Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Politics of Timing

May 15, 2008 9:26 AM

FROM GUEST-BLOGGER RICK KLEIN, OF ABC'S THE NOTE:

As that remarkable Edwards-Obama endorsement event was going on on live television last night, I got the following e-mail from an Obama person: "You have to admit, no one loses a primary like our campaign."

Indeed. Today's Note focuses on the masterstroke of political timing with which the Obama campaign  rolled out the Edwards endorsement. With one teensy endorsement from a guy who isn't even a superdelegate, we're suddenly not talking about that 41-point drubbing Barack Obama suffered in a swing state on Tuesday. If John Edwards doesn't win Obama a single vote in Kentucky or anywhere else, he's probably done his job for Obama.

In the media weeds a bit, it was even a savvier move than one might realize. Sen. Hillary Clinton had cleared her schedule on Wednesday to do a rare full round of TV interviews for the evening network and cable news -- virtually ensuring full-bore coverage, her face and her argument on television screens nation-wide.

That event in Grand Rapids, Mich., was originally supposed to start at 7 pm ET. The campaign let reporters know that it would instead start at 6:20 pm ET -- conveniently, just in time for the 6:30 pm start of the network news programs. At ABC, "World News" made the rare move of going live to an Obama campaign event for a precious couple of minutes, to capture the shot we'd all been waiting to see since Edwards dropped from the race.

One of the great untold stories of this campaign has been the extent to which the Obama campaign (an experienced bunch, but not as experienced as the Clinton campaign) has mastered the round-the-clock news cycle, often outflanking the Clinton folks.

The Clinton shop has scored plenty of victories, but in these last few weeks, Obama has, to a remarkable extent, kept control of the media message -- and has used endorsements to their fullest extent to make that happen. The Obama campaign always seems to have a few superdelegate endorsements to roll out to blunt a negative storyline. They've displayed remarkable political patience -- the pressure is always on the here and now, yet they have shown restraint in message rollout. (You might recall that John Kerry was ready to endorse Obama before New Hampshire, but the campaign kept him in reserve, to change the storyline after his surprising loss in the Granite State.)

The biggest coup of the Edwards endorsement may have been the timing. Thoughts?

-- Rick Klein

May 15, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (74)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Edwards' endorsement only makes the race even bitter......

Hardcore Hillary supporters will even resist to vote for Dems in Nov...

All SD's should let race complete itself and let the final result speak itself not influenced by any so called "super" politician...

Posted by: True Truth | May 15, 2008 12:10:15 PM


Clearly, there are a lot of racists still in America..

Posted by: Michele C. | May 15, 2008 12:09:47 PM

This was purposely done by Obama and Edwards to try and take the steam awqay from Hilary pouncing Obama in W VA!!
And of cause the 90% of the press that is campaigning for Obama went with it!!


Hey can i have a news broadcast on who I support!! Dont these politicians work for us!! oh thats right the libs are socialists!!

Posted by: spock | May 15, 2008 12:00:24 PM

This talk of the Clintons being about a level playing field is delusional. That $109M that they made was from big business and a lot of it from places like Dubai. The Clintons think they are movie star royalty and have sold out America time and again. Look at NAFTA.

Posted by: disambiguates | May 15, 2008 11:58:15 AM

Do you really care about Democratic Party???

Posted by: True Truth | May 15, 2008 11:57:17 AM

thoughts,
gore most likely will,
this is the "new politics" obama has promised us.
and the american people are the ones who will suffer.

Posted by: jgaw | May 15, 2008 11:56:45 AM

Will Al Gore will endorse after Obama loses Kentucky (and wins Oregon)?

Posted by: thoughts | May 15, 2008 11:47:59 AM

pol jock,

these truly are different times, do you agree?
obama and his groups phil. is not the level the playing field for the middle class.
sen. clinton's is.

i do not think it is a part of his politics or he and those surrounding him have the will to try to level the playing field. kerry, bradley, kennedy,
pelosi, dean and co. they will not offer solutions to help lift people out of poverty, they know how to just make poverty bearable. foodstamps, welfare,etc.
obama is the the one to lift the middle class up. and level the playing field.
we should have gone with sen. clintons plan for healthcare, and especially education.

