Finally a Good McCain Campaign Ad

After months of writing about Barack Obama's good campaign ads, I can finally write about a good (or at least, reasonably good) campaign ad for John McCain.

The title of the ad is 624787, which caught my attention. At first, I thought the title was a goof and the technical people at the McCain campaign forgot to give the ad a real title for YouTube.com

View ad here.

Why Ad is Persuasive

• It inspires
• It makes you feel like America can come together and it makes you respect Senator McCain.
  
• It makes you feel good
• John McCain is complementing people in the ad. The viewers are called "honorable" and "worth protecting"
  
• It plays to patriotism
• When one gets a glimpse of what John McCain went through, it makes you respect him tremendously.
  
• It attacks Hillary Clinton
• One of the subtitles says that John McCain is "ready from day one." This is a line that Hillary Clinton has used extensively so John McCain is subtly attacking.
  

Copycat Campaign Tactic

Not to be outdone after Senator Obama's offer for a meal with an everyday donor, the McCain campaign sent out the following email:

Next week, I will embark on a "Service to America" tour visiting numerous locations that have played a significant role in shaping who I am today; places where I have had the honor of serving our nation. This tour will take me through Mississippi, Virginia, Florida and my home state of Arizona. I look forward to visiting sites that have left an imprint on my life aboard my campaign bus, the Straight Talk Express.

My campaign has come up with an opportunity for a supporter to join me on the Straight Talk Express for a day of conversation and campaigning. As a token of my appreciation for your financial support, you will be entered to win this seat aboard the Straight Talk Express if you make a contribution before midnight on March 31st. I hope you'll consider joining me by making a donation today. If you can give $50 or more, not only will you be entered to win a ride on the Straight Talk Express, but you'll receive a commemorative Straight Talk Express ticket.

March 31, 2008 marks an important deadline for our campaign. We will file a report with the FEC outlining the amount of money we have raised during the past three months. I'm reaching out to you to ask for your support by following this link to make a donation of $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000 - anything you can contribute up to the legal limit of $2,300.

I have said many times before that this campaign will be the most expensive campaign in our history, and I have no doubt that both Senators Clinton and Obama will continue to report historic, record-breaking fundraising numbers. With your support today, my campaign will have the resources necessary to compete with either Senator Clinton or Obama in what will be a great contest come November.

I'm looking forward to traveling on the Straight Talk Express again next week, visiting directly with voters, hearing their concerns, offering my vision for the future and highlighting those among us who are serving our country and communities, dedicating themselves to causes greater than their own self interest. Your support makes this possible, and I am grateful for any assistance you are able to give.

Once again, we see persuasive strategies being employed to elicit giving. One question that stands out in my mind: don't these supporters get sick and tired of a non-stop flow of fundraising appeals? It seems as though the main focus of every email is an attempt to raise money.

A Persuasive Email

I recently received the following email from the Obama campaign. Although my email box is filled with these political emails, the title grabbed my attention and caused me to open it. The title was: Dinner with Barack and it read as follows.

You've heard about all of these political fundraising dinners, hosted by Washington lobbyists and filled with representatives of special interests.

Contributions like these are at the root of what's wrong with politics. And John McCain and Hillary Clinton have built campaigns fueled by them.

But our campaign is different.

In February alone, more than 94% of our donors gave in amounts of $200 or less. Meanwhile, campaign finance reports show that donations of $200 or less make up just 13% of Senator McCain's total campaign funds, and only 26% of Senator Clinton's.

Our funding comes from a movement of more than one million people giving whatever they can afford.

And in the next week, four supporters will be selected for a new kind of fundraising dinner.

Make a donation in any amount between now and 11:59 pm EDT on Monday, March 31st, and you could join Barack and three other supporters for an intimate dinner for five.

We're reserving two of those seats for new donors like you. If you've ever thought about making a donation to join our campaign, now is the time:

https://donate.barackobama.com/dinner

This movement is changing the way campaigns are funded.

Although it will be difficult to know for sure how persuasive this email is, I bet it will be incredibly effective at getting individuals on the fence to donate. Moreover, the statistics in this email are absolutely incredible (e.g., the percent of small donations to the Obama campaign).

Why This Email is Persuasive

• It appeals to the everyday person by maligning big money and corporate power
  
• It offers a personal connection (e.g., dinner with Barack)
• It makes you feel like you are a part of a movement (not a standard political campaign)
  

Judas: A Powerful Metaphor

Metaphors are extremely powerful persuasive tools. They evoke certain connections and connotations. On Saturday night, I was sitting in the living room of my apartment watching the NCAA tournament and I heard my brother yell from the other room. A bit surprised, I got up and asked him what was going on. He said, "take a look at this," pointing to an article from the New York Times that he was reading.

The portion of the article, which discussed Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama despite Richardson's long history with the Clintons, read:

The reaction of some of Mr. Clinton’s allies suggests that might have been a wise decision. “An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week. (source)

I was absolutely astounded that Mr. Carville, a man known for hard-hitting politics, would make a comment like this. Personally, it has not surprised me at all that this comment has received a lot of play in the media. To clearly see the persuasive power of the metaphor, notice that there is a profound difference between calling someone a "betrayer" and someone a "Judas." The connotation of Judas also produces the implicit reference that Hillary Clinton is a Christ-figure and Barack Obama is a Satan-figure.

Despite the controversy, Mr. Carville is not backing down (source).

“I was quoted accurately and in context, and I was glad to give the quote and I was glad I gave it,” Mr. Carville said. “I’m not apologizing, I’m not resigning, I’m not doing anything.” (source)

Obama and Internet Interest

A friend of mine recently pointed out disparity amongst the number of videos about each presidential candidate on YouTube.com. This got me thinking and doing some additional research and what I found astonished me.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain each have their own "channel" on YouTube. However, the disparity in the number of views is absolutely astonishing. Barack's videos have received about 13 million views while Hillary's videos have received about 1.5 million and John's videos have received about 600,000.

Perhaps even more astonishing is the fact that Barack Obama's speech on race this past week has already been viewed about 3 million times. This means that the video of the speech is being viewed about 600,000 times in a single day or 25,000 times an hour or 416 times a minute or 7 times a second. In one day, Barack Obama's speech is being watched as many times as all of John McCain's videos combined.

