Like millions of Americans, I am drawn to Senator BarackObama's message of hope, progress, and an end to the cynical "Old Politics." And, like most Democrats, I am not keen on negative campaigning -- especially against fellow Democrats.
Heretofore, Senator Obama has been blessed in his political career not to have to run a so-called "dirty campaign." Mud-slinging is so disliked that it now goes by the clumsy euphemism of "contrast." And certainly, Senator Obama grasps this; he has written approvingly of the lack of negative advertising in the 2004 Senate race.
But as Ecclesiastes says, there is a time and place for everything. And while some may fret about the supposed hypocrisy of "going negative," the Obama campaign can, and in fact must, go about the "dirty" business of telling the awful, unvarnished truth about Hillary.
THE PROBLEM
As frustrating as it is to hear this morning from Team Clinton's boisterous boasters that Obama has a "glass jaw," the perception -- the political reality -- is that Obama is "wimping out." I think this post from TPM explains the problem perfectly. I also agree that Reed Hundt was right when he wrote:
Even more important, going on the offense against Clinton is not only Obama's only way to win the nomination, it also is the only way for either Democrat to win this fall.
If Obama were to let Hillary's recent "kitchen sink attacks" go unanswered, he would get to the general election bloodied, bruised, and emasculated. Regardless of how improbable a Clinton win is at this point, Team Clinton seems willing and able to kick Obama in the nuts every day from here to Denver.
Given the choice between a hapless victim and a bully, the American people tend to pick the bully in November. Senator Obama might win the battle by being graceful, but he may lose the war.
A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE
Like most Democrats, I think, I view Hillary's attacks as being considerably worse, in both quantity and quality. To be sure, both campaigns have had their moments -- witness the South Carolina debate. Obama has thrown punches. But more and more, he's been a punching bag.
Turning a blind eye to this would not be a sensible, Christian, good Democrat thing to do. It would reward bad behavior. It would send the message that it's OK to use crypto-racist, xenophobia in our primaries and caucuses.
Regardless of who wins, ultimately, how Obama responds is a test of his character, and his credibility.
THE FRAME: THIS IS ABOUT THE TRUTH
That is not to say, of course, that shameful dishonesty is principled or just. But telling uncomfortable truths is. Remember, by the standards of today's political media, Jesus waged a "harshly negative campaign" against the Pharisees, moneychangers in the Temple, etc. The Son of God did not subscribe to High Broderism.
"Setting the record straight," moreover, is not enough. Full disclosure about Rezko, NAFTA, etc. will only amplify the original accusations and attacks. It's time to hit Hillary on her turf. Why? Because it's essential to setting the meta-narrative of the rest of the campaign, which ought to be:
HILLARY'S DISHONEST ATTACKS ARE A DISTRACTION FROM BOTH THE ISSUES AND A CYNICAL ATTEMPT TO MANIPULATE YOU.
This, I think, the Obama folks can honestly believe. And I think in the collective ravings of Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson one can find ample evidence to support this theory.
Hillary trying to paint Obama as "corrupt" is fundamentally absurd. I suppose at this point I'm supposed to throw out some cool Texas-ism, like "you can put lipstick on a pig," but I'm drawing a blank.
At any rate, the fundamental imperative for Team Obama from here on out is to point out this absurdity, both by forcefully defending himself, but more importantly by reminding Americans why Team Clinton cannot be trusted .
THE CONTRASTS
Folks over in Bob Johnson's thread are putting together a good list of lines of attack, but I think the most important themes are:
*
Full Disclosure versus Non-Disclosure. This is where the tax records are key. But so also are numerous Clinton scandals from the past, e.g. the Rose Law Firm billing records.
*
Parsing Words. From the classic "
definition of 'is' is" to the more recent drivers-licenses-for-illegals moment, the Clintons have constantly struggled against logic and the English language.
*
"Us/You" versus "Me/She." This is the most obvious contrast in style in this campaign; emphasize this by reminding the voters of all the Clinton scandals in years past -- were the Clintons looking out for themselves, or for you? How exactly did all of the tortured explanations regarding Whitewater, Lewinski, etc. advance a progressive agenda?
I am, of course, not suggesting sinking to the odious and demonstrably-false depths of Fox News or the "Clinton Body Count,." The Clintons are not monstrously awful people, but the record of being untruthful, cynical and narcissistic is obviously irrefutable.
And to gloss over that is fundamentally dishonest.
THE HEALTH OF OUR DEMOCRACY
The Obama campaign has stressed that they want to leave democracy healtier when they are done than when they started. That ethos pervaded our Precinct Caucus last night -- we Obama folks did not try to "rough up" the Clintonites, although frankly we could have; we didn't lock the doors early on when we had a majority, and we didn't try to exclude or diminish Clinton's signatures after everyone had signed in (although most of the Clinton folks went home; by 8 p.m. we had a working majority despite losing the sign-in tally 56 to 44 percent, enough to beat us 6 delegates to 5).
Hope for a healthier democracy has got to be a touchstone for all future action. That is what the "New Politics" is founded upon.
But this hope is not about being naive, singing kumbaya, or surrendering. Barack Obama has said that. And now it's time, I think, for him to buckle down, take off the gloves, and be the fiercest, meanest, most muscular hopemonger he can possibly be.