Welcome to the Campaign, Senator Obama

With just over nine weeks left before the Iowa caucuses, Barack Obama has finally decided to take off the gloves. It's about time.

In an interview with Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times -- which, it's worth noting, Obama's camp requested -- Obama said "now is the time" to distinguish himself from Hillary Clinton.

As Isaiah Wilner put it, "Obama finally declared this weekend that he's going to start running for President of the United States instead of class president."

Obama's unwillingness to engage Clinton has been puzzling to many of his supporters. But holding back was apparently, as Nagourney and Zeleny put it, "a calculated decision to introduce himself in early voting states before engaging opponents." It's a calculated decision that just doesn't add up.

We've all heard the old political saw about "establishing the candidate" before going after the opponent. But why separate the two processes? An election, after all, is a contest -- a zero-sum, winner-take-all contest, at that. And a candidate's ability to "engage opponents" is a key element in assessing any presidential contender.

After all, if Obama's not willing to fight for the nomination, what chance will he have in the general election, when things really get tough?

Be careful asking him that, though. According to the Times, "he glared and responded no when asked if he lacked the stomach for confrontational politics."

It would be nice if he showed that same anger at the current political conditions -- and those responsible for them -- that presumably led him to run for president in the first place.

While Obama's newly professed assertiveness is welcome, it remains to be seen if he really intends to follow through.

Just last week, Obama sent out a mailing that was more passive than aggressive. After noting that he was the only candidate to oppose the war from the beginning, it adds, "while others went along, Obama opposed Bush's war plans."

Others? Gee, who could that be? We know who your opponent is, Senator Obama. You're running against Hillary Clinton. It's okay to say her name. The Republican candidates certainly seem to have no problem saying it. Again and again and again. And the reason is because they think she's going to be the nominee. And the reason they think that is because even as late as October 23rd, the Obama campaign seemed reluctant to take Clinton on directly.

This hesitancy has marred Obama's campaign from the beginning and kept him from capitalizing on Hillary's missteps (yes, despite what the traditional media are saying, Clinton hasn't run a flawless campaign). For example, there was that moment in early June, during a Democratic debate in New Hampshire, when Clinton made the jaw-dropping claim: "I believe we are safer than we were [before 9/11]." Obama failed to challenge that statement on stage; instead his campaign released a statement the following day that again failed to include a direct challenge to Clinton: "Senator Obama believes and asserted in the debate that America is less safe since 9/11 largely because the war in Iraq has fueled terrorism around the world." So, despite a glaring error -- one dealing with the essential issue of America's safety -- Clinton was allowed to walk away largely unscathed.

The 2008 election is going to hinge on one key issue -- national security - and Obama's unwillingness to go after Clinton on this vital point was a harbinger of the kid gloves approach to come.

And while Obama absolutely deserves recognition for his early opposition to the war, voters want him to do more than pat himself on the back for being right in 2002. They want to know what he is doing to end the war in 2007.

The last time funding for Iraq was on the table, Obama played it very close to the vest, refusing to say how he was going to vote ahead of time, and waiting until the measure already had enough votes to pass before voting against it. To his credit, he's already vowed to vote against any future funding requests that don't include a specific withdrawal date. But that's not enough. He needs to show leadership on the issue -- and leadership is all about demonstrating the ability to create a new consensus around what you believe.

He should use his considerable platform to reframe the debate away from the White House talking point that if we put a date certain in the funding bill we are not supporting the troops and are giving up on succeeding in Iraq. And that will require talking about this every day until those willing to vote for another funding bill without a date certain feel the heat.

There is another great opportunity that Obama has so far missed: to challenge Clinton's judgment on Iran. Of course, the reason he has missed it, is that his own position on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization is more than a little muddled.

According to the Times, Obama's "aides said that they had been struggling for weeks for a balance between offering a contrast with Mrs. Clinton and avoiding the anger that they said had marked Mr. Edwards's candidacy." Why? Given the current state of affairs in America -- and in Iraq -- what's wrong with expressing a little anger?

Obama's desire for both change and unity has always been something of a paradox because while the vast majority of the country wants change, not everybody wants to change in the same direction. So unity must, at least initially, take a backseat.

The D.C. establishment loves to wax on about bipartisanship. But the truth is that political interests are often in open opposition to one another. Pleasing one will invariably infuriate another. Which isn't to say there aren't policies which are unequivocally good for the whole country -- policies like putting an end to torture, or stopping the war, or insuring children. But not everyone is united behind those unequivocally-good-for-the-whole-country policies. And voters want a nominee who isn't afraid to do or say something that's going to piss some people off.

That's partly what the primary process is about -- Democratic voters deciding who will fight as their proxy.

So while Team Hillary may be moving in for the kill, the race is far from over.

Last week a new group called "Democratic Courage," headed by Glenn Hurowitz, was formed. According to its website, "Democratic Courage is made up of leaders and activists in the progressive movement. We believe that political courage is the key to political victory. Americans want a leader who will stand strong for his or her beliefs -- and not back down in the face of lobbyist pressure or Republican attacks."

