Barack Obama is running one of the most impressive primary campaigns in American history by most quantifiable performance indicators. He has raised more money, from more people than in any other primary campaign ever. His website is superior to any other politician's; Barackobama.com features the most powerful social networking tools and demographic information database available in politics. He has mobilized America's youth to turn the lever for him at an unprecedented rate. Perhaps as importantly, Obama's team has mastered the arcane art of the caucus, trouncing his opponents in nearly every single state caucus beginning with Iowa. Most strikingly, he has accomplished all of this as a half-black Washington newcomer, beginning his national campaign just two years after stepping into the Senate for the first time as a guy that most Americans knew little to nothing about.
Obama has also been the beneficiary of a poorly run Clinton campaign and weak, cash-strapped efforts from other Democrats like Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich, and others. Obama's prospects would not have been so rosy if the Clintons hadn't underestimated him and expected to sail by on the basis of their brand recognition.
On the other hand, Obama has made extremely costly political errors, which are now the focus of the Democratic primary. Although they have done him great harm, none of his stumbles so far will turn out to be a deal-breaker en route to the White House. The next one just could be.
The following is an analysis of each mistake. The issues will be discussed strictly in the context of the presidential race, without editorializing on or defending his values, integrity, moral judgments, or past associations as so many other people are now doing. This is all about tactics, which have in any case overtaken substance on policy that may have existed once upon a time in this cursed primary.
Tony Rezko. The trend of being forced to go off-message and on the defensive probably started most pointedly with Antonin Rezko. Rezko is by most accounts an influence-peddling wheeler-dealer exactly in the mold of so many thousands of other business magnates who form the backbone of American politics on the local, state, and federal levels. He raised mountains of cash for various Republicans and Democrats. He probably called in lots of favors on these investments of time and money that would have helped his business or personal interests. But Rezko was dumb enough to (a) do something that may have been illegal and (b) get caught doing it, a la Spitzer. Without getting into the details of Rezko's ongoing trial, it became clear early in the campaign that Obama had an unsavory character on his hands, one who both fundraised for him and helped him buy a house in Chicago at a good price.
There's no hard evidence that Obama did anything improper in relation to Rezko. But the facts are there for all to see: Obama has had an ongoing association with this shady guy. In response, Obama called his real estate deal involving Rezko "boneheaded" and returned substantial amounts of campaign money that Rezko helped raise. The response was slow and retro-active, however. The public had already been alerted to the damaging Rezko connection.
What should Obama have done? More homework on his associates to start with. He should have known in advance that Rezko was going to blow up, and severed ties with him pre-emptively, along with returning the contribution money and selling the house (at exact cost of purchase) before the media got wind of Rezko's troubles. It could all have been done quietly, early on, and even cordially so as to wash his hands of the connection. Presidential candidates are under a microscope, and their associates are too. Even more inexcusable than the ignorance plea, is the possibility that Obama did already know of Rezko's potential for downfall. If this is true, then the campaign should have taken the above actions even sooner, and prepared a response typed and ready to deliver to avoid seeming purely reactive.
Jeremiah Wright Rezko, even if found guilty, will be a walk in the park compared to the problem of Reverend Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ. Americans are familiar and even comfortable with sleazy white middle-aged suits who pull strings and call shots. Many in our society suspect that these guys run the show anyway, and aspire to be like them. Every national politician has at least a few backers like Rezko who helped get them in power; Hillary Clinton and John McCain have Tony Rezkos by the bucketful in their pasts and presents. So the Rezko problem will blow over, for the right or wrong reasons. Note how McCain and Clinton have not beaten the Rezko horse to death: the equivalent of political death by hypocrisy.
Along comes Jeremiah Wright, a new type of character that most Americans do not really get. People asked how such an angry and unenlightened black man could possibly be Obama's pastor for over 20 years. And he married Obama off, AND baptized both of his children? That is undeniably a real, long-term, spiritual bond.
Wright is an articulate and controversial black preacher who upsets people almost as badly as Catholic priests who sodomize altar boys. The cadence of his voice and the content of his speeches offends the sensibilities of most of us who don't subscribe to black liberation theology. And that is largely why Wright is in business: to perform the art of black anger from his pulpit. He is good at it, and loves a stage. Those of us who have been around a little bit know a number of people like Wright, especially in cities. I don't agree with what he says, but I certainly understand what he is saying and where he is coming from because I've heard it all one hundred times before.
This time, Obama responded with a brilliant master stroke: he gave the best speech on race in America since "I have a Dream" was delivered by Martin Luther King, Jr. decades ago. "A More Perfect Union" was politically wise. Obama went on the offensive, on his terms, and navigated through extremely sensitive racial issues such as a description of what goes on in black churches, the cult of black victimhood, and reasons why whites could be legitimately resentful. He described the good works and leadership and military service of Wright and the congregation. At the same time he made it crystal-clear that he did not believe in some of Wright's contentions without naming them: for example, that the U.S. government created AIDS specifically to screw black people, a major charge not backed by any evidence.
