SMALL CHANGE FOR BIG CHANGE

by Antoinette Gustini

The fight for the Democratic nomination of this 2008 US Presidential Election is proving to be as intriguing as the great American novel—full of twists and unexpected turns, drama a-plenty, euphoric highs and soul-destroying lows. At this stage, it’s unclear whether it is a comedy or a tragedy….

Meet the two remaining candidates.

Barack Obama, born in 1961, was a community organiser and later a lawyer. A junior senator from Illinois since 2005, Obama served in the Illinois State Senate for the last seven years. A Protestant, Obama believes the democrats must reach out more to religious groups. He is the only African-American currently serving in the Senate, but he is careful not to campaign on colour, promising to be a leader for all Americans, rather than for one particular community. He was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review in its 104-year history.

Hilary Clinton, born in 1947, is also a lawyer. She is a junior senator of New York (since 2001), but she spent eight years as First Lady to Bill Clinton. An openly empowered lady, she was the first presidential spouse to keep an office in the West Wing of the White House. Although a member of the United Methodist Church, she does not include religion in her politics.

Interestingly, she used to be a Republican, until she opposed Richard Nixon’s re-election campaign messages in 1968 and changed sides.

He’s intent on change and fearless in his approach. She’s the voice of experience and ventures with caution.

Perception is everything when the world is watching. So far, the scramble for the opportunity to occupy the White House entails its fair share of name-calling and finger-pointing, as well as ribbon-cutting and baby-smooching photo ops. No surprises there.

There are some obvious similarities between them. They both represent minority groups within the country—neither of which has produced an American President—and they were both attorneys in their pre-political lives. That’s pretty much where the similarities end.

Of course, Hilary has a little baggage named Bill. It’s questionable whether his inclusion in her campaign has been beneficial.

So far, that level of success has been determined by which state they have been campaigning in at the time. (South Carolina loved him). Obama has been noted to say he’s unsure if he’s running against two Clintons instead of one.

Their approach to advertising, although similar in the traditional sense, has forked significantly as the campaign soldiers on. While Clinton has concentrated on the larger donations ($200+) consisting of fundraising galas with the party’s traditional big donors, she is also making large inroads with Wall Street and corporate America. Obama has pursued voters from all demographics. While embracing the Internet and multimedia including YouTube, which he has done more successfully than Hilary, he has not left any stone unturned—focusing more intensely on the little guy, the average Joe.

Fundraising on the Internet is quick and cheap. For political novices, donating online is easier than writing a cheque, and far less intimidating. Some campaigns even have systems where donors can have their credit cards billed automatically in monthly installments as little as $20. More than $10 million of Obama’s second-quarter contributions were made online, and 90 percent of them were in increments of $100 or less. Such is the buzz fueled by his campaign.

Naturally, a greater volume of small donations is needed to raise big campaign dollars, but there are a lot more average Joes out there than Rockafellas. This strategy keeps Obama in touch with the people who have been hit by unemployment and taxes right where it hurts most—in the hip pocket.

In fact, Obama held an online raffle where, for a donation of as little as $5, potential voters entered a draw, with the prize being dinner for five with Obama. Such a tactic would usually be reserved for more lucrative donors.

Prior to February 5th, Super Tuesday, both candidates were expected to look into advertising on national TV. Traditionally, TV ad buys for the professional primaries were the exclusive purview of local TV stations and spot cable. But both camps made inquiries about national spots during shows such as “Rules of Engagement”, “CSI Miami”, “NCIS”, “60 Minutes”, “The Early Show” and “CBS Sunday Morning”. The Democrats went on to spend aggressively on local TV outlets, as expected. Neither candidate waited for results from one state before investing on the (next) Super Tuesday states.

Hilary Clinton spent more than $77 million on her campaign in 2007, and her campaign team said she had about $25 million in early January to spend in the primary. Her personal loan to the effort suggested that she’s spent that and more.

But data on television advertising shows that the bulk of both candidates’ spending has not gone to the television, the main channel for communicating with voters, and that Obama spent about 33 percent more on advertising last January than Clinton.

A source with access to detailed data on media buying breaks down the TV spending and reports that Hilary spent $24.6 million on television ads between the beginning of the campaign and February 3, including $12.1 million between January 1, 2008 and February 3. In other words, more than three-quarters of her spending went elsewhere—operations, consultants, staff, ads in other media, etc.

Obama spent more overall, disbursing $83.4 million last year. Ads also made up a minority of his spending, although he outspent his rival on television. He spent $31.1 million on television advertising this cycle, including $16.2 million between January 1, 2008 and February 3.

Both candidates are chasing African-American voters who are torn between their loyalty to the Clintons versus the prospect of the first black president. More persuasively, Obama has the backing, or the “blessing,” of media queen Oprah Winfrey. She has the power to sway public opinion, and an endorsement from Oprah can create household names and put books on best seller lists almost overnight. I guess Oprah felt that the need for a black president outweighed the desire for a female one.

Of course, if she ran for president herself and won, that would kill two birds with one stone! At the rally where she announced her support, Obama himself asked his supporters if they thought Oprah should run for Vice President, and they cheered in agreement.

The same day Oprah announced her political debut on behalf of Barack Obama, Clinton invited her mother and daughter Chelsea to campaign with her over the weekend.

The leading Democratic candidates are raising funds far more aggressively than their Republican contenders. No matter who ultimately wins the nomination, it’s unlikely that momentum will be lost.

“If 200,000 people are willing to give $15 now,” suggests strategist Joe Trippi, “ they’re likely to give $100 when the opponent is a Republican.”

How this ends is anyone’s guess. One thing is sure; this nail biter is going to keep you precariously perched on the edge of your red, white and blue seat until the final vote is counted.