This is my weekly newspaper column, published today.
MODS: I have reprint permissions
ALSO AVAILABLE ONLINE AT:
http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2008/04/18/opinion/columns/rich_lewis/doc4808ae67e75c3316188259.txtObama needs a little Gipper in him
By Rich Lewis, Sentinel Columnist, April 18, 2008
Last updated: Friday, April 18, 2008 10:24 AM EDT
ABC News has been widely condemned for its handling of Wednesday’s presidential primary debate in Philadelphia.
The Washington Post’s Tom Shales called the questioning by Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos “despicable.” Greg Mitchell of Editor and Publisher labeled it “the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years.” From across the Atlantic, Niall Stanage of Britain’s The Guardian described it as a “a noxious blend of smear, innuendo and diversion.”
Supporters of Sen. Barack Obama were especially incensed, flooding Internet comment lines with charges that their candidate was unfairly attacked — liberally using words like “disgusting,” “disgraceful,” “trash” and “tripe.”
But I thought the debate was an extraordinary gift to Obama — bringing into clear focus his central campaign message, and possibly clinching the nomination for him.
At the same time, Obama failed to seize the opportunity fully — bringing into clear focus his chief weakness as a candidate.
The central premise of Obama’s campaign is that the political process does not respond to the real needs and demands of the American public. Instead, politicians, lobbyists and the media divide and distract voters by emphasizing “hot button” social issues — stirring up emotions long enough to get past an election and then settling into “business as usual” as soon as the votes are counted. Basic concerns over jobs, wages, housing, health care and education are never addressed and people grow cynical about government.
The debate on Wednesday was a perfect example of exactly what Obama has been saying. Gibson and Stephanopoulos rehashed silly questions about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, “bitterness” and flag pins. They wallowed in the kind of “divide and distract” irrelevancies that have ruined the political process. It was, in short, a 52-minute pro-Obama commercial that couldn’t have been clearer if he had scripted it himself.
The problem is that Obama didn’t seize control of the moment but let himself fall victim to it. His campaign slogan is “Yes, we can” — meaning that people can rise up and take back the political process. But on Wednesday, when given a chance to do that, well... “No, he didn’t.”
True, Obama objected to the stupid questions several times, saying, for example: “What the American people want are not distractions.... And yes, they are in part frustrated and angry, because this is what passes for our politics....”
But Obama often seemed on the defensive and his retorts were tame — expressions of mild annoyance and frustration. He didn’t decisively smash the questions or the very idea that such questions are legitimate or acceptable.
I was looking for something akin to the famous moment in February 1980 when Ronald Reagan was debating George H.W. Bush during the Republican primary. When the debate moderator threatened to turn off Reagan’s microphone, Reagan angrily replied: “I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green!” And he took control of the mic.
Yes, a completely different time and circumstance, but it was a turning point in the election.
Obama needed that kind of take-charge declaration on Wednesday. A Reagan moment, if you will.
For example, Gibson asked the audience at the outset not to applaud the answers given by the candidates. But when Gibson or Stephanopoulos asked one those obnoxious questions about Rev. Wright or the flag pin, I wanted to see Obama reply:
“Look, Mr. Gibson, you seem to believe that this is what people came here tonight to hear us talk about. You’re wrong. And I’m willing to prove it. You told the audience not to applaud, but this is my debate and Senator Clinton’s debate and I’m going to overrule your rule and say to the people in this hall, and to the millions of Americans watching this broadcast: If you agree with me that these kinds of questions insult your intelligence and symbolize all that has gone wrong with our political process, then stand up and clap as loudly as you can right now.”
Definitely risky — but I have no doubt the room would have erupted in extended, wild applause that would have sent Gibson and Stephanopoulos running for cover. Obama would have been master, not martyr.
This is the missing piece in Obama’s candidacy — the willingness to flash a bit of anger, to exert authority on the issues he believes in. A president has to be cool, reasonable and diplomatic — and Obama is all of those things.
But a president also has to be forceful, demanding and hard on occasion — or risk being steamrolled by those who are. Obama was steamrolled on Wednesday — by the unimpressive likes of Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Some might ask how in the world will he take on Congress or Vladimir Putin.
I suspect that Obama is going to wrap up the Democratic nomination here in Pennsylvania next Tuesday by denying Hillary Clinton the big victory that she must have. This last debate probably helped him a great deal.
But in the general election against John McCain, Obama is going to face the same questions and accusations — except they will be harder and meaner. He will need to do better than he did Wednesday.
Obama has expressed admiration for Ronald Reagan, saying that Reagan “put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.”
Obama also wants to put us on a different path.
Adopting a little more of the Reagan style might help him get it done.
—
Rich Lewis’ e-mail address is: rlcolumn@comcast.net
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
