Obama’s Critical Mistakes
Barack Obama is running one of the most impressive primary campaigns
in American history by most quantifiable performance indicators. He
has raised more money, from more people than in any other primary
campaign ever. His website is superior to any other politician’s;
Barackobama.com features the most powerful social networking tools and
demographic information database available in politics. He has
mobilized America’s youth to turn the lever for him at an unprecedented
rate. Perhaps as importantly, Obama’s team has mastered the arcane art
of the caucus, trouncing his opponents in nearly every single state
caucus beginning with Iowa. Most strikingly, he has accomplished all
of this as a half-black Washington newcomer, beginning his national
campaign just two years after stepping into the Senate for the first
time as a guy that most Americans knew little to nothing about.
Obama has also been the beneficiary of a poorly run Clinton campaign
and weak, cash-strapped efforts from other Democrats like Edwards,
Richardson, Kucinich, and others. Obama’s prospects would not have
been so rosy if the Clintons hadn’t underestimated him and expected to
sail by on the basis of their brand recognition.
On the other hand, Obama has made extremely costly political errors,
which are now the focus of the Democratic primary. Although they have
done him great harm, none of his stumbles so far will turn out to be a
deal-breaker en route to the White House. The next one just could be.
The following is an analysis of each mistake. The issues will be
discussed strictly in the context of the presidential race, without
editorializing on or defending his values, integrity, moral judgments,
or past associations as so many other people are now doing. This is
all about tactics, which have in any case overtaken substance on policy
that may have existed once upon a time in this cursed primary.
Tony Rezko. The trend of being forced to go off-message and on the
defensive probably started most pointedly with Antonin Rezko. Rezko is
by most accounts an influence-peddling wheeler-dealer exactly in the
mold of so many thousands of other business magnates who form the
backbone of American politics on the local, state, and federal levels.
He raised mountains of cash for various Republicans and Democrats. He
probably called in lots of favors on these investments of time and
money that would have helped his business or personal interests. But
Rezko was dumb enough to (a) do something that may have been illegal
and (b) get caught doing it, a la Spitzer. Without getting into the
details of Rezko’s ongoing trial, it became clear early in the campaign
that Obama had an unsavory character on his hands, one who both
fundraised for him and helped him buy a house in Chicago at a good
price.
There’s no hard evidence that Obama did anything improper in
relation to Rezko. But the facts are there for all to see: Obama has
had an ongoing association with this shady guy. In response, Obama
called his real estate deal involving Rezko “boneheaded” and returned
substantial amounts of campaign money that Rezko helped raise. The
response was slow and retro-active, however. The public had already
been alerted to the damaging Rezko connection.
What should Obama have done? More homework on his associates to
start with. He should have known in advance that Rezko was going to
blow up, and severed ties with him pre-emptively, along with returning
the contribution money and selling the house (at exact cost of
purchase) before the media got wind of Rezko’s troubles. It could all
have been done quietly, early on, and even cordially so as to wash his
hands of the connection. Presidential candidates are under a
microscope, and their associates are too. Even more inexcusable than
the ignorance plea, is the possibility that Obama did already know of
Rezko’s potential for downfall. If this is true, then the campaign
should have taken the above actions even sooner, and prepared a
response typed and ready to deliver to avoid seeming purely reactive.
Jeremiah Wright. Rezko, even if found guilty, will be a walk in the
park compared to the problem of Reverend Wright of Trinity United
Church of Christ. Americans are familiar and even comfortable with
sleazy white middle-aged suits who pull strings and call shots. Many
in our society suspect that these guys run the show anyway, and aspire
to be like them. Every national politician has at least a few backers
like Rezko who helped get them in power; Hillary Clinton and John
McCain have Tony Rezkos by the bucketful in their pasts and presents.
So the Rezko problem will blow over, for the right or wrong reasons.
Note how McCain and Clinton have not beaten the Rezko horse to death:
the equivalent of political death by hypocrisy.
Along comes Jeremiah Wright, a new type of character that most
Americans do not really get. People asked how such an angry and
unenlightened black man could possibly be Obama’s pastor for over 20
years. And he married Obama off, AND baptized both of his children?
That is undeniably a real, long-term, spiritual bond.
Wright is an articulate and controversial black preacher who upsets
people almost as badly as Catholic priests who sodomize altar boys.
The cadence of his voice and the content of his speeches offends the
sensibilities of most of us who don’t subscribe to black liberation
theology. And that is largely why Wright is in business: to perform
the art of black anger from his pulpit. He is good at it, and loves a
stage. Those of us who have been around a little bit know a number of
people like Wright, especially in cities. I don’t agree with what he
says, but I certainly understand what he is saying and where he is
coming from because I’ve heard it all one hundred times before.
This time, Obama responded with a brilliant master stroke: he gave
the best speech on race in America since “I have a Dream” was delivered
by Martin Luther King, Jr. decades ago. “A More Perfect Union” was
politically wise. Obama went on the offensive, on his terms, and
navigated through extremely sensitive racial issues such as a
description of what goes on in black churches, the cult of black
victimhood, and reasons why whites could be legitimately resentful. He
described the good works and leadership and military service of Wright
and the congregation. At the same time he made it crystal-clear that
he did not believe in some of Wright’s contentions without naming them:
for example, that the U.S. government created AIDS specifically to
screw black people, a major charge not backed by any evidence.
