Fast response times to Bhutto’s assasination
One thing to remember about good campaign staffers: they can absolutely turn on a dime. They can respond to fundraising needs or current events with an almost unbelievable response time. Take, for instance, yesterday’s announcement of the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. This morning, political news is full of reports of candidates’ responses. John McCain made comments after a speech yesterday that he had the credentials to deal with such a foreign policy crisis. One of Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisors pointed to past efforts by Obama to move Pakistan to center stage in U.S. foreign policy.
This ability to respond — to change campaign messages based on what else is going on in the world — separates out good campaign managers from the chaff. It shows which ones are worth paying big buck to keep on staff.
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Political Campaigning
4 opinions for Fast response times to Bhutto’s assasination
Bob Turek
Dec 28, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Speed is one thing. Content and message are another. Most of what I heard was perceived by me as obligatory and not adding to the dialog. Appearance via what they wore and persona contributed greatly to the perception. Fred Thompson stuck out for me- probably because he wore a casual outfit (appeared to pull himself away from celebrating holidays), seemed to answer in a way that wasn’t focused on self, looked healthy for a change (must have gotten some sun). Romney seemed a bit unfocused and campaign weary. Only heard about Hillary’s attempt to focus on her foreign policy experience. Content and appearance are king.
thursday
Dec 28, 2007 at 5:55 pm
I completely agree that a lot of the responses seemed somewhat obligatory, but the fact that just about every candidate managed to come out with a response to the assassination — and very quickly! — that casts their own foreign policy agenda in a good light does showcase how quickly a campaign staff has to respond.
Bob Turek
Dec 29, 2007 at 10:25 am
The “turn on a dime” nature of campaigning is amazing- if done well, that is what separates the best from the others. Who do you think is responding consistently the best at this point?
thursday
Dec 29, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Well, I definitely have a nomination for worst responder: Mike Huckabee. I’m not quite sure the logic that connected a Pakistani assassination and tighter border control. His politics aside, Huckabee just doesn’t seem to have a good working knowledge of foreign events.
John Edwards’ response to Bhutto’s assassination seems to be among the best: actually calling Musharraf has to score him serious points.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: