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 (538) | 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 (102) | 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 (65) | 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 (147) | 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 (334) | 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 (18) | 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 (173) | TrackBack (0)

Team Clinton Faces Fielder's Choice

February 21, 2008 7:26 AM

What happens when a baseball team near the end of a season goes 0-10 and each is loss is by an ever increasing lopsided margin?

New strategies are employed during the losing streak to try and win -- change the batting order, bring new players in, yell at the team, change up the practice schedule. Many, many things are done to simply try to stop accumulating losses.

But the longer the losing streak goes on, the worse it gets. Teammates begin questioning themselves and each other. Coaches are questioned and berated. Team members begin speaking out to the sports media about whose fault it is. And errors on the field increase as folks lose confidence . It is a seemingly inevitable losing death spiral.

When the losing team finally faces the situation and looks in the mirror in the midst of a streak like this, it is confronted with a key decision.

Either the team decides it still has a chance to get in the playoffs (even if that is improbable) and it looks for the first available opportunity for a victory, and throws the entire kitchen sink at the opposing team.

Or the team decides in this moment of key decision that the playoffs aren’t likely, and it begins to plan for the next season.  In doing this the team rests key players, begins to rebuild positive connection and communication among all players and coaches and the league.  The team finishes the season on a more positive, uplifting note so fans and other teams can remember the team fondly, even if it ultimately didn't fulfill its dream of victory.

After losing overwhelmingly in Hawaii and Wisconsin this week to Barack Obama, this is exactly where Hillary Clinton and her campaign team find themselves.  And the key moment coming up is today’s debate in Austin, Texas (or, possibly, in a few more days, at the Feb 26 debate in Ohio). 

So she and her team have, I believe, two avenues to choose between:

1 -- either they believe the can still salvage the season and make the playoffs, and thus I would see this being reflected in a take-no-prisoners and throw-the-kitchen-sink attacks at Obama in the debates, or

2-- they understand the season is lost, and begin to make nice, and not be perceived as sore losers.  And thus end the season so it can be remembered positively by voters and the Democratic party.

The tone and substance of how Hillary Clinton conducts herself in tonight’s debate will answer which choice the team has made at this time.  (Though Clinton’s inability to congratulate Obama on his Wisconsin victory may tell us which avenue they are headed towards).  If not, the next debate in Ohio may give us a firmer picture -- since tonight's debate in Austin may simply be too soon for the Clinton team to understand the stark reality of the situation.

Play Ball!

February 21, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (187) | TrackBack (0)

Opinion: Obama Will Win Nomination

February 11, 2008 2:30 PM

Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC News Political Contributor

To get right to the point, I believe Barack Obama is going to win the Democratic nomination setting the table for a great race for the fall.

Here's why:

In doing the math on delegates, it looks highly likely that Obama will end up with a pledged delegate lead when all this is finished by June. Even if Hillary wins some big states along the way, Obama will score enough delegates to keep his count moving.

The super delegates (those 796 party folks who can decide on their own who to vote for and change their mind along the way) will be in an unenviable position when all is said and done. They will be getting unbelievable pressure, especially by the Clintons and their establishment backing, to "pledge" to one or the other.

But here is the deal: how does a party who has protested and screamed and yelled about counting all the votes, that the popular vote matters most, that an election was stolen by the Supreme Court in 2000, go against the votes and participation by voters in the Primary process???

The answer is: I think it's impossible for the Democratic party establishment to go against voters in the Democratic primaries and caucuses.

It would be an untenable position for the super delegates to award the nomination to a candidate who is behind in the pledged delegate count. And if that was to happen, then the November election becomes a very difficult prospect in motivating voters who backed Obama in the nomination process. And since he seems to be the only one inspiring new voters to the polls, it is hard to dampen that enthusiasm.

So the bottom line is: Obama wins the plurality of pledged delegates, then the super delegates really have to go along with what the voters want. Otherwise, what kind of authenticity would the Democratic party have if it is not about counting the votes and it becomes the decision of the Democratic version of the Supreme Court???

Obama wins; then faces John McCain in the general election in an epic generational battle between two candidates who are calling the country to a sense of common interest and who are both about bringing the country together across party lines.

Now that would be a campaign worth the price of admission. 

February 11, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (1120) | TrackBack (0)

Watching the Super Tuesday Results

February 05, 2008 10:41 AM

What to look for as you’re watching tonight's returns:

Expect a good night for McCain. And just how good it will be you will be able to tell by watching the returns in  Illinois.  McCain wins that state, then he wins big that night and be all but the nominee.

For the Democrats, if I had to pick one state to watch it would be Missouri.  It’s a mix of urban and rural, black and white, and East and West.   Whoever carries it, you have to feel like the wind is a bit behind their backs. 

And depsite all of that, you can't underestimate the importance of the California results - which might not even be clear by the end of what promises to be a very long night. The trajectory path of both nominations will be determined by the California results.

John McCain’s solid, though not overwhelming, victory in Florida has given him all the lift he could have dreamed of going into Super Tuesday when about half the delegates will be chosen for the Republican nomination. Add to that key victory the very high profile endorsements he picked up last week and the result is some very powerful momentum.

Some argue that Romney’s money can keep him competitive and make things even with McCain.  No way!  If you gave Romney truth serum and asked him to pick money or momentum, he would take momentum in a second.

At this point, McCain’s destiny is back in his hands.  Absent him messing up, falling down, or some new information surfacing, he is likely to win very big today.  Romney can’t do much to change that at this point. Only McCain can torpedo McCain.

For the Democrats, the race is far more unclear.   Hillary still maintains a slight advantage with her established organization and her slight lead in the polls, but Obama is rising fast.  The key question today: is he rising fast enough to catch her?

The Democratic debate in California last week set the critical tone for these final days of the Super Tuesday push.

First, it was simply a historic moment for our country to see an African-American and a woman standing on that stage – know that one of them is about to secure a major party endorsement in this country for the first time ever.   

Second, the Democratic candidates have figured out they need to start playing nice if they want to pull together a coalition headed into the November general election.  It is absolutely crucial for Hillary’s supporters to feel good about Obama, and for Obama’s supporters to be enthusiastic about Hillary. 

Third, this debate demonstrated clearly the difference in approaches of these two candidates.  Hillary shows she is adept at the practice and the process of politics; Obama shows he is versed in the poetry of politics.  And Democratic voters are going to have to figure out which style they want as their nominee. 

Fourth, both candidates did very well, and showed command of the issues and the stage.  Watching this debate, one felt they each had the gravitas and leadership ability to be President, and one could envision either one having the capacity to sit in the Oval Office.   That’s a big hurdle in these elections.  And that fact alone means you have to give Obama the edge.  His weakness coming in among some voters was the question of preparedness to be President.  He has cleared that hurdle.  But whether that will be enough, will be seen – at least in part – tonight.

February 5, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)