Obama's Glass Jaw?

Ana Maria Cox, quoting a Republican strategist:

In a general, Obama won't be running against Clinton, he'll be running against McCain, a politician that has actually taken political risks and endured the wrath of party hacks in order to make progress on real issues: "What has Obama done? Show me a single issue or piece of legislation where Obama has done something politically unpopular in order to move forward toward a greater goal." I pointed out that this argument hasn't made much of a difference so far. Ah, replied the adviser, "That's because Clinton can't show that she's done it, either." What's more, he said, the press will stop giving Obama a free ride in the general. McCain will be out there, holding court on his bus or his plane, providing unfettered access to both reporters and voters, and journalists will no longer be able to ignore Obama's lack of access and lack of interaction with real people. In fact, it'll be the only thing they talk about.

To which Ezra adds:

Obama's allergy to taking questions -- both from the press and from voters -- is actually an undercovered part of this campaign. Where Clinton does townhalls, Obama holds rallies. Where McCain constantly hangs out with reporters, Obama has little to do with them. They like him, to be sure, but if they continue to feel frozen out, that could change.

All along, I've made the argument that nominating Hillary is the play-it-safe strategy for the Democrats, because while she has a lower ceiling than Obama she also may have a higher floor. Now that McCain is the presumptive GOP nominee, there seems to be an assumption that the Democrats just have to nominate Obama, because you need the guy with the higher ceiling if you're up against a media-darling and moderate-friendly candidate like the Arizona Senator. And maybe that's so. But if Obama does have a glass jaw, if his candidacy is a bubble waiting to be pricked, a strong Republican nominee like McCain is precisely the guy to do it. And if I were a Democrat, the fact that Obama's campaign seems to want to keep their candidate away from debates and town halls and the media horde would make me just a tad nervous about the general election.

Just to be clear, I don't think he's a bubble candidate; I think he'd win in the fall, and probably handily. But the kind of campaign he's running does seem more vulnerable to a well-timed GOP offensive, a sudden reversal of fortune, or a press corps that wearies of his messianic shtick than the sort of dogged, cautious, get-to-51-percent war of attrition that it looks increasingly like Hillary won't get the chance to wage.

Photo by Flickr user Joe Crimmings used under a Creative Commons license.

Comments

Obviously, you've paid no attention to his willingness, demonstrated repeatedly, to say unpopular things in front of special interest groups. Jesus, if you're looking for evidence on how Obama can govern, follow the guy's campaign. It hasn't been a play-it-safe strategy. Allergy to taking questions? Ever watch any of the debates, where they have to answer questions for an hour and a half?

When you're packing houses + overflow rooms, it sounds like you're giving the people what they want, not holding out on them.

Posted by Bill | February 13, 2008 9:57 AM

Also, this so-called "lack of interaction with real people" is just comically moronic. It's precisely his gift for interacting with real people that packs the auditoriums. I'm really enjoying all the pitiful wish-thinking from republicans pretending there isn't a freight train heading toward them. what is it about twice the GOP turnout they don't get?

Posted by Bill | February 13, 2008 10:01 AM

Obama does plenty of townhalls. (He has two scheduled today.) It is true that he prefers giving speeches at large rallies. But, given his strengths and the crowds he's attracting, wouldn't you? It is probably also true that Clinton is more skilled in those formats than he is. But she is exceptional in those formats (and lousy at everything else), whereas he is merely good. McCain is a terrible debater and (I think) pretty lousy at townhalls that aren't being held in New Hampshire.

Posted by pjs | February 13, 2008 10:03 AM

I think Obama does have a lower floor, simply because of his inexperience, etc. However, taking out the Clintons in the Democratic party is not a small feat. Granted Bill's race-baiting in SC probably pushed him over the top, but Obama has run a smart, disciplined campaign. I see little reason for optimism that he would blow it in the general election.