BarackObamadotcom

Running for: President

Joined: September 05, 2006

Last Login: 29 minutes ago

Videos Watched: 2,268

Subscribers: 39,585

Channel Views: 13,202,839

hillaryclintondotcom

Running for: President

Joined: July 21, 2006

Last Login: 2 days ago

Videos Watched: 1,752

Subscribers: 12,122

Channel Views: 1,422,989

JohnMcCaindotcom

Running for: President

Joined: February 23, 2007

Last Login: 1 day ago

Videos Watched: 782

Subscribers: 3,541

Channel Views:
615,400

John McCain and an Interesting and Unpresidential Photo

I thought I would post a photo of John McCain that I ran across that does not make him look too presidential. Fortunately, these types of unpresidential photos of Senator McCain do not seem to make their way around easily.

It is kind of interesting that John McCain is being frisked before getting on his plane.



" Republican nominee for president John McCain is frisked before boaring his charter plane in San Antonio, Texas." (source)

Keith Olbermann's Persuasive Commentary

Over the past few weeks, I've heard a number of comments about Keith Olbermann, who is an anchor and commentator on MSNBC with a far-left bent. Personally, I find many of his views repugnant. However, he is becoming more and more popular. On a semi-regular basis, he delivers what he calls "Special Comments," which amount to a 8-10 minute editorial, usually on a politically related subject. Seeing as many Americans find his commentary extremely persuasive, I want to examine why his commentaries are so persuasive.

In this piece, I will examine the commentary that he gave on October 18, 2006 on the Military Commissions Act and--in Olbermann's view--the loss of Habeas Corpus.

I would recommend you view the commentary here at YouTube.com as it is an excellent piece of persuasive work. Also, you can view a rough transcript here [note: this transcript is not entirely perfect].

Why Olbermann is Persuasive

• Speaks With Passion.
• Olbermann speaks with significant passion and uses excellent inflection in his voice and pauses at times to magnify his points.
  
• Uses Numerous Historical Examples.
• "We have been here when President John Adams insisted that the Alien and Sedition Acts were necessary to save American lives — only to watch him use those Acts to jail newspaper editors."
• "We have been here, when President Woodrow Wilson insisted that the Espionage Act was necessary to save American lives — only to watch him use that Act to prosecute 2,000 Americans, especially those he disparaged as "Hyphenated Americans," most of whom were guilty only of advocating peace in a time of war."
• "And we have been here when President Franklin D. Roosevelt insisted that Executive Order 9-0-6-6 was necessary to save American lives — only to watch him use that Order to imprison and pauperize 110-thousand Americans"
• Criticizes Democrats and Republicans
• Olbermann criticizes both Republican and Democratic presidents from the past.
  
• Repetition
• "the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons" is repeated multiple times at crucial times in the piece.
  
• Fear
• Olbermann is trying to engender fear in his listeners to scare them. "Sadly — of course — the distance of history will recognize that the threat this generation of Americans needed to take seriously… was you."
• "We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who may now, if he so decides, declare not merely any non-American citizens 'Unlawful Enemy Combatants' and ship them somewhere — anywhere — but may now, if he so decides, declare you an 'Unlawful Enemy Combatant' and ship you somewhere - anywhere."
• Uses Powerful Metaphors
• "blank check"
• "the wolf is at the door"

Obama Prolongs Wright Controversary

In a serious escalation to the controversy over the remarks of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the Obama campaign today released a photo of Bill Clinton and Jeremiah Wright. In addition, the campaign released a thank you note from Bill Clinton to Rev. Wright.


(source)



(source)

Why This Photo Release Was a Bad Idea

• It keeps the issue of Rev. Wright in the media. It is highly unlikely this will do much damage to Hillary Clinton as she is not in the photo. Moreover, for whatever damage this will do to Hillary Clinton, it will do far more damage to Senator Obama because it keeps Rev. Wright in the press and Rev. Wright is far more associated with Senator Obama than Senator Clinton.
• It makes Rev. Wright, who vehemently criticized Bill and Hillary Clinton in a recent sermon where he basically endorsed Senator Obama, look even more absurd.

In short, although releasing this photo will bring Bill and Hillary Clinton into the discussion of Rev. Wright, it will not make the issue go away. In fact, it will only give it more life.

Obama, Music, and Lincoln

After every one of Barack Obama's victory speeches, I noticed that the same music played in the background. I saw a Lincoln commercial on TV tonight and I thought, "that's the same music that plays after Barack's victory speeches." I wonder whether Lincoln is trying to play-off the Obama phenomena. Just a thought.

Mitt and Hillary - What Can We Learn

As I began to reflect on the rumors floating about concerning the possibility that Mitt Romney might be John McCain's VP nominee, I realized something that I have not heard discussed in the media: Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney have considerable similarities. In this post, I want to step away from my usual focus on persuasion and explore this observation.

Poll-Driven Campaigns
As is widely known, Hillary Clinton's chief strategist also "happens" to be a pollster (Mark Penn). Hillary has positioned herself according to polls. Similarly, Mitt Romney relied heavily upon polls and often wavered until he was sure about what the "right" view was (e.g., his reluctance to embrace the surge until he saw it was popular amongst conservatives).

Stiff
Both Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney have earned (perhaps unfairly--I would say fairly) the reputation of being stiff and not down-to-earth. For months, Mitt Romney wore a suit and tie until his handlers realized that the voters could not identify with him. Then, Mitt took the suit off and, when pressed by Chris Matthews in late January about why he decided to stop wearing a suit and tie, Mitt said that the room he interviewed in was hot (sure...).

Flip-Flopper
Mitt Romney has changed his positions on abortion, Ronald Reagan, gay marriage, and a whole host of other issues. Similarly, Hillary has changed her views on Iraq withdraw, Iran, and has nuanced her views significantly on abortion.

Wealthy
Both candidates are extremely wealthy and used their wealth in the election. Mitt spent a lot of his own money while Hillary loaned her campaign $5 million at a crucial time in the campaign. It is not that Americans won't vote for wealthy candidates (most of our Presidents have been wealthy), it is when the perception comes that a candidate is trying to buy an election that things turn sour.



Perhaps this observation is not material, but I really think there are some important similarities. Moreover, I think this observation, combined with the Obama surge, shows rather strongly that Americans want a reasonable level of authenticity amongst their political leaders.

Why Hillary Could Not Persuade - Part 4

In the fourth part of our series on why Hillary Clinton could not persuade, we will examine Hillary Clinton's strategy of attacking the press. Although this worked a little before the Ohio and Texas primaries, on the whole, it made her look desperate.

