Mr. Media Training

What’s more important to you: Women’s health or religious freedom?

That question, playing out in heated debates across the nation, may help determine whether or not President Obama can win re-election.

The controversy centers around the Obama Administration’s decision last month to require Catholic universities, hospitals, and charities to provide free access to contraceptives for employees and students (churches themselves are exempt from the ruling). The ruling is consistent with a provision in the President’s health care law that requires most health insurance plans to offer contraceptives at no charge.

As you might imagine, that mandate isn’t being greeted warmly by many Catholic leaders. John Garvey, president of Washington D.C.’s Catholic University, says:

“It requires us to contradict in our actions the very lessons that we’re teaching with our words…it makes us hypocrites in front of the students we’re trying to educate.”

Should Catholic universities be forced to provide contraceptives against their religious teachings?

Still, many employees who work for Catholic institutions aren’t Catholic; neither are many of the students who attend Catholic universities. And a whopping 98 percent of Catholic women are using or have used contraception at some point in their lives, seemingly adding credence to the President’s position.

Women’s health advocates point to the nonpartisan Institute of Medicine, whose 2011 report says that contraception is critical:

“In 2008, about half of all pregnancies in the United States were unplanned, and 42 percent of the unintended pregnancies ended in abortion. When the use of birth control went up, rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion fell.”

These types of cultural issues are among the toughest for presidents to navigate, since they are rooted in two very strong value arguments – in this case, women’s health vs. religious freedom. (That may be a false choice, but that’s the way advocates on each side have chosen to frame their own debate). The Obama Administration has tried to make the case that there’s a difference between a church and a college, but that argument has been too nuanced to cut through the clutter thus far. I’m skeptical it ever will. 

The most dangerous moments for politicians are often the ones that reinforce a widely-held narrative.

President Obama is already viewed by millions with skepticism over his own religious faith, triggered by some illegitimate concerns (e.g. that he’s a “secret Muslim”) and some legitimate ones (e.g. telling donors at a San Francisco fundraiser that when people ”…get bitter, they cling to guns or religion…as a way to explain their frustrations,” and his affiliation with Pastor Jeremiah Wright, best known for preaching, “God damn America”).

Pastor Jeremiah Wright created a major headache for candidate Obama in 2008

That means that President Obama may be nearing another Jeremiah Wright moment on this issue, and needs to act quickly to avoid losing a significant-enough swath of independent voters to doom his re-election bid. Yes, this issue could become that important in the 2012 election, and his Republican opponents are doing everything they can to exploit the issue.

The President has two options: Back away from his mandate or try to reframe the debate. The White House seems to understand how heated this issue is, and is already backing away from their hard-line stance on the issue. David Axelrod, a top adviser to the President, said yesterday they would, “look for a way” to address the Catholic leadership’s concerns.

Whichever choice the President makes, he better make it fast. Once this story takes deep root, it’s going to be difficult to dig out from beneath it.

If you want to learn more about this controversy, this PBS piece does a nice job of summarizing the debate:

What do you think? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

During halftime of Sunday’s Super Bowl game, Chrysler aired a stunning two-minute commercial featuring Clint Eastwood.

The ad was a masterpiece of political writing. It acknowledged in stark, unequivocal language that the United States is in rough shape – but it wrapped that tough message in optimistic language that aimed to rally the nation.

Here’s the ad:

“It’s halftime. Both teams are in their locker room discussing what they can do to win this game in the second half.

It’s halftime in America, too. People are out of work and they’re hurting. And they’re all wondering what they’re going to do to make a comeback. And we’re all scared, because this isn’t a game.

The people of Detroit know a little something about this. They almost lost everything. But we all pulled together, now Motor City is fighting again.

I’ve seen a lot of tough eras, a lot of downturns in my life. And, times when we didn’t understand each other. It seems like we’ve lost our heart at times. When the fog of division, discord, and blame made it hard to see what lies ahead.

