| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
| | | Introduction | |
<
< | This season's Democratic primary has pitted two gifted politicians against one another, providing insight into how campaigns rise and fall based on their ability to create and maintain a creed that captures the widest possible audience. | >
> | This season’s Democratic primary has showcased two gifted politicians, providing insight into how campaigns rise and fall based on their ability to build and maintain creeds that captures the widest possible audience. | | | | |
<
< | The Early Campaign | >
> | The Emergence of Hope | | | | |
<
< | A One-Way Race | >
> | Edwards and Obama interrupted Clinton’s march to the nomination. By speaking forcefully about change, they forced Clinton to justify her candidacy, which she did by citing her experience and preparation for the job. Competing creeds quickly emerged. | | | | |
<
< | Early on, there was no Democratic primary. Clinton was running as the inevitable candidate; the one best positioned to beat the Republicans in the fall. Her creed was a simple promise to deliver what democrats most desired: a Democrat in the White House. | >
> | Edwards would fight for change, championing the working-class and its unions. That tent, however, wasn't big enough. While energizing many, it alienated others. Moderates and the Wall Street crowd were turned off. Perhaps overestimating voter animosity towards big business, Edward’s pitched a pop tent and not enough voters could fit inside. | | | | |
<
< | The Emergence of Hope | >
> | Simultaneously, Obama pitched a bigger tent. He campaigned for "One America,” arguing that change comes from collaboration and promising reconciliation. He opened the door wide enough for everyone to fit inside.
Furthermore, his campaign, at least according to supporters, somehow "transcends race." Obama is a black man who is not angry at white America. Instead of demanding and confronting, he articulates a message of unity, healing, and progress. This message creates an opportunity to move past divisiveness, something both necessary to maintaining the "One America" creed and part of what makes it desirable to a broad audience (particularly white voters looking for redemption from sin). | | | | |
<
< | John Edwards and Barak Obama, however, altered the dynamic of the race. By speaking forcefully about change, they pushed Clinton onto the defensive. She pushed back, citing her experience and preparation for the job. For the first time, competing creeds emerged. | >
> | Additionally, by staying above detail-drudgery, Obama is able to maintain a creed that is against the things almost everyone is against and for the things almost everyone is for. Rather than policy initiatives, his tent is held aloft by promises of a different type of politics. While voters may disagree over the details of a healthcare plan or the capital gains tax, almost everyone supports broad themes of collaboration and inclusiveness. As a result, Obama is most effective when he speaks broadly of inclusive change and least effective when it appears, even for a moment, that he might not actually represent the transcendent campaign he seeks to run. Being off message undermines his creed. | | | | |
<
< | Edwards would fight for change, championing the working-class who, along with their unions, supported him in droves. That tent, however, wasn't big enough. While representing a sizable share of Democratic Primary voters, it alienated others. Moderates and the Wall Street crowd were turned off. Perhaps overestimating voter animosity towards big business, Edward’s pitched a pop tent and not enough voters could fit inside.
Simultaneously, Obama pitched the biggest tent of them all. He campaigned for "one America" – a nation where divisions of political party, and, most strikingly, race are obsolete. Arguing that change comes from collaboration, he invited everyone in and promised reconciliation. Arnold himself couldn’t have created a broader, more appealing creed.
The race became Obama’s "One America" against Clinton's predictable stewardship.
Obamamania
One characteristic of Obama's campaign, highlighted by the media and exalted by his supporters, is that he somehow "transcends race." He is a black man who is not angry at white America. Instead of demanding and confronting, Obama articulates message of unity, healing, and progress. He purports to create an opportunity to move past divisiveness: a message that is both necessary to maintain the "One America" creed and what makes it desirable to a broad audience (particularly white voters looking for redemption from sin). | >
> | Clinton's Response | | | Misguided Attacks | |
<
< | Clinton's early attacks failed because they did not undermine the basic tenants of Obama's creed. | >
> | Clinton's early attacks failed to undermine the basic tenants of Obama's creed.
