Microtrends vs Macrotrends: Why Obama is Winning

CHICAGO -- Should Barack Obama end up winning his party's nomination, he will give his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver on August 28 -- 45 years to the day Martin Luther King delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

If this moment happens, it will be because of what Sir Martin Sorrell (CEO of the conglomerate WPP, which includes among its many companies Mark Penn's Burson-Marsteller) said. "Mark Penn," he told me the other night in Los Angeles, "literally wrote the book on microtrends, but this election is about a macrotrend."

Penn and the Clintons set about slicing up the electorate into the "small forces behind tomorrow's big changes" that Penn described in his 2007 book Microtrends. They then devised policies and personas to try to appeal to each one -- only to watch dumbfounded as their microtrend sandcastles were washed away by the macrotrend tidal wave of the Obama campaign.

"Hillary Clinton's campaign model," David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist told me this morning in Chicago, "is a very tired Washington model: 'I'll do these things for you.' Barack's model is 'Let's do these things together.' This has been the premise of Barack's politics all his life, going back to his days as a community organizer. He has really lived and breathed it, which is why it comes across so authentically.

"Of course, the time also has to be right for the man and the moment to come together. And, after all the country has been through over the last seven years, the times are definitely right for the message that the only way to get real change is to activate the American people to demand it."

The microtrend vs macrotrend dynamic reminds me of Isaiah Berlin's division of mankind into hedgehogs and foxes. He took his imagery from a line in an ancient Greek poem by Archilochus: "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

According to Berlin, the fox will "pursue many ends, often unrelated and even contradictory, connected, if at all, only in some de facto way." This stands in sharp contrast to the hedgehog's "all embracing...unitary inner vision."

Based on the way the '08 campaign has played out, Democratic voters are showing signs of deep fox fatigue -- sick and tired of foxy triangulating, foxy slicing-and-dicing of the message, and foxy shifts in presentation. Voters want real change -- not daily changes in approach and messaging.

It's too early to sign the death certificate, but should the Clinton campaign end up in need of an epitaph, it won't need to look further than Penn's book. "Small is the new big," he wrote. "Many of the biggest movements in America today are small."

Except when they are very big, and getting bigger by the day. And you've missed them.

Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

Comments

[abearinthewoods]

It is as if Hillary Clinton's message is "All we have to fear is Hope itself."

[BobbyOctave]

Direct hit.

[peaceper]

I like AH's approach to this. This thoroughly explains why the Clinton campaign has been marginally successful. Understanding that Penn was fired from Al Gore's campaign makes one wonder why Hillary would use him.

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

He's winning because he's better. He's better in every single way.

I can't think of one area where Hillary beats him.

And I can't think of a single reason why anyone would vote for Clinton over Obama. His record is better. He hasn't made three neocon votes; 2 for war, and one for cluster bombs. He has more elected experience. His personality is more likable. He is more competent. He has better judgment. He is inspiring and believable. He is honest and principled. He is brilliant and wise. He is courageous and tough. He simply beats her in every way. I guess he is not so experienced at decorating the White House Christmas Tree, or planning the menu for a state dinner. But, in all the ways that count, Obama beats Clinton by a country mile.

[peaceper]

I couldn't have said it better. Well done!

[almoguy]

Thank you for the links...ve­ry informative!!!!!

[cseper]

People:

What is Obama's position on the practice of signing statements ?

How about the Military Commissions Act
How about the Patriot Act
How about the Presidential Directive 51?
How about renditions?
How about the war(s) for empire and oil resource consolidation?
How about warrant less wiretapping and electronic surveillance?

Do you know? Has he said? Don't you want to know?

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

I've already done all my research on Obama, if you check my profile you can see the many links I have supplied in my posts day after day, regarding Obama, his experience and his positions. You can find all his positions on his website:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

I have also researched Clinton in depth, and found her to be disingenuous and lacking in every area. For instance she has not pledged to return constitutional liberties:

http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/politics?type=politicsNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B7tmRCRJt2YFzDsa7MJ1CblL&src=blogBurst_politicsNews&bbPostId=Cz1VeFnrO5fmhCz7sNEgkr6eaqCz3hWJURc5eE5Cz8bp0emPnej3&bbParentWidgetId=B7tmRCRJt2YFzDsa7MJ1CblL

which is the umbrella under which signing statements fall. Obama taught constitutional law and has spoken out against Bush's abuse of the constitution:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics

Obama has said the following on signing statements last year:

"The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation," Obama answered. But, he added: "No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogativ­es."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022401995.html?nav=rss_politics

The rest of the research you'll have to do yourself. I'm not going to do your homework for you, because you are too lazy to do any research yourself.