But after those trials, we all rallied around what was right, and acted as one. Because that’s what we do. We find a way through tough times, and if we can’t find a way, then we’ll make one.

All that matters now is what’s ahead. How do we come from behind? How do we come together? And, how do we win?

Detroit’s showing us it can be done. And, what’s true about them is true about all of us.

This country can’t be knocked out with one punch. We get right back up again and when we do the world is going to hear the roar of our engines.

Yeah, it’s halftime America. And, our second half is about to begin.”

So what lesson can President Obama and the eventual Republican nominee take out of this ad? That this is the precise type of language Americans demand from our presidential candidates.

There have been eight general elections since the beginning of the 24/7 media age in 1980. In all eight, the candidate with the more optimistic message has always won. That’s not to say we can’t handle tough truths – we can. But we want them delivered from a sunny candidate with a “can do” message, not from a dour candidate who fails to inspire us.

1. THE OPTIMISTS
2. Ronald Reagan, whose 1984 “Morning in America” campaign was the obvious inspiration for this ad
3. George H.W. Bush, who promised a “gentler, kinder” nation in 1988
4. Bill Clinton, who encouraged “don’t stop thinking about tomorrow” in 1992 and promised to “build a bridge to the 21st Century” in 1996
5. George W. Bush, who ran on a platform of “compassionate conservatism” and who almost never allowed a pessimistic word to cross his lips.
6. Barack Obama, whose “hope” and “yes we can” campaign was a salve in 2008, during the worst economic downturn in decades
7. THE PESSIMISTS
8. Not coincidentally, all of the presidential losers since 1980 have been perceived as pessimists: Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, George H.W. Bush (as compared to Bill Clinton), Bob Dole, Al Gore, John Kerry, and John McCain.

It’s easy to see the theme here. President Obama has started to pivot to this type of optimistic language, and he demonstrated in 2008 that he has the capacity to deliver it well. Mitt Romney, assuming he gets the nomination, will need to quickly pivot to this type of rhetoric as well. His attacks on President Obama are fine and expected. But they’re not enough.

When trying to predict the outcome of the 2012 election, you can almost forget about the economy and foreign affairs. Ask yourself one question: Which candidate’s rhetoric is most like Clint Eastwood’s? The answer will likely determine which man is sworn into office on January 20, 2013.

President Obama delivered a strong State of the Union (SOTU) address tonight in which he previewed the outlines of the 2012 presidential race.

Of course, State of the Union speeches are rarely remembered for long. Most Americans rightfully view presidential promises made during the annual address with skepticism. (Remember President George W. Bush’s 2004 pledge to have a manned mission to Mars? How’s that going?)

Although the speech itself may not be remembered much past next week, I noticed two major elements that may help determine the outcome of the 2012 election. 

President Obama delivers the State of the Union Address, January 24, 2012. Photo: NBC News

1. Optimism: Since the beginning of the 24/7 media age in 1980, there have been eight presidential elections. The more optimistic candidate has won all eight.

President Obama seems to be aware of that dynamic, as the SOTU was full of the sunny, upbeat rhetoric that independent voters predictably prefer. For example, some of his lines included:

“We can do this. We’ve done it before!” 

“We’ve come too far to turn back now. As long as I’m President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum.”

“We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.”

2. Class Warfare: Whichever Republican eventually gets the nomination will bash President Obama for injecting “class warfare” into the campaign. Mr. Obama attempted to preempt that tonight by saying:

“Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.

We don’t begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’s because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference – like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet. That’s not right. Americans know it’s not right.”

That’s a terrific talking point. Will it work in a general election against Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich? That depends on the strength of their rebuttal – but it’s a strong message that seems well-aligned with the mood of the country.

Although Mr. Obama got those two big things right, his speech wasn’t perfect in several areas:

1. Where’s the Vision? Yes, Mr. Obama articulated some ideas about job creation, education reform, and infrastructure, among others. But where’s the central narrative that will give voters a vision for what a second Obama term would look like? Where is his “Morning in America” or “Bridge to the 21st Century,” the central idea that will stand as his raison d’etre for four more years?

