Who's a Better Campaign Strategist Than Mark Penn or David Axelrod? Everyone, It Turns Out.

When I wrote elsewhere last Thursday, kinda-sorta-but-not-really predicting an Obama win in the Iowa caucuses, I said that Hillary Clinton had dug herself a hole by creating "doubts about her passion and commitment," which she needed to address in order for her to make a comeback. Is it safe to say now that her campaign got the message, and that this had something to do with Clinton's surprise victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday?

If you have any doubts, just take a look at her victory speech that night, where she led off by saying, "I come tonight with a very, very full heart" and told voters "I felt like we all spoke from our hearts," then went on:

I believe deeply in America, in our can-do spirit, in our ability to meet any challenge and solve any problem.... We are in it for the long run. And that is because we are in it for the American people....

So tomorrow, we're going to get up, roll up our sleeves and keep going.... We're going to tap into all of the spirit, the talent and just the plain grit of this great nation again.

We are determined to tackle our toughest problems and stand up to those who most need a champion because we are determined to make America work again for all of our people.

Now, if that talk of grit and rolling up sleeves sounds familiar to you, it may be because you read something I wrote two months ago, as I described the profile I felt the Democratic-leaning portion of the country had already developed for the next president:

Dubya has got the country stuck in the ditch in any number of painful ways. So the candidate people are likely to vote for is the one who gives the best sense of being ready to roll up their sleeves and start digging us out.

The word for that isn't toughness or ruthlessness, it's grit.

Now, I'm not about to sue Clinton or her pollster/strategist Mark Penn for plagiarism, any more than I did Obama or his self-proclaimed "keeper of the message" David Axelrod when they took similar advice (though a check would be appreciated, just in case!). The point is that what the American people -- at least on the reality-based side of the spectrum -- want from their next president is obvious, but apparently the leading candidates and their overpaid would-be Svengalis need an electoral near-death experience before they figure it out.

As Jane Hamsher wrote last Saturday, Penn had clearly imposed on Clinton "an overt strategy of avoiding the controversial," to the point where to rescue herself she needed to "to do something dramatic. Take the bull by the horns, show that she's not just an overly scripted politician who will never do anything that's isn't 'safe.'" Thanks to her emotional moment on Monday (and boneheaded TV news efforts to turn it into her "Dean scream"), she managed to pull it off. But why hadn't her designated genius Penn clued her in before she stumbled on the truth herself?

Similarly, I wrote back in September how David Axelrod had staked Obama to a campaign approach based on personality rather than policies, until persistent indifference in the polls led them to add more substance to his airy rhetoric. But having won in Iowa, Team Obama immediately reverted to a cautious strategy, leading one New Hampshire woman to explain her vote for Clinton by saying, "In the end, she was the one bringing up the real issues about the middle class like college loans. His speeches felt like pep rallies."

It's probably not a coincidence that after an Iowa victory speech that was filled with inspiring platitudes and very light on policies, Barack's post-primary address in New Hampshire spent a lot more time on the nuts and bolts of what his "new majority" would accomplish.

It's so frustrating to see the American people keep making it clear to the Penns and the Axelrods what they want -- a candidate who will commit specifically to what needs to be done, with a blood-signed oath to persevere against all obstacles and a convincing rationale for how they'll succeed -- and yet, even given a reprieve, the campaigns apparently can't wait to start wandering off course again. Even worse, when one of them eventually wins, there'll be an arrogant, overfed strategist taking credit and asking why anyone ever doubted his brilliance.

I'd suggest that Obama and Clinton fire these guys and hire the American people to advise them instead. But I guess that would make for a hellish time trying to divide up the advertising commissions.

Comments

[BrianZ]

I really enjoyed reading the post, and agree very much with the points made for us to consider.

I think that the issues of personality are also becoming very interesting. On the one hand we have Obama who is incredibly engaging in his comfort zone, the motivation he brings to people is something to behold, and the occasionally glimpsed Obama who is rather shrewd and nearly condescending as we saw in the NH debate "You are likeable enough".

Hillary is the opposite, steeling herself and showing all business until she's worn down and we see there is warm blood flowing in those veins, however briefly.

I am looking forward to the passion and the intelligence meeting in both candidates, and the battle for our votes moving forward. I think it could be a dazzling event for both the heart and the mind.

