WANTED: Angry, Confrontational, Take-No-Prisoners Brawler for the Democratic Nomination

What is going to become of the Democratic Party, so addicted to the cycle of grievance and apology that it can hardly catch its breath long enough to articulate a governing philosophy? What can we possibly expect of a party, and of presidential candidates, so terrified of giving offense that even their most heralded and YouTubed flights of eloquence originate in the need to backpedal, denounce, clarify, or spin?

For all its celebrated intelligence and nuance, Barack Obama's March 18 speech, "A More Perfect Union," was, tactically speaking, a supplication: "Please don't hold it against me that my pastor is pissed off about the way this country treats black people." It's true, of course, that Obama's rhetoric and analysis rose far above the pathetic pabulum (or nasty race baiting) we're usually fed - but what concerns me more is how easy it was for the frontrunner to get rocked back on his heels, and what he might be considering as a follow-up act. After all, absolutely no one thinks the issue is going away. Everyone knows the Republicans will exploit it in the fall - can't you just see Sean Hannity's ticker, BARACK HUSSEIN AND THE TERRORIST PREACHER? The March 18 speech may have taken the heat off temporarily, but its fundamental flaw is that he can't do it again - or should we expect the sequel, perhaps "An Even More Perfect Union"?

How much more effective would it have been - and how much more would I respect him - if he'd responded by taking off the gloves and pushing back? If he had dropped, for a day or two, his eerily calm demeanor and said, "A man's relationship to his church is nobody else's damn business"? If he'd said, "Go ask Reverend Wright why he's so pissed off - I'm busy trying to put this country back on track"? If he'd challenged the media on their scandal-mongering by saying, "We just had our four thousandth soldier die in Iraq, the country is plummeting into recession, health care costs are shooting through the roof, the Bush Administration has gutted the Constitution, enriched the oil companies, and mortgaged all of our futures, and you think a pastor in Chicago is the Big Story? Why don't you fulfill your civic responsibility and start covering what really matters"?

Would this have solved the Reverend Wright problem? No.

Would it have made the media, and his opponents, think twice before flinging such silly crap at him again? Maybe.

It's the difference between being liked and being respected - a difference I'm not yet sure the Obama campaign understands. You don't respond to political attacks with nuanced explanation; you respond with firepower.

It's why Hillary has pounced so energetically on the latest meaningless kerfuffle - Obama's pronouncement a week ago that working-class voters are "bitter" and that they "cling to guns or religion" as an anodyne for their economic frustration.

It was a stupid thing to say - not because there's not a grain of truth in it, but because even a halfwit running for president of the junior high knows you can't say it that way without sounding like a snobby "latté liberal," exactly the kind of person those working-class people despise. But is it a crisis? Hardly.

The Obama camp has been so drunk on its own saintly aura (think of their favorite mantra: "We are the ones we've been waiting for") that anytime he stumbles they look as shocked and panicked as Harry Whittington must have when Dick Cheney shot him in the face. They simply can't believe it - and worse, they can't believe people are so darned mean as to make a big deal out of it, when everyone knows what a great guy Obama really is.

Obama admits to being "a little disappointed" that Hillary has tried to take advantage of the gaffe. "Shame on her," he says, echoing the silly way in which his acolytes have painted Hillary as Nurse-Ratched-off-her-meds anytime she criticizes him too harshly - as though they believe a presidential campaign should be fought with a feather duster and not a club.

Grow up.

Of course Hillary couldn't care less about the content of Obama's statement - she's not interested in parsing out the social politics of the working class, she wants to win the election. She saw how the Wright controversy threw Obama off his game for weeks - and how he responded to it by trying to soothe, rather than battle back - and she's betting she can do it again and keep him stuttering all the way into the Pennsylvania primary.

And it's working - how many times in the last few days have you heard Obama say "hope"? Now how many times have you heard him say "misspoke"?

