Harry Truman famously said:

 

“I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think its hell.”

 

Republicans can be excused, perhaps, for forgetting this subtle-but-important difference between telling the truth and going negative, but Democrats who cite Truman as their strongest post-war President and something of a cultural icon ought to know better – or remember better. 

 

This failure to discern the difference between “telling the truth” and “going negative” is coming into sharp focus in this campaign, since both Senator Obama and Senator McCain have publicly and repeatedly eschewed “negative” campaigning – an approach which is high-minded, but often impractical.  This is especially a problem right now for Senator Obama, who is up against – in Senator Clinton – a real Chicago street-fighter.  The Clintons have always been reputed to “take no prisoners,” and so far in this campaign is concerned, she has lived up (or lived down) to that reputation, as has her husband and chief surrogate, former President Bill Clinton.

 

It used to be that “truth” was a defense in political campaigns – “negative” campaigning (also called “dirty” campaigning) was limited to spreading lies and unfounded innuendo about your opponents.  This dichotomy changed in 1988, when Vice President George H.W. Bush’s campaign picked up on “an attack” made against former Governor Michael Dukakis by Tennessee Senator (and fellow Presidential Candidate) Al Gore during the primary season.  This “attack,” of course, while mishandled by Senator Gore, led to the Republicans’ perhaps decisively effective “Willie Horton” ads.  Willie Horton was a convicted Massachusetts murder who – after being let out on a “weekend furlough” by then-Governor Dukakis – went on a murder-and-rape rampage in Maryland. 

 

The ad was indisputably true; however, because Horton was black and his victims were white, the politically correct media jumped all over the Bush campaign for “negative attack ads” that “played the race card,” totally ignoring the fact that the charge was first made in a debate by Senator Al Gore.  Facts didn’t matter – this ad “proved” that Republicans were closet racists, and this view – not the facts of Dukakis’s perhaps faulty judgment in furloughing dangerous murderers – became a major media issue.  Bush was damned for his racism, and his campaign advisor, Lee Atwater was particularly tarred as a virulent racist of the first order.

 

As a sidebar (and in the spirit of full disclosure), I knew Lee Atwater and worked with him – while he was South Carolina state Republican Party chairman – on the 1976 Ford campaign.  While he was not afraid to play hardball, I am absolutely certain that he was no racist.  I know false these charges hurt him personally and deeply.

 

However, since “Willie Horton,” truth has no longer been a defense.  An ad or speech or statement that calls an opponent to account is called an “attack ad” or characterized as “going negative” – when in fact, it’s often just reporting the truth.  For instance, comparison ads (we’ve seen many of these in this election cycle) are deemed attack ads, even if they honestly compare two candidates’ relative positions.  Romney was justly famous for his comparison ads, and he was seen as going negative EVEN when the ads were objectively true.  Candidates have been pressured by an underlying “political correctness” movement – primarily based around scrutiny from a media that’s constantly looking for yet one more controversy – and it’s gotten to the point that some candidates recoil from any comparative ads or even comparative statements by their supporters. 

 

For instance, John McCain has spent a great deal of time distancing himself from his own supporters.  Some of this, such as his repudiation of a warm-up-act talk show host who introduced him in Cincinnati by railing against Senator Obama (and daring to use his middle name, which has in this election cycle become “off-limits”), may be justified. However, when Senator McCain publicly scolded a supporter who cracked a joke at Hillary Clinton’s expense at a recent pro-McCain town hall meeting (“if the phone rang at 3 a.m. and Cindy McCain answered it, at least she’d know where her husband was”) is probably taking this “kid-gloves” treatment too far.  Senator McCain – the only real warrior in the campaign – is actually coming across as too civilized to fight, which may hurt him as he tries to project himself as the best-qualified candidate to fight a war against terrorists.

 

All the candidates ought to remember what Harry Truman said, and what American politicians used to believe – “I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think its hell.”  Truly negative campaigning is beneath the office of the President, and unworthy of real candidates for that office – but telling the truth about opponents and letting the voters make up their mind has always been as American as apple pie.  If it was good enough for “Honest Abe” and “Give ‘em Hell Harry,” it ought to be good enough for today’s Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates.

