Posted by
Andrews on Sunday, March 09, 2008 1:01:41 AM
Recently, when discussing the Obama-Rezko affair with people who are not obsessive followers of politics (and not Obama supporters) I found their reaction tended to be "So what? Don't all politicians do that?" So, I have decided to give a very brief explanation of why the Rezko affair really does matter, and matters more for Obama than it would for any other politician.
First, I do not think that Obama will be found guilty of any wrong doing, or at least, he will not in time for it to change the course of the elections, primary or general. I am not even alleging that he really did anything illegal. He may have broken the law, he may have only violated ethics guidelines, he may not have done either by skating just inside the boundaries of what is allowable and what is not. But none of that matters.
What does matter is that, so long as the Rezko matter remains in the press, it forces Obama to explain himself. And that is where his campaign begins to falter.
So far, Obama has adopted the "innocent naif" position, and that is a wise choice. At the moment Obama has only to worry about the Demcorat primaries, and in those primaries his legions of devout Obamaniacs are key. He can do nothing to upset them. Since they support him primarily because he is "new" and "fresh", an innocent, clean, untainted politician, they are pleased to hear his protestations of almost childlike innocence. They can believe him, they want to believe him, when he claims that he just did not know what was going on. They are ready to accept that he is so devoid of guile that he simply stepped into this scandal by accident. And so his defense of complete ignorance is perfect for his supporters.
But should the Resko issue remain once the primaries end, and should Obama be the nominee, his explanation will become a liability. The independents, moderate to conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans he needs to win over to carry the general election are very different from the base to which he now appeals. He will not be able to sell them on his innocent act. Those who believe his story will think it proves him too inexperienced and naive to server as president, and those who don't (surely the majority) will think he is a particularly maladroit liar. In either case, professing wide-eyed naivete as the reason he became involved in a political scandal will do little to win over the middle of the political spectrum.
On the other hand, should he try to win over the middle by offering a more plausible explanation, he confronts new problems. Whether a Clintonesque justification of "unseemly but legal" or some other more sophisticated argument, the appearance of both corruption and excessive political savvy will be a problem for his more fanatical followers. The Obamaniacs don't want a crafty politican, or someone involved in politics as usual. In their eyes Obama is something else, a rebellion against politics, a way to be involved without getting caught up in the tainted world of governing. Once he shows himself as just another candidate, their unrealistic vision of Obama will be crushed. And, even if he wins over the middle, without his legions of devoted followers, Obama has little hope of a general election win.
Which leaves Obama with a dilemma. Does he continue to appeal to those infatuated with a vision of a new type of politician, and throw away the moderate voters, or does he appeal to the moderates and risk losing his base?
As either choice leads to defeat, the only real hope Obama has is that the Rezko story doesn't gather any steam and fades from the headlines before the convention. Should that not happen, his prospects are very poor.