The press may cool on him a bit before November, but at the end of the day, they will still give plenty of favorable coverage to the Democratic candidate who is potentially the first black president.

Also, McCain isn't that strong a candidate. He is strong with the moderates and independents, but base turnout is crucially important, and if Va. is any indication, a lot of the base isn't on board. This fall is going to be ugly.

Posted by jhb | February 13, 2008 10:07 AM

I should respond to David Freddoso's analysis that high Democratic primary turnout in the past has not translated into winning the general (Carter, Dukakis). Maybe that's because the two candidates in question were...Carter and Dukakis. The former defending an unsuccesful first term, the latter attacking an extremely popular incumbent. And being a tank-driving doofus.

Posted by Bill | February 13, 2008 10:12 AM

It's interesting that the 'base' in either party isn't fully on board for leading candidates-- one wonders, What Would Karl Do?

Posted by MattF | February 13, 2008 10:14 AM

From the look of it, Clinton is not benefiting much from her surrogates' cozy relationship with the press, as they run around stabbing each other in the backs via anonymous leaks, making sure the right people get blamed. Looks like Hillaryland is already looking to what comes after Clinton loses, making sure the right people's reputations take the hit.

Posted by neil | February 13, 2008 10:29 AM

I would think this was true but then I finally watched McCain actually speak last night. My first thoughts were Bob Dole. He was stiff, he was cold, and he was reading from a teleprompter (or at least it seemed that way). He also was just parroting the same old school talking points against the democratic party that aren't going to work this time around. YOu can't talk about big government when your party expanded the government at a breakneck pace the last eight years.

Posted by cbc | February 13, 2008 10:30 AM

Bob Dole...exactly my first thought, too...

Posted by Bill | February 13, 2008 10:32 AM

"What has Obama done? Show me a single issue or piece of legislation where Obama has done something politically unpopular in order to move forward toward a greater goal"

Flip the script. Show me the time McCain has done something politically unpopular.

Take on Big Tobacco? A real loser with the electorate.
Oppose tax cuts for the rich? Always a tough sell.
Campaign finance reform? The voters hate it when politicians try to clean up their act.
Support more war during the Republican primary? An act of courage.
Immigration reform? Well, he gave up on that.

The only thing he's done that was unpopular with an important constituency was go into Iowa debates and say "ethanol subsidies don't work". Oh, and go into Michigan and say "those jobs aren't coming back".

Meanwhile, Obama passed mandatory videotaping of interrogation -- the toughest such law in the state -- which was initially opposed by a bipartisan group of lawmakers & DAs because it might be perceived as "soft on crime", as well as law enforcement. But he made it work.

But I agree with your contention that Obama has a lower floor. I could see something going awry and Obama losing states like Maine, Oregon, maybe Wisconsin ... but he also has a higher ceiling. I could see him winning North Carolina, Mississippi, Colorado, heck, maybe even Kansas.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 13, 2008 10:33 AM

It is kind of interesting that the Republican strategist who can see Obama's lack of policy specificity as a weakness can think this gives McCain an advantage. McCain has no tax policy, no health care plan, no economic recovery plan, and his plan for Iraq supports a 100-year time table. You have to play to win, and Republicans are foolish if they think McCain has this massive floor of support. The guy dropped from a leader down to under 10% at one point among Republicans. Obama has steadily grown his support.

Posted by M.Z. Forrest | February 13, 2008 10:42 AM

Ross, you are a victim of a false meme perpetuated by (oddly) lazy bloggers. Obama holds townhall events. He has press avails. He's on record on plenty of tough votes, esp. in the Illinois Senate.

See the comments section on Ezra's post for complete takedowns of this entire line of argument:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=this_accurately_expresses_a_fe

I suppose you could make a meta argument, that in spite of the facts the *perception* is out there that he has a "glass jaw". That may be true, but the only ones in a position to actually do something about it are people like you.

