Despite their political differences with Obama, many conservatives and conservative pundits are reinforcing the liberals’ idea that Barack Obama ran an “almost flawless,” “brilliant,” “error-free,” or in (Steve Forbe’s words) “miraculous campaign.” Part of resistance to Obama should be deconstructing this aura of infallibility that even some conservatives are granting him.
The point of a campaign is to win, obviously–so Obama’s campaign was successful on that score. But brilliant? Flawless? Perfect? Please.
Obama managed to defeat McCain by 7 points after outspending him by hundreds of millions of dollars. McCain, meanwhile, captured a percentage of the vote 20% higher than George Bush’s approval rating. Considering the shroud of media-silence and naked cheerleading enjoyed by Obama, and McCain’s massive disadvantages in both money and the current political climate, McCain’s campaign was arguably the one that most surpassed expectations.
Using baseball as an analogy, here is how Obama’s campaign was perfect: the home plate umpire (the media), calls all of your pitches strikes. Even those pitches that hit the dirt, that role over home plate, that sail over the batter’s head, or knock the Cracker Jacks out of somebody’s hands sitting three rows up behind third base. Every gaffe, inconsistency, or outright falsehood perpetuated by the Obama campaign was either explained away or ignored. Meanwhile, those from McCain or Palin were magnified, attacked, and interpreted as evidence of a campaign in disarray.
The McCain campaign would have lambasted, ridiculed, and attacked had they promised to accept public financing and then managed to outspend Obama by hundreds of millions of dollars. Can anyone doubt it?
When Sarah Palin said that she’d paid for $35 for her wedding ring, multiple reporters were on the case–calling her friends, associates, and family members to “verify” this information. Meanwhile, entire years of Obama’s life were never investigated, or were actively covered up. McCain would never have gotten away with a speech like Obama’s Jeremiah Wright “race speech,” in which he said he could no longer disavow Wright than his own grandmother. Much less would he have seen such a speech praised as equal to or surpassing the Gettysburg Address. And he certainly wouldn’t survived reversing himself weeks later when he finally tossed Wright under the bus. A Republican candidate behaving like Obama did throughout the campaign would have been destroyed.
The story of the 2008 presidential campaign is one of the media providing protective cover and dragging a deeply flawed candidate over the finish line. It’s a story of creating, maintaining, and refusing to puncture a MYTH.
Obama succeeded simply because he was not PERMITTED to fail, and calling this “perfection” is simply to extend the harmful myth of Obama’s infallibility. A myth which ultimately does no favors to Obama, because building him up that high only leaves him farther to fall. It will be impossible to sustain this illusion once its accompanied by the responsibilities of power–although the media will no doubt try.
Steve Maley
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
Movement
Michael DeWeese (Diary) Friday, November 7th at 12:42AM EST (link)His campaign was a ‘movement’ and was self organizing. It was a loose organization of people that threw money at everything. He spent 4 times as much as McCain to get about 8% less votes than a generic democrat president should have gotten in a democrat leaning election year.
Brain Dead Republican
He also had to buy his people.
Joel Farnham (Diary) Friday, November 7th at 1:43AM EST (link)He had to buy his people. Never forget that. His “grassroots people” were bought and paid for. The people who tirelessy went from door to door.
They were paid to do it. That is a weakness we can exploit. It is a dreadful weakness.
Here is something to remember from Robert A. Heinlein, there is a distinct difference between a campaign follower paid to do it and a campaign follower doing it out of personal beliefs.
Call me what you want, just don’t call me late for dinner.
Obama also has better soft selling skills.
mom2oneson (Diary) Friday, November 7th at 2:58AM EST (link)He used assumptive closes and gave people pictures. He responded to people’s concerns like gas and housing and taxes. He talked about what life would be like under his presidency. He had the buyers imagine what it would be like under him. People could picture it and they wanted it. I don’t understand why McCain/Palin didn’t do that more. I heard McCain/Palin talk about Palin’s experience, that he wants to show her to Washington, her daughter’s pregnancy, McCain’s POW experience and Palin’s experience in Alaska. They did not seem to move to the next steps in the selling process like responding to the concerns of the buyer and giving the buyer a vision of having the product/president. I did see McCain do this Monday night I think in NM. That was the first time I saw him do it. He started talking about the problems in the SW and gave them a vision of life under him and I thought he should have done this the whole time. It seemed like for the first time he was specific enough to really get into people’s heads picturing their life under him.
Obama constantly asked for the vote, assumed the vote, and gave people a picture of what life would be like after they voted. He was very specific. Obama really set things up and when it came to it people were ready to buy/sign the deal/vote. They couldn’t wait to vote, they wanted that life that he promised them.
I totally disagree with him on his views but the man has great soft selling skills.
I appreciate what you're saying here, but...
Bill S (Diary) Friday, November 7th at 8:38AM EST (link)…you’re not backing what the title of your diary states. WAS Obama’s campaign just so-so or not? I am actually quite interested in the substance of O’s campaign, versus McCain. What (if anything) was better? Was it on-the-ground organization in the states? Use of technology (one of my particular interests)? Strategy? Leadership? How do those things differ from McCain’s?
Yeah, I understand that a lot of other factors led to Obama’s success, but I don’t think you’ve shown here that his campaign was NOT a significant factor. That’s a theory that needs exploring.
“It’s such a fine line between stupid, and clever.” – David St. Hubbins
Well...
PSDA (Diary) Friday, November 7th at 9:49PM EST (link)There’s much to be said about all of those things–and Obama’s advanced use of technology, his ground game, and all the rest was certainly a huge factor. What I’m suggesting, however, is that they wouldn’t have been enough, considering the candidate’s enormous flaws, without massive cover-ups and media distortion.