After reading most of the rationalizations, especially the ones that compare Obama's one or two flip-flops (FISA) with McCain's many, I have to ask, Are Obama supporters ready to admit that their guy is a politcian and not a messiah?
See, I know what I'm getting with McCain. Granted, he's not who I really want to vote for, but that person isn't in the race. But McCain can't disillusion me. Obama will reach a point where he can only disillusion people, because he can't keep his inflated promises, no matter how much money he's given. No one could keep those promises, let alone someone with very little experience. In other words, he will reach his peak and only be able to go down from there. Considering the intensity of the love affair a lot of people are having with him, this is going to hurt. What is a shame is that it will hurt the dire situation we have in this country most of all.
Obama Brand: Truth or Consequences
In analyzing communications, connections and acceptance by voters in politics or even consumers in business, the most important element is the "brand".
The brand being what is the core value encapsulated in the candidate through which voters accept or reject what is communicated.
In politics, while mechanics/tactics (advertising, mail, grassroots, etc.) are important, they pale in importance to the brand. And what is crucial in any campaign is protecting at all costs the brand of the candidate -- the authentic core of who the person is, why they are running, and how they would lead.
Obama's brand is new to the political marketplace and it is especially in need of protection by him and his campaign.
What is his brand?
From my perspective it is something that involves a new kind of politics, something that doesn't involve political expediency, something that gets past the spin of Washington, something that involves truth and inspiration in order to get the job done.
That is why I believe Obama and his campaign made a blunder flip flopping on public campaign finance for the general election.
Obama had said for many months he would abide by public financing in the fall and now has decided against doing just that. As Liz Sidoti of Associated Press wrote, "Barack Obama chose winning over his word."
Not a good thing at all for his brand. Is it lethal? Probably not, but it's a mistake.
The more interesting thing is that he didn't need to do this.
The way the system works he could have outraised and vastly outspent McCain in the next 90 days before the Democratic convention because primary dollars are still in place. After the convention, he basically only has eight weeks left and spending a little less than $90 million dollars (which is the public finance amount) effectively is going to be all but impossible.
The urban myth in presidential politics (which media consultants don't like to hear) is that paid advertising is key -- it absolutely isn't!
The most important part of the campaign is not gross rating points, but the narrative in the free press. And Obama could have gone along with public financing and still raised millions of dollars for the DNC which could conduct grassroots organizing on behalf of the entire ticket. And if you look at the polls generic Democrats do much better than Obama himself.
Politically, on behalf of both his brand and the effective conduct of the campaign, it was an error for Obama to choose tactics over truth.
By the way, isn't that exactly why most people in this country are upset at the current administration????
Originally Posted by ABC News
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
Wow! Great point! What is such a shame is that everyone is still chugging Kool-Aid. This is just one of the things that should be setting off alarms for Obama supporters and all they can do is rationalize. At the very least people should stop sending him their hard-earned money.
Wow! It would be a great point if he actually pledged to accept public campaign financing! What a shame, and a sham that some people will cling to the most insignificant and factually innaccurate points to try and demonize one of the best candidates we've had in decades!
All we can do is look at the facts and dismiss the lies. Continue living in a fantasy world and you will continue to be frustrated.
justfrustrated,
love, loVe, LOVE the Obama kool-aid!
We love sending him our hard-earned money! Just simply love it. Better to give it to him, someone we trust and believe in than...
My advice to you frustrated is to put your energy into your candidate and stop obssessing over Obama. I'm just sayin'...
This is why this so-called CHANGE that Obama supporters keep chanting will never happen. I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't promise to take public financing (even the fierce Obama supporter Chris Matthews admitted that he went back on his word). However he broke his promise by not sitting down with McCain (who has a lot of flaws, but believes deeply in campaign finance reform).
The only way CHANGE will ever happen, if we as the voting public hold ALL politician accountable even if we support them or not. So if Obama gets elected nothing will CHANGE in this country, he is just another politican who will do and say whatever to win and he will get away with it because he know he has supporters that will go along with him no matter if he breaks his promise or not.