[MollyS]

Jesus Obama has risen!

His is Lord of Lords! The Alpha and the Omega and the Gamma and the Beta and the Phi and the Chi and the Psi! And Omicron too! And a bag of chips!

He is Lord of Lords! Prince of Princes! Duke of Dukes! Dude of Dudes!

I can't wait to get a ticket to his next concert.

[WingsofCrystal]

Hillary isn't a "Reaganomicss" fan like Obama. He lost me when he said that.

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

He didn't say he was for Reagonomics at all. That's your false interpretation.

[WadeNYC]

But he DIDN'T say that. He said that Reagan was a transformative political figure because he persuaded Democrats to vote for him, even when it was against their economic interests. Are you paying attention? There's nothing remotely similar between Obama's economics and Reaganomics.

[dartagnan]

"He's winning because he's better." Yep, that about says it all, although I don't think I would agree with ALL your extravagant praise. Of course the diehard Hillaryites will never admit that people are choosing Obama because he's better; they prefer to pretend that all Obama supporters are woman-haters, ignorant fools or both.

[robotfog]

I agree with Arianna's assessment.

I am a macro person rather than a micro one. I believe in inclusion and openness of the political process. I have been frustrated for years by the way things are done. I understand that IF it changes, it won't be overnight and it won't be because of one person, but I have faith that someday, even if it's it's only for a brief time, we shall see an inclusive and cooperative world.

I know I'm going to be laughed at, but I am entitled to my feelings.

I guess, as an example, I can summarize the place where I work as very frustrating to the average employee because management doesn't include any of us in on what it plans to do. We tend to hear it right before the task or project is supposed to happen and we're spoken to as if the outcome of the process is inevitable.

Well, the outcome is rarely inevitable. Most times, we don't have the people or the equipment because we who actually do the work had no time to prepare our resources and order anything we're missing. We had no time to tie up unfinished business before going on to this new project. We get no money for these crazy projects. Sometimes they can be done with good planning at little to no cost, but sometimes, we need to at least assess the possible unexpected costs. We need to communicate.

But we're now like, - 'whatever'. we don't expect to accomplish anything serious that we can take pride in because no one bothered to just include other people in the process.

I'm done. Long winded, but hopefully I made some kind of point.

[littleblackcat]

No one is going to laugh, and if they do that is their problem, not yours. I agree that too many companies follow the same pattern. A few bigwigs sit in their plushy offices and come up with grandiose plans to "improve" and then go out and tell those who actually do the work what it is they want AND how to achieve it! Pretty stupid for someone who has NO knowledge of how things GET done. I agree completely that it is past time for inclusion of the people in this nation. Our politicians don't pay attention to what the people want and have zero idea what it is like to live in the real world instead of the cloistered confines of Washington, D.C. You cannot imagine the pain of trying to pay for something when all you do is VOTE yourself more money or turn in a fat "expense reimbursement" sheet. I know all that was supposed to be curtailed but believe me, politicians have their own doublespeak so they can get away without suffering any financial pinches. I am hoping Barack Obama can bring back some of the fire that grew with John Kennedy's wonderful speech, which included the people themselves in the scheme of improving the nation and thereby everyone in it: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!" Then it remains for politicians to LISTEN to the people. Thus far, they haven't done that. We need to pay attention to our own people, educate them, make sure they have health care (prevention is cheaper cure) and give everyone a FAIR chance. This hasn't been done for 40 years. Once capitalism took hold and incentive was crushed, we started on the downhill slide. We need to get our old fire back. And you thought you were long-winded!?!?

[robotfog]

45 years is a long time. I should know - I'm 45 years old.

[Timma]

How long until Clinton supporters admit she needs to begin bowing out gracefully. President's should be leaders. Presidents don't need to be geniuses - They need to inspire, they need to be able to put sentences together that make sense - to get people listening in new ways. Obama has all that and much more. Obama's a world class politician. Good foreign policy demands having a good image to begin with. Clinton has far too much of the past in her bags. How do Clinton supporters think foreign leaders perceive Clinton as president? Tough, experienced? Doubtful. They see her as connect4ed to many unpopular and failed policies of the past twenty years. And now Clinton attacks ala McCain on Obama on Iraq and foreign policy - Of course Clinton move #285 - Make Iraq necessary. She needs Iraq make sense because she voted for war. You want more of the same - guaranteed that's what you'll get with Clinton - More old baby boomers reliving the past. Good god get over it.

