Obama’s not your father’s Dukakis—and don’t you dare diss Michelle!
Remember one of the main agents of the downfall of Presidential nominee Mike Dukakis? It was his failure to respond with sufficient vigor to his wife Kitty’s rape-murder when posited as a hypothetical in one of the Presidential debates.
Here’s the story (strangely, it involves Susan Estrich again):
Because she knew the Willie Horton issue would be brought up, Dukakis’s campaign manager Susan Estrich had prepared with Bill Clinton an answer highlighting the candidate’s empathy for victims of crime, noting the beating of his father in a robbery and the death of his brother in a hit-and-run car accident. However, when Bernard Shaw, the moderator of the debate, asked Dukakis, “Governor, if Kitty Dukakis [his wife] were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?” Dukakis replied coolly, “No, I don’t, and I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life,” and explained his stance. After the debate, Dukakis told Estrich he was sorry and didn’t realize it was that question. Many observers felt Dukakis’ answer lacked the passion one would expect of a person discussing a loved one’s rape and death. Many—including the candidate himself—believe that this, in part, cost Dukakis the election, as his poll numbers dropped from 49% to 42% nationally that night.
Fast forward to now. Obama may not be much of a student of history, but I strongly suspect that, consummate politician that he is, he has closely studied the history of previous liberal Democratic campaigns and where they went wrong. Avoiding any sort of repeat of Dukakis’ downfall would naturally be uppermost in his mind.
Not much chance of that, folks. Obama’s vibe is very different. Mike was geeky, Obama masks what I believe might be his inner geek with a studied veneer of cool. Dukakis, on the other hand, was emotionally “cooler” compared to the extremely thin skin that Obama has demonstrated so far towards criticism.
Is that thin skin for real, or is it also a studied attempt to right a Dukakis wrong and come off as more able and willing to fight back, on behalf of his wife or otherwise? For reasons that escape me, many Democrats have a perception of their party and its candidates as too nice to effectively combat the attack machine of the nefarious Republican Party. On the blogs, at any rate, I’ve observed a great deal of cheering whenever Obama gets nasty: yeah, stick it to them for once instead of taking it on the chin (or some other body part) like all the other nice-guy loser candidates we’ve had.
We can debate all we want about whether Obama’s wife Michelle is fair game for political criticism. I think that all candidates’ wives are game, and whether it’s fair or not is a moot question. Anyone who enters the fray—even the great and powerful Obama—ought to know that, as I believe Obama actually does.
So all his “lay off my wife” talk (see also this, where he calls it “infuriating” and says she’s a “civilian” who “didn’t sign up” for this) is claptrap (and by the way, earth to Obama, you’re a civilian, too). The families of all those who run for office do indeed sign up for it, and they’d better be ready.
As is Obama, no doubt. I submit that not only can the feisty Michelle stick up quite nicely for herself—the woman’s a lawyer, for heaven’s sake—but Obama knows this. He is posturing politically to let us all know he is no Mike Dukakis, and he’s not going to take any of it sitting down—in a tank, or otherwise.
[NOTE: And yes, I know that Dukakis was standing in the photo in question. Poetic license.]
Good point, neo. I hadn’t considered that as tough guy,anti-Dukakis posturing. I thought it was just part of Obama’s general overruling of any criticism of himself and his campaign.
The biggest mistake with focus groups dictating behavior…..Is focus groups dictating behavior.
Who doubts it was a highly paid focus group that put Dukakis in the tank? (Pun intended)
I watched that debate…
Obama’s likely to make virtually the exact same gaffe in October, but he’ll of course be coached out of it, as you note.
*****
Side note:
Spencer Ackerman’s claiming Maliki’s “16 week” endorcement has repudiated the entire Bush foreign policy … Indeed, but will die at the Hague:
“Epitaph for Imperialism? Or, the Death of President Bush Foretold”
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/epitaph-for-imperialism-or-death-of.html
Standing on a box no doubt…
Greetings:
I kind of see it as one part affirmative action demand and one part “street cred”.
His toughness is all in his head and his mouth; he has girly arms.
I’d love to know the dyamics between Michelle and Barry on this.
I think BO has a well-stocked armory of verbal techniques to deflect criticism or hot issues. I suspect they were initially for personal protection as he made his way through college, community organizing , and then law school., but that they are now used very consciously in his political maneuvers. One thing is certain, his defense was not exactly Trumanesque (see Margaret Truman at Wikipedia).
I honestly think that there is not a lot of intellectual depth to Obonga. He’s published nothing of substance in the policy arena or in research. Making him an editor of Harvard’s law magazine was exceedingly generous, given the curious absence of any paper for publication. His two books are nothing to write home about.
