Interested viewers of last night's Democratic debate in South Carolina witnessed a somewhat vitriolic exchange between Hillary and Obama that bordered on the "getting personal." The exchange last night exposes a difficult balancing acts that politicians vying for public office must face. While defending their records and qualifications for office, politicians must do so without seeming, well, defensive.
In an age of classless politics, candidates cannot afford to rely exclusively on a positive message, passively permitting adversaries, who are by nature prone to hyperbole if not outright fabrication, to control the subject of discussion and, in the process, dismantle their qualifications for office. The danger of attempting this strategy can be seen in the few weeks since Iowa. Obama, seemingly committed to a strategy of staying positive, has seen his momentum (and nearly his lead in the delegate count) evaporate. In staying positive, Obama allowed Hillary to control the issues -- she focused the American voting public on the languishing economy diverting attention away from the Iraq War, a topic she seems endlessly defensive on as a result of her yay vote for the Iraq war -- and further permitted Hillary to create an objectively unfair perception of him as an inexperienced rookie incapable of the nation's highest office. The danger of this tact was never more apparent than in the previous debate in Las Vegas where a strictly positive Obama came across as passive and soft and seemed to cede points to the more aggressive and presidential Hillary on a regular basis.
But coming out too aggressive can have a down side too. In the days leading up to New Hampshire, Hillary capitalized on a perception that the men in the race had teamed up on her at the debate. Even coming out hard in one's own defense can be a huge political mistake. Obama went on the offensive last night at the South Carolina debate, fairly accusing Hillary and Bill of hyperbole and in certain cases, downright fabrication, regarding his record and experience. His attack edged toward the personal in certain spots when he drew particular attention to Hillary's lucrative position on the WalMart Board of Directors (part of her storied 35 years of experience) and to Bill's incessant and "troubling" loose use of the facts. While his comments drew some applause at the debate, the spin from the Hillary camp followed this morning in predictable fashion. Obama, in taking the offensive, is desperate and frustrated. Indeed, this is the danger. Americans hate kiss asses, but they hate save asses even more. Seeming mean, desperate or frustrated is tantamount to admitting the nomination is lost.
So what is an Obama to do? When he is on message, staying positive, espousing change and delivering inspiring rhetoric, he is perceived as passive, weak and lacking in substance. But in being aggressive or defending his record, Obama risks coming across as a bully, or worse, as defensive and desperate. This all leads us to Obama's biggest shortcoming so far, his inability to wrest the tenor and subject of these primary battles away from Hillary. Because Hillary has guided the issues masterfully up to this point and created resonating, albeit inaccurate, perceptions about Obama, Obama has to date been unable to find an aggressive but non-combative voice.
And so, through hyperbole, misinformation, and tears, Hillary has displayed the one characteristic of which she can claim a clear advantage over Obama: image control. The Clinton camp has thus far accomplished a monumental feat in successfully presenting to the voting public a believable enough but completely dichotomous image of Hillary: the agent of change and the candidate of experience. The challenge now facing Obama requires a balancing act equally as monumental. Expose the inadequacies of Hillary's message while not seeming the bully and defend his own record while not seeming defensive. If he fails to accomplish this task in the next 14 days, he will undoubtedly lose the Democratic nomination.
No comments:
Post a Comment