the best we can say about where Hillary Clinton stands is that she is 0-11-2 since Super Tuesday. She has lost eleven caucuses and primaries in a row, and at best has finished in a draw on two debates (one could logically make the argument she lost both debates because she didn’t slow Obama’s momentum, but heck, why pour salt on an open wound!)

There has been much speculation recently about why Clinton has ended up in this position, and many pundits are pointing to the difficulty of her being able to run because she is a woman.

I just don't buy into that, and neither do the citizens of this country.

A year ago Clinton was up 30 points in the polls; six months ago she was up 25 points in the polls; a month ago she was up 15 points in the polls; two weeks ago she was slightly ahead; and now she is significantly behind.   

Did the public in the last few days just now discover she is a woman???? Hardly.

When Obama won Iowa the pundits were all shocked that an African American could carry a nearly all white electorate, and then when he didn’t meet expectations in New Hampshire, pundits started saying it was because of some latent racism.

Again, a terrible misread on where voters are.

In the Republican primary, there was constant talk that Mitt Romney’s failure to win was somehow linked to his Mormon religion. And then of course we find out he did better than John McCain among evangelicals at nearly every step of the way. Another misjudgment by the media and pundits of the country’s acceptance of diversity.

At many, many, many places along this campaign the public (and voters specifically) have been well ahead of where many analysts of this election are and ahead of how the campaign has been covered. 

The United States as a country has come to terms with itself over the years and is totally willing to support a woman as President, or an African-American, or someone who is a Mormon.

It's time we stopped using these labels as an excuse of why certain candidates don’t succeed.

If Hillary ends up losing, it will be because she never had a vision or a message that resonated with the majority of voters and that many voters were looking for a change candidate, and not a candidate who held out their Washington experience as crucial.

If Obama, for some unknown reason stumbles, it will be because voters no longer believed that how he conducted his campaign matched his rhetoric of hope and healing or that he made some big gaffes highlighting some preparedness argument.

And Romney lost because voters believed he was not authentic in what he said along the campaign trail on a variety of issues.

So, as one of the folks who covers this race, I think it's time we got past the old excuses and rationale based in a time gone by in the voters minds. I think we would all be better off catching up to where the voters already are in how they judge the leader they want. 

We can learn much by following the "wisdom of crowds" especially as it relates to ancient labels. 

February 28, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (175) | TrackBack (0)