When a candidate is loosing and turns to attacking the press, it looks very desperate. Moreover, it only makes the press hate the candidate more and engenders negative articles about the candidate. Consider the following Washington Post article entitled Team Clinton: Down, and Out of Touch, which arose when Clinton campaign officials lashed out at reporters, displaying shocking arrogance.

They are in the last throes, if you will.

As Vice President Cheney knows, such predictions can be perilous. Still, there was no mistaking a certain flailing, a lashing-out, as two Clinton advisers sat down for a bacon-and-eggs session yesterday at the St. Regis Hotel.

The Christian Science Monitor had assembled the éminences grises of the Washington press corps -- among them David Broder of The Post, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times and columnist Mark Shields -- for what turned out to be a fascinating tour of an alternate universe.

First came Harold Ickes, who gave a presentation about Hillary Rodham Clinton's prospects that severed all ties with reality. "We're on the way to locking this nomination down," he said of a candidate who appears, if anything, headed in the other direction.

But before the breakfast crowd had a chance to digest that, they were served another, stranger course by Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer. Asked about an accusation on the Drudge Report that Clinton staffers had circulated a photo of Barack Obama wearing Somali tribal dress, Singer let 'er rip.

"I find it interesting that in a room of such esteemed journalists that Mr. Drudge has become your respected assignment editor," he lectured. "I find it to be a reflection of one of the problems that's gone on with the overall coverage of this campaign." He went on to chide the journalists for their "woefully inadequate" coverage of Obama, "a point that has been certainly backed up by the 'Saturday Night Live' skit that opened the show this past Saturday evening, which I would refer you all to."

The brief moment explained everything about the bitter relations between Clinton's campaign and the media: Singer taunting the likes of Broder, who began covering presidential politics two decades before Singer was born, with a comedy sketch that showed debate moderators fawning over Obama.

Consider the following from CNN on Feb 26:

A spokesman for Hillary Clinton lashed out at the media Monday for what he described as a double standard in the way the press covers the two Democratic White House hopefuls.

On a conference call with reporters Monday afternoon, Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson maintained Barack Obama is running a negative campaign, and said the press largely praises him for doing so.

“I think it is true that every time the Obama campaign in this campaign has attacked Sen. Clinton in the worst kind of personal ways, attacked her veracity, attacked her credibility, said that she would say or do anything to get elected, the press has largely applauded him," Wolfson said. (source)

Obama's Race Speech (Pt. 3) - The Appearence

Perhaps I am reading way to much into the physical appearances of things, but based upon an op-ed Maureen Dowd wrote and my own perception, I think it may not have been a coincidence that Senator Obama wore a gray suit yesterday for his much-anticipated race speech.

I struggled to find a photo where it was clear, but the one below is perhaps the best I could find.


"Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) smiles before speaking during a campaign event at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania March 18, 2008. Obama criticized his preacher for racially charged rhetoric but said he could not disown the man who baptized his children and officiated at his wedding during the speech about race and politics in America.(Tim Shaffer/Reuters)" (source)

Obama's Race Speech (Pt. 2) - The Setting

The setting of Senator Obama's speech should also be noted from a persuasive standpoint.

1.) The speech was given in a building across from Constitution hall in Philadelphia. Senator Obama himself alluded to this in his introduction: "Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy."

2.) For the first time that I can remember, Senator Obama spoke in front of a line of American flags.



"Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama D-Ill., speaks about race during a news conference in Philadelphia, Tuesday, March 18, 2008.(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)" (source)

Obama's Race Speech

Earlier today, Senator Barack Obama gave a major speech on race. The media has covered this speech extensively and I wanted to make a few points. A transcript of the prepared remarks is available here. (For background, if you are aware of the background of this controversy, see a list of Rev. Wright's remarks).

Personally, I felt that the speech was rather good. There were some points where I felt it could have been rhetorically stronger and more emotionally inspiring. However, I was impressed that Senator Obama came straight out and tried to address the racial issues in a straight forward manner. Moreover, I think that Obama might be able to capitalize on this issue--i.e., he might be able to convince the country that he can bring the country to a new level in the racial issues that his campaign has brought to the forefront.

Below, I have pointed out some interesting and recurring themes from Obama's speech.

One other point: I heard Jack Caffrety mention on the 4pm EST hour of The Situation Room on CNN that Obama wrote the speech himself.

Pro-American

• " This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people."
• "Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time."
• "for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible."
• Obama denounced the speech "that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America;"
• "America, this country that I love"
• "But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union."
• "This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag"

Personal Story

• "my own American story"
• "I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents"
  

Strong Religious Language

• "The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery"
• " my Christian faith"
• " God’s work here on Earth"
• "at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones."
• "But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union."
• "In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well."

Close With a Story

• "There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there."

Obama and "God Bless America"

As the controversy over the statements of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright exploded onto the national scene last week, perhaps the most inflammatory comment was one that could be played in a 5 second sound bite: "Not God Bless America, but God damn America"(source).

In trying to manage the fallout from these inflammatory comments, Barack Obama has added a little closing line to some of his speeches. For the first time in the entire campaign, Barack Obama closed a speech with "God Bless You and God Bless America" (source). Obviously, Obama is trying to tacitly blunt the fallout from Rev. Wright's comments.

Images from John McCain's Visit to Iraq

As I follow the press coverage of John McCain's visit to Iraq, I am a bit puzzled by the visual images he is portraying. On the one hand, he creates photo ops that make him appear very presidential. However, he also allows photos of him taken that make him appear extremely unpresidential. Below, I have included the photos that make him appear presidential.




"Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki (R) meets U.S. Republican presidential candidate John McCain (L) in Baghdad March 17, 2008. REUTERS/Ceerwan Aziz (IRAQ)" (source)




"Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabagh (L) walks with U.S. Republican presidential candidate John McCain during a visit in Baghdad March 17, 2008. REUTERS/Ceerwan Aziz (IRAQ)" (source)



While I am at it, I cannot post this blog without showing you the photo below.

Unflattering Media Photos of Hillary (More)

On this blog, we've pointed out how Hillary Clinton and George Bush have been the subjects of numerous unflattering photos from the press.

Well...here are more of these photos. I cannot figure out why the media keeps publishing these.


"Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is greeted by Former New York City Mayor David Dinkins (L) as she arrives for the inauguration of New York State Governor David Paterson as the 55th state governor at the state capitol building in Albany, New York March 17, 2008. REUTERS/Keith Bedford (UNITED STATES) US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 2008(USA)" (source)

"

U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton ,D-N.Y. reacts as she is greeted by Sgt. of Arms Wayne Jackson of the New York Assembly prior to the swearing ceremony of New York Gov. David Paterson in the Assembly Chamber at the state Capitol in Albany, N.Y., Monday, March 17, 2008.(AP Photo/HansPennink)" (source)

"Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) delivers a campaign speech on the war in Iraq at George Washington University in Washington, March 17, 2008.REUTERS/Jim Bourg (UNITED STATES) US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 2008 (USA)" (source)

"Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) looks straight ahead as a campaign aide behind her struggles with a falling sign before the start of a campaign speech on the war in Iraq at George Washington University in Washington, March 17, 2008.REUTERS/Jim Bourg (UNITED STATES) US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 2008 (USA)" (source)

"US Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) points to a supporter during the St. Patrick's Day Parade in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania March 15, 2008. (Jason Cohn/Reuters)" (source)

Why Hillary Could Not Persuade - Part 3

In the third part of this series, we will examine another reason why Hillary Clinton could not persuade voters: her campaign attacked them. This seems like an elementary violation of the rules of persuasion, but Hillary's campaign managed to do this. It is difficult for voters to feel affinity for the Clinton campaign when they are being attacked by it.

Consider the following:

Of his wife's recent travails, [Bill Clinton] said, "the caucuses aren't good for her. They disproportionately favor upper-income voters who, who, don't really need a president but feel like they need a change." (source)

Clinton's campaign said that a lot of the states where Obama won "don't matter" (source)

"[The Clinton campaign] also said Clinton will likely be within 25 delegates of Obama after voting on March 4, including superdelegates, and they dismissed most states which Obama has won. 'Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois?' Chief Strategist Mark Penn said. 'That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.'" (source)

Why Hillary Could Not Persuade - Part 2

In the second part of our series on why Hillary Clinton could not persuade democrats and win the nomination, we examine her perceived phoniness. In short, Americans do not like people whom they perceive as fake and insincere. Consider, for example, the Concord Monitor's stinging disendorsement of Mitt Romney that turned the tide in New Hampshire: "When New Hampshire partisans are asked to defend the state's first-in-the-nation primary, we talk about our ability to see the candidates up close, ask tough questions and see through the baloney. If a candidate is a phony, we assure ourselves and the rest of the world, we'll know it. Mitt Romney is such a candidate. New Hampshire Republicans and independents must vote no." (source) Hillary has had the same problem--she could not persuade Americans that she was genuine. She appeared calculating and press stories like the ones below only reinforced this conception.

Mrs Clinton tries hard to fake sincerity – so hard it is painful to watch. Sometimes, in fact, I suspect that she really is sincere and only looks as though she is faking. Barack Obama, on the other hand, may actually be sincere – and if he is not, he fakes it so well it makes no difference.
...
It is surely telling that the most effective moments in Mrs Clinton’s campaign have been those rare times when a real person has appeared to break through: the tears in New Hampshire, the moving and seemingly unaffected tribute to wounded soldiers at the end of the Houston debate the other day. But for most of the time she has veered from one false personality to another, often during the course of a single debate or interview. One moment she would be acting tough, the next warm; now aloof, now approachable; now a fun person, fond of a joke (that was the worst), now stern and serious. In every moment of repose came that scary rictus smile, to emphasise the lack of authenticity and remind one irresistibly of Jack Nicholson in The Shining.
(source)

Why Hillary Could Not Persuade - Part 1

In the coming days, I will be posting a series of entries trying to explain why Hillary Clinton's candidacy failed. In other words, how is it that over the past year Hillary has gone from front-runner to failure? How is it that a candidate with the best name recognition and the biggest fundraising operation (formerly) lost?

The first reason why Hillary couldn't persuade is because she utterly mismanaged her campaign's finances. This is a problem for two reasons: (1) If someone is trying to convince a country that she is a qualified executive and capable of overseeing the trillions of dollars that the Federal government spends annually, why should we believe her in light of the following:

Nearly $100,000 went for party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucuses, even though the partying mood evaporated quickly. Rooms at the Bellagio luxury hotel in Las Vegas consumed more than $25,000; the Four Seasons, another $5,000. And top consultants collected about $5 million in January, a month of crucial expenses and tough fund-raising.
...

The firm that includes Mark Penn, Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategist and pollster, and his team collected $3.8 million for fees and expenses in January; in total, including what the campaign still owes, the firm has billed more than $10 million for consulting, direct mail and other services, an amount other Democratic strategists who are not affiliated with either campaign called stunning.

Howard Wolfson, the communications director and a senior member of the advertising team, earned nearly $267,000 in January. His total, including the campaign’s debt to him, tops $730,000. (source)

(2) In such a close race, a candidate cannot afford to waste money. Consider the example of John McCain, whose campaign budgeted its way back into the nomination:

[Rick] Davis, [John McCain's campaign manager and] a calm and efficient lobbyist who impressed everyone with his budgeting skills...

The campaign slashed many salaries, top aides worked without pay, and virtually
everyone had to fill multiple roles. Field organizers handled advance for McCain's events. National press secretary Brooke Buchanan also became McCain's on-the-road secretary, coffee fetcher and occasional baggage hauler.
In an organization that had once spent money on luxuries like a snow plow to clear the way for McCain's bus, Davis issued a mandate that the campaign would never spend more in a week than it raised. Every Friday afternoon, the finance team sorted through requests. "Ninety-five percent of people [Davis] talked to, he was telling them 'No,' " Black recalled.

The campaign stopped building its own events and trawled for invitations. "If you went to a Rotary in Manchester [N.H.], it didn't cost you anything," Davis said. "So we went to a lot of Rotary Clubs. . . . The philosophy in July, August, September and October was: Don't spend money unless you absolutely needed it."

When McCain inched up in polls in the fall, aides called from Iowa begging: "Could you just give us something?" But "every decision had to be subordinate to winning New Hampshire," Salter said.
(source)

Two Strategies of Persuasion

In reading the political blogs, I came across a fascinating piece on the New York Time's political blog entitled Axelrod and Penn. The basic gist of the story is that the two democratic campaign's chief strategists have differing strategies of persuasion. The Obama campaign's strategy of persuasion centers around telling a story and inspiring hope. The Clinton campaign's strategy of persuasion centers around poll-tested keywords and niche marketing.

