Progressive Movement

Talk about rocking the vote, Barack Obama looks like he will snag the SC primary with 50% of the vote or more, crushing his nearest opponent, Hillary Clinton and really crushing John Edwards. This totally changes the dynamic in the Democrat primary race. What did seem like a slight Hillary edge is now an Obama wave. Both have the money to compete in gi-normous Tuesday on 5 Feb., but with the solid defeat of Clinton, this puts Obama in the driver’s seat.

Further making things difficult for Hillary is the fact that she now has to attack if she wants to reign in Obama; problem is, attacking is what put her in this position.

Remember my post “I Like ‘Em Next to Nasty“? Well, my theory there was that the public likes their candidates next to nasty, but not full on nasty. I gave Hillary and Rudy “That’s Ms. Jackson if your nasty” ratings, basically saying they went too far into nasty territory. So what happened in the last week? Hillary and Bill went on a nasty rampage against Obama. Obama fought back, but not quite as nastily.

The result? Tonight’s primary crushing by Obama.

The public rejected Hill-Bill’s “That’s Mrs. Jackson if your nasty” tactics and went overwhelmingly for Obama. If he had not fought back, Hillary’s tactics might have worked better, but he is nasty enough to hold his own, but make it look like Hillary was the nasty one. Excellent job. It is a fine line between next to nasty and nasty, but Obama apparently knows how to walk it.

What about Edwards? Well, if he cracks 20% of the vote and gets close to Hillary, then he has hope that the public will tire of the Obama vs. Hillary shooting match while still considering him viable.  Then he might snag some of the fallout.  That happened somewhat tonight I think. But will Hillary continue the nastiness? I think she has to, given this defeat, but the nastiness is what got her to this position tonight.

Here is what I suggest. With a week and a half to go until 5 Feb, Hillary has to tone down the attacks, focus on her resume and experience (indirectly attacking Obama’s lack thereof) and get Bill to talk about vision and hope, his main forte’. Of course, she can blanket the airwaves in key states, but she has to get back to appearing personable, like she did in NH.  But to go full speed ahead on the attack train will be disaster.

Remember, next to nasty is fine, ‘That’s Ms. Jackson if your nasty’ is not.

Messaging, Elections, Edwards, Obama, Analysis, Hillary Clinton, primaries | No Comments »

Didn’t know they had those did you?  Well, neither did I, until I watched Thursday’s GOP debate.  Not nearly as exciting as the Democrat debates these days.

Anyway, enough lovin’.  How bout a quick run down of the debate?

Despite what anyone says, judging who wins a debate largely depends upon who you like or agree with.  So for me, despite Romney’s excessive air time, and generally strong presence, I thought Huckabee won the debate.  From a Republican perspective though, probably not.  I mean, the guy said,

“there is a trickle-up impact when the economy begins to go sour.“

Not exactly a Republican sentiment, or for that matter a concern, so many Republicans watching would think that was a bad point.  I agree with Hucky, thus I thought it was a good point.  Good enough for MSNBC to carry it on their ticker after the debate.

I felt Romney was too transparent.   But then again, I think he is transparent to begin with, so I am looking for him to try and cover up his complete lack of character and political conviction.  However, I have to say, he did a good job of covering it up.

Romney gets the quote of the night from me for messaging expertise.  This is a good one boys and girls, so pay attention.

When asked about his record not meshing with typical Republican values, Romney said this,

“I came down on the side of life, consistently, as governor, in every way I knew how I could do that.”

He also reiterated that same statement in regards to stopping same-sex marriage.   Now read between the lines.  What he is really saying is, “I did not do jack all to stop abortion or gay marriage in the liberal state of Massachusetts.”

To the casual observer though, it sounds like he was out there in the trenches standing firm against the onslaught of baby killers and radical homos.  I know from experience since my girlfriend was watching and even said, “I thought Romney supported abortion rights while Governor?”  So it even sounded to her like he was fighting abortion while the head cheese of MA.  Errr, not so much, but the way he phrases this is perfect.

How do you cover up the fact that you had liberal social policies while Governor of a liberal state?  Indirectly blame the state, but do not directly say so.  Do not say, “I could not do anything since the constituents support abortion rights.”  This sounds like you only do things for political expediency.  Not good.

Instead, by claiming you did everything you could, it puts the emphasis on your valiant, but ultimately unsuccessful efforts. Much more heroic sounding, even though in this case it is not true.  This reply was the most excellent use of messaging tactics in the debate.  Romney took his flip-flopping and made it sound like he was steadfast and relentless.  Man, if only John Kerry could have done that.
So take note youngin’s, even though I think the Huckster won the debate on content, Romney had the two best lines of the night.  The one above and the quip about not being able to imagine Bill Clinton in the White House with nothing to do.  Very clever.

Messaging, primaries, Huckabee, Mitt Romney, debate | No Comments »

Wow, I thought last week’s nastiness over who was more down with the blacks, Hillary or Barack, was bad (apparently it is Mitt Romney, much to everyone’s surprise); imagine my shock when I started seeing clips of Monday’s debate.

