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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This doesn't even count the total lack of trust embodied in her campaign manager running out of money but being too intimidated to tell her.
www.huffin
Mark Penn team deserved to lose. The sooner he slinks off to his customary clients like Blackwater the better.
I like the analogy. Here's another one: Warfare. Von Clausewitz says that the strategy of warfare is to create a decisive battle on grounds that are favorable to your forces. While avoiding the same where it favors your opponent.
Hillary thought she had this on Super Tuesday and amassed her forces and resources accordingly.
She grossly miscalcualted. Specifically, Obama had divided his forces and avoided Hillary's gambit for a decisve victory in the Big States, suffering only small indecisive losses there. However, he gained big, almost decisive, in other places (which Lo and Behold, also count).
What was significant is that merely by survivng Super Tuesday Obama turned the table and likely won the war.
What was decisive is that Obama had planned to fight on after Feb 5. Moreover he still had supply lines (cash) and high moral (volunteers). Additionally the nesxt 10 fights would be on grounds favorable to him. In military terms, in the the last 10 primaries, Hillary's position has been overrun.
Now she is strategicaly surrounded. She calls it "moving on to Texas." She is really in full retreat. She is trying to live off the land, but her force is simply not designed to do that. She calls Texas a "firewall. It is really a cave with only one entrance. It is a last stand. She wants to fight on, but knows she can not win under the curent ircumstances.
She is like the Confederate Army after Gettysburg (and Vicksburgh). Still has a formidable, still dangerous, but needing a huge paradigm shift. Gen. Lee recommended freeing any slave who would fight for the confederacy. They had built the South, maybe they coud save it? It was a non-starter.
Similarly, Hillary turns to her big donors. They had built her campaign..
We will see how well that works...
But she should realize that ads on the airwaves, need to be combined with boots on the ground in order to be effective. Just ask ask Karen Hughes.
As a grass roots activist in the campaign that has worked many over the years, I have a few observations to add. One, is that despite the money it has raised, it is remarkably frugal. There is budgeting and careful review of where to deploy that money.
More importantly, the campaign is explicitly a grassroots campaign. It involves many, many volunteers at whatever level of involvement they can contribute. I never saw a Clinton precinct worker where I live. Maybe I will see one in Texas, but the Clinton campaign does not involve the people. It regards them as spectators in the process.
Anyone who wants to understand the Obama campaign, would do well to study the Harold Washington campaigns for mayor in Chicago in 1983 and 1987. Keep in mind that after those elections, the people had to work even harder against the powers that be. I predict that our activism will have to increase in order to support the changes the presdent will be seeking.
Just like Dubya brought in so many of his dad's inner circle as his own, Hillary has done the same thing by recycling Bill's core group. Obama is leading because people do want change. We are tired of the war, sick about the economy, and fed up with Bush/Clinton/Bush.
This is very much how it looked in Iowa. Clinton's boxing approach played better in the national press than among local voters.
You make a great analogy.
However I would say that one of the key problems with both the 2000 and 2004 campaigns was that Gore and Kerry tried playing chess against Rove an old-school street brawler. It’s an old saying that you don’t bring a knife to a gun-fight and I would add that you can’t bring a chess board to a UFC fight.
What we are seeing from the Obama campaign is more like aikido where he not only avoids taking damage from the attacks; the harder the attacker attempts to harm him the more they harm themselves. I have seen video footage of Morihei Ueshiba
http://en.
And Mike Tyson would kill himself trying to hurt him if they could face in a ring.
I would disagree. Both Gore and Kerry ran "reactive" campaigns, that left them in defense mode most of the time.
Strategy, complex, long-term strategy wins over brawn every time. Ask any Wall Street maverick.
perhaps this election is a linked referendum on both her AND Bush...it allows many who opposed the war to punish not only Bush but anyone seen to be associated with bringing it to fruition..
early in the process Obama and Edwards painted her as the status qou and it's ironic how Obama used Edwards quote that "confronted with change, the status quo will say anything".
the Clinton camp chose the wrong argument with experience because she is the quasi-incumbent and therefore tied to the failed policies of the past seven years...wi
perhaps Democrats were looking for an alternative to Clinton all along and maybe Obama just happened to be in the right place at the right time "and" with the right message...
her ever changing campaigning slogans are a dead giveaway that they have'nt yet found a way to counter something so simple as "change we can believe in"...
