Can Obama Get Back On Message?

John Edwards was the clear winner of last night's Democratic debate, but the big story is how far off message Barack Obama has gone since his victory in Iowa.  While Obama continues to stir hopes for voters, the impression he gives increasingly on the national stage is of a candidate caught in the old-school, finger pointing blame game.  With Super Tuesday just a few weeks away, the challenge Obama now faces is substantial.  Despite his lead in South Carolina, Obama must find a way to lead the debate again with his 'new tone,' or he will likely go down fighting in the very style of politics he seeks to retire.

'Hope and Change' Becomes 'Blame'
Like it or not, the Clinton campaign has knocked the Obama campaign off the core theme of 'hope and change.'  This change is significant because the 'hope and change' theme took over the entire political debate in the 24 hours after the Iowa debate.  That is no longer the case.

Despite trumpeting his ability to bring a 'new tone' to politics, last night's debate showed an Obama who scolded, complained, and pointed fingers.  His performance last night raises a serious question without a clear answer: How can a Presidential candidate bring change if he is so easily thrown off message by his opponents?

Having dominated previous debates with his quick wit and charisma, Obama's rhetoric and body language last night gave the impression of a candidate stuck--like everyone else--in old-school mud slinging politics.

The ability to throw Obama off his message may be a Pyrrhic victory for Hillary Clinton's campaign.  In the end, voters not persuaded by Obama's message of change may jump to Edwards rather than Clinton.  Nonetheless, Clinton has managed to open up a significant chink in Obama's armor by hitting on the difference between 'rhetoric and reality.' 

Indeed, that Obama came off as so defensive last night was a good example of how quickly his central campaign promises have been tripped up by his opponents. 

For their part, both Clinton and Edwards gave solid, but not inspiring debate performances.  As usual, the word that came to mind after watching Clinton's in last night's debate was 'prepared.'  While Obama struggled to get out subtle distinctions in long sentences--Clinton spoke in sharp, clear, if not over-produced talking points.

Edwards Wins, Clinton Benefits
Edwards gave a solid performance, but had noticeable difficulty breaking into the discussion.  Over and over again, Edwards deftly reframed the debate to questions of solving poverty, healthcare, and economic progress.  More than the other two candidates, Edwards connected the debate back to the ideas and legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., on whose federal holiday the debate was taking place.    But it is unlikely that Edwards will gain considerable ground in the polls as a result of his performance. Having carried South Carolina in the last Presidential election prior to becoming John Kerry's running mate, Edwards has struggled to stay within 15 points of Clinton and Obama.

Edwards won the debate, therefore, but it is Clinton who will reap the reward.

For his part, Barack Obama now has a herculean and unenviable political task before him.  Waist-deep in the very kind of politics he claims he will end, Obama has to show the American people that he can indeed change the tone of politics.  Obama must not only get back on message, but he must bring the entire debate back on board, too.

Focus and Frame
Obama may well have a point that the Clinton campaign is taking his comments out of context to score political points.  Nonetheless, all political campaigns use this tactic, and the chance of him not facing this in the general election is slim.

But the larger problem may be Obama's inability to keep his campaign message focused across the full range of campaign events.

In particular,  while disciplined and on message in his campaign speeches, Obama has shown a tendency to wanders off message in press interviews, often bringing in statements that  are vague and even contradictory.

In a recent interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal, Obama made a statement praising Ronald Reagan and criticizing the Democratic Party.  The statement was immediately criticized by the Clinton campaign.  In fact, the problem with Obama's comment about Reagan was less that he praised the icon of the Republican Party than the inability of anyone to understand what Obama meant.

When questioned by Clinton on his Reagan comment, Obama clarified by saying that Reagan should be noted for his ability to convince Democrats to vote for policies they did not think initially that they would support.  The clarification only made the original statement more vague.

In a primary season dominated by 5-second sound bytes, Obama's tendency to stray into points that require long explanation has become a campaign liability. His ability to win the Democratic nomination depends on whether or not he can stop blaming Clinton and get back to framing the debate.

In the end, the debate last night was as revealing about the state of the Democratic primary race as it was contentious. 

Despite the lead Obama holds in South Carolina, he has quite a few sleepless nights ahead of him.

