Obama's Game Plan
Tough, ruthless, hard-headed. These are words that come to mind when we think of politicians. These characteristics are what mainstream America seems to look for in a candidate. Candidates who show they have control by out-talking everyone else in a debate or clawing their way to the top by putting everyone else down, more often than not, tend to end up in the “w” category come election day. We, as voters, want someone in office who will fight and not back down on important issues. Yet, do we really want politicians to be rude, self-serving, and hard-headed? I think not. Yes, the hearty passion and ruthlessness can be fun to watch, but when we look past the entertainment point of view, I think we all could agree that we want someone in office who is able to communicate and work with others to change this country for the better.
In order for political communication to be ideal, according to the Rogerian Argument, politicians must not only articulate their own points of view, but understand and recognize where the opposition is coming from and, in turn, discuss mutual benefits of their collaboration. This civil communication is key to every politician’s success. Yet, in this 2008 presidential race, as well as in all other political contests, ahead of the ability of a candidate to use civil communication is the candidate’s ability to lead. Senator Hillary Clinton and her campaign crew have continually called out Barack Obama and his ability to fight for and lead this country. According to Time Magazine, Clinton charged that “Obama just isn’t man enough to protect the country from its enemies, foreign and domestic…you may like the music, but this guy is nowhere near tough enough for this job.”
It is true that Obama is not viewed as an “I’m the man” and “in-your-face” kind of guy. He takes a different approach in gaining respect and showing leadership. Instead of putting others down, he is more likely to use inspiration and intelligence to bring people together and lift them up for a common cause.
Time Magazine reports that at a debate in Chicago, Obama was told by his advisors to “get down, get dirty, get tough.” Yet one attendee said, “But he wouldn’t do it…Against all punditry, against the advice, against the history…It shows he understood his persona and the qualities that were implicit in it.” Obama told them, “If I gotta kneecap her, I’m not gonna go there.” Some may say this is weakness, to not go all out and hit the extremes to make a point, to win at all costs. Some may prefer a candidate like Hillary Clinton who remarked, “I’m prepared to do anything, including hand John McCain a grenade, to win this thing.” But I think it is a strength of Obama to rise above incivility, not be distracted by petty confrontations, and stay focused on his game plan.
Still, it is important for a leader to be strong and not be afraid to fight. Michael Duffy of Time Magazine points out that what distinguishes Obama is “how hard he has battled with out appearing to do so…His mild manner belies self-control. The frequent self-mocking conceals a stubborn self-confidence.” Barack Obama displayed his self-confidence after he lost in the 2000 election for state senate. Instead of giving up the fight and lying down, in 2002 he tried another bid, this time for the U.S. Senate and won. In his current campaign, he continues the battle as he challenges his opponents to bring out the truth. For example, he and his staff are “pressing for Clinton to release her tax returns and peel back the secrecy surrounding who has given what to the Clinton Library” (CNN). Obama is attempting to “bring out the contrasts with out becoming a political attack dog.” He refuses to fall into the gap and become “just another grubby politician” (CNN). As the Rogerian Argument advises all politicians to do, Barack Obama treats his opponents as participants in the decision making process. He argues, but in a civil manner. Cass Sunstein, a former colleague, commented that, “His decision-making process requires him to see the other side’s arguments in a sympathetic light so he can say, ‘I disagree, but I understand the opposing view.’”
As the presidential battle goes on, Obama looks to be the head runner as he continues to fight strong. History has shown that many of the politicians who have had success in the past were the ones who were able to distinguish themselves by cutting down others, often in an uncivil manner. Yet, here we are in 2008 and the politician ahead of the game is one who chooses to rise above, in most cases, incivility and focuses on the game plan. Incivility has worked in the past, but maybe civility can work in the future. Maybe Obama really can bring about a change we can count on.
In order for political communication to be ideal, according to the Rogerian Argument, politicians must not only articulate their own points of view, but understand and recognize where the opposition is coming from and, in turn, discuss mutual benefits of their collaboration. This civil communication is key to every politician’s success. Yet, in this 2008 presidential race, as well as in all other political contests, ahead of the ability of a candidate to use civil communication is the candidate’s ability to lead. Senator Hillary Clinton and her campaign crew have continually called out Barack Obama and his ability to fight for and lead this country. According to Time Magazine, Clinton charged that “Obama just isn’t man enough to protect the country from its enemies, foreign and domestic…you may like the music, but this guy is nowhere near tough enough for this job.”
It is true that Obama is not viewed as an “I’m the man” and “in-your-face” kind of guy. He takes a different approach in gaining respect and showing leadership. Instead of putting others down, he is more likely to use inspiration and intelligence to bring people together and lift them up for a common cause.
Time Magazine reports that at a debate in Chicago, Obama was told by his advisors to “get down, get dirty, get tough.” Yet one attendee said, “But he wouldn’t do it…Against all punditry, against the advice, against the history…It shows he understood his persona and the qualities that were implicit in it.” Obama told them, “If I gotta kneecap her, I’m not gonna go there.” Some may say this is weakness, to not go all out and hit the extremes to make a point, to win at all costs. Some may prefer a candidate like Hillary Clinton who remarked, “I’m prepared to do anything, including hand John McCain a grenade, to win this thing.” But I think it is a strength of Obama to rise above incivility, not be distracted by petty confrontations, and stay focused on his game plan.
