Bashing Obama
During the 1988 Presidential election a CNN poll was conducted that asked the following question:
“Does it bother you that Dan Quayle used his father’s influence to avoid serving in Vietnam?”
Notice anything? Obviously, the question assumes that he did benefit from his father’s political influence. They were not asking a question. They were broadcasting a message: Dan Quayle dodged the draft. Isn’t it reasonable to assume, that if true, it would bother just about everybody? Then why ask the question? The results of such a poll are unimportant, but the seed gets planted by the question. It’s like asking, “So, when did you stop beating your wife?”
Since then we have evolved little. Today’s campaigns are using similar tactics that have all the subtlety of a kick in the groin. Let’s look at three of them.
Push-Polling – Citizens receive calls at home from unlisted numbers. The person on the other end gives the impression that they are working for an unbiased polling company and they just want to ask you a few questions. “How much does it bother you that Barack Obama made decisions which favored special interests groups from whom he had received millions of dollars in campaign contributions? Very much, not very much, or very little?” The aim here is the same as the first example, but instead of flashing a poll on the TV screen with a number to call they “push” the message into the homes of potential voters. Thus, it’s called push-polling.
The “Innocent Interview” - Bill Shaheen (Husband of former New Hampshire Governor and Hillary Campaign Staffer) claimed he was only floating possibilities when he stated that Obama’s drug use admission (presumably cocaine) would eventually lead to probes of “dealing”. Again, just hearing the candidate’s name in the same sentence is usually enough. Like when Ronald Reagan said, “I refuse to make my opponent’s youth and inexperience an issue in this campaign.” The seed is planted. The message is received loud and clear.
Email – National TV exposure costs money, so does push-polling. Email is free and is being used more and more. I received one about Obama just the other day. It was a very long pseudo-biography kicked off by a picture of Obama with his hands clasped in front of him (instead of the traditional hand-over-the-heart) during the National Anthem (see below). It then went on to imply that he should not be trusted and twists together a half-fact-half-fiction tale that paints him as an extremist and – get this – perhaps even a Muslim plant, born and raised to get elected so he can do their bidding. Interestingly enough, the email claims that Snopes (www.snopes.com), a myth-busting site, confirms the whole thing. Actually, the only thing they verify is that the photo was authentic. If verifies none of the other allegations and even shows a series of photos of Obama with his hand properly over his heart during the National Anthem at other events (see above). Why was he so casual in the other photo? Who knows, but it’s not enough to label him a traitor. That’s beyond stretching. However, if tens of thousands of people receive the email (at no cost to the campaign), some of them are bound to believe it. There are many who think if it’s in print it must be true.
Unfortunately for Obama this is only the beginning. As the herd thins the criticism will become much more pointed and personal. It’s going to be a long road. I have to keep reminding myself that this is only the primaries. The parties are defining themselves by identifying their nominees. The real battle starts when they set their sights on each other.
To book me for a lecture or debate go here.
About the Author: Randall H. Miller is an American college educator/blogger. He is also a former U.S. Army officer (82nd Airborne) with a M.A. in Diplomacy (focusing on International Terrorism) and a B.A. in Criminal Justice. Use the form on the right to sign up and receive notifications of new content. The words and ideas expressed here are 100% his own and not those of his employers or affiliated organizations.
dickmill | Jan 16, 2008 | Reply
The Clintons have now successfully made the primary issue black vs. woman (you can verify this by the degree to which they deny it — like Hillary’s answer to Tim Russert, “Well, Tim, I don’t look at polls.”)
It’s the only way she can keep the heat off of her past shenanigans (“35 years of experience and change.”) She’s betting that a woman will win the nomination over a black. I hope the public refutes this tactic, but after all is said and done, the electorate gets what it deserves. We’ll see how smart or stupid the voters are.
RHM | Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
While I’m not so sure there was a deliberate effort on their side (Clinton) to shift the issue to “Woman v. Black Man” (very risky), there is no doubt that they are searching for somethat that will stick. Bill Clinton painted Obama as very much the “establishment candidate” yesterday. That is very tough to become if you lack experience, which is exactly the message they started with.
kenzadm | Jan 20, 2008 | Reply
“Like when Ronald Reagan said, “I refuse to make my opponent’s youth and inexperience an issue in this campaign.” The seed is planted. The message is received loud and clear.”
Ooh. Very tricky. A way to make it look like you’re taking the high road, when really, you’re not at all.
Enjoy your free Monday.