(cross posted from Frameshop)

Comments

[longislandlol]

The Obama Camp that won him Iowa should stick close to the ground and watch every ballot box from South Carolina on to Super Tuesday-- apparently they stayed behind- and that's how he lost New Hampshire-- they fell asleep at the wheel on that one...

[midwestvoter]

What we know about Republicans is they do not vote "FOR" issues or leaders, they vote "AGAINST" whatever they are told to fear at the moment. With this insight, Dems need to vote strategically. All of the Republican candidates have major flaws, including and especially McCain. None of them appeal to all the factions of the conservative voter. McCain has problems with the neocons who want the US to be Jack Bauer in 24 and torture, he has problems with the bigots- amnesty for illegal immigrants, anyone? And Wall Street? He is against Bush's tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans.

So, in order for him (or any Republican) to win, the Dems need to have a candidate they can promote as something to fear far worse than the differences they have with the Republican nominee.

Unfortunately Hillary and Obama can deliver the red meat they need to instill enough fear into republicans to drive them to the polls. Whether it be Clinton hating, fear of women in control, fear of a black man in control, fear of a (wink wink) possible muslim in control, Bill Clinton's penis, etc, etc.

John Edwards is the only candidate that will not only adhere to the Dem principles, but most importantly, the Republicans are not going to be fearful enough of a white southern man (albiet with great hair and a big house) to vote for a Republican they can't fully get behind.

Hillary and Obama will still be in the Senate and still have fabulous futures ahead in the party (if their bickering doesn't completely destroy them and us). Vote strategically. Edwards is our only hope and the GOP's worst nightmare. It's about time we stop shooting ourselves in the foot and feeding the monster.

Go Edwards Go!

[Krazime]

When I read these news stories regarding Obama and Clinton, its all so depressing. Are we even in the same country? let alone watching the same debate! Some of the story lines have become ridiculous and so have most of the stories. Blaming Obama for responding to the lies and distortions from both clintons has also become ridiculous.
So the only way to 'win' elections now is to lie and distort everything that is said and done? No one should wonder why the country is in this increasingly destructive state. Lie, distort, cheat...its the only way forward. That has become the clinton motto, we should be so proud!

[TomR]

----
His performance last night raises a serious question without a clear answer: How can a Presidential candidate bring change if he is so easily thrown off message by his opponents?
----

Well, it's a catch-22. If he doesn't fight back, he'll go down like John Kerry who failed to respond to distortions by the Swift Boat Liars. If he does fight back, then he's not staying on message.

Maybe he needs to fight back, but do it in a tactful, diplomatic way, i.e. turn false arguments around using humor and a light touch.

- Tom

[BirdsEatCats]

Let me tell you exactly what will happen if Obama is elected.
He will have a lot of great plans and very good intentions. Vested interests will interfere, and throw him off course; he'll waste a lot of time explaining what he really said, arguing over attitudes; etc.
In the end nothing will get done, and he'll blame everyone else for interfering, not cooperating with him for change.
After he leaves office he'll continue to live the comfortable life of a harvard educated lawyer, and the rest of us won't be any better off.
His farewell speech will blame everyone else: 'unfortunately, the american people weren't ready for change...'.
He's had everything handed to him in life; he can't handle the slightest bit of resistance. He's a bad candidate and will be a worse president if elected.

[independentrepublicrat]

Quote from the AP: [Obama's] campaign manager, David Plouffe, was far more pointed in a written statement that accused the Clinton campaign of "an entire week's worth of false, divisive attacks designed to mislead caucus-goers and discredit the caucus itself."Whatever the hard feelings, Clinton told supporters they would fade by the fall general election campaign. "We will all be united in November," she said, as the crowd chanted "HRC, HRC." [end quote] ----------------------------------------------------------------- I have said this time and again. The Clintons and their surrogates believe that they can do anything and that no matter what lies, dirty politics, race-baiting, xenophobia inciting, lying, misreprensenting, amoral campaign they run, that Democrats in general---and Blacks specifically---will have no choice but to support them in November if they are successful in stealing this nomination. I beg to differ. I hope all intelligent Democrats of good conscience will vote for a change in the political party by NOT supporting her if she robs the public of a chance at an honest debate and a substantive choice for president. Don't vote for Billary in the fall under any circumstance; make a stand about your morals and your values as a party. Blacks more than others should always stand up for right because they, since inception, have been the true moral conscience of this nation; FACT!

