« May 2008 | Main | July 2008 »

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 (268) | 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 (1020) | TrackBack (0)