What Barack Obama Should Say to Make the Pennsylvania “Small-Town People” Controversy Go Away

April 13, 2008
Category: The Situation Room

Barack Obama has continued to demonstrate an incredible inability to hit back at Hillary Clinton, even in the context of very favorable circumstances. In all appearance, the media seems to have attempted to cut him some slack in the past few weeks, and Hilary Clinton has had a number of difficult weeks due to issues such as her made-up Kosovo story and the more recent Colombian gaffe by Mark Penn, her chief campaign strategist. In all, the campaign environment has been going great for Obama, and the polls have been showing him gaining ground in Pennsylvania, until he himself made the recent “small-town people” comments that put him on the defensive again. And of course, as could have been expected, Hillary Clinton pounced on those remarks with a vengeance, and McCain joined the chorus in amplifying words by Obama that were, in fact, describing the reality of the America of today: people ARE bitter AND frustrated about the way this country has been run by the Bush administration.

In other words, Obama’s comments, taken in their proper context, are reflective of a reality that is undeniable. Most polls asking the people about the country’s direction have been reflective of Obama’s comments. According to the Associated Press (AP), a CBS News-New York Times poll released on April 3 showed 81 percent of respondents said they believed “things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track.” That was up from 69 percent a year ago, and 35 percent in early 2002. AP points out that “a majority of Democrats and Republicans, men and women, residents of cities and rural areas, college graduates and those who finished only high school say the United States is headed in the wrong direction,” and “seventy-eight percent of respondents said the country was worse off than five years ago; just 4 percent said it was doing better.”

In fact, AP adds, an analysis by the New York Times points out that “Americans are more dissatisfied with the country’s direction than at any time since the poll’s inception in the early 1990s. Only 21 percent of respondents said the overall economy was in good condition, the lowest such number since late 1992. Two in three people said they believed the economy was already in recession.” Worse, “the approval rating of President George W. Bush did not change since last summer, with [only] 28 percent of respondents saying they approved of the job he was doing.”

In the context of such polling, it is hard to see where Barack Obama may have erred, or where his argument is not reflective of the opinion of both rural and urban voters as described in this polling. If anything, it is Hillary Clinton and John McCain who are out of touch with the electorate as they try to opportunistically, and quite awkwardly, score political points against Obama by depicting an America that is more optimistic, or less bitter and frustrated, than these polls show.

All Americans may not necessarily share the idea that there is bitterness in the country today, but it would be a lie to say there is no bitterness or frustration. The issue may be debatable and subjective, but nothing in what Obama said should have risen to the level of a controversy. Have we Americans become so wimpy and politically-correct that we are no longer able to handle the truth, preferring to hide behind the lie of “everything is just fine”? Do we now want our politicians to talk to us as though we were children, and lie to us because we refuse to hear the truth about who we are as a people? If so, why is Hillary Clinton running anyway? Why should anyone even try to replace George Bush or to condemn McCain for wanting to continue the Bush policies if we are all in agreement that everything is great and fine in America today?

Either the media is living a fallacy and trying to construct a reality that is not there, or those who have criticized Obama’s argument are simply living in a fantasy world. What remains true is that Obama’s comments are more reflective of reality than those of pundits and other misguided politicians such as Clinton and McCain arguing against a point that is, in fact, grounded in the real world of suffering and frustrated Americans.

But in the end, it is up to Obama and his campaign to know how to use the current favorable political context to the advantage of the candidate. Unfortunately, Barack Obama and his campaign have appeared to vacillate under the recent attacks by Clinton and McCain over the “small-town people,” unable, as they have always been, to mount counterattacks that could deflect the issues back to his opponents. Obama should take a cue on Hillary Clinton, who is expert not only at pouncing on any gaffe by the Obama camp, but also exploiting it to the bone. Why the Obama camp likes to position their candidate on defensive stances is puzzling. Each time Obama has made a mistake, they have endeavored to craft awkward defensive answers that, at times, have not helped at all. All they have managed to do is position Obama in a defensive position that has amplified the mistake instead of causing it to go away.