I've included pertinent excerpts below. FYI...Axelrod refers to David Axelrod--Mr. Obama's chief strategist. Penn refers to Mark Penn--Mrs. Clinton's chief strategist.

Mr. Axelrod’s essential insight — the idea that has made him successful where others might have failed — is that the modern campaign really isn’t about the policy arcana or the candidate’s record; it’s about a more visceral, more personal narrative. This is probably a big reason why Mr. Obama has, from the start, focused almost exclusively on broad themes of “hope” and “change,” drawing heavily on his own life story, rather than staking out any particularly new policy ground. In its tone and emphasis, Mr. Obama’s campaign reflects all the attributes of a truly great political ad: the stirring words, the beautiful pictures, the simple and elegant storyline of a ruined political system and the man whose moment has arrived.
...
Mr. Penn, on the other hand, is a pollster, and pollsters tend to look at campaigns as a series of dissectible data points that either attract voters or drive them away. Get a health-care plan and an economic plan that 70 percent of people say they view favorably. Pay attention to words that move the dial in focus groups, like “real solutions for America” or “ready to lead on day one.” Trust in poll-tested character traits like “strength” and “experience.” Mrs. Clinton’s relentless focus on pragmatism and specificity, as well as her willingness to shift to whatever slogan suits the moment, are not simply a result of her own personality but also of Mr. Penn’s strategic outlook, which values testable ideas and phrases over more sweeping imagery and thematics.

Why Axelrod's Strategy is More Effective

• It is much newer and people like new. Poll-driven politics is as old as polls and yet America has seen only a small number of Presidents really effectively play the story-card (Kennedy and Reagan did). The story card forges an emotional connection while the poll-card forges an intellectual connection. Emotional connections are stronger than intellectual connections.
  
• Hillary's poll strategy only reinforces the stereotype that she is a flop-flopper who will "say anything to get elected."
• Stories are (almost) always more effective than ideas. Granted, I have no empirical study to prove this. Nonetheless, I believe Obama's candidacy is a type of proof in itself. (I realize this is kind of circular reasoning, but I still think Obama's candidacy should tell us something about the power of stories).
• The poll-driven strategy is very short-term because polls fluctuate considerably. However, people resonate to stories for longer periods of time.
  

Clinton Email Analysis - "Monster"

Recently, one of Senator Obama's senior foreign policy advisers made extremely disparaging remarks to a British journalist about Hillary Clinton (source) (original source).

• "We f***** up in Ohio," [Obama foreign policy specialist Samantha Power] admitted. "In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win."
  
  "She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything," Ms Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark.
  
  Ms Power said of the Clinton campaign: "Here, it looks like desperation. I hope it looks like desperation there, too."
  
  "You just look at her and think, 'Ergh'. But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive."

After these remarks became public, the outcry became so loud that Power was forced to resign (source). Then, I received the following email from the Clinton campaign entitled Monster.

Dear John,

Just one day after Senator Obama promised to begin attacking Hillary, a senior Obama advisor has called her a "monster."

That's right -- a "monster."

At the same time, Senator Obama's aides have begun rehashing the old negative attacks of the 90's against Hillary.

This is not the politics of hope -- it's the usual attack style politics that we have seen time and time again.

And it must stop.

Only you can make that happen. A contribution now will show the Obama campaign that there is a price to this kind of attack politics.

Make a contribution to stop the Obama attacks.

You and I know Hillary is a fighter -- she has been fighting for what she believes in for 35 years, and as president, she's going to fight for us. So let's make sure she knows we have her back.

Thank you,

Terry McAuliffe
Chairman, Hillary Clinton for President

P.S. Calling Hillary a "monster" isn't the only attack we're seeing from the Obama campaign. We've seen deceptive radio attack ads and deceptive mailings in Texas and Ohio -- and now in Wyoming and Mississippi. Let's stop these attacks now -- make a contribution today.

Why This is Persuasive

• The monster quote is exaggerated and given a life of its own. It is highlighted so as to become so offensive that it engenders anger in the reader. (Creating anger, then asking for money seems to me a common persuasive tactic in political emails).
• The email makes it sound like everything depends upon the reader in order for the negative attacks to stop. ("Only you can make that happen")("Let's stop these attacks now -- make a contribution today."). (Hmm...How will donating money to the Clinton campaign to purchase attack ads against Obama stop Senator Obama from attacking--this reasoning makes no sense; won't this only increase the cycle of negative attacks? Won't this only make things worse?). But, this is politics and anything to scare up contributions is effective.
• The email makes things personal--trying to engender a bond between the reader and Hillary. In addition, the email seems to play on a sense of duty to protect Hillary ("let's make sure she knows we have her back.")
  
• "You and I know Hillary is a fighter -- she has been fighting for what she believes in for 35 years, and as president, she's going to fight for us. So let's make sure she knows we have her back."
  

Hillary Email Analysis

On Saturday, I received an email from the Clinton campaign entitled Take a look. When I opened it, the following text appeared.

Dear John,

Your hard work and dedication mean so much to me, and I know you played a critical role in our wins on March 4.

I recorded a special message for you the night of March 4, and I hope you'll take a look.

Click here to watch.

We still have challenges ahead, but I know that we can win if we work together, just like we did in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island.

I'm so proud to have your support. Thank you for everything you do.

Sincerely,


Hillary Rodham Clinton

Why This Email is Not Persuasive

• It is poorly customized. "Your hard work and dedication mean so much to me." What hard work and dedication might she be referring to? I have worked hard on this blog, but I really don't think that put her over the top in Ohio.
• It is really shallow and overdone. When I read, "I recorded a special message for you the night of March 4," I thought 'Oh, this should be interesting. I wonder if it is some private video message to donors [not that I gave anything, but the campaign does not appear to be that sophisticated] or a thank-you to supporters or an up-close tour of her campaign-headquarters.' Instead, it was a totally impersonal video of her victory remarks. I felt ripped off. I took the time to click on the link because I felt like it would be something cool. But, it was a shallow and meaningless "special message." If I were a donor, I would feel really disappointed.
  

Obama Email Analysis

Last night, the Obama campaign sent out an email to its supporters entitled Victories and attacks. I included the email below and I will analyze it at the bottom.

John --

It's tough to think of two states more different than Wyoming and Mississippi.

But we won Wyoming on Saturday, and we just learned that we won Mississippi by a large margin tonight.