Anyone who thinks the moral here is that Hillary is a hypocrite and an opportunist is really missing the point: This is a national political campaign. It's rough. It's a bloodsport. All the wishful talk about a New Politics isn't going to change that. The Republicans will say if you can't stand up to Hillary Clinton, or Tim Russert, how can we expect you to stand up to al Q'aeda? And they're not totally right - but they're not totally wrong. Despite the Bush Administration's criminal incompetence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and just about everywhere else, the burden of proof is still on the Democrats where national security credentials are concerned. That's why the Swiftboat issue was fatal to John Kerry - the public badly wanted to believe the challenger could do better than George Bush, who even in 2004 was a pathetic failure; but the Swiftboaters simultaneously called Kerry's own war record into question and showed him to be mealy-mouthed and wimpy in defending himself against what everyone knew was slander.

If you can't stand up to a bunch of potbellied liars, how can we expect you to stand up to al Q'aeda?

The desire to be everyone's friend is Obama's worst enemy. The most insidious play in the Republican PsyOps manual is the one where they say the Democrats are "too angry" and that the public wants a sunny optimist. Democrats, temperamentally predisposed to cooperation, tend to cringe at this accusation, roll over on their backs and wait to have their bellies rubbed - which has the dual effect of making them look like kittens and changing the subject from whatever travesty of Republican rule they were so angry about to begin with.

Those travesties have proliferated in the four years since John Kerry psyched himself right out of the race: two thousand more dead soldiers, Afghanistan slipping away, a few trillion in debt, a housing crisis, inaction on health care, widening income disparities, total malfunction in the markets, and the worst overall economic picture since the Great Depression. We will never know whether Kerry could have prevented any of this - we will only remember him as having not fought hard enough for the opportunity.

The conventional wisdom is that the White House is the Democrats' to lose in 2008. Coincidentally, this was the conventional wisdom in 2004. However they feel about John McCain, the right-wing machine is getting ready to gear up another below-the-belt smearfest - they won't be scared off by Obama's likeability or the threat of being called "meanies" by his fans.

Obama owes it to himself, and he owes it to us, to take off the gloves. We have suffered through the worst administration in American history, and we're just beginning to feel the long-term consequences of the greed, mismanagement, malpractice, and criminality perpetrated by the mental and moral midget currently occupying the White House. What we need now isn't a Democratic candidate who always plays well with others. What we need now is a titan.

Comments

[Chuckamok]

Michale ... good post.

Whatever Obama's lack of "experience" means, the point is moot. Hillary's "experience" is having tea with the other spouses of ACTUAL world leaders.

Obama IS exciting the electorate and bringing in new voters. Hillary IS all about politics-as-usual, sewer-style.

Thank gawd it's really all over. May the Clintons retire to the pig farm in Arkansas and a long, happy life of fund grifting. After all, they've earned it.

[Michale32086]

Clinton's desperate strategy is quite clear..

She wants to define the battlefield. She KNOWS that she can't compete with Obama on the Moral High Ground.. So, she is wanting to goad him into fighting the primary on HER turf. The sewers....

Obama's strategy is equally clear. He knows that Clinton cannot compete on the High Ground. As long as he fights her there, he will win...

To paraphrase Sun Tzu. It is better to attack on your own ground than to defend on your enemy's own ground..

Michale.....

[several]

So you're suggesting that Obama abandon the very thing that has grown his supporters and swelled his donation coffers to record shattering levels?

He is changing politics by talking to us like we're adults instead of slinging mud at every opportunity. But you're saying he should just do away with and get down and dirty in the mud like Clinton and McCain?

Perhaps you want someone who takes the old politics of division and destruction to the nth degree, but most of us want someone who can take us above and beyond the old politics of destruction and division. And we will put him in the White House in spite of the puerile lust for drama and sensationalism that you and your ilk still suffer from.

Politics isn't a gladiator sport. It is the determination of the future of our country.