The latest “small-town people controversy,” which I believe is a fabricated one, became a “controversy” only because Obama allowed it to become one. The only advice to Obama that the Obama camp was able to come up with was to make the candidate re-explain the gaffe (giving it more life and giving Hillary Clinton’s twisted version of the gaffe a stronger degree of validity) and to apologize (when there was really nothing to apologize for; at times, Obama simply needs to learn to stay on, and defend, his positions instead of apologizing for them).

What would I have done if I had been Obama? What kinds of answers would I have given in order to deflect the “controversy” away from me?

Here is the Council’s advice to Obama for mounting a counterattack in the context of the “small-town people” controversy. This advice is meant as a gist to Obama for the type of ideas and arguments he needs to mount. His campaign is free to use this advice “as is” or transform it into something more politically savvy. However, the fundamental principles must be preserved if they are to help Obama come out of this one. Our previous advice on the Jeremiah Wright controversy seems to have been fully reflected in Obama’s “A more perfect Union” speech, and we were satisfied with that. Let us hope that someone in the Obama campaign will be smart enough to suggest to the candidate something similar to what we are proposing below.

To Hillary Clinton:

OBAMA (would say): “I said something very simple to understand, that, as a result of what this country has gone through in the past 16 years, people not only in the “small-towns” of Pennsylvania, but also in small-towns and cities and rural areas of America have become frustrated and bitter. It is a statement that makes sense. But here we go again with Hillary Clinton pouncing on my comments on “small-town people” and trying to twist them again to mean something that I did not say at all. It seems Hillary has taken up the bad habit of enjoying to twist words out of their context, and constructing whole stories about them that are not true. Hillary Clinton should be the last person to try and twist someone else’s words. Apparently, she has become an expert at pouncing and twisting.

Remember the Clinton years, with all the divisions in the country and all the impeachment procedures that basically stopped this country from feeling good about itself? Lots of words were twisted then that divided America. I am not sure we want to go back to that king of politics. Remember how much word-twisting went on at the time among the defenders and bashers of the Clintons, something that divided this country beyond belief? I am not sure we want to go back to those kinds of divisions. Remember the word-twisting that went on recently about Kosovo and the story about sniper fire that turned out not to be true at all? Well, Hillary, once again, tried to make us believe in stories that were not true.

Same goes for NAFTA. Remember how she pounced and twisted my words and the words of my advisors when the news broke that one of my advisors went to meet with Canadian officials and made comments on NAFTA that I personally did not agree with? Now it turns out her own chief strategist went to meet with the Colombians and make deals that went way beyond the unfortunate comments that my economic advisor made. The question now becomes, do we want a president whom we are confident will look us in the eyes on television and tell us the truth, or do we want one that will twist the words for political gain? I personally do not want that kind of president.

The problem with Hillary Clinton is not so much that she twists words to make them fit her own reality. The problem is that after she twists those words, she tends to start to believe the stories that she makes up. And that scares the guts out of me. So, I am telling you, my fellow Americans, do not get confused by all the word-twisting and all the pouncing going around. It looks as though Hillary is so desperate to win, and willing to win at all costs, that anything goes. That’s not what I believe in. That’s not the way campaigns are supposed to be run. One cannot make a whole campaign goal about tearing their opponents down and using word-twisting that deform the intent of what was meant. That is precisely the politics of the past that we, as Americans who want change, want to move away from. But I understand. Hillary is desperate. She wants to win. And she is willing to do anything to win. Remember how many things she tried in order to try to undo our campaign? Remember that, when she could find nothing, she resorted to throwing that stinky kitchen sink at us, throwing anything from dishes to pots, and from spoon to fork with the hope that something would happen, that we would falter, quit, abandon? Well, that did not happen, did it? It failed because, well, when you resort to kitchen-sinking your opponents and twisting their words, that is called desperation, my fellow Americans. And Americans know how to read desperation is people’s eyes and actions. We have stayed cool, have we not? We have been winning without throwing a kitchen sink at anyone. Do you remember the last time when Hillary Clinton paid a compliment to us? No, I personally can’t remember. In keeping with the democratic tradition of respectable campaigning, we have said during our campaign that we believe she will be a good president. What has she said in return? That Obama is not fit to become the president of the United States, McCain is. So, is Hillary telling us that she would rather see McCain elected to continue the Bush policies than a Barack Obama? Is she telling us that she is endorsing the candidate who will continue the Bush policy in Iraq for one hundred years as opposed to one who wants to change all that? So, again, I say to you, do not get confused. Let’s not get confused about who we elect to become the next president of the United States of America.

