Legal Commentary

Negative Branding: Obama's Lost Opportunity

By Big Tent Democrat

Having been joined now by a chorus of Obama blogs in concern with Obama's post partisan unity schtick campaign, I am somewhat amused that no one noticed the problem before. TPM has been on it all day but this e-mail Marshall posts got my attention:

Obama needs to own the branding of John McCain, the man. . . . To that end, I think the essence of Obama's campaign needs to be "John McCain will do anything to get elected."

Obama has experience in that message no doubt ("Hillary will say or do anything to get elected") but it won't work on McCain because the Media will not play along. The problem is Obama has never gone after Republicans and specifically tied them to Bush (he of the 25% approval rating.) People are making this more complicated than it is. All you have to send as a message is not MCCain - flip flopper or anything like that, you say McCain - Bush's third term. Period, That is the negative branding that should be driven home every single day. That should be Obama's message every single day. But Dems don't do negative branding, they just get branded. I wrote about this when I was ripping into Lakoff back in 2006:

I tell you what is missing -- negative branding of Conservatives and Republicans. For example, I would say:

The Rubberstamp Republicans serve the interests of corporations and the rich. They rubberstamp Bush's disastrous Iraq policies and pass special interest legislation like cutting the Paris Hilton tax, tax loopholes for Big Oil and block competition for Big Pharma. Unlike conservative Republicans, who have raised Congressional salaries while blocking a hike in the minimum wage, Democrats have fought for raising the minimum wage and fought for affordable health are in the face of stiff Republican opposition in service to big insurance companies.

And so on. Tailor the message to the audience. Talk about the environment, or the war, or unions, or stem cell or whatever issue works best. The point is contrast. Define yourself positively by contrasting with and defining Republicans negatively. Lakoff recognizes that the Republicans did it, but for some reason Democrats must eschew it. I really do not understand why.

Obama has wasted two months on this. As Steve Soto wrote today:

I have been saying for weeks that this campaign is not hitting back, is not running a Tier Two and Truth Squad effort, and is letting McCain define himself as anything but a Republican all while smearing and defining Obama as a treasonous black man. Obama supporters around here are rightfully defending and sticking by their man, using any number of reasons, which is to their credit. Yet they fail to confront the reality that this campaign has lost already even before the convention. Again, it isn't that hard to do: you unleash the Tier Two and Truth Squad effort in June and July to define McCain, defang his arguments before he makes them, so that when he spews his drivel his lines fall flat and are viewed as the flailings of a GOP senator who wants you to look away from his own failings. All while you talk about change and why you are a better choice because you are running against Washington, instead of morphing right before our eyes into a Beltway centrist Trojan Horse for Tom Daschle and Democratic lobbyists who want their piece of the pie.

Steve is very wrong that Obama has lost the election. Obama is likely to win. What he has done is lost the chance to put the election away already. The political conditions are such that Obama could run the worst campaign in history and still win. The GOP brand is that bad. But he is right that Obama squandered these two months.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on August 19, 2008 (boomark / email).