2. He Didn’t Improve on Five Weaknesses From Last Year: In my review of last year’s SOTU, I cited five places where the President could improve his delivery. He committed all five mistakes again this year. Here are three examples:

• He Needs To Lose the Shtick: Last year, the President got some groans when he made a cheesy quip about salmon and another about pat downs. He did it again this year when he said, “We got rid of one rule from 40 years ago that could have forced some dairy farmers to spend $10,000 a year proving that they could contain a spill – because milk was somehow classified as an oil. With a rule like that, I guess it was worth crying over spilled milk.” It’s fine if he wants to incorporate some humor, but he should try working outside of the Shecky Green school of comedy.
• He Should Reduce The Hushed Tone: When President Obama seeks to emphasize a key point, he uses a hushed tone, something akin to a “spoken whisper.” It’s a perfectly valid technique when used sparingly, but he used it dozens of times during the speech (from the very first sentence), reducing its impact on every subsequent use.
• Choose Bigger Stories: Every President since Ronald Reagan has used the SOTU to tell stories about a few “real people” in the audience. Well-chosen anecdotes can help bring abstract topics to life, and it is a good idea for speakers to alternate between general themes and specific examples. But I’m starting to wonder if the idea is so hackneyed at this point that it needs to be retired for a few years. Alternatively, the President could incorporate stories in a more genuine, heartfelt manner, such as recounting a personal encounter that moved or inspired him.

CONCLUSION

No single speech can accomplish everything, and I suspect the President will offer his vision for the next four years when he shifts more fully into campaign mode.

My overall takeaway? Mr. Obama is a tough competitor. In terms of the political calendar, he’s now in the middle of the third quarter, and his team is up by a point or two. The question is whether his opponent for the rest of the game is the Harlem Globetrotters or the Washington Generals.

Either way, he demonstrated many of the communications and political skills tonight that made him such a formidable opponent in 2008 – and he made clear that his opponent better bring his “A game” this fall.

COMMENTS? Do you agree or disagree with my analysis? Please leave your opinion in the comment section below, but remember the blog’s comment policy – no ad hominem attacks or pejorative name-calling will be posted.

Did you miss the 10 worst media disasters of 2011? Click here to catch up!

The Mr. Media Training Blog is pleased to announce the ten worst on-camera media gaffes of 2011!

This year’s winners include a politician who lost his place, a country singer who lost his job, and a celebrity who lost his show.

The media spokespersons were selected based on the impact of their gaffes. All ten people reinforced an existing narrative about their lack of preparedness for office, their lack of discipline, or their lack of compassion.

Here, without further ado, are the ten worst video media disasters of 2011!

#10: Hank Williams, Jr. Compares President Obama to Adolf Hitler

In October, country singer Hank Williams, Jr. was fired up during an appearance on Fox and Friends. While reflecting on a golf match between President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, Mr. Williams quipped, “It would be like Hitler playing golf with Netanyahu.” The Fox hosts looked shocked and distanced themselves from his statement; ESPN promptly dropped his theme song as its Monday Night Football opener.

#9: Sarah Palin’s “Blood Libel”

Months before Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was almost killed in Tucson, Former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) released an infamous “crosshairs map,” which placed a target over Ms. Giffords’  congressional district. In the days after the shooting, Ms. Palin was blamed, in part, for the shooting.

Ms. Palin was upset by media stories connecting her to the crime; she was right that there was no evidence that the shooter had even seen her map. But she over-reacted, taking to the airwaves to blame the media for committing "blood libel." That term is most commonly used as an anti-Semitic slur referring to Jews murdering Christians.

Her poll numbers immediately plummeted with Independents and Republicans (Fox News head Roger Ailes was also said to be infuriated by her response). Instead of using the moment to expand her base by issuing a gracious statement, Ms. Palin narrowed it, leading many political prognosticators to declare her 2012 hopes dead.

