Chess. Not Boxing.

In a race about contrasts, there may be none greater than that between the Obama and Clinton campaigns when it comes to political strategy and campaign philosophy. Mark Penn and other Clinton senior advisers have treated the campaign like a boxing match, throwing jabs and combinations without anticipation of their impact in later rounds. David Axelrod and his team of operatives have done quite the opposite. Every tactical decision has been made within a long-term strategic framework, designed with a focus, three, four, sometimes five moves ahead. While Mark Penn was boxing, David Axelrod was playing chess.

The fingerprints of these dueling strategies can be seen in every memo, every sound bite, every speech of this race:

Boxing
From the very beginning, Mark Penn's default position has been to react to political realities in the short term, with little note given to the unforeseen complications that might arise. He based the initial campaign strategy around inevitability, responding to the short term national polling that showed Clinton leading, without asking what impact an Iowa loss could have on such an argument. Without looking many moves ahead, Penn steered the Clinton campaign far off course.

Having found a policy difference between Clinton and Obama on health care -- Clinton's plan, but not Obama's, has a mandate -- he attacked, failing to contemplate the possibility that a mandate that enforces penalties could easily be seen as the more unpopular position. He argued that Hillary was more experienced than Obama without confronting the possibility that, even so, people could see Obama's experience as sufficient. A strategist's best tool is the ability to predict outcomes, an ability that requires analyzing all scenarios, not just the best case.

More recently, the Clinton campaign recognized the need to attack Obama on his credibility, but again responded without a clear view of the consequences: The Clinton campaign hit Obama on using Deval Patrick's words in a speech, but went too far, calling the act "plagiarism." In doing so, the issue was framed in the one way that could let Obama off the hook, with the media asking, "Does that really count as plagiarism?" The consensus, almost universally, was that it did not; in the face of a sure-fire winner -- Obama had copied Patrick's words, after all -- the Clinton campaign failed again, throwing punches without weighing consequences.

Seeing the chance for another jab on trust, Clinton misfired again, joining John McCain to attack Obama on public financing. In doing so, she began actively describing a scenario that had her losing the nomination. And with the Democratic primary electorate eager to have a fundraising advantage for the general, the attack on Obama was unlikely to shake loose the votes for which she was aiming.

Time and again, long-term strategic thinking could have put the Clinton campaign on a far different path. But instead of a chess game, her strategists were boxing.

Chess
For the first eight months of the election cycle, it was Clinton's campaign that was regarded as flawless, a political masterpiece of sorts, built to compete, likely to prevail. Perhaps the media sees politics as a boxing match too. Yet during that play-by-play, which focused unwisely on national polls and inexplicably ignored the closeness of Iowa, it was the Obama campaign that would emerge mistake-free. Sure there had been some subpar debate performances, an occasional misstep on the trail, but from the perspective of a long-term strategy, David Axelrod proved to be a grandmaster.

Axelrod recognized that defeating Hillary Clinton would require not just enormous sums of money, but the ability to sustain a fundraising operation well into the spring of 2008. As early as February 2007, the campaign was already laying the groundwork for an online fundraising juggernaut, fueled almost entirely by small donations. By the time the first quarter of fundraising was reported, Obama had outraised Clinton for the primary. Today, he's nearing one million donors.

Axelrod's plan was fully-funded and based on sound strategy. Applying the lessons of the Kerry campaign four years earlier, the Obama campaign focused all of their attention on the early states, especially Iowa, recognizing that a win there would send Obama skyrocketing in the polls. Applying the lessons of the Dean campaign, Obama strategists recognized that a strong and capable organization was the only way to mobilize voters to a caucus. They hired Paul Tewes, one of only a handful of strategists who has mastered Iowa.

The campaign crafted a message that could withstand the length of the campaign and could showcase their candidate's strength while exploiting Clinton's weaknesses. From the beginning, they were envisioning the end. With each tactical decision, they proved adept at looking many moves ahead, at recognizing points of attack and applying appropriate pressure.

