At least since his 2004 speech to the Democratic National Convention, Barack Obama has frequently spoken in lofty terms, appealing, it would seem, to the better angels of our nature. Yet, in his unscripted moments, he has often clung to bitter phrases of resentment. And since taking on the chief executive’s governing responsibilities, some of that unscripted resentment has become the scripted remarks of the President of the United States.
Yesterday, I quoted this passage from his speech in 2008 accepting the Democratic nomination for president:
. . if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone that people should run from. You make a big election about small things.
Increasingly, we see that he is making his reelection campaign about small things. Note that Obama’s chief campaign strategist, not just the Romney-obsessed legacy media, has attempted to make an issue of Mitt Romney’s dog. “In late January, for example,” reports the Washington Examiner‘s Byron York
. . . top Obama campaign aide David Axelrod sent out a tweet that included a photo of Obama with his Portuguese water dog Bo in the back seat of the presidential limousine. “How loving owners transport their dogs,” Axelrod wrote.
It wasn’t a random comment. “They’re obsessed with the dog thing,” liberal journalist Chris Hayes said on his MSNBC program Sunday morning, referring to the Obama campaign. “And the reason is that, I have heard, in focus groups, the dog story totally tanks Mitt Romney’s approval rating.”
This appears to be a pattern for the Obama White House as well as the Obama campaign. Yesterday, dubbing Obama’s the Mini-Issue Presidency, Jim Geraghty provided examples of how the incumbent embraces the smallest of small-ball, citing some of the little issues on which the president has spent a great deal of time.
Guess, to borrow an expression, this “shiny-object strategy of campaigning” distracts a legacy media favorably disposed to the incumbent from the administration’s various scandals and failed policies. Not to mention the failure of the incumbent to propose a budget capable of securing a single Democratic vote in the House or of passing the Democratic Senate.