#8: NPR Fundraiser Ron Schiller Blasts The Tea Party

National Public Radio’s chief fundraiser, Ron Schiller, went to lunch with a couple of men claiming to be Muslim donors in March. It turned out they were Republican activists with a hidden camera. During the lunch, Mr. Schiller called members of the Tea Party, “seriously racist, racist people,” among other things.

That he made those comments was bad enough; that he made them while NPR was already in the midst of a heated debate about its public funding was flabbergasting. His comments not only led to his immediate resignation, but the resignation of NPR’s CEO, as well. The House of Representatives voted to strip NPR of its federal funding. Fortunately for NPR, the Senate prevented that from happening – for now. 

#7: Rupert Murdoch Channels Tony Hayward

While testifying before the British Parliament in July, News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch was asked whether he accepted the ultimate responsibility for his company’s phone hacking scandal. Not only did he say “no,” but he delivered his answer without even a hint of humility. So much for Harry Truman’s axiom, “The buck stops here.”

By delivering such an indifferent answer, he gave former BP Executive Tony “I’d like my life back” Hayward competition as the world’s most clueless corporate executive.

#6: Rick Perry’s “Oops” Moment

During a Republican presidential debate in November, Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) confidently declared he would eliminate three government agencies – and promptly forgot what they were. For 47 painful seconds, Mr. Perry tried to recall the third agency he would eliminate. He finally gave up, shrugged his shoulders, and lamely said, “oops.” That one moment likely sank any remaining chances Mr. Perry had of winning the nomination.

DO YOU AGREE WITH MY PICKS FOR THE TEN WORST MEDIA DISASTERS OF THE YEAR? CLICK HERE TO TAKE OUR POLL AND CAST YOUR VOTE FOR THE WORST.

#5: President Obama Jokes About Joblessness

With the nation’s unemployment rate above nine percent and millions of Americans desperate to find work, President Obama cracked a joke in June that few people found funny.

When a questioner asked a serious question about the nation’s inefficient permitting process, Mr. Obama cracked wise about his two-year-old pledge to create shovel-ready jobs, joking, “Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected.” Many people blasted the President for his political tin ear, which has gotten him in trouble before (see earlier gaffes related to a San Francisco fundraiser, Hillary Clinton, and the Special Olympics).

#4: Charlie Sheen’s Downward Spiral

There’s little funny about addiction, and Charlie Sheen’s dangerous spiral was sad to watch (see “Why #Winning Isn’t Funny”). Sheen stayed in the news for months, but it was his out-of-touch interview with sycophantic radio host Alex Jones in February that led to his dismissal from his top-rated sitcom, Two and a Half Men.

In that interview, Sheen made vaguely anti-Semitic comments about “Men”” creator Chuck Lorre, called Alcoholics Anonymous a “bootleg cult,” and labeled Thomas Jefferson a “pussy.” He topped off his tirade by threatening to “murder” those who attack his family.

#3: The Herman Cain Affair

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain was caught flat-footed in October when numerous women accused him of sexual harassment (another woman later asserted she had had a long-term sexual affair with him). Mr. Cain changed his story on an almost-hourly basis, even arguing that he didn’t understand an earlier question that had used the word “settlement” instead of “agreement.” 

Mr. Cain dropped out of the race in December, maintaining his innocence to a public that no longer believed him.

Politico compiled a partial chronology of Mr. Cain’s rolling disclosures in the early days of the crisis.

#2: (Alleged) Penn State Child Rapist Jerry Sandusky Speaks

When former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky spoke to NBC’s Bob Costas in November about horrific allegations that he raped numerous boys, no one was prepared for his jaw-dropping answer to this direct question: “Are you sexually attracted to young boys?” It took 16 seconds for Sandusky to say “no.” Instead, he began by saying how much he “enjoyed” young people and loves to be around them. Sandusky’s alleged actions, combined with Penn State’s ineffectual response, led to the firings of the University president and legendary football coach Joe Paterno.

