The murkiest of murky waters

I'm not sure why the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is doing a speaking tour right now or what occasioned his recent controversial remarks at Washington's National Press Club. From a media relations perspective though, it's fascinating to watch this scenario play out.

From the very little I've read and seen, Barack Obama is rapidly painting himself into the 'can't win' corner, not as a result of his association with Rev. Wright or his attendance at the United Church of Christ in Chicago, but because his communications advisors aren't giving him the advice he needs to hear. Either that or he's not listening to them (some clients are like that, which makes one wonder why they hire consultants in the first place), or they are actually giving him bad advice.

I can only speculate about why Obama doesn't seem to understand that while some crises occur without a great deal of warning (think the sinking of The Titanic), most start out as issues that are improperly managed. Their growth can be slow, steady, and trackable, or they can erupt like the fires in a peat bog, the ones that burn underground for days, weeks and months and burst out after all the firefighters have gone home. It may well be a facet of Obama's character that he speaks first and thinks second, or thinks only after someone has pointed out the consequences of his statements. Certainly his remarks regarding the working class at the fundraising dinner seem to have been a case of his desire to play to his particular audience and laugh at his own jokes overriding his better judgment.

It may also be the result of some peculiarity of political communications advisors, whose career aspirations are so closely linked to the candidate's. Perhaps it's more difficult for them to get out of order-taker mode and into consultant mode, so they can tell their 'client' (Obama) what he needs - but undoubtedly doesn't want - to hear.

But the fact remains, even if the Rev. Wright decides to take a sabbatical and visit another country for the next six months, or takes a vow of silence, or [substitute other potential event that could remove him from the media spotlight], the issue of Obama's association with Wright - which as a member of the congregation includes taking spiritual advice from a man who may well be misunderstood but does seem to be a pretty loose cannon and not what I'd call a 'media natural' - is never going to go away. That's the sad thing about issues in the age of the internet: they're always there waiting to resurface.

Media reports indicate that Obama's initial response to some of Rev. Wright's most recent controversial remarks on race and disease was somewhat jocular and dismissive, and only in his second round of media interviews on the subject did he actually censure the remarks Wright had made and attempt to distance himself from his pastor. Obama's excuse: he hadn't actually seen the coverage or heard the precise words when he spoke first.

The next day, after he had heard exactly what Wright did say, Obama's reaction was to angrily paint his spiritual leader as a 'divisive' individual and a negative factor in the presidential campaign overall.

Someone on Obama's communications staff needs to learn what a holding statement is and how to use it. And Obama himself needs to learn to curb his tendency to be dismissive and flippant, because it's not playing well in the international media or with voters. He seems to be playing to the media, his imagined buddies, rather than talking to his would-be constituents. And as a result he's alienating both. He also needs to learn that there's nothing wrong with saying, "I don't have all the information I need to answer that question but I'll do my best to answer it as soon as possible." All Obama needed to say in his first round of interviews was, "I haven't heard Rev. Wright's remarks myself and I'd like to review them before I respond to your questions. Let's talk about this tomorrow - my staff will be happy to set something up." And then move on - quite literally in this case.

Is that too simple? Perhaps it is, and perhaps that's why it hasn't occurred to Obama or his advisors that it's also the right response. Remember that expression, "Poor planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on mine"? Journalists have deadlines and as a media relations practitioner I like to respect those deadlines and work with them. But a scrum is very different from a press conference, and if you haven't scheduled a press conference, you don't have to get into it with reporters before you've had a chance to gather the information you need (not to mention your thoughts). Better to say something, yes - 'not available for comment' or 'didn't respond to our request for an interview' are lines that make me cringe whenever I hear, read, or see them. But by being open, honest, and transparent, by not even trying to be a 'media cowboy', you're not going to have that said about you. Because you did respond - you just didn't say much. And that's ok, particularly when you sense that you don't have all the relevant facts at your disposal.

And yes, of course, if Obama had used the wording I suggest, reporters would have started telling him what Wright had said. At which point Obama should have reiterated, "I'd like to review the reverend's remarks myself - let's talk about this tomorrow." The questions would have continued until he said the same thing three times. And then they would have stopped when reporters realized this was really all they were going to get right now, and that pushing it would only alienate Obama and they don't really want to do that. Because they're going to want to talk to him next week and the week after, and journalists can't afford to burn bridges with people they need to interview.

Think of it this way. If your kitchen sink suddenly springs a leak, you're probably going to need to call in a plumber. You can call in the middle of the night, pay emergency rates, stay up the rest of the night biting your nails while waiting for help, and watch the water damage your hardwood and your carpets. Alternatively, you can turn the water off, mop up the mess, put a thick towel down in the area near the leak, go back to sleep, and call a plumber in the morning. If you follow the second course of action, you won't have solved the problem immediately, but you've contained the mess, ensured no more damage is being done and that the mess isn't going to get any bigger.

