Earlier in the campaign, before Edwards suspended, I made a comment that basically I would be happy with Obama, would live with Clinton, but only felt truly excited about Edwards. I identified with Edwards' fighting approach to special interests in control of our government.
After he dropped out and I watched the contests unfold, especially watching Obama's primary night speeches, I grew more and more excited and inspired by Obama. And I came to understand and believe in his approach of gathering a strong and engaged majority to support the changes that we need to wrest control from these interests. I voted for him in the Hawaii caucus on Feb. 19.
At the same time, my attitude about Clinton stayed about the same. I was in the camp that favored Obama yet certainly would have supported Clinton were she to win the nomination.
Below, I explore some thoughts about my changing attitude toward Clinton and how I think Obama could/should respond tactically at this time.
Not as enthusiastically, but I would have supported her. I saw Clinton as the corporate DLC special-interest Democrat and I was not too interested in eight more years of Bush/Clinton alternating, but I also thought that she had the potential to actually be a progressive leader and be her own person who would strive to do what is right. (And of course I thought she would be a huge improvement over Bush or any Republican running).
Since the "kitchen sink" tactic was enacted, however, my attitude towards her has radically changed. She has totally alienated me. She showed the moment at the debate when she said she was honored to be on the stage with Obama that I truly respected, and wanted to see more of. I hoped perhaps she would put the party (and the country) above her own ambitions and sense of entitlement. Alas, it was not to be. Since that time, she has descended into the win-at-any-cost tactics that the Clintons are known for.
In thinking about the situation, I basically see her coming from a place of desperation. Most of the stuff she's lobbing at Obama is just thin or bogus.
- The NAFTA thing turned out to be not true about Obama and possibly her campaign being the one doing it (despite this being known, her surrogates are still out there saying it today).
- With the commander-in-chief threshold stuff, there are leaders with vastly more military and foreign affairs experience than her who endorse Obama with complete confidence, including Dodd, Kerry and numerous former Pentagon officials. And she's so desperate that she's actually resorting to practically endorsing McCain as a way to try to tear down Obama! Meanwhile, it turns out "there is scant evidence that she played a pivotal role in major foreign policy decisions or in managing global crises."
- The 3am phone call ad was stupid and fear-mongering.
- With the Rezko stuff, there's no evidence that Obama is in any way involved in anything unethical, yet her campaign just throws it out there with the implication that he did something wrong and hope it just tars him by association, despite the complete lack of evidence.
- The "as far as I know" Muslim stuff was stupid and calculating.
- With the Ken Starr comparisons her campaign is just ridiculous. There's this blatant double standard that she can throw everything but the kitchen sink at Obama, no matter how totally bogus or ad hominem, and hope that it sticks, but any criticisms directed back at her and she plays the victim of a witch hunt.
There really is very little substance to any of her attacks, and it is just her and her surrogates repeating them over and over and feeding the media's hunger for conflict and sensationalism. I really do see it as a state of desperation, like a cornered animal lashing out.
My wife and I have been talking about how Obama should response to this. And a few thoughts are sort of bubbling around in my brain.
In the past (e.g. pre-S.Car.) the Clinton's have tried to go negative against Obama, and he has been able to effectively counter it by maintaining the high road, and then the public, the voters and to some extent the media in a sense punishing her for it. There was a feeling that Obama might actually be able to short-circuit the feedback loop of negative campaigning and hold the whole campaign to a higher standard through the efficacy of this approach, which is the only thing that matters in basic political calculations. But that depends on the voters in a sense enforcing this standard.
