Opinion
Join The Times' book club. This month's selection: "Cadillac Desert"
Opinion

Jonah Goldbeg: Obama's sideline strategy

Obama's in!

In truly unshocking news, Barack Obama emailed supporters Monday to let them know he was running for president again. "We're doing this now because the politics we believe in does not start with expensive TV ads or extravaganzas, but with you -- with people organizing block-by-block, talking to neighbors, co-workers and friends. And that kind of campaign takes time to build."

Don't get him wrong. There will be expensive TV ads and extravaganzas. Oh, yes. After all, what would an Obama campaign be without its outsized, world-historic, bread and circus spectacles?

In fact, that's the real point of Obama's early announcement: He needs to start raising hundreds of millions of dollars now if he's going to have those extravaganzas later. (Personally, I hope he makes another campaign stop in Berlin). And, thanks to FEC rules, he can't start the serious fundraising until he makes it official.

If it weren't for that, Obama would be delighted to stay on the sidelines because his whole reelection strategy requires going on semi-hiatus from the presidency. That's why he's been AWOL on the budget battles. It's why he's completely ignored his own deficit commission, and it's why he's been saying as little as possible on foreign policy. It's also why, last week, he accepted an award for government "transparency" in secret.

The White House has learned the hard way that it overexposed its biggest asset during his first two years in office, using him for countless supposedly "game-changing" speeches that changed little or nothing. He gave the most press interviews in presidential history, according to CBS' Mark Knoller. In 2009, he had 411 public speeches, comments and remarks, and 491 in 2010. But in 2011, we have what Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus calls a "Where's Waldo presidency" where "you frequently have to squint to find the White House amid the larger landscape."

You can even play "Where's Obama?" in the reelection announcement video. He never makes a personal appearance; you never even hear his voice. Though if you watch closely you can see some nostalgic photos from 2008. The wan video specifies no significant record or accomplishments. This was no updated version of Ronald Reagan's "Morning in America" ad, which for all its gauzy nostalgia actually had substance, touting record employment, home buying and much lower interest rates.

Even Obama's guru, David Axelrod, agrees Obama was overexposed, comparing it to how the Chicago Bears relied on legendary running back Walter Payton for everything. It "was Payton left and Payton right and Payton up the middle," he told New York magazine. "It became kind of a dreary game plan.... [In Obama] we have one of the great political performers of our time. But I think we degraded that to some degree by using him as much as we did in the ways we did."

The problem with the analogy: Payton was overused because he delivered. There's not a lot of evidence that Obama can be counted on to advance, never mind score, whenever you give him the ball. Nearly all of his victories have stemmed not from presidential persuasion of the opposition or the public but from relying on the congressional Democrats' majority. He gave 52 speeches on healthcare reform in 2009. It never got more popular. It passed because he shopped out healthcare to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, who relied on legislative skullduggery more than presidential leadership.

The fact that Obama's decision to intervene in Libya has produced no rallying around the president might also indicate that he should keep his head down. Or it might show that his bizarre approach to the conflict is as confusing to average voters as it is to everyone else.

Obviously, Obama fervently hopes the economy will at least "feel" a lot better by 2012. But that's a big if, given high unemployment and underemployment as well as the decline in real income and home values. Even if we get the jobs, Obama will have a hard time answering the "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" question.

I understand why Obama is lying low. What's less understandable is why so many Republicans are scared of him.

jgoldberg@latimescolumnists.com

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • The false populism of George Pataki

    The false populism of George Pataki

    I keep thinking we're done with George Pataki — but like an order of bad clams, he keeps coming back up on me.

  • Will Gawker go union?

    Will Gawker go union?

    As union membership declines, even modest unionization efforts take on symbolic importance. Each case seems like a sign of things to come. Success or failure at the individual level seems to portend success or failure for the broader movement.

  • Don't hide L.A. County's legal bills

    Don't hide L.A. County's legal bills

    Los Angeles County pays a lot of money to private law firms to defend against lawsuits brought by people who assert they were beaten, mistreated or abused while in custody, especially in the county's notorious jails. In order to adequately assess how well the county's sheriff and Board of Supervisors...

  • California agriculture: It's worth the water

    California agriculture: It's worth the water

    Pundits here in drought-stricken California have become fond of proclaiming that farms consume 80% of the state's water and generate only about 2% of its gross domestic product. "Why devote so much of our water to an industry that contributes so little fuel to our economic engine?" they ask.

  • Legalize lane-splitting, with some caveats

    Legalize lane-splitting, with some caveats

    On the face of it, it seems absolutely insane to allow motorcycles to ignore the lanes on the road and to whiz past cars by going between them. What if the biker misjudges and hits a car because he's too close on one side or another? What if a car moves a little to the left or right — still staying...

  • A hazy ruling on abusive speech from the Supreme Court

    A hazy ruling on abusive speech from the Supreme Court

    In overturning the conviction of a man who posted violent "rap lyrics" about his estranged wife and others on Facebook, the Supreme Court on Monday rightly made it harder to criminalize hateful speech. But the decision stopped short of requiring that prosecutors prove that a defendant intended...

Comments
Loading