Let's define some terms:
Hack: A clever or quick fix to a problem.
Smear: A premeditated effort to divert attention from a candidate's core message by destroying their reputation.
When Clinton partisans say that Obama's past will be fodder for the Republicans, they are really trying to generate fear, uncertainty and doubt about Obama's entire candidacy. They are pressing all sorts of emotional hot buttons in a frantic effort to stop his momentum.
So...how does Obama fix this problem? How does he hack the smear?
For starters, he's got a pretty good rapid response team. The Obama campaign released this statement almost immediately:
"Hillary Clinton said attacking other Democrats is the 'fun part' of this campaign, and now she's moved from Barack Obama's kindergarten years to his teenage years in an increasingly desperate effort to slow her slide in the polls. Senator Clinton's campaign is recycling old news that Barack Obama has been candid about in a book he wrote years ago, and he's talked about the lessons he's learned from these mistakes with young people all across the country. He plans on winning this campaign by focusing on the issues that actually matter to the American people," said campaign manager David Plouffe.
Pretty good. Even better because it was released so fast -- within the same news cycle.
But what happens down the road? Of course, there can be only one nominee. If Obama is it, he doesn't have to beat back Clinton on this.
But once this kind of toxic cloud is released into the atmosphere, it has a way of drifting and changing shape as it moves over the landscape. Even though Clinton would have lost, and despite the outraged denial of Obama's partisans, it doesn't mean the eventual Republican nominee won't use it.
In fact, you can be sure they will, because that is what Republicans do so very well. It isn't a question of WHETHER they'll do it; it's a question of how effective it will be and whether Obama can/will neutralize it effectively.
What, then, can we expect in six months -- or sooner?
First off, you won't "hear" or "see" much on the surface; Republicans don't use (or need) group blogs and YouTube videos to hash this stuff out. Instead they'll rely on a much older technique, but with a new twist: the whisper campaign, propagated via email. It is a stealth method that is hard to detect and even harder to stop, once it gets going. The very people it is aimed at are the ones that don't have the intellectual capacity to resist it. Salacious gossip, urban legends, half-truths, lies, it's all good -- just click the forward button. The recipient becomes a parasite for the virus.
Of course, the Republican nominee will help:
Republican Rudolph Giuliani says he respects Democrat Barack Obama for admitting he smoked pot and snorted cocaine during high school.
And that's the lede -- it's all you need. Copy and paste and forward. Giuliani doesn't leave any fingerprints. In fact, I'm pretty sure he never said the words "snorted cocaine;" that was the reporter saying it. And it's doubly good because Giuliani is admitting that he is no altar boy himself. The old-schoolers call this "slipping in the shiv:" the knife doesn't leave a visible wound but you start bleeding almost immediately.
Don't think Giuliani will be the nominee? No matter. Someone else has already figured it out:
"It's just not a good idea for people running for President of the United States who potentially could be the role model for a lot of people to talk about their personal failings while they were kids because it opens the doorway to other kids thinking, 'well I can do that too and become President of the United States,'" Mitt Romney told an Iowa audience today.
Considerably more high-minded but still damaging because now we're into a secondary argument: what should you tell the children? Tell them everything? Or not? This is damaging because, while the discussion is a valid one, every time it comes up it will be prefaced with a recounting of --- Obama snorting cocaine. Get the picture?
Not only that...
I can hear the questions now:
"Mr Obama, you have two young daughters. Have you told them you snorted cocaine? If not, when are you going to tell them you snorted cocaine?"
And so forth. Hope someone on the campaign has talked to Michelle Obama about this.
So...what's the solution?
Right about now, I can feel the Obama partisans' rising agitation. Hell, I'm with you. Obama's my first choice in this dog race. So believe me when I tell you that you CANNOT waste a lot of time in denial. If he gets the nomination, he will be hit with this. Better we should think through the best way to handle it.
P.S. If it isn't this, it will be something else. Remember who you're dealing with.
How to hack the smear...
Some of you are going to get even more agitated when I tell you this, but I'll be blunt: Obama's best weapon is ... Oprah.
Before you start rolling your eyes, hear me out.
Oprah is the zeitgeist. Oprah has massive name recognition. Nearly everybody loves Oprah. [Yeah, I know: you don't like her but Kossacks are in the minority, OK? Trust me. If we weren't, we'd be talking about President Feingold or President Dodd. But we're not. So go ahead -- Let the Edwards hate mail begin.]
If anything can neutralize that neanderthal whispering campaign thing, it's Oprah. She can do it because she understands the power of emotion in telling a story. And she has a very, very influential audience.
Remember: Republicans prosper through the emotions of fear, uncertainty and doubt. For Obama to overcome this, he needs a way to send an emotionally charged message in response. Oprah is all about emotional messages and stories. By getting his message out in that friendly environment, by getting in front of that very, very, influential audience, Obama will have his best chance to turn the tide.
The irony? Bill and Hillary Clinton wrote the book on this style way back in the day when they appeared, together, on 60 Minutes to send their own message. It was vintage stuff:
Bill Clinton: . . . You go back and listen to what I've said. You know, I have acknowledged wrongdoing. I have acknowledged causing pain in my marriage. I have said things to you tonight and to the American people from the beginning that no American politician ever has.
I think most Americans who are watching this tonight, they'll know what we're saying; they'll get it, and they'll feel that we have been more candid. And I think what the press has to decide is: Are we going to engage in a game of "gotcha"? . . . I can remember a time when a divorced person couldn't run for president, and that time, thank goodness, has passed. Nobody's prejudiced against anybody because they're divorced. Are we going to take the reverse position now that if people have problems in their marriage and there are things in their past which they don't want to discuss which are painful to them, that they can't run?
Time has blunted the impact of that appearance; partly because it was followed by another admission on national TV. In other words, we judge Clinton today primarily by what has happened since then. We judge him in hindsight. But at the time, his appearance with Steve Kroft of CBS was very, very, effective.
So there you have it: hacking the smear. A rapid response team isn't enough. Obama has got to be ready to tell a story with real emotional heft. Luckily he has the best and most friendly listener -- Oprah -- to help him if he needs it. He may not. But it doesn't hurt to have her ready and waiting.
I like his chances.
P.S. I couldn't resist this: in a curious foreshadowing of her crucially lacking political skills, the Clintons' appearance on 60 Minutes was almost immediately turned to crap by Hillary herself, when she said this in that faux Arkansas twang:
Hillary Clinton: You know, I'm not sitting here – some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette. I'm sitting here because I love him, and I respect him, and I honor what he's been through and what we've been through together. And you know, if that's not enough for people, then heck, don't vote for him.
Ouch.
Comments are closed on this story.