The Clinton strategy is working
Credit where it's due, the Clinton campaign has been hugely successful in taking Obama off message. After Iowa, Obama made that speech, THAT speech, "They said this day would never come....," and even his concession in NH was lauded as inspirational.
Think back over the last two weeks. Have you seen any soaring, "change" type rally speeches carried on the news? That's Obama's best medium, and now we see him attacking and defending, quibbling over language and arguing with Bill Clinton.
Whatever you think of the Clinton tactics, they've worked.
Think back over the last two weeks. Have you seen any soaring, "change" type rally speeches carried on the news? That's Obama's best medium, and now we see him attacking and defending, quibbling over language and arguing with Bill Clinton.
Whatever you think of the Clinton tactics, they've worked.
posted by mikevotes at
8:15 AM
13 Comments:
Obama needs more hymns in his hymnal, in a manner of speaking. I like Obama's "vision thing," but at some point he's going to reach the where's-the-beef moment of his campaign. This is probably it.
As I've said before, I need to hear him tell me what his Apollo project is... and I don't mean vague affordable healthcare, bring the troops home, good jobs at good wages stuff. I mean real bold goals.
Hope and change got us listening, now it's time to tell us what you're going to do with all that hope and change... What's grand new trajectory will you bring us to?
Still, Obama could use the words and actions of the Clintons against them, er, her. We're seeing the "do and say anything" meme in Obama ads in SC. So while you're right, we haven't seen those soaring revival meetings from Obama, the Clintons could possibly be proving the point he's trying to make about entrenched Washington politicians and the need for change.
By
-epm, at 9:51 AM
I was thinking the same thing. It's taken the steam out of Obama. And Bill gets to deal with the flak. In a way it makes him the supportive hubby.
By
Anonymous, at 9:51 AM
There's a lot of campaign season left.
Obama's people will go back on the offensive soon enough.
By
Anonymous, at 10:30 AM
EPM, But that vagueness was actually his strength. Every time he went to it, he did better than when he went to specifics.
There was a period last summer when his campaign tried to transition to meat and facts, but they fell off. It's only when they returned to this aspirational speaking that they really began to close.
I understand the need for more for decisionmaking purposes, but tactically, this plays to Obama's strength.
...
Anon 1, And, more importantly, Hillary Clinton gets to stay in her policy and planning sweet spot. She's strongest when she's discussing policy, and this way, she's not being distracted by delivering the blows.
....
Anon 2, That's a tough thing. Truly going on the offensive is a bit of a gamble for Obama. Of course that's the second leg of the Clinton strategy here. Take Obama out of his comfort zone and pressure him into areas where he's not as comfortable.
It's interesting because the Obama campaign has been run a little differently in that it's more of a "brand marketing" than a more traditional pres campaign.
His team is innovative and pretty good, but they're also not as experienced. So, their response should be interesting.
By
mikevotes, at 1:38 PM
"But that vagueness was actually his strength. Every time he went to it, he did better than when he went to specifics."
Hmm. I know what you're saying, and I admit I'm of two minds on this. I'm not suggesting it's an either-or situation, but it seems to me he's going to have to add some beef to the speech.
For example, JFK didn't put out a 26-page, point by point policy paper on how we'd get to the moon in ten years, but he threw out a tangible goal and a rallying cry to get there. He set the trajectory. In a similar way Obama (or any candidate) could say "In the next ten years America will not only free herself from dependency on foreign oil, but will do so in a cleaner, smarter and more responsible way than we do today."
That would be both inspiring AND add a little "meat" to the vision thing.
One doesn't have to get wonky to add some beef. Most pols DO get wonky -- too inside baseball for the work-a-day Americans.
Just a thought...
-----
Also, this is a funny video from Slate.com
http://slatev.com/player.html?id=1377935786
It's funny anyway, but even funnier if you saw the movie Election.
By
-epm, at 2:19 PM
As a counter argument, if he does introduce even vague goals, going to the moon, suddenly he's talking about the details, answering questions about how, how much it costs, could he pull it off with Congress....
I don't disagree with you, I'm just pointing out that "hope" seems to have no bothersome details to be asked about and everyone can make "hope" into what they want.
It's much easier to stay on message if your message is an emotion.
By
mikevotes, at 3:28 PM
a kick in the balls is a good way to get a guy to his knees, but that doesn't mean I have to admire its effectiveness or sense of fair play....
By
Anonymous, at 4:56 PM
I don't think I ever said fairplay, but you can't deny it was effective
By
mikevotes, at 5:58 PM
Re: effectiveness of Clinton stategy.
In that it knocked Obama off balance and off message, yes. But it's a blunt instrument that may also have collateral affects. However, so far it seems that while their strategy hasn't raised Hillary's standing in the polls it hasn't hurt her either. If anything the beneficiary might be Edwards.
Expect more of this water muddying tactics in the weeks and months ahead.
By
-epm, at 6:40 PM
Agreed. There may be a price to pay down the road, but if they hadn't done it, they might not have won and been in a position to deal with this victor's dilemma.
In theory Edwards picks up from all this, but if he can't break the top two, it doesn't really matter.
(There was a Novak rumor today that Obama offered John Edwards the AG spot.)
By
mikevotes, at 9:26 PM
I think that when you get into the serious part of the campaign, and people are actually deciding how to vote, soaring rhetoric alone doesn't cut it. Not for most of us. The Clintons are perfectly right to be asking "Where's the beef?" and not permitting Obama to fight the campaign on ground of his own choosing. He certainly wouldn't have that luxury in the general election.
It could have been done more gracefully, but to my mind the charges of sleaze and deceit against the Clintons are way out of proportion. For that, I blame a "gotcha" media and an Obama campaign that was all too willing to seize on the opportunity.
By
Anonymous, at 1:51 AM
Tom, agreed. I also think Bill Clinton had the right to respond to Obama's "Reagan comments" as it relegated Clinton's presidency to nothing.
But, this isn't just questioning his experience or fighting back against the "Reagan comments." It is a little nastier and more strategic than that.
By
mikevotes, at 6:20 AM
I get the Clinton (Bill) would be torqued at Obama's relegation of the Clinton year to that of a political comma. It's interesting, however, that they chose to lie about what Obama said rather than put a shining spotlight on the "achievements" of the Clinton years, who Hillary was part of it, and how simple-minded it was for Obama to not recognize the greatness of the Bill and Hillary administration.
Let's see. You've got NAFTA, Defense of Marriage Act, Don't Ask-Don't Tell, Welfare "reform", the Republicans taking over the house in a landslide two years into his administration (and keeping it). A veritable panoply of Progressive achievement.
OK. There was a bunch of good stuff to. But I the tight rope here is that the Clintons can't spotlight their years in the White House without people also recalling the ugliness. They need to be as vaguely nostalgic about their past, as Obama is about his plans for our future.
By
-epm, at 4:58 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home