Remember, you heard it here first!

If he wants to win in November, Senator McCain had better wake up and listen to the message more than a million conservatives sent him on Super Tuesday II.

Earlier this evening, Senator John McCain comfortably locked up the Republican nomination with decisive wins in four state primaries.   Governor Mike Huckabee was remarkably generous, delivering a gracious concession speech - he's been a class act from beginning to end, and a refreshing change from the low-ball game played by some other candidates - and it should be said that Senator McCain has also opted for the "high road" in most of his efforts.

However, even as he is busy accepting his well-earned congratulations from friends, former competitors and ambitious bandwagoners, if he wants to win in November, Senator McCain should see tonight's vote as a conservative cautionary tale - one that he needs to address before the Republican Convention ... one he should address right away.

There was no question before Super Tuesday II that Senator McCain was going to be the Republican nominee.  He was shy a few delegates, but with only the zero-funded Governor Huckabee continuing to offer a challenge, no rational observer expected anything other than Candidate McCain.  Certainly, Governor Huckabee knew this.  More important, Governor Huckabee's supporters knew this, too.

However, with most of the votes counted (as I write this), it's clear that more than one million Republican voters took the time - and, in Ohio and the Northeast, braved the elements - to come out and vote AGAINST McCain.  This wasn't the Rush Limbaugh-inspired cross-over vote for Hillary (to keep the blood-soaked internecine civil war alive in the Democratic Party), but rather a spontaneous, grass-roots uprising against Senator McCain's positions on tax cuts, border security, illegal immigration and a double-handful of other issues in which Senator McCain differs from the Conservative base of the Republican Party.

While McCain has won handily, he initially rose to the top because the Conservative vote was split in several ways, while McCain's resurrection of the "Rockefeller Wing" of the Republican Party went unchallenged for the moderate Republican votes - and in addition, Senator McCain did best, early on (when it really mattered) when Democrats and Independents could vote in the Republican Party - and exit polling showed that many did.  In effect, between those cross-over votes and their own split between four (then three, then two) Conservative candidates, the Republican Party base's own fragmentation allowed Senator McCain to become the Party candidate, without ever earning a majority in those critical early primaries.

In effect, he won by attracting the largest plurality in elections where no candidate attracted a majority - but he did so in elections where all the Conservative candidates, when taken together, DID win a majority of the votes.  Like President Clinton in 1992, he became the "plurality" winner, rather than the "majority" winner.  Still, he won.  That's history.

But in the face of that ultimately decisive victory, Senator McCain saw - tonight - well over a million Republicans come out and vote against him, casting ballots based on principle rather than on any hope that their votes would carry the day.  That remarkable outpouring of Conservative discontent MUST be a warning signal to Senator McCain ... and if he's as smart a candidate as his track record seems to demonstrate, he'd better listen long and hard to that warning signal.

Senator McCain - "the natives are restless" - the base that you MUST have in order to win in November has just given you a bold and committed vote of no-confidence.  That's the bad news.  The good news - you've got eight full months to change your tune and decisively prove to your base that you're worthy of their support, their passionate support - as well as their votes.  You need their money.  You need their volunteer door-to-door commitment.  You need their passion - you need them to believe in you every bit as much as you believe in yourself.

You've got eight months to close that deal - but you'll be struggling to overcome 25 years of aisle-crossing baggage.  You may find that you'll need every minute of those eight months, and if you're smarter than your campaign advisors, you'll start today.

Remember, you heard it here first.














<a href="http://technorati.com/claim/ax5ev6bgrd" rel="me">Technorati Profile</a>

Introduction

The primary purpose of this blog is to analyze candidates' public tactics (their PR efforts) and derive from them their behind-the-scenes strategies ... then, when appropriate, to critique those strategies based on more than three decades of PR and political campaign experience.

