It's Not Just Palin -- It's The Message

There is no question that John McCain's pick of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has changed the dynamic of the 2008 Presidential campaign, moved the current wave of polling to the GOP's favor, and altered the terrain the rest of the election will likely be fought on.

The Obama campaign's ability to recognize the shifting ground, understand that it is real, and adjust accordingly will determine the outcome. And the outcome, for the first time, is in doubt.

The Obama campaign went into the Democratic National Convention believing that the race would be fought out on Washington experience and "more of the same" vs change. This was essentially the same frame of the race the Obama camp had sustained for the first 16 months or so of the nominating fight with New York Senator Hillary Clinton. It worked in the primaries until the Clinton campaign shifted from "35 years of experience" to a much more "woman for change" oriented message in the later stages of the fight and nearly came back to win the nomination.

But the McCain campaign learned something from watching the Democratic primary fight. Throughout the 2008 primary season no matter how many polls said that Hillary Clinton had more experience to be President, no matter how wide her margin over Obama on "ready to be President on day one" it did not matter. Obama and his message of change won.

The Clinton campaign kept seeing in their polling and research that Hillary's experience trumped change and could not understand why she was losing the nomination with her substantial experience advantage.

The hunger for change was that powerful. The hunger for a different kind of post-partisan politics that would shake up Washington was overpowering "experience" and "more of the same."

Now it seems so obvious. It is amazing that so few (including the Obama campaign) saw it coming.

John McCain and his team had to make a decision. Run as the more experienced ticket, and run smack into Barack Obama's trap of change vs. more of the same just as Clinton had. Or pick Sarah Palin and run as the original mavericks that really will shake up Washington.

If you are an advisor to McCain. Faced with that choice, you urge McCain to pick Palin.

But now its the Obama campaign's turn to learn the lesson of the Clinton campaign. The Obama campaign looks at all its polling data and research and in a race between change and four more years of George Bush, change wins big. So it keeps trying to frame the race as four more years of George Bush and more of the same vs change and cannot understand why it isn't pulling away.

Its not just Palin.

The brilliance of the McCain strategy and messaging is that it includes a trap for Obama. To push back on the McCain claim of "country first" and "the original mavericks who will shake up Washington" the Obama campaign's attack of "four more years of George Bush" becomes a problem. In a country that yearns for post-partisan change, the Obama campaign risks sounding too partisan and like more of the same.

It would not surprise me if in one of the debates Obama or Biden uses the "You voted with George Bush and supported him 93% of the time" and its John McCain that retorts "that's the kind of partisan attack the American people are sick of....".

What worked for Obama is now working for McCain. The important lesson for the Obama campaign is that the Clinton campaign kept looking at its research, kept stressing experience and did not adjust until it was too late. The McCain campaign has not only adjusted to the Obama message, they have changed the terrain.

Now the Obama campaign and its allies need to understand that in arguing that John McCain represents a third term of George Bush and the GOP agenda it is the Obama campaign that risks sounding partisan in a country that yearns for the post-partisanship of "country first" and "shaking things up in Washington."

One last point. Hamilton Jordan, who passed away recently at the age of 63, was among a brilliant group of Democrats who plotted the strategy behind Jimmy Carter's campaign for the White House. Carter was the only true insurgent candidate on the Democratic side to make it to the Presidency in the modern era.

Carter was running against Gerald Ford in 1976. The Watergate babies, a large group of reform minded Democrats, had been swept into office in the change election of 1974. Carter who ran as an outsider throughout the primaries looked like he would beat President Ford going away. But Ford who had pardoned Nixon and was a joke machine for Saturday Night Live, came back and nearly won the election holding Carter to just 50.1% of the vote. Ford received 48% after a debate gaff that probably cost him an outright win.

I remember Hamilton Jordan saying something I will never forget. He said the mistake that had cost Carter his big lead, and nearly cost him the election was that after Carter won the nomination the campaign started to listen too much to Washington Democrats and lost much of its outsider thinking that made it different.

The Obama campaign needs to get back to the basics that got it here. Stop listening to the Democrats who are wringing their hands and fighting the last war.

Clinton adjusted too late, McCain may have adjusted in the nick of time. Will Obama's campaign make the right adjustment now? Get back to being an outsider. And get there fast.

McCain is the one running against Washington now. Obama can't just run against Bush. That's my take.

Comments

[PLUMPLUM]

All of you Democrats are sitting on your butts criticizing and armchair quarterbacking. You are claiming to give advice but all you have done is try to dissect the Obama campaign.

The fact that you lack the confidence to get off your haunches and take to the airwaves does not make you better than anti-Obama and don't try to transfer your jitters to those of us who are willing to believe that Obama is trying his best to win. But Democrats as usual trying to make this election usual.

One thing you can't get any of those so-called Republican strategists to say is that they don't think McCain is doing enough to win. They exude confidence even if what they are saying is incredible.

[Bad4Ohio]

Why is it that all the establishment Democrats are so backward-looking? This is exactly the kind of divisive, second-guessing, "listen to the old school" advice that hurts us every time. For every baby-boomer glory story of the good old Watergate days there are 10 examples of how the same tactics failed miserably between 1980 and 2006. The only successful path forward is to dismiss all the wisdom of 1968-crowd and move on.