When attacked, Obama's responses have always been couched in the larger rationale for his candidacy. By branding Clinton as the status-quo, he has been able to draw a line between each of her attacks, stamping them out together, with a single, stinging line: "She will do anything to win this election."

In recognition that chess can be a game of attrition, the Obama campaign did significant planning for the post-February 5th contests. Axelrod joked that "apparently [the Clinton campaign has] an 11-month calendar over there that's missing the month of February," an allusion to the Clinton campaign's dismal planning. The Obama team recognized that in a mad-dash for delegates, losses had to be well-contested, and wins had to be inflated. While the Clinton campaign flailed, the Obama campaign was replicating their Iowa template all across the country.

All told, the Obama campaign will be remembered as an extraordinary operation, innovative and compelling, easily the first of its kind. And as voters make their final decisions about whom to support as the nominee, one cannot imagine choosing Mark Penn over David Axelrod as head coach.

After all, this is chess. Not boxing.

Comments

[derekw007]

I like the chess boxing analogy, but hasn't this whole campaign been more like Connect Four vs. Operation?

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

Every game or sport has its own rules and strategies for exploiting them to successful effect. I do not disagree with the ones offered as examples here. However, I would like to add something that I learned coaching youth soccer for ten years and supporting my two sons while they played football in high school.

Regarding soccer, a far more experienced South American friend cautioned me: "You may have prepared your players well and have a good strategy, but the other team always has something to say about what happens once the game begins." He meant: plan and prepare your attack, yes. But also plan for when you will have to change it.

In the case of American football, my sons' coach always said: "Offense wins games, but defense wins championships." The Clinton campaign, so typical of American thinking, thought only in terms of "overwhelming" offense. Yet like the American losses in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan: wildly-flailing offense can exhaust itself against a more patient and long-sighted adversary. Attrition sets in and sunk-costs begin to outweigh any possible return on investment until the Law of Diminishing Returns -- more and more yielding less and less -- bankrupts the enterprise.

I agree that the Obama campaign has shown the Senator and his staff to good advantage. He seems to have won the Democratic Party nomination -- and I assume the Presidency -- the old-fashioned way: He earned it. I fully expect him to wage Peace for our country and restore our sense of shared purpose in reaching to exceed our grasp.

[alkamm]

Having "watched" the Frazier-Ali fight on teletype paper working night reporter shift, I noticed that Ali was losing because Frazier's punches were described as "smashing" even though Ali was peppering him with solid shots. That Ali could hang in and nearly win, sending Frazier to the hospital in the bargain, was a tribute to his intelligence and will.
With Hillary, having watched her performances, I see her as a determined but flawed fighter who is easily exploited by the superior campaigner Barack. We want both fighters in this campaign to fight well, but it's the style and grace as much as anything and Barack has that.
As far as all the tactics, they are being implemented with precision and acuity by a clearly superior political mind. Chess it ain't, but as a form of ritualized violence, chess is best at the intuitive level, and Barack has those good intuitions you want in chess or boxing.
I don't know about any of the inside strategic and tactical decisions, but Barack's implementation is proof that politics can be a sweet science, just as boxing.

[opines]

Another apt sports analogy is the first Clay-Liston fight.

Not a single pundit thought Clay had a chance, but the brash, accomplished younger man was not intimidated.

He knew that if he could survive an early Liston onslaught, the older man had not trained to go the distance.

Unable to put the challenger away in the early rounds...

Both were perfect plans, well executed.

[JakeB]

The Clintons may be boxing but Mr. Axelrod is not playing chess. He's just using battle tested, and unbeaten, Rove/Bush knife work.If Obama wins the nomination he should pay Karl Rove royalties. A college student who was ten in 2000,or Mark Penn,might not remember the language and tactics of Rove/Bush but the astute Mr. Axelrod has.

Here's how it works.First you determine what you need to say/be to win.Then you decide how you would label yourself and hang that frame on your OPPONENT.Bush/Rove called it political judo.For example if you are a constitutionally weak Texas governor and need to exaggerate your record to win you frame your opponent as a serial exaggerator.In 2004 if you have constantly shifted the reasons for the Iraq War you frame your opponent as a flip-flopper.If you decide you will,like any other good Chicago pol,you will do anything to win you tag your opponent as someone who will say and do anything to win.If a pre-existing Republican or corporate media frame is already in place all the better.Both Obama and Bush are reaping the wind of an indisputable Clinton-Gore animus.

