Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
TEXT SIZE: A A A A
Email this post | Back to Blog home
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Obama's autumn road map

 

While Hillary Clinton runs around West Virginia, doing her best impersonation of a Japanese kamikaze pilot who is cognitively incapable of acknowledging defeat, there is a sense that the general election phase is about to begin.

Barack Obama signaled this on Tuesday, by delivering a primary night speech that was aimed squarely at swing voters. That speech is worth a closer look. It's premature, of course, to suggest that it constitutes a blueprint for autumn victory. But it does show how Obama hopes to frame his pursuit.

The third Bush term. This theme is no surprise. The aim is to suggest that John McCain and George W. Bush are joined at the hip. "We can't afford to give John McCain the chance to serve out George Bush's third term," said Obama, who then warned about "four more years of tax breaks for corporations...four more years of tax breaks for CEOs...four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and the wealthy...four more years of an energy policy written by the oil companies," and, of course, four more years of a ruinous war. The Bush-linkage theme polls very well; as I mentioned the other day, more Americans actually seem to view Bush as a heavier weight for McCain than Jeremiah Wright is for Obama.

Loving America. This is the big visceral issue that Obama has most needed to address. Fairly or not, he's viewed by many as perhaps insufficiently red, white, and blue. Maybe it's his name, his color, his exotic background; whatever it is, he has to wave the flag more, profess his love more. On Tuesday night, he did it by connecting patriotism to his personal story:

"This is the country that gave my grandfather a chance to go to college on the GI BIll when he came home from World War II...This is the country that made it possible for my mother - a single parent who had to go on food stamps at one point - to send my sister and me to the best schools in this country on scholarships...This is the country that allowed my father-in-law - a city worker at a South Side water filtration plant - to provide for his wife and two children on a single salary...It is the light of opportunity that led my father across an ocean. It is the founding ideals that the flag draped over my grandfather's coffin stands for - it is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Reintroducing himself. See above. A lot of potential swing voters still have no idea of who he is, notwithstanding his bestseller memoir. By filling in more biographical details, he intends to present himself as a typical product of the American dream.

Feeling people's pain. Arguably the best way to defeat the "elitist" tag is to show empathy for the everyday American. These passages sound like they were lifted from the Hillary playbook, but nobody ever said this guy was not a fast learner: "The woman I met in Indiana who just lost her job...The college student I met in Iowa who works the night shift...The mother in Wisconsin who gave me a bracelet...The man I met in Pennsylvania who lost his job...The people I met in small towns..." Even the gun-clingers made the cut this time.

Deep-sixing the liberal label. McCain will try to hang it around Obama's neck, but his response (as previewed Tuesday night) will be that while government is not the answer, it is nonetheless essential as a backstop: " We believe in hard work. We  believe in personal responsibility and self-reliance...while we don't need big government, we do need a government that stands up for families who are being tricked out of their homes by Wall Street predators; a government that stands up for the middle class by giving them a tax break..." Then came the attempted patriotic tie-in: "Security and opportunity, compassion and prosperity aren't liberal values or conservative values - they're American values."

Fighting back. This theme was aimed at those Democrats who worry that he'll fold when the Republicans come after him: "Yes, we know what's coming...The same names and labels they always pin on everyone who doesn't agree with all their ideas."  But he made it clear that he won't simply counterpunch in the Clinton fashion ("that will just lead us down the same path of polarization and gridlock"). No, he wants to defeat attack politics by elevating the dialogue: "We will end it by telling the truth - forcefully, repeatedly, confidently - and by trusting that the American people will embrace the need for change." And then, again the patriotic tie-in: "I love this country too much to see it divided and distracted at this moment in history."

And that, ultimately, is his greatest dare - his intention to defeat low-road politics by walking the high road and inviting the voters to join him. Can he really win the White House with a successful appeal to the better angels of our nature? Even if he ends every speech as he did Tuesday night, by asking God to "bless the United States of America?" I'd suggest that this is the grist for a great novel, if not for the fact that it's happening live, in real time.

-------

If you work in Center City Philadelphia and have a lunch break tomorrow, stop by the Free Library's main branch at 1901 Vine St. - where I am scheduled to interview Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in a public forum. The show starts at noon, and I'm leaving time for audience questions. Anything you're dying to ask this guy? For logistics, start linking here.

