Favorite

Obama shrugged 

Days after he’d been nominated by Democrats for president in the summer of 1988, while enjoying a double-digit lead in the polls, Michael Dukakis took what he fancied as a Trumanesque whistle-stop train tour.

Days after he'd been nominated by Democrats for president in the summer of 1988, while enjoying a double-digit lead in the polls, Michael Dukakis took what he fancied as a Trumanesque whistle-stop train tour.

The train dipped into the northeastern corner of Arkansas for one quick depot stop. It wasn't clear why.

Maybe he and his advisers surmised as follows: Since Dukakis's National Governors Association pal — a fellow named Clinton — was the governor there, then Dukakis might have a shot at those six Southern electoral votes.

He didn't.

I was plopped on this train and granted an interview with the Democratic presidential nominee. I asked Dukakis how he intended to fight back against the charge by Republicans that he was a “pastel patriot” who had vetoed the required recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the public schools of Massachusetts.

Dukakis replied curtly that his state supreme court had given him an advisory opinion that the bill was unconstitutional. He said no one would fall for such nonsense. He shrugged. I mean literally.

As I walked out of the rail car, an Arkansas Democratic official — no need to say which — looked at me and rolled his eyes. I don't think it was about my question. I think it was about the answer.

Sixteen years later, another Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, also shrugged — figuratively, if not literally. It was at the very notion that conservatives could discredit his war record.

All of that is to suggest that Hillary Clinton, who hasn't been right about much lately, and who seems unable to cement a voter connection, may in fact be on to something about this electability thing.

She says she's best for Democrats to nominate because, while she certainly carries her own negatives, she knows how the Republicans play and she will defend and counter-attack. She says Barack Obama may be a little green and naive when it comes to appreciating what will happen to him if he gets the nomination.

She says Democrats should not take that chance, because these stakes — the war, the economy, the very political culture — are uncommonly high.

Obama's counter-argument is that half the country loathes her and he is attracting independents and Republicans. He may be right. Democrats can hope so.

The pattern ought to trouble Democrats, though.

Obama has thus far exhibited some of the same shrugs as Dukakis and Kerry. These are shrugs that reflect dismissive, superior-minded contempt for what are seen as absurd charges. These are shrugs that fail to grasp that these absurd charges, left unanswered, can fester and get one beat.

For months, an e-mail campaign spread word that Obama was a Muslim; that he had declined to put his hand on the Bible to be sworn in to the U.S. Senate, and that he had refused to salute the American flag. It's all false, which is pretty much beside the point.

For months Obama went his merry way, apparently indifferent to the possibility that such things can achieve lives of their own and make differences in political races. The rumors persist still, and people you meet repeat elements of them as pure fact.

A woman tells me she guesses she'll have to vote for John McCain, since Obama is a Muslim. The fellow in the tennis league the other night, hearing a couple of us extol Obama's skills, said he'd never vote for a man who wouldn't salute the flag.

The Obama campaign says it's been hard at work discrediting these rumors. That's not evident. Results aren't discernible.

Now we have the clumsy indiscretion of Michelle Obama. She said that her husband's recent political success had given her a reason to be proud of her country for the first time in her adult life.

Maybe she just got carried away. We all slip.

Still, this was simply dreadful.

First, she seemed to have taken her husband's messianic mythology to a bit of an extreme. Second, her comment suggested that she's entirely too hard on her country, which is often not so good, but is always — in the broad context — a great beacon of freedom and strength and benevolence.

But bigger than any of that was this: It was politically perilous, potentially disastrous, especially on top of those vile rumors. And the Obama campaign oddly decided to dig in and try to defend the statement rather than send a contrite Michelle out promptly to confess and repent.

Notice how quickly the Republicans acted. John McCain's wife was taking on the statement within hours.

That's what Hillary was talking about. It's her best point. It's her only point.

Favorite

From the ArkTimes store

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

More by John Brummett

  • Obstruction is the preferred conservatism

    Is there greater conservative virtue in opposing federal health reform, period, or in saying it ought to be implemented locally instead of from Washington in the event we are unavoidably laden with it?
    • Oct 5, 2011
  • A fate not quite as bad as prison for Lu Hardin

    There is no crime in being overly and transparently solicitous for the purposes of aggrandizement and personal political advancement. That's simply acute neediness, a common and benign human frailty.
    • Sep 28, 2011
  • Can we talk? Can we get anywhere?

    Dialogue is good. It would be even better if someone would venture off script every once in a while.
    • Sep 21, 2011
  • More »

Most Shared

Latest in John Brummett

  • Gone to the DoG

    We're now longer carrying John Brummett's column in this space.
    • Oct 12, 2011
  • Obstruction is the preferred conservatism

    Is there greater conservative virtue in opposing federal health reform, period, or in saying it ought to be implemented locally instead of from Washington in the event we are unavoidably laden with it?
    • Oct 5, 2011
  • A fate not quite as bad as prison for Lu Hardin

    There is no crime in being overly and transparently solicitous for the purposes of aggrandizement and personal political advancement. That's simply acute neediness, a common and benign human frailty.
    • Sep 28, 2011
  • More »

Event Calendar

« »

October

S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31  

Most Recent Comments

  • Re: Trust and obey

    • A very timely and beautifully written piece. Indeed, the whole frightening paradigm is about preserving…

    • on October 15, 2017
  • Re: Trust and obey

    • Anyone else ponder how many times donald trump, playboy for five-decades, may have paid for/insisted…

    • on October 14, 2017
  • Re: Conspiracy theories

    • Here's the business end of the Politifact article cited above by Vanessa: "Newsweek's claim is…

    • on October 14, 2017
 

© 2017 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation