It began as the non-troversy of the holiday shortened week: the accusation that Barack Obama had plagiarized part of a stump speech from Mass. Governor Deval Patrick
He hadn't. And even if he had lifted or borrowed or co-opted a couple of lines, does anybody really think the post-modern politician expresses a single word that isn't team scripted and focus group tested before it's uttered in the public square?
The plagiarism jab left barely a scratch on Obama. But sometimes even the slightest wounds can fail to heal.
As I was making the rounds with the cable newsers this past Tuesday before the primary, I witnessed first-hand a theme develop. Almost to a person the newers I spoke with dismissed the plagiarism rap, but wondered aloud about Obama's rhetoric. The word rhetoric being flipped from asset to pejorative. Was there, they wondered, more to Obama than his rhetoric? How far, they asked, would his rhetoric take him? When would his rhetoric be replaced by specifics?
The Obama/rhetoric question is not new.
And some of the hectoring over Obama-mania is coming from the usual suspects. But the Chris Matthews/Kirk Watson interview was fuel on the fire, and in the days since the chorus of "give us more" seems to have increased rather than diminished.
Certainly some of this hectoring can be attributed to the media news cycle looking for a new drum to beat, if not some old fashioned player hating for the new Democratic front runner. But for those who think the questions of rhetoric are limited to MSM hacks with sharp knives, it is not. The BBC World Service ran a piece on Obama openly wondering if his rhetoric is becoming a liability. I can't say as the BBC would be particularly partisan in this instance.
Ultimately, if there is this sense that Obama is all sizzle and no steak, it is certainly not the fault of the man himself. At this late stage of the primaries, the media has had every opportunity to give the guy a good shaking out. If the newsers feel Obama isn't forthright with specifics, it's their responsibility to ask the questions they'd like answered. There is little doubt Obama could answer them. He may be relatively new to the national political scene, but he is hardly a neophyte. More importantly, we all benefit when the candidates have their mettle fairly tested in the media glare.
The larger question going forward is: do specifics really matter? To quote Mike Tyson: the best fight plan in the world only lasts until you take the first punch in the face. Similarly, the best political ideas only last until you get them before a divided and ineffectual Congress.
Perhaps, more than specifics, we need a leader who can inspire people to pressure their reps to bend to the will of the new. What is rhetoric if not a call to action?
Perhaps that's a question someone would care to ask of Barack Obama.