[ljsfolly]

Well put. I know Obama has more going for him as far as beliefs but his keeper is keeping him aloof and he needs to take a page out of the playbook and speak his real ideas about the bad stuff we are dealing with. Not visits to the hood so much as the ideas that we need to know will carry us into new places and not backward. Clinton is same ol same but since the well up she has come down to earth and is acting like she cares while actually being a bit racist. In a mexican home talking about gacamole and chips as to coming together and the "no woman is illegal" statement where does that go? In the no brain strain a problem or did she misspeak again? Unfortunately we want real people with real answers to our problems and although I will never vote republican with the goofs they have playing keystone kops I also will not vote for Hillary> No matter who's home she invades for photo ops.

[bacq]

SPOT. ON.

When will the dems stop hiring the same idiots who consistently help them lose? It baffles the mind.

[ProFromOre]

Problem I see with a 'middle' is the momentum of his speech may die. He'd loose a lot. Checkout the teared-up 60yo white male to the Senator's left at the U of Charleston today. THAT will get him elected.

SWOPA< Think how hard it is to craft these speeches. Imagine if you mis-wrote one sentence in your next post & it could mean the end of your career.

Try crafting a speech that works for the cross section of listeners. You'll say it's impossible after reading one 300 comment list.

IMHO it seems to be a guessing game: develop strategy, try it. If response is positive, build on it. If not, change the message.

Obama is using a positive, hopeful & emotional speech to get people's attention then follows up thru contact cards to deliver the details. Listen to first-timer's comments for the effect.

I've listened to Clinton and Obama a lot. Her message has changed so much that it's hard to summarize.

Other than over-inflation of her 'political experience' as First Lady and how good the '90's were, I can't characterize her message.

The economic boom was not due to Clinton and would have happened no matter who was in the White House.

The 1990's was driven by computerization of households and small/micro businesses. It came to a end when the PC became an appliance.

The 1990's brought us NAFTA & whacko 'free market' economic theories. The 'Newt, et al revolution' gave permission to espouse hate talk, then call it political discourse. It makes no sense to bring back the 1990's.

"Just look at the past to see what they will do in the future." Unknown

If you complain about an ineffective government, look in the mirror for the cause.
If you complain about political 'games', look in the mirror for those who allow it.
If you participate, confirm the accuracy of the message.
If you interact, speak to others as you would your grandmother.

Commit to 30 days of watching CSPAN instead of 'entertainment' as a democratic duty for your country

[MrMurder]

Clinton's pollster was actually right.

She sacrificed a few votes in a small state and still got the most super delegates, then tied for delegates in the next small state, with the frontrunner.

All the time letting the media attention for her at number two reset the focus on who the real number one is.

You try and let others front run so they can take the heat. The media was ready with an anti Clinton narrative from the start. She has the money to weather that storm and she has character required to lead.

She will hold say in a brokered convention at the very least.

[January]

"...why hadn't her designated genius Penn clued her in before she stumbled on the truth herself?"

You mean you don't think it was scripted? I have read dozens of comments full of certainty that it was just an actress' move. Despite the notorious historical example of another Demo candidate being ridiculed for tears in NH and losing.

That is how cynical we have become. I will never understand why anyone would or could tolerate the icy hard-heartedness that passes for "just partisanship" and run for political office. Nothing makes it worth it. It is a sacrifice.

[Cubancoffee]

Yup, I'm sure they read your column last week and a light went on over their heads. In fact, don't be surprised if they call to offer you a job!

[jsarets]

Obama's stump speeches are outstanding, but he needs to add a middle section in this format:

"That's why we'll X, that's why we'll Y, that's why we'll Z, that's the kind of change we'll accomplish when I'm your president."

He's hitting all the right melodies and harmonies, but the song is missing a bridge. He has plenty of great plans on his website, but he needs to drop a few of them into his speeches.

Clinton has the opposite problem. She has a song with great lyrics but no catchy chorus. She needs to add some loft and gravity to her speeches. She needs to cut back on the word "I" and make it more about "you" and "we".

Overall, Obama is in better shape because he has a well-defined message that resonates. Clinton has a mastery of the details, but her message is muddy and includes a questionable "back to the future" component. It's easier to lay on the beef than to hone a message.

This is the difference between a campaign run by an media consultant and a campaign run by a micro-trend pollster. Clinton may have problems transitioning from retail to wholesale as TV ads become more important than town halls. In the big states, where voters have less exposure to the nuts and bolts of the candidates' platforms, the message is the key.