Chris Mathews is an Obama supporter? Man you are deluded. Obama has already changed how campaigns can be run genuis. He has more small donors than any other candidate in history. You and Ohio need to get alife and start looking at some facts instead of clinging to your petty arguments.
Remember change is the only constant. So no matter what happens, he can say he accomplished his goal.
Matthew,
You're absolutely right! However, this 'kinda major?' faux pas is forgiving...since it deals with money and choosing to stop a money making machine or being restricted to a not-so-fat financial limit. I'm fairly certain few americans would've chosen the latter. Although we get the point. Hopefully, this brand hit will be his last.
The premise would be correct had he actually flip fopped. Since he never pledged to accept public financing this is all a moot point.
He's not just any American. This is somebody who has made people believe he is great. This proves he's ordinary. Perhaps even lower that that.
Your logic isn't only questionable, it's laughable. The guy motivates people into action. That can't be denied. Why don't you change your name to bitterclintonsupportertoostupidtoacceptwehaveagreatcandidateinOhio? it would be much more accurate. Then again, I don't think you care about being accurate.
frustatedingeneral,
He is great, not because he told us so, but because we believe, from his message, that he is. There's nothing wrong with that. He's also human. He's also a politician...
I agree with you, Mr. Dowd. I think it is a bit of a disappointment but I really don't have a huge problem with it.
But who will be going to the booths and say to themselves "Man... I agree with Obama more than McCain... but he paid for his own campaign and didn't use my taxpayer dollars... I'm gonna vote McCain."
It would be absurd for Obama to give up his financial advantage, we are dealing with Willie Horton, Swiftboating Republican trash.
They will say and do whatever it takes to get themselves elected, including going to war to get votes.
Obama is no fool and he knows what the ruthless Republicans are capable of doing, he must have the resources to respond to the inevitable attacks against himself and his family, he must not under any circumstances allow these vicious bigoted independent Republicans define what he is all about the way they twisted everything Kerry stood for.
"It would be absurd for Obama to give up his financial advantage" Exactly why we have Lobbyists. It is absurd to give up money.Right?Especially in exchange for integrity.Right?
If Obama took money from lobbyist groups and PACs you might have a point.
Nice try. However:
You start with a flawed premise: that the concept of "brand" is an immutable part of politics. It isn't.
You proceed with a misstatement: that Obama "agreed" to use public financing. He didn't.
You continue with a critical omission: that the purpose of public financing is to remove from our politics and our government the disproportionate influence of the rich and their corporate lobbyists, but this objective can be achieved equally by low-donation, high-participation fund raising. (Although Obama has rejected one mechanism to reach the desired goal, he's using another. Like the two-handed backhand in tennis, when first seen in tournament play, it may be unexpected, but it's legitimate--and highly effective.)
So, it's no wonder that the conclusion you reach is so distorted.
And the reason "why most people in this country are upset at the current administration"? It's probably due to GWB having squandered the lives of more Americans in Iraq than OBL murdered on 9-11 and, in the process, driving up our debt to Communist China, impairing national security, impairing our economy, impairing our standing among our allies, gutting our Bill of Rights, not obtaining peace in Iraq, not capturing OBL, and not admitting to any mistakes.
Great post.
Matthew D, find a new career. Maybe insurance has an opening.
I firmly disagree. The whole idea of reforming the way elections are financed was to get the big Corporations and Super Rich people out and making sure they didn't have undue influence because of money.
If all candidates got money like Obama,from small individual donations,there would be no need for reform.
The Corporate Media has made a big deal out of this while ignoring the fact that McCain has Flip Flopped and Flipped again on every important issue. The Corporate Media has ignored the giant mistakes McCain has made in his speeches..the Shia ,Sunni mistake for example and the Corporate Media has ignored the fact that McCain wanted out of Public Financing as well but would be guilty of Fraud if he did.
Personally, I've NEVER given a dime to the public funding check box on my tax form and more than likely NEVER will!
I like the ability to give MY very HARD earned money to the candidate of MY choosing and it would sicken me to no end knowing that MY very HARD earned money was used to fund John McCain's pathetic attempt ensure BUSH's 3rd term!!!
