Battle of the Surrogates: Should We Be Picking a President This Way?

A new threat to Barack Obama's campaign has emerged, and it has nothing to with race, offshore drilling or the surge: Obama is losing the battle of the surrogates. Which raises a question: Is this any way to pick a president?

This issue popped onto my radar on July 5, when Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) sat silently on ABC's This Week while Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) spouted a steady stream of Tass-worthy propaganda about the candidates, specifically that McCain's position on Iraq had been consistent and correct, while Obama had flip-flopped on Iraq and other issues, so much so that the American people cannot trust him to lead. Reed didn't raise any of the obvious responses to Lieberman's pile of horse crap. He never brought up how McCain has flip-flopped on every major issue, nor how McCain was completely wrong in 2002 in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, promising Americans that the U.S. army would be greeted as liberators, that the oil revenue would pay for the war, that the war would be over quickly, and that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Anybody completely ignorant of the U.S. political scene (sadly, including many Americans) who watched the This Week segment would have come away thinking that McCain was rock-solid consistent in his positions, while this crazy Obama guy was all over the place on his views. In other words, the exact opposite of what is actually the case.

Clearly, in a head-to-head debate between Obama and McCain, Obama would have done a far better job than Reed did in setting the record straight. But that fact didn't matter as Lieberman cleaned Reed's clock. (Note to Obama: If you decide you want Reed to be your running mate, please do every Democrat a favor and watch the tape of his abysmal performance on This Week before making your final selection.)

If Reed's impersonation of Silent Bob on This Week was an aberration, it would have been meaningless. But that hasn't been the case. Rather, a trend has developed of Republican surrogates outperforming their Democratic adversaries.

A week after the Reed debacle, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) represented Obama on Meet the Press, squaring off against Carly Fiorina, the deposed Chairperson of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of HP, who now works for McCain's campaign. McCaskill was infinitely more effective than Reed, actually making some salient points and not backing down in her battle with Fiorina. But Fiorina, with her years of boardroom experience, came off as more calm and authoritative than McCaskill, who was so riled up that she seemed to be gasping and jumping out of her seat with every point she made. Fiorina even parried Tom Brokaw's charge that McCain's numberless plan to balance the budget was flawed, asserting that as a businesswoman, she knows budgets, and McCain's plan was sound. She took an obvious flaw in McCain's campaign and made into a positive, while McCaskill wasn't able to make the budget issue stick, even with the facts on her side.

Once again, McCain's surrogate scored a victory over Obama's representative, even though McCain himself would not have fared as well against Obama. Just picture McCain trying to explain his budget plan to Brokaw, with Obama sitting next to him, arguing the weakness of the approach. It would be hard to imagine McCain doing a tenth as well as Fiorina did.

Yesterday morning featured a double feature of Obama's surrogates letting him down. First, on This Week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was completely flummoxed by host George Stephanopoulos's repeated queries as to why she would not allow an up-or-down vote on offshore drilling. At one point, she was so twisted in circles, she sputtered, not answering the question. Pelosi was jumpy and defensive, certainly not inspiring confidence in viewers. (It doesn't help that Congress's approval rating is lower than President Bush's numbers.) And when Pelosi's session was over, former Gov. Tom Ridge, speaking for McCain, sailed in and gave an assured, confident interview. Unlike Pelosi's butchering of the offshore drilling line of questioning, Ridge easily handled Stephanopoulos's probes on how his pro-choice position on abortion could be reconciled with McCain's strong anti-choice stance.

If the juxtaposed interviews were a boxing match, Ridge won by a first-round knockout, with Pelosi going through the ropes and landing on the laps of the spectators in the first row. But again, Obama would have handled the offshore drilling question so much more smoothly than Pelosi did. The Pelosi-Ridge battle was especially vexing, since it turned the dispositions of the candidates upside down. Obama is cool under pressure, rarely allowing himself to be riled. McCain is more liable to stammer, evade and come off as uncomfortable. And yet, to anyone watching This Week yesterday, Ridge was the voice of reason, and Pelosi seemed less credible.

Minutes later, Lieberman went head-to-head against Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) on Meet the Press. While Kerry performed better than Pelosi had, he was anything but a good representative for Obama. There is something in Kerry's tone, combined with his inability to cut to the heart of issues, that renders him a less than convincing debater. Considering his off-putting style and the fact that he lost the 2004 election employing that same style, who thought that this guy would be a good choice to advocate for Obama's positions? Obama should be trying to distance himself from Kerry, not look for ways for Americans to think of them together. What's the point of Obama hitching his wagon to someone who has already been rejected by the voters? What's next? Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale speaking for the campaign?