Go Obama

[Fundit]

So true. Clinton is digging a hole that we may all be buried in and be as a result, be forced to face four more years of idiotic, fear-based embarrassment. What's wrong with a person who can speak eloquently? After all, wasn't that JFK's true claim to fame? Isn't the POTUS the person we look to for inspiration and motivation? Yes. We don't need an hysterical, egotistic women in the WH. We've all worked for, been mothered by and/or taught by them and know darn good and well what we'd be in for if she were in power. Scary, quite frightening.
http://www.cafepress.com/o_yes_we_can

[robotfog]

we don't know what foreign leaders would think of Clinton. We just saw them go all teary eyed over Bush.

and there is no reason that a woman can not be president, just because someone has issues with their mother.

[alkamm]

As a baby-boomer, I'll hear no slurs! Hillary's supporters are older than me, mostly. Obama's supporters are baby boomers, gen-x, gen-y, and all categories. Enough of us do not want to relive the Clintons' past to vote them out of the process now on.

[WadeNYC]

It's not Hillary's fault -- It's just a matter of bad timing. She decided to run for President when the fault lines happened to be shifting. But Hillary diminishes herself by belittling Obama's candidacy as a mere "movement.­" It is a movement, but it's by no means "mere." E.J. Dione said it well in his Washington Post column -- Once every generation or so, the American electorate purges it's political system by electing a charismatic leader who offers vision over more of the same Washington politics. This is one of those moments in history. Obama noted the trend when before the Nevada caucus he compared this election to 1980, when Reagan was swept into office by won over independents and many Democrats. Hillary and Bill, in knee-jerk, partisan fashion, reacted to Obama's comments by accusing him of praising Reagan (gasp!) and by falsely asserting that Obama was giving Republicans credit for having "all the good ideas" the past few decades. Of course, the Clintons' tortured interpretation of Obama's comments was absurd, but it was also unfortunately typical of the mindless partisanship that has gripped our politics. It's exactly the type of politics that has made Americans feel so disconnected from their government. Americans are not so bitterly divided. Even those who disagreed generally with Reagan's policies, like myself, recognize that he had some remarkable and admirable qualities. Paradoxically, the experience Hillary touts as a long-entrenched Washington insider may actually be her undoing. This is not an "experience" election, it's a "change" election, and Hillary's whining about the public's naivete is not only petty and petulant, it's also insulting. That's too bad, because in truth Hillary's a a remarkable and capable leader. But it's not her time. She needs to focus on preserving her reputation rather than digging in her heels on the wrong side of history.

[robotfog]

I feel the same as you.

[dartagnan]

Reagan was an inspirational figure, although regrettably he inspired people to support a regressive ideology. The progressive left has not produced a comparably inspirational political figure since RFK, who, tragically, never got to realize his promise. I am not sure if Obama is the long-awaited new inspirational figure, but he definitely is the closest we have to one right now -- and we sure as hell need one.

[Bacowall]

This Tuesday primaries, reminds of the battle at Phillipi (Julius Caesar) .
Shakespeare would have loved to pen a play around this contest. He is missing in action, but I will ask: who at the end of day may need to "fall on the sword.?" Enjoying all the political drama. Next read-- Lady MacBeth.
www.vernasmith.blogspot.com

[ObamaEdwards]

OMG, Arianna has nailed this one. Foxes and hedgehogs indeed. Great. Just great.

[roncraw]

Yes we can. What is Obama going to do read letters to the editor to formulate policy. that the only way I know to be heard.

[whimsicalpig]

what a crock. obama says change happens when people demand change

I think we spoke loud and clear for change in 2006 and nothing changed...­.

This is all hot air and pipe dreams he's spinning.

you only get change when it is arranged by the powers that be ( and they will always be) through tough negotiation and dealing in congress.

We needed a biden and a dodd for that

too late.

[shrimptonmcclams]

Agree that Biden and Dodd were excellent candidates - I wish they had somehow managed to make a more persuasive case to Americans.

The lucky thing is that Obama isn't even arguing for a "pipe dream". He's just arguing that people should pay attention to their government. And despite your belief to the contrary, that's exactly what's been happening for me and thousands and thousands of others. Why are people so ready to accept that politics must always appeal to the lowest common denominator? So ready to believe that politics is about driving people away from the polls rather than towards them? So ready to ignore the scare and smear tactics that Senator Clinton is playing, and has played for years now? So ready to buy that Obama isn't tough? He's tough as nails. Just not in the way that Senator Clinton would like you to believe politicians should be. How on earth do you think he's gotten to this point? By laying back and pouring the Kool-Aid? You have no idea how involved AND informed people are becoming.

