Presidential Politics - Obama’s Response to Attack
22nd January 2008
As I’ve noted much earlier, based on my forceful, relentless, and unique method of analysis, I’m predicting that Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani will win the nominations of their respective parties and that Senator Clinton will win the general election. Until everyone in the race wakes up to this unavoidable persuasion truth, we continue the charade that these primaries actually matter. Sigh. Onward.
Currently, Clinton hammers away at her nearest competition, Barack Obama, and based on results in Nevada and New Hampshire, the attacks are working. The interesting persuasion question here is: What is Senator Obama’s method of defense? Here’s a quote from the New York Times that seems to be (from my general reading of many sources) the basic tactic.
Mr. Obama, asked in a brief interview whether his rivals had distracted him from making a positive case to voters, snapped: “Why would that rattle me? My suspicion is the other side must be rattled if they’re continually saying false things about us.”
The key phrase here is “saying false things.” Obama seems to think that when the Other Side makes arguments against you, the best persuasion response is to relabel those arguments as “false.” This has been a consistent line with Mr. Obama since Mrs. Clinton began to argumentatively dispute Obama’s issues and positions. When the Other Side makes a negative claim about me, respond by saying the negative claim is false.
As a persuasion expert extraordinaire, I must admit to being perplexed at this tactic. I’ve noted in the past with great embarassment, I did not attend Harvard or Law School, and maybe in my 30 year career as a persuasion maven, I missed the line of research that supports the “it’s false” line of defense against attacks. Nothing in my vast, deep, and complex reservoir of persuasion wisdom suggests, nay, whispers that when the Other Side is raising negative arguments about you that the best persuasion tactic is to, in essence, throw a yellow flag, and call the play, “false.” My sports metaphor is most apt in this instance as Mr. Obama seems to think that in politics there is an official referee and that he can play that role, too. Hey, that claim is out of bounds, 15 yard personal foul, play on.
Generally speaking the evidence strongly indicates that politics is like a knife fight - you know you are going to get cut, so just expect it and deal with it. The most common response is, therefore, cut back in response. (The theatrical sigh of unsophisticated observors about “going negative” is the mark of someone who’s never been in knife fight.)
The newest tactic is inoculation and you can read all about it. Basically, you use inoculation in advance of the knife fight and the anticipated cuts you’re going to receive. The tactic aims at reducing the damage or deflecting the attack. Perhaps the greatest example of inoculation comes from none other than former President Bill Clinton in 1992 and his infamous “woman problem,” then with Gennifer Flowers (how about that for a flashback?). Ms. Flowers let it be known privately that she was about to go public with allegations of an adulterous relationship with Candidate Bill Clinton early in the 1992 primaries. The Clinton campaign used this private knowledge to make a hasty appearance on the TV show, “60 Minutes,” literally the night before Ms. Flowers called her press conference. We know how it all worked out. Inoculation works.
Yet, Senator Obama appears to have superior persuasion knowledge and the “it’s false” defense. I wonder if he picked it up while watching “Cops” on TV. Doesn’t it seem that most of the suspects try to use the “it’s false” defense?
Past the bad kidding here, this looks like the response of an unexperienced, untrained, and unschooled persuader. Mr. Obama has been noted as a compelling speaker, but he clearly lacks basic persuasion skill. He orates effectively, but he can’t take a punch very well. Stated another, old fashioned way (with a tip of the hat to Aristotle) Senator Obama is good at ceremonial speaking, but not at political speaking.
I’m probably more than a little biased here because of my predictions, so take this with a grain of salt and a little patience. If Mr. Obama doesn’t come up with some besides “Hillary is lying about me and so is her husband” then he should be giving a speech something like Fred Thompson did today. And if Obama defies persuasion gravity (and my expert prognostication) and wins, well then, maybe I’m applying to Harvard. Go Crimson! Rah! Rah! Rah!