It is an error to focus on style as his weakness. His weakness is not his style. It is his lack of depth in the realm of ideas and policy. A man in his forties who still believes in socialism or even New Deal statism is a poor student of history, philosophy, and economics. A man in his forties who has not evolved away from his earlier convictions is someone who has not tested his beliefs.
He would never obtain a security clearance. Should we give this man the keys to the nation’s defense if he probably would not even be considered fit to serve on an Intelligence Committee?
Ultimately, the real issue is US! Are Americans wise enough and studious enough to see beyond the style and look at the substance?
Apparently not, almost half the country have climbed on that bandwagon, and perhaps more into the global warming scam… We are a sorry lot.
I remember I was pulling for Jesse Jackson in 88′; my far Left days, how stupid … but forgivable 🙂
At least Jesse was 100% African American… Obi on the other hand is technically approximately 7% Kenyan African, 50% caucasion (hard leftist), and the rest Kenyan arab, aspiring to be the second black POTUS (after Clinton); The dimocrats have morphed into some kind of political farce, right out of a Batman movie, pushing every possible scenario that makes us unable to compete with OPEC oil for energy independence, thereby doubling, in just the last six months alone, the revenues for the enemy directly from our own pockets. Referring to B.O. as an authentic manchurian candidate is no kind of exaggeration.
I attended the fateful Dukakis – Bush debate at UCLA.
I was there via a press pass. Had I not been, I may well have shouted something out after Shaw’s obscene question. As it is, to this day, I regret that I did not.
Indeed the sense that Dukakis lost the election then and there was palpable in the room.
Here’s what Dukakis should have said:
Bernard, you know my stance on the death penalty. I am proud of it, of course, and have never shied away from discussing it and will be happy to do so again here tonight.
But before I do that, you will apologize to my wife and to the audience for having referred to her using that language. You should be ashamed of yourself Bernard. I know you know better.
But alas, Dukakis made it clear he was actually ashamed of his position on the death penalty. He was certainly unwilling to lose an election over it, even if it meant letting some cable news jerk spit in his wife’s face.
Shaw was promoted, I believe and spent a decade or so as something of an eminence gris at CNN. Liberal media? Yeah, right.
To this day the talking point isn’t how unprofessional and biased Shaw was, but how Dukakis let himself be scalped.
I love it when Liberals claim that the press does not have a Left bias because occasionally.. like once every 10 years, the press does its job and asks a tough question to a Democrat
The death penalty issue is a perfect example of how liberals tie themselves in knots adhering to a ridgid thought process to impress other liberals.
Dukakis gave an honest response, which exposed the absurdity of his position. While his fellow libs saw it as clearly a time to bob and weave and attack the question.
Wait what? How is opposing the death penalty absurd? I didn’t quite catch that. Maybe you should grab the human integrity to respect life and then get back to me.
Ooooh how the Leftist places himself in the position of moral arbitor and superior by denying justice.
One of government’s primary roles is to adminster justice. justice is precondition to any civil society.
Certain crimes, because of the damage they do to human life and society demand blood. That is integrity.
NEGRO: You and your ilk use shame as a weapon, cleverly so, since your crowd feels none and cannot be shamed. You also have no ability to ever make a sincere apology while demanding it of others.
To all the naysayers, it was a real and legitimate question: namely, would you really practice you preach?
Liberals love to solutions in the abstract that they themselves would be loath to implement in practice. For example, “Raise taxes! (Just not on me, or not in a way that my accountant can’t circumvent).”
Now it’s “You people need to start living less large and cut down on your carbon footprint. Oh, jeez, look at the time! Get my limo and entourage of idling SUVs over here to drive me to my private jet!”
On the death penalty the question to Dukakis was whether his opposition to the death penalty in the abstract would actually carry over to practice when one of his loved ones was the victim. In short, did he empathize more with the victim (the natural human response), or the criminal (a more typical Democrat response).
And he blew it.
His answer also gave insight into his character, and the electorate did not like what it saw: a weakling.
If he’d had any brains at all, he’d have said something like “I’d want to tear the criminal limb from limb, I’m ashamed to say, but think we need to rise above primitive notions of vengeance.”
I still wouldn’t have voted for him, because he was still a weakling, but it would have been a better response. At least he could subsequently raise the toilet seat without committing fraud.
Among the myriad things leftists fail to grasp is that social stability requires that justice be seen to be done. Giving rapist-murderers a slap on the wrist “time-out” will eventually lead to vigilante justice and social disintegration.
Dukakis, if I remember this right, belonged to Eastern Orthodox Chirch. This chirch officially do not oppose the death penalty, so his position reflects his personal conviction and is not a part of religious doctrine.
