Coaching Up Obama Da Bears' Way
This week, the Senate will vote on a new bill to authorize new intensive wiretapping on less rigorous legal grounds than we have now. For Sen. Barack Obama, the vote comes at a most dangerous part of his campaign. He's in the midst of what might be called the second transition. The first was when he broke out of the pack into his one-on-one with Sen. Hillary Clinton. Now, in a second major transition, he has to adjust to being the Democratic nominee with all of the attention on him.
There are lots of people who could give advice to the Obama team, and do. But for Obama, David Axelrod and the rest of his Chicagoland crew, perhaps the best voice of experience is Buddy Ryan. Ryan was the defensive coach who led the Chicago Bears' NFL team to greatness in the 1980s. He did exactly the opposite of what the Obama campaign is doing now.
Even coaching the defense, Ryan played aggressively to win. Obama and his advisers, by contrast, appear to be playing not to lose. It looks from the cold stands in Soldier Field that they think they have a lead and can sit on it as the clock runs out through November with enough margin to win by a couple of points at the end of the game.
It's the tactic far too many coaches follow, and it drives players and fans crazy. It even has a name -- the "prevent defense." The "prevent" defense trades time for yardage. Rather put pressure on the opposing quarterback, the defense rushes only a couple of players and tries to prevent long pass plays that tick down the amount of time left in the game. The strategy fails much of the time, in part because a good quarterback given enough time can pick apart any defense.
So it is with Obama, as he appears to have gone into a defensive crouch since became the survivor of the primaries. Rather than standing strong with the people who won him the nomination and try to persuade others of the strength of his arguments, Obama has continually appeared to yield ground to Sen. John McCain and the Republicans on issues ranging from the war to faith-based programs to the surveillance bill that would give telephone companies immunity from what they may or may not have done in illegally wiretapping American citizens to eliminating the most basic requirement for a warrant.
So, WWBD? What would Buddy do? Turns out, Buddy answered the question, in a September 20, 1992 broadcast when sportscaster Bob Costas remarked to Ryan, "You are not a fan of the prevent defense, but most coaches go to it."
This was Buddy's answer: "I don't know why... because, you're scared. If you've been beating them by blitzing them, blitz them. If you've been beating them by man to man, you've been beating them by zone, do whatever you did earlier to win the game. Don't change the philosophy."
What got Obama this far was a philosophy that asked people to join together to find the best in themselves and in their government, whether it was ending the war or protecting the country. It was a platform of progressive change and of hope for the future, coupled with tying McCain to the last eight years of economic distress, special-interest government and general incompetence. That worked well before against a conservative opponent as it wooed voters and helped to raise money across the country in unheard-of amounts from unheard-of numbers of donors.
By backing off and sitting back, Obama has given the press a ready-made story line the Republicans are all to eager to exploit. Just as Al Gore, once considered an Eagle Scout of rectitude, was morphed into a say-anything liar by reporters who carried the Republican line in 2000, now Obama will be allowed even less latitude to refine positions, much less change them, without being seen as a say-anything politician -- the role Sen. Hilary Clinton played in the recent primary.
Obama's answer to his supporters on the wiretapping bill is more Billy Flynn (see Chicago, the musical) than Buddy Ryan. It's a classic play-it-safe move, couched in justifications, trying to gain the "respectable" compromise rather than stick to what many of his supporters saw as a perfectly reasonable position that has been sufficiently savaged as "left wing" by conservative commentators and politicians to scare most of the Senate.
The Chicago crowd should follow Buddy's advice and get over the rough transitional patch. Now is not the time to lay back or to play scared. Now the time to make the case with all the strength and fervor Obama and his campaign can muster. And when the time comes, send the Fridge across the goal line with the ball to seal the deal.
Follow Art Brodsky on Twitter: www.twitter.com/artbrodsky
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I wrote a comment that mirrors this just the other day. See the comment here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/02/mccain-camp-shakeup-bush_n_110475.html
Now this article validates what I said then. It mirrors what I tried to express. The 1985 Bears was the most ferocious football team I have ever witnessed in terms of the way the defense played and the way that Walter Payton ran the football. Even the rest of the offense elevated their game that year to outperform by miles the title of perennial loser. The six championships of the Bulls is the only other sporting memory that I cherish. I know many have loyalty to other memories and other teams and I both respect and encourage that as healthy and wise.
