Political Hats

Democratic primaries are much more intense now than probably it was before the Ohio/Texas. I see an Obama campaigning and defending his stand just like any other candidate now than riding on his charisma and crowd pulling oratory skills. And the candidates are much more scrutinized on what they speak on stump speeches and its analysed by multiple media channels to give a 360 degree view. Its more intense now because less attention is going into Republicans as MC Cain is their presumptive nominee already and that leaves just two candidates- Clinton and Obama- for the whole media attention. Also it was interesting to watch how media generates content for their own viewers. The campaign trail was less tracked, when Spitzer issue broke and that makes me believe that lot of the media attention to candidates is the way the generate content .

Obama contesting as a normal guy with small tow-halls, bus trips and factory visits throughout Pennsylvania - a state everyone thinks he is going to loose to Hillary -is way different from his earlier campaign tones. That means smaller rallies and less motivational speeches and more focused issue-based discussions. That also showed his campaign's resilience to adapt to campaigning in a different kind of voters and such a move is already paying off as the poll margins between him and Hillary are on a decline. May be he learnt a lesson in Ohio esp. on the whole debate of NAFTA.

Politician wearing different hats to suit the occasion is nothing new. May be the issues like NAFTA are too complex for an average voter to make sense so a politicians will not attempt to explain the whole story. During the Ohio campaign, Obama's economic advisor Austan Goolsbee's assurance to Canadian officials that lot of Obama talks against NAFTA is a political positioning (it was based on a leaked memo with lot of media spin later added to it) was taken up by the Clinton campaign to demonstrate that Obama is just another politician. May be the campaign was successful in sending that message across the voters as we saw Obama was in a defending position then. Hillary slowly strengthened her position against NAFTA, mostly reflecting Obama's earlier position on it ( These candidates borrow heavily from each other's homework -:) ) but then came the Mark Penn's ( Chief strategist of the campaign)meeting to negotiate the the NAFTA in favor of Columbia , a position opposite to Clinton's campaign at that point. So the media view is that probably both these candidates don't mean what they preach and wearing a hat that pleases the voters. Both Ohio and Pennsylvania were the states hurt because of the NAFTA and outsourcing so candidates cannot ignore those. Clinton has a record of favoring it in the past but as many says she distorted her own record recently saying that she raised yellow flag whenever it was discussed and she always differed with Bill Clinton ( who i s a big supporter) .

So the point is politicians wear different hats to match the occasion . Both Obama and Clinton don't mean to alter the current NAFTA or outsourcing policies that have complex business impacts that an ordinary voter may not understand. However it appears that Obama means 'more' than Clinton when they say they are going to review those policies. Also the ever changing political postioning is liekly to hurt Hillary more especially after the 'Snipe Fire' from Bosnia.

Change You Can Xerox - Shame on you Obama

I am sure Senator Clinton regretted ridiculing Obama by saying " This is change you can Xerox". The Austin audience booed it and the regret on her face was visible immediately after she spitted those words out.
The Texas debate was slightly favoring Obama though it ended up with a standing ovation for Hillary for her closing remarks. The Hillary supporters probably expected her to beat Obama by drawing contrast on her health and economic plans but that was not achieved and that means she did not stop his momentum in Texas. So as analysts point out, Hillary has a steeper mountain to climb.

Today, there was another evidence of a frustration Hillary is brewing for a while . At Cincinnati , during her stump speech, she shouted "Shame on you Obama" for him trying to distort her message and records. She had the fliers Obama's campaign is floating that state she voted for NAFTA and Obama's health care plan is superior than hers.

Hillary was definitely angry and i don't think its because of the fliers but the frustration has been brewing for a while as she is not able to get her messages across to the people. Recently, Obama eating into her votebanks in Wisconsin is speaking the dangers ahead in Ohio and Texas. Ohio especially suffered a lot of job loss because of the manufacturing outsourcing to China so highlighting her stand on the NAFTA would definitely hurt her.

May be Hillary's health plan is superior as an idea but its often failed whenever someone tried to implement a similar idea. That does not mean that one should not hope for a better one. These ideas , including Obamas , are complicated and needs the congress/senate approval to implement. And there are powerful lobbies/pressure groups to protect the interests of businesses and medical professionals. However, people don't understand any of these complexities and end of the day people would vote for a candidate inspires them not the one with a great health plan. May be that favored Obama so far.

As Hillary says, Obama's speeches are full of change slogans - change the way politics work now and change the way Washington works- and he resorts to same old political tactics of tearing down the opponent s by sending fliers comparing the candidates and often highlighting his as a superior. Politics is a big game and you will be destroyed if you are not competitive in the same old dirty tricks . This proves again how much shrewed Obama as a politician and he plays all the tactics required to get to the top of the establishment and I believe his vision for this country is much superior than any other candidates out there now offers.

Change is just a word unless you have the power to execute . And I bellieve that's what Obama is trying to do.

Clionton's Troubled Campaign - Opportunity ?

Hillary Clinton loaned five millions of her money to the campaign and many of her organizers will work without a pay. This would be a big news if there was no Mc Cain went through such severe troubles six months ago. Mc Cain even fired his staff and almost shelved the plan to campaign in many primaries. Huccabee also faced the cash crunch . But both of them stayed in the campaign trail longer than expected and they emerged as front runners of Republican now. Also if the candidate has a wider appeal, somehow they managed the funds and some were smart to get maximum return on whatever funds they got.

Everyone knows Obama raised more funds since February 5th. And once Hillary's trouble news was aired, she raised a lot more money. That happens as none wants to see their favored candidate is trailing because She/he does not have funds to compete. May be loaning 5 million to herself was a strategy by Clintons - That's what I thought when i heard the story first- cconverting a problem into an opportunity.

Her campaign also challenged Obama to have a debate every week which he refused. Debates are free air time for the campaigners and usually the trailing candidates ask for more debates. So we could reasonably assume that Clinton is not ready to spend more and they have some sort f fund crunch.

The most disturbing of all these news came today that Clinton's campaign manager, Patti Solis, quits. There was always a talk about changes in the direction of campaign whenever she lost. It started in Iowa where she brought in Maggie Williams and that move supposedly reduced Patti's power as chief of staff. Clinton lost all three states voted yesterday so Patti's stepping down today clearly shows the urgency in the camp to stop Obama's momentum.

Any one who worked in organising a group for achieving a common goal will know what kind of damage a last minute changes could create. I am sure a group of staff would now be unhappy and it would take a while for the new manager to get a handle on the situation. Good thing is that Williams was with the campaign in a responsible position so its not hard for her to bring about a change in direction. Though Solis quotes family reasons, questions answered are : is it because she outspent or is the ground work she was doing just not enough ?

I always read the Clinton had the best campaign team and the best resources and support. She was the 'inevitable' when she launched the campaign and see what a 'hopemnger' could do so far.


As I write this I am also watching Maine caucus results- Obama is leading there with a significant margin. So this news coupled with the organisation changes in her campaign is definitely a bad news. Who knows - Clintons could turn this around as an opportunity.