Skip navigation

The campaign blur

The frontrunners attempt to blur distinctions

Image: Giuliani and Clinton
Former Mayor of New York Rudy Guiliani and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.
AP File
NBC Video: Politics
Senators at loggerheads over public option
Nov. 24: Sen. Bernie Sanders talks with guest host Howard Dean about why a strong public option is needed in the health care reform bill.

Slideshow
Image: The Week in Political Cartoons
  The Week in Political Cartoons
Msnbc.com’s political cartoonists take a look back at the past week.

more photos

By Chuck Todd
Chief White House correspondent and political director
NBC News
updated 4:35 p.m. ET Oct. 3, 2007

Chuck Todd
Chief White House correspondent and political director

WASHINGTON - If the presidential campaign seems as if it is going by in a blur, perhaps it is because the two frontrunners want it that way.

However, it is not the speed of Hillary Clinton’s and Rudy Giuliani’s campaigns causing that blur.

Instead, it is the distinctions.

Should both (or either) Clinton and Giuliani go on to win their respective nominations, it will be largely because of the candidate’s ability to blur the distinctions their challengers are trying to create.

Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here

A successful challenger's campaign is about drawing distinctions. A successful frontrunner's campaign is about blurring those differences.

Clinton's challenge for this campaign has been to blur the distinctions on the war – not talk about where she was in 2002 but instead talk about what she's going to do in 2009.

Slide show
Image: Hillary Clinton
A political life
Hillary Clinton’s life has taken her from First lady to Senator to Secretary of state.

more photos

Her chief opponent, Barack Obama, has desperately tried to turn this campaign into a referendum on her 2002 vote, or even her 2003 praise of the Iraq effort, as proof she's been more finger-in-the-wind on Iraq than a leader should be.

Of course, in response to that, Obama opponents (including Clinton and John Edwards) like to point to a quote from Obama in 2004 when he admitted that he didn’t know how he would have voted on the Iraq resolution.

At the time, of course, Obama was campaigning for the Kerry-Edwards ticket and attempting to justify why he was supporting them even though both senators voted for the 2002 war resolution.

Who represents change?
But it's not just the subject of the war where Clinton is succeeding in blurring distinctions with Obama or Edwards. On a more thematic front, the Clinton campaign has done a good job to date on blurring the distinctions on who best represents change.

Obama's campaign believes his candidacy alone screams change because a) he's the first non-white plausible nominee ever and b) his last name is neither Bush nor Clinton.

But camp Clinton hasn't allowed Obama's "turn the page" for change frame take hold.

Instead, the Clinton message on this front is to spell out the differences she has with President Bush.

It accomplishes two things. First, it makes the Clinton-Bush comparison more difficult for Democratic primary voters to accept. Second, by contrasting with Bush, Clinton has an opponent Democrats love to hate.

On the Republican side, Giuliani is winning in part because he has done a solid job blurring conservative distinctions.

Via an underground campaign of sorts – including talk radio, direct mail and surrogate campaigning – the Giuliani campaign has been all about erasing the concern that he is not a conservative.

Giuliani's trump card with GOP primary voters is the war. There is not a bit of distinction Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson or John McCain can draw with Giuliani on this issue.

And according to our polling data, more Republicans care about this issue than any other.

So the distinctions Giuliani's opponents are trying to draw are on issues many GOP voters care about – for example social and moral issues – but not issues the MAJORITY of GOP voters care about.


Sponsored links

Resource guide