Some swing voters worry that Obama is a radical. Other folks think he is too naive to be Commander In Chief. Other people still suspect that he can't represent blue collar workers. These views threaten what may be a significant percentage of voters he needs to win over to his side. Moreover, his strategy of making traditional kinds of speeches and presentations allowing limited questioning is weak. It's weak especially by comparison to a little-known but effective process for changing voters' minds. I'm speaking of an open-ended interrogation of Obama much like the interrogation John Kerry submitted to and Obama himself endured two times. Swing voters who've been bombarded with Obama's association with Wright and his Bittergate comment require this more powerful technique for convincing them that he is neither a closet radical nor an uncaring snob.
This technique was used effectively by John Kerry at a point when the Left was threatening to abandon him. On December 8, 2003, he met informally with a group of writers of some note. The group included Rick Hertzberg, senior editor for the New Yorker, Jim Kelley, managing editor for Time Magazine, Howard Fineman, chief politcal corresponden for Newsweek, and 11 additional similar kinds of writers and editors, including Calvin Trillin and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. The event was more like a grueling trial than a congenial conference. No questions were off limits. The most significant charge concerned Kerry's vote to give Bush the authority to go to war. Kerry's answers eventually satisfied this group, and this meeting significantly helped reverse the negative trend against Kerry. (See http://weblog.theviewfromthecore.com...
Obama also took advantage of this method for changing opinions. He submitted to it to neutralize charges against him regarding his dealings with the politically involved realtor, Rezko. There was no time limit for the "trial," and three dozen reporters were allowed to ask any questions about Obama's dealings. Again, the questioners were satisfied enough that they pronounced the issue dead, and once again, a candidacy was rescued from a damaging rumor. (Google the following: Obama Answers Extensive Questions About Rezko, Home and Adjacent Lot, posted by Steve Crickmore, Mar 15, 08.)
Obama also submitted to this process in San Francisco. The editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle along with staff editors and reporters grilled him for two hours. Their impressions changed dramatically, partly because Obama was such an atypical politician. He didn't consume his opening remarks time with a stump speech. He didn't answer questions by trotting out talking points. The attendees were impressed by his thoughtfulness, especially his interest in enabling questioners to elaborate and refine their questions. They remarked that he listened intently nearly as much as he talked, and proved that he had lisented by recalling aspects of questions in detail. In person in that venue, he's at his best. (Google: San Francisco Chronicle Obama Editorial Board Diaz.)
Readers of this blog may argue that there's no way this venue would enable him to solve the problem of his association with Wright or the bittergate flap. I disagree. Part of the success of this process would depend on who was in attendance. I would include media and government leaders who have had doubts about Obama. Their before and after stories would be compelling.
Readers of this blog may also protest that a re-airing of these issues can only be undermining and is unncessary. As to the latter concern, if he only affects five percent of voters, this process will have been well worth the effort. Concerns about undermining him are misplaced if you believe, as I do, that he can easily withstand the scrutiny and significantly subtantiate his public statements.