or
How I stopped being depressed and started to love Barack again:::
I went to bed last night, like a lot of loyal Democrats and Obama supporters, a little stunned. We had been told time and time again that coming from 20+ point deficits in just a few weeks, racking up a string of victories that would have ended most other primary contests, and having a clear lead in the math that counted (the delegates), was just not enough for us to feel good about last nights results. I got up in the morning today with a hole in my stomach, unsure what we could do at this point. I admit I have a tendency to wallow in my losses a bit. I gave up on politics until November 2004 after Dean evaporated. I read some discussion of the victory of Pyrrhus on another thread and it got me thinking. This time I decided to really look at what happened. I'm an Obama supporter, but that doesn't mean I can't learn from a loss.
In a firefight there are a few tactics that really work, and we got to see lots of them from Clinton the past two weeks. Below the fold I'll review the one's we've seen, and why this contest is far from over, and not just because of the math.
I'm probably going to stretch a few analogies to the breaking point here so please bear with me. The last two weeks we saw the Clinton campaign suddenly switch from the dug-in defending force to the hit-and-run guerrilla tactics that work best from the outside. Obama's victories in February gave her little choice but to strategically relinquish the platform of front-runner, and move as the insurgent. Why now, when she had faced losses before, never had the delegate lead without counting supers, and had been behind in fund raising for months?
Mobility. By letting Barack move to the forefront she could begin to maneuver free of what everyone thought she could do, and strike from positions that would never work as the leader. It focused attention from McCain on Obama and forced him to play defense on two directions. The new tactics worked well for her.
Pinning Fire: The theory is, throw so much lead at your opponent that they keep their heads down, can't return fire and lose their situational awareness. In politics this was translated into the "kitchen sink" approach. Throw so much out there that Obama is constantly defending and unable to control the narrative. Drown out positives with negatives.
Misdirection: It's obvious, if you can keep the enemy shooting where you're not, they're not being effective. Clinton was able to do this a few times. Most distracting and even though her campaign can't be proved to have done it, they certainly used the picture of Obama from his trip to Africa to bring back a lot of old themes that had died out. But when the Obama camp turned to face them, Clinton was long gone, making Obama look defensive and twitchy.
Choice of ground: Typically this is one of the defense's advantages but when fighting a guerrilla force they can attack you as you move, choosing the time and place for effect. By going offensive and fast Clinton was able to change the narrative whenever it suited her. Attacking him on experience, then attacking his supporters, switching whenever he seemed to be gaining a foothold.
Flanking: She was able to attack Obama, from the side that McCain wasn't attacking. While McCain took over the "hope is empty, speeches don't matter" attack, Senator Clinton fought him on the ground that hurt with the Democratic base from directions hard to defend. She took the attacks that hurt the worst. The most effective of these was the conservative Canadian government's damaging NAFTA allegations. This, like all attacks, used some of all of the above tactics. She knew his attack in Ohio would be on NAFTA. She used the debate to lead him into taking an even HARDER tone than her on NAFTA. Then, exposed, used the Canadian attack to make him look like a liar and a panderer on an issue she's done a complete 180 on over the years.
All of these methods did damage but they could have been countered, dodged, or at least blunted but for one move by the Clinton team. I think this one is what clinched it for them, and why I think they're living on borrowed time unless Obama makes a big misstep.
The Nuclear Option: Her attack on the media's unfairness. It was devastating, not because it damaged Obama, but because it prevented his defense from getting their message out, and stopped many from looking too hard at her attacks, lest they seem to be furthering this unfairness. This was one she was waiting to haul out until the General Election, I'm sure of it. She used it well and it hurt. I really think this is what allowed her attacks to gain the purchase to stop his momentum. Everyone started looking at her and giving her the first word on everything. For the most part, Obama was relegated to mention only as the target of her attacks.
The problem with using this now is that its out of the bottle. This is not something she can claim with effect every time things get rough. Each time she uses it, she runs a real risk of it hurting her worse. She's got a long road ahead of her to Pennsylvania. She is claiming this week as such a large victory she's going to be fighting from the front again. I'm looking forward to a good campaign. I don't think that a long primary helps us, but with an opponent like McCain, he's not getting any younger or healthier. We'll be ready for him, whoever emerges from the primary fight.