Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Branding a Campaign

Usually I avoid discussing politics here. But today, I’m going to make an exception. 

I guess I’m a bit jaded about politics. Growing up in Washington D.C. may have something to do with that. And today, more than ever, messaging and positioning are tools used by politicians to win elections. But I suppose even Thomas Jefferson and James Madison branded their various campaigns to some degree or another.

I don’t know what will happen as primary season continues, but as of today, there’s a fierce battle going on for the Democratic nomination.

Hillary Clinton, of course, enjoyed front-runner status for months. Now, her advantage has evaporated as Barack Obama wins primary after primary.

If you read various blogs, Obama supporters (and many Republicans) seem to feel that behind it all, Clinton is a hack politician with a divisive campaign style. Some call her “Shrillary.”

On the other hand, Clinton supporters (and many Republicans) get the sense that Obama is selling something akin to cotton candy – tastes great, but offers little substance.

Aristotle’s view of rhetoric included evaluating ethos, which is loosely translated as who you are as opposed to what you say.

To me, Hillary’s ethos suggests someone trying to sell me a car, while Barack’s ethos evokes an evangelist preacher.

I have no use for either, but if I had the choice between spending a Sunday morning in a used car lot or a church, I’d pick the church. Even as a non-beleiver, I’d much rather listen to an inspired sermon than a pitch for a car.

This is all just my impression, of course. Hillary could indeed be a warm and gracious person while Barack could, in reality, be a back stabber. But in the world of politics, like it or not, branding counts.

And so does positioning. As Michael Gerson pointed out in the Washington Post (registration might be required):

“Hillary Clinton’s attempt to define a narrative of her own has been hobbled because her campaign is defined by the rejection of rhetoric. Obama’s eloquence and idealism are dismissed as “abstract” and a “fairy tale” in contrast to Clinton’s experience and policy substance. It is difficult for a campaign to inspire while using “inspiration” as an epithet.”

But others such as Joe Klein of Time think there’s something “creepy” about Obama’s rhetoric:

“And yet there was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism — ‘We are the ones we’ve been waiting for’ — of the Super Tuesday speech and the recent turn of the Obama campaign. ‘This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It’s different not because of me. It’s different because of you.’

“That is not just maddeningly vague but also disingenuous: the campaign is entirely about Obama and his ability to inspire. Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause — other than an amorphous desire for change — the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.”

Which brand will win the most market share among Democrats? The next couple of weeks should be interesting indeed.

Posted by Richard Bloch

Permalink