What history may say about our experiences today

[keopeli]

It's safe to say that all those that consider themselves Democrats admire the political career of Hillary Clinton. At this divisive time in the 2008 Democratic Primary, there are still some universal truths about Democrats that separate them from Republics. One is an admiration of the Clinton's and there efforts during the Reagan generation of the late 20th Century.

When we eventually reflect on the 2008 Democratic Primaries, it will seem like a cultural (political) awakening. The Clinton legacy will be a part of this transformation and historians will wonder over the decisions made by each campaign. Hillary, the first female contender, had to run against the first African-American contender. The contest became a struggle of the titans.

There will be moments never forgotten, such as Obama's speech on racial relations in the US and Hillary's 3 am ad. But the most profound effect is the advent of a completely new generation of political participants. Though they are often categorized as college students, it actually crosses all political stereotypes, because it is generated by the internet in a way that is totally new.

Obama has 1,500,000 donors. That is the single fact that is more significant than the Pledged Delegate number. This is totally unprecedented in politics. McCain must realize, as all Republics do, that a new day has dawned in the U.S. The people have found a way to organize sufficiently to push our way into government via the internet using small donations. Thus, a new paradigm has emerged. The Republics don't have any clue what to expect in the Fall. The only reasonable projection is that, unless the Republics can very quickly turn their talk radio and TV audience into a network of internet users willing to pass the $600 refund directly to John McCain, is that Obama will exceed all previous fund raising records by an enormous margin. In Bush's money-driven world, that type of clout is seriously respected.

Here we see finally the relevant distinction between the Clinton and Obama campaigns. Hillary's advisors divided people up into small groups and projected a candidate to appeal specifically to them. Obama's advisors advocated a more universal approach with broad appeal. The Clinton campaign focused on direct contact with people, while the Obama campaign styled their campaign to appeal to broad audiences in large venues, communicating largely via email to promote campaign events.

While the Clinton campaign style is notable for her face-to-face, personal style, the Obama campaign's approach managed simultaneously to open a direct link to a fund raising goldmine. We have yet to learn when the Obama campaign first discovered this goldmine.

It was not until Super Tuesday that the Clinton campaign first discovered their dilemma. It suddenly became obvious that the Obama approach had garnered unexpected pledged delegates through mostly caucus contests and the math no longer favored Clinton. We have yet to learn when the Clinton Campaign first discovered this change in the political map.

The Clinton campaign made a bold choice to try and fight a battle whose odds were heavily against them. What is notable is that the key advisors never changed. Had the Clinton team truly recognized the depth of the problem with their campaign style? It was never about convincing people she was worthy. Yet, time and again, she presented herself as more worthy than her opponent. Yet the problem was not about being convinced. The root problem was the campaign's structure and approach.

As the campaign wore on and the situation became more dire, the Clinton advisors focused in on a smaller and smaller population of people, narrowing their focus to a target demographic wherever they went. The six weeks spent in Pennsylvania allowed them to develop a small town, low brow attitude that appealed to rural Pennsylvanians, and it paid off with a clear win there.

But six weeks is a long time in politics. And the new media online drove her image in deeply within the psyche of Americans. Let's face it: how many people in the US are like rural Pennsylvanians? I mean, I'd like to visit them some day - I'm sure they're nice people. But, they don't represent a majority of Americans, much less the Democratic Party.

By hammering home the "bubba" theme during the Pennsylvania, the Clinton campaign fueled an outrage among African-Americans in North Carolina that would come back later to hurt them. At the same time, the persona developed over the long Pennsylvania contest became unappealing and often offensive to voters in Illinois, including a big chunk who consider Obama their own. Again, an unpleasant result from the posturing of the Clinton campaign.

The Clinton campaign has found itself in an untenable position. I think it's because they never fully realized the significance of the internet in the 21st century with it's broad appeal and fund raising potential.

The Democratic Primaries are not over yet. History will have some more valuable material to draw from our current situation. But, they are certainly historic and all the players are lending a hand in shaping a new place for us to live.

[Boz]

1. We live in a different light today, images and words move so quickly,

That sunshine makes for broad sunshine law in and of itself.

Cant say one thing and be another as easily, all politics is local indeed.

But today that is no longer true, the posturing and pandering to one group is seen by another.

Thats why Obama has beat her.

He is what he is he has been what he has been.

In the light of day, there hasn't been those changes of costume and character and voice that has come with Hillary Clintons campaign,

People notice and see.

[rpannier]

2. Interesting analysis

I would take it a step further from my own observations that Obama found the rhetoric to go with the internet age.

The internet has made all politics local. And by that I mean, city council-style local.

In the past people paid little attention to national politics. People figured that national politicians were corrupt and spent more timefocusing in on what the mayor and ciry council did.

With the internet, I can fire off 50 angry messages to politicians in less than 5 minutes.
I know what they're up to and I'm not interested in comments like Pelosi's "We're the leaders, they're just a bunch of activists."

Obama's message from the start was "We can..."
Clinton's was, "I will fight for you."

Clinton's message was a pre-2005 message. Obama's was an internet age message.

Elections (IMO) are all becoming very local -- and I don't mean issues.
I mean expectations of the electorate and accessibility.

[nemo137]

3. K&R

Definitely worth reading.

[mmonk]

4. Yes, new era. New way of doing things.