I continue to believe that the way you run your campaign is reflective of how you will run the White House and the country. If you use a stinky kitchen sink to win, then nothing prevents you from using the same stinky kitchen sink against the American people. You would basically make of the White House a stinky affair instead of a symbol of unity and hope for the nation. Some people know how to lose honorably, others know only how to win dirtily. I promised during this campaign that I would rather lose honorably than win dirtily. And I believe I have held to my promise so far. But look at what my opponent has been doing. One would believe I am already running against a Republican candidate in the general election!

Not only has Hillary Clinton tried to twist my words, she has demonstrated that she is not in touch with the frustrations of the common people. When she criticizes me, it is the American people who want change that she is criticizing because they are the ones who believe this country is headed in the wrong direction. Now, I understand her somewhat. I understand a little bit why someone like Hillary could be out of touch with the regular guy who sees the country as headed in the wrong direction. When one has accumulated 100 million in the bank in the space of seven years, that’s quite understandable. It’s easy, in that kind of situation, to live out of the reality of the working American. One starts to see America differently from the common folk, and one starts to live in an America that is not the America of ordinary people. So, I am not sure what Hillary means when, to criticize me, she says that Americans are not frustrated or that some of us are not bitter about the direction in which George Bush has taken this country not only on the Iraq front, but also on the economic front.

But let’s not be confused, America. Those 70 to 81% of people who consistently answer poll after poll saying that they are dissatisfied and frustrated with the direction the country is going are of the opinion that they want change. Perhaps Hillary Clinton does not believe in change. Perhaps she does not believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. One therefore wonders why she is running to replace George Bush if she thinks this country does not want change. Again, with 100 million in the bank, I understand she may have not gone through the same type of hard time that most Americans have in the past seven years of Bush policies, but America does not certainly want a president who is out of touch with the frustrations of the common people. And I strongly believe that the reason why I am ahead in the popular vote and delegate count today is precisely because Americans of all walks of life have understood the reality of my candidacy, that I am the candidate who is of the people, and who understands more than the two candidates remaining in this election the need for change in this country. And this is precisely why I am running for president of the United States of America, so that Americans can start believing in ONE America again, the America where the politician is able to be candid about what is going on as opposed to serving the will of the lobbyist against the American people, an America where those who have it all are really in touch with the frustrations and bitterness of the common people, instead of dismissing their frustrations as irrelevant or unpatriotic. America wants change, and together, we will ensure that change happens come November this year.”

To John McCain:

OBAMA (would say basically the same stuff as above, but adding): “John McCain should be the last person to criticize anyone about understanding the plight of the American people and being out of touch with them. It took him three attempts to finally realize that the American president or whoever aspires to become president cannot respond to a crisis such as Americans are going through right now sitting on the sideline. All that McCain proposed to the Americans in crisis with their mortgage was: “It is your own fault, so deal with it.” That’s not how you are supposed to act as the American president? That’s not the way you are supposed to act when you have a clear understanding on how our economic system works, an understanding that says to us that crises such as the mortgage meltdown the country is experiencing right now do not just occur because of one isolated factor such as the “mistakes” made by the common citizens.