The speech had topics that other politicians were afraid to touch;
if McCain or Clinton dared to rebut any of the content of “A More
Perfect Union,” they risked being branded as racially insensitive.
Obama’s speech was a hand grenade that could detonate an opponent on
contact. Afterwards the polls indicated that Wright’s emergence as an
issue would be a pesky nuisance, not a deal-breaker. In other words,
only the voters who weren’t going to vote for Obama anyway really
cared. To boot, Obama used the opportunity to advertise his
Christianity, to counter the buzz that he might be a Muslim. BRILLIANT
MASTER STROKE.
What Obama and his backers did not count on was Reverend Wright
re-emerging to stab him in the back after Obama had told the American
people, under excruciating political duress, that he could not disown
Wright, that the words of hatred didn’t tell the complete story of who
Wright was. Last week Wright used the opportunity afforded by the
media attention to turn his ridiculous Chicago pulpit into a national
road show, strutting and preening and performing with three straight
days of major speeches chock-full of controversial statements and an
indictment of Obama for throwing him under the bus for the sake of
politics.
This shocking show of disloyalty caused Obama to resort to the only
available option: disavow Wright publicly, denounce all that he stood
for, admit the association with this pastor was an utter mistake, and
commit the foul but necessary pandering to the right wing by appearing
for an interview on the Republican Party’s mouthpiece, Fox News, to
receive an unbalanced fleecing.
This particular problem should have been easy to deal with. Either
Obama should have had the political skill or leverage to keep Wright’s
mouth shut after “A More Perfect Union,” perhaps with offers of
longer-lasting limelight in exchange for an ounce of loyalty. The
second-best alternative was to have thrown the self-serving Wright out
of the house during “A More Perfect Union” itself. Unfortunately Obama
was unable to achieve either. Just as with Rezko, Obama also failed to
see the Wright problem emerging as a critical problem in the campaign,
one that he could have been better prepared to deal with. He
miscalculated how caught up the American public could get over such
nonsense.
Bitter. The “Bitter” pill was completely Obama’s own doing, and
ironically exposed by one of his strong backers on the blogosphere
after attending a campaign event in San Francisco, one at which people
were openly recording video and sound. Yet another strange chapter in
this absurdly long election cycle.
The mistake was simple: telling a group of supporters a message
straight out of the political best-seller, What’s Wrong with Kansas.
People who are bitter about the government and the economy cling to
guns or church or other things that make them feel good. Obama thought
it would be safe to say this in front of this group. He should not
have said it.
As we know, word got out quickly. The response was clumsy and
forced: trying to put the words in context to make it seem like anyone
who misunderstood only did so because of the semantics. Dancing around
the issue with confusing explanations and an unconvincing tone helped
Obama lose Pennsylvania. A victory there would have been a knockout
punch against Clinton.
Ultimately, voters don’t like being told that they feel bitter. No
matter whether or not the statement is true. Here was the best
response which would have made the problem go away sooner: “I’m sorry,
I shouldn’t have said that. Slip of the tongue. Next question.” Each
of the candidates have had these slip of the tongue moments; Bush had
400 of them in the 2000 and 2004 elections and got by. McCain confused
the Sunnis and Shias of Iraq to great ridicule. People will forget
most things, unless the drama continues with more dialogue when the
best plan was to bury it and move on.
Surrogate Blunders. Samantha Power, Austan Goolsbee, and Michelle
Obama have also said things they should not have. Foreign policy
adviser Power called Clinton a monster, economic adviser Goolsbee
allegedly told a Canadian official that Obama’s anti-NAFTA rhetoric was
just politics, and Mrs. Obama claimed she was proud to be American for
the first time this year. These quotes are costly because they are
off-message, and exactly the type of statements that the media pounces
on for dramatic effect and inevitable righteous anger from opponents.
The distractions end up shaping the campaign’s story line, as over time
the quotes appear to be an agenda rather than just isolated and dumb
mistakes, which is what they are.
All the candidates have suffered as a result of their surrogates.
Bill Clinton has done political damage to his spouse by multiples of
what Michele Obama has done to hers. However, Obama’s narrative of “a
different kind of politics” leaves him exposed to more scrutiny. This
is a line of attack that will not stop as long as he promises to
practice the politics lifting the country up. Obama has got to make
sure his surrogates are on message and positive. And if they blunder
again, he must reject the errant statements forcefully and
immediately. A candidate cannot control everything that everyone on
the campaign says to the media, but he can come close.
There have been other mistakes, but these have been the most
critical ones. Some were preventable, and some were not. Obama should
certainly have predicted in advance that Rezko and Wright would emerge
as part of the vetting process. In any case it is fortunate that these
came out sooner rather than later. People will lose interest in these
issues in the months to come. Undoubtedly, new mistakes and problems
will emerge. But we can be certain of one thing: Obama has been
raising his game as time has gone on. Although the mistakes already
have done serious damage, they should be treated as learning
experiences. There is a long way to go, and the best virtue to draw
upon at this time is patience.