Lock up your children, cuz there is gonna be a knife fight all up in this joint.  Well, at least a knife fight like the one in Michael Jackson’s ‘Beat It’ video.

If you have not seen or heard about this knock down drag out, check it out here.

Now, from a messaging standpoint (which is pretty much the only standpoint I care about), this is not very bright.  Hill has Bill essentially marching through Obama’s Georgia, laying waste to everything in his path.  Obama cries foul for using Bill as an attack dog and blasts Hill for helping out Wal-Mart.  Hill slams Obama-rama for giving legal advice to a slum lord, ad nauseum, ad nauseum.

Is this Jerry Springer?  What is this circus?  Does anyone care?  Most of us have held jobs or positions we felt compromised us in some way.  That is life.  Get over it.

Not to say this stuff would not come out in a general election, but then you can blame the other side for playing low-ball, dirty politics.  Here it just looks petty and gives the impression the Democrats are a fractious, dysfunctional party…

Alright, they are a fractious, dysfunctional party, but by all means do not let the public see that.

Are Hill and Obama’s handlers that daft?  There are better ways to attack your opponent.  Apparently though, since Hill and the big O are keeping at it today, they are not aware of this.

If they keep this up, Edwards might actually have a shot.  And his retort to this bickering was right on point, “how many children is this going to get health care?”

Uncategorized, Messaging, Elections, Edwards, Obama, Hillary Clinton, primaries | No Comments »

So did you see that bizarre speech by Fred Thompson last night? Wow, no wonder that guy never got traction. Was it concession, was it a history lesson, was it a rally cry? None of the above. Primo example of bad messaging. And this sort of muddledness infected his entire campaign.

Compare that to John Edwards’ conversation with Wolf Blitzer today after his crushing defeat in Nevada. That guy knows how to spin defeat into a positive, although I do not think it will be positive enough. Of course, Edwards’ great messaging has not helped him get to the top of the pack, but it has kept him in the game while the media ignored him. If Wolf and other political pundits had let Edwards talk for 10 minutes on their shows after his second place Iowa finish, instead of fixating on this whole Obama vs. Clinton narrative, maybe he would not be hanging by a thread at this point.

But enough of that; my main interest is in examining my view that Thompson’s pure purpose in this race is to hurt Huckabee. Interesting thing is that on some of the more mainstream conservative blogs, like Redstate, the Thompson supporters cannot stand Huckabee. Most are not McCain supporters either. But Huckabee supporters clearly believe Thompson hurts them.

This comment on Redstate makes the most sense to me, i.e. that if Thompson stays in at this point it will be seen as an attempt to hurt Huckabee, and despite what all the activist conservatives on Redstate believe, there are Grandpa supporters that would go to the Huckster. But there is enough distaste for Hucky among the Thompson supporters on the blogs that I wonder if maybe Grandpa’s support would not go largely for Huckabee.

Anyone have good info on this, like polls asking Fred Heads who their second choice would be? Any thoughts on this? Or do the pundits have it all wrong when they think the SoCons who support Grandpa have it all wrong?

Elections, McCain, Edwards, primaries, Huckabee, Fred Thompson | No Comments »

Talk about bad messaging strategy. This whole charade about who is more down with the African Americans, Obama or Clinton, is ridiculous. A few days before the South Carolina primary and all the media can talk about is who is calling whom a racist. Was Clinton bashing MLK Jr.? Was Obama calling Hillary a racist? Does any of this matter?

No, and yet the media apparently thinks it does. Look, I do not care whether any of the campaigns planned this or not. It hurts the Democrats to be the party bickering about race. That is the Republican’s job. If the liberals cannot rise above the race issue; if they cannot show the world that they believe all races are equal, who can?

Granted, as Dan Abrams of MSNBC claimed last night, much of this hullaballu is driven by the media. They want to continue this Obama vs. Hillary story as far as they can. They want a story about the race issue. But unfortunately Abrams is wrong about one thing: the campaigns are egging this on either directly or tacitly.

If the two campaigns know what is good for them, they will stop this nonsense. This is a classic example of bad messaging strategy. You cannot let the media control the message. Once they start telling you what you are saying; once they force you to respond to their agenda, you are lost.

Occasionally, the media and the opposition start a narrative without you doing anything. You need to have the presence of mind to realize it is happening and nip it in the bud. So far neither campaign seems to have the wisdom to do this. This also makes the candidates look bad. If they cannot control this, how they can run the country?

Current reports say the candidates tried to cut through the nonsense at the debate, but that also furthers the discussion. Let us see if the media drops the storyline.

Of course, as I mentioned above, this farcical controversy continues the Obama/Hillary narrative, once again leaving out Edwards. He is so desperate he even had to jump into this. So everyone gets sinks with the ship. Great, just great.

