Stay positive, go negative, or door number 3?

Hi all, at Gordon’s request I tried to put together some of my thoughts on the presidential campaigns. I set forward to write a post laying out some of the ways that the media’s political vocabulary fails to capture dynamism of the Democratic nomination fight. But I was stopped short by this interesting blurb appeared in Friday’s Hotline:

“Obama's camp ‘is wrestling with how to respond forcefully’ to Clinton's ‘recent attacks on his record without violating the positive, uplifting spirit at the core of his message.’ But ‘Obama's arsenal is limited by his insistence that his campaign not engage in below-the-belt attacks.’"

The quoted excerpts are from a story in the Boston Globe titled “Obama vies to push back, stay positive.” The author of the piece insinuates that Obama has two strategic options: To stay positive or to go negative.

But are these really the only possibilities? In short: No.

While the conventional wisdom of politics says that political messages can be categorized as either positive or negative, it would be more accurate to delineate political messages not according to their tone, but by their purpose. And there are only two purposes: To define an individual (either the candidate or the opponent) or to define the choice.

While defining an individual fits neatly into the positive/negative media dichotomy, comparative messages threaten to break those confines. Comparative messages offer candidates the opportunity to remain positive while negating an opponent’s strategic advantage.

Though most have heard messages described as “comparative,” it’s a term usually used by talking heads and consultants who are trying to put a positive face on blatantly negative attacks. Confronted with broad misuse of the term by professional spinners, an understandably jaded media has abandoned the phrase, and apparently the concept, altogether.

Unfortunately, the media’s rejection of “comparison” and embrace of “positive vs. negative” has cut short their ability to describe the Obama/Clinton race.

While most believe that Obama needs to find a way to turn the momentum back in his favor, the media has argued (and his campaign’s public statements have agreed) that unleashing a barrage of negative personal attacks against Clinton would undermine the broader narrative of “new” politics he has worked to cultivate. Seemingly confronted with limited options, the media continues to tell a story of a campaign unable to regain the upper hand.

Despite the media’s characterization, Obama’s campaign has a powerful opportunity to define the choice being presented to Democratic voters. Obama’s broader messages of change, unity and political civility have often contrasted sharply with the Clinton campaigns political tactics and “experience” message.

Let’s look at Clinton’s “3 a.m.” ad as an example.

The ad qualified Clinton in voters’ minds and put the emphasis on security. Aired in the closing days before the Ohio and Texas primaries, the Obama campaign had little time to respond.

Many believe the campaign should respond by going negative – Denigrating Clinton’s crisis “experience” as artificial and attacking her limited experience in military matters.

The campaign chose to remain positive while attempting to co-opt Clinton’s message. They aired an ad highlighting Obama’s judgment on the Iraq war. Ultimately, the force of Clinton’s ad was not blunted, and late-deciding voters tilted sharply in her favor.

What the campaign missed was an opportunity to define the choice on a broader level. To make the campaign not about experienced vs. inexperienced, but between fear and hope, and between political and unifying. Obama could have made the argument that Clinton’s ad was a page from the old political playbook that says; when your poll numbers are low you try to scare people. And he could have argued that was the kind of politics that prevented change and kept the country from unifying. This response would have allowed Obama to reinforce his central message and refocus the debate away from security and experience.

Confronted with this response, the media wouldn’t have been able to say that Obama had gone negative.

So, going into Mississippi and Pennsylvania, what strategies will the campaigns employ? Will Obama go “comparative?” And, if he does, how will the media react?