Last week saw an event in our politics so giddy that we have yet to absorb its implications. Hillary Clinton, flush from her "comeback" in Ohio, told reporters that John McCain inspired her confidence on foreign policy; McCain had certainly "crossed the commander-in-chief threshold." She herself had crossed it, too, she said; but as for Barack Obama, "you'll have to ask Senator Obama" whether he is really prepared to serve as commander-in-chief.
Puzzling: a contender for the Democratic nomination, praising the Republican nominee as preferable to her Democratic rival. It was a rash act and probably unprecedented. Joe Lieberman did something like it, but only after he declared himself an "independent."
Nor was Senator Clinton finished. In the same session with reporters, she glowed at the thought of herself and John McCain together. "Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold," she said. And again: "I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say. He's never been president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech made in 2002."
As other observers have noted, this is the kind of thing you say if you are John McCain's running mate, not what you say if you mean to campaign fiercely against him. It was a remarkably destructive statement--a defection from party loyalty, and a subversion of the principle that is supposed to underlie such loyalty.
To speak so emphatically about the president's role as commander-in-chief is to speak in code. It means all of the following: that war is the foremost thing in our minds when we think of any president; that this is especially so because we are now entangled in a necessary war on many fronts; that what we look for in a president is "a war president" (George W. Bush's description of himself); that the war in question is indeed the "global war" initiated by President Bush; and that a worthy commander-in-chief must be an enthusiast for the perpetuation of that war.
Hillary Clinton is the social-democratic candidate of the war establishment.
John McCain is the right-wing candidate of the war establishment. Both Clinton and McCain know this. They look on each other kindly, and share a disdain that borders on contempt for Barack Obama.
Obama cannot not join them on that stage. No: he cannot make a third on that "threshold" (as Mrs. Clinton oddly called it). He could not beat them at their game, even if he wanted to. But in this year, when so many lives have already been lost for the wrong ideas, if there is to be a contest over ideas and not just persons, Obama will have to show in every speech how wide is the gulf that separates him from Hillary Clinton and John McCain.
Obama's campaign is haunted by a fear of "going negative." Obama, it is said, has made a certain high-mindedness his touchstone. Yet to mount a strong attack on the "war presidency" will hardly undercut his proper fame as a politician of greater candor, probity, and gentleness than Senator Clinton. Hillary Clinton's sharpest attacks will always be directed against Obama, and those attacks will have to be sharply answered--Obama cannot play the part of the statesman above the battle until he is elected. And there are occasions (such as the mental and moral lowness of the "red phone ad") when a mere concern for truth warrants an impassioned response. But her attacks on him should not distract him from his larger work of opposing McCain.
These two contests are really one contest. It is Senator Clinton who has spent the past week tying herself to John McCain as fast as McCain could tie himself to the purse and leading-strings of George W. Bush. They have thus simplified Obama's task. The most direct and appropriate way for Obama now to run against Hillary Clinton is to run against John McCain.
Treat McCain as the opponent, and Clinton, with all politeness, as the ghost on McCain's threshold. If she dares to follow Obama into opposition again, let her try; but here Obama is the one with the "lifetime of experience."
An open run against John McCain, starting now, will also be a referendum on the presidency of George W. Bush. Because, to repeat, McCain has pinned himself to Bush just as Clinton has pinned herself to McCain.
Every honest accusation against George W. Bush, as things now stand, becomes a challenge to McCain to diverge from Bush in some particular; but if McCain budges an inch to criticize Bush, he exposes himself as a hypocrite for having warmly defended Bush's policies, and for a great many superfluous favors on both sides: the "hug" that helped to re-elect Bush in 2004; the endorsement of "the surge" that baited a bigger trap for the U.S. in Iraq; the acceptance of Bush's political, moral, and financial support, on which McCain's campaign in
2008 will be predicated.
Hillary Clinton's evident pleasure in the company of John McCain goes naturally with her reluctance to attack President Bush in any but the most general terms. This fact would be fairly brought to light if Obama now turned to make his case in detail against the Bush administration, with an informed judgment of the cost in destruction it has brought to America and to the world.