One of the most natural and strong human emotions is a naked hatred we feel against those who harm our beloved. We relegate the right of revenge to state and hope that it will not betray our expectation of justice. Removal of capital punishment from the law will lead more people to extract revenge themselves.
Obama is a presidential candidate. Every thing he says/does analyzed and assessed for its potential impact on others, particularly the voting public.
Ditto McCain.
Is any of this surprising?
Like I said above, I watched the debate, and nothing Bernard Shaw asked was untoward. He owed no one an apology, and to even suggest it is to say Democrats can’t be criticized for their hopeless policy of empathy, which gets people killed.
In honor of Bernard Shaw, the Are You Still Beating Your Wife Institute of Beanball Journalism is conducting the following poll. Please select the most suitable question for a presidential debate:
1. Mr. Huckabee: If your daughter was pregnant with her fourth illegitimate child, addicted to methamphetamine and unsure whether the father was the local Baptist minister, the singer in a touring funk band, the crack dealer on third street or you, would you consider allowing her to have an abortion?
2. Mr. Romney: If your son started an offshoot of the Mormon church and borrowed money from you to build a compound in the desert near St. George Utah, then amassed a dozen or so wives and stockpiled automatic weapons and 450 kiloliters of Nyquil — dont ask — would you be willing to order the FBI to fire on the compound, should your son refuse to allow them entry?
3. Mr. McCain, if your Bangladeshi son converts to Islam, would you consider waterboarding a good way to re-instill good Christian values?
4. Mr. Obama, we know you enjoy a good game of basketball, but do you like watermelon, fried chicken and white women?
Three of ’em are tough calls. One’s a given. /kidding!
In truth, I had hoped for a free exchange of ideas and perspectives between Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama, as promised during the primary struggle, It seems clear that such a spontaneous series of debates will not occur. Mr. Obama seems to be a very ordinary politician from Illinois but without much substantive experience or compensating intellect. One must be concerned about his associations with bizarre clergy, indicted developers who helped him buy homes, “retired” terrorists, and a very deep left of center series of positions. His unusual associations have all ended up beneath the campaign bus, but the deeply left positions remain. One must also be concerned about Mr. Obama’s uncertainty whether he visited “57 or 58 of the states,” or a recent and unreported unscripted comment to a group about how we need to worry about all the different “kinds of carbon,” and indications that he has no appreciation for the complexity of most other issues. The image of a contrived media candidate is emerging and Mr. Obama seems more like an empty suit than a worthwhile candidate.
Donald wrote
” Mr. Obama’s uncertainty whether he visited “57 or 58 of the states,” or a recent and unreported unscripted comment to a group about how we need to worry about all the different “kinds of carbon,” and indications that he has no appreciation for the complexity of most other issues.”
Or the most recent one I saw just this morning:
“The objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years.”
Either he is totally ignorant of the term limits of the presidency, which in itself is a scary thought, OR even worse he expects to be president for more than 8 years. It also points to me that he already assumes he is POTUS.
Why isn’t the McCain campaign all over these errors?? Obama is handing the election to McCain and they don’t even try for it!
I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on both the “57 states” and the “eight or ten years” as slips of the tongue, or thoughtless utterances by a tired man.
Having said that, I don’t see signs of a piercing intellect there, nor (more importantly) of good judgment, and that is disconcerting.
“”Why isn’t the McCain campaign all over these errors?? Obama is handing the election to McCain and they don’t even try for it!
Occam’s Beard””
I hear ya man. WTF are they waiting on? This sorta thing is exactly the reason why i don’t even open mail anymore asking for money from Republicans. I’m just sick of the ballessness (if thats not a word it should be).
The direction of this entire country is at stake. And these idiots act like they can’t help from shoving their heads up their *ss. Geeezzzz!
I remember that debate and I was shocked that Mrs. Dukakis was dragged in like that…reporter/moderator ethics at play there?
I don’t recall that Kitty D. was all that active in her husband’s campaign; certainly not after he named Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate.
But I have always been irritated at political wives
who get down and dirty and then get mad when they are treated as equals.
The last Democrat wife that had some class was Jacqueline Kennedy. After her grace under literal fire, no one can even come close to her in that department.
I wouldn’t call that “being dragged in.” Dukakis’s wife only arose in the discussion because she exists; she wasn’t being criticized. The question could equally well have referred to a Dukakis child. The point was whether Dukakis would maintain the fashionable liberal pose if he actually had a personal interest in the situation, i.e., would he walk the walk?
So I would distinguish that case from criticism of Michelle Obama, which in my view is entirely within bounds, as she is giving speeches for Obama. If she were home baking brownies criticism would be wholly inappropriate, and Obama’s remarks would be apposite. But she can hardly give a tub-thumping speech and then play the shrinking violet “civilian” who didn’t sign on for this and was dragged into it. That won’t wash.