Posted by Steve C | February 13, 2008 10:42 AM

Obama is strong on substance, on his record in the US Senate, his record in the IL Senate working across party lines to do unpopular things, and his proposals for his presidency (pdf).

McCain favors dragging out the massively unpopular and counterproductive occupation of Iraq. That's his glass jaw, and Obama is just the guy to make the case against him.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 13, 2008 10:52 AM

He's a bubble, that's for certain.

The only question is how much damage he does. Will the bubble burst now, limiting the damage to HRC in the general? Will it burst in a floor fight at the convention?

Or, worst case, for the his party and the country, does it burst next spring?

The idea that many on the left have that "we" will rally around a hard-left governing agenda isn't realistic. There's a reason Clinton governed as he did. (And a reason that Reagan governed as he did, for that matter.)

Posted by Thomas | February 13, 2008 10:58 AM

It is really fun watching the media try to find SOMETHING to take Senator Obama down a peg. He has earned the success he is having now, and he has earned it the right way. Sometimes "is" just means "is" . . . no need to "make" a story - the real one is way better! :)

Posted by Nashville_fan | February 13, 2008 10:58 AM

All along, I've made the argument that nominating Hillary is the play-it-safe strategy for the Democrats...

If one assumes Dem victory in November, than I believe that holds true. In the case of a loss, however, I see an Obama nomination as less debilitating to the party, as it can be blamed on racism or voter recalcitrance.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | February 13, 2008 11:04 AM

How does he have a glass jaw? Seems like he has taken the best hits the Clinton campaign has been able to dish out including suggestions he is a Muslim, a drug dealer, a fantasy, Jesse Jackson, against abortion rights, a roll of the dice, etc. and is now crushing her by 30 points in primary after primary. Seems like his jaw is just fine to me.

Posted by Ron | February 13, 2008 11:20 AM

Thomas-- which policies are you thinking of when you describe "a hard-left governing agenda"? Please point out which of Obama's positions are "hard-left," and cite opinion polls demonstrating why he is far left, if you are able to.

(Hint: you won't be able to).

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 13, 2008 11:24 AM

BO is now treading in darker waters
He has begun a race against JM without even being the nominee for the dem party
The Clintons and the media have treated Bo and his mate like pre schoolers up to now
I agree Bo aoids debates as best he can
When debating he stutters searches for answers over talks evey one in an attempt to dodge having t give straight up answers
Will he hosts now have the spine to ask him about his mates ltest comments bout Bill and Hillary??
They have no problem asking Hillary aboutBills comments!
And will they ask him if he can control his mate??
Will hey again ask him if he would supprt Hillary if she is the nominee considering his mate isnt sure if she would?
Alls fair right?
Up to now I see this race as just that all about race
Even the harshist media wont touch him for fear of
the race thing
How sad is it when theres a no touch rule in place
Let JM go after him seems no one else has the spine to do i

Posted by Becky | February 13, 2008 11:29 AM

When debating he stutters searches for answers over talks evey one in an attempt to dodge having t give straight up answers

Sheesh, and you're searching for a coherent thought, and the apostrophe key.

Posted by Jen | February 13, 2008 11:35 AM

Thanks for that illiterate analysis, Becky.

Posted by Bill | February 13, 2008 11:40 AM

But the kind of campaign he's running does seem more vulnerable to a well-timed GOP offensive, a sudden reversal of fortune, or a press corps that wearies of his messianic shtick than the sort of dogged, cautious, get-to-51-percent war of attrition that it looks increasingly like Hillary won't get the chance to wage.

This logic is precisely backwards. Live by the Rove/Penn spin game, die by it--90% of the time Clinton wins that game, but when she loses she loses hard--like when Bill Clinton's performance in SC backfired. The thing is, the Clintons really have nothing but their mastery of the short term newscycle, and so when a cycle doesn't come out in their favor, they have nothing to fall back on.