When your opponent tries to breaks out of the frame ,or go negative, you say consider the source and mock them.When Ann Richards went after Bush in a debate Bush brushed her off by saying she was practicing "old" politics.(Sound familiar.)After all you are trying to make your opponent less than while promising basicly the same agenda. That's why an initial rise above the fray,or inevitability, strategy fails. Besides looking weak,ala Kerry,you are trapped in the frame your opponent has hung on you.

So the Obama-Rove language continues.To be the decider Barak runs as a D.C. outsider.He runs as the candidate of "bold" leadership while labeling Hillary as the as a practitioner of the "old" Washington based politics as usual.The absentee Obama frames the fights of the nineties, when Gingrich/DeLay tried to strong-arm the country as "divisive" and claims by inference that Hillary will continue the Red/Blue state split.In Rove-speak Obama's expressed wish to be "President of the United States translates to "I'm a uniter, not a divider."

Thus another woman of substance is being thrown to the mat by the same political judo that put another charismatic but untested neophyte into the White House eight miserable years ago.Checkmate,game to Obama.

[Petey]

Your entire theory is predicated on a baseless assumption. For the most part, your comment serves to indicate the level of your own cynicism.

Step one, you say: "First you determine what you need to say/be to win." I understand the kneejerk tendency to assume this is the starting place of all politicians, but it betrays a lack of serious research into Barack Obama. His success is grounded in the fact that his philosophies, policies, and strategies are well integrated -- bound together by deeply held, coherent beliefs that go much deeper than simple politics and the pursuit of power.

If you choose to ignore this (or cynically mock it, as many do), you're probably simply allowing your habitual critical patterns to prevent you from seeing something unfolding that is really quite rare. Too bad for you.

[EdRoberts]

Chess? Boxing? Strategy?

Give it a rest...she was far ahead, until - she got caught on stage in that debate, on the driver's license question...

Hillary blew her chance to be president, right there, all by herself. And, her lack of ability to run a campaign, kept her from ever recovering.

It is not complicated.

[larstein]

This is a comparison of Obama's and Clinton's Washington record.

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress - www.thomas.loc.gov, but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart
Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicen
tennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on
winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team
on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution
Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and
express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford,
firefighters who lost their lives on duty.
16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as
protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.

Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too
substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.

During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he
>sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced:

233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law, **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law, **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law, **The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.

In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

[December7]

Sometimes I really wonder what audience Hilary is targeting. In this age of internet, how do you delete your corporate lawyer experience and drum up all the side shows to a ballooning 35 years of experience without looking like a liar? I would not have a problem with her as an able senator, a competent first lady involved in charitable organizations but also a capable corporate professional lawyer. What I have a problem with is the public deceptions that feed to a narrative of blind ambition at any cost.

[Lyria]

Thanks, Dylan Loewe, for an insightful analogy. My support for Obama is based, in part, on his skillful and thoughtful organization of his campaign. After the Wisconsin primary win, Govenor Doyle of Wisconsin (on MSNBC interview) spoke of how the Obama national campaign "merge(d) almost seamlessly with the efforts that we were making here on the ground in Wisconsin" without the "infighting" or "turf wars" often seen in campaigns. Looking at the biography of Senator Obama, I find it easy to detect just the sort of "experience" that I want in a candidate -- an experience that prepares him for organizing and leading enough people on the ground to function as the involved citizens needed to force the change in Washington for which he calls. Hmmm ... maybe we have to add "chess-playing" to the "latte-drinking" "Birkenstock-wearing" ad hominems?

[todayslies]

great piece: the late Fischer would be proud of this campaign's execution.

