Atrios raised a very good point over the weekend, which captures an important aspect of the presidential campaign: “95% of the time in politics, all that matters who is perceived as playing offense and who is perceived as playing defense. The details are usually irrelevant, although occasionally such things backfire. If you can get the press to report your team as playing offense, then you’re winning, and the team playing defense is seen as losing.”
Quite right. When Obama’s bitter flap flared up over the weekend, it was pretty obvious who was “winning”: Hillary Clinton was on the offensive, Obama was on the defensive. (I’m also reminded of the adage: “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.” And in this case, Obama was clearly, desperately, trying to explain.)
With this in mind, Obama decided yesterday that he wants to be on the offensive, too.
Noting the remarks, the headline in the Wall Street Journal read, “Obama Goes on Offense After Fumble.” I suppose that was the goal — to borrow Atrios’ observation, “If you can get the press to report your team as playing offense, then you’re winning,” or in Obama’s case, at least he’s making a forceful effort to stop losing.
There’s something else that stood out for me watching Obama play “offense” yesterday: he’s relying a lot on humor. In fact, it seems to be something of a trademark for him.
I’m reminded of some remarks Obama made in January.
Obama began by recalling a moment in Tuesday night’s debate when he and his rivals were asked to name their biggest weakness. Obama answered first, saying he has a messy desk and needs help managing paperwork _ something his opponents have since used to suggest he’s not up to managing the country. John Edwards said his biggest weakness is that he has a powerful response to seeing pain in others, and Clinton said she gets impatient to bring change to America.
“Because I’m an ordinary person, I thought that they meant, ‘What’s your biggest weakness?'” Obama said to laughter from a packed house at Rancho High School. “If I had gone last I would have known what the game was. And then I could have said, ‘Well, ya know, I like to help old ladies across the street. Sometimes they don’t want to be helped. It’s terrible.'”
A candidate can go a long way relying on a good sense of humor.
It’s actually the best way to go on the “offensive”; attacks can make people feel uncomfortable, but if you’re laughing when you’re doing it, the criticism is less jarring. Indeed, take a moment to contrast this with Clinton’s comments from Saturday, in which she accused Obama of being an “elitist,” out of touch with American values. It not only sounded like a Republican making an attack against a Democrat, it also sounded harsh and, to use the word of the week, kind of bitter.
Now, I realize that some of this is elevating style over substance. People can consider the merit of what the candidates are saying while on the offensive, and decide whether the attacks have merit or not. I don’t think there was anything factually wrong with what either of them said about the other.
But I’m also reminded that voters frequently (even routinely) consider favorability and likability when critiquing candidates. The media is following who’s on the offensive and who’s on the defensive, but the public is also paying attention to who’s getting nasty, and who has their audiences laughing.
Clinton actually has a great sense of humor, and surprisingly good comedic timing. Next time she goes on the offensive, she might consider borrowing a page from Obama’s playbook in this regard.