And that changed with Ohio. Clinton made the desperate calculation that she had no other option but to go negative. It was her do-or-die moment, so she lashed out like the cornered animal. Who knows what combination of factors really contributed to the voters in Ohio voting as they did? And to a large extent the narrative was shaped by expectations as much as reality—remember, Obama was down by 17 points just a couple weeks before, but his overwhelming sense of momentum and polls showing the race closing made it seem like he would catch up with her, and then when he plateaued about a week before the election it actually seemed like he had lost momentum. Then even though the final results were pretty much in line with the polls and were a 7-point improvement for Obama in two weeks—and the reality was that she netted only a handful of delegates, and that in terms of the delegates (the only thing that actually matters) Obama is the one who actually gained advantage on March 4 as they moved further toward the end without her making up any substantial ground—the expectation made it seem like a big comeback for Hillary, and a reward for going negative. That's obviously how their campaign interpreted the Ohio results.
So she is on the attack, and now he's in a delicate situation to some extent, because on one hand he is trying to run a more high-minded campaign, but on the other hand he has to show that he is capable of defending himself and being tough, capable of taking on McCain. As JMM said:
So I think the big question is, can he fight back? Can he take this back to Hillary Clinton, demonstrate his ability to take punches and punch back? By this I don't mean that he's got to go ballistic on her or go after Bill's business deals or whatever else her vulnerabilities might be. Candidates fight in different ways and if they're good candidates in ways that play to their strengths and cohere with their broader message. But he's got to show he can take this back to Hillary and not get bloodied and battered when an opponent decides to lower the boom. That will obviously determine in a direct sense how he fares in the coming primaries and caucuses.
So the question is how does he show he can fight while still being a candidate of hope and a new kind of politics, and how can be show he's different from Clinton without appearing weak and not defending himself.
Obama's strength, or one of them, is his ability speak plainly in a way that connects with his listeners and that they feel is authentic.
It seems to me like the best he can do is
Defense:
Address the charges being brought against him in simple, plain terms that just expose the ridiculous thinness of them, actually pointing out that they are acts of desperation. He can actually still be respectful, but has to be careful not to come across as sarcastic or patronizing. Something to the effect of "I know that Senator Clinton feels that she needs to go negative, she feels that she has no other choice in her campaign as she realizes that she cannot realistically win the majority of pledged delegates, but these 'kitchen sink' tactics with no substance just remind Democrats of what they are sick of and want to change in our politics." In some cases he could simply point out the specific ridiculousness of the individual charges.
Offense:
But the biggest question is how can he show he can fight McCain in the general, so the expectation seems to be that he demonstrate that by fighting Clinton in the primary. But how better to show he can fight McCain than actually fighting McCain?
Maintain a position of strength, knowing that he will end up with the lead in pledged delegates, popular vote, number of states, etc, and will through these measures earn the needed number of superdelegates to secure the nomination, and go ahead and start engaging in the general election. He had already started to do that before March 4, but he still can, and can use the wins in Wyoming and Mississippi to seize the momentum again, using those election night speeches to appear presidential and inspiring of hope, while also proving his worth for the general by taking the fight to McCain. He can still maintain a respectful tone and "attack" McCain on policy issues, on judgment, on the war, on Hagee, on lobbyist influence, etc.
My advice to him at this point would be to show he can take on McCain in the general by taking him on now!
Parry Clinton, but thrust at McCain.
The hard part is what to do with the stuff about Clinton. How do they get the media to "vet" Clinton and look into her issues? The most direct way is to bring it up themselves, but in a way that "works the refs" and holds the media accountable for their double standards and to research and convey the truth rather than just presenting the he-said she-said/horse-race coverage. Rather than directly attacking Clinton, hold the media accountable for just doing their job. I know that's easier said than done, and another aspect of this is that his supporters (we) need to work the refs for him, and hold them accountable, to get his back while he focuses on 1) positive solutions and 2) going after McCain.
He can still highlight policy and judgment differences with Clinton, while also "working the refs" but avoid getting drug down into the muck with her and losing the message of hope and the higher standard of politics that the voters have shown that they are looking for and want to reward.
But the main thing is to direct his main energy at McCain, and almost dismiss Clinton and her desperate attacks, and prove he can fight McCain in the general by doing it right now.