Obama’s Birth Certificate Press Conference
In an effort to squelch growing doubts about his nation of birth, President Obama released his long-form birth certificate this morning.
Here’s my question: What took so long?
I don’t say that from the perspective of those in the “birther” movement. I’ve never questioned the President’s American citizenship, and I find questions about his citizenship distasteful, at best.
Rather, I question the White House’s media strategy that allowed this controversy to last so long and take such deep root. How deep? A recent New York Times/CBS poll found that a plurality of Republican voters do not believe President Obama was born in the United States (45 percent believe he was not; only 33 percent do).
In his press conference today, the President blamed the media for fueling this controversy, and he’s right that they did. But the signs have long been there, and the White House should have seen that the political winds most recently exploited by Donald Trump have been blowing in that direction for months.
I suspect that the White House viewed the birther movement as a helpful ally, one that could help it paint Republicans as extreme. I also suspect that when their overly-clever media strategy got away from them, they realized they needed a new strategy.
I’m sympathetic to those who ask why President Obama should have to release his birth certificate at all, and share their frustration. But Mr. Obama lost more than he gained by waiting, and a more sound media strategy could have prevented the unfounded doubts from growing so broadly.
As President Obama said, the release of the birth certificate won’t satisfy skeptics. His main target appears to be the mainstream media, which he hopes will reduce the airtime on this issue to focus on more serious issues. It will be interesting to see whether the press lavishes attention onto a high-profile book called “Where’s The Birth Certificate” being released next month, or whether Mr. Obama’s strategy encourages them to exercise more restraint.
Given that the White House waited this long, they did the right thing by releasing the birth certificate today. But I wish the Obama campaign had authorized the release of the long-form birth certificate long ago. Instead of rising to the presidential level, his press secretary could have dealt with this issue months – or years – ago.
Share this article
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Share on LinkedIn
- Share on Email
Release of this document is a mistake, full stop. The request for this document is motivated by one thing and one thing only: racism. Release of this document validates this despicable demand.
I do understand your position, and I know a lot of people agree with you. For me, this ultimately comes down to a difficult choice between pragmatism and principle. As distasteful as I find it, I choose pragmatism in this case. It’s become a big political problem for the President, as this “fringe” movement was rapidly becoming an “acceptable” mainstream position.
I’d like to know what other readers think?
I totally agree with your thoughts. I believe his handlers thought this silliness made his opponents look ridiculous.
However, they simply rode the issue too long. At some point even the President’s supporters wondered why he didn’t end the charade.
He should have debunked the charade earlier.
I guess they didn’t do this sooner because they hoped the issue would eventually die down? Apparently, it didn’t.
Name one other President who has ever had to “prove” that he was born in the U.S. It clearly demeaning for him to have had to do it. Shame on those who don’t get that.
gpt
I agree with your principled argument. But as PR strategists, we sometimes have to advise that our executives – in this case, the President – should make a pragmatic, if distasteful choice. In this case, even President Obama admitted this issue had become a large enough distraction to warrant his attention. I’m merely suggesting that he could have helped pre-empt this from growing this large by acting sooner (as in, during the 2008 campaign when these rumors first popped up).
Thank you for weighing in, and please keep visiting the blog!
Brad
Brad,
But he did try to “pre-empt” this by releasing his birth certificate, an actual government document from the state of Hawaii, and people didn’t want to accept that.
So what happens when you release information (birth certificate from the state of Hawaii),people simply do not want to believe what you are saying (birthers saying that the document was fake) and the media starts to report on that story (birthers), and not on the original issue (every media outlet verified that he was born in Hawaii)? Does this now mean that opponents of any stripe only have to close their eyes and continue denying facts and then eventually the public will get confused?
Thomas,
Thanks for your comment. I take your point – and overall, I agree with your posiition.
In some ways, I view the birth certificate matter as analogous to the flag lapel pin flap that dogged candidate Obama for a few weeks during the 2008 campaign. He chose not to wear one for some time, declaring that true patriotism isn’t as easy as simply putting a pin on your suit. He was right, of course, but he recognized he was losing the perception battle and ultimately chose to wear one. Why? Because his principled argument was getting in the way of the more important political points he wanted to make, and he pragmatically chose to eliminate that distraction. The analogy stands up well, because similar accusations were beneath both incidents – questions about his identity, his true loyalties, and his “foreignness.”
The long-form birth certificate matter was a political problem for the President, and I suspect he knew that the growing numbers of people who doubted his place of birth risked spreading from more conservative voters to independents. My main point here is that he shouldn’t have waited so long; if he was going to ultimately release it anyway, it would have done less damage to have done so sooner, before it metastasized so widely.
And to your last point, sadly, yes. Fact-based arguments aren’t always enough, and sometimes symbols matter.
Thank you for adding your thoughtful argument to the blog! Please visit and comment again…
Best wishes,
Brad
Actually, Brad, I’d have to respectfully disagree here.
Obama had addressed this issue a number of times over 2 1/2 years. Even statements by Hawaii officials and other clear evidence of his citizenshipn backing the President’s assertions did nothing to quiet the “birther” movement, which eventually led to the denounciation by mainstream Republicans of members of their own party on the issue. One might argue just as forcefully that he could have gone on treating the issue as he had (dismissing ongoing questions with humor) and avoided the risk of legitimizing the claim with yet another answer.
When Donald Trump began gaining traction as a potential candidate by joining in the questioning of the President’s standing to even be President, and with polls showing well over 35% of Republicans now believing the charge despite any proof, it was clear the issue would still not die of its own weight.
That’s a very different set of circumstances than simply waiting too long to respond to charges. (This is not a John Kerry moment, when Kerry–wrongly as it turned out–thought no one would take desertion charges seriously when they were slung at a bona fide war hero during a political campaign.)
I think the debate on this one will continue, but ultimately will be one of those side issues that will speak more to the level of attacks against the first sitting mixed-race President, than about communication tactics that President used to combat them.
Hi Aileen,
Thank you for your comment – I’m glad you took the time to leave your thoughts on the blog!
It seems to me that our respectful disagreement comes down to this: When did this become an issue that required a response? Your argument seems to be that it only recently became necessary due to Donald Trump’s rathcheting up of the rhetoric and increasing numbers of people believing the “birther” arguments. My argument is that those signs (and the increasing numbers of birthers) were present much earlier, and a quicker response could have helped the numbers from growing as large. Even if Trump never entered the debate, next month’s release of Jerome Corsi’s book (“Where’s The Birth Certificate”) would have spawned a similar frenzy.
I’m guessing that the White House has been debating our two points-of-view for years, with some making your case and others making mine. Those making your case obviously prevailed on the President, at least until now. I question whether my viewpoint count have prevented some of this pain — and helped this matter be settled at a non-presidential level, possibly three years ago, when this issue first arose.
There’s no way to know, I suppose, and I think it’s good that we PR practitioners are debating these matters and learning from them. (For those of you who don’t recognize Aileeen’s name, she’s a fellow media trainer. Although we haven’t met, I’ve heard quite good things about her work).
Thanks again for your comment, and please don’t be a stranger.
Brad
If anything, it goes to show that people’s (well some, anyway) behavior isn’t always rational; that what may seem to be the rational or “right” thing to do as a response might not be enough, and even confound media practitioners. 🙂
I find it a shame that the president was put to the test that he was not born in the us states, no white president has ever ever been did like president obama has been done, you might wanna be careful how you treat GODs elected