Even if Obama screws up a debate (which isn't the end of the world--Kerry whooped Bush at debates) McCain's still supporting an unpopular war and doesn't seem to care about people's economic problems. The Clintonite strategy of triangulating to your opponents' position and winning on personality and identity politics (triangulating to the right in general elections and to the left in primaries) is a stupid strategy to employ against McCain. But it's the only strategy the Clintons have, and has the potential to lose bigtime--and pull down Congressional races along with it.

I'm not saying Obama's perfect, or denying that Clinton is better at debates and responding to adversarial queries. But the evidence for Clinton's "higher floor" against McCain is sparse.

Posted by Consumatopia | February 13, 2008 11:44 AM

Obama has got the press "hippmotyzed," as Letterman would say. They won't realize that they're being snubbed until late in the day. McCain's bus will help that.

In the end, though, McCain is smart enough to hit Obama where it will hurt: Iraq. Obama can talk all he wants to about "bringing the troops home." McCain will frame the issue much more succinctly -- something like this:

"Due to tactics that I proposed and supported while others were saying 'All is lost,' America has turned the corner in Iraq. We are winning. My opponent, however, has no confidence in our brave troops. He says that we should just give up and surrender to the terrorists.

"So, the question for my fellow citizens is: Do we Americans view ourselves as winners, or losers?"

Posted by tlcfargo | February 13, 2008 11:50 AM

Ross: apropos of that GOP strategist's take on Obama's vulnerabilities: what are McCain's big legislative accomplishments again?

Campaign Finance Reform: that's one.

What else is there?

He failed to achieve victory in the telecom bill battle. He failed to achieve victory in the tobacco bill battle. He failed to achieve victory in the immigration bill battle. Those are the big instances I can recall where he tried to drive legislation, and other than CFR I can't think of an instance where he succeeded in getting a bill. And then there are the numerous instances where he unsuccessfully opposed legislation - the Medicare bill, the energy bill, the farm bill . . . it goes on and on. Neither in the Clinton Administration nor in the Bush Administration has Senator McCain been able to win over a legislative majority for his positions. He has consistently preferred to be a critic of whatever final compromise emerges than to shape that compromise.

McCain has certainly "taken political risks and endured the wrath of party hacks" but it's far less clear that he's been able to "make progress on real issues." I imagine the Obama campaign will point this out.

Posted by Noah Millman | February 13, 2008 11:51 AM

Barack has plenty of substance, foresight and judgment -- Google his November 2002 anti-war speech, against the Iraq war and you will find plenty of substance. Coupled with his ability to unite and inspire is a leader of exceptional talents.

Posted by Angellight | February 13, 2008 12:03 PM

Barack has plenty of substance, foresight and judgment -- Google his November 2002 anti-war speech, against the Iraq war and you will find plenty of substance. Coupled with his ability to unite and inspire is a leader of exceptional talents.

Posted by Angellight | February 13, 2008 12:04 PM

He has consistently preferred to be a critic of whatever final compromise emerges than to shape that compromise.

The Military Commissions Act comes to mind, but terms of the compromise seemed to be McCain selling his principles in exchange for the GOP nomination.

Posted by Consumatopia | February 13, 2008 12:11 PM

McCain is 72 years old, which polls exactly as well as being a homosexual, and has regularly been losing or just squeaking past a guy with no mathematical chance to win who's best known for eating fried roadkill. I'm pretty sure Obama could openly fundraise for the Mahdi Army and still win.

Posted by Some dude | February 13, 2008 12:11 PM

I love the idea that a man who is wiping the floor with the Clinton machine this cycle, something the entire Republican party has never been able to do, has a glass jaw. Renowned shrinking violet Sidney Blumenthal has been reduced to attacking Obama's supporters.

Still, I'm sure the "When have you done something unpopular, huh? How about that?" angle is going to be a real winner for you.

Posted by southpaw | February 13, 2008 1:17 PM

I think you're falling prey to the conservation of virtues fallacy. Just because the guy can charm a crowd of 20,000 doesn't mean he can't charm reporters.