There are really two issues here. The first is if Obama is being well-represented by his media surrogates. That's an easy one to address: No. McCain's representatives are doing a far better job than Obama's proxies in these debates. And, more importantly, McCain's people are doing better than McCain himself would have done in these appearances, while Obama's surrogates have not come close to performing at the level their candidate regularly achieves. So the solution to this problem is easy: The Obama campaign has to be more aggressive and selective in choosing its spokespeople, using more strong, smart advocates like Sen. Joe Biden and Sen. Jim Webb, and keeping Pelosi and Kerry as far away from the media as possible.

The second issue is more philosophical: Should we be judging the candidates by their stand-ins? Does Fiorina's and Ridge's debating skills mean that McCain would be a better president than Obama? And does the inability of Reed, Kerry, McCaskill and Pelosi to speak compellingly on television mean that Obama shouldn't be president? Even more to the point, as voters, are we served by listening to these surrogate debates? I would argue we are not. The question is whether Obama or McCain would be a better leader for the country, and whose policies would better serve the country's vital interests. Whether the candidates' representatives can accurately and effectively make those arguments has no bearing on the underlying arguments themselves.

But as much as I can say that surrogates shouldn't be called in to speak for the candidates, the reality is that this practice is not going to stop, not with the networks needing to fill time in a 24/7/365 news cycle. There will be shows seeking to put representatives of each campaign against each other, and there will certainly be a guest arguing for McCain on all of them, given how well his surrogates have done so far. So it's not like Obama has a lot of options, short of leaving the McCain side unopposed and turning ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and CNBC into, essentially, Fox News. Obama has no choice but to play the surrogate game. But, again, that means that his campaign has to be more engaged in monitoring who is going on these shows to represent the candidate.

It's been a bad week for the Obama campaign, with McCain's new tactic of attacking Obama in false, pandering commercials actually gaining traction with voters. But as Obama moves to fight back, his campaign needs to keep in mind that it's not just the man-to-man battle with McCain that he has to win, but also the larger fight between his surrogates and McCain's stand-ins. Obama is used to winning head-to-head matchups. It's time for him to realize that his teammates are letting him down.

Comments

[DaOne]

Kerry had moments on MTP, Lieberman was by no means the winner. Daschle could have been more forceful in bringing the contest back to issues rather than debating racism charges.

Mc Cain's surrogates just yell louder, it doesn't make them right.

I wish there were an IQ level beneath which one could not vote. It would eliminate the need for these used-car salespeople surrogates; no offence to used-car salespeople.

[secondedition]

I strongly disagree with your assessement of Senator Kerry and I have to ask what did he ever do to you to deserve such harsh treatment? You use Republican talking points to define Mr. Kerry- all of which were lies in 2004 and are lies now.. Then, you accuse him of being a poor debator which is as far from the truth as you can get. Senator Kerry is well known for his debating skills from college on. Did you happen to catch him in any debates in 2004 with Mr. Bush? And, watching Kerry and Leiberman on Sunday,Senator Kerry came out ahead. He was articulate, armed with facts and truth. In contrast, Mr. Leiberman spewed Republican talking points and out and out lied and rudly interupted Senator Kerry. In other words, Leiberman came off as a man who holds a grudge and wants revenge against the party that he believes scorned him during his election.
Finally, I thought Senator Kerry did a good job on Sunday's MTP, however I have seen him do even better than this. I think though, we should allow him some slack here. He rode his bike 110 miles on Saturday raising money for cancer research and in honor of his good friend- Senator Ted Kennedy so he might have been a bit tired. Oh, and did I mention that he raised over 120,000 dollars? Not bad for a man you seem to think no one likes.

[Mitchell Bard - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for commenting, secondedition. What GOP talking points did I use? I abhor the Swift Boating of Kerry, and I think it's outrageous that someone who chose to serve in Vietnam was treated as a coward, while someone who used his power and money to avoid going to Vietnam (and, allegedly, couldn't even complete his gushy Guard duty) was portrayed as being the one to trust with the military. Kerry is a fine public servant.

But, he was and is an awful speaker for getting the message out to voters. College debate competitions require a different skill than making points on TV. Kerry talks around the issues on television, delving into minute details (which I'm sure scored him points in the college debating competitions) that you don't have time for on TV, thus losing his audience.

For whatever reason, fair or unfair, he is not relatable to the average voter.

And, even if you disagree with my assessment, you can't get past the fact that Kerry lost in 2004. For Obama to win, he has to show that he is not the same old Democrat. It's worked for him for more than a year now. Associating with Kerry does nothing to help that image.

