Tuesday, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) held a townhall-style talk on the campus. This is the question I put to him about the presidential race.
“Senator Cardin, could you give one positive and one negative about Sens. [Barack] Obama and [John] McCain that you, having worked with them in the Senate, would know but that we, having no direct contact with the two candidates, would not know? For example, how they think and how they make decisions, because over the next four years, a lot of unknowns will happen.”
The senator responded with, “Well, one positive of Obama is his ability to connect with people, the skill of reaching out and understanding the problems facing average Americans. That’s very important. As for a negative … You know, I really can’t think of anything bad about him.” The audience laughed. “As for McCain, I respect his independence, and a negative would be that I don’t agree with him on his policies, that his policies are wrong.”
Now, what is so special about this exchange, and what does it have to do with Obama’s weakness? For a moment after Cardin responded, I was satisfied with his answer. Soon after, however, I realized it was a standard politician’s non-answer to a question, with a funny line thrown in for good measure. It was short and concise, and it appeared as though Cardin would rather talk policy than take jabs at McCain.
How, I asked myself, would Obama have answered my question? He would probably mention the bravery and honor McCain displayed during his time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, waxing eloquent as he is known to do. Then, I suspect, Obama would have brought it back to McCain, describing him as the agent of the status quo and talking about how McCain’s presidency would simply represent the third term of President Bush. All this would have been presented in the thoughtful and almost prosaic Obama style we have become accustomed to. So, you ask, where is the Obama weakness – the flaw in speaking the truth and speaking it well?
As I digested Cardin’s curt, politically correct answer to my question, I realized how his response highlighted one of Obama’s greatest weaknesses. Anyone who watched the Saddleback faith forum with Rev. Rick Warren a few weeks ago recognized Obama’s answers to tough questions represented not just a thought process but a desire to be open and honest about what had led him to his beliefs – in short, to truly answer the question. In comparison, McCain’s blunt, one-dimensional responses gave viewers the sense that McCain knew what he was talking about and could express it clearly. Obama is intellectually superior, but he is worse at connecting with his audience.
For Obama to win the upcoming debates, he must learn when to evade a question and when to give a simple answer, when to be a professor and when to be a politician. He must frame his values and policies in sentences without commas or semicolons. Obama won more than 17 million votes in the Democratic primaries by rejecting the role of the typical politician using typical political tactics. It’s been a winning strategy for him. But if he is to win Nov. 4, Obama must boil down his eloquence, learning when to answer in monosyllables, what to evade and when to respond simplistically to induce a laugh, as Cardin did in our brief exchange. The lesson for Obama is there, and if he is to become president, it is one he must master.
Owen Andrews is a senior government and politics and history major. He can be reached at oandrews@umd.edu.
