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
Obama has been good at playing Clinton, but moreso in playing the media. The media wants simple facts without depth, so Obama's campaign has worked at being perceived as a winner. In many of these primaries and caucuses the results have been nearly dead even, but Obama gets reported as a winner, and that helps build momentum. His only failure in this regard was Nevada, where Obama got 1 more delegate than Clinton, yet the media calls Clinton the winner.
"In many of these primaries and caucuses the results have been nearly dead even, but Obama gets reported as a winner, and that helps build momentum."
Well, let's see Obama's margins of victory since Super Tuesday:
Louisiana: +21
Nebraska: +36
Washington: +37
Maine: +19
Virgin Islands: +82
DC: +51
Maryland: +23
Virginia: +29
Wisconsin: +17
Hawaii: +52
Nearly dead even? Because the margins of victory were so huge, not even the delegate counts were close. Nice attempt at spin, but no thanks, I'm not buying.
I agree -- the strategic heartbeat of this campaign --and its patient, confident execution, will be studied for a hundred years. As a former campaign manager, I know a masterpiece when I see it, and this thing just impresses more and more, day after day. One of its most interesting aspects is the amazing forbearance shown by the candidate in resisting temptations -- the daily temptations to tell the voters what they should be thinking about, as opposed to hanging back while they figure it out themselves. (David Axelrod must have a serious backache from lugging around that heavy bag of still-dry powder!) Their forbearance evidences a rare kind of confidence and courage. But Obama and his people understood this moment so much better than the Clintons; this moment when the electorate is finally ready to think for itself.
Since you're a former campaign manager, allow me to run a theory past you (one that will surely brand me a kool-aid drinker).
I wonder if there was more awareness than we might imagine in the Obama campaign about the "plagiarism" issue. Obviously, Barack was not so stupid as to be hoping to "get away with" using the same rhetorical techniques that his buddy had used recently. So was it just a blunder? I'm not so sure. Because the end result perfectly fits into one of his big-picture principles: transparency.
Intentional or not, the incident wound up shining light on how the theatre of politics functions. As much as he is relying upon a wave of inspired voters, he has more long-term interest in reminding us that the movement is not all about him, that he's just a person -- an appropriate, talented vehicle for the change that we're all a part of.
If the story did anything to dampen an irrational exuberance that can't be sustained (and that also irritates critics) I think that's a positive thing. Yes, I think Obama may be brilliant enough that he might have actually thought this through in some way.
(BTW, I totally agree with your assessment that one of the Obama campaign's greatest strengths has been its ability to resist temptation. Another example of clear-headed, long-sighted thinking. Look how well he's been able to exploit his speech to automakers on emissions, not to mention his speech to blacks about homophobia, or his speech to Christian fundamentalists about HIV and global poverty...
See Dylan Loewe's Profile
well said.
Good analysis (like many others over the past couple of weeks), but why doesn't anyone just point out the obvious? Obama is simply a better candidate with a better, and consistent, message...
See Dylan Loewe's Profile
amen.
It has been amazing to watch the operatic blunders of the Clinton campaign. I have been horrified by her most recent short-sighted strategy. By attempting to count the delegates she "won" in MI and FL, Sen Clinton has further eroded her electability in the general. If she did somehow pull off getting the nomination using these tactics, John and his Straight Talk Express, however tarnished, would have a field day attacking her integrity and rightly so. My eleven year-old son and his friends would have no trouble at all recognizing that you can't change the rules to "win".
Her short-sightedness is at the base of her vote for GWB's, "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002". I knew what it meant when she supported the use of force, it's right in the name of the resolution. Millions of people were in the street protesting. I knew it was a bogus and badly planned war and I'm no military genius, I'm a soccer mom. It is disingenuous and insulting when she acts like she had no idea what would happen. I would be able to have some respect for her stance on the war if she were able to admit that it was a mistake. That would show courage, and the capacity to take responsibility, but so far, she can't seems to own up to her part.
As a woman, I would love to see a female commander-in-chief, but Senator Clinton lacks the long-term thinking and flexibility required for the job. Also, I think because of her tactics, and President Clinton's behavior in this campaign, she has no chance in the general election. If we nominate the wrong woman and she loses, it will be a hundred years before we will nominate another woman.
One of the best articles on this subject so far. Kudos.
See Dylan Loewe's Profile
thank you :)
Hits the nail on the head -- and what we've been seeing is one of my greatest worries regarding a Clinton presidency.
Scattershot tactics seem to be the norm, lending credence to the idea that her campaign (and, we can imagine, her administration) is not grounded in any strategies
There's little sense of a solid, principled leader at the center of the campaign. And you can't blame it on her staff. Amidst all the politicos, she should be the one to set a consistent tone, agenda, message, etc. But it's as if she can never decide which advisor to trust.
great analysis. People who don't think Obama can run the country, take a look at this campaign. He knows how to put the right people in place and set the strategic plan. That is 90% of an executive's job duties (I know, cause I am an executive)
Hey you all... check this out from Texas --
http://www
1000s of Texas Students Walk 7.3 miles to Vote because the county government "didnt' have the money" to put polling locations near their university, unlike previous years.
...hasn't someone, somewhere mentioned how INexperienced barack is?.... BWAHAHAHAH
In the physical world, boxing beats chess. And in the real world, very few of us solve only a small percentage of our problems by slugging them.
Your analysis strikes me as right on, and it encourages the view I've taken all along, that in the arena of ideas, chess beats boxing. One of the most positive things about the Obama campaign is that asks us to behave like civilized adults.
a great example of chess beats boxing is mixed martial arts. sure, boxing skills help, but fighters need a full arsenal of tactics, as well as a complete understanding of their opponents strengths, weaknesses, and skills - and a plan to deal with each accordingly.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