Let us never forget the moment when we saw this president's first reaction to Hurricane Katrina, or rather his first series of reactions. We had a glimpse of the abyss then--of a leader singularly wanting in comprehension, foresight, and competence (and any proper respect for competence in others); of a staggering deficiency of humane feeling, and an irreparable loss of contact with reality. All this, Americans learned once and for all when Katrina hit New Orleans; but the world had seen it when George W. Bush hit Baghdad. And John McCain heartily endorsed and Hillary Clinton authorized that war.
This is not, finally, an election of the new against the old. It is an election about the place of America in the world of nations, and whether we are to be known primarily as a dreaded superpower. It is an election about catastrophes, both natural and man-made. It is the election of Katrina and Baghdad.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I'm beginning to notice less of the ferocious apologetics from Hillary supporters who comment here. Not so long ago, days even, almost every unflattering post about her attracted a raft of swift and scathing rebukes from the Hillarites. It seems to have lost its edge as she begins to lose them.
why the focus on experience? aren't cheney and even rumsfeld two of the most experienced pols ever to grace DC?
I would tie McCain as closely as possible to cheney and rummy as well as Bush if I were and obama insider
Great points, David. If I recall, Hillary made her "McCain has the experience to qualify him to be president" at a cramped, crowded media event with several military generals in uniform. The event was the perfect icon of 'Hillary as bully,' courting the oh-so-official and serious uniformed officers, and using their stamp of approval to dis not only the (Jr. Senator from Illinois) campaign... but _all_ of his supporters, donors, and activists too.
On the other hand, despite her seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Hillary has never taken the 15 minute cab ride from the Capital to the Walter Reed Army hospital, where she would have learned that wounded Army vets were being warehoused, forced to wait for rehab or therapy, forced to jump through hoops, or outright denied care.
Shades of Hillary's "I'm a corporate lawyer, sitting on Board of Directors of WalMart co., while other members of that board go on a furious ANT-UNION tear" which of course meant that Walmart was shafting taxpayers with the health care costs of Walmart's own workers, as the Walton heirs were getting filthy rich
Across the board, Hillary seems to be playing from the Bush (if not to say Karl Rove) playbook... talk in "compassionate conservative" platitudes, but if you ask for specific examples - on health care, women's rights, children's programs, etc. - you may get one or two small instances, but no ahead-of-the-curve, tradition breaking leadership. (If, in case of union busting, war votes, credit extortion "reform", and oversight of war powers, etc. she isn't solidly in the neo-con camp.)
To sum up, Hillary made her "McCain is qualified" comment while surrounded by her Praetorian Guard of uniformed (retired?) generalls.... but if she is out front, LEADING for our war-wounded veterans, for oversight of the war, for investigations into contract fraud which drains away from our war effort, I have yet to see it.
THE KATRINA OF THE MIDDLE EAST
Why would a peace presidency of a Barack Obama be any less destructive for the Middle East than the "war presidency" of George Bush? As Obama shows signs of continuing the enabling of Iranian power in the region what we could expect from his presidency is a Katrina type catastrophe to hit the Persian Gulf States-as the hurricane hit the US gulf states. Katrina is not Iraq, Bromwich. Mark my words: The Katrina of the Middle East is yet to happen!
But Obama must not do Clinton's dirty work - in an event, she steals the nomination. Yes, he needs to run against McCain but more importantly he needs to run against Clinton, Attack Hillary's financial dealings, her relationships with lobbyists and special-interest groups. All of which in doing so, will INDIRECTY dove tail into McCain, his lobbyist ties, etc. McCain and Clinton are already somewhat alike when it comes to Iraq, but Hillary is much less decisive. Another bad distinction against Hillary. Obama needs to make sure that if he destroys McCains candidacy, he has must insure that Clintons candidacy above all is the one destroyed first. . If given any reasonable doubt, the Clintons, will destroy Obama's candidacy and directly the Democratic party. Why should Obama, be a fool and do Clinton's dirty work.
Very clear headed. Thank you. It's so easy to be spun into total dizziness.
Had either Hillary or McCain been C-in-C in 2001 instead of Bush, we would still be in Iraq. No difference.
Had Obama been the C-in-C, we wouldn’t be in Iraq.
That’s the difference.
Instead, Obama would have focussed on going after the thugs who did us harm. They wouldn’t have the safe haven they have in Waziristan. And, through combination of diplomacy and intelligent use of force, Obama would have built upon the goodwill of the world we had on 9/12.
That’s the difference.