Still, it is important for a leader to be strong and not be afraid to fight. Michael Duffy of Time Magazine points out that what distinguishes Obama is “how hard he has battled with out appearing to do so…His mild manner belies self-control. The frequent self-mocking conceals a stubborn self-confidence.” Barack Obama displayed his self-confidence after he lost in the 2000 election for state senate. Instead of giving up the fight and lying down, in 2002 he tried another bid, this time for the U.S. Senate and won. In his current campaign, he continues the battle as he challenges his opponents to bring out the truth. For example, he and his staff are “pressing for Clinton to release her tax returns and peel back the secrecy surrounding who has given what to the Clinton Library” (CNN). Obama is attempting to “bring out the contrasts with out becoming a political attack dog.” He refuses to fall into the gap and become “just another grubby politician” (CNN). As the Rogerian Argument advises all politicians to do, Barack Obama treats his opponents as participants in the decision making process. He argues, but in a civil manner. Cass Sunstein, a former colleague, commented that, “His decision-making process requires him to see the other side’s arguments in a sympathetic light so he can say, ‘I disagree, but I understand the opposing view.’”
As the presidential battle goes on, Obama looks to be the head runner as he continues to fight strong. History has shown that many of the politicians who have had success in the past were the ones who were able to distinguish themselves by cutting down others, often in an uncivil manner. Yet, here we are in 2008 and the politician ahead of the game is one who chooses to rise above, in most cases, incivility and focuses on the game plan. Incivility has worked in the past, but maybe civility can work in the future. Maybe Obama really can bring about a change we can count on.
posted by Maureen Burke | 8:08 PM
7 Comments:
Maureen's analysis of Obama is interesting because his passivity and refusal to mudsling directly coordinates with the Ohio debate we just viewed in class. Some classmates felt that Clinton's strong attacks marked her as the leader in the debate, while others felt Obama's more cordial and genial approach to dealing with Clinton, saw him as the "bigger man" and victor. It is a tough call, but as noted in this article, Obama is as of right now leading in the poles, pointing to the fact that he is sure doing something right with this sort of passive approach.
As I couldn't directly state my opinion in class today, I agree that Obama was much more poise than Clinton and won the debate in my mind. I agree with Maureen when she points out Obama takes a civil approach and gains respect. During the debate when asked a question, Obama addressed both moderators equally. Clinton only addressed the one moderator and the camera. Her nonverbal communication even comes off with a rough disruptive attitude. Recently, Hillary has also mentioned choosing Obama as her vice presidential nominee. By doing this, I think she is hinting to on the fence democrats that if they vote for her, they will get both candidates. Obama keeps rallying to supporters that he is in first place, not second and to vote for him for president of the united states and nothing less. He also made the comment, "I don't know why the person in second place is offering the vice presidency to the person in first place".
Just to bring up another point about Obama's political poise and style, I really think he is appealing to a new era of voters. I believe that people today are so cynical about the media and politics that they want nothing to do with it because of its "do anything to be on top" attitude. Obama's "silent confidence," some may call it, is really appealing to the cynics out there i think.
One thing that is interesting is he hasn't had to be tough and hard-hitting. His surrogates are doing that for him. Sure, they might have to resign, like the woman who called Clinton a "monster", but it makes him look clean while there are a few bad apples in the bunch.
I think that while in many ways Clinton struggled, she won overall in the debate when it came to issues. She has the facts behind her; but, then again, this isn't a population that historically goes with the less personable,yet pointedly correct in many ways, candidate. They want someone they can "trust" or feel comfortable with. This is a fact, if that means anything.
I'm sure that you might think Barack is the frontrunner. Well, here I am, home on Friday, watching Hannity & Colmes and guess what? The entire is based on Barack Obama and his Pastor Jeremiah.. ah I forget his last name. I really hope that this will be posted on YOUTUBE because it's only been on for ten minutes and there was already a stern confrontation/yelling match between two of the guest analysts talking about this development.
Anyway, I really think that this is going to have some major implications on Barack's campaign. This Pastor is on his campaign staff, and his track record is filled with racist leaders all over the globe. I did not recognize the name of the frontrunner of foreign leaders that this Pastor openly supports, however, a brief history by Sean Holmes really made me perk up.
In addition to the racist remarks that this Pastor has said that America not only bombed Hiroshima but the Twin Towers.. ya, Like I said, I will re-post once I find this clip on YOUTUBE. However, I've seen the clip twice already, and I'm sure FOX NEWS will air Pastor saying this on CAMERA!!!
* ah, i mean SEAN HANNITY. I was too excited to be typing!
I think Lynda makes a good point about how Obama is gearing himself towards a new voting group. We talk constantly in many different classes how cynical everyone is about politics and big media conglomerates, he is one person who is going against the current in this one. Obama is taking an approach that seems, to the public, to be more passive, but working in a more aggressive way. He is getting the job doen and winning the hearts of the country with out taking out other candidates by the knees. He is doing it with such a poise.
After reading alli's comment though it seems like Obama may have us all a little sheltered. We believe what he says because he says it with such elegance, but his supporters and surrogates may be more racist and more agressive then we think. What does all of this then tell us? We need to be more critical about who is supporting who, what the candidates are saying and what their surrogates are saying. We can't just focus on the small things that the media blows out of proportion, but we have to also take into consideration things the media are not really telling us or keeping on the back burner. This election may take more work from the voters of american then ever expected before.
Post a Comment
<< Home