One of the ways you can tell Hillary Clinton really is the more experienced candidate was her response to - well, now the phrase 'the Bosnia boo boo' has popped into my mind I can't think of any other way to describe it. Her explanation wasn't particularly convincing, but it was prompt, forthright, and conclusive. Less than 24 hours after she got busted about the circumstances of her arrival in Bosnia, she was out there owning up and acting like an adult. Much as I dislike the ambivalent phrase, 'I misspoke' (in fact I was so astonished to hear it that I had to look it up to make sure it was actually a word), it was the correct one to use in the circumstance, sitting on the fence as it does between 'being mistaken' and 'having lied.' It can't have been an easy statement to make, and she did sound a little defensive when she went on to say that she was actually human and made mistakes. But what Hillary did very right in that situation was to then take charge of the interview and say, in effect, 'Regardless of the mistakes I've made, that's not what we're here to talk about. We're here to talk about what we need to do to make America a country all its citizens can be proud of, not just the privileged few.' Because that's what an American presidential election really is about. And that was a paraphrase of the gist of her remarks, not an actual quote.

I'm posting the link (but not embedding the video) to a singularly horrific interview with Rev. Wright. I have to say, I feel sorry for everyone involved with this interview: the reporter, the preacher, and the guy who actually feebly tries to put the United Church of Christ's statements on its web site into some sort of context. I never thought I'd feel sorry for a Fox reporter, but everyone involved with this interview has lost the plot. I'm thinking of using the line, 'I used to be a seminarian' to replace 'I used to be a contenda' in my impromptu comedy routines. As for Wright - challenging an already hostile reporter? Refusing to actually answer the question and repeatedly posing one of his own, then trying to make it sound like the interviewer was being mean to him? If I'd been the interviewer I would have cut the sound on Wright's mic as punishment for not actually engaging in a conversation and for answering every one of his questions with not just a question, but a challenge. Which is, I guess, why I'm not a journalist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNTGRL0OJWQ

Political spoilers

More pods in the Park, originally uploaded by The River Thief. Copyright Ruth Seeley 2008

I am going to revisit my post about our Canadian federal leadership at some point, but I'm also going to break yet another of my silly rules and talk briefly about the American leadership race and the upcoming November election.

Ralph Nader has 'declared' again and really, this is all this race needs, a second spoiler candidate to split the left-of-centre vote. If John McCain ends up president of the United States, the first two people I'm going to blame will be Ralph Nader and Barack Obama.

I realize politics is a blood sport, and that the complications of the US political system (which we studied in school but as Canadians used to a multi-party system I think most of us dismissed as - well - far too complicated for its own good or for our understanding) mean there may be some sort of subtleties I'm missing. Let me also state that I'm not Hillary Clinton's biggest fan. It's more a case of wanting to like her than of my actually finding anything she says or does inspiring.

Here's the thing though: Ms Clinton has been nothing but transparent about her intention to run for president ever since she first entered the political arena in her own right. Correct me if I'm wrong, but she was the first candidate to declare that she was going to seek the Democratic nomination in 2008. I'm not going to call Barack Obama names or say he's a Johnny Come Lately. I will call Ralph Nader The Spoiler, and his comment about the fact that the Democratic Party can't get it together and his cynical addendum that if it hasn't managed to get itself together in the eight years of Bush rule it should just implode because it's irrelevant was highly self serving. Nader doesn't play well with the other children and I'm sorry, but I think his refusal to either change the political process in the US so a multi-party system is adopted or play by the rules and actually seek the nomination of one of the two parties that are mandated to represent its citizens is just churlish. In fact, I think it's childish.

But I also think it is extremely unfortunate that Barack Obama has chosen to run in this particular election. I don't think American Democrats should be facing a choice between electing the first female president in their nation's history or their first black president. The primaries to date indicate that voters are almost equally split between these two candidates. In the Canadian system this wouldn't be so much of a problem, because at a national convention with multiple ballots, the leader would have been selected a long time ago. Obama, Clinton and Edwards would all have made good showings on the first ballot, and by the third or fourth ballot they would have been the only three candidates left, with Edwards functioning as King- or Queen-maker, throwing his support to either Obama or Clinton or setting his delegates free to choose one or the other. And then everyone in the party would have started to focus on what really matters: getting a Democrat elected this time around. Because that is what matters. And if another Republican president is elected this time around, I may change my mind and agree with Ralph Nader. Because this is just getting stupid: a country heading into recession because it's spending billions waging war halfway around the world while its own citizens have 'democracy' but not health care. A country that doesn't take its leaders to task when those leaders lie to the citizens they represent doesn't deserve to be a superpower. It sure doesn't have any claim to be a model of democracy for any other country (how about those weapons of mass destruction, has anyone found one yet? the search has been on for a while now).

So once again I find myself agreeing with Gloria Steinem. Hillary may not have quite as cute a smile as Barack Obama. Warmth may be something she struggles to convey via electronic media (something John Edwards can emanate without even lifting a finger, it seems). But she deserves the support of her fellow Democrats, and I hope she gets it before it's too late. She's done her time in the trenches, she's got not only the desire but also the experience to lead, and somehow I don't think she'll run again if she doesn't get the nomination this time. I'm not sure whether Obama will seek the nomination a second time if he doesn't get it this year. But I think the fact that Hillary's campaign for the Democratic nomination has been going on for so long means this is it: go 2008 or go home.

Here's a not-so-recent Op Ed Gloria Steinem wrote on the subject for The New York Times:

www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?_r=1&ex=1357534800&en=737e0fe8e3afc0f0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin