Buck Up, Barack

Regular readers know I’m an Obama supporter. Granted, I’m still not ready to signal my voting intentions in November, but between the Senator from Illinois and the one from New York, I most certainly prefer the former.

That said, unlike other Obama supporters, I’m taking the contrarian view on last night’s debate, to wit: I thought the questions from ABC’s commentators were fair game. Were they constructive questions? Hell no. But did they have a place in the larger tapestry of this oversized campaign? Absolutely.

Face it: There are people — including people who are NOT named Bill or Hillary, who are NOT associated with “their” campaign, who are NOT even supporting Sen. HRC — who continue to ask questions about Rev. Wright, Mr. Ayers, Bittergate, flag pins, etc. Once again, these are not necessarily constructive or useful questions, but they are substantively present questions: front and center in the minds of a not-insignificant portion of the electorate. And for that reason, like it or not, the good Senator from Illinois needs to buck up and deal with these questions, and do so in a much crisper, definitive, and authoritative way than he did last night.

I’m not suggesting a single poor debate performance is any reason to toss BHO out the door, however — and here comes the over-obvious statement of the week — repeats of that performance in future debates will not serve him well.

So for what it’s worth — and because I’ve built a career on messaging, during my day job — I’ve outlined below some unsolicited advice on how the Senator might tighten up his replies and remain true to the facts. These answers do not vary wildly from what he said last night, but I think they are more focused and (importantly) they each provide a concluding opportunity for a clean break and segue into the real issues. “Break-and-segue” is not a technique that Obama consistently employed last night. Instead, he was too often trapped/mired in the questions. Understandable, sure, but not acceptable. Right or wrong, you just don’t get mired in questions and win debates. Confront the questions. Address them head on, in short order, and move on. Those are the rules. I didn’t make them up. History did.

And with that, here goes.

On flag pins: “I’ve worn flag pins in the past and I will in the future. That said, I noticed Sen. Clinton isn’t wearing one of those pins tonight. Should we question her patriotism? I also noticed that neither Mr. Gibson nor Mr. Stephanopoulos are wearing such pins. Should we question their patriotism? No — we shouldn’t. Because a patriot is defined by his or her actions, not by his or her attire. And while we’re on that subject, let’s talk about actions, actions I’ve taken and actions I’ve proposed for when I’m President … ”

On Bittergate: “I did a really poor job of expressing my thoughts on that subject, and I’ve repeatedly acknowledged as much. The truth of the matter is that we all — including me — cling to our faith and our traditions for many good and valid reasons, regardless of what government does or doesn’t do. At the same, it’s equally true that when government fails us, over and over again, we grow bitter and we’re tempted to just toss up our hands and stop trying to get government to change. What I’m hoping is that the people of Pennyslvania and California and Wisconsin and Virginia and every other state will join me in giving this promise of change one more try. And yes, that’s what this campaign is all about. For instance, we’re seeking change on … ”

On Rev. Wright: “I’ve already addressed this subject as thoroughly and completely as I can. The facts are clear: The comments by Rev. Wright that now run repeatedly on YouTube are detestable comments and I denounce them. But those comments are not representative of the man nor of the Church. They both have done tremendously good, constructive, beneficial and widely praised social work in Chicago, for the benefit of the entire community. And it is on the balance of that track record that they should be judged, just as it is on the balance of my track record that I hope I am judged. And my track record is clear: I’m not perfect, but I have … ”

On Bill Ayers: “I have had fleeting and peripheral encounters with Mr. Ayers. I condemn his acts from 40 years ago and denounce his unrepentant remarks in 2001. But no one — not you, not me, not anyone — no one should be judged on the basis of every person they’ve ever encountered in a social setting or every person they’ve ever sat across the table from in a board meeting. We should be no more judged on those things than Bill Clinton’s entire presidency should be judged on his pardon of two former peers of Mr. Ayers in the Weather Underground. President Clinton, me, you, all of us, should be judged on the balance of our track records, on the balance of our lives and our work. And again, while I’m not perfect, I have … ”

You get the idea.

Of course, some of you will chastise me for even suggesting these statements and techniques. You’ll say this is nothing more than heartless, dirty spin. If you do, then I’d ask you to also do the following: (1) Identify precisely where those answers are anything less than honest. (2) Re-acquaint yourselves with the iron-clad rules of winning debates. You won’t find a single credible source who discounts the essence of what I’ve suggested here.