Book Review: Game Change

There are usually a few books that come out after each US Presidential election, but 2008 really seems to have led to a whole industry of writing. The first, and in my opinion best, overview of the campaign was Dennis W. Johnson's Campaigning for President; a book that takes an overview of the key innovations and explains why Obama won. As an edited collection it is able to cover a lot of ground with contributions from a range of academics - to understand what the campaign was about this is the one to buy. But for those who wish to get inside the campaign Game Change is something quite special. Subtitled 'Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime', this tells the insider story of relations between those contesting the presidency, between the presidential and vice-presidential candidates and details the biography of the campaign. Authors John Heilemann and Mark Halperin are journalists and the project seems to have been approached from the perspective of an investigative journalist. Interviews have been conducted with a range of front line and back room operatives central to the campaign and the picture painted is one of both strategic thinking and deployment of resources as well as pragmatic seat of the pants flying that at times verged on panic. Wonderful stuff!

So what do we learn from this? The story of the bitter rivalry that blew up between the Clintons (Hillary and Bill) and Obama is striking. When the visible aspects of this were only the negative advertisements, to get a sense of the personal side to the contest is fascinating. In particularly Hillary Clinton's blinkered disbelief that the 'upstart' would not only take her on but force her to accept defeat. The chaotic organisation, or at times disorganisation and disfunctionalism within Clinton's team is also striking; this contrasts with Obama's slick operation that, although not without its problems, kept on top of strategy and perhaps this led to the emphatic victory in the race. Biden was a temporary spanner in the works, but soon got his game together and he is a marginal figure in the story largely. The John Edwards story is a further sideline but nonetheless an amusing aside, as he stumbles along badgered by his wife and dogged by rumours of an affair and subsequent love child it is clear why he never made any impact and never got a position in the Obama administration.

The McCain story is shorter and details the thinking within the campaign as they drift from frontrunner to being dead in the water to the emergent victor (of the nomination) in a matter of months. Again the disfunctionalism in his team is striking, but the real story is Sarah Palin. Her introduction, rise to stardom and then public and private meltdown, with hints of her verging on psychological collapse, is a fascinating and somewhat tragic story. The decision to include her in the campaign was ill-planned, and without full checks on her ability or background. While she showed herself to be an initial competent performer this did not withstand interrogation. Her brand crashed and burned very quickly, those advising her were probably as much to blame as McCain for choosing her and Palin herself.

The focus stays on Obama and the Clintons a lot, perhaps as that was where the real story of the 2008 campaign was. There is little said of the online machine Obama's team built; beyond this being a rich source of campaign finances. Also there is much about the Reverend Jeremiah Wright issue, yet little about some of the other events of the campaign - Joe the Plumber does not feature for example despite his name being constantly referenced by McCain in the third and final debate. In fact the latter stages of the fight seem to be a footnote when compared to the detail on the process of winning the nominations, a time when Obama and Clinton where the big game in town. However, despite some detail some readers may expect to feature being absent, it is a fascinating read - an series of in-depth insider accounts of a campaign written in an accessible style and at times reading like a political thriller. Great fun, but also a great insight into the world of the political strategist

Twitter Control

I know that Hillary Clinton and John McCain are all now within Obama's team, but one would think that they would not all be saying exactly the same thing and almost exactly the same time. However it seems that the Obama machine is now in charge of all their Twitter accounts and so, if you are sad/unlucky/fortunate (delete as appropriate) to subscribe to all you end up with the feed (left). So who really thought that the live confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor needed that much publicity? More substantially, does this not suggest the stifling of the voices of those included into government because of their talent, I know it is 'only' Twitter, but it suggests a strong control mechanism over public/political communication from anyone with the Obama team. This seems to run counter to the notion of including your rivals and to the open and transparent image of the administration. or am I just a pedant?

Better than the real thing?

