Obama Foolishly Underestimates Press Foolishness

by publius

[UPDATE 10:00 CT: Ok, hilzoy changed my mind (she's frustratingly good at that). There's absolutely nothing sloppy about what Obama said when you read the whole passage. The press got Schmidt-Rolled today. It's a complete and utter farce. So scratch what I say below about Obama's sloppiness. The larger point of the post stands though -- Obama has a nuanced policy, but it's politically vital that he emphasizes the withdrawal side of that policy.]

When I first saw all the hysterical headlines this evening about Obama’s “refinement,” I got annoyed at Obama for being sloppy. As it turns out, I foolishly took these headlines at face value – bad idea [jeans]. When I actually read what he said, I realized that the press was largely fabricating a story out of nothing. Obama today said what’s he always said. Period. Full stop. The press is manufacturing a new story, with the help of GOP press releases (see Steve Benen for a fuller background).

But that said, I think Obama was uncharacteristically sloppy too. True, the media is terrible, but it’s often terrible in predictable ways. And today’s headlines (and the GOP attacks) were entirely predictable. So Obama should have been more careful.

To be clear, Obama’s policy is – and has always been – phased withdrawal with flexibility. Conditions on the ground have always been part of it -- indeed, it would be irresponsible if they weren’t.

But the real issue here isn’t policy itself, but policy emphasis. More precisely, the issue in the weeks ahead will be what aspect of Obama’s policy – the withdrawal or the flexibility – gets the most emphasis. To win the political battle, Obama must ensure that withdrawal receives more emphasis than flexibility. After all, the Bush administration has been citing flexibility to justify indefinite occupation for some time. That’s not Obama’s policy, and it’s imperative that he doesn’t let it get defined that way.

I’ll spell all this out in more detail below…

Remember that Obama’s going to get attacked either way. The GOP will either say (1) he’ll withdraw regardless of conditions on the ground; or (2) he’s flip-flopping and will not actually withdraw. Obviously, these arguments are mutually exclusive, though I’m not sure such puny logical obstacles will stop the RNC from raising them both.

Anyway, Obama can’t stop the attacks – that part is beyond his control. But he can pick his poison – i.e., he can influence the shape of the GOP attack to come. For instance, if he puts more emphasis on withdrawal, then it’s more likely the GOP would argue #1 – stubborn withdrawal regardless of conditions. If, however, he emphasizes his willingness to be flexible, the GOP will attack him as a flip-flopper.

With that in mind, I think he should emphasize the withdrawal and try to force the GOP onto that battlefield. Again, I’m not saying abandon flexibility – just emphasize the withdrawal, much like he did in the second press conference. Frankly, I don’t think the American people will be moved by the argument, “That Obama – he’s hellbent on getting us out of Iraq regardless of what’s happening.” Most Americans would probably respond, “good.” Plus, Obama can draw a very sharp contrast with McCain on this issue – and he could hopefully tie it in with larger arguments about the underlying assumptions of our foreign policy.

Those benefits all go away though if he chooses to emphasize his flexibility. The contrasts get blurred, and there’s less of a mandate to actually start leaving Iraq. In short, emphasis matters.

One last point – the other thing that annoyed me about Obama’s comments is that these attacks were entirely predictable. Hell, the McCain team has been salivating about the great flip-flop to come. That, coupled with an idiot press, should have put the Obama team on Defcon 4. They needed to be very careful about these inevitable questions – and they weren’t. True, the press has been absolutely terrible, but you usually don’t call emergency second press conferences because you so thoroughly rocked the first one.

Comments

[evie]

Agree one thousand percent. Obama's team handled this very poorly today, including with the follow-up presser. Neither facts nor reality matter to these people. All they care about is what is coming over the transom from the McCain team -- and if McCain calls a foul, they'll throw a yellow card. Simple as that.

The Obama people do many things right, but they still screw up with the media far too often.

[ThatLeftTurnInABQ]

With that in mind, I think he should emphasize the withdrawal and try to force the GOP onto that battlefield. Again, I’m not saying abandon flexibility – just emphasize the withdrawal, much like he did in the second press conference. Frankly, I don’t think the American people will be moved by the argument, “That Obama – he’s hellbent on getting us out of Iraq regardless of what’s happening.” Most Americans would probably respond, “good.” Plus, Obama can draw a very sharp contrast with McCain on this issue – and he could hopefully tie it in with larger arguments about the underlying assumptions of our foreign policy.

Color me unimpressed, both with this whole faux-controversy, and with hand-wringing and Monday-morning quarterbacking about how Obama could have handled it better.

Here's a novel concept: since Obama is going to be pilloried by the GOP and our McCain loving press corps no matter what he says, how about just spelling out what he actually is going to do when he is in office, and let the chips fall where they may.

And it looks to me like the answer is: evaluate the situation as it stands in late 2008 - early 2009, something which cannot be accurately forecasted now with any great precision, and then chose to do what is in our country's best interests at that point in time, broadly guided by the strategic idea that we should prepare to leave Iraq in the near future and can make better use of our limited resources doing something other than extending our current occupation indefinitely.

[publius]

yeah - as i mentioned in the earlier thread, the more i see the statement in full context, the more i think i'm being unfair on obama here.

i mean, check out hilzoy's post above which includes the full statement -- i'm not sure what exactly was so wrong about what he said. more to the point, it's hard to pinpoint a specific sloppiness there.

to be honest, it's looking more like mccain simply bullied the press into interpreting the statement in a favorable way. i mean, is there actually a "story" here?

[Gary Hussein Farber]

"As it turns out, I foolishly took these headlines at face value – bad idea [jeans]."

What does "jeans" mean here?

[liberal japonicus]

Gary, it's a SNL reference, if I'm not mistaken.

[Gary Hussein Farber]

"Gary, it's a SNL reference, if I'm not mistaken."

Thanks, LJ.

[John in Nashville]

"True, the media is terrible, but it’s often terrible in predictable ways."

They is? Media is the plural of medium. The proper pronoun in the above sentence is they're, not it's.

Writing "the media is" are careless grammar.

[John Spragge]

I see a specific problem here: I see no evidence the advocates of withdrawal have identified the central logical problem with occupying a country to foster democracy. A democracy (rule by the people) would mean the people of Iraq rule Iraq, which means that an elected Iraqi government, not the American government, has the final say over what goes on in Iraq.

If the United States has troops in Iraq that can override the choices made by the Iraqi government and people, then Iraq does not have a democratic government, but a colonial, or perhaps an occupation, government. John McCain's stated policy will not foster democracy; it will extend colonialism indefinitely.

[Anarch]

Media is the plural of medium.

It's also a collective noun, so the sentence is in fact grammatical.

[Gary Farber]

"It's also a collective noun, so the sentence is in fact grammatical."

You leftists just want socialism everywhere.

[Anarch]

In Soviet Russia, kolkhoz grammars you!

[rose]

----how about just spelling out what he actually is going to do when he is in office.----

Your comment seems to imply that he has not been clear in explaining his intentions with respect to troop withdrawal. I agree with you, but he's the only one who can make that happen. Putting the blame on the press or even the Republicans, isn't going to get it done.

[Rickster Sherpa]

Watching the news shows this weekend, and understanding the news media (a bias for McCain and a need to put together a narrative with the candidates fitting certain symbolic and stereotypic role) the media wants to portray Obama as a cynical flip-flopper versus John McCain's rock hard principle.