« March 2008 | Main | May 2008 »

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)