(Fast forward to 7:15)

#1: Anthony Weiner’s Twitter Scandal

Self-immolations rarely come in more spectacular fashion than when Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) was caught tweeting naughty photos to strangers in June. His approach to crisis management was to: 

1. 1. Deny the charges and claim his Twitter account had been hacked.
2. 2. Call a reporter a “jackass.”
3. 3. Say that although he hadn’t sent the photos, he couldn’t rule out “with certitude” that the erect undies shot was of him.
4. 4. Hold a tearful press conference to admit he had tweeted the photos himself but refusing to resign.
5. 5. Watch helplessly as a nude photo of his…ahem…member…was released.
6. 6. See his private news about his wife’s early-term pregnancy announced to the world.
7. 7. See yet another batch of sexy gym photos released.
8. 8. Resign in shame.

One of Mr. Weiner’s worst moments (there were many) was captured during a CNN interview, in which he sanctimoniously blasted reporters. After Mr. Weiner resigned, a Republican won his seat, costing Democrats a critical seat in the House of Representatives.

FLASHBACK: THE TEN WORST MEDIA DISASTERS OF 2010

Click here to listen to Brad Phillips discussing this top ten list on Washington D.C.’s top-rated radio station, WTOP-FM.

Like our blog? Don’t go yet! Like us on Facebook here and follow us on Twitter here.

Even better, have the best of the blog delivered to your inbox twice per month! Enter your name in the box on the upper right of the blog to join our mailing list.

Remember the old game show Let’s Make a Deal?

During the program, host Monty Hall regularly asked contestants to make a choice: They could choose what was behind door number one, door number two, or door number three. If they chose correctly, they might walk away with a new car. If they didn’t, they might end up “winning” a live turkey.

The Let’s Make a Deal analogy holds in the context of media interviews. If a reporter asks you a multiple choice question and you answer it correctly, you’ll win by avoiding an off-message headline. But if you answer it incorrectly, you’ll deliver an off-message answer – which the media will love and replay repeatedly.

The way you “win” Let’s Make a Deal when a reporter asks you to select one of three doors is simple: Refuse to play. Select a fourth door that helps you convey your own message instead.

Earlier this week, CNN reporter Dan Lothian asked President Obama a multiple choice question. Asking about the Republican candidates’ support for waterboarding, he asked:

“I’m wondering if you think they’re uninformed, out-of-touch, or irresponsible?”

President Obama paused for four long seconds before responding:

“That’s a multiple choice question, isn’t it? Let me just say this: They’re wrong.”

President Obama handled that in exactly the right way, refusing to accept any of the reporter’s three choices and using his own word instead. (Still, I’m a bit surprised that Mr. Obama appeared flat-footed for several seconds – this can’t be the first time he’s encountered a multiple choice question.)

If you’re put on the spot by a reporter’s multiple choice question, tell the reporter you would characterize it differently, and then answer the question using your own words.

Otherwise, you may find yourself picking one of the three answers the reporter offers – and walking home with a live turkey.

Queen’s Freddie Mercury would have said that you’re my best friend. I’ll settle for just being liked.  Please like me on Facebook to keep up with our latest public speaking and media interviewing tips!

President Obama will address a joint session of Congress tonight to unveil his new jobs proposal. But his track record as a bad negotiator will undermine even the most brilliant speech.

Dismayed progressives lament the President’s tendency to offer bold proposals and negotiate them away. Emboldened conservatives know that the President’s initial proposals are merely a starting point and that they’ll be able to move him much farther to the right before agreeing to any deal.

As examples, President Obama:

• Made the “public option” a centerpiece of his healthcare proposal before negotiating it away.
• Pledged to end tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans until violating his own pledge and extending them.
• Gave away so much in the debt ceiling fight that House Speaker John Boehner bragged: “We got 98 percent of what we wanted.”

I’m not making a value judgment here on the proposals themselves, but rather on the widely-held (and growing) perception that he will inevitably fold on them. 