Between those two states, we picked up enough delegates to erase the gains by Senator Clinton last Tuesday and add to our substantial lead in earned delegates. And in doing so we showed the strength and breadth of this movement.

But just turn on the news and you'll see that Senator Clinton continues to run an expensive, negative campaign against us. Each day her campaign launches a new set of desperate attacks.

They're not just attacking me; they're attacking you.

Over the weekend, an aide to Senator Clinton attempted to diminish the overwhelming number of contests we've won by referring to places we've prevailed as "boutique" states and our supporters as the "latte-sipping crowd."

I'm not sure how those terms apply to Mississippi and Wyoming -- or Virginia, Iowa, Louisiana, or Idaho for that matter.

I know that our victories in all of these states demonstrate a rejection of this kind of petty, divisive campaigning.

But the fact remains that Senator Clinton's campaign will continue to attack us using the same old Washington playbook. And now that John McCain is the Republican nominee, we are forced to campaign on two fronts.

It's up to you to fight back. Please make a donation of $25 today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/math

Thank you,

Barack

Why This is Persuasive

• It is personalized. John McCain's emails are not personalized.
• It conveys Barack's campaign not as an ordinary campaign, but as a historic movement--something that engenders far more support. Consider, for example, the use of the phrase "this movement"
• It links John McCain to Hillary Clinton.
• It makes Hillary's attacks personal--not just against Barack, but (more importantly), against Barack's supporters. This sets up Barack's eventual plea for money. In other words, the supporters will be more likely to give if they feel they are being personally attacked and need to personally fight back.
  
• "They're not just attacking me; they're attacking you"
• Similarly, it takes Hillary's reasons for loosing recent contests and makes them attacks against voters.
• "an aide to Senator Clinton attempted to diminish the overwhelming number of contests we've won by referring to places we've prevailed as "boutique" states and our supporters as the "latte-sipping crowd.""
• There is a direct appeal at the end that engenders action.
  
• "It's up to you to fight back."

Clinton and Media Photos

I've been monitoring the media photos of Hillary Clinton and I recently noticed another batch of unflattering photos of her in the pool coverage.


"Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton reacts to a supporter during a campaign event at Scranton High School in Scranton, Pennsylvania, March 10, 2008. (Tim Shaffer/Reuters)" (source)


"US Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) (R) gestures to Pennsylvania Governor Edward G. Rendell during a campaign event at the Forum in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania March 11, 2008. REUTERS/Tim Shaffer (UNITED STATES) US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 2008" (source)



"US Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) speaks during a campaign event at the Forum in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania March 11, 2008. REUTERS/Tim Shaffer (UNITED STATES) US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 2008" (source)


"Hillary Rodham Clinton shows off autographed boxing gloves from the boxer Kelly Pavlik while in Ohio. (Photo: Béatrice de Géa for The New York Times)" (source)


Although the picture below is not in and of itself unflattering--Mrs. Clinton looks perfectly posed--there is another problem: it fosters the image (pun intended) that Bill Clinton is in charge. It would be this image that would cause so much trouble later on.


"New York Senator and Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton listens as her husband, former US President Bill Clinton, speaks at a rally at the University of Iowa in Iowa City, Iowa on July 3." (source)

In the interest of fairness, I thought I would post a photo I saw in the news of John McCain, which is certainly not flattering.


"Republican nominee-in-waiting, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., accompanied by Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, and others, greets the crowd during a campaign stop at Howley's Restaurant, Thursday, March 6, 2008 in West Palm Beach, Fla." (source)

Mind-Spinning Spin

Recently, the Clinton campaign has been suggesting that Senator Obama would be an excellent vice president for Senator Clinton. However, there is something really bizarre about this, which I will discuss below.

CNN reported: "Even as Hillary Clinton's campaign attacked her rival, Barack Obama, for failing to 'deliver on his promises,' her husband, former President Bill Clinton said Saturday that a joint ticket pairing the two would be 'almost unstoppable. I know that she has always been open to it, because she believes that if you can unite the energy and the new people that he's brought in and the people in these vast swaths of small town and rural America that she's carried overwhelmingly, if you had those two things together she thinks it'd be hard to beat.'"


ABC News reported the same thing as did MSNBC.

Here is what I find so unpersuasive about this argument:

1. The Clinton camp is loosing by almost any measurement and, as a result, what right does it have to suggest that Senator Obama should serve as the VP for Senator Clinton? [This is yet another example of arrogance and the aura of inevitability on display.]
1. Senator Obama recently echoed this argument and said: "I don’t know how somebody who’s in second place can offer the vice presidency to someone who’s in first place" (source)
   
2. The Clinton camp has been arguing vehemently that Senator Obama is not experienced enough. Why would Clinton choose someone whom she claims has so limited foreign policy experience?
1. On a recent conference call, a reporter asked the Clinton campaign this exact question and received the following response: "We do not believe that Senator Obama has passed the commander in chief test. But there is a long way between now and [the DNC convention in] Denver.” (source) And, what experience as commander-in-chief might Senator Obama get between now and Denver since he is spending an overwhelmingly majority of his time on the campaign trail? It is this type of spin and shallow answer that turns off so many Americans to the political process.
   
3. Bill Clinton was the one who first put forth the argument. Shouldn't this come from Hillary?
   

Clinton Attacks Using Guilt by Association

In lieu of Senator Obama's recent losses in Texas and Ohio, he appears to be going on the offensive. However, Senator Clinton has hit back hard--this time with guilt by association. In effect, Senator Clinton is trying to smear Senator Obama's attacks so as to make them less effective.

Consider the paramount example of this: Senator Clinton put out a press release entitled "After Texas and Ohio, Obama Campaign Mimics Ken Starr" (source).

I find it interesting that this seems to be a new pattern of the Clinton's campaign--attack Senator Obama with guilt by association. For example, shortly before the Ohio primary, Senator Clinton used guilt by association to attack Senator Obama--but, this time she used an even more despised republican. On Saturday February 23, 2008, Senator Clinton said, "Enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics right out of Karl Rove's playbook. This is wrong, and every Democrat should be outraged" (source).

Negative Attacks and Persuasion

For a while now, I've said that I believe negative attacks work--with one major caution: they must be done properly. Today, I came across a very interesting poll that demonstrated what can happen when a candidate does negative attacks in a poor manner and becomes "the negative" candidate.

