All News Local News State News National News World News Space News
Audio Video Photos Photo Galleries Old Photo Archives
Privacy Policy Terms of Service Statement of Ethics Contact Us
Content Muncie Businesses Browse Index / Sitemap
Polls Editorials / Columns Muncie Blogs Muncie Forums

MFP Tags: Race Card, Gender, Marketing Candidates, Obama, Clinton, McCainTopics: Undefined

Marketing Candidates: Playing The Race/Gender/Maverick Card

            Throughout this presidential campaign, people have offered criticism of the major candidates based on stereotypes.  Barak Obama has been accused of “playing the race card" (pardon the overworked cliché). Hillary Clinton was called the iron maiden and seen as too cold and calculating.  John McCain’s campaign almost miscarried because he was seen as George Bush’s third term. 

            It’s all true.  Obama did base some of his campaign on race, and Clinton did try to appeal to women by showing her feminine side (hold the hate mail, I’m making a point about marketing).  McCain tried to separate himself from Bush and recover his old image.  The key is marketing.  In all cases, these candidates engaged in smart marketing strategy and they did it in a way that their opponents could never have done.

            In South Carolina and Mississippi, Obama appealed directly to African  Americans. He spoke directly to the issues blacks think are important and employed accent and jargon with which they might identify.  Was it effective?  Look at the results?  It was effective primarily because Obama is black.  If any of his white opponents had tried the same strategy, the result would have been a campaign melt down. 

            In order to appeal to women, Clinton needed to soften her image.  We were allowed to witness an interview in which Hillary appeared with a slight sniffle in her voice and a little tear in her eye.  The result was an almost immediate campaign turn around.  Can you imagine what might have occurred if either Obama or McCain had appeared in an interview with a sniffle and a tear.  If that had happened to either of them, I assure you that individual would not be a viable presidential candidate today.  Sincerely or not, Clinton engaged in a smart marketing strategy that neither of her opponents could match.   

            Last fall McCain’s campaign was approaching moribund status, he pulled it out of the nose dive, by appealing to his long-established maverick image.  He spoke about how he had taken on Rumsfeld, by criticizing his management of the Iraq war.  Then he pointed out how he fought “K” street lobbyists and got some war profiteers jailed.  Again, his opponents could not have matched this strategy and it saved his campaign. 

            We may decry the fact that campaigns are run with marketing principles not unlike the way commercial products are sold, but the fact is they are.  We cannot blame candidates from engaging in the game using the rules that exist.  If they did not do so they would soon be ex-candidates.  If we want the system to change, we must change it.  Candidates will not do so.  Indeed, they could not do so, even if they wanted.        



Anonymous's picture

If the point of this

If the point of this article is that politicians use advertising strategies in their campaigns, then it is well taken. And there is really no need to change that aspect of the system. We need a President who can advertise themselves and their opinions well in the world market, if you will. We suffer when our President does a poor job of presenting US views and when we lose to PR campaigns to other nations and agendas.
The problem that needs to be changes, in my view, is the negative approach of campaigning. How McCain or Clinton or Obama present themselves is ultimately their own decisions but when one candidate or campaign tries to misrepresent another, the trouble begins. When, for example, Senator Clinton tries to insinuate that Senator Obama is a Muslim (or at least, that this possibility exists) after he has denied it repeatedly, this is not advertising strategy; it is a smear campaign. The infamous 3AM ad is more of the same. I don't mind if Senator Clinton tries to play up her experience; this is a wise approach. But when she tries to discredit Senator Obama's experience a la Swift Boat or when President Clinton describes Senator Obama's clear opposition to the Iraq war as a "fairy tale", this is advertising run amok. It is one thing for Coke to extol their product or even to compare it to Pepsi; it is another thing altogether to suggest that drinking Pepsi might be risky.
We need to clean up negative politics because negative poltics quickly becomes negative governance. One side remembers election slights and vows revenge on the newly elected President. Nothing ever gets accomplished, except posturing and bickering. How you win an election determines how you will govern.
I must agree and disagree with the statement that "If we want to change the system, we must change it. Candidates will not do so." Senator Obama has based his campaign on changing exactly many of those things that you decry. He is willing and able. And if he wins, he will win differently and therefore he will be able to govern differently. He will be able to promote cooperation and bi-partisanship and calm discussion. And even when agreement and compromise cannot be achieved, he will erase much of the bitterness that has accumulated over the years, especially the Clinton and Bush years. Still, he cannot do it without each and every voters help. One vote can make a difference. Indiana can and will make a difference this year! Stand up and vote your hopes and not your fears. Change will come if we make it come. I guess it all depends on where we stand and how much we care and if we are willing to do what it takes.

Post new comment

Google