In a two part series I would like to offer my “expert” advice to both Democratic candidates on how they can secure the nomination. In a departure of my normal routine, I have avoided the comments, suggestions, “analysis” of our fine pundit colleagues following Super Tuesday II (Ohio, Texas, Vermont, Rhode Island). Instead, I am going to rely on some realistic strategery that both Obama and Clinton can employ to turn the tables.
First, the hard one…Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Situation: Today Wyoming is having their caucus and the incoming results appear to be a complete blowout for Obama (43% of Precincts reporting: 66% Obama, 33% Clinton).
Here’s the cold, hard truth. She can continue to plant doubt about Obama’s bona fides and run a negative campaign until Pennsylvania, which is what I expect her people to be telling her to do, or she can listen to me, the newsfox. The Nafta-gate story is way too complex for people to grasp as is the Rezko affiliation. Continuing to press these things will open the flood gates for Obama’s surrogate support organizations (Unions) to go negative on all of her unsubstantiated corruption charges (Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate). Nobody wins in this mess…except John McCain.
I’ve got a better idea. She should have been doing this from day one, which is to merge experience with hope. I think she tried it for a week, but didn’t like how it felt. Too wishy-washy. She believes voters are rational actors and she has the logical argument to win. Unfortunately for her, we have seen the success of Obama’s movement and the failure of John Kerry’s “it is illogical to vote for Bush” strategy. Obama is right in that you have to give people something to be for, not just against. She has captured the experience card, but she can really run that up by disclosing her daily calendar when she was First Lady. She can be even more detailed on exactly how she helped bring peace to Northern Ireland or what steps she took to assist the Children’s Health Insurance Program. By being even more specific on her record she will draw greater credence to her experience card and people will stop questioning her actual role as First Lady. What has she done in the Senate? Where exactly has she worked in a non-partisan fashion? Take this talking point away from Obama by avoiding platitudes and give people the wonk talk. 5 point bulleted lists are quick, clean, and seem authoritative. In sum, she should continue to run positive on her experience.
Second, and this is the part she really needs to work on, is to demonstrate why she wants to “work so hard.” The line that she sees so much disparity in the world is probably very genuine, but it doesn’t come off as strong as Obama’s. Her story is reactive and it makes her out to be the lone hero of the story–vote for me and I’ll give you what you need. He has a vision for where he wants to take the country. He has provided a set of values from which he builds his agenda. She has a laundry list of policies and we don’t know how she came to them or why they are important. Why is it important for every person in this country to have health insurance? Why must we end the war in Iraq? She’s gonna have to get idealistic and draw on some real, raw emotion here. And change the politics of the pronoun from “me” to “we.” The times when she has shown a softer edge it has worked in her favor (New Hampshire tears, Austin Debate). She needs to tell people what America can be and how it can get there–like the general she wants to be. The folks who are the most worried about their economic future really want to hear a specific plan for security, one that Obama has been unable to close the deal on. They like hope, but they are scared of going bankrupt–these are the blue collar citizens of Ohio, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania.
The reality on the ground is that she cannot convince Obama supporters to jump ship. Suppressing the vote by going negative will only delay his ability to finally claim the nomination after taking away every metric of success (fundraising dollars, states won, pledged delegates, votes, and eventually superdelegates). So what can she do? Bring new people into the process like Obama has done. We saw huge numbers in Texas and it was not just Obama bringing them to the polls, she had a great deal of support that Democrats did not have in 2004. Scorched earth is not the roadmap to the nomination. Competing for the hope card and strengthening the experience card is her only hope. She must continue to maintain her positive position in the media, she cannot become a sore loser or appear desperate or remind people of the bunker-mentality 90’s Clintons.
If she can win Pennsylvania by 10+ points and attract more superdelegates then it may force the Democratic Party to redo the Michigan and Florida primaries. She will have a strong showing in Michigan and can compete in Florida. I argue this is her only hope to turn the tide before Denver.
Delegate math is a problem for her, but the only way to persuade undecided voters that she has a “moral claim” is to have a stronger message. It may be too late to retool her strategy, but there are few better options at this point after not getting the delegates she desperately needed in Ohio and Texas. In fact, she might have won those battles and may win others, but the war for delegates may already be lost.
Thoughts?