[Kiernan7]

This is a brilliant article!
I just hope someone in the Obama HQ reads it and thinks about it!

[lifeinfullcolor]

Why doesn't Obama ask the public exactly what has the maverick McCain done in the years that his party was in control and just how is he going to get them to change now? Electing another republican who admits he knows nothing about economics, who's not interested in economics, how is that going to make a difference. So if people are happy with the status quo, vote McCain/Palin.

[pmag88]

I liked your last line the best.

"McCain is the one running against Washington now"

Far as I can tell, McCain IS Washington and he's been running against himself from the time he started 'adjusting' to win the nomination.

[bascombe]

why do the pundits not attribute the numbers to the 'bounce' and move on?

[Herrington]

McBush, the campaign focus, is indeed over. McCain stole the change meme and used Palin as cover for the theft. Me too, I'm for change.

Time for Obama to pick up and refine the attack used by both Clinton and McCain against him, that being that change was amorphous and meaningless without specifics. My very strong bet is that one on one, Obama/Biden will be able to define change a whole lot better than McCain/Palin.

So McCain/Palin, what exactly is this change you want to bring to Washington? Would that be more tax breaks for the rich? Would that be more cooked up wars? Would that be cutting public school funding? Or would it be complaining about the earmarks of Democratic legislators and leaving those of your cronies alone?

Hmm.

[c.w.]

Obama needs to abandon Obama-ism. He needs to do something dramatic to show that he get's it.

Maybe he should fire Axelrod, Plouffe and Gibbs - and hire Joe Trippi, James Carville and Mark Penn. THAT would change the subject!!!

[GOVSUX]

Let me preface my statement by telling you people I'm an Independent, and won't vote for either of these clowns. Point #1) America is not a socialist country, we (for the most part) want Gov. out of our lives, they're not very good at fixing or running things. Point #2) If Gov. mostly Libs DID fix things, why would we need then anymore, so they won't. Point #3) Obamma was trained by straight-up Communists, and this info is starting to seep out. Now, Libs seem to have a superiority complex, you seem to feel if people don't see thing your way they are stupid or hicks, this is also starting to seep out and it's not going over very well with the great (unwashed). I feel a little scared for you guys if you lose, you're becoming un-glued.

[Herrington]

"I feel a little scared for you guys if you lose, you're becoming un-glued"

It would be more appropriate to feel a lot scared for the country.

Government does things really well when in the hands of people to whom government is an avocation. The military works, the schools, infrastructure, the financial markets, social security and medicare all work and still work well despite the neglect and outright destructiveness of the right wing. Democrats did not create the deficit, a deficit which is nothing more than a deffered tax.

Stop and think what life would be like without the things that government does. Police, firemen, prisons, military, infrastructure and schools would all be private undertakings. This would be a banana republic without enlightened government that serves the public.

There is a long standing right wing/libertarian argument that the preamble to the Constitution is moot. On the contrary, the words "provide for the common welfare" conditions the expectations that the Constitution is design out to solve. Government is socialistic when it is not oligarchical. Therein is the problem we face in philosophy between the left and right.

[texasleftist]

Statements like yours are the reason liberals have a superiority complex. Everyone is certainly entitled to his/her opinions, but facts are facts. And yours, GOVSUX, are simply wrong.

But let me ask you a question: why do you fear and hate those who are more educated than you? This country was founded, and our Constitution written, by supremely intelligent, educated men who in all likelihood considered themselves far superior to the "unwashed," as you put it.

Why would you want leaders who are average in every way, who stumble blindly into the most important jobs in the world? What qualities can they possibly bring to the table?

I'm a smart guy, but I don't think I'm capable of running the country. I want my leaders to be smarter and better than me (or the average citizen).

[texasleftist]

Statements like yours are the reason liberals have a superiority complex. Everyone is certainly entitled to his/her opinions, but facts are facts. And yours, GOVSUX, are simply wrong.

But let me ask you a question: why do you fear and hate those who are more educated than you? This country was founded, and our Constitution written, by supremely intelligent, educated men who in all likelihood considered themselves far superior to the "unwashed," as you put it.

Why would you want leaders who are average in every way, who stumble blindly into the most important jobs in the world? What qualities can they possibly bring to the table?

I'm a smart guy, but I don't think I'm capable of running the country. I want my leaders to be smarter and better than me (or the average citizen).

[serena1313]

GOVSUX, socialism?

#1) No candidate is suggesting re-structuring the economy. Iam not sure how you define socialism, but we are nowhere near having collective ownership nor does the government control the production and distribution of goods and services. Businesses are still competitive. Notwithstanding many large corporations are subsidized with our tax dollars despite making billions in profits which is the equivalent to corporate welfare.

#2) It depends on what we expect from government:

1) a stable infrastructure 2) police and fire departments 3) 911 emergency 4) health care 5) consumer and worker protection 6) regulate enterprise [i.e. financial institutions don't go belly-up] 7) provide services for the people 8) keep businesses competitive ... so on and so on... What about the Constitution?