Posted by Dick Polman @ 8:56 AM  Permalink | 23 comments
SAVE AND SHARE
Comments
Posted by LJL 10:57 AM, 05/08/2008
"more Americans actually seem to view Bush as a heavier weight for McCain than Jeremiah Wright is for Obama.".....I sure as hell hope so! Or it would be proof-positive that this country is as dopey and stubborn to the point of stupidity as it seems. Let's see, a chickenhawk military-service avoiding coward who has done more damage to our country, our military, our moral standing, our world influence, our Constitution, our economy, or a 6-year military veteran who holds no government position and whose claim to fame was spouting offensive comments, comments protected by the constitution, that, BTW, he defended by serving. Man, this country is f-ed seven ways to Sunday, lubed by the media all the way.
Posted by Rich LeBlanc 10:59 AM, 05/08/2008
The thing that makes me hopeful that taking the high might actually work is that it appears already to have worked against Hillary, who is arguably a much dirtier campaigner than McCain would be. And she only has Bill as the albatross around her neck - Bush will indeed be a much heavier bird for McCain to carry. I am struck by the power and literacy of Obama's oratory - I think many Americans have not heard literate speech from a political figure in their lifetime. No one since the days of JFK, RFK, and MLK have spoken in such a stirring, authentic, and uplifting manner, to my recollection.
Posted by vc bear 12:15 PM, 05/08/2008
Read Carl Rove's comments in today's WSJ.
Posted by James TL 12:28 PM, 05/08/2008
I'm glad the dirtiest campaigner (Clinton) is finally about to be defeated. So far McCain and Obama have lived on the high road. It remains to be seen if they will stay there. I expect McCain and his minions will stray from it much faster than Obama will. Keep stressing the link between Bush and McCain. There's nothing dirty about linking the two together since McCain basically has said he wants to continue his Iraq policies for years to come. Anyone who can't see these policies have been a failure is truly delusional. Obama is the best candidate I've seen run for president since JFK. He's inspiring and articulate. Keep it up Barrack!
Posted by yobill626 12:35 PM, 05/08/2008
I think the worst thing about getting the "Liberal" tag is the "wimp" that seems to be attached to it. I feel the reason the Democratic Congress is getting such a low approval rating is that people elected them to stand up to Bush, & until recently, haven't been doing it. Harry Reid is one of the headliners. I know they don't have the votes, but it appears that they simply buckle as opposed to standing their ground & making Bush overrule them --- especially since he appears to get his way anyway. PLEASE ASK HARRY REID: What are the top 3 priorities he has for the Senate when he does get that majority & why should we think the Dems can put those into law?
Posted by p-diddy 02:30 PM, 05/08/2008
Mr. Polman, I have a question that you might want to ask Harry Reid: Why didn't the Democrats do more to precipitate an end to the Iraq occupation? This is a legitimate question, considering this was their mandate after the 2006 midterm landslide (2 years ago!). Rep. Lynne Wolsey told Rolling Stone magazine in February, "If we'd been bold the minute we got control of the House — and that's why we got the majority, because the people of this country wanted us out of Iraq — if we'd been bold, even if we lost the votes, we would have gained our voice." In truth, the Democrats have lost their voice on Iraq. I'm a registered Democrat. I'm disappointed in Reid's overly cautious stint at majority leader. Sincerely, Dave West Chester, PA
Posted by Mr. Smith 03:14 PM, 05/08/2008
Does Obama wear the Pelosi - Reid albatross around his neck? Their approval ratings are lower than President Bush's approval ratings. Their approval ratings are even lower than the ratings of the Iraqi Parliament! But, a lot can happen in 6 months. Maybe Reid and Pelosi will wake up and realize that congress hasn't done diddly squatta since being elected in 2006. Maybe they'll get off their fat butts and wake the American people to their despicable leftist agenda.
Posted by SteveMG 03:19 PM, 05/08/2008
There are a couple of reasons the Democrats don't automatically pull the funding. First, they (and we) can't afford the risk that the President own't play chicken and leave the troops over there unfunded. That would be a disaster for the nation, no matter who blinks first. The critics keep insisting that's what Congress should do without actually considering the consequences. Even if they reduced funding the President would leave the troops over there (you know how they think they can't send the wrong message) and let them operate without sufficient equipment and armor. After all, that what they did for the first couple years, they can do it again.
Posted by Djoko Pritza 03:38 PM, 05/08/2008