Right message, Right media

Advertisements leave impressions with the viewer, few are constructed to directly make people think or evaluate the argument but accept it, perhaps subconsciously, or want to find out more. Hence it is no surprise that the majority of advertisements shown so far in the race for the nominations in the US have remained concentrated on television. However there is a new function for the Internet, while Youtube can amplify messages by allowing them to be re-posted, advertisements, websites and social networking is all about donations. Hence perhaps, Obama, the man most active on the web has earned the most donations, Clinton had to dip into her own purse while McCain relies heavily on Republican money. As we move from the nomination race to a Presidential contest will we see the Internet becoming more important for both candidates or will Obama carry on outstripping his opponents: I guess the key question is how much money can Americans afford to give to a campaign?

Magnaminity is good!

There has been a huge uproar about Hillary Clinton's comparison of the current nomination race and those of her husband but also the ill-fated Robert F. Kennedy. "You know, my husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary sometime in the middle of June. Right?... We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I just-- I don't understand it." This has been interpreted in a number of ways, all being seen as offensive to the Kennedys, Obama and even an expression of a hope that Obama would be assassinated. Obama could have used this in a number of ways to discredit his opponent but, as victory seems to be going his way ever quicker, he chose not to attack. Speaking on the Puerto Rican radio station Isla, he said: "I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Sen. Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make. And I think that is what happened here.
Sen. Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it, and I would take her at her word on that." While it is impossible to assess whether this is Obama's way or a skillful and strategic bit of personal PR, but whatever the case it has resulted in the latter. Obama is able to look generous, understanding and compassionate, perhaps have any of his own gaffes overlooked, but also undermine attacks from Clinton. For him it is win-win and may well be intended to offer voters an insight into his Presidential style.

A bit of blackmail?

The US media and Obama's team are playing up his victory, however Hillary Clinton is avowed to fight on and has warned Obama against declaring premature victory. She claims that any claim of victory would be a "slap in the face" to her millions of supporters so far as well as those in states who have yet to vote. Is this a gambit to undercut Edwards' as potential running mate should the rest of the superdelegates declare, or is it designed to mobilise her supporters to reduce Obama's slim lead and get some superdelegates to rethink their support? Obama is going to find it a difficult race to the White House, so the choice is controversial and superdelegates will probably be considering how his colour and name will play out in a dirty contest against McCain, Clinton probably know that if there is no clear leader then she is still in with a chance.

Taking the biscuit

Reading Hillary Clinton's twitter feed this morning I thought it was her birthday, and that she was asking voters to help her celebrate by winning for her in Oregon. Instead it was a rather crassly delivered emotional appeal and endorsement that reads as follows:

Hillary Clinton’s Springfield office had a very special Get Out the Vote celebration yesterday. Eugene native Shana Stull was the first Oregon Field Organizer hired by the Oregon for Hillary campaign. Shana is the proud mom of two daughters, Amelie and Doreen, ages three and one. In honor of Amelie’s third birthday yesterday, twenty Eugene volunteers made 518 phone calls in one hour to help Get Out the Vote for Hillary. Shana couldn’t think of a better birthday present for her daughter than to help elect Hillary as our next President. “For my daughters, I’m doing everything I can to elect Hillary. I know that she will create a brighter future for our children,”
Shana said... see full post

and on the endorsement goes. I just cannot for the life of me seeing why this will sway the floating voter. Maybe it is not necessary to make a case to vote for Clinton anymore given how long the campaign has been running but does the unqualified endorsement of a campaign activist carry any weight?

Hillary's last push

With a matter of 100 delegates between them and many super-delegates still in need of convincing, Hillary Clinton has launched her push to win Pennsylvania. One thing of benefit to her cause was a gig by Elton John that raised $2.5 million, but what is more important; his endorsement of the cash? Clearly there is a degree of synergy between his appearance and her use of the I'm still standing line. But perhaps of more help has been a gaffe, well perhaps an ill-judged line, from Obama. His statement about the disillusioned working class has been spun by opponents to make him appear patronising. His observations was: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations". Interestingly attacks have come from both Clinton and McCain, which suggests that not only does Clinton see him as the main rival but so does McCain. The big questions is will either his comments or Elton's appearance have an impact on the contest? With 10days still to go to the Pennsylvania primary he has time to recoup as does Clinton to drive public opinion against him; so who will the voter believe. If the voters in Pennsylvania did not "need a president who looks down on them", as Hillary claims, and Obama becomes linked with looking down on them as opposed to being one of them it could be quite damaging.

