Obama on Fox: the Medium, and the Message

Two years after he said he would someday do so, more than two years after the usual brand of Fox "news" coverage began to mislead viewers about Barack Obama, about two months after he turned into the front-runner, and quite a while after he developed the ginned-controversies all front-runners attract (on Trinity United Church, one visitor's response is here; on Bill Ayers, here) the front-running Senator from Illinois showed up in person on a Fox chat show.

Some bloggers liked what they saw, but the heavy hitters of the center-left blogosphere didn't like it much. An aide promised that Obama would "take on" Fox News; he didn't get confrontational at all, and his left-leaning supporters feel let down, even betrayed.

They shouldn't. I'll put my cards on the table: I shouldn't. And I don't: when I look at the transcript, what I see is what Eugene sees: the Obama we have seen all along, who wants to use words to unify the country and bring uncommitted citizens to our side. I see an Obama aware of his audience, one who knows that for every liberal voter who asks why the candidate shows up on Fox News at all, there are six Fox News viewers who will vote against him no matter what he says -- and two who might end up liking him after all. I see an Obama quietly laying the groundwork for what could be a brilliant storyline to use against John McCain, right now and (especially) after the primaries end (more about that storyline in a moment). And I see an Obama who gives us just the reverse of what we've been getting from the establishment candidates establishment liberals (like me) have been supporting, and feeling betrayed by, so often over the past fifteen years.

I'm tired of having Democrats -- especially Democrats running for national office -- tell me that they are fighters, that they'll fight hard for (me, or us, or America, or some constituency), that they'll draw clear lines, that they will hit when they're hit back. Our candidates have run afraid of looking like wimps: they describe themselves as tough fighters. And then, in office, they make deals, or undercut the principles we believed they would support: too many Democrats use their words and pictures and symbols to tell us how hard they will fight, and then, on substance, give it all away.

By contrast, take a look at the life of Paul Wellstone: the former wrestler, one of our great contemporary political figures, began by describing himself (correctly) as a fighter, but once he got into office he learned that sometimes you can win a fight by redescribing it as something other than a fight. Sometimes the best strategy involves calming the waters, rather than roiling them. Sometimes you want to make common cause, on one issue, with somebody you could never work with one another -- even with such usual enemies as Jesse Helms. And sometimes the best way to show people you're on their side -- that's one lesson of community organizing -- is not to tell them that you're on their side, but to show them you'll listen.

That's a lesson Obama shows he understood. Look again (if you can stand to read something with a big Fox logo on it) at that transcript: he's talking about unity, he's talking about coming together to solve problems, he's using words to communicate, with a particular focus on the people who are likely watching this program and who don't know how they're going to vote. "What they're looking for," he says, "is somebody who can pull the country together and push back some of the special interests that have come to dominate the agenda, who will tell them the truth about how we're going to bring down gas prices, how we're going to bring back jobs. And if I fit the bill, then they will vote for me."

That doesn't mean he'll make common cause with the people who steal from the poor and give to the rich. It doesn't mean he'll compromise on the environment. It doesn't mean anything at all about his policy positions, in fact, except that he supports some charter schools and some cap-and-trade plans (me too -- some of them; not all), and it doesn't mean he won't stand up for them: it means he's confident enough of his own strength that he doesn't need to talk tough. It's the reverse of what too many Dems often give us: fighting words, and soft actions. Obama looks instead like somebody who can speak softly and then do whatever it takes.

Even better: it sets up what could be a great line of attack against John McCain this fall. Look again at the end of that interview: Fox's shill asks Obama what he's learned so far in his arduous run. Obama says, in part: "I've learned that I have what I believe is the right temperament for the presidency. Which is, I don't get too high when I'm high and I don't get too low when I'm low... After Iowa, when everybody was sure this was over, I think I was more measured and more cautious. That I think is a temperamental strength."

It may be that this temperamental strength will soon look like a weakness, that Obama's calm assurance will look, this fall, like eggheaded wimpiness when set beside John McCain's bombs-away instincts, his courage in Vietnam in the 1970s, and his military salute.

But it may be that Sunday saw the rollout for what ought to be a good line of attack this fall: Barack Obama -- calm, resolute, thoughtful, a unifier, a man who can bring the country together behind him -- versus John McCain -- untrustworthy, temperamental, even mean, a man whose highs are too high and whose lows are too low, whose folksy manner belies an impulsive mean streak, not so much a maverick (TM) as a flip-floppy guy who won't listen to the other side.

Democrats, and liberals, need fighters: we need people who will stand up, and who can be partisan, with the actions they take. But we also need people who want to bring the country together, who can appear to do so (as Reagan, for a while, appeared to do so) whatever the policies (in Reagan's case, very bad ones) for which they fight. We need people who speak softly and act tough, not people who talk tough, at the top of the ticket. For that purpose, Obama may have used just the right words.

Comments

[ThomasMc]

Obama is no Wellstone. Not by a long shot.

[itsmyopinion]

I'll second that. I don't get that Obama has understood anything. So far he's just using words, he hasn't put any work into bringing those words to reality. It's all vaporware. He has no history to demonstrate it's anything more.

[PuritanDescendant]

Obama gave a good impression, but the opportunity missed was not one of bashing FOX but rather reaching out to Republicans. Wallace asked Obama what Republican positions Obama agrees with. Obama responded with regulatory reform and merit pay for teachers?! This question could be rephrased as: what position do you have that Dems/liberals would most strongly disagree with? Obama's answer basically told the Republican viewers that there is NO major issue on which he sides with the Republicans. That's not crossover style politics.

Obama can improve his chances by reaching out to moderates and independents with concrete positions that break with the liberal ranks. He's not outright opposed to the death penalty. That would have been a great answer. How about racial preferences, federal land use policy, specifics on the limits of gun control?

Obama is not going beat Hillary with blue-collar catholics in the Ohio valley and PA hills, nor with educated whites and blacks. He's going to beat her by leveraging her extreme disfavor with Republicans and independents. Obama, start throwing some bones to the Republicas/independents. Commit to a bi-partisan cabinet. Commit to moderate judicial appointments that are not ideoligically liberal per se. Commit to a gradual phase-in of pay-go.

[burnt]

agree... come prepared to fight, but if those sitting across the table demonstrate mutual respect, put the belligerence aside and establish dialog. If more US policy was built around that principle, I believe we would be living in a better world.

We do not have to use our weaponry if it's not necessary or if it is counter to the goals that we want to achieve. In the same way, we should conduct ourselves with those we meet face to face. Clinton (and others) either do not understand this (nuke 'em or sling mud)... or use confrontation as a tactic. Obama has resisted most of that provocation. Some see it as weakness. I don't.

[Javalation]

I've felt that Bush's style was his greatest failing. He started with conclusions and then had his staff spin the facts to make his beliefs appear to be the right course. The even temperament, and thoughtful listening of Obama is what attracted me to him from the start. The best leaders I've known personally would listen to different sides when a big decision was needed. They would want to understand the downside of every option and what could foreseeable go wrong before deciding. They would then find a way to bring everyone on the team around to seeing why we needed to follow the plan. That appears to be the Obama style.

[lisakaz2]

I wasn't thrilled with the idea. But I'm glad he showed them the digified, civil person that he is. I'd like to rip 'em a new one over lies they've told. I guess there's no good way to do both. Maybe by exuding the former, he disarms the ability to do the latter. That could be pollyanish thinking. I just won't dignify them with even keeping this on my TV dial (clicker but you know...).