POLITICAL PR 2008
Monday, June 16th, 2008A truly remarkable political milestone occurred last week. Barack Obama’s campaign launched a Web site devoted entirely to discrediting so-called smears at www.fightthesmears.com.
When I first learned of the initiative, I assumed it had to be an unaffiliated site run by Obama supporters, but I was amazed to learn it was part of his official campaign.
In past political campaigns, rumor and innuendo has consistently been part of the game. Third parties with vague affiliations to specific candidates leak unsubstantiated information that calls an opponent’s character into question. In this campaign, however, the official Obama for President campaign’s plan is to attempt to challenge existing rumors head-on, which raises many additional questions:
* At what point does the campaign decide to list a “smear” on its site? Are these smears prior negative evening stories, or Page Six items, or merely circulating rumors that many have yet to learn about?
* How does the campaign respond differently online vs. its daily press briefings? By calling attention to and denying a “rumor” so blatantly, there are inherent risks.
* Does the campaign risk opponents abusing the “Push Back Now” feature to further disseminate rumors/truths from the Obama email system?
Clearly, this is a very aggressive strategy for a presidential candidate. Forward thinking, yes, but perhaps not the best move for the official campaign. I think it is wiser to use a third party support group than have the official campaign as the front.
Third parties have the freedom to take controversial actions that a candidate would never dream of undertaking. A third party would keep the situation at an arm’s length, leaving Obama free to steer the campaign away from smear and toward the issues.
One Obama quote on the Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire that I found telling and quite interesting from a campaign that claims to be positive: Candidate Obama set the stage for the coming “fight” by saying, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
For an interesting marketing perspective on the initiative, Washington Post blogger Chris Cillizza’s post is worth reading. His most compelling argument in favor of the site is how the speed of information has exponentially increased in the last four years, making rumors spread far faster and deeper than in past campaigns. That particular issue is one we’ve seen affect a wide range of industries, and it’s not surprising that politics is no exception.