Posted by: jgaw | May 15, 2008 11:41:37 AM

Champions winn and lose. In a fight, the psychological aspect of it is very important.
HC does not declare lost until it's done, which is normal for a politician of her kind. And all that pressure to knock her down are but attempts to project at the same time the victory of OB.
The tactics of OB is projecting as many images of him as possible, a way of spreading himself all over.
This makes me think of the magician tactics. I don't like that. And producing at every victory of HC a string of Superdelegates endorsements is part of that tactics.
But if Hillary continues, which she does and thanks also to her supporters, the outcome might be something quite interesting. Because the real thing behind the scene, is how is he going to get the support of people who have been alienated so much by his reverend, his elitist approach of voters. Oh the billions he promises to workers, where is he going to produce them? So he has won the media support, pretty easy when all the medical, pharmaceutical lobbies want to prevent HC's health plan and injected much money into his campaign. Are these people going to inject all the money to help workers recover their jobs when they don't even want them to have universal health care plan.
But all of this victory is not very real yet, Let's wait and keep the spirits up. That will be at least the positive thing to experience when all of this is finished.
So talk about timing, that's nothing new. But HC supporters are not impressed by John Edwards. When reality is beyond the apparent surface, there might be some danger like what is underneath of the surface ice, how safe is it?

Posted by: jane | May 15, 2008 11:40:25 AM

sen. clinton has had the deck stacked against her from the start.
many in the msm now-cut their reporting teeth on running down a clinton. that is all they know. and right while the media steals the election for obama,
many of them are gearing up for book deals to show how, who, and why sen. clinton lost.
it matters not to the media people who is in office. but it is the middleclass who will hurt.
i grew up with the far left dem party.
did any of you hear the talk of how much the food stamps are a part of the farm bill.
we are headed back to foodstamps and welfare lines.
the clintons have tried to level the playing field for all poor people.
obama and co. are for helping the poor cont. with the hand out programs. while they get richer and richers.
it was always in the seventies, so many programs and the people managing the programs got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. we are headed for that again.

Posted by: jgaw | May 15, 2008 11:29:13 AM

I will not support obama no matter what.

if obama had won this thing fair and square-i would be with him
but he has not-the msm, the dnc, and black people voting blindly for him have helped him and all he has had to do is make speeches.
if the role of sen. clinton and obama had been reversed i would still feel the same way.
if the roles had been reversed everyone and his brother would be calling foul.

the possible obama presidency is getting off on the wrong foot. i will not support. it is not in my interest to support what has happened. and the way sen. clinton has lost.
if there is no other way to vote for sen. clinton-i will take my chances and vote for mccain.
obama should not be president
obama his not qualified to be president
obama' handlers, msm, and the dnc,
have cheated the american people out of the most qualifed person to run this country.
sen. clinton can talk about the issues one on one with anyone.
obama has more people making excuses for him.
he is no uniter, and he has caused a riff in the black community that will take a long time to heal.

Posted by: jgaw | May 15, 2008 11:22:07 AM

If the Clintons (plural) don't get the nomination, I'm voting for McCain because I feel so deeply about the "issues."

Posted by: x32792 | May 15, 2008 11:19:19 AM

Hillary was a terrible candidate. She had no business in this race. If she was an honorable person she would have gotten out when she knew she had lost - she is whining for a better position in the DNC.

Posted by: disambiguates | May 15, 2008 11:15:56 AM

jy2008,

It's the rule of the pendulum. The more the Bush, McCain and the Republican party try to move the agenda to the far right, the more the people will react with an equal force in the opposite direction.

Posted by: politicjock | May 15, 2008 11:09:59 AM

Don't care if Clinton wants Dems to vote for Obama if he is the candidate. We will either write in for her, stay home, or vote for McCain. By that time we should know how the politics have played out and just who and why Obama, the most worthless candidate in memory, has for supporters. Exon comes to mind already as do several of the big pharma and industrial agriculture businesses.

Posted by: jb bauer | May 15, 2008 11:09:48 AM

politicjock...hehe...really a jock? If Hillary loses, yes I will put her in with that company as well...but sadly. I would feel much better about her if she were run as an Independent.

Posted by: Jim | May 15, 2008 11:09:17 AM

len,

The one critical test Obama has to pass is to win 2,025 delegates. It's just a matter of time at this point.

Posted by: politicjock | May 15, 2008 11:07:18 AM

Why is everyone so excited about John Edwards endorsement? He lost in 2004, and he dropped out early in 2008, are there really that many poor-middle class "white" voters paying any attention to him? I don't see it, but I guess I am not as smart as the news outlets. I am astounded by how many losers in the democratic party are endorsing Obama...Brady..Kerry..Kennedy..etc. Its like watching "dad's" at a little league game, living there dreams thru someone else....really twisted...

Posted by: Jim | May 15, 2008 10:58:38 AM

Edwards truly is a joke. Do we really think he believes Obama is the best candidate when he waited months to endorse? What a loser! In fact, Obama's has all the losers endorsing him: Kerry, McGovern, Bradley, Richardson, and now Edwards. What a bunch of losers!

Posted by: katherine | May 15, 2008 10:58:27 AM

Bob,

YOu are wrong on the "appointment" to the Harvard Law Review. The system had been revamped a few years prior because of the paucity of minorities in their membership. Some students graded on and some were "chosen" for other reasons.

Posted by: countallthevotes | May 15, 2008 10:55:42 AM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS