« July 2008 | Main | September 2008 »

Democratic Convention: Mechanics Good, Message Missing

August 26, 2008 2:50 PM

Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC News Political Contributor

Sitting in Denver at the Democratic Convention and for me it's a bit of a surreal experience attending as member of media.

I have been involved with operations and planning at two Democratic conventions (1988 and 1992) and two Republican conventions (2000 and 2004), and so this is a tad weird. 

For me, the most successful conventions communicate a broad and consistent theme and message that spans across all four nights.

It's like a four act play where each act can have its separate dynamic and actors but the sum total of the entire four acts need to tell a dramatic story.

And the speech by the nominee on Thursday night is by far the most watched and most important part of a convention.

In 2004, John Kerry did not do this well and came out of the convention with little or no bounce and never had a consistent message going into November. 

George W. Bush on the other hand had a consistent thematic that ran through the convention and stayed disciplined throughout the fall campaign.

So, we had the first night of this Democratic Convention and lets try to evaluate the night in the context of a four act play even though we are only 25 percent there.

The Kennedy moment last night was very emotional and very passionate and you could feel the sense in the hall of real drama.  Very good way to begin a convention with a little kick of passion.   

It's funny -- as I was watching the first day of the convention, I thought that this was like a 4x400 relay.  You save your best sprinter for the last leg (Obama) and you put the sprinter with most energy in first leg (Kennedy) and you put your experienced sprinters in leg 2 and 3 (Clintons and Biden). 

Michelle Obama did an unbelievable job –- as good a speech by a potential first lady as I have ever seen or heard.  She connected well with the crowd and I think we will see that she connected well with the mass audience.  And the moment with her kids and Barack was priceless.

But here is a concern I think Democrats should have: I didn't come away from the night with any consistent message or theme. 

It felt like it was multiple messages and points being made, but nothing that someone riding down the elevator could hold onto and communicate to someone in ten seconds.  That's the sign of a good message.

And looking at the three nights to come I get a sense each night has a different message and within each night there appears to be multiple messages, but I don't know what the broad theme is or what exactly the Democrats want this election to by about. 

And, folks, that's a problem.

We could see this fixed by Thursday night and Obama's speech will be key, but after day one I am still struggling to know what the elevator speech is.

August 26, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (96) | TrackBack (0)

VP Choice: Another Meaningful '08 Moment

August 20, 2008 7:08 AM

Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC News Political Contributor

Well, the two major party candidates are about to make the one of the most important decisions they will make in their political lives…and possibly their lives in total.   Who will Obama and McCain pick for their vice-presidential nominee and why did they pick them and what does this tell us about Obama and McCain?

Many analysts and pundits have focused and will focus on the questions of what does the pick do to shore up a weakness or what does it do to highlight a strength or how does this pick affect a certain demography or geography (meaning does it deliver a constituency or a state that was problematic before).  All of these are very valid discussions.

But I would like to focus on three different questions that we should ask or explore when these picks emerge in the days to come:

First,  did Obama and McCain make a decision that followed their gut or heart, or did they make a decision that followed their head.   Many of us never get a chance to pick a vice-president, but we do make important decisions in our lives – relationships, jobs, how we raise our kids, etc.  And from my vantage point the best decisions are those when we make them from our heart and follow our intuition.  Many times our heads get in the way of what we is best for us.  I believe that when we start doing balance sheet analysis of decisions and weighing pros and cons, then we are already away from our heart and we are going to likely make a decision that doesn’t work.  I think the same is true of the Presidential candidates.   As Americans, the most important aspect of a candidate is their gut values, and so the important pick for vice-president should reflect that.  Lets look at these decisions they make and weigh if they made a heart decision or a head decision. 

Second,  following closely from the first, is did they weigh the political affect more importantly than how the relationship will work over the next four years and whether a trust exists.  Did they go for the short term affect and not give proper weight to the functioning of the office of the Presidency in all the manifestations of policy and communication and leadership.   The complicated nature of the 21st century and the needs and desires of all Americans for a proper functioning federal government, I believe demands that the pick be about a partnership and that four years should matter much more than than next sixty days.   Many of us Americans have dysfunction in our own lives and families, and we don’t need institutionalized dysfunction that we actually have to pay for with our taxes!