You think Kerry won the Meet the Press debate, but I'd be willing to bet that if you polled 1,000 random viewers, the majority would not agree with you. Lieberman stayed on message, spewing McCain's carefully targeted lies. Kerry failed to combat those charges.

[NotMcCain]

Daschle did a lousy job this weekend, too. I've seen Webb, too, and....not impressed.

But it's not just the messengers--it's the message.

McCain has messengers--like Mike Murphy, like Mitt Romney, like Lieberman--who are willing to LIE for him and who do it effortlessly.

They lie about McCain and they lie about Obama. Why? Because they know the media won't catch them, or--if they do--that it can be talked over and still leave the desired spin for the viewer.

Since the Dems aren't LYING, they need to have all the FACTS at their fingertips. This is where so many of them fail. Doesn't the DNC do this routinely and email everyone? It wouldn't be difficult at all. But Dems seem unprepared on the shows, and--especially against liars--it hurts them.

They also need a FOCUSED MESSAGE. You can turn from channel to channel and see Republican surrogates ON MESSAGE. It's short, it's easy to stick in your mind, it's simple. But it works.

"Messenger + message + focus." Why can't Democratic surrogates do this, too (adding in "truth" while they're at it)?

[Mitchell Bard - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for commenting, NotMcCain. That's an interesting point (the lie v. fact connundrum).

I have to defend Webb, though. You may not like all of his positions, but I think he reads really well to audiences on TV, especially independents. He is one of the few Dems to project an "adult" confidence and strength on the air. I would love for him to be front and center for the Obama campaign.

[atienne]

Interesting, Mr. Bard,

I have noticed the same thing as well. The O campaign does indeed need hardball surrogates. This would be a good time for HRC if she plans on doing anything. The general public who doesn't live and breathe politics like SOME of us, will not remember every bad thing about the primaries. They would just see what's in front of them at the time.

I agree that Biden and Webb should be used more as well as Clark. These 'soft' surrogates are not doing the dems any justice.

It does make you wonder if the slanted media is not in fact feeding their repub surrogates the questions first!

[nobillary1]

I definitely agree with you on all these points. I call it the "Santa Claus Syndrome". I'll explain.

Santa can't be everywhere at the same time, so he sends his elves to do his work. Usually this works out just fine, because all the little kiddies are asleep and they don't know who left their gifts under the tree, and probably don't care either, as long as they find them there in the morning. It's the same thing for our Presidential Candidates. When they can't appear on Sunday talk shows, they send their surrogates to fill in for them. This is where my comparison fades a bit, since the Voters are wide awake and inhale everything that's said whether it's true or false. I've begun to think that in this "You Tube" environment, there is really no excuse for a surrogate not to know everything about their preferred candidate's positions.

Tom Daschle on "Fox News Sunday" was the doozie to end all doozies, IMHO. Absolutely the weakest advocate for his candidate that I've ever seen, and I've seen a few! In light of the fact that he's not in office any longer, he should certainly have time on his hands to read up on Obama's positions before accepting a guest spot on talk shows. After all that happened this past week, thanks to John McCain, Tom Daschle was woefully lacking when Barack Obama needed the strongest possible person speaking on his behalf but he failed, and failed miserably!

[4real]

You are so right. However I will give McCaskill a break because she redeemed herself on Morning Joe. She was pretty good actually.

I don't know if Obama selects people to speak for him or the media does but so far they haven't done a good job.

Webb, Biden, Richardson, Clarke, and even Clinton if she would come out of the shadows would do a better job for him.

[Mitchell Bard - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for the comment, 4real. I didn't see McCaskill on Morning Joe, so I can't comment.

As far as the Obama campaign goes, I think it can reach out to specific people (like Kerry) and say, "Don't do the morning shows as a surrogate for the campaign, and here is why ..."

[petekwando]

Finally, someone is saying it! Every time I see one of Obama's surrogates on the air, I'm possessed with the urge to round them all up and send them to a debating boot camp. They have got to stop acting as if the GOP are honorable opponents; McCain's people are playing a coordinated game, where outrageous charges are made in ads and through the media, then the surrogates come on the talk shows and project a unified front of "calm, mature adults." The democrats, dumbfounded, wait for the media to point out the lies, and when they don't, their own surrogates just sit their and sputter in disbelief.

Here's the bottom line. No charge is too low, too slimy, too false for the GOP to make. They don't play fair, and it's time for the Obama campaign to stop fighting with one hand tied behind their backs. You want to get under their skin? Question their honor. Question their patriotism. Yes, they will be outraged. That's the point - that's exactly what they have been doing to the Democrats for decades.