If HRC or McCain could wow 'em like Obama they wouldn't waste their time sweet talking reporters on the back of the plane.

Posted by chris m | February 13, 2008 1:44 PM

Yeah. I'm really looking forward to an Obama/McCain Vote.

First of all, see this

http://vivirlatino.com/2008/02/11/john-mccain-no-we-cant.php

Second of all, only people who still think Bush is a good president buy the "Leaving Iraq is Surrendering". The rest of us know this is crap.

First of all, Al Queda is going to attack us no matter where we go, or what we do. Second of all, we were LIED to in Iraq, and the vast majority of the population knows this, and if you give Obama credit for Hippmotizing the press then it seems he can probably sell what is actually the truth.

McCain is a house of cards against Obama. One debate, one debate and you'll see him fold like the wind.

And then it will be over.

Posted by Mystic55 | February 13, 2008 1:45 PM

The problem with Obama is his “messianic shtick”. Sure, a lot of people don’t like Hillary Clinton and Democrats what the shining new toy. This will be a problem in the general election when people don’t have Hillary with which to compare Obama. This is when he will stop getting the free pass from interviews and news magazines. They will really start looking at his record (his dealings with Rezko, his pushing the wrong button six times in the Illinois state senate) and take away his mantel of being the one candidate who is for campaign finance reform; he can’t use that against McCane. Also, he will have to be a bit more specific about what he will do to get universal healthcare and stop all this rhetoric about taking the country to the Promised Land or the mountaintop or whatever he has been saying. He will have to take a stand on hard issues and he can’t say, “that’s not what I meant”.

Posted by Gregory | February 13, 2008 2:07 PM

Honestly, barring something apocalyptic, the 'gains' made in Iraq in the last few months, ephemeral as they may be when actually scrutinized, will still be in place come the GE. If you think voters are more concerned with the veracity of the war than with the scoreboard, y'all are fooling yourselves. Sure, troop levels may decrease, but the Awakening we bought will continue, and McCain will look the genius as we approach November. Why do so many seem comfortable ignoring this Obama-killer, and instead twitter on about the depth and breadth of the primary opponents' careers? The primary issue to most voters nowadays is the economy -- as Romney is gone, that's basically a wash or perhaps a small advantage for Obama, especially if McCain's proclaimed diffidence towards any financing beyond campaigns comes to light.

The next biggest issue is the war, and tlcfargo's comment portends the general election perfectly. Here in NJ, blue almost to its core, the mindset of average folks usually is 'yeah, the war is unjust, we get it, but attempting a new course is sooo 2006 mid-terms -- nothing came of all the hoopla, and now the situation over there is shaping up nicely.' They don't care about razor-thin majorities, or filibusters, or the Prez finally finding his veto stamp in the Wild Turkey graveyard he calls a desk. They also don't care enough to note that our gov't went window-shopping for a victory, and that ghettoization isn't a long term strategy. They see decreased deaths, nominal legislation, and a cause for a win. If McCain can tone down the Iran rhetoric and focuses solely on Iraq, we'll see who's sporting an albatross-induced hernia in a few months.

In regards to these two issues, HRC may actually have the edge, between her husband's decade of prosperity and having actually voted for a war that folks will probably see as a success-in-the-making by the general. Although absurd considering her recent rhetoric, her nominally more pro-war stance may become a plus in a few months, especially given her gift for triangulation. However, I don't think either of these advantages trump HRC's negative legend in this country, so BO's still prob a safer bet.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | February 13, 2008 2:24 PM

Honestly, barring something apocalyptic, the 'gains' made in Iraq in the last few months, ephemeral as they may be when actually scrutinized, will still be in place come the GE. If you think voters are more concerned with the veracity of the war than with the scoreboard, y'all are fooling yourselves. Sure, troop levels may decrease, but the Awakening we bought will continue, and McCain will look the genius as we approach November. Why do so many seem comfortable ignoring this Obama-killer, and instead twitter on about the depth and breadth of the primary opponents' careers?