Resolving these crises demands a president who is willing to look at the big picture, and change the whole mindset of how we do business in America. Looking at the big picture will ensure that we demand change in legislation, and change in the business culture and mindset that led to the current economic disasters.

What John McCain has shown is that he is going to be a president on the sidelines, one who is out of touch with the American people. It’s easy to sit on the sidelines when you have a roof on your head and do not have to worry about your bank account being empty anytime soon. But my opinion is that there are millions of American out there that do not have that luxury, and who need a government that listens to them as opposed to looking down on them and faulting them for things that are not a direct result of their actions. That’s not the kind of president America wants.

Americans need a president who is willing to stand up to the power of the lobbyists in Washington, and say to them, the days of unchecked practices that harm the American economy are gone. Now, you’ve got to clean up your act so that we do not see American families lose their houses again because of your lending practices. Americans do not want a president who, on the one hand, claims to be the best potential commander in chief, and yet is utterly confused about who we are fighting in Iraq and about who is actually training the Iraqi insurgency. Americans want a president who will not confuse his priorities and go after Osama bin Laden as opposed to diverting much needed resources in a war in Iraq that should never have been authorized. America wants a president who is committed to not sitting on the sidelines with the war in Iraq going on, and who is committed to bringing our troops home. Americans want a president who is willing to understand their need for change, not one that is willing to keep the troops in Iraq for 100 years and has embraced the Bush policy and doctrine, and is committed to continuing a third term of the same failed Bush policies.

So, let us not be confused, my fellow Americans. For you really have a clear choice in this election, between a president who is saying that he will stay on the sidelines and do nothing to change the direction the country is in right now, and one who thinks, just like you, that the country needs change. Americans do not want a president who is out of touch with their distress, and who has no compassion for their plight, they do not want a president who is out there to serve the will of the lobbyists in Washington. They want a president who can sympathize and is compassionate about their problems and willing to address them head on. That’s the kind of president I intend to be.”

The Council’s Concluion

I firmly believe that these are the types of counteroffensive strategies that Barack Obama needs to adopt each time he finds himself in trouble. He has to show enough guts to go after Hillary Clinton’s weaknesses and turn them against her. It is striking how much of his mistakes Hillary Clinton is able to exploit and how many of her mistakes Obama does not seek to amplify. I do not believe Obama can afford to be on the defensive with two adversaries pounding him from all sides. Because history is funny with campaigns that faltered on very minute things, it is still unclear to me why Barack Obama continues to basically remain on the defensive, issue after issue, leaving it to his opponents to shape his words anyway they want, and define him unilaterally. I understand the need to remain positive, but one cannot be positive to the point of political suicide. At what point will Obama show that he can fight back? So far, Hillary has been able to show that she can indeed be a fighter and will not go down without a fight. Barack Obama, on the other hand, is content to ride the wave of discontent that keeps propping him up, but with no clear indication, yet, that he can, by his own acts of combativeness, extirpate himself from harsh situations. After a while, he risks losing even those people who have been hoping to see him come out of his shell and start dishing out punishment on his opponents, especially opponents with glaring weaknesses such as John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

This weakness of Obama, or unwillingness to counterpunch his opponents, may be why some superdelegates have been hesitant to endorse him. They look at Obama and they simply do not believe he can withstand the Republican attack machine come November. Obama could have probably gained more support from all Americans and superdelegates had he been able to demonstrate some minimal degree of combativeness. So far, we are still waiting for the Chicago boy in him to come out. For now, Hillary Clinton continues to be able to depict him, explicitly and implicitly, as a candidate who not only cannot take a punch, but is also unwilling to throw one. This, in turn, is what may, ultimately, cause Barack Obama to lose this election.