The speech had topics that other politicians were afraid to touch; if McCain or Clinton dared to rebut any of the content of "A More Perfect Union," they risked being branded as racially insensitive. Obama's speech was a hand grenade that could detonate an opponent on contact. Afterwards the polls indicated that Wright's emergence as an issue would be a pesky nuisance, not a deal-breaker. In other words, only the voters who weren't going to vote for Obama anyway really cared. To boot, Obama used the opportunity to advertise his Christianity, to counter the buzz that he might be a Muslim. BRILLIANT MASTER STROKE.
What Obama and his backers did not count on was Reverend Wright re-emerging to stab him in the back after Obama had told the American people, under excruciating political duress, that he could not disown Wright, that the words of hatred didn't tell the complete story of who Wright was. Last week Wright used the opportunity afforded by the media attention to turn his ridiculous Chicago pulpit into a national road show, strutting and preening and performing with three straight days of major speeches chock-full of controversial statements and an indictment of Obama for throwing him under the bus for the sake of politics.
This shocking show of disloyalty caused Obama to resort to the only available option: disavow Wright publicly, denounce all that he stood for, admit the association with this pastor was an utter mistake, and commit the foul but necessary pandering to the right wing by appearing for an interview on the Republican Party's mouthpiece, Fox News, to receive an unbalanced fleecing.
This particular problem should have been easy to deal with. Either Obama should have had the political skill or leverage to keep Wright's mouth shut after "A More Perfect Union," perhaps with offers of longer-lasting limelight in exchange for an ounce of loyalty. The second-best alternative was to have thrown the self-serving Wright out of the house during "A More Perfect Union" itself. Unfortunately Obama was unable to achieve either. Just as with Rezko, Obama also failed to see the Wright problem emerging as a critical problem in the campaign, one that he could have been better prepared to deal with. He miscalculated how caught up the American public could get over such nonsense.
Bitter. The "Bitter" pill was completely Obama's own doing, and ironically exposed by one of his strong backers on the blogosphere after attending a campaign event in San Francisco, one at which people were openly recording video and sound. Yet another strange chapter in this absurdly long election cycle.
The mistake was simple: telling a group of supporters a message straight out of the political best-seller, What's Wrong with Kansas. People who are bitter about the government and the economy cling to guns or church or other things that make them feel good. Obama thought it would be safe to say this in front of this group. He should not have said it.
As we know, word got out quickly. The response was clumsy and forced: trying to put the words in context to make it seem like anyone who misunderstood only did so because of the semantics. Dancing around the issue with confusing explanations and an unconvincing tone helped Obama lose Pennsylvania. A victory there would have been a knockout punch against Clinton.
Ultimately, voters don't like being told that they feel bitter. No matter whether or not the statement is true. Here was the best response which would have made the problem go away sooner: "I'm sorry, I shouldn't have said that. Slip of the tongue. Next question." Each of the candidates have had these slip of the tongue moments; Bush had 400 of them in the 2000 and 2004 elections and got by. McCain confused the Sunnis and Shias of Iraq to great ridicule. People will forget most things, unless the drama continues with more dialogue when the best plan was to bury it and move on.
Surrogate Blunders. Samantha Power, Austan Goolsbee, and Michelle Obama have also said things they should not have. Foreign policy adviser Power called Clinton a monster, economic adviser Goolsbee allegedly told a Canadian official that Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric was just politics, and Mrs. Obama claimed she was proud to be American for the first time this year. These quotes are costly because they are off-message, and exactly the type of statements that the media pounces on for dramatic effect and inevitable righteous anger from opponents. The distractions end up shaping the campaign's story line, as over time the quotes appear to be an agenda rather than just isolated and dumb mistakes, which is what they are.
All the candidates have suffered as a result of their surrogates. Bill Clinton has done political damage to his spouse by multiples of what Michele Obama has done to hers. However, Obama's narrative of "a different kind of politics" leaves him exposed to more scrutiny. This is a line of attack that will not stop as long as he promises to practice the politics lifting the country up. Obama has got to make sure his surrogates are on message and positive. And if they blunder again, he must reject the errant statements forcefully and immediately. A candidate cannot control everything that everyone on the campaign says to the media, but he can come close.
There have been other mistakes, but these have been the most critical ones. Some were preventable, and some were not. Obama should certainly have predicted in advance that Rezko and Wright would emerge as part of the vetting process. In any case it is fortunate that these came out sooner rather than later. People will lose interest in these issues in the months to come. Undoubtedly, new mistakes and problems will emerge. But we can be certain of one thing: Obama has been raising his game as time has gone on. Although the mistakes already have done serious damage, they should be treated as learning experiences. There is a long way to go, and the best virtue to draw upon at this time is patience.