Messaging, media, Edwards, Obama, Hillary Clinton | No Comments »

Saw Hillary on MTP today. As usual, very polished, somewhat combative, well-rehearsed, and knowledgeable. But unlike the rare moment of “finding her voice” in NH or talking about change, Hillary went back to focusing on her experience. No fake tears, no cracking voice, no attempts at heartfelt connection or kids in the backdrop. Nope, none of that. It was right back to good ol’ fashioned Hillary.

No emotion except a slight bit of perturbedness and all business. Nothing but ‘I am the most experienced candidate’ and Barack is not.’ Well, that did not get her far in Iowa and it will not get her far in this campaign if she returns to that. Granted, she did not say Barack did not have the experience necessary, but she did highlight how much more experience she had, and that he was good at making speeches, but has not done much else.

This was all done very tactfully; in essence she was in full on attack mode without attcking. So from a messaging standpoint she did well. The problem lies in that we have heard this from her before and it did not get votes. If she gets hammered again and has to switch back to the ‘change’ message, I think the public will begin to see through it.

The message of this election is change. She does not want to embrace that, any more than she will admit she made a mistake on the Iraq War vote. Once again she had a chance to come clean on MTP, but instead chose to blame the Bush Administration for deceiving her. How long can she keep a straight face and convince the public the vote was for getting the inspectors into Iraq? How long can she maintain the vote was not a blank check for Bush to go to war? She accused Obama of explaining his shifting Iraq views over the years with political dissemblance, but she is the worst of all.

Look, there is plenty blame to go around for Bush and Co. regarding Iraq. However, another President that refuses to admit mistakes is not what we need. That is why Obama, Huckabee, and to a lesser extent Edwards have resonance. People want change, and part of that change is electing a politician who is able to admit they are wrong. Hillary does not do that. Ultimately, she must change or lose, and right now it looks like she is going back to her pre-change self. We will see how long that lasts.

Messaging, Iraq, Obama, sunday talk, Analysis, Hillary Clinton | No Comments »

In what has to be one of the more amazing political turnarounds in recent memory, Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary tonight. Could be several reasons why this happened, one of which was her near emotional breakdown at a town hall meeting yesterday. Or maybe the independents all went to vote for McCain instead of Obama. Or maybe Hillary was able to swing last minute fence sitters, especially women, to come to her aid.

Or all of the above. Either way, the Clinton campaign credits her near tear laden heart-to-heart yesterday.

“I listened to you, and I found my own voice.”

That awesome quote was from her victory speech tonight. This quote rocks in two main ways. It credits her supporters with making her change. They transformed her; she did not transform herself. This is an about face from her speech in Iowa, where she referred to herself wanting to lead the country.

The quote also flips the notion that she nearly cried as a sign of weakness to a sign of warmth and humanity. She has been lambasted, by none other than yours truly, for being distant and cold. Not anymore. Whether her moment of emotional weakness was calculated or not (probably was) it seemed genuine and it was exactly what she needed to do. That is the Hillary people wanted to see. People do not vote on issue specifics. They vote on perceptions of character and motivation.

Hillary was lacking in that department and she nearly cried while explaining why she wanted to be President and help people, and how hard it was to have her motivations and character questioned when she had everyone’s best interests at heart. Perfect! Then she thanks her supporters for making her “find her true voice”, a voice of vulnerability and humanity? Incredible!

Oh, and she had a bunch of young people behind her, showing she is an agent of change, as opposed to Madeline Albright, (more…)

Messaging, Elections, Analysis, Hillary Clinton, primaries | 1 Comment »

By now, if you are paying any attention to Presidential race, you will realize that the Republican establishment hates Mike Huckabee. Why, because he rejects a key traditional Republican economic platform. Republican fiscal theory is based on economic elitism, that is, let the rich have their way and the rest of us will benefit. Trickle down economics in other words.

The Huckster understands that Reaganomics is dead, and that people want economic policies that work for them, not the rich. If the Republicans do not switch their economic platform, many working class people that have been voting for them, but not benefiting from their economic policies, will instead vote for Democrats.

Huckabee gets this. The Republican Party does not. That is why they hate him; they still think their winning triad of strong defense, conservative social values, and economic elitism will work. He wants to replace the economic leg with a new one. For more on recent broadsides against Huckabee by the Republican elite, read this post on Kos.

Now remember back in the Winter/Spring of 06/07 when everyone was lamenting the dearth of ‘real’ social conservatives in the race? The concern was that Giuliani, McCain, and Romney were too liberal, Paul too crazy, Tancredo too racist, and Duncan Hunter too who knows what. The answer: Fred Thompson. What a bust that was. Funny, no one mentioned Huckabee, and of course, at the time, he was getting no traction.

Now look at the vile spewed against him. The Club for Growth is starting to run ads against him for crying out loud.

Call me crazy, but I see a connection here. Thompson was brought in by the establishment to stop Huckabee. Those two are fighting for the same demographic – social conservative Christians. So if you bring in the big name Thompson to much fanfare before Huckabee gains traction, (more…)

Elections, Republicans, Analysis, primaries, Huckabee, Fred Thompson | No Comments »