Campaign narratives

It's a bizarre thing to watch CNN clips of election coverage on the internet. What you'll usually get to see is a two minute clip that features excerpts from speeches by the remaining candidates and a couple different storylines, without the when, where, or what. The excerpts of the speeches usually reinforce whatever the producers at CNN believe the narrative of the week to be (hint hint, Speeches vs. Solutions!) I've always been curious how this process starts -- of reducing a candidate and all of their positions, speeches, and personal history into an abstract, usually 5 words or less -- but I think it's obvious that in an age of TV the campaigns try to define both themselves and their opponents in as minimal a way as possible. Like this recent NYT story shows, HRC badly underestimated Obama's chances for a run at the nomination, and I think he was able to take advantage of her early laziness and take control of the whole storyline in the Dem primary. "Change," "Hope," whatever, HRC's campaign has been completely reactionary since Iowa. Her campaign started with "Renewing the promise of America." After Iowa, the influence of Obama's surge is obvious: “Working for Change, Working for You.” “Strength and Experience.” “The Strength and Experience to Make Change Happen” (that reads nicely). Today's it's "Solutions for America."

Ben Smith at politico.com made some interesting comments regarding HRC's slogan rotation:

"The shifting, carefully measured words reflect some of the strengths of her campaign but some of its most visible weaknesses. They’re the product of years of meticulous polling, layers of advisers, and evidence of a detailed understanding of what Iowans and Americans want to hear. But they also reflect more perspiration than inspiration. And they don’t have a beat you can dance to."

While in Texas HRC recently said, "We need to make a choice. Between speeches and solutions. Because while words matter greatly, the best words in the world aren't enough unless you match them with action."

Obama's retort? "It's not a choice between speeches and solutions. It's a choice between a politics that offers more of the same divisions and distractions that didn't work in South Carolina, didn't work in Wisconsin, and will not work in Texas."

I believe the key point in this battle of rhetoric is that Obama, not Clinton, is the central figure, and has been for a long time, even before he was the frontrunner. As long as HRC's campaign continues to offer nothing but backhanded compliments to Mr Obama's communication skills -- "Speeches Don't Solve Problems" -- I believe she will continue to lose primaries. And that's damn fine with me.