Here at Netroots Nation, the DNC's Parag Mehta gave an excellent presentation about the field plan for 2008, which focuses on neighbor-to-neighbor relationships. Afterwards, he took questions, and the first question was no surprise: "What if my neighbor asks me about Obama's vote on FISA with telecom immunity?"
I didn't like Parag's advice answer on this, and I think I have a better suggestion.
What he suggested was to say, "all I can do is point you to Obama's words on this," followed with a summary of Obama's explanation of why he compromised. I think there are two big problems with this kind of response:
* If you know Obama was wrong about this, and your questioner knows Obama was wrong about this, an answer that
appears to try to justify Obama's decision isn't going to change their mind; it's just going to get them to lose some respect for you. You'll end up with less credibility, and nothing to show for it.
* By focusing someone's thought on Obama's (mistaken) reasons for voting for this bill, you get them to focus on an issue they disagree with Obama about, and are perhaps even angry about. This will move their emotional response to Obama further towards negative, regardless of what they think about the substance of the issue or its relative importance.
Instead, I suggest a response in keeping with these two goals:
- Maintain trust and credibility
- Shift focus to more important issues that cement support for Obama
When Rolling Stone Magazine asked Obama how he would like us to judge his first term in office, this is what he said:
WENNER: "Is there a marker you would lay down at the end of your first term where you say, ‘If this has happened or not happened, I would consider it a negative mark on my governance’?"
OBAMA: "If I haven’t gotten combat troops out of Iraq, passed universal health care and created a new energy policy that speaks to our dependence on foreign oil and deals seriously with global warming, then we’ve missed the boat. Those are three big jobs, so it’s going to require a lot of attention and imagination, and it’s going to require the American people feeling inspired enough that they’re prepared to take on these big challenges."
I like to use that, because it's a strong, succint statement of what this election is about. I would answer the FISA question by stating simply that Obama was wrong and I agree with the questioner on that, not trying to dwell on Obama's reasons (which would simply invite counterargument), and shifting their attention to the great reasons to support Obama regardless of this disagreement with him:
Obama opposes telecom immunity but decided he needed to compromise on this bill. That was a mistake. He was wrong, and I'm angry about it. Now, when Rolling Stone asked Obama how we should judge his first term in office, he said "If I haven't gotten combat tropps out of Iraq, passed universal health care, and created a new energy policy that deals seriously with climate change, then we've missed the boat." I think that's a platform worth fighting for, and that's why I support Obama enthusiastically.