We could privatize everything. But when your house is on fire, unless you pay the fire department, it will burn to the ground. Expect to pay a toll to drive on the highways. How much it will cost to bring a case to court? Who pays the judges? Who will oversee a privatized police force and/or a privatized military? Their services will not be free either. Libraries will charge for the use of their services, too. The list goes on and on ...

What we pay in taxes is nothing compared to what privatized services would cost.

#3) Obama, a communist?

Please use common sense and quit spreading debunked rumours and myths.

You are smarter than that!

[LilyMaskew]

How can any government "fix" things - as if it were a washing machine and we just need a good mechanic? Government isn't a machine in the traditional sense; there are human beings involved. And human beings are not perfect. Even if everyone were pretty good in general, there are those people who want power, money, etc. who will spoil everything in the name of their own greed.

[swoosie1]

After running a campaign against a goliath and winning that one, Obama really is like an incumbant. Simple as that. Nobody is listening to him drone on and on anymore. He is perceived as in effect, having been in public, in your face, office, for 18 months and not really doing anything that is relevant. Right? He continues with the same old Obamaisms. Taking on new chat points that are as tired and overexposed as his campaign. Hillary made the race exciting and interesting. Poking and jabbing at the issues. Obama had the cult behind him to slay the female dragon. Now there is nothing to see here but an overblown campaign, and a guy who is so puffed up with ego and arrogance, that he has to build a faux Greek temple to hold in all the puffery. Well, Poof! Someone poked a hole in that balloon and all the air is gone now. McCain has a new balloon--Palin. She is the antithisis of an Obama. Nothing to do but watch her take the entire Obama campaign apart with home-grown, authentic, boots are made for walkin', moose huntin' American woman guts and brawn. She is Hillary on steroids. Obama cannot win with this woman on board because he cannot make this campaign about change anymore. Nobody is listening and that is his biggest issue.

[Waltb31]

Tell me one relevant way McCain/Palin are going to change Washington for the better. Just one. Stay away from Republican talking points please.
How specifically is his economic policy going to help the crisis we are in?
How is Palin going to help with her "experience" of increasing the deficits of both her city and state?
American women with guts? It takes a lot of guts to hunt wolves and bears from airplanes.
Home grown? She was born in Alaska; Obama was born in Hawaii. Both part of the United States. BTW, McCain was born in Panama. Who's home grown?
It is pointless to point out McCain's experience; he has none. He's just old. Longevity doesn't give one wisdom or judgment; obviously McCain lacks both. Palin was exposed by Gibson.

[FrankFurter]

Man, there sure are a lot of the McCainiacs lobbing trollisms around here lately....Whassup Tools? Redstate run out of red meat?

[PurplePhase]

Is this what our presidential campaigns came down to, smoke and mirrors at the expense of America?

McCain is no hero and no patriot from the way he is trying to lie and cheat his way to the White House.

[hrayovac]

The one word : Pride. Pride on our country, our kids, our cities, our jobs..that's the concept that will defeat McCain.

[spinmas]

Risk sounding, I mean listen you can't move forward without talking about the abuses of the past eight years under republican rule...thats what truth and reconciliation is, ask the black south africans, they have forgiven much but they pointed out the atrocities of the white south africans.

[SekhmetHathor]

What's with the alleged Democrats who spend so much time praising the "brilliance" of John McCain? I'm looking at you, Joe Trippi. Most are denouncing McCain's tactics while you are praising them as brilliant.

Why do some Democrats insist on letting Republicans frame the debate? That's weak! Stop being weak! It's time to fight back and define this election by our terms. Quit expecting to win against the Republicans if your playing by their rulebook.

Frame and define the debate and pick your battleground, don't let the Republicans do it for you otherwise you will always be on the defense while the Republicans are enjoying the home court advantage.

SO what do we have here? Joe Trippi accepting the Republican frame instead of disputing it. I don't know what's wrong with some of you people who believe playing roll over will help us win.

Some people perceive Obama as weak because of his unwillingness to strike back against partisan attacks or play politics by what could be called the "old way".

If Obama does not address attacks against him and his policies then the perception of weakness will continue.

Obama can remain optimistic and still spread a message of good will WHILE warning against the dangers of his opponents.

To allow the Republicans to frame yet another election is political suicide.

[SekhmetHathor]

Don't you get it yet?

The Mac Camp is flying with this "post partisan" banner because it is a way to blunt Obama's attacks. This way the Obama Camp cannot associate Bush and McCain without being called "partisan" by the right. To fall for this trick and refrain from associating McCain and Bush would be a huge mistake, and it's exactly what the Republicans want you to do.

It's mind games and your playing right into it, like you do every time. Not only are the Republicans trying to plant ideas in the minds of American voters, they are also trying to come up with ways to prevent Democrats from attacking them on the issues.

We cannot allow the Republicans to frame this election on their terms. This blog post suggest we just accept the Mac Camps tactics, but I beg to disagree. Democrats need to frame the debate and the issues and put the Mac Camp on the defense. Period. No more Mr. Nice Guy or there will not be a Democrat in the White House in 2008.