[zull2]

The thing that's sadly ridiculous to me having watched this whole thing closely from the very, very start was that whole period when Barack Obama tried to explain his platform and plans...and the media, seemingly having the attention span of a 5 year old hyperactive kid, yawned and loudly said "BORING! We want Obama to stop droning on and on about his policy and be like he was in 2004 and inspire us with inspirational words and phrases!". When the media (and I include both the mainstream media AND the left wing media here) got tired of that, and began saying "But what does he REALLY stand for?" (as if they forgot that they didn't WANT him telling him what he stood for in the first place) they wanted to see Obama fight. Something fresh, keep the ratings up. So they took everything that sounded like a jab and flooded the readers/viewers with that. And by doing that, they shaped the questions being raised in the debates, and the questions being asked of the candidates by their supporters themselves. All the current fighting is a creation of the media and driven by the media. When the media decides that its gone on long enough, then the next logical step would be "who's going to end the fighting and unite the party again?". The media isn't hyperactive, the media is carefully manipulating all of this to keep up the interest. The one benefit of it is that it's driving more people to the polls because it's keeping people on their toes and interested.

[Jazzylady26]

Not if he's going to be a big crybaby!

[DemandTruth]

So, let's see if I've got this right. If John Edwards loses, the story is about Obama/Clinton. If John Edwards wins, the story is about Obama/Clinton.

And a win for Edwards helps Clinton the MOST???

Gee. I wonder why.

The total media blackout/shunning of Edwards is disgusting. I can't even recognize this country as a democracy anymore.

[LeeFromVA]

Jeffrey, I got a totally different perspective from the debate. I think Hillary has jumped the shark, so to speak. The spotlight is on her now and people are realizing just how low she is willing to go in her attacks. I believe that she is just straight up lying, but even if others don't agree, they can certainly see how she and her husband are willing to play loose with the truth. She smartly played the role of victim in NH and NV, and that gave her a reprieve, but it is now the begining of the end for her. She has a small section of Dems that support her and she has to have more than that to win.

[LAJonathan]

Off message!? huh? He was responding to her BS and letting her know HE KNOWS her game and will continue to make her look bad!

[seawolf77]

Obama was completely outclassed last night. You got the impression of a mother scolding a school boy, and the school boy defenseless under the fire of her accusations. He looked like a kid. This is what happens to a flash in the pan, he starts believing his own press, sloughs off working, accentuates the charm and likeabilty aspects of his persona, and just totally falls apart when the moment comes.

[Kane]

Oh my God! Obama got off message. He no longer represents hope. Give me a f-ing break!

The same people who insisted that all the Clinton attacks on Obama would somehow be helpful for him to become vetted, are now angry that Obama had the gall to call Clinton on her lies.

[NABNYC]

This is how it usually works: male-dominated field or profession. One or two women get through the lead door. Every time they do any work, propose an idea, come up with any contribution, they are attacked, ridiculed, demeaned, their ideas are discarded (only to be stolen by one of the men). It's the truth. It's how women continue to be excluded: if you can't keep them out legally, then ridicule their work. It's how women are kept out of professional partnerships in law and medicine, how they're kept out of tenure in universities.

But this time, Obama is the target and Hillary and Bill are owned by the major corporations in the country, and they control much of the top layers of the Democratic party. So Hillary's got people (including some on this blog) attacking Obama every day in every way, ridiculing and demeaning everything he does.

So Bill first claims he opposed the war, but when he's nailed (yet again) as a liar, he changes the tune to throw his head back and laugh as the idea that Obama opposing the war mattered at all. Well Bill, if that $435 billion pissed away in Iraq had been spent here in the U.S., we wouldn't have so many Americans looking forward to sleeping on the streets and eating at soup kitchens. So yeah, it mattered.

And Hillary attacks Obama because he once said single payor is a good idea. And Hillary is funded by the insurance companies who are terrified of single payor. And Hillary ridicules that as if it was the stupidest idea in the world. Just think, the richest country in the world providing all its people with health care. Big laughs all around.

The Clintons in my book are Republicans. I've never voted for a Republican and I won't start now. They're reactionary war-mongers and liars. I don't understand anyone supporting them. Hillary's behavior last night was appalling and dishonest, intended to deceive the public. Vote Edwards.

[RusStyles]

He had a dual message last night. Reinforcing his key strengths--bridging and consensus building--while returning justifiable fire at his truth-challenged adversaries.