Brand, schmand. We're electing a man, not a marketing concept. Objectifying the candidates undermines the education of the electorate, it dehumanizes the individuals involved, and it obscures the truth. Obama can't be flip-flopping because he said he'd consider taking public financing. He considered it, and decided against it. No flip, no flop.
In light of his phenomenal prowess at fundraising, if Obama DID accept public financing, he'd be pilloried for bad judgment. It would be nuts for him to forgo the larger, privately raised sums that give him an undisputed edge over McCain, and also create a sense of personal investment on the part of his millions of donors. It's more democratic than the slush fund solution.
Why is it that everyone says he didn't keep his word, leaving out the conditions under which he agreed to public financing - conditions that were not met. He kept his word, but of course nuance doesn't make good news, or good blogs. Just simple black and white, thank you. Sickening.
Why let facts get in the way of a good backlash? The condition clearly contemplated that the Republican nominee would squash 527s, just as the Democratic nominee is doing. Not only will the Republican nominee not agree to that, he won't even consider it.
And since when is an answer (rife with qualifiers) on a survey a "promise?" A promise to whom?
At its irreducible minimum, the argument is this: Barack Obama should reject the money of taxpayers who choose to support his campaign and take money from taxpayers who didn't. Logical, isn't it?
Last, Obama would have 11% less money to spend than McCain, if he opted into public financing (to say nothing of the hundreds of millions in right-wing 527s), based on the dates of our respective conventions.
But again, why let facts get in the way of hysteria and Obama backlash...
Thank you! Nobody mentions that.
Somehow, someone in TVland and Punditland got the idea that people care about this. So he's not taking public financing, he's foregoing taxpayer's money and carrying his own weight with funds from his supporters. How dare he?
I agree, he's a fascist bastard. Forsaking the money of taxpayers who had no choice in the matter for money from people who gave of their own volition? Truly criminal.
And thank God for Mr. Dowd's diligence in bird dogging an issue that really matters to the American people (who haven't had a raise in 8 years and can't afford prescription medicine). I am confident there are Americans living in toxic FEMA trailers right now who are saying THANK GOD someone is taking Obama to task on his refusal to unnecessarily spend 80 million taxpayer dollars! Thank God someone is remembering what actually matters in America.
McCain has flip-flopped on:
1) Offshore drilling
2) Tax cuts for the wealthy
3) Immigration
4) Financing of his primary run
5) Roe v. Wade
6) Falwell/Robertson/etc.
7) Torture
8) etc.
Cover these flip flops, and I might pay attention to the one flip flop you accuse Obama of...the one that saves taxpayers money.
Didn't you get the memo? Since only Obama had standards to begin with, only Obama gets held to any. Try to keep up with the HuffPo backlash, will ya? You are interfering with a legitimate agenda here.
dowd is so wrong. voters don't care about these issues, next month it'll be a distant memory. meanwhile, mccain is being sued for actually breaking campaign finance laws. nice try.
loper, I think you're right: Voters DON'T CARE about campaign finance, per se. But they do care about perception and sometimes that's all they care about. if it appears Obama has moved from the sublime to the arcane on issues such as campaign financing and more grievously (IMHO) FISA, public opinion will not be kind. You'll pardon a little revisionist mythology here: Icarus didn't fall to earth because he displeased the gods but because he made his wings of wax. If Obama's wax wings melt, it will be a great fall indeed.
On the other hand, I say, hooray! let's bury McCain in ads! Let's kick him down Madison Avenue with all the TV spots money can buy! That's our campaign contributions at work! Too bad our tax dollars at work don't yield such satisfying results.
"The most important part of the campaign is not gross rating points, but the narrative in the free press"
LMAO! That sounds like a threat!
Where was the outrage when McBush ACTUALLY BACKED OUT of the public financing AFTER the used it as collateral for millions in bank loans?
Didn't McBush's "brand" have something to do with "Straight Talk"?
Posted June 23, 2008 | 05:05 PM (EST)