And they have no problem drawing distinctions with Clinton:

"Like many Democrats, we believe that Hillary Clinton has repeatedly given in too easily to pressure -- and too often decides her policies not on the basis of what's right, but on the basis of what polls and focus groups tell her. As history shows, that's a dangerous road for Democrats and for the country. We believe there are other candidates who would be stronger leaders and have a much better chance of winning in 2008."

It's the kind of thing Obama needs to start saying -- loudly and often, coupled with real leadership on Iraq and Iran -- if he wants to keep the run-up to the nomination from becoming a Clinton victory parade.

Comments

[xrayman]

Obama is the "almost like" but "not" Clinton candidate, and Edwards is the angry "almost like" but "not" Clinton candidate. Truthfully, I'd rather have the real deal -- and that would be Clinton.

[Qbear]

HILLARY = Lieberman with a fake laugh

OBAMA CURED ME
(of wanting to vote for him)

I'll take what's behind curtain #3.

[ThomasDoubting]

At one time I looked forward to voting for Barrack Obama for President. I have come to the conclusion that he has no intention of winning this race, by moving further and further to the right, with Clinton, while the country moves to the left, is very suspicious. It seems to me that he is acquiring some of the anti-Clinton vote (for next time) and he is protecting Hillary from John Edwards, if Obama were not conducting this faux campaign, John Edwards would clearly be the favorite at this time. John Edwards is the one candidate who can win. One on one he could beat Hillary, Obama, Richardson and the rest of the Democrats, more importantly he can also beat The Cross Dresser, The Mormon, Big Fraud, The Baptist Minister, The Military Guy, The Guy Who Hates Mexicans, or Crazy Alan Keyes. . One of these guys might actually beat Hillary ! ! . Not only is John Edwards less compromised than Clinton, he is moving right to left, not left to right. This should be encouraged in Democrats.

[fromthecheapseats]

Arianna,

You have it wrong when you say that "the 2008 campaign is going to hinge on national security." That's Bush and faux Dem speak for "keep your eye off the ball."

The 2008 campaign is going to hinge on the economy and how the middle class is being screwed out of jobs and healthcare by political and corporate elitists. Obama (and Hillary) are on that team.

[dcazal01]

The only problem with your vision is that american corporations are weaker than in Clinton's time and are being bought by foreigners cause of the weak dollar.

The Bush administration was bad for corporations and that is why the elites are giving money to the democrats; because this administration have been a disaster for all.

Bad for the poor, bad for corporations, bad for the military, bad for the country.

Strong corporations and a better distribution of wealth are not in contradiction.

[xrayman]

You are exactly correct when you say that the Republicans have be horrendous for the military. And yet the military continues to line up behind the Republicans because they want to "kick ass" all over the world.

When will the military wake up and see that they have been used and plundered. Our country has never been so weak, militarily, as it is right now. If we had to defend ourselves against a real military power we would be in trouble. All we have been dealing with so far have been 3rd, 4th, and 5th rate countries.

It sounds weird to say it, but we need a Democratic president to build up our nations military again.

[dcazal01]

When republicans start their personal attacks on democrats how are we going to have any moral stand to claim we are better than them ariana?

[DallasNE]

I have some mixed feeling about the Democratic campaign and how each of the candidates need to frame their message.

Since you specifically address Obama I will stick to Obama.

First, Obama has sounded too much like a College professor. He needs to dumb it down some. In his one recent speech he sounded more like a black minister. Bingo.

As you can see, this has little to do with Hillary Clinton and everything to do with the messenger.

Lastly, it is George W. Bush and the Republicans that should be the target. Yes, it is fair to compare and contrast Clinton positions and point out how she has not been sufficiently tough but the real target is Bush, even during this primary season.

The problem with Obama has not been Clinton but Obama. Clinton keeps winning the debates. Obama must shore up the message and that doesn't mean going negative on Clinton. It means becoming a better messenger himself. Winning a debate would be a good starting place.

[dcazal01]

The reaction to attacking Hillary by all male candidates backfired and this was easy to foresee. Here in this post we can see a change in the position of many and an increasing negativity against Obama, Eduards and Kucinich. They opened a Pandora box and were irresponsible by doing it; they are the ones that are behaving like republicans in the eyes of many. We can do better that this administration and the bunch of selfish republican candidates without ganging on the front runner, this only guaranties mutual destruction.

[poopdeck]

As I had predicted immediately after the previous "Democratic debate" Senator Clinton's support increases every time Senator Obama "takes his gloves off" because her base will be activated. Moreover, Dodd, Edwards and Obama present the eventual Republican contender with a shipload of ammunition against Senator Clinton should she become the Democratic contender. Foremost is Obama's line that "Clinton cannot win". All Giuliani, if he is nominated, has to do is to say: "this is not my opinion but of most Democratic politicians and I agree wholeheartedly". Heck of a job Barackie!

