The G.O.P. Just Doesn't Get Obama
MORE
Wise Guys
It’s apparently a revelation to David Brooks, among other prominent pundits, that the dreaded Republican attack machine plans to reduce Barack Obama to an ugly caricature. It shouldn’t be, of course.
Certainly, Mr. Obama, in the past few weeks, has provided his probable autumn opponents with ample raw material to portray him as only the latest in a long line of culturally out-of-step Democratic presidential nominees. Since this tactic worked so smashingly against John Kerry, Al Gore and Michael Dukakis, Mr. Obama is now helpless to avoid becoming its next victim—or so the analysis goes.
“When Obama goes to a church infused with James Cone-style liberation theology, when he makes ill-informed comments about working-class voters, when he bowls a 37 for crying out loud, voters are going to wonder if he’s one of them,” wrote Mr. Brooks, a onetime Obama enthusiast, in a column titled “How Obama Fell to Earth.”
Add to that indictment Mr. Obama’s status as the “most liberal” member of the Senate (as determined, using questionable criteria, by the National Journal) and—voilà—the G.O.P. has its caricature: Barack Obama, the arrogant liberal elitist.
“A few months ago,” Mr. Brooks concluded, “Mr. Obama was riding his talents. … Now, Democrats are deeply worried their nominee will lose in November.”
Eh, not really. That logic fixates on all of the ammunition that Republicans have at their disposal against Mr. Obama. But it ignores the more basic question of whether voters, upon being exposed to the caricature, will actually buy into it.
In the case of Messrs. Kerry, Gore and Dukakis, the general public largely accepted the gruesome portraits rendered by the Republican Party: Mr. Kerry as the vain flip-flopper; Mr. Gore the serial exaggerator and all-around phony; and Mr. Dukakis the robotic and bloodless technocrat. And why did voters buy into it? Because, however unfairly, the public personalities of each of these men inclined voters to believe the worst about them.
But Mr. Obama, in his life story, in his words and in his general bearing, inspires more voters than not to believe the best about him, a rare and potent trait that almost always separates the winners from the losers in presidential politics. It was the confidence, optimism and all-around sunny sentiment that Ronald Reagan conjured that accounted for his “Teflon” veneer. Was it superficial? Yes. But it insulated him from sharp political attacks that would have sunk 99 out of 100 candidates. Bill Clinton, caricatured by the G.O.P. as a slippery and amoral charlatan in 1992, similarly demonstrated the power of personal appeal.
It’s worth noting that well into the fall of 1980, conventional wisdom had it that Reagan was doomed to be the next George McGovern or Barry Goldwater. He was, it was said, an ideological extremist whose far-out positions would frighten critical chunks of the electorate, thereby clearing the way for the unpopular Jimmy Carter to win a second term.
“Mr. Carter could have been beaten this year had the G.O.P. put electability ahead of ideology,” political scientist Bill Lunch wrote in a September 1980 New York Times Op-Ed. “But having chosen the latter, I believe they are in for a dispiriting repetition of the extremism syndrome.” That assessment from Mr. Lunch, who is now a widely quoted expert on politics in the Pacific Northwest, was standard fare at the time.
It was dead wrong. Reagan, caricatured by Democrats as a trigger-happy dolt and barely concealed racist, won 44 states and nearly 500 electoral votes. He succeeded not because voters suddenly adopted his ideological vision (item by item, they rejected most of it), but because they decided that they liked him. And once they reached that conclusion, the Democrats’ attacks—no matter how valid or painstakingly wrought—bounced right off him. Next Page >
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Don't worry, Americans will fall for the caricture again. There's so much to work with on Obamer.
Americans already know Obama. Noting the GOP does will persuade them against him. It's just ridiculous to try. Clinton, however, is being sued for fraud in California. How many people know about that?
Barack Obama is a campaign about campaigning.
Think about it. The next time you watch a stump speech, break out a stop watch, and measure how much time is devoted to talking about what kind of campaign Americans want, what kind of campaign Americans don't want, how Barack will run his campaign, how is components run theirs, ad naseum.
Did anyone else see the irony in devoting an entire day to complaining about the fact that we spend too much time on "distractions" and not enough time talking about "the issues"? For all his promise to tell me what I *need* to hear (not just what I want to hear), I'm still waiting for Barack to actually do that.
What are we even talking about at this point? And when can we finally begin to talk about the issues, instead of simply annunciating them, or complaining about not-talking-about-them? (good grief)
I think the hypocrisy of Barack's Saturday press event, in which his people made a disgraceful carnival of the tomb of the fallen soldier, finally put me over the edge. Slate magazine caught on - one author suggesting that, from now on, he would stand behind Barack at the stump, to see if he were crossing his fingers behind his back when he speaks.
This is why I changed my vote from Barack to Hillary, and supported her last night, as so many others did. At some point, you have to open your eyes. Former Barack supporter to Current Barack supporters: this is not what you signed up for.
I think this article is right on! What is unique about Obama is his brilliance and authenticity! And people respond to that--consciously or unconsciously! Hillary Clinton is not authentic, unfortunately, and people sense that too. I think her few "real" moments have helped her, but she lacks that core of self and true voice that Obama possesses. There is no doubt in my mind that he will win the nomination and the election!
Nice spin, but the problem is that Obama doesn't have much of a record for people to judge. He can't really be judged by his actions, so people have to judge him by what he says, what little can be observed, and indicators like who he hangs around with. The nicest thing I've read in weeks that wasn't written by a supporter was by a conservative, Peggy Noonan. Pennsylvania exposes his weak base, and I don't see his being able to improve on his current level of support.
Responding to a few comments above:
First, bobbank spends his entire comment complaining about Obama's campaign not talking about the issues, but bobbank himself never once raises an issue about why Clinton would be a better president than Obama. The reality is that, since Clinton has been behind for this entire race, beginning in Iowa, and since she does not have more experience (please go to the Washington Post and look at their legislative records - Obama's is by far more impressive in one less term than Clinton and he also has a great record in Illinois), better judgment, more integrity or a better character than Obama (he is better in all of the above, just look at her negatives and her votes on Iraq, Iran, the bankruptcy bill, the Bosnia snafu)and since their policies are very similar (except on health care which she abysmally screwed up and dropped 15 years ago and never even made an attempt to address as a two term senator)CLINTON HERSELF has made this campaign about the campaign. She complains about the press, she complains about sexism, she spins how the race should be won, she flip flops on whether Michigan and Florida should be counted, she moves the goal posts constantly on what winning really means, she even now has Evan Bayh, Senator in Indiana, begging superdelegates in Indiana to vote as their district votes, even though he endorsed Clinton BEFORE his district voted, and even though the Clinton campaign line has been that superdelegates should vote their consciences. I could go on and on but I wouldn't want to exhaust bobbank. Since Clinton can't win on policies or her character or judgment, SHE HAS MADE THE RACE ABOUT THE RACE! I am so sick of her talking about electability and her glass ceiling. You never hear Obama talking about how he is a black candidate and how great it would be for a black candidate to be president - only Hillary talks about this when she lumps him into her "isn't this historical" comments.
So, please, don't blame Obama for talking about the style of the campaign. If he didn't defend himself when people attack him with distractions and electability arguments, you all would call him wimpy. When he talks about ignoring the distractions, he is trying to redirect the discussion. This is good negotiation, and good politics.
As for Wabash Sphinx's arguments, it is clear that you haven't really read about their legislative accomplishments. Please do some googling on this issue and you will see that in Illinois and the US Senate Obama has been quite accomplished - he has passed ethics legislation in both Illinois and the US Senate, he passed death penalty reform, child health care and many other bills in Illinois. In the US Senate he also aggressively pursued and passed very early in his first term the nuclear non-proliferation bill with a Republican. He was right on about going into Pakistan to chase terrorists if the Pakistani government wouldn't do it (and our CIA followed his advice and led a brief but effective campaign into Pakistan about six months after he suggested it and Clinton made fun of him)and he was obviously right on when he objected to the war in Iraq - everything he predicted might happen has happened. Go back and read his speech. Now, Clinton has decided we should go nuclear on Iran and use massive retaliation against anyone who harms Israel. This is so far beyond the pale that most pundits with any sense are talking about it as a huge gaffe, although the MSM has pretty much ignored it.
(How about that, bobbank, is that enough of the issues for you?)
Finally, Sphinx, Clinton is the wife of a two term president with 16 years of name recognition and the democratic party establishment behind her, including the governor and several mayors in PA, and she was up 25 points 6 weeks ago, so that fact that Obama was able to reduce that lead to 9 points in 6 weeks, just by giving people an opportunity to know him, flies in the face of your "weak base" argument.
I'm glad you all are reading this publication, as it is a very good one. But, please, educate yourself with a wider base of knowledge before you give an opinion.
Thanks for making it to the end of this lengthy missive!