The 1985 bears were Richard “Sack Man” Dent coming around the corner and beating his defender to the quarterback in an instantaneous flattening of all hope that the opposing quarterback was in a football game that could be won. It was Mike “Samurai” Singletary dragging the quarterback down to the realization of certain futility and from a prone position, and biting off a ripped nail and going back into the game with the penetrating stare of the determined. The Chicago bears were sweetness unsurpassed and unopposed. Obama would do well to take a clue from the spirit of that team for they were one for the ages.
Reading my comment again I feel I do not justice to the 1985 Chicago Bears. Therefore, read this more professional treatment of the subject matter that lists all the names, accomplishments, and shows the pretty pictures.
http://www.bearshistory.com/seasons/1985chicagobears.aspx
I think BO has decided that he needed to make himself "not scary" to the average American. Hence, his speeches on Pariotism and Faith. I think he thought he needed to take care of those two issues. He is patriotic and he is a Christian. But I think he went too far trying to be Average. Because he is not average. He made some mistakes. McCain has made hundreds, but never (except for KO), gets called out for them. Not being willing to filibuster to rid FISA of retroactive immunity in my opinion was the biggest mistake because not only dems, but a lot of independents and repubs feel strongly about this spying on Americans thing. His written explanation merely compounded the problem. His answers on the Supreme Court decisions were too off the cuff, not well-thought out, not comprehensive enough. I think he is overthinking in some way and not going with his gut instincts. He doesn't understand that, like it or not, he convinced us that he will fight for us. Now we expect it. I still believe he will make a great President. It's okay to make mistakes, especially in July, when nobody is paying much attention. I hope he picks Richardson for VP. It will give the campaign a shot in the arm it needs.
Nuts! This is such a stupid issue. Obama was very very smart not to go down this route and actually hold up or try to hold up the bill over immunity. Number 1, he has clearly carefully considered everything and believes this is the best course. So the man can't have an opinion that is different than others. Second, to have taken this tack would have done nothing but help define him as a crazy lefty. he's not running to the center folks, he's taking measured steps to cut off the attacks coming at him by cutting off the legs of those attacks- ie. "I think people have a right to firearms." Where exactly is the RNC and the NRA going to go with that one.
The only thing defining about this moment is that unlike Gerry and Gore who really did kowtow to things they did not believe, Obama is going with issues he believes in which are unpopular with his base and he's doing it early and openly. That ain't compromise, that's good common sense.
Your comparison to Buddy Ryan's defensive unit is pretty spot on. The 1985 Bears were a literal monster, keeping opposing QB's and RB's in a tailspin with all the blitzing and craziness. It was one of the most memorable defenses ever, and it led the Bears to their only Superbowl title in the last 40 years.
Ryan's defense never played it safe. They were always aggressive and on offense (so to speak). Obama's going to have a rude awakening if he follows the Clintonian playbook of "play it safe and co-opt the Republican agenda.". No one in this country is carrying a sign saying "immunity for telecoms now!". And they won't be doing that, as they can't afford to drive to the protest site because they can't afford the gas.
It is interesting to note that Obama almost ran against Mike Ditka, the Bears' head coach in 1985, in the 2004 US Senate race. Ditka declined, however.
No one loves the Buddy Ryan blitzing (aka red doging) Bears more than me but while people from the left are so nervous that Obama is turning to the right I keep reading that he is making in roads in states long considered solid for the GOP: http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/07/obama-making-gains-in-red-stat.html I'm a little to the right of Chomsky in my politics but most of all I WANT TO WIN this year and winning means getting a solid majority in congress as well as the presidency. So if Obama tacks to the middle on a few issues and in the process starts to win over the people who have been voting against their own interests for the last few decades its OK with me.
Like other Democrats, Obama is playing the prevent defense. The only thing it prevents is your side from winning. This kind of cowardice is better known as Martyball, after Marty Schottenheimer, a coach who played not to lose rather than playing to win. There's a reason Schottenheimer's teams always choked in big games and his craven tactics are it.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Martyball
There is no constituency out there supporting telecom immunity (except corporate executives at ATT). So, voting for telecom immunity won't win over a damn voter.
Absolutely. I haven't seen mass demonstrations with protestors carrying signs saying "immunity for telecoms now!".
Apparently, the Dems in Congress see them all the time.