[dr4Will]

the jealous greek continues her comments against Hillary--bama is a 18% candidate--just like your writings

[JamesLM]

Arianna,

I can't begin to say how disappointed I am in you. standing for Obama after his disastrous tour with the anti-gay, right-wing, fundamentalist bigots? Encouraging obama to launch attacks, rather than offer much needed policy specifics? So disappointing.

[fromthecheapseats]

I'd agree with you however, Arianna is a top drawer writer and just because she has her own reasons for not wanting Hillary to win (still pining for Al, are we Arianna?) is no reason to not credit the doyenne of these digs her due.

[lentinelia]

It's just great.
Another advice column for Obama.

Are we talking about grown-ups here - or a schoolyard?

Wasn't there a time long ago when candidates for public office could speak their own minds?

Oh - what am I talking about? It must have been a dream - or a Frank Capra movie.

[Roxanna]

Our television media today has become so corrupt controlling who is in the debates and who gets the most attention and allowed to talk the longest, asked the most questions... It is very obvious we are being guided on who the corporate world wants us to want! MSNBC would not let former Senator Mike Gravel be apart of the debates for crocked up reasons although he has been apart of other debates. He raises the stakes and present important real issues facing America today. I frankly find it scary how country is being taken over by Corporate America and we are being guided into being indentured servants... I guess Americans have to learn the Hard Way!-

[godlessclif]

Obama update: Let"s invade Pakistan!

http://chomsky.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/obama-update-lets-invade-pakistan/

[dcazal01]

The get dirty campaign only favors the republicans.

[morris1030]

dcaz101,

I could not agree more. There is no question that these brawls are not debate, and the GOP have been given sound bytes they only could have
dreamt of.

When Obama, Edwards, and Dodd could not speak convincingly of their own ideas differing with Clinton, they then resorted to crude attacks on Hillary's personal integrity.

This should not be a slugfest. Arianna's talking about "the gloves coming off" is precisely what shouldn't be happening.

If it is so difficult for Democrats who want the nomination to articulate their ideas without resorting to personal attacks, then I have to believe they have little to say.

Edwards in full spittle rage coming on like the DA in Act #2 Scene 3 of "Law & Order" really did a "gotcha moment". All he had to do was disagree like a human being and state his position. He was enjoying spewing hate towards Hillary and it was painfully obvious.

Obama came in on Edward's tailwind from and Russert's attack, and sounded sorta like he knew he had to, so he joined in on attacking Hillary personally.

While I personaly dislike Edwards, Obama was the weak sister here. This slugfest loses for the Democrats. The hatred was palpable. UGH!

This was an ugly scene, and again I'm sorry Arianna thinks this is the way to conduct a debate. If Clinton's positions bear criticism, fine. Then, take her positions apart and put forth your own. Streetfighting isn't criticism.

Next GOP TV Commercial: Dodd telling the world that 50% of the country is against Hillary and he questions her electability, blah,blah.

Democrats should NOT be eating their own.

[poopdeck]

I was not aware that he ever carried any gloves especially when it came to Iran (everything must remain on the table, including nukes).

[morris1030]

poopdeck,

Obama is not a strong candidate.

[spunkster]

Obama lost my vote when he refused to kick out of his campaign tour and then defended the anti-gay religious nutcase, Donnie McClurkin, who then went on to tell the crowds that being gay was a curse and a sin in a gospel-like stage setup. He can bash Hillary all he likes, he's not going anywhere. His plays to the religious freaks in the party are sickening.

[armadillious2002]

Biden is the man - what he said about Pakistan in the last debate was right on. He has foreign policy pegged. And, he ain't afraid to kick the repubs in the nuts. What he said about rudy in the same debate should have been on every national network the next day but it wasn't.

That's the kind of frank talk Americans want to hear. Tell it like it really is - then to Hell with em'

Biden's got my vote but alas I know the masses will never come around in time.

[disgusted48]

That's old news. Move on.

[cuthbertallgood]

Hillary's war vote was several years ago. Is that old news too?
Trying to understand the rules here. Don't wish to rag on Clinton about old news.

[Jun58]

I have a funny feeling that the democratic nominee is going to slog through a lot of MSM unchallenged "swift-boating" by the right thiscoming election. I don't believe there is a left slanted opinion or sympathic left bent by the TV media at all. Let's bring back the Fairness Doctrine so that the public holds the media's "feet to the fire" and we don't have the right wing propaganda that permeates the air waves and cable channels. Otherwise, it's Rudy in the White House, terrorist fear for another 4-8 years and a new war with Iran. Lovely...

[morris1030]

Jun58,

Yes. If the Dems continue to cheaply attack Hillary on a personal basis and name calling...they will absolutely lose the election.

This is expected from the right wing, Russert, and cohorts in MSM.

Swiftboating however is what we watched during the Democratic debate last Tuesday.

[cseper]

Sen. Obama is a nice smart man, but so is Harold Ford Jr. Ford never became senator and Obama will never become president!

[morris1030]

cseper,


You are correct. He is smart. he is nice. Period.