The third-Bush-term theme is a winner for so many reasons. Now, the Dems must learn from the past and not drop the message after a few times. If there is one think the American people respond to, it's a 2-by-4 right between the eyes. Keep hammering it!
Posted by James TL 04:21 PM, 05/08/2008
I agree Steve. A quick pullout would be major political suicide for the Dems. It should have started already but a gradual pullout is the way to go. I'm sure the polls agree with this assessment. They should have tried harder back early in 2007. If they had tried harder they would now have plenty of ammunition against stay-the-course-McCain. THis is a closer race because much of the American public percieves the Dems to be weak for not standing up to Bush when the public overwhelmingly wanted them to.
Posted by marty 06:07 PM, 05/08/2008
Steve/James, my understanding (per Kucinich) is that the funds for pulling out are there, and if Congress didn't send up a funding bill, that would kick in and the troops would come home in an orderly manner. Re: Obama: though I think he's the best candidate of the three, I believe the GOP will gleefully Swift-Boat him on the Wright stuff until his campaign looks like a warmed-over Kerry campaign (even Rove alluded to that in the aforementioned WSJ article, and he'll probably be a prime mover in that effort). I really hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid the Dems have shot themselves in the foot for yet another presidential campaign.
Posted by SteveMG 08:09 PM, 05/08/2008
James, how can you agree when you completely missed the point? A quick pullout is not even remotely what I said. Cutting the funds for operations in Iraq is the only option that Congress has. However, cutting the funding has no relationship over what the administration will do. If Congress cut funding, like I said up there, there is no automatic withdrawal. The President would play chicken with Congress using the troops, because he knows that Congress would eventually have to blink and restore funding.
Posted by tom - wilmington, de 09:16 PM, 05/08/2008
Yeah, the Reps are going to "swift boat" Obama, just like the DNC is "swift boating" McCain by picking out portions of quotes of things he said and using them to obfuscate what he really said. Same old Democrat dirty tricks...after all, they were the first to bring up Willie Horton (Al Gore), crosses burning in Mississippi (2004 election) and James Byrd in Texas (2000 election). Of course, I am sure nobody on this site recalls any of those items though. Obama has little chance of winning. He has not expanded his base of support; he will not win over the "Reagan Democrats"; his energy plan is "take away tax breaks and windfall profits tax" with nothing about expanding production, refining, or anything else of substance. The US produces 40% less oil this year than it did in 1985, and if Clinton had signed ANWR drilling, we would right now be producing 1 million barrels of oil a day (equal to what we import from Saudi Arabia) from those wells; his health care plan is a government boondoggle which some claim will insure all illegal aliens (some say it will, some say it won't). I liked Obama the first few times I heard him, then I started to understand his positions more and changed my mind. I am no McCain fan, but Obama would be a disaster.....especially with a friendly Congress.
Posted by p-diddy 09:42 PM, 05/08/2008
SteveMG, you're wrong. We use the funds that have already been allocated to withdraw our troops. Can you imagine Hastert and DeLay being trampled like this when they had the majority? An honest attempt to end the war would have involved forcing Bush to execute his veto and allowing the Republicans to filibuster all they wanted. Force a showdown, in other words, and use any means necessary to get the bloodshed ended. I realize this line of thinking infuriates the timid careerists within the party (like Reid). The Democrats used anti-war sentiment to get elected without ever doing anything to stop the occupation. But this con can only last so long. If Obama is the next president, and I think he will be, he's going to have to put a concrete plan in place to bring our troops home. If he doesn't, all this talk about "change" will have proved to be just more business as usual - and his supporters will have been conned. Obama's got my vote. But my loyalties don't lie with the Democrats. I just think it's the right thing to do. Our troops are being killed over a cowardly political gambit. Don't even get me started with McCain. He thinks everything is just swell.
Posted by Mr. Smith 10:15 PM, 05/08/2008
If Obama gets elected, he won't take the politically risky step of withdrawing troops. Why would he? He'll already have been elected. All removing the troops does is expose him to the risk of having taken a concrete step that might blow up in his face. He'll keep the troops there so Iraq won't melt down, and he'll blame it on Bush.---------------- it's classic political inaction.
About Dick Polman

Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.

ARCHIVES

All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.