Plouffe, Axelrod And The Long Ball

One under-reported skill demonstrated by Obama's communications team is its bility to frame the election on their terms by slowly, meticulously repeating their version of the crucial choice before the electorate.  Eventually, their frames have been internalized by voters and members of the media, almost without anyone noticing that it happened: think, most recently,  Obama and tax cuts.

During the primary, it was change versus experience. This wasn't an inevitable frame; many observers rightly thought it was a false choice (Hillary would have been quite a change from George Bush).  Nevertheless, Obama seemed to embody "change" more than Clinton did; from a substantive perspective, this was most clearly illustrated by Clinton's war vote, and by Obama's opposition to it. 

Hillary fell into their trap for quite a while, proudly waving the experience flag for much of 2007.  Tellingly, it was Bill -- he of "Change Versus More Of The Same" in 1992 -- who supposedly flagged the dangers for Hillary in accepting this frame. 

At a certain point (and it happened very early on; certainly before Super Tuesday), pollsters began asking voters whether they preferred someone who would bring more change, or someone who had more experience. Then , it began appearing in exit poll data.  By the time Hillary tried to redefine the choice as being between someone who understands your needs versus someone who is an elitist, it was too late.  Obama's frame had stuck.
Right now, it seems that everyone from David Brooks to the Chicago Tribune to the Washington Post to Joe Klein to Christopher Buckley is praising Obama for his temperament.
This, too, is no accident. The Obama campaign has been quietly pushing the temperament frame for months. 

This is why voters and members of the media recoiled so quickly at John McCain's repeated stunts in September.  It's true; most of McCain's biggest wounds have been self-inflicted. But imagine, if you will, that the McCain campaign had decided to stick with just one storyline  about Obama, beginning in the summertime: that he is indecisive and weak, and never takes a stand on real issues.

Forget the Ayers stuff, the Wright stuff, the kindergarten stuff: they could have made his "present" votes the centerpiece of their attack, along with a whole host of supporting anecdotes. 

Meanwhile, McCain could have been framed as a bold leader, independent of both parties, who took unpopular stands time and time again.  In that instance, the reaction to both the VP picks and to the candidates' actions after Lehman collapsed would probably have been interpreted very, very differently.