Obama loses ability to admit error

Jim Geraghty:

As Barack Obama’s campaign becomes defined by a series of embarrassments — his assessment of what small-town residents cling to, a mentor who believes the government created HIV, a friend of 20 years who takes to the pulpit and demands whites give up 401(k) accounts to atone for their ancestor’s racist sins, a wife who pledges to take away some people’s pie and give it to others, an associate who expresses no regret over planting a bomb in a Pentagon women’s bathroom, etc. — it seems mind-boggling that this candidate was once promoted as a healer, a unifier, and a groundbreaking, post-partisan leader.

But back then, not terribly long ago, it did seem like Obama could, at the very least, promote a tone of mutual respect, decency, and trust.

Perhaps one of the best examples of this came shortly after he was elected to the Senate. In 2005, he wrote his second book, The Audacity of Hope, and described an e-mail from a doctor at the University of Chicago Medical School. The message expressed how the campaign’s website made it impossible for the doctor, a pro-life Christian, to support Obama:

The reason the doctor was considering voting for my opponent was not my position on abortion as such. Rather, he had read an entry that my campaign had posted on my website, suggesting that I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.” He went on to write:

“Whatever your convictions, if you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded. ... I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.”

I checked my website and found the offending words. They were not my own; my staff had posted them to summarize my pro-choice position during the Democratic primary, at a time when some of my opponents were questioning my commitment to protect Roe v. Wade. Within the bubble of Democratic Party politics, this was standard boilerplate, designed to fire up the base. The notion of engaging the other side on the issue was pointless, the argument went; any ambiguity on the issue implied weakness.

Rereading the doctor’s letter, though, I felt a pang of shame.

Cynics will look at this and see only an early example of Obama’s rogue staffers, who seem to misstate his beliefs with bizarre frequency. But an abortion-rights-supporting politician expressing “a pang of shame” for the way his campaign had characterized pro-lifers struck a profoundly decent chord. The candidate had the language changed and responded to the doctor, thanking him. Obama seemed to recognize that he set the tone for his campaign, that the buck stopped with him, and that he had to accept a certain level of responsibility for an unfair and harsh portrayal of the opposition. The abortion debate will probably never see consensus, but civility would indeed be a major step.

And in a political culture marked by grandiose promises, outsized egos, evasions of responsibilities, and “I’m sorry if you were offended” apologies, there was something refreshing and honorable about an elected official who came out and said, “I was wrong” — and who could even express shame in a world that had seemed to become shameless.

But since the campaign truly began, that fundamentally decent vibe of “while I’m not solely to blame, I must acknowledge my own responsibility” has evaporated. As he finds himself in an increasingly tough primary fight and facing a tougher general-election foe than he expected, the candidate demonstrates a different approach. Now, when Obama is confronted with politically uncomfortable facts or questions, his first instinct is to assert that the questioner is wrong.

When a reporter for the ABC affiliate in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, asked Obama where his flag pin was, Obama’s answer inadvertently triggered a recurring issue on the campaign trail.

Had Obama said, “Yes, I forgot,” or “it’s still pinned to yesterday’s suit,” the issue never would have taken root. He could also have avoided the problem by saying he demonstrates his patriotism by his actions. Instead, he had to insist that the pin’s absence was a deliberate choice, and offer a justification. He said he felt the flag pin had become “a substitute for I think true patriotism,” perhaps unintentionally but clearly questioning the patriotism of those who still regularly wore flag pins.

...

Geraghty goes on to give other examples. Obama's denials come from a fear of admitting weakness and error that an opponent might jump on. They also come from a guy who is not as quick on his feat as someone like George Bush. Bush has a quick sense of humor that is often overlooked.

The flag pin issue reminds me of the former chairman of a large Texas bank who required all his employees to wear a Texas flag logo pin. He confronted one of his young bankers on they elevator one day as he fingered the guys lapel. The young banker clearly had a promising career ahead of him, as he looked down and said, "Darn. I must have left it on my pajamas this morning." Obama should have used that line.