really interesting article in the NY Times. Talks about the rise and worth of strategists in a presidential campaign.
They have become as much the stars as the candidate and play a role in the success or the failure of a campaign.
Strategists played a big role in the implosion of the McCain run. They talk about who is the hot strategist of campaigns. People like Atwater, Carville or Rove. This cycle the 'hot' hand belongs to David Axelrod. Axelrod is not one who cares for the limelight, however.
AFTER John McCain discovered that his campaign was nearly broke — at a time when he was already hemorrhaging in public opinion polls — he did what presidential candidates in trouble always seem to do: he forced out his top consultants.
The unmistakable message of this bloodletting was that Mr. McCain’s woes were not caused by Mr. McCain, or his opponents, or being out of sync with the times, but rather the bad work by his blue-chip stable of advisers. Terry Nelson, his campaign manager, and John Weaver, his senior adviser, walked out the door Tuesday morning, and, with a new team in charge, Mr. McCain headed for New Hampshire to try to resuscitate his campaign.
But this shakeup raises a question that has hovered over American campaigns in the 25 years since the rise of the celebrity political consultant: Are these advisers really as important as they would like us, and their clients, to think? Have they ever been?
There is little doubt that consultants — a catchall describing strategists, pollsters, ad makers, managers and media advisers — are an integral part of defining who the candidate is and presenting the candidate’s ideas to the public. This goes from critical decisions like settling on the phrase that defines a candidacy (President Bush as the “compassionate conservative,” for example) to whipping up a quick response to a crisis, or even determining the official color of campaign bumper stickers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/weekinreview/15nagourney.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin