Kiplinger.com Multimedia
Subscribe
Starting Out Investing Your Money Spending Wisley Your Retirement
Kiplinger.com Channels
Tools
Columns
E-mail Alerts
The Kiplinger Letter
Online Forum
Basics
Site Map
Kiplinger Store
Customer Service
Corporate Sales
About Kiplinger
Give A Gift

ABOUT THIS ENTRY
This page contains a single entry by Jon Frandsen published on April 18, 2008 4:20 PM.

Obama's Backers Send Warning to Party was the previous entry.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

About this blog

Subscribe to this blog's feed

EMAIL
DIGG
DEL.ICIO.US

DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN
When Distractions Serve a Purpose

Comments (2) |

Barack Obama and the angry supporters of his who think the recent line of questioning he has faced on everything from the "bitter" remarks to his friendship with an ex-Weather Underground bomber are an unfair and ultimately damaging distraction are right. So what? Politics ain't beanbag. And neither is running a superpower -- and responding effectively to the unfair and unexpected may be the most important part of the job description.
That's why Obama's tactic of using the attacks against him as prima facie evidence that politics as usual will forever prevent genuine solutions to social problems and foreign policy dilemmas is only half of an effective response. Obama's biggest problem since the word of his "bitter" remarks spread is that he simply hasn't come up with a clear, forceful explanation and response. While Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos clearly spent too much time probing at Obama's gaffes during the debate, they were right to pursue his comments and attempts to clarify them since Obama had not settled the matter -- and still hasn't.

Compare this flap to the one over his pastor, the Rev. Wright. Obama gave a clear explanation and response and used the opportunity to deliver a powerful speech on the role of race in America and American politics. That has enabled him to say in effect, that you can believe him and agree with him or not, but that picking at the issue won't bring any greater clarity and will detract from the issues that matter most to voters. But that tactic simply won't work without a credible explanation to point to.

Newsweek's Michael Hirsh has written an analysis that points out how Obama's troubles reflect a seemingly genetic Democratic trait. Just ask Jimmy Carter (cardigan sweater), Michael Dukakis (tooling around in a tank) and John Kerry (Swift boat). Hirsh praises Obama's early analysis of the war and how that view is now widely accepted conventional wisdom -- as well as to how little difference that might ultimately make. In a column bluntly titled The Democrats' Wimp Factor, Hirsh argues that the questioning of Obama's patriotism and the Democrats' collective ability to put those questions to rest (or actively raising them themselves, as Hillary Clinton has done) demonstrate a chronic weakness to define themselves on national security issues.

Hirsh is right ... but I would add that any candidate who can't turn a serious challenge on virtually any issue, but especially defense and security for Democrats, into an opportunity is not ready for prime-time. There are explanations for Obama's comments about working class white Americans that would also shed greater light on his attitudes and his programs -- and potnetially allow a stronger connection with those voters. He just hasn't found them yet.

0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: When Distractions Serve a Purpose.

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.kiplinger.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/115

2 Comments

poetryman69 said:

From a war criminal to a Manchurian Candidate that's the best we can do for the Presidency? Obama, if none of your close personal friends likes America, why do you want to be President?

dwight garman said:

It's not so much the tough questions, but once the issue has been fully addressed then a continued same line of questions serves to only become a sort of interrogation. If it is indeed to "test the Mettle" of a candidate as stated by the author then the media should test the "mettle" of both candidates in the same setting so the public can compare composure and responses of both candidates on the same 'battle field'. When only one or the other is singled out to be tested, it certainly appears to show favoritism. While many things in this world are not fair, it does not benefit any of us, including the media to test mettle of only one candidate in a debate format. I am still undecided. Meaningful, comparative information on the issues will help me decide.

Leave a comment


RECENT BLOG ENTRIES

MORE POLITICAL COVERAGE FROM KIPLINGER