It occurs to me that, over the course of the past several weeks, we have been engaged in asymmetrical warfare in the Democratic Primary. Obama has the stronger position by most of the conventional metrics that we would use to evaluate a primary campaign, such as money, prospective advantages in a general election matchup, and -- most importantly -- pledged delegates. At the same time, he is bound by the norms of the Democratic community, which means to keep the Party's long-term best interests in mind. Therefore, while he has been able to defend himself from attacks by Clinton -- and he has usually defended himself admirably -- he has not been able to launch any sort of preemptive attack, e.g. a negative campaign.
Hillary's position, on the other hand, is more analogous to that of a smaller rogue state with weapons of mass destruction. This provides her with very few advantages, really, but she has one important one, which is that she has very little to lose. This analogy is meant as nothing other than -- well, an analogy. But at the same time, her campaign has chosen this path, rather than accepting the position of what would essentially be an aging empire that is in decline, but remains a member in good standing of the international community.
At the very least, Hillary has shown that the specific probability her campaign is trying to maximize is that of her winning the nomination, and by extension, the Presidency, in 2008. She is not concerned about the long-term condition of the Party, and is probably not concerned to a great extent about the long-term condition of her legacy, nor her prospects in future electoral cycles.
This may be because, as their critics have said, the Clintons will do anything to win. But it may also be because the Obama campaign has not shown a sufficient capacity to cause collateral damage to her. He is allowing the Clintons to fight the war on their terms, even if it is a war they are somewhat unlikely to win.
But, if he so chose, Obama could threaten a couple of things that might cause the Clintons to reconsider their position and behave more like a conventional state. The things he could put under threat are the things that I mentioned before. Firstly, the Clintons' reputation and legacy. And secondly, Hillary's electoral prospects in the general election. It's the latter of these things that will undoubtedly be more controversial to discuss on a Democratic blog. But if the Obama campaign could make clear to Clinton that, if she continues with her attack politics, he would make her so bloody that she would never win a general election, this would substantially change their equation.
The concept at work is analogous to that of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Whilst the Clinton campaign might not doubt that Obama could destroy her political legacy if he so chose, they may also have concluded that Obama will never press the 'STRIKE' button. Therefore, he has become a relatively predictable adversary, and they face fewer consequences from attacking him.
What Obama needs, then, is to demonstrate his first-strike capabilities. In political terms, this means launching a negative attack. And it will probably require him to dig into his oppo research files. I would not suggest that Obama dig up any old piece of dirt. Anything related to Monica Lewinsky or other kinds of bimbo erputions, for example, should probably be off-limits, as should any attacks on Hillary's gender; these are too callous and too likely to backfire. Apart from that, however, Obama has a lot of alternatives. The most obvious option is the Clintons' tax returns, and/or the various sorts of fundraising scandals that have been percolating but have never quite gained traction, such as Boratgate, and the roles played by Ron Burkle and Vinod Gupta. Of course, there may also be things in Obama's opposition research files that none of us are really aware of.
Does this carry risks to the Obama campaign? Certainly, the most important of which is that it potentially damages his brand for a transformative kind of politics. However, if she is allowed to attack unabated, Clinton can also cause substantial damage to that brand, both by critiquing its assumptions, and by knocking Obama off its message. This is probably the take-away lesson from Ohio and Texas.
The timing here is important. Both campaigns now suddenly have the luxury of time, with five weeks separating Mississippi and Pennsylvania. Therefore, Obama can attack Clinton -- perhaps temporarily increasing his negatives -- and still have plenty of time to recover and get back on message.
Indeed, the entire goal here is to allow Obama to get back on message, by forcing the Clintons to return to symmetrical warfare, which means a good, old-fashioned campaign about issues, ground game, and delegates. In essence, Obama should consider attacking now to preserve the peace later, by making it clear to the Clintons that future attacks will be too expensive for them to carry out.
UPDATE:
My internet connection sucks right now so I haven't really been able to respond to the comments, but a couple of clarifications and other thoughts:
Firstly, my suggestion that Obama actually has to engage in some affirmative opposition research is probably a little strong. There's sort of a spectrum here between playing merely playing aggressive defense on the one hand, and actually digging up new dirt on the other hand. The in-between case is giving negative stories that are already circulating out there a little push, and that might be the right course to take. To my mind, the Clintons managed to do this succesfully with NAFTA/Goolsbee. They've also tried and failed to do it with certain other issues, like Rezko, which I really don't think has won them a single vote in the campaign. But both the Clintons' tax returns and Hillary's schedule as First Lady will become public record before Pennsylvania, so there are a couple of things to pick up and run with.
Secondly, while there are some negatives to a more aggressive approach, there is also a meme developing out there that Obama isn't tough enough, which is a good excuse for a change in tone. Again, the idea would be that this should be a temporary change in tone.
Thirdly, it's worth mentioning that the one time Obama did radically shift his tone was in the prelude to South Carolina, such as at the Myrtle Beach debate, and I think that effort was succesful; in fact, I think it was an underappreciated step in setting up all the victories he had in February.
Fourthly, now that the media has gotten its wish and been guaranteed six more weeks of high ratings until Pennsylvania, I suspect that its newfound affections for Clinton are liable to prove to be pretty thin, although it might take a week or two to see a reversal in the narrative. But they'll be looking for new angles to cover soon.
Fifthly, one of the problems Obama had before Ohio and Texas is that he had to run as the frontrunner when he was actually the underdog in those two states. I think Obama's brand/message works better when he's perceived as the insurgent; the two times that he sort of went on cruise control (before NH and before IA/TX) he seemed to get into trouble. The reason I bring this up is because ultimately I think Obama's message is an anti-establishment message, and is not necessarily orthogonal to attack politics, provided the person he's attacking can be portrayed as part of the machine. That's why Clinton fundraising issues could be particularly fruitful territory, if they can serve to remind people that the Clintons are part of the culture of corruption.