[belikejeanvaljean]

"you respond with firepower" "It's a bloodsport" "take off the gloves"

Sounds like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Is that grown up? Hardly.

Do we really need another person in the White House right now who likes to fight? The current administration of fighters has not only misspent our blood and treasure in Iraq, but caused great harm and heartache to the people of that country, destabilized the Middle East, and decimated our reputation in the international community. And they are talking now about more fighting with Iran.

No, we do not need another pugilist running the country, and it is all too apparent that Hillary likes to fight. She supported the war from the start and long afterwards. In playground bully fashion, she seizes on inconsequential things to destroy her opponent rather than debating the big issues in an adult manner. If this is her modus operandi, how will she interact with, or possibly only react to, the world's dicators.

Our country needs a president who understands the value of statesmanship. The eloquent, thoughtul and diplomatic Obama, with his international background, is highly qualified to represent our country in this way and begin to restore our reputation and influence. And if, despite trying everything else first, if a true fight looms, no doubt he will be able to handle that as well. Remember - Hillary was the presumed nominee less than a year ago, and look at who's on top now.

[diamondgirl9]

Politics in America is a bloodsport. To allow the Repugs and their dumb ass,hypocritical followers to define who we are,rather than explain what we will do ,what we believe,and why we are the party that won't just give lip service to the ideals espoused by the founding fathers,is the reason we will probably lose an election that shouldn't even be close. How do democrats expect to expand their base if they don't t fight for what they say is important to them,and vitally important to America,and to the generations that follow? A lot of the people that would be offended if the Democrats would stick to their principals without apology,and strike back at these lying hypocrits who wrap themselves in the flag ,or these mindless dittoheads,wouldn't vote dem anyway. So bitch slap some of these drooling fools,with the truth.and show the Americans in red states who might be open to our ideas about changing America,that we are willing to fight for them.

[Michale32086]

"So bitch slap some of these drooling fools,with the truth."

You have an interesting campaign strategy...

Let me know how that works out for you.... :^/

So, what you saying is that the GOP strategy of "grabbing them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow" is the strategy that the Democratic Party should adopt, eh??

Hmmmmmm

Let me ask you this.. If that comes to be, how will NPAs (No Political Affiliation) like me be able to tell Dems from GOP?? We'll need a program guide just to tell who is who...

Michale.....

[TerenceHartnett]

Dude, she is not fighting for you. You get that, don't you? She is fighting for herself.

Her first concern if she gets elected would be to get re-elected in 2012. She will be in office fighting for that and that alone. And if she has to stay in Iraq or sell us all out on health care to do it, then she will.

Nothing will change in Pennsylvania or Ohio.

And she will get re-elected in 2012. It's sad.

[apoyo]

So I gather that the conventional wisdom is that voters will be easily swayed by a "below the belt" fighter? What does that say about those who simply follow without question?

[Michale32086]

Why can't you apply this same "kick ass" philosophy to the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq???

It seems that, more and more on the Left, people are advocating more and more aggression and "political violence" within the political arena... But when it comes to REAL scumbags like Saddam, Chavez and Ahmenjihad, all of the sudden the Left is all sweetness and light and all about "dialog" and other such nonsense..

If the Left wants to be consistent, they should decry Hillary's constant "kitchen sink violence" and applaud the diplomacy that Barack shows towards Clinton.. In the alternative, the Left should advocate the same "kick ass" mentality towards terroristic despots who want to do REAL harm to America and Americans..

As Spock would say, "It's simply not logical."

Michale.....

[CaptainObvious]

Michelle! Long time no see! Back to wage a little "Operation Chaos"?

[Michale32086]

Sorry... Do I know you?? :D

Michale.....

[riconap]

"All vices hide under the cloak of virtue." Hypocrisy is far more repugnant than sin. Time, as has already been demonstrated, will serve to expose the hypocrite.