Around the close of November 2007 and the beginning of December 2007, Hillary Clinton stepped up her attacks of Barack Obama considerably (see articles below). However, at about the same time, an absolutely fascinating poll was released in the Des Moines Register. Consider the poll:

"Which Candidate is the most negative?"

• Hillary Clinton 21%
  
• John Edwards 9%
  
• Dennis Kucinich 9%
  
• Barack Obama 8%

(source: The Iowa Poll, Des Moines Register, 12/2/07) Note: I could not find the entirety of the survey on the Des Moines Register website to confirm with absolute certainty this information. Nonetheless, I believe it is accurate.

However, about this same time, Senator Clinton went on the attack with renewed vigor and intensity as Senator Obama pulled ahead. Consider the following press articles:

• Losing Ground in Iowa, Clinton Assails Obama (Washington Post)
• Hillary Clinton Attack on Barack Obama Comes After She Looses Iowa Lead (NY Daily News)
• This Clinton Attack on Obama Could Boomerang (The Swamp)
• Battered by Poll, Clinton Hits Back (NY Times blog)
  

In addition, Senator Clinton made the following vindictive and accusative statement at a press
conference: (watch at YouTube.com)

“But I have been for months on the receiving end of rather consistent attacks – well now the fun part starts,” Mrs. Clinton said, punctuating the word “fun.” “We’re into the last month, and we’re going to start drawing the contrasts, because I want every Iowans to have accurate information when they make their decisions.” (source)

Two Persuasive Lessons

• Attacking out of ostensible desperation does not work--let's not forget how bad Iowa was for Hillary. She went from front-runner status and the consideration of skipping the state to an absolutely embarrassing 3rd place finish.
• Attacking and sounding vindictive does not work.
  

NYT Attacks Obama

After the New York Times published a scathing piece attacking John McCain entitled For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk (February 21, 2008; see story here), I knew that it would only be a matter of time until the Times published a story critical of Senator Barack Obama in an attempt to appear fair. The outburst of anger from many Americans over what they saw as a political cheap shop at Senator McCain would motivate the Times to work toward appearing fair and balanced. When I looked at the New York Times' website yesterday afternoon, I noticed the paper had just released that story--one of the first negative pieces on Senator Obama from the New York Times. Entitled Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role, the story is not nearly as accusatory and inflammatory as the story that attacked Senator McCain. Nevertheless, the story does add to the perception that Obama lacks experience and, as Senator Clinton has argued, is about "speeches not solutions."

As I read through this piece, I was struck by the seeming inaccuracy of some of the charges made. This was somewhat confirmed when I visited Senator Obama's website. Consider the following examples:

• "He was cautious — even on the Iraq war, which he had opposed as a Senate candidate. He voted against the withdrawal of troops and proposed legislation calling for a drawdown only after he was running for president and polls showed voters favoring it." [NY Times]
• However, in a speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations on November 22, 2005, Senator Obama said: "First and foremost, after the December 15 elections and during the course of next year, we need to focus our attention on how reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq." (source)
• "While some senators spent hours in closed-door meetings over immigration reform in early 2007, he dropped in only occasionally, prompting complaints that he was something of a dilettante."
• However, in a statement released on 5/26/2006, Senator McCain said, "I also want to thank Senators Brownback, Lieberman, Graham, Salazar, Martinez, Obama, and Dewine for their shared commitment to this issue, and working to ensure this bill moved successfully intact through the legislative process." (source)
  

What persuasive effect do these hit-job pieces have? I suppose only time will tell.

The Media and Photos of Hillary

In an earlier post, I commented on the media's disposition to take and publish unflattering photos of Hillary Clinton--a trick is mastered with George W. Bush. As I looked at the recent media coverage of Hillary, I could not help but notice that this has continued. What persuasive effect this will have is really hard to measure, but it cannot help.




"Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., visits with 19-month-old Reagan Watson and her mother, Tanya Watson, second from left, as Clinton campaigns at Laramie County Community College in Cheyenne, Wyo., Friday, March 7, 2008. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)" (source).

"Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., acknowledges supporters during a rally before the Wyoming caucus in Casper, Wyo., late Friday, March 7, 2008. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)" (source).



"US Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton smiles as she takes the stage at a campaign event in Casper, Wyoming on March 07. Clinton and Barack Obama face off in the western state of Wyoming as the campaign took a nasty turn following the resignation of a key Obama foreign policy aide. (AFP/Robyn Beck)" (source)

To Smear or Not to Smear, That is the Question

As I analyzed the editorial pages of the major newspapers and watched the political pundits, I could not help but notice a major division amongst so-called experts. Reflecting on the advice given to Senator Obama after his losses in Texas and Ohio, it appears to me that he is at a significant crossroad in his campaign: will he turn "negative" and attack Senator Clinton with the intensity that she has (apparently successfully) attacked him? I am reminded of Hamlet's famous words, which could be adapted:

To smear, or not to smear: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the campaign to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous attacks,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? 

Let me begin this section of the blog post by giving you an idea about how divided pundits are. In a March 9 op-ed in the New York Times, Maureen Dowd wrote:

After losing Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and his mojo, and getting whipsawed around by Hillary and his own chuckleheaded coterie of advisers, he will now have to come to grips with something he has always skittered away from: You can’t be elected president unless you prove you’re tough.

However, in a March 8 op-ed in the New York Times, David Brooks wrote:

Barack Obama had a theory. It was that the voters are tired of the partisan paralysis of the past 20 years. The theory was that if Obama could inspire a grass-roots movement with a new kind of leadership, he could ride it to the White House and end gridlock in Washington.
...

Now, the Obama campaign is facing another test. There are a few ways to interpret the losses in Texas and Ohio. One is demographic. He didn’t carry the groups he often has trouble with — white women, Latinos, the less educated. The other is tactical. Clinton attacked him, and the attacks worked.

The consultants, needless to say, gravitate toward the tactical interpretation. And once again the cry has gone up for Obama to get tough. This advice gets wrapped in metaphors. Obama has to start “throwing punches” or “taking the gloves off.”

Beneath the euphemisms, what the advice really means is that Obama has to start accusing Clinton of things.

This time, Obama, whose competitive juices are flowing, has apparently accepted the advice. The Obama campaign is now making a big issue of Hillary Clinton’s tax returns and dropping hints about donations to President Clinton’s library and her secret White House papers. It’s willing to launch an ethics assault. “If Senator Clinton wants to take the debate to various places, we’ll join that debate,” the Obama strategist David Axelrod told reporters the other day.

...