Simple, they don't agree with your analysis.

Posted by southpaw | February 13, 2008 3:00 PM

You really don't get it, do you southpaw? If you can give me one good reason why the illusion of progress can't be sustained till the election, I'd be more willing to accept your curt reply. If not, your easy answer 'simply' bears out the vapid nature of a good deal of Obama's supporters.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | February 13, 2008 3:18 PM

Check out PollingReport.com. It sure looks like people have made up their minds about Iraq, and about the "Surge."

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Posted by Jim Naureckas | February 13, 2008 3:28 PM

Nobody really knows whether Obama or Clinton would fare better against McCain in the GE, or who would be better suited for the presidency.

However, it seems fairly clear that even if Obama runs a poor campaign and loses in November, he will still be an asset to *other Democrats* namely Dem. Representatives and Senators. Conservatives don't hate him with the same fervor so comparatively many of them might stay home on election day. McCain might still win if e.g. white working class moderates and Latinos prefer him by a wide margin. But at least Reid and Pelosi will then have a larger majority, and I think Maverick will be secretly happy that he doesn't owe his victory to his (former-?) conservative foes.

Conversely, if Hillary prevails in the end it will most likely be following two nasty uphill fights against Obama and then the entire GOP Attack Machine. I suspect this will minimize conservative losses in the congressional election and Rush Limbaugh, Ken Starr & co. undoubtedly will be loaded for bear and ready to rumble as soon as the Clintons move back into the Oval Office. I wonder how successful Clinton and the shrinking Democratic majority in Congress will be considering the GOP minority already has been very good at blocking Dem initiatives. And if McCain narrowly wins, his energized and empowered conservative supporters will expect him to return the favor...

MARCU$

Posted by MARCU$ | February 13, 2008 4:14 PM

McCain can certainly make the war work for him politically. He'll say he's responsible for the successful bits recently, not for the unsuccessful bits earlier. We all know that for the nonDemocrats in the country the war is unpopular because it was unsuccessful, and that turning the perception of success around will turn around the popularity. If McCain is wise he will make it a question of honor, and a personal question--that is, one that each voter would need to feel responsible for individually. (I.e., you supported this, you must see it through, or bear responsibility personally for the dishonor of losing what could be won.) He's particularly well-suited for that as a biographical matter, because of his service and his POW experience, and because his son serves in Iraq now.

Posted by Thomas | February 13, 2008 4:22 PM

The illusion of progress can be sustained?

How about this then? MuckedeStupid and his militia have been laying low for months. If it looks like we're going to stay there, expect them to suddenly get all angry again and start shooting people.

Furthermore, the argument goes like this...if Iraq is better....then we can leave. Because they've had enough of a free ride wasting their time while we try to put them back together.

If they aren't better....they aren't going to GET better and the troop surge did nothing.

No more of this, "Just a little longer and things will be fine." How much of this nonsense do you expect us to take? This is not the Vietnam generation. We're not going to elect Nixon only to sit around for another 4 years and have nothing happen but Haliburton get rich.

Iraq doesn't DESERVE our help. Afganistan does.

Posted by Mystic55 | February 13, 2008 4:40 PM

Mystic55 writes: "Furthermore, the argument goes like this...if Iraq is better....then we can leave. Because they've had enough of a free ride wasting their time while we try to put them back together."

It's much worse than that. The ride is making them rich - the members of the "sovereign government" in Iraq are getting rich as a result of the occupation. Not only do they have no incentive to take over their own defense, they have a steady stream of money coming in that's making a lot of them rich. Nothing is going to change over there unless the US signals that the gravy train is over, and that's not happening under Bush or McCain. When McCain said he'd stay there 100 years that big whooshing sound you heard was a thousand Iraqi corruptocrats wetting their pants simultaneously.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 13, 2008 5:14 PM

If you can give me one good reason why the illusion of progress can't be sustained till the election

I'll take that one--the surge will end this summer b/c there aren't any troops ready to replace those who are due to rotate out.