There's plenty of people out there that think that Obama is run by the left wing of the party. That is his vulnerability- not the possibility that some of his base think differently than he does on the issue of immunity. And by the way, exactly what the heck do you think Obama could do about this anyways. If he's President he could overnight redraft through Executive Edict stricter rules and most likely still go after criminal indictments. I really believe the people on the left who are pushing this issue have become somewhat delusional which arises from the false belief that they and they alone put Obama where is at today. He's here today because he is a great person with great ideas and an incredible mind. He's not here because of Arianna or any other group.
You are right on the money.
Weeb Ewbank started using that damn prevent defense in the 50's
I just posted a diary on Kos few minutes ago warning about this.
I believe its an Axelrod,Penn,Clinton input and i don't trust any of them.
Great article, terrible headline. The netroots teammates aren't out here giving any defense, all we hear are the cheerleaders. The rest of the media narrative would have been meaningless had he not kicked it all off with some fancy footwork around FISA. I would have called this Obama's FISA Fumble.
. . . Obama has continually appeared to yield ground to Sen. John McCain and the Republicans on issues ranging from the war to faith-based programs to the surveillance bill that would give telephone companies immunity from what they may or may not have done in illegally wiretapping American citizens to eliminating the most basic requirement for a warrant.
______________________________________________________________________________
Nonsense.
There is a clear double standard at work in this corporate media that on the one hand scrutinizes Obama for clarifying his positions and on the other hand, ignores that McCain has not just flip flopped on policy but reversed field. The clear strategy of the McCain camp is to paint a picture of Obama's record while hidding from its own; and the corporate media has been a complicit player by turning on the sensationalism over the word 'refinement' to mean reversal. It seems that the prevalent slant is to focus on everything Obama does and says, as well as what the Clintons are doing, while giving McCain a free pass over his own policy shifts.
When we take our eye off of the ball, and play into the corporate media and its pro-corporation stances which are backed by its republican proxies, we give life to these controversies. If we are going to go ape over Obama's words, we should be equally ready to do the same over the absence of this same media which ignores McCain's words.
Well there Ya go.. Pres Bush actually used the Buddy Ryan theory of defense.....and it is working... Oh and speaking of Da Coach.. he almost was thought of as an opponent to the Messiah
Don't you, as a journalist have a responsibility to defend thruths and fight falsehoods propogated by biased pundits?
"It looks from the cold stands in Soldier Field that they think they have a lead and can sit on it as the clock runs out through November with enough margin to win by a couple of points at the end of the game."
Oh you can just cruise on to victory. All you bloggers get in a circle, face right and pat each other on the back. Of course, there's that nasty poll problem of old John being within 10 points. And the history of democrats being ahead at this time in several past elections, but I wouldn't worry. In fact I would go ahead and start the party now.
I agree !!! He did great in the primary drawing people to him. Not only progressive dems, but conservative dems, independents and moderate repubs came together to get him through the primary. Why his campaign decided to fix what wasn't broken is beyond me.
Actually, I think that Barack needs to combine all of the talent of the '85 Bears. That team was unstoppable. Oh for those days. However, we also need to realize that Barack has not lied to us. Axelrod was masterful during the primary in managing Obama and to be honest, I said it more than once that Barack reminded me of the '92 Bill Clinton. However, Obama did seem to lose his footing in June.
Art, you're absolutely right that Barack shouldn't have changed his message for the general campaign. All he really needed to do is keep letting people know who he is and what he stands for. He needs to get back to that message because the country is ready for a leader who thinks for himself and is willing to listen to opposing view points.
Barack told us from the beginning that we might not always agree with his decisions, but that we should trust him to make the right decisions after he's listened to all sides.
we also need to realize that Barack has not lied to us.
I will not vote for a FISA bill w/ retroactive immunity
I will vote for the FISA bill even though it contains retroactive immunity.
Sorry... but that is a lie.
how?
When he said that, the proposed FISA bill was different than the one up for consideration now.
Which would you rather have?
No improvements and unlimited spying with the old version or the new version which would still allow for criminal prosecution?
The facts on the ground changed with the new House version. I would rather everyone come clean with what actually happened, but we know that won't come to pass.
If the telcos didn't get some form of immunity, do you honestly think they would cooperate with any investigation?
Besides, we still have the power of the purse. We can boycott the companies who come under scrutiny and maybe that could be the best punishment for them. Hit them where it hurts: profits.
Even if they are criminally prosecuted, do you honestly think the people who are actually responsible for it will serve time?
Which is more important, punishing the companies that followed a presidential directive, or prosecuting the people who told them it was legal to do so?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