As a result, the President’s words will have diminished impact tonight. When speakers offer terrific proposals but don’t reinforce their words with actions, it leads to audience fatigue. Many of the President’s supporters are skeptical of another bait and switch, and opponents suspect they’ll eventually get what they want anyway.

That’s not to say the President won’t succeed in passing something close to the economic plan he unveils tonight. But after having the rug pulled from under them numerous times, even his most ardent supporters are likely to take a cautious “wait and see” approach to see whether the President fights for his plan this time around or negotiates it away yet again.

What’s your opinion? Is my critique overly-harsh, or not harsh enough? Feel free to offer an opinion, but remember the blog’s comment policy – no ad hominem attacks or pejorative name-calling will be posted.

Related: Ten Years After 9/11, George W. Bush Is Still Wrong

Related: Politicians, Corn Dogs, and Bad Photo Ops

What’s the best way to handle hecklers?

Should you give them a forum to express their views, or is it better to embarrass them by mocking their ideas in front of the crowd?

As these videos of Mitt Romney and President Obama show, both approaches can work. Although the two men differed in tone, both employed a similar tactic: they offered the floor to their hecklers before re-claiming the floor. That’s a smart approach that helps neutralize opponents who would otherwise continue shouting during their speeches.

It’s worth noting that both men were speaking to friendly crowds – an important point that worked in their favor.

This first video, from earlier this month, shows Mitt Romney sparring with protesters concerned about Social Security and Medicare cuts:

After initially trying to shout down the protesters, Mr. Romney changes his tactic when he appears to realize that the scene could get ugly if he doesn’t offer them the floor (note the heated response of his campaign supporter in the crowd). After he allows one protester to make his statement, Mr. Romney takes back the floor by saying:

“The way this is going to work is that you get to ask your question and I get to give my answer. If you don’t like my answer, you can vote for someone else.”

By taking back the floor in that manner, Mr. Romney signals that the dialogue is closed and that he isn’t open to further interruptions. When the protester continues questioning him, Mr. Romney tells him “you’ve had your turn,” turns his body away from the heckler by 90 degrees, and says “next question,” which finally quiets the protester.

In the second video, taken during the 2008 general election, then-Senator Barack Obama is heckled for his alleged lack of support for the black community.

Mr. Obama pledges to give the protesters the floor later in the meeting, which silences the protesters for the time being. As promised, he gives one of the hecklers the floor later in the rally. When the protester finishes asking his question, the crowd starts turning against him. Mr. Obama gains control of the crowd by saying:

“Hold on a second, everybody, I want everybody to be respectful. That’s why we’re having a Town Hall Meeting. This is democracy at work. And he asked a legitimate question, so I want to give him an answer.”

Mr. Obama could have allowed his friendly crowd to turn on the heckler, but he refused to take the easy path and requested instead that they offer him their respect. In so doing, he made everybody – including himself – look magnanimous.

Actually, there’s a third approach, used by Ronald Reagan the day before he was elected President:

With a simple “awww, shut up,” Mr. Reagan silenced his critics and earned wildly supportive applause.

Unless you’re blessed with Mr. Reagan’s sense of showmanship, the Romney and Obama approaches are probably your best bet.

Do you enjoy these types of public speaking and media interviewing tips? Then get them delivered to your inbox! Sign up for our email list by entering your name on the upper right hand corner of the blog.

Related: Five Types of Political Humor – The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Related: Answering Questions From an Angry Audience

President Obama and his family left late last week for a 10-day vacation in Martha’s Vineyard.

Since then, Mr. Obama’s critics have blasted him for vacationing during an economic meltdown. And his poll numbers – down to 39 percent in a recent Gallup poll – suggest that he can’t afford the bad optics of having fun in the sun while a large percentage of his constituents continue to struggle to find work.

So here’s the question: Should President Obama cut his vacation short as his critics suggest, or is he entitled to some rare precious time with his wife and young daughters while Congress is out-of-session?