Haven't you even noticed that, whether intentional, or not, your argument happens to coincide precisely with talking points put out by Senator Clinton, Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson (not to mention Bill Clinton himself)?

[whimsicalpig]

I don't follow clinton or her minions.

I read the business news, the international news, the political and supreme court news. just the facts.

what I see in obama is someone telling a frustrated american just what they want to hear but I see no vehicle for accomplishing these changes.

I want the names of the 61 senators and 180+ representatives that he has convinced to abandon thier K-street special interest sponsors , buck the system and follow him down this brave new path.

short of this, I cannot be sold his bill of goods about change happening by motivating people to demand it.

demand it from whom? their elected national representatives, who owe their allegience ,not to the voters, but to to them that brung them, the MAJOR contributors and fund raisers.

I think his brand of optimism will prove fatal for our nation because he did not take the time to build an infrastucture of national support for his movement..

Had he been serious,he would have taken 8 years to build a strong network of believers in advantageous positions thoughout the land, then launched his campaign.'

I get the idea that his ego drove him forward faster than his intellect should have allowed.

[alkamm]

Such impatience! The Democrats won all the elections, but there weren't enough to give them a fillibuster proof majority. There will be, this time, and Biden and Dodd will be in leadership positions for change in an Obama administration.
Hot air is not such a bad thing if it floats us over McCain and the erstwhile unassailable Republican majority. Spinning hot air, in fact, can cause tornadoes that destroy the kind of shoddy construction Rove and Hughes used to sell us Bush.
And dreams we could use more of.

[zor2008]

I don't know why Hillary's message has not resonated with more people. During the past 12 months, this message has been consistent, uniform, and on target. Let's see, the message began: "vote for me, I'm inevitable­." OK. I'll think about that one. Even the pig farmers in Iowa who do everything but watch the candidates take a shit in the morning weren't totally convinced with Hillary's inevitability. Then, the message quickly morphed into: "vote for me or I'll cry and whine on national TV and reduce my gender to a reflexive inevitabil­ity." A bunch of oatmeal eaters in New Hampshire bought that one, and sent Hillary on to her next challenge in South Carolina, where the candidate's message became slightly more pointed: "vote for me or I'll unleash my inevitably challenged husband on the country again." That line not only failed to 'sell' in South Carolina, but it unleashed a voter backlash that is still lashing back at Mrs. Clinton as her candidacy fails on the ropes of inevitability. Super Tuesday: "Vote me me, I'm only one inevitable enough to take a bite out of the big apple and big enchilada in the same breath." That message stuck, but apples and enchiladas don't produce an electoral majority, thank God. How about: "vote for me because only people in caucus states are inevitably stupid enough to vote for an African American whose middle name is "Hussein." We know what happened to that platitude. Twelve defeats later, the Clinton message is still trying to find a home in the American soul. She's tried, vetted, dirtied up by the Republican attack machine, is experienced, can answer phone calls in the middle of the night, has attracted Jack Nicholson to her fold, has a health plan that leaves nobody out in the cold, and, oh yes, she is ready on day one to lead. Where will she lead us? Which message should we go with? Which of Mrs. Clinton's many skills are the right ones to lead the U.S. back from the brink of global meltdown and economic catastrophe? As a voter, I should be confused. But one thing I know for sure: Mrs. Clinton initiated more public scandals as a First Lady than she could probably hope to start as a President. But that perception of her candidacy is one that resides in failure, incompetence, corruption, and bad leadership. That is why she will fail on Tuesday, and has failed for the past 6 months.

[Henry2008]

Obama is winning for the sole reason that Republicans are voting for him. They want to deny Hillary.

[Danny]

Henry --pray tell -- how do you know that republicans are voting for Obama to deny Hillary. Perhaps they are voting because they want Obama, not Hillary, not McCain. I know a few of those myself.

[alkamm]

They want Hillary so bad they can taste it, but they won't vote for her much in the primaries. The Republicans that are taking the time to change their affiliation and vote for Obama will stay that way because they realize their leaders and Hillary are pretty good partners. Partners in crime. War crime.

[dartagnan]

And your evidence for this rather startling assertion is ... what? In most states, Republicans can't vote in the Democratic primary.