[standforpeace]

Great post Dylan. I would add one additional and very important miscalculation. In 2002, Clinton voted to give Bush the authorization to proceed with his war. At the time, many thought that was the best political move (not that real leaders base their votes on whether to go to war on politics); but even that was debatable. There was a a reason that George's daddy didn't follow the Iraqi guard back to Baghdad during the first Gulf War.
Nonetheless, that was a vote that she couldn't take back. But she could have admitted it was a mistake, expressed real regret, and talked about what she had learned about war as an esy fix to problems in the foreign policy arena. Instead, Clinton continued to posture for the Right believing that this is what she needed to do for the general election.

She simply never considered that the anti-war (from the beginning) leftwing of the Democratic party would punish her for this stance by providing early funding to Obama and taking him on as their candidate of change. She never considered that her stance would cost her the voters she needed to win the primaries. Obama and his people had a brilliant charismatic candidate along with a disciplined organization and they ran straight through the early opening she provided.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why the Clintons couldn't read the electorate better than this. Why didn't they understand that what has been driving millions of Americans crazy for the past 5 years is the inability of Bush and his gang of terror to admit their error in invading Iraq? When she refused to admit her own error, she came off sounding just like Bush. And that ultimately will be her downfall. No matter how she tries to paint herself as the true candidate of change, her stubborness on Iraq paints her as just more of the same.

[Dylan Loewe - Huffpost Blogger]

I definitely agree with you on that. There was enough evidence in 2002 to realize the war was a bad idea, but I think her concern then was the inability for a woman to look like a strong commander-in-chief. I think the nice thing about her race, regardless of her win or loss, is that we've seen from poll after poll, that people thing hillary clinton would make a fine commander. it's an important reality.

all that said, i tried to limit the scope of the article to campaign missteps, so I didn't want to include previous policy decisions.

thanks for the comment,
dylan

[mightymouse]

great analysis! But don't forget -> proportional allocation of delegates.

This is what made it possible for Obama to survive super Tuesday intact. And this is what made Hillary's failure to contest in many states fatal. It's inexplicable that they got this wrong.

[Stillman]

This Clinton campaign is "Inside the Beltway" politics as usual. The press didn't see this coming because they're also using that same kind of thinking. This disconnect from reality is why we're destroying our armed forces in Iraq, lost New Orleans to a hurricane, and are bankrupting the country. It's not just the Republicans -- it's the totally corrupted system in Washington. Benjamin Franklin, when asked what kind of a government the Constitutional Convention had given us replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it." The Obama grassroots movement gives us a chance, but only a chance, of taking back our republic.

[Fez]

Barack Obama has surrounded himself with smart people who have made wise decisions and know how to plan, which is what we expect from our government. The argument that he lacks experience is pathetic... apparently he has enough experience to know which people to hire and make plans. Both Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush are, have been, and will be deluded by their fantasies and cannot actually deal with facts on the ground. And frankly, Bush prepared the way for Obama by showing us that criminals and fools could be "elected" to the Presidency and the world still goes on (with much more murder and mayhem). Before Bush, no one would have elever considered voting for someone like Obama. Now, after suffering nearly 8 years of gross incompetence, blinding stupidity, and astounding ignorance, the American public appears to want to forget these people (including the Clintons and the DLC) and move into the 21st century with a whole new leadership. It took Bush's world-class arrogance to pave the way for a new generation of leaders. Maybe we do have something to thank Bush for. But let's put him in the dock anyway, just for the raw entertainment value.

[joebaggadonuts]

I like it so much I have to repeat it. . .

after suffering nearly 8 years of gross incompetence, blinding stupidity, and astounding ignorance, the American public appears to want to forget these people .....

Wow. Nicely put. But misses one important point(which you pick up on later with your refreshing POV that suggests one can be considered still innocent until proven guilty, even as you compare them to criminals and fools).

[DietrichMoody]

More like SCRABBLE vs. MONOPOLY.

Obama is the Scrabble people, using the words to be creative, you can't hide letters. It's hard to cheat when someone is watching, and everyone is watching Obama.

Hillary Clinton is like Monopoly, you can hide the money under your seat, hide a couple of cards, go to jail, get out of jail free, and get rich pretty fast. I never trusted monopoly people.