The unprofessional professional?

Mark Penn (left) has been a trusted adviser and aide to the Clintons since the mid 1990s, it has been a sideline alongside to his proper job of running public relations company Burson-Marsteller, a global giant in the sector who has the mission statement of providing a 'gold standard' to clients. But will Penn's credibility be damaged by his performance serving Hillary Clinton? There are a number of areas of the campaign where the "Monday-morning quarterbackers" (media pundits that dissect campaigns) have found Penn at fault: his over confidence in her as the obvious winner, the reliance on the Clinton name and lack of understanding of the public mood and desire for change being the major areas. It was a conflict of interests that sealed his fate, he was negotiating a free trade agreement with Columbia that Bush is trying to drive through Congress that the Democrats and Clinton in particular oppose wholeheartedly; hence Bush's urgency. Its seems the PR man got it wrong on a number of counts; is this surprising.

Well maybe and maybe not. While Penn may have the experience of managing the communication and reputation of millions of household brands (be they consumer goods or nations) he may not fully understand public engagement with politics. We do not get bored of all brands in a product sector, maybe one brand, but not them all. We do not desire new brands to appear that offer something totally different. Importantly we also are likely to trust most high street brands. These things are different in politics and in the US in particular at the moment. The polls seem to show a boredom with the brands and what they represent, thus much is focused on the character and persona of the candidate for presidency. Second the reason for Obama's success is the desire for systemic change by a significant amount of voters; the only question they face is whether Obama is the right man to change the system. And trust, well who trusts politicians? PR does not normally face such a complex and hostile environment, also it does no normally overtly play with negative messages, and you can have as many clients at the same time as you can handle and there are rarely conflicts of interests, especially not on ideological grounds.

All this raises an interesting question are the communications, marketing and public relations professionals really equipped to work within modern political campaigning? Do they really have the skills and knowledge required and are they able to transfer and adapt their skills to suit the context of politics? A big question!

A war of rhetoric

"Rocky Balboa had gotten halfway up those steps and said, 'Well, I guess that's about far enough'. Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit."

A nice quote, a nice bit of rhetoric, and a nice link to popular culture and the notion of the all-American fighting spirit. But this line could backfire if the media also notes that in the 1976 film Balboa lost despite advise that he should give up. Hillary Clinton, the person who delivered this line as part of the last stages of the Democrat nomination race, is under pressure to concede and stop the division within the party in order to redouble efforts to undermine the McCain onslaught. Clinton seems under pressure to be twice the man of any other candidate, but is the rhetoric right and the messages resonating with those who will determine the outcome of the contest?

How to destroy your credibility the easy way

You can imagine the conversation within the communication team, Hilary Clinton as a woman cannot claim battle as her Republican rival so they needed to invent a little action. So they thought they would exaggerate a little, rather than gunshots in the hills nearby she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire and so the story escalates. If it were a celebrity no-one would care, a business leader enhancing his or her CV well who would check, but a presidential candidate; whoever thought up that idea must have been out of their tiny mind. If the voters do not believe she "misspoke" and that she lied then it will undermine all credibility in her at a time when she has to out-honest Obama. Whoops!!

TRUST!

Too busy to hold one meeting of a committee that oversees the Afghanistan conflict, too busy because of the contest for the Democratic nomination, could this be Clinton's killer criticism?

FEAR!

Fear is a powerful tool of persuasion, both to gain support and as a weapon against an opponent. It was tried and failed by the UK Conservatives with the 'New Labour: New Danger', but Blair was trusted by the electorate; the question in the US is how much do American voters trust Obama.

In a post 9/11 climate of uncertainty and insecurity, when Americans can see real threats to their homeland, and can recognise the need for a strong and capable President, the latest Hillary Clinton ad could be devastating. By focusing on the need for someone with experience, playing on the fear that parents (particularly mothers) fear bad things can happen to them and their children as they sleep, she is positioning herself as that person. But do Americans see her in that role. It may sow the seeds of doubt among wavering Democrats but could, if she wins, be the sort of message that will make some question who would ensure their children's safety best: a man or a woman. She claims experience by proxy but will Americans accept her claim?