Maybe the lower level of troops can maintain the illusion, maybe not, but that is a good reason.

Posted by zaleriana | February 13, 2008 6:41 PM

I see Obama's bubble as more easily exploded than deflated a bit. That is what happens with a balloon when you prick it when it is fully inflated, whereas a underinflated balloon rarely explodes when picked, just slowly loses gas.

Obama (Dem - Unicornland) just has to be flushed out on where he stands on the issues. Slowly end the emotional stampede of his Hitler or Billy Graham-level oratorial skills.

Voters, for example, are in favor of cut 'n run because they think it will be easy to admit defeat and retreat...only because Bush has done an incompetent job of laying out the overall strategy of defeating radical Islam or telling the public how badly flocking to Iraq has damaged Al Qaeda's organization and credibility in other countries. Sunnis in other countries are seeing, like in Algeria's 2nd Civil War, that radical Islamists are true monsters that may properly be killed as heretics and menaces to peaceful and just Sunni ways.

Obama may actually be a great foil even if elected because Republicans will spell out the bloody consequences of Democrats leading America to it's 2nd great defeat & retreat. And if disaster does come from Obama running, or from his pledge to invade nuclear Pakistan and risk hundreds of thousands of US troops and our supply line into Afghanistan to find one guy so courts can have him and his defense team in the global spotlight, maybe it is a good thing in the long run for America to once again be shown the Left is a disaster bigger than the Bush Corrupticans ever were.

Posted by chris ford | February 13, 2008 6:44 PM

I'll take that one--the surge will end this summer b/c there aren't any troops ready to replace those who are due to rotate out.

Maybe the lower level of troops can maintain the illusion, maybe not, but that is a good reason.

You do realize that military subcontractors already form a sizable chunk of our forces there, right? If the pre-election kabuki dance requires the gov't to pay both sides to sit idle, I seriously doubt that would be an issue.

Or, they'll just short-change Afghanistan even more severely.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | February 13, 2008 7:02 PM

Ross, I think you're underestimating Obama's willingness and ability to field questions, but it's basically an irrelevant point when it comes to deciding who will win the election.

In 2004, George Bush came off a term in which he held few press conferences which were highly staged when they did occur, generally sounded like a fool when he tried to speak about policy in any kind of specific terms, and performed abysmally in each debate. Yet he won handily, performing better than he had in 2000.

His election had everything to do with using his reckless fiscal policies (increased spending and lower taxes -- though terrible long-term fiscal policies -- are election winners) and terrible foreign policy decisions (the decision to invade Iraq -- and so be a wartime president at the time of the election -- and the decision to hype the terrorist threat much more than it warranted were definite election winners) to obtain votes, with a little help from facing a lackluster candidate and the support of the evangelical right for his social positions.

For all the coverage and excitement they generate, the debates and such will have little impact on the outcome of the election. It will ultimately be a reflection of the prevailing sentiment among the American public. Right now, that sentiment is generally drifting Obama's (and, to a lesser extent, Clinton's) way. All signs suggest it will continue to do so through November, but anything could happen.

Posted by Michael | February 13, 2008 9:12 PM

John McCain is a Bob Dole style candidate. He is not really a strong candidate, even after becoming the presumptive nominee, he got no bounce, and promptly lost contests to Huckabee.

In contrast, Obama is a once-in-several-generations political talent. The only reason
Hillary is still in the game is her 100% name recognition. Many California ballots were cast absentee before people started to get to know Obama.

Obama is Mr. Clean. All the dirt-digging has yielded nothing bad about him.