President Obama with daughters Sasha and Malia on an earlier vacation to Martha's Vineyard

THE ARGUMENT: YES, HE SHOULD GO ON VACATION

1. Historically Speaking, He Hasn’t Vacationed That Much: President Obama has vacationed significantly less than President Bush did up to this point in his presidency. According to CBS News reporter Mark Knoller, Mr. Bush had vacationed for 225 days up to this point in his tenure, while Mr. Obama has been away just 70 days.

2. Style Over Substance: White House Press Secretary Jay Carney rightly pointed out that presidents are never really on vacation. Even when clearing brush in Crawford, President Bush received daily briefings and was available to conduct presidential business. Same is true for President Obama. Canceling his vacation might look good, but it would accomplish substantively little.

3. Vacations Allow For Healthier Decisions: Vacations aren’t only an excuse to blow off work. They’re also psychologically proven to help people make better decisions. According to the Baltimore Sun:

“Being on a vacation that relieves stress allows people to regain their ability to do well on tasks that require them to focus their attention. A 2009 PNAS study in rats provides clues for the mechanism behind this: Researchers found that stress causes parts of brain cells in the medial prefrontal cortex to shrink, impairing their ability to do well on an attention task. But after four weeks of stress-free living, the rats’ cells returned to normal.”

4. Even Presidents Need Family Time: The President and First Lady have two young daughters. The Obama family deserves time together, and those two beautiful children deserve an opportunity to enjoy some rare time with Mom and Dad.

Martha's Vineyard, Photo Credit: Quinn Dombrowski

THE ARGUMENT: NO, HE SHOULDN’T GO ON VACATION

1. Going on Vacation Is Politically Tone-Deaf: Going on an extended vacation in a playground for the wealthy is politically tone-deaf. The real unemployment rate is now at about 16 percent; one in six American workers is out of work. The American people rightly want the sense that their President is doing everything possible to get them back to work, and his vacation is undercutting his pledge “not to rest” until people get back to work

2. The Vacation Will Provide Bad Optics: For ten days, Americans will see stories on the evening news about plummeting stock markets and faltering foreign economies juxtaposed with stories showing the President eating ice cream on the beach in shorts. It looks bad, almost as out-of-synch as former BP CEO Tony Hayward attending a yacht race while tar balls rushed onto Florida’s shorelines.

3. The Vacation Undercuts His Main Loyalty: The President’s main loyalty during his time in office is to his country, not his family. When he decided to run for office, he knew it would come at a tremendous personal cost. Not being able to vacation for 10 days with his family during a crisis is a sacrifice presidents just have to make.

MY CONCLUSION 

I agree with every argument that the President is justified to go on vacation.

But in the end, I side with his critics. I don’t side with them for the same reasons – I believe many of his critics are motivated more by politics than sincere belief – but despite that, I find myself reaching the same conclusion.

President Obama could have chosen a different vacation. For example, he could have gone to Camp David with his family for a week, away from the reporters and photo ops that will follow his every move in Martha’s Vineyard. Or he could have visited a city with a struggling economy for a few days – an abandoned steel town, a decayed urban city like Detroit, or Nevada, the state with the nation’s highest unemployment rate.  His visit would have provided a short-term economic boost, and could have sent a surge of tourism to places that badly need it.

Canceling his longer vacation would, indeed, be style over substance. But style is a key component of effective leadership, and facts aren’t always enough to compensate for perception. For a President already widely regarded as distant and aloof, this vacation reinforces an existing narrative.

My criticism isn’t based in partisanship. I started this blog after President Bush’s tenure had ended, but my criticism would have extended to him as well, for the same reasons. Clearing brush on a Crawford farm looked bad as American troops died almost daily in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Today’s presidency, magnified in the fishbowl of a 24/7 media culture, requires leaders to be ever-mindful of optics. The optics look bad here, and President Obama will likely pay a political price.

What do you think? Should the President go on vacation regardless of polls, or is the timing distasteful? Please leave your thoughts in the comment section below.

Related: Ten Years After 9/11, President George W. Bush is Still Wrong

Related: The 21 Most Essential Media Training Links