However, this post is a bit different, and with a reason. It appears that, in spite of her "big win" on Super Tuesday II, Senator Hillary Clinton has still not evolved an effective strategy for taking on (or taking down) Senator Barack Obama - when Obama's team pulled a fast one in Cleveland, Hillary's hands were tied - as Brit Hume said, "if she objects, she's likely to raise objections in the black community" - shorthand for "she'll look racist" ... or "Senator Obama is "Teflon" - if it touches on race, you can't touch him.

Beyond that, based on Senator McCain's recent disavowal of a conservative talk show host's introduction in Cincinnati (and his rather lackluster campaign performance since he first became the presumptive nominee), it seems that Senator McCain hasn't evolved a decent (i.e., a "winning") strategy for dealing with Senator Obama, either.  He's so intent on being "above" politics-as-usual that it seems he may be giving Senator Obama - or even Senator Clinton - a free pass. 

While Senator Clinton had a re-creation of her campaign tonight - after her three-out-of-four wins on Super Tuesday she's "alive," probably all the way to the convention - Senator Obama is still in the lead, and at this moment he's the odds-on favorite to go head-to-head with Senator McCain in November.  And, as we've seen in the last two weeks (as I write this on March 4th), Senator McCain has already begun challenging Senator Obama ... but with kid gloves.

If nothing else, as Cincinnati demonstrated, Senator McCain is once again apparently turning members of his Conservative base back off by seeming to coddle Senator Obama's delicate sensibilities about his name and heritage, as well as his political voting record. Senator Obama, the most liberal Senator in Congress, doesn't like being called a "Liberal" any more than Senator Barack Hussain Obama likes to be reminded that he's the son of a Muslim. So, instead of taking Obama on by addressing the real issues, he skates around the edge citing credentials and issues that have not - to date - ignited the interest of the American electorate.

However, Senator McCain has got eight months to change that.

So - instead of outlining Hillary's current strategy (even though she won on Super Tuesday II, she still doesn't know how to engage Senator Obama, and frankly, panic isn't much of a strategy), I'm going to suggest what she should have done (and could still conceivably do,, though I doubt she'll dare to be even this bold) - and more important, what Senator McCain SHOULD do if he wants to win while still running a civil campaign against his Teflon-coated opponent-to-be, Senator Obama.

Full Disclosure - I first presented this strategy option in an interview earlier this week - before the debate - with a political reporter from Gannett News Service.

The Problem

Senator Obama is black, and that makes criticizing him particularly dangerous, especially among likely voters in the "politically correct" Democratic Party primary. Democrats and their liberal media allies are, by nature and choice, more concerned with political correctness than are Republicans and their conservative media allies - yet all but a few of the most self-confident conservatives still recoil in stark terror from any charge of racism. To an extent, this makes Obama "untouchable" to both Senator Clinton and Senator McCain.

To date, Hillary hasn't been able to evolve a strategy that:

a. Matters to voters - and is also strong enough to move the Democratic Party majority away from Senator Obama; and,

b. Is politically correct enough to pass the rigid Democrat/Media PC-Sniff Test without inviting a charge of racism

Bill Clinton tried - in a remarkably clumsy fashion, considering his own adroitly-Teflon-coated reputation - to raise the race issue without raising the race issue - comparing Obama's success in South Carolina, for instance, with that of Jesse Jackson in '84. That approach blew up in his face, and Hillary's, and some say it might cost her the nomination. However, it's not his inept effort, but Hillary's lack of an acceptable and effective "take down" strategy that is really stalling her campaign.


The Strategy:

Instead of taking Senator Obama on, head-t0-head, with criticisms that might be taken as racist, petty or mean-spirited, Hillary should have (are you listening, Senator McCain?) been painting word pictures - then raising troubling issue-oriented questions - questions that either Senator Obama can try to answer, or questions that voters will answer for themselves.

By "painting a picture," I'm talking about laying out a series of seemingly disconnected facts and conjectures on an issue. For instance, Hillary might have said:

"The Democratic Party has always been seen as a friend of Israel - from the time when Harry Truman boldly recognized the fledgling state of Israel in 1948 all the way to Bill Clinton's bold attempts to broker a lasting peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. As a lifelong Democrat, I am proud of my own lifelong support for Israel - and while I recognize that Israel must co-exist with - and cooperate with - the Palestinians, this cooperation cannot come at the cost of Israel's security or long-term future as a bastion of democracy in the Middle East.

