The Proper Pennsylvania Lesson for Obama
“There's not much someone running for office can do about his or her race, gender or age. But one can get better at selling a viewpoint or defending specific vulnerabilities. What hurt Obama most in the April 16 debate, and in other moments in Ohio and Pennsylvania, was his failure to do either one. ”
Exit pollsters this week asked Pennsylvania primary voters at what point they had decided between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. About 1 in 4 said they had done so in the last week before the vote, and among these, 58 percent said they had decided for Clinton.
That enormous edge was far from the only factor deciding this primary. But it was a factor Obama might have done something about.
The one big event that took place in the final week of the campaign: the debate on ABC-TV on the night of April 16. While the exit poll did not specifically ask about the debate, no other happening in these final days had nearly the same potential to affect voter attitudes.
The April 16 debate was watched by more than 10 million viewers nationwide, the largest audience for any of the debates in either party in this presidential election cycle. But its impact was far wider, because debates influence far more people than just those who watch and listen.
Debates, like candidate gaffes, make their way into the voters' consciousness gradually. Most of the damage may be done days after the fact. Consider the classic example: President Gerald Ford's infamous statement (in his debate with Jimmy Carter in 1976) about Poland not feeling dominated by the Soviets. That remark barely registered with audiences during the debate, but after several cycles of media replay and regurgitation, it had become a major issue.
So it was with Obama's performance in the ABC showdown. While Clinton pounced gleefully on question after question, controlling the temperature of the evening, Obama seemed put upon and dyspeptic. And he compounded that impression by grousing about the questions in the days that followed.
Yes, the ABC team of Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos seemed obsessed with hot buttons and trivia, probing Obama's troublesome associations far more than Clinton's. But that goes with the status of front-runner, especially one who is still being introduced to the general public. Obama acted as if he had no notion such questions might be asked.
Obama seemed almost equally ill at ease when defending some of his issue positions. Pressed by a rather argumentative Gibson about the effect of capital gains tax cuts on federal revenue, Obama seemed unprepared to defend the higher rates he favors.
At a minimum, the April 16 debate was a lost opportunity for a campaign that had been on the defensive for weeks. Here was a chance to be vigorous and affirmative in meeting these challenges to the candidate's reputation, independence and patriotism.
Failing to seize that chance, Obama seemed much reduced from his usual public stature. Not only did he fall short of the presence he has in his grand speeches, he also fell short of his better debate performances against Clinton earlier this year.
Polls in Pennsylvania during the debate week detected a stalling of the momentum that had cut Clinton's formidable lead by half. From then on, Obama slipped back the other way.
When media analysts break down an Obama loss, we tend to dwell on how various groups reacted to his candidacy. We talk about how he failed to capture women, or white voters, the working class, older voters or Catholics.
At times there is an implication that these voting groups have rejected -- or at least failed to appreciate -- this youthful black visionary who has enthralled other elements of the electorate and beguiled many a veteran journalist.
But there is an obvious alternative to this interpretation. It is that Obama is failing to connect with these voting groups because, with all his assets, he is still far from a complete candidate.
There's not much someone running for office can do about his or her race, gender or age. But one can get better at selling a viewpoint or defending specific vulnerabilities. What hurt Obama most in the April 16 debate, and in other moments in Ohio and Pennsylvania, was his failure to do either one.
If Obama hopes to restore his own trajectory in May after the rocky months of March and April, he will need more than his amphitheater rhetoric and his online fundraising. He needs to master the everyday campaign arts of debate -- delivering polished and punchy lines -- and of mixing with ordinary people in a way that wins them over.
12:55 AM ET | 04-23-2008 | permalink
Discussions for this story are now closed. Please see the Community FAQ for more information.