First, Clinton mocked Obama's creed, arguing that change and hope are just words. While perhaps true, this amounted to arguing that the wizard was just a man, without first pulling back the curtain. She didn’t target the ideas that support Obama’s creed and so was unsuccessful. | | | | |
<
< | First, Clinton tried to bring the whole tent down in one blow. She mocked Obama's creed, arguing that change and hope are just words, which, in the end, accomplish nothing. While perhaps true, this was like arguing that the wizard is just a man, without first pulling back the curtain. Her attacks played right into his argument that standing for change and unity causes resentment by the status quo. Because this attack failed to directly undermine the veracity of "One America," it was unsuccessful. | >
> | Next, Clinton argued that she, too, represented change. While obviously true, Clinton had to take a back seat on the issue. Not only was she late to show, but electing a woman proved less appealing than moving beyond racial divisions. Additionally, Clinton’s change appeared to be less about coming together than it was about being the first female president. While Obama doesn’t talk about being the first black president (such a claim would undermine his creed’s assertion that racial divisions are unimportant), Clinton trumpeted her gender as a rationale for her presidency. This tactic, while slightly broadening Clinton's appeal, failed to undermine the basic premise of Obama’s creed and, in fact, may have highlighted key differences in their respective approaches in a way that favored Obama. As a result, Obama remained unwounded. | | | | |
<
< | Next, Clinton argued that she, too, represented change. While obviously true, Clinton had to take a back seat on the issue. Not only was she late to show, but the idea of electing a woman proved less appealing than moving beyond racial divisions. Our long history of racial animosity makes the idea of coming together and transcending prior divisions more powerful than a female president: the past and present animosity between men and women, and the pain associated with it, does not rise to the same level. While this attack slightly broadened Clinton's appeal, it, again, failed to undermine the basic premise of Obama’s creed and so didn't wound his campaign. | | | Holes in the Tent | |
<
< | Since Texas and Ohio, however, the Clinton campaign has done a better job undermining the tent posts supporting Obama's broad creed. | >
> | Since Texas and Ohio, however, the Clinton campaign has done a better job undermining the building blocks of Obama's creed. | | | | |
<
< | First, Clinton publicly discussed Obama as a potential Vice President as if to say, "You can have 'change,' feel good about bridging the chasms that divide us, and still vote for me." Obama, sensing the damage that this would do to the central premise of his campaign, immediately rejected the VP job. Still, the seed was planted that perhaps Clinton could deliver on both her promises of leadership and Obama’s promises of "One America." | >
> | First, Clinton publicly discussed Obama as a potential Vice President as if to say, "You can have 'change,' feel good about bridging the chasms that divide us, and still vote for me." Obama, sensing potential damage to the central premise of his campaign, immediately rejected the VP job. Still, the seed was planted that perhaps Clinton could deliver on both her promise of leadership and Obama’s promise of "One America." | | | | |
<
< | Second, the Clinton campaign directly poked a hole in the idea that Obama is someone above politics. Despite her own shady land deals, Clinton pushed the Tony Rezko story, arguing that Obama is part of the same political muck that plagues Washington. This is a perfect attack on Obama's creed with little cost to Clinton. She basically announced, "See, he is dirty like the rest of us!" This was an important move because it had the potential to change the way voter’s viewed Obama. His supporters enamored with a departure from politics as usual were left questioning whether Obama was what he said he was. | >
> | Second, the Clinton campaign directly poked a hole in the idea that Obama is somehow above the corrupting influence of politics. Despite her own shady land deals, she pushed the Tony Rezko story, arguing that Obama is part of the same political muck that plagues Washington. This was a perfect attack on his creed since it had the potential to change voters’ perception of Obama and undermine a basic premise of his creed. His supporters, enamored with a departure from politics as usual, were left questioning whether Obama was all that he claimed to be. | | | | |
<
< | Recently, Clinton has shaken the very foundation of Obama's creed by questioning whether he transcends race. By highlighting his pastor's divisive words, Clinton raised the question whether, deep down, Obama is actually an angry black man, poised to spill the secret shame of racism in this country. For white voters, such a charge brought serious misgivings. No longer is Obama the fearless leader who will move the country beyond its deep divisions. Instead, if her attack works, his campaign will become, as Bill Clinton argued many weeks ago, in many ways indistinguishable from Jesse Jackson's. Without racial unity and reconciliation, "One America" quickly becomes many America’s again and the whole in the creed lets votes escape. | >
> | Recently, Clinton shook the very foundation of Obama's creed by questioning whether he transcends race. By highlighting his pastor's divisive words, Clinton raised the question whether, deep down, Obama is actually an angry black man, poised to spill the secret shame of racism in this country. For white voters, such a charge brought serious misgivings. No longer was Obama the fearless leader poised to move the country beyond its racial divide. Instead, his campaign became, as Bill Clinton argued many weeks ago, in many ways indistinguishable from Jesse Jackson's. Without racial unity and reconciliation, "One America" quickly becomes many America’s again and the hole in the tent let votes escape. Obama’s immediate damage control, including a major address on race, may have stopped the bleeding. Nevertheless, successfully wounding Obama invigorated Clinton’s campaign and cleared a path for future attacks. | | | | |
<
< | It is too early to tell whether Obama’s speech on race and subsequent campaigning mitigated the damage done by Clinton’s attack. The very fact that he give such a speech indicates that the campaign felt a major reaffirmation of the creed was necessary. | >
> | Since then, Clinton has continued to pick away at Obama’s creed and for the first time she has been able to increase his negatives. Unfortunately for Clinton, her negatives have increased as well. Perhaps voters, hopes dashed by Clinton’s attacks, have rejected her for bursting their bubble. Perhaps going negative, particularly outside of policy, has turned people off. Either way, Clinton will need to continue to undermine Obama’s creed without being seen as an avatar of divisiveness destroying a symbol of hope. | | | Endgame | |
<
< | While Obama remains strong, Clinton has found a way to hurt him. The Richardson and Casey endorsements may re-entrench the idea that his appeal crosses racial lines, but the question remains whether Clinton has enough ammunition to take Obama out. If so, we now know she can capably pull the trigger.
Regardless, the battle between these two politicians with similar politics, but quite different politicking, has given us insight into what it takes to cobble together and maintain a sufficiently broad creed. | >
> | Time is on Obama’s side and recent endorsements may re-entrench the idea that his appeal crosses racial lines. Regardless, the battle between these two politicians with similar politics, but quite different politicking, has given us insight into what it takes to cobble together, defend, and maintain a sufficiently broad creed. | | |
|
|