Posted by Ni | February 14, 2008 1:17 AM

Michael is right. Lack of press access probably won't affect the election. So long as Obama keeps drawing huge, adoring crowds, the press will clamor for whatever access they can get. Limiting access somewhat has been a winning strategy by Obama's campaign, which is smart enough to know that the only way to guarantee being torn down by the press which has built you up is to grant too much access. Limiting it a little leaves them wanting more, just so long as the people want more--and they will, right through November.

Plus, it goes without saying that unlike Bush, Obama does exceptionally well every time he speaks and does well in debates. (However, voters are looking for an anti-Bush, which is why some people are still siding with Hillary--conniving and inhuman is the opposite of retarded and friendly.)

Posted by Podger | February 15, 2008 12:40 AM

Michael is right. Lack of press access probably won't affect the election. So long as Obama keeps drawing huge, adoring crowds, the press will clamor for whatever access they can get. Limiting access somewhat has been a winning strategy by Obama's campaign, which is smart enough to know that the only way to guarantee being torn down by the press which has built you up is to grant too much access. Limiting it a little leaves them wanting more, just so long as the people want more--and they will, right through November.

Plus, it goes without saying that unlike Bush, Obama does exceptionally well every time he speaks and does well in debates. (However, voters are looking for an anti-Bush, which is why some people are still siding with Hillary--conniving and inhuman is the opposite of retarded and friendly.)

Posted by Podger | February 15, 2008 12:40 AM

I'll probably get hammered for posting here, for I'm not an intellectual. I just recently learned the word "meme" (and it sure is overused).

In fact, I'm white and poor and live in small rural town of about 300 people, just the sort of person who should be fawning over Hillary Clinton.

But that is not the point.

Okay: here's the, ahem, meme: Obama's just an orator with no substance.

In this post and its responses, he's accused of having both a messianic schtick and Hitler-esque oratory. First off, comparing him to Hitler is just outrageous. I've heard this from other people, too. I haven't heard Obama inspire people to band together to commit genocide lately, or did I miss something?

I have to chuckle, too, at the irony of trying to cast him in the role of some kind of Borscht Belt Jewish comedian with a message AND Hitler!

But wait - yet another poster says he stutters when he speaks. I thought he was the grand orator?

Which is it? Hitler, stutterer, deliver of schticks? I've heard he's also getting a "free pass". This ain't no free pass.

When are you people going to stop arguing and realize that this man is the best we've had on offer in decades? That he has brought out voters who would usually be sitting at home watching whatever they watch on TV? That he is a thoughtful man, who happens both to be a great speaker, yes, and a person who does stutter and fumble upon occasion - gasp! - he's human!

Please, we can disagree. But this is exactly the kind of near masturbatory intellectual infighting that has consistently turned the average person off politics and the decent candidates out of them.

Posted by non-intellectual person | February 15, 2008 11:02 PM

What an honor it is to see the Forrest Gumps of America tear themselves away from their couch potato existences to hail the great Senator Ditto who intonates his speech writer's words so well from a teleprompter and wows the likes of non-intellectual persons. The Constitution endows all citizens with the right to have equal access to the voting process and if people have allowed themselves to be intimidated or turned off because MTV is just so much more embracing to their to sense of self, then you got the government you deserve. Too bad if you don't like it.

Obama does stutter without the aid of his teleprompter. In the debates, he's simply not very impressive. His command of the word spoken extemporaneously is not his strong suit. Color me not shocked about his lack of access. Is that a harbinger of things to come in an Obama presidency? Limited press conferences? In these trying times? I'm sure the Washington Press Core is going to love that.

I have only one request of Obama's supporters: simply accept that everyone is NOT WOWED by your Saint Maybe. I don't want a president who can't communicate his thoughts. BTW, I'm poor, AA and whatever economic catastrophe that hits this country will hit me first. I don't need a recycling of comforting words like "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." I got it the first time I read it in a history book. Obama's going to have to come up with a whole lot more to win my vote.

Posted by RealityCheck | February 29, 2008 9:13 PM