Thirdly, did the pick represent a person that will appeal to the President’s best instincts or worst instincts.  All of us have seeds of bad or good embedded in us, and a key is surrounding ourselves with people who water the good and weed the bad.   And the  bubble affect of the White House is so dramatic, that a President will spend the vast majority of his time around only a few people.  So whether a vice-president brings out the best and pushes the President to be his best self I believe is key.  We have seen recent Presidents who have brought people into their administrations who have done the exact opposite and it turned out to be disastrous at many different levels.

So, these are the three I would focus on when the picks are made:  1. was it heart or head; 2. was it about a partnership or just politics; 3. does pick appeal to good or bad in person.

And by the way, examining the political ramifications of a pick can be a dicey proposition anyway.  I remember full well in 1988 when Dukakis made what most considered a brilliant political pick (Bentsen) and Bush made what many regarded as a horrible pick (Quayle), who ran away with that election. 

See ya in Denver. 

August 20, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (83) | TrackBack (0)

Michigan Memories & Musings

August 08, 2008 8:47 AM

Opinion by Matthew Dowd, ABC News Political Contributor

So, I am sitting by the shores of Lake Michigan with my feet in the warm sand relaxing, reading and wondering about life and what to make of the latest events in the presidential campaign.

It is great being back here in northern Michigan (I grew up in this swing state), and there is nothing like a sunset over Lake Michigan.

I recall as I sit here that it was on a vacation in northern Michigan that I got hooked on politics and my love of it bloomed 35 years ago at this exact same time of year.

Driving north from Detroit up Interstate 75 in one of those huge station wagons back in 1973 with four brothers and  four sisters (we ended up 11, but two more boys came later in the 1970s), all I was thinking about was watching the Watergate hearings on television.

My brothers and sisters played on the beach while I tried to discuss the latest questioning of White House officials; my siblings thought I was crazy and they probably were right, though more than 80 percent of Americans watched some portion of the famous hearings.

Back to this political environment and a few observations as I listen to the waves come in on the shore:
First, for an election whose dominant value desired by the public is authenticity, it seems to be greatly missing on both sides of the campaign. 

Obama seems to have real difficulty admitting a mistake (didn't we just go through that with another President?) and admitting some of his policy positions might have been wrong.  The public sees politicians admitting a mistake and learning as a sign of strength, not a weakness.    

McCain seems to have lost his way a bit about providing uplifting politics and being one who can change Washington.  The public is OK with hardnosed political tactics, just not ones that don't feel and look authentic to the candidate.

Second, both the presidential candidates through their careers and in their run for president have talked about putting a premium on rebuilding the community we call America.  Bringing people to a common sense of purpose and getting past the nastiness and labels and bickering, and rebuilding the  American campfire so we can all gather around it and help each other solve the problems in our country and the world.   

And what have we heard recently –- name calling by both sides, release of attack ads that don't seem to have much to do with our problems, and attacks on each other related to celebrity and ignorance. 

(Though having Paris or Britney around a campfire would definitely be entertaining –- oops, I digress)

Third, isn't it amazing that we have two Presidents available to each party who won more raw votes in their reelections than any other previous member of either of their parties, and neither campaign wants them close by or around much. 

Bill Clinton won reelection in 1996 with more votes than any other Democrat before him, and George W. Bush won more votes in his reelection in 2004 than any other Republican before him.  And both are being benched by the campaigns. 

One counter intuitive thing to do is for McCain to give a speech congratulating and lauding Clinton for all that he has done in the world on health and poverty, and for Obama to give a similar speech highlighting what Bush has done on AIDS and Africa.  It is by far his best singular achievement and one that no president came close to doing.

Just some musings from Michigan, and the next stop for this column will be on the upcoming conventions.

August 8, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)