Prime Group

Presidential campaigns can offer great lessons in brand management, and never more so than in the race between Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL). No two politicians have done a better job of brand management than these two. McCain’s brand is “experienced maverick” – 26 years in Congress, often taking on the leadership of his own party and championing principled and unpopular causes. Obama’s brand is “charismatic change agent” – young, bright, eloquent, and a symbol of a brave, new, globalized world.
But, as they headed toward their parties’ respective conventions, each man’s brand seemed as limiting as it was empowering. As a Republican with vast DC experience, McCain could not hope to compete with Obama for the critical “change vote” that seemed likely to determine the election’s outcome. Obama seemed to be offering many voters more change, as well as inexperience and uncertainty, than they could comfortably swallow. Each needed to expand and shore up his brand.
Enter Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) and Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK). Obama chose first, and, rather than reinforce his personal brand, he opted to “diversify” and shore it up where it was perceived to be lacking. He chose a seasoned DC insider with even more foreign policy experience than McCain. McCain also opted for diversity, going with a running mate who is as much of an outsider as you can get – a first-term, female governor of Alaska with zero DC, national, or foreign policy experience.
Both candidates shored up, but also diluted their brands. Why would a “change agent” pick the ultimate DC insider? Why would a candidate obsessed with foreign policy place a neophyte within a heartbeat of the Oval Office and the nation’s nuclear arsenal? Each candidate has benefited some from the shoring up of his brand, but each has also run the risk of undermining his core appeal.
Which candidate will be better served by his choice? As I write this, there is a growing consensus (supported by recent polls) that McCain has gained more than Obama from his running mate. I disagree. I think the risk for McCain is much more serious than for Obama. If, in the coming weeks, Palin is deemed to be truly unqualified to assume the presidency, the McCain brand is undermined in two critical ways. First, his presidency could be deemed potentially more “risky” than that of Obama. Second, McCain could be found guilty of bad judgment and gross irresponsibility.
If the campaign reveals Biden to be too much of an insider, it will surely take some luster off Obama’s changeagent brand. But it does not raise questions about his judgment, nor does it suggest that the country will be placing a high-stakes bet on his good health and safety.
Curiously, as brand managers, McCain turned out to be the bigger risk-taker, while Obama “played it safe.” At this writing, it seems as if McCain’s gamble paid off. If I were a gambler myself, I’d lay heavy odds it will not in the end.

Click here to view a PDF version of this article.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s nomination to be the Republican vice presidential candidate provoked, at first, a widespread “huh?” from pundits and voters. Today, we know that Palin can draw a crowd and can recite rehearsed, if often vacuous, lines effectively.
But maybe we should be focusing a bit less on the governor’s presence on the Republican ticket and more on the man — John McCain — who put her there, and why he did so.
McCain’s life story is a compelling one. His heroic service as a naval aviator and his horrific experience as a POW in North Vietnam have earned him the admiration of all Americans.
But those chapters in McCain’s biography, no matter how inspirational, do not by themselves earn him our vote for president. Other, equally important factors must be considered as we make that decision.
Among other things, John McCain’s explosive temper is legendary, as is his penchant for berating colleagues and others in the harshest possible tones and terms.
We know, too, that for months and months his campaign was awash with feuds, backbiting, and mismanagement — attributes that do not constitute a prescription for a healthy White House, let alone a successful presidency.
With the last-minute selection of Palin to be his running mate, we learned something new about McCain — that he is fully capable of being shockingly cynical, even when making one of the most important decisions possible.
And, after a couple of weeks or so of the “official” general election campaign, we now realize that McCain and his campaign operatives will stop at nothing in their quest for victory Nov. 4.
McCain and Co. are intent on winning — apparently at any cost. Should their tactics work, the divisions thus created and exploited will make governing our country even more difficult than it already is.
In his acceptance speech to the GOP convention in St. Paul, Minn., McCain made several references to how, as president, he would “fight” for this and “fight” for that. Now it seems that what he is really fighting for is an increase in political polarization and a decrease in our capacity for representative self-government.
Earlier this year I was among those Americans who hoped that the 2008 presidential campaign would be worthy of its purpose, its consequences and its historic significance. We longed for an elevated and respectful debate, one that appealed to our national hopes and aspirations, as well as to our individual and collective civic responsibilities.
Instead, the McCain campaign has decided to treat us with disdain, employing a steady stream of low-minded partisan rhetoric and high-impact political vandalism.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed that Franklin Roosevelt had a “second-class mind” but a “first-class temperament.” Today, voters should be asking whether or not, in McCain, we are looking at someone about whom, at best, the reverse is true? Instead of asking whether Palin has what it takes to be vice president, maybe we should be asking if John McCain has the character and judgment to be president. More and more, the answer to that question also appears to be “No.”