"With that in mind, I want you to consider the following mosaic - put together these pieces of seemingly disconnected facts, then decide for yourself what this picture says. Senator Obama is the member of a church led by a black-separatist minister who has published a twelve-point program of separatism - the "Black Values System" - that many commentators suggest includes a strong anti-Israeli bias. Senator Obama, though he didn't ask for it and has publicly repudiated it, has been strongly endorsed by notorious anti-Semite black separatist and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Senator Obama has a Muslim father and for a time attended a Muslim school - and while not all Muslims oppose Israel, some do, and some of that doctrinal anti-Semitism may have rubbed off on the young Barack Obama, long before he was old enough to form his own conclusions.

"Looking further, reports have also recently surfaced in the press that, while an Illinois State Senator, Senator Obama took a strong pro-Palestinian position. Beyond that, Senator Obama has repeatedly pledged to meet - without precondition - with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a notorious anti-Semite who is building nuclear weapons technology and who has pledged to destroy Israel.

"Each of these items, taken by themselves, appear to be trivial - but put together, this paints a potentially troubling picture that, especially if you support Israel as I do, suggests that a President Obama might well be no friend of Israel. But don't take my word for it - consider these facts carefully and dispassionately, then draw your own conclusions."

This same approach can be taken on many of Senator Obama's less voter-friendly positions, especially those that seem at odds with his public statements. For instance, taxes. In a debate - or in a speech, Senator Clinton could have said:

"Senator Obama, some call me a "tax-and-spend liberal," and while that's a right-wing knee-jerk reaction to progressive change, it is true that I intend to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans in order to fund essential new social programs. However, it appears - if you look at the programs you advocate and the tax increases you've publicly supported - that you have taken this virtue and stood it on its ear. For instance, you have called for (list half-a-dozen expensive new social programs Senator Obama has advocated). To pay for this you - and other, independent experts - suggest that America will have to shell out $4 Trillion Dollars in new spending. From where I sit, Senator Obama, the only way to raise that kind of new revenue is to tax not only the wealthiest Americans - as I propose - but to also heavily tax the middle class.

"Toward that end, you have suggested removing the cap on Social Security taxes, and you have proposed (list three or four other new tax initiatives that Senator Obama has endorsed). Now I ask you: while each of these tax initiatives, taken by themselves, appears trivial, especially to the hard-working middle class whom you claim to represent. However, put together, the image of these across-the-board tax increases paint a picture - especially if you support tax relief for the middle class as I do - that suggests that Senator Obama intends to implement a major tax increase for America's hard-working middle class to fund his grab-bag of social programs. But don't take my word for it - instead, I invite you to paint for yourself, and draw your own conclusions."

This "Socratic"-like approach, especially if handled in a low-key, friendly manner - instead of in a confrontational and argumentative manner - does not come across as harsh, disrespectful or inherently racist. Who can argue against a friendly invitation to consider all the facts on issues that will really matter to broad segments of the electorate?

This approach does not directly attack Senator Obama. What it does do is pull together, jigsaw-puzzle-like, facts about Senator Obama's positions and his public statements - then invites either the audience to draw their own conclusions or Senator Obama to explain away these troubling facts and inconsistencies between his public face and his private actions.

Senator Clinton failed to do this - she's instead sniped at petty issues of little importance to Ohio voters - and to date, she has failed to dent the rising tide of Obama-mania. Shortly, Senator McCain will face this same challenge. He's made it clear that he won't "go negative" - but if he wants to win, he's got to convince independent voters to look at Senator Obama in a more inclusive light than is visible by the light of the halo the media's surrounded him with - and in doing so, to help independents make their own decisions, based on facts carefully linked together to show the man and his positions.

Remember, you heard it here first.











<a href="http://technorati.com/claim/ax5ev6bgrd" rel="me">Technorati Profile</a>