In my previous post, I mentioned that in political campaigns, one side will always try to tag the other with a moniker that will stick. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. People called George H.W. Bush “The Wimp.” Many have called Hillary Clinton a “Liar.” There have been monikers aimed at Senator Obama that have not stuck for most people: Messiah (close, and getting worrisome, but not for sane people), Marxist (c’mon!), racist (phooey). But now we have one: WEAK. It came up in editorial after editorial in the last few days. He won’t debate Hillary Clinton; this makes him look weak. He can’t control Rev. Wright; this makes him look weak. He can’t get the white working class vote–because he’s weak.
An early example came in 2007, but it didn’t seem like anything to worry about: “Aside from his inexperience, Barack Obama’s weakness has always been his insistence on tying his image and his campaign to a “politics of hope.” http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/clinton_ropeadopes_obama.html
Indeed, in Aug. 2007 there were a few references to Obama giving “weak” speeches (in Austin, for example), but a weak speech didn’t equal a weak man.
After Pennsylvania: “Obama’s weakness as a potential candidate in November may be beginning to surface.” The New Republic: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/04/exit-polls-reveal-obama-s-weaknesses.aspx
A pro-Obama blogger has recently asked “Is Obama Weak?” While her answer is no, she is responding to the increasing media moniker with which he is being tagged. http://tamarika.typepad.com/mined_nuggets/2008/04/is-obama-weak.html
The New York Times went at him today, and it will keep coming. As long as he refuses to debate in Lincoln-Douglass style debates, not only will his comparisons to Lincoln continue to diminish, so will his stature as a strong man.
Is the “weak” moniker fair? A while back I started to notice what I called wimpy behavior on the part of Obama: petulance when things didn’t go his way, an unwillingness to “fight” which is what one does when one has “opponents,” etc. Some people will argue that this is precisely why they like him; he doesn’t engage in “old politics.” But he does engage in old politics, and this has been shown enough times that I don’t need to repeat it here. What he does not do is “engage” with anything that appears hostile. His appearance on Fox News was one of his first deliberate forays into hostile territory and he did not exactly “slay the dragon.” Hillary Clinton ventured onto Olbermann, though, with smiles and confidence, even though he clearly would like to do more than give her a verbal beating.
“Weak” just might be the word. I wonder what implications that has? I haven’t thought through the discourse, only noticed it.
Will the DNC put him up for November against a man who is nothing if not the antithesis of weak? Only time will tell.
3 Comments
April 30, 2008 at 6:43 am
I am sure he is weak, but le bushie is also a weak man and Bill Clinton is, too. Maybe a weak individual can still be a good president if his principles are well developed and above all if he knows how to choose his advisors. — The strange thing about this Oabama phenomenon is in the institutional support that he must have obtained. What is it? Where is the realpolitik interest in his success?
Little more than one month ago I still read highly knowledgeable Google group particpants saying that Obama’s real aim is the vice-presidency.
April 30, 2008 at 10:34 am
Weak is a White Patriarchal concept. Obama’s strength is unfamiliar to those who have been socialized into a dominance and aggression system for hundreds of years.
Our strength as a nation will be to rid ourselves of that model and embrace unity and inter-dependence.
I wonder, are we “strong” enough to do that?
April 30, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Tamarika, I agree that “weak” is a patriarchal concept, though I am not sure it is limited to white. I have been watching this for a while, and I started to see “lazy” creep up–a word that has both patriarchal and racist connotations, but it was abandoned by the media. “Wimp” was used against Bush I very effectively, a guy who had been head of the CIA. But the implication is that a “weak” man can’t lead, can’t be a “father” to the nation.
Cantueso, it may be true that Bill Clinton was weak in certain ways (very tough in others) but the weakness I am referring to here is not “real” but “perceived.” I don’t think anyone in the electorate really knows what Obama is for sure or what kind of president he’d be. If Republicans can make him look “weak,” if that is what the conservative corporations who run the media are going to tag him with and the people tacitly accept it, it will hurt him.
As for who’s behind him–he has had a lot of corporate head do fundraisers for him, like the director of General Dynamics. It’s hard to imagine that GD really wants him in the White House, and I imagine they need McCain there in the end.