Obama could have easily “killed” the Jeremiah Wright controversy if he had been able to be on the offensive. The proof is that when he finally came out with his “A More Prefect Union” speech, it served him well. But even then, he did not cease being on the defensive about his position. Many other crises such as the NAFTA one could have also had less impact had he shown more willingness to attack his opponents and be less defensive. If this election cycle has shown us anything, what it has taught us is that no controversy sticks on a candidate who is able to deflect it to his or her opponents, especially if the candidate is good at creating negative “controversies” about his adversaries that are able to deflect attention from his or her own. The principle is therefore very simple: defend yourself as much as you can without showing weakness, but rapidly mount an attack on your opponent so that the media can be talking about your opponent as opposed to yourself. Things to say about Hillary Clinton, from the Clinton years (Lewinsky and divisions in the country) to now, are plentiful. Obama simply needs to be strong enough, and willing, to go on the type of offensive that will paint his opponents as worse choices for the American people than himself.

The people who have been carrying Obama to victory have done so without the candidate himself really showing he can win, and withstand the pressures and battering that come with victory. While the people have voted and unequivocally shown Obama and America that, “yes, they can,” Obama has yet to show the Americans who have supported him so far, that, “yes HE can.”

Dr. Daniel Mengara
The author is an Associate Professor of French and Francophone Studies at Montclair State University (New Jersey). He is also the leader of Bongo Doit Partir (Bongo Must Go), a movement of expatriated Gabonese citizens opposed and seeking an end to the 40-year-old dictatorial regime of Omar Bongo in Gabon.

Comments

5 Responses to “What Barack Obama Should Say to Make the Pennsylvania “Small-Town People” Controversy Go Away”

max on April 13th, 2008 2:43 pm

You guys need to GET this to HQ.. regarding BARACK FIGHTING BACK!

If he doesn’t were over with period..

hill will steal the election as easy as apple pie, and barack will just sit back and say..well must be somebody’s will…
Max on April 13th, 2008 2:47 pm

When asked about getting votes in PA, how hard would it have been to say” We have thousands of Team Members on the Ground, We have Tens of thousands of organized volunteers and we are gaingnin ground in the POLLS.. why did he have to get so ESOTERIC?? his downfall is going to be hes TOO SMART for his own good.. he was showing off his brilliant intellect instead of just playing the right hand at the right time… too damn bad..
Barack Obama » What Barack Obama Should Say to Make the Pennsylvania “Small-Town People” Controversy Go Away on April 13th, 2008 3:08 pm

[...] Unofficial Barack Obama Advisory Council wrote an interesting post today on What Barack Obama Should Say to Make the Pennsylvania "Small-Town People" Controversy Go AwayHere’s a quick excerptBarack Obama has continued to demonstrate an incredible inability to hit back at Hillary Clinton, even in the context of very favorable circumstances…. [...]
Bobo on April 14th, 2008 12:18 pm

I think you are absolutely right, max. It loooks like barcak has put himself in a corner trying too much to be the Nice guy. If he wants to win, he really needs to fight back big time and show he has some spine.

And you are right about being too intelectual. Politics is a gutter business and he needs to be able to strike back at Hill. He seems to often go halfway and never really fully engages her. Popular support can only take you so far, but if you yourself do not go the extra mile, the voters are not going to take you all the way and give you the presidency just because they want change. At some point, you need to show them you are a real fighter too.
Eleanor on April 15th, 2008 12:54 am

Obama needs to tell Hillary that he is no longer going to dwell or entertain this subject. It seems she has spent one third of her campaign going after Obama. He needs to tell her he is no longer going to be distracted by her desperation tatics if he makes a mistake he will let the people decide and he will handle it accordingly. He needs to tell her I am running for President and thats who I intend to be. Tell her if she put as must time in with the people of America how much harder his campaign would really be. Thank her for thinking of him so much and move on. He needs to take charge of this situation, she acts like a child, talk to her like a child be firm, nice and sweet and move on.