While I liked the article I have to defend the sport of boxing. As it happens, boxing does employ long term strategies. They take place of the course of twelve rounds and are designed to see fruition sometime over the course that 36 minutes (48 if you count the minute rests between rounds). Maybe you've seen in your opponent an inability to detect the left hook, or your opponent is an execellent boxer with great footwork-you better wear his body out with body work (hooks, crosses and uppercuts to the guy, and hit his or her arms to slow those annoying things down. Maybe your opponent his a puncher with a helluva chin. Time to get on your bicycle and keep him from getting set.
So if the Clinton camp was thinking like a boxer they were thinking like amateurs. Or they had forgotten an old boxing maxim.
Styles make fights. Sometimes certain strategies or strengths of a fighter play directly into the hands of their opponent. There isn't much to be done about that.
Muhammed Ali had rough fights with Ken Norton and Joe Frazier. He lost to both men. They did things he always had trouble dealing with even when he beat them. George Foreman destroyed both Frazier and Norton because he did things they always had trouble with. When Ali met Foreman it was the former who beat the latter, again because Ali did things that Foreman (at least the young Foreman) always had trouble with.
That's all.
See Dylan Loewe's Profile
I agree with you there. When I was done writing the article, I felt like maybe I gave boxing a bad name.
But the analogy just worked so well.
you're point is well taken though.
thanks,
dylan
Obama has run one of the best managed campaigns ever. Hillary has run one of the worst.
Hillary would have been out long ago except for her contributions from media conglomerates that portray her as still viable. -(if she ever was)
The problem is, Obama arguably is saying, "I bet if I play chess, I'll be great at chess."
Better than saying, "No point in playing chess, I've already won." Someone missed the entire point of argument in this article.
Oh yeah. You've got a stranglehold on reality.
Very poignant analysis, just as adroit as Axelrod's strategy. As a volunteer for the Obama campaign since the beginning, I have had the pleasure of watching this strategy reveal itself. Every step of the way, Obama's prescient judgment was evidence that he was indeed a man of vision; he is a leader and not a follower. I've had nothing but confidence when I talked with others who were doubtful of that this campaign could succeed. While I had plenty of "hope" I also knew the power of possibility.
Thank you for an analysis that finally explains the unease that I have felt about the Clinton campaign. Like many others, I worried that Clinton could not beat any Republican canditate in the general. I just couldn't put my finger on why in the comprehnesive way that you have.
Great article. Keep them coming.
also be sure to read Josh Green's piece in the Atlantic about the Solis Doyle shakeup. Among other things, he concludes that "for all the emphasis Clinton has placed on executive leadership in this campaign, her own approach is a lot closer to the current president’s than her supporters might like to admit...." http://www
You're exactly right. For all the positive talk about the "Clinton Machine", this things a serious clunker. They're running a 90's style campaign. She might as well show up to her campaign events in a baretta, wearing oakley blades and stussy shirt.
Still, this isn't all about boxing and chess. In the end, I think, Hillary just wasn't that good of a canidate. She didn't seem to connect. There's a great line from "The Simpson's", delivered by Principal Skinner, that goes something like, "have a frank and productive weekend, children". I think of it every time I hear her give a speech.
http://www
Enough said.
See Dylan Loewe's Profile
Easily the best video ever. Who woulda thunk it?
You, I guess.
Dylan
Ugh. Very "male."
Made me long for a woman's point of view.
Here's an interesting look at why Hillary is losing the female vote, bit by bit.
http://www
I was wrong you can bring a chessboard to a boxing match...
It's funny, and at the same time scary, that we follow the one that feeds our hope. Obama's campaign is conceptually on target. It will be interesting, though, to see if any of the Clinton punches will be a KO. Maybe Thursday will be the true test.
If it's of any interest..
P.S. Barack Obama has my own personal permission to plagiarize the word 'HOPE' forever!
Great article!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