[liveandlearn]

since this does not seem to work in table form, i will try a different format to compare eight senatorial votes, listing the issue, clinton's vote, obama's vote, mccain's vote, and best vote.

confirm condi rice: (C) Y, (O) Y, (M) Y, (B) N

tort reform: (C) N, (O) Y, (M) Y, (B) N

cap credit card interest at 30%: (C) Y, (O) N, (M) N, (B) Y

energy bill: (C) N, (O) Y, (M) N, (B) N

confirm roberts supreme court: (C) N, (O) N, (M) Y, (B) N

confirm alito supreme court: (C) N, (O) N, (M) Y, (B) N

kyl-lieberman on iran: (C) Y, (O) not voting, (M) not voting, (B) N

iraq withdrawal timetable: (C) Y, (O) Y, (M) N, (B) Y

[liveandlearn]

for those who cannot read, OBAMA VOTED TO PREVENT CREDIT CARD RATES FROM BEING CAPPED AT 30%. HELLOOO?

he also voted for nuclear and carbon based energy, as opposed to RENEWABLE.

he is against lawyers helping consumers by suing when they encounter trouble.

does that help you understand his positions?

[pooka]

Obama voted against capping credit card interest rates at 30% because he thought that 30% was too high.

[onlyThis]

No offense but Obama voted against capping credit card rates at 30% because he thought 30% was too high!

[bacaangel]

NBC's Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin report that Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show. The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults," "degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestion­s." Sen. Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is "ongoing" and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court." This is the usual Camp Clinton Hypocrisy Spin.

Hillary and Camp Clinton is the core of what is Wrong with Washington politics, the do and say anything to win no matter what is done to the country and the country's morale. Jim Hightower, Texas columnist states, "Senator Obama represents the bright future that is possible in America when ordinary people begin to take charge. Clinton and McCain certainly have a wealth of Washington experience, but Obama has tapped into our country’s enormous democratic potential, and that’s not merely exciting, it is invaluable to our future.” The reason so many Senators are endorsing Obama is because they know with him, they have a chance of getting unity and not division, truth and not spin.

Hillary Clinton's healhcare plan will be like Mandated Auto Insurance, which will cause more suffering to people than it is worth. And, it will also be helpful to the insurance companies, with enforced penalties and fines. Hillary Clinton Was for Nafta before she was a little bit against it. Hillary Clinton will run the Country like she has run her Campaign, a disaster. Hillary Clinton takes words from her husband and Edwards, but that is not Plagiarism. Hillary will never apologize, she does not believe in that.

She is a consummate Actress from years in the Whitehouse and Scandal. Every thought she issues has been thought out and well planned ahead, she has no Genuine moments. The Real Hillary is the one who, after Barack has won a primary or caucus, comes out on stage and does her stump speech without Congratulating him at all. She does not like to apologize, nor congratulate. She is not truthful or authentic. She should disclose her Income Tax Reports. She voted for the Iraq war because she did not have enough compassion to be concerned about what it would do to the young men and women and their family who had to do the dirty work of Bush. Unfortunately she was more concerned about doing what was best for Hillary, what was so-called Politically Correct at the time.

Before leaving the White house, President Clinton on behalf of Hillary asked the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.) - She says Shame on Obama, I say Shame on Hillary!

[Timma]

Thanks for teh update on the CLinton Campaign contribution fiasco. This is so typically CLinton. Its what happens when you let lawyers run the show. As Shakespeare quoth, "First thing we do, kill all the lawyers." Clinton's famous for this kind of equivocation and its sad the believe that her supporters continue to ignore her political fingerprints on everything she does. Clinton should sitck to what here experience holds - Drafting law and mucking it up with the best of the barristers.

[PioneerKing]

Wow glad someone figured out Hillary's healthcare plan. which is not universal - none of the plans are a true universal plan would be like in Great Britian or Canada. Hillary was on abc's This Week with George Stephanopolis and said that her plan would mandate that everyone buy insurance and if they don't their wages would be garnished.

Hillary likes to talk about how dreadful the No Child Left Behind Act is but she fails to disclose that she voted for the disaster.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00371

As far as NAFTA Hillary's inability to admit when she or Bill are wrong caused her to say "there's nothing wrong with NAFTA, the problem with NAFTA is simply in the way that it's implemente­d." This was said in one of the earlier debates - one of the ones where they were all standing and nearly everyone was still in the race.

Hillary Americans are so over you. Hillary = cathode-ray Obama = blue-ray