[RENREVARD]

I AM SO SICK OF THE TALKING POINTS OH YOU KNOW THE REPUGS ARE GOING TO DO THIS AND DO THAT.THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE PUBLIC IS SICK AND TIED OF. HERE WE GO AGAIN WITH FEAR CARD. WE WANT A GOVERENMENT FOR THE PEOPLE NOT THE K STREET CORRUPTION THAT BOTH CLINTON AND MCCAIN ARE UP TO THERE EYEBALLS IN!

[Bullyness]

I'm quite sure the gloves will come off. To his credit, Obama is just not willing to punch Hillary in her mouth because they are ACTUALLY on the same side. By the way, politics is not bloodsport, we shouldnt equate it to violent struggles, it only allows us to fool ourselves into believing we need bloodlust from our leaders, and there is enough off that to go around.

[jhamm1]

"It was a stupid thing to say - not because there's not a grain of truth in it"

Bullshit, the patterns have been demonstrated time and time again, not least on account of the disproportionate number in which these small town hicks constitute the bulk of fundamentalists in this country and the large extent in which these individuals tend to vote Republican, despite economic policies which effectilvey screw them over and thus exacerbate their bitterness.

You "Grow up", and while you're at it, try thinking of a more persuasive argument before branding as fundamentally "stupid" arguments which obviously strike a personal chord inside you and thus illuminate a truth that you don't want to admit and which furthermore pisses you off to the extent of formulating an incoherent argument.

[riconap]

You position would be fine if only progressive Democrats from the northeast and west coast voted for president. In the real world, the one where Gore and Kerry lost elections they should have easily won and the one that chose Nixon, Reagan and Bush (two terms), your philosophy would predictably lead to history's repetition. By the way; they don't "cling" to their guns and their religious beliefs because they're "bitter." I doubt they are as bitter as you and so many other Obama acolytes. While your assertion that many people vote against their own interests is true, you fail to recognize that many people vote based on how the candidate makes them feel and how they feel about the candidate.

[fairwitness]

That's exactly what I've been wanting from the Democrats, sir, thank you for such a clear declaration of it. You are completely correct--we NEED one of them to embody the righteous anger and sense of duty required to stop this country's rapid disintegration and disgrace, not to mention self-destruction.

These are epic times, demanding, as you eloquently say, a Titan, a hero willing to sacrifice and lead. The forces arrayed against that happening are daunting, but what's the alternative?

I heard, for the first time this weekend, that indignant arousal in Obama's voice that I've been waiting for. I will hope that he allows his rational understaning and compassionate nature to be expressed more forcefully than heretofore. I believe the people will respond with ever-greater support. He needn't be a saint, but he must be a warrior. A spiritual warrior. Otherwise the dark forces of Republican, conscience-less aggression will overwhelm him. And us.

[Bullyness]

Be patient. Sun Tzu, art of war, there are age old techniques of offense and defense.

[MPeter]

Hillary needs to be thrown out of town. She is a lying hypocrite determined to gut down the Democratic Party. She could care less about working class Americans. She is sitting on $109m, she and her hubby having sold off some of our jobs to Colombia for a cool $800,000. How can these thugs be trusted ever again???

[MzTexas]

You obviously didn't read the above article, did you?

[diamondgirl9]

I actually wanted to reply to the article regarding we need a brawler for the dem nomination.I agree with the author 100%. The democratic party is so worried about not offending the opposition,they never fight for what they believe in.. The minute they are criticized by the Repubs,or those idiot pundits,they cave,they retreat,they apologize. The Repugs,and those other knuckle draggers on the other side have no such qualms-they define those who disagree with them unpatrioti­c,elitist,­and heaven forbid,una­merican,an­d what do democrats do-start ass kissing and apologising. Our ideals are worth fighting for,and fighting hard just as the Repubs do. Democrats better get a backbone,and that includes Obama,and they better do it fast ,because if they don't,we will have Bush 3,the further erosion of the middle class and worse yet,war without end..