In the Right

Barack Obama -- who ran a textbook, disciplined campaign for President, abiding by each of these rules and then some, and was rewarded for it by becoming only the third Democrat since 1945 to win a majority of the vote -- appears this week to have totally abandoned the discipline that got him to where he is.

As a result, he has lost major ground on a matter of high public policy.

Thursday's speech at the National Archives violated all five of those fundamental campaign rules:

Obama was explaining, in a defensive posture, how it was that he found himself whipsawed between, on the one hand, a MoveOn.org Left that wanted Gitmo burned to the ground the moment he took his hand off the Bible, and, on the other, a Congress that wanted no part of explaining to its constituents why their local jail might be fortified to hold Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Think back to the presidential campaign -- out of the 21 months from February 2007 to November 2008, how much of that time did we see Obama defensive?

There was the Jeremiah Wright episode. And a brief flirtation with William Ayers. And a few days with the "Celebrity" ad, and then two weeks following the announcement of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as Sen. John McCain's running mate.

All told, maybe six weeks out of 92, while for the other 86 weeks out of 92 he was on offense -- against the Bush Administration, against Hillary Rodham Clinton, against Republican nominee McCain.

Being on offense, for Obama, is familiar and comfortable.

Being on defense, for Obama, is unfamiliar and uncomfortable. And it showed.

It made no difference how sweet were the sounds coming out of Obama's mouth on the whole subject, because from a campaign perspective he had already lost -- simply by acknowledging that he was in such a bind that he had to give the address at all, he was ceding control of the agenda to Others, who may or may not have had his Administration's best political interests at heart.

It made no difference what he was saying, because what mattered was what he was talking about.

He was talking terrorist suspects, and Guantanamo Bay, and al Qaeda, and that meant that he was not talking credit card reform, or health care reform, or automobile manufacturing reform.

The most valuable asset any President has is his time. It is his only asset that is both perishable and non-replenishable.

When Obama spends it talking about something other than what was drawn up on his communications calendar four months ago, that has to be counted as a loss.

Perhaps most inexplicably of all, by choosing to schedule his speech on the same day that former Vice President Dick Cheney had chosen to address the same subject, Obama guaranteed "dueling speech" coverage through the course of the day, and over the long holiday weekend -- and dueling speech coverage where the other guy is running roughly 30 points below you on the favorability meter is most definitely shooting down.

Yet another rule violation: By choosing to engage Cheney on the national security front, Obama engaged on turf where he lacked the upper hand.

That Cheney holds the upper hand is made evident by this simple question -- if Obama is so sure that waterboarding has not made us safer, why won't he release the memoranda that Cheney is seeking to show the world the results of the waterboarding?

Finally, Obama brought a knife to a gun fight.

In a duel over national security where one contestant is the former vice president and former Defense secretary who's already been there, done that, and the other is a newly installed president who's been receiving high end intelligence briefings for the first time in his life, the new president is at a severe disadvantage.

For once, Obama's vaunted rhetorical skills were not enough to save the day.

Some things are better left unsaid.

And some speeches are better left ungiven.