Published on TheHill.com on April 8, 2008.
The USA Today/Gallup Poll of late March suggests a strategy for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the general election. The poll compared Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and McCain on certain key variables. Here were the results:
Obama won:
• Cares about the needs of people like you, 66% to 54%
• Shares your values, 51% to 46%
•Understands the problems Americans face in their daily lives, 67% to 55%
McCain won:
• Is a strong, decisive leader, 56% to 69%
• Is honest and trustworthy, 63% to 67%
• Can manage the government efficiently, 48% to 60%
Neither won:
• Has a clear plan for solving the country’s problems, 41% to 42%
• Has a clear vision for the country’s future, 67% to 65%
• Would work well with both parties in Washington to get things done, 62% to 61%
• Is someone you would be proud to have as president, 57% to 55%
So Obama won the traditional Democratic (and female) virtues of understanding problems and caring about people. McCain won the usual Republican (and male) virtues of strong leadership and efficient management.
in an age of terrorism, weakness is a capital crime. McCain needs to base his campaign on establishing Obama’s weakness and his own strong leadership by comparison.
It is in this context that we must analyze Obama’s problems with the Rev. Wright and his emerging problems with former terrorist Bill Ayers. The American people are not about to judge Obama guilty by association, even with a lowlife type like Ayers and an anti-American like Wright. But they will see, in Obama’s tentativeness in handling these controversies and his “decency” in refusing to cut off his relationships and condemn these men, a sign of weakness that will hurt his campaign.
There is in Obama something of the Democratic candidate for president in the 1950s, Adlai Stevenson. Both from Illinois, they share an eloquence that lifts them above normal political figures and a profundity of thought that lies behind it. But each was seen as weak, and Stevenson as indecisive. Obama’s over-intellectualization of issues and of the problems that crop up in his campaign will increasingly harden into a perception of a lack of sufficient strength to deal with America’s problems.
The right wing tried to attack John Kerry in 2004 for a lack of patriotism and commitment to American values, just as it is now doing to Obama. It likely fell short of its goal. But the pressure it brought to bear on Kerry, through the Swift Boat ad and other attacks, led people to conclude that Kerry flip-flopped on issues and led them to discount what he said during his campaign.
Similarly, Americans will not buy that Obama is un-American. But the pressure the right brings to bear on him will cause him to appear weak in the face of attacks.
McCain needs to hammer away at the issue of strength and leadership and deal decisively with the problems that crop up in the campaign, while Obama dithers, thinks things through and tries to parse hairs in his responses.
Here the Iraq issue opens a real opportunity for McCain, where otherwise his support for the war would be a real negative. Iraq is a lot like Social Security. Everyone knows there is a problem, but any solution is immediately shot down. The issue earned the label “the third rail” in our politics, a status that was underscored when Bush’s momentum from his 2004 reelection was smashed against the rocks of Democratic and elderly opposition to his Social Security reform plan.
So it is with Iraq: He who proposes an alternative is doomed. McCain’s position, that we have to stay until we win, is far from popular, but it’s a lot better than unilateral and immediate withdrawal.
And Obama’s opposition to the war begs a host of questions: Shall we retain any presence? What about al Qaeda? What happens if the government falls? Can we let Iran take over? Obama will dither and seem far from decisive as he answers each of these questions. They will make him look terrible, just as Kerry — in opposing the war after voting for it — looked like a flip-flopper.
McCain can use the predisposition of voters to see Obama as weak, coupled with the Iraq issue, to make the strength issue his key advantage.
 |
Comments
Only subscribers to Dick Morris' '08 Play-By-Play may post comments. You must be logged in to post a comment.
Mr. Morris your points are well taken but I think they are flawed in one major respect. The American people today are not the same as they were in 2000 and 2004. They have seven years of misery to reflect upon each and every time the old fear monger, race hating, gay baiting and unpatriotic labeling games are sounded by the Republican party.
Also, in a debate Obama’s physical stature alone will cause McCain to dwarf and appear weaker. Obama’s mental dexterity and vitality will finish the job. McCain is begining to appear mentally feeble by referring to the factions involved in the Iraq by their wrong titles…some five or six times on the same mistake.
Finally, when American voters go into the booth to vote they will know that with McCain war continues and so does the 12 billion per day we spend to execute this war in a time when gas prices are breaking the budgets of working americans and our economy is in a recession. Not to mention that in the back drop of the American mind will be the info that Iraq has 30 billion in surplus from oil profits it does not use while we are in the red paying for and creating jobs for Iraq citizens by building thier infrastructure. Also our soldiers are being blown to bits on a daily basis.
On the other hand, if they vote for Obama the war will wind down as will the war mongering poster of America and we will stop spending 12 Billion a day and sending our soldiers to their death daily. Maybe not exactly in 16 months but it will end as soon as possible. Also, with Obama because he is so intelligent he will find a way to make it possible and this no other candidate in the presidential campaign can match.
So, I believe that your points of Obama’s weakness perception in the face of the republican attack machine are well taken but I believe they should be examined in the context that I outlined as well. We are transitioning as a Nation and your reference points seem a bit out of present time in regards to the heart and mind of the American people.
Nevertheless, I love all your fabulous insights. Thank you.
Obama is strong in stating a willingness to sit down with world leaders and talk to them face-to-face. His intellectual strength, stature (as mentioned), and connectivity with younger voters can also be perceived as powerful traits. In today’s world, vision, an ability to connect with other cultures, and adherence to your principles in spite of polling data implies great strength. Obama demonstrates the intellectual courage to address issues that others avoid. His calm, analytical style will serve us well as he confronts the cleanup work he will inherit. Unlike Bill Clinton, with his angry outbursts, Hillary’s manic insincerity, and McCain’s football coach approach to the chaos in Iraq, Obama is like an ever-cool James Bond: skilled, calm, and capable. I see that as strength. For a complicated operation do you want a surgeon with bulging neck veins or a the composed professional? I want a good communicator who has the brains and motivation to have all the current research fresh in mind, ready to focus on the well-being of the country, not the polls, fans, or old enemies from the past. I like the fact that Obama accepts the complexity of issues and still moves forward to confront them. That is my idea of strength.
Great Article. Some of our weakness is born in us, some of it comes through education and experience; McCain and Obama’s big question is going be which one gives each the most trouble. The “weakest spot” in any person is when they think themselves to be the wisest. Let’s hope that they recognizes their weakness and be strong enough to admit them and not be embarrassed by them and realize that it is only a condition of human culture.