In short, a candidate should never betray the core theory of his campaign, or head down a road that leads to that betrayal. Barack Obama doesn’t have an impressive record of experience or a unique policy profile. New politics is all he’s got. He loses that, and he loses everything. Every day that he looks conventional is a bad day for him.

Besides, the real softness of the campaign is not that Obama is a wimp. It’s that he has never explained how this new politics would actually produce bread-and-butter benefits to people in places like Youngstown and Altoona.

If he can’t explain that, he’s going to lose at some point anyway.

So, what strategy would be more persuasive? Personally, I feel that Brooks' argument is far more persuasive. Although I have previously argued that attack are effective--a position I still hold--Barack Obama cannot damage his most valuable asset, which is his claim that he will bring a new kind of politics to America. Nonetheless, I do not believe that this is an either/or decision. By using surrogates, the Obama campaign can effectively cast doubt on Senator Clinton. Moreover, Senator Obama is still strongly in the lead, so why dirty himself attacking someone who will eventually be defeated anyway? Brooks hit the nail on the head when he said, "In short, a candidate should never betray the core theory of his campaign, or head down a road that leads to that betrayal. Barack Obama doesn’t have an impressive record of experience or a unique policy profile. New politics is all he’s got. He loses that, and he loses everything."

Delegates vs. Momentum

As I looked at Barack Obama's website this morning, I noticed a headline reading "Obama Wins Wyoming, Pads Delegate Lead" (source). Although the Obama campaign did not write the entirety of this story, I was nonetheless struck by the emphasis on momentum in this election.

For example, the title of the article read "Pads Delegate Lead." However, according to an AP story, "Obama won seven delegates and Clinton won five." Given that each candidate has around 1500 delegates, 2 delegates represents about 0.133% of each candidate's delegate count. Yet, you would never know this from the campaign's PR offensive.

Similarly, last Tuesday, the Clinton spin machine succeeded in convincing the American people that Clinton scored a major victory. However, Clinton and Obama split the delegates in Texas, Clinton gained 9 in Ohio, Clinton gained 4 in Rhode Island, and Obama gained 3 in Vermont (source). This means that Clinton gained 10 delegates overall--hardly a large number considering both candidates now stand at about 1500.

Obama and the Use of Stories

In a previous post, I remark on Hillary Clinton's recent decision to begin using vignettes in her speeches to provide a powerful personal emotional appeal to voters. In that post, I pointed out that Senator Obama has been using this persuasive technique for a while.

In Barack's remarks on January 3, after winning the Iowa cacus, he used the following personal stories:

• Hope is what I saw in the eyes of the young woman in Cedar Rapids who works the night shift after a full day of college and still can't afford health care for a sister who's ill. A young woman who still believes that this country will give her the chance to live out her dreams.
  
  Hope is what I heard in the voice of the New Hampshire woman who told me that she hasn't been able to breathe since her nephew left for Iraq. Who still goes to bed each night praying for his safe return.

In Barack's remarks on January 26, after winning the South Carolina primary, he used the following personal stories:

• Theirs are the stories and voices we carry on from South Carolina. The mother who can't get Medicaid to cover all the needs of her sick child. She needs us to pass a health care plan that cuts costs and makes health care available and affordable for every single American. That's what she's looking for.

  The teacher who works another shift at Dunkin' Donuts after school just to make ends meet, she needs us to reform our education system so that she gets better pay and more support and her students get the resources that they need to achieve their dreams.

  The Maytag worker who's now competing with his own teenager for a $7 an hour job at the local Wal-Mart, because the factory he gave his life to shut its doors, he needs us to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas and start putting them in the pockets of working Americans who deserve it and put them in the pockets of struggling homeowners who are having a tough time and looking after seniors who should retire with dignity and respect.

  That woman who told me that she hasn't been able to breathe since the day her nephew left for Iraq or the soldier who doesn't know his child because he's on his third or fourth or even fifth tour of duty, they need us to come together and put an end to a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged.

• But here is what I know. I know that when people say we can't overcome all the big money and influence in Washington, I think of that elderly woman who sent me a contribution the other day, an envelope that had a money order for $3.01 along with a verse of scripture tucked inside the envelope. So don't tell us change isn't possible. That woman knows change is possible.

  When I hear the cynical talk that blacks and whites and Latinos can't join together and work together, I'm reminded of the Latino brothers and sisters I organized with and stood with and fought with side by side for jobs and justice on the streets of Chicago. So don't tell us change can't happen.

  When I hear that we'll never overcome the racial divide in our politics, I think about that Republican woman who used to work for Strom Thurmond, who is now devoted to educating inner city-children and who went out into the streets of South Carolina and knocked on doors for this campaign. Don't tell me we can't change.

Clinton and the Use of Stories

As I watched Hillary Clinton's victory remarks in Ohio last Tuesday evening, I was struck by the fact that she has finally begun telling short stories in her speeches. Senator Obama has been doing this and it is high time that Hillary employed the persuasive power of a vignette.

In Hillary's January 3, 2008 remarks after finishing 3rd in Iowa, Hillary failed to mention any sort of personal story (either from her own life or from the life of a supporter).

In Hillary's January 8, 2008 remarks after winning New Hampshire, Hillary failed to mention any sort of personal story (either from her own life or from the life of a supporter).

In Hillary's February 5, 2008 remarks after Super Tuesday, Hillary failed to mention any sort of personal story (either from her own life or from the life of a supporter).

However, in Hillary's March 4, 2008 remarks after winning Texas and Ohio, Hillary finally begun using personal stories:

• For more than a year, I’ve been listening to the voices of people across our country. The single mom who told me she works two jobs; neither provides health care for her kids. She just can't work any harder. The little girl who asked how I helped people without homes - turns out her family was about to lose their own. The young man in a Marine Corps shirt who said he waited months for medical care. He said to me, "take care of my buddies, a lot of them are still over there. And then, will you please help take care of me?"
• I want to end by sharing with you a message that I got late last month from someone who didn't have much money to spare, but sent me $10 for my campaign and sent an e-mail in which she wrote: "My two daughters are two and four, and we chant and cheer for you at every speech we see. I want them to know anything is possible." Tonight I say to them, keep on watching. Together, we're going to make history. To those little girls, I say this is America, and we do believe you can be anything you want to be, and we want our sons and our daughters to dream big. I have big dreams for America’s future. The question is not whether we can fulfill those dreams, it's whether we will. And here's our answer: yes, we will.