President Obama will take his traveling Skillful Oratory Show to Massachusetts today. I’m sure he dislikes the circumstances under which he must travel to the Bay State—state-wide disillusionment and anger with an overreaching Obama agenda combined with a gaffe-prone Democratic candidate, improbably turning Teddy Kennedy’s state into a battleground. But, let’s face it, the stump is where he feels at home, and he’ll likely deliver quite a speech today, full of the jaunty audience interaction, lilting preacher speak, and lofty calls to arms we know so well.
But isn’t it a problem, at this point, that we do know them so well? A year into his presidency, even the AP has begun to pick on the prez’s verbal tics:
It’s not just that the president’s words and phrases are often the same. They are, but that is forgiveable. What’s more problematic is that the message crafted by those words is almost exactly the same as it was in August of 2008. Things have certainly changed since he was elected—the unemployment rate, the nation’s deficit, the American people’s patience with sweeping liberal overhauls, and confidence in the government to make any of it better—but Obama’s stump message has not changed with the times.
To an increasing degree, when he hits the trail, Obama’s overdone message of “new politics” and “change” paradoxically highlights how tired and status quo are the candidates he’s supporting.
When Obama was campaigning for an uninspiring Democratic gubernatorial candidate blanketing Virginia with negative advertising, he touted the “smart decisions and sound investments and renewed civility to our politics.”
Anyone who had paid any attention to the race, even Democrats, would have conceded it was actually Republican candidate Bob McDonnell talking solutions over personal attacks, taking that above-the-fray, hopeful Obama approach to advertising and speeches. To be sure, a wide lead gave him the luxury of striking that posture, but the fact remained that Obama’s rhetoric was referring to the wrong man:
Creigh Deeds?
But at least Deeds was a new-ish candidate, even if he was running to replace a Democratic governor (in Virginia, governors can serve only one term).
The “change” message was even more jarring when applied to incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey. Corzine may be a lot of things, but he’s hardly a symbol of ethical renewal. Nor is the state’s Democratic machine the pinnacle of Obama-brand “people power.” But no matter. The rhetoric was applied, liberally, at a rally in New Jersey:
But here’s the thing. New Jersey now has a governor who’s bucking that trend, who’s refusing to go along with business as usual. He’s telling the truth about the challenges you face and he’s making every effort to meet them. And I’m here today to urge you to cast aside the cynics and the skeptics, and prove to all Americans that leaders who do what’s right and who do what’s hard will be rewarded and not rejected.
Part of the reason there were cynics in New Jersey that night is because they live in New Jersey and had Jon Corzine as a governor. They knew very well that Obama’s mere presence would not wash away the “old-style” politics there any differently than it did in Washington. They knew Jon Corzine wasn’t the guy to try, as they proved at the polls, electing Republican Chris Christie by six points. But Obama was full steam ahead on the inspiration, no matter how little it applied:
You can change the world by re-electing this incumbent, lackluster, and occasionally corrupt Democratic governor of New Jersey.
Can one blame voters if the Obame’s old-style rhetoric didn’t match up with their new-style angst? In speeches in Virginia and New Jersey, Obama repeatedly talked about candidates who create “real solutions to real problems,” but he himself is applying 2008 rhetoric to 2010 campaigns.
He’ll do the same thing in Massachusetts today.
Will he tout “civility” and “new-style” standing next to the woman whose campaign sent the notorious Massachusetts Rape Mailer? Will he bash Washington elitism and the entitlement of politicians as he stumps for the woman who thought she’d mosey through a cakewalk on her way to “Teddy’s seat?” Will he claim that stubborn adherence to a sweeping health-care overhaul for more than a year as it grows unpopular even in Massachusetts is “pragmatic,” “non-partisan,” or represents “change?”
I imagine he’ll do all those things. He’ll talk about the mop he’s had to pick up to clean the mess left for him. He’ll concede that things are hard everywhere, not just Massachusetts, but there seems to be some “selective memory about who got us in this situation.” He’ll close with an emotional call to arms—”knock on doors, one voice, change the world, etc.”— but likely won’t be able to hit those notes quite the way he used to. It was clear in his web video for Coakley this week, that it’s hard for him to convince even himself that she’s “the one we’ve been waiting for.”
Obama’s 2008 rhetoric worked in 2008. His mere presence could change minds and rally millions then. Since then, his words and presence have not delivered the Olympics, an agreement on climate change, Iranian cooperation, Virginia, or New Jersey.
In Massachusetts, no matter what he says, Obama will find that it’s not his crowd that’s “fired up and ready to go.”