To those supporting Hillary: Haven’t you had enough of NeoCon policies? Haven’t you had enough of death and destruction? How can you possibly choose Hillary over Obama. For heaven’s sake, wake up.
This is, indeed, brilliant. Only hope the Obama campaign notices it.
Now MSM must eat crow because the truth has emerged. Obama took Texas.
UPDATE 4: MSM Finally Admits Obama Won Texas
by MaverickModerate
Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:52:50 AM PDT
So far it's just NPR but it's a start. The are finally admitting what was evident late Tuesday night. With 41% of the Texas caucus vote in, Obama's 12 point lead (56/44) is insurmountable.
NPR is reporting a net 3 delegate lead for Obama once all is said and done.
MaverickModerate's diary :: ::
This is how this works, first there is the TX primary:
Clinton won the primary with 51 percent of the popular vote to Obama's 47 percent, according to the Associated Press. Those results earned her 65 delegates to Obama's 61 delegates.
Followed by the TX caucuses:
The state Democratic Party estimates that Obama will come out ahead: 37 pledged delegates to Clinton's 30 delegates
Clinton: 65 + 30 = 95
Obama: 61 + 37 = 98
Brilliant.
Good morning sweet HuffPos.
There are twelve featured blogs on the home page this morning.
Four of them are general info, blonds missing etc.
The other eight are Hillary bashing articles like this one.
This one is long but could have been encapsulated in one sentence.
"I'm a twitterpated Obamabot and rootin' tootin' Clinton bootin' bullshit shootin' propaganda man.
The comments would still have been mostly of the "nothing but net" variety that I've seen so far and you could have saved yourself a bunch of typing.
I guess most of us "old" decrepit Clintonistas are still in bed, with visions of prosperity dancing in our heads from days gone by.
But, being a former bulldog and a man of eloquent words I figure you needed to spell out your position in a more grandiose fashion.
I'd personally just like to see a few more Joe Wilsons or maybe even a Lanny Davis in here to balance out the fairness.
Version 15578.9 of the "Media Biased Against Clinton" whine.
Quit blaming the ref.
Democrab(by),
Why is a suggestion that the top contender for the Democratic leader shift gears and go after their GOP opponent instead of reciprocate and going negative against his trailing rival a BAD thing?
It seems that Mrs. Clinton is the only one determined to bring down her own party to the gutter by not only repeating unapologetically 4 times (at least) how McInsane would be a better choice for president than another Democrat (outside of herself of course), but by concentrating her wrath at Obama instead of concentrating on HER positions, what kind of hope would SHE bring to the White House, the POSITIVES.
Mrs. Clinton has sabotaged her own, and thus the Democrats, chances at any serious criticism of her "good friend" John McCain, by touting him as presidential material. If she actually wins the nomination, she has set herself up to be elected based on Washington "experience" something McCain will beat her on every time.
Give it up, for the sake of the party and the country...please bow out now Mrs. Clinton.
Perhaps you can TiVo Saturday Night Live and watch it over and over again? I'm trying to help.
Excellent article. As I heard Billary making her idiotic statements I was wondering why she just didn't switch parties. She has tied herself to McCain and Bush. Obama only needs to hang the Three Stooges together. Fixing the war will allow the economy to be fixed and HRC won't stop something she started.
We finally have seen people who spell "Team" with the letter "I". The Clintons. I think Ambrose Bierce may have been describing them when he said:
“I” - is the first letter of the alphabet, the first word of the language, the first thought of the mind, the first object of affection.
What Barack Obama has that both Billary and McBush lack is dignity. David Bromwich offers up a plan for Obama to expose the weakness of the McClinton corporate juggernaut while maintaining his natural dignity [his most saleable asset---"sincerity, that's the key, once you can fake that, the rest just falls into place by itself".] We must understand that world opinion of our country was taken down quite a few notches when George W. Bush took office. Aided and abbetted by the Idiocratic support of all the various fixed noise outlets, the quality of politcal discourse in this country descended to a level even Swift could not have envisioned. Seriously folks, did you really expect that the evening news would spend a fair chunk of airtime during the Bush Administration fixated on an endless parade of Republican pederasts? Barack Obama's ability to spontaneously produce coherent, well phrased responses to reporters questions, the simple fact that he can provide a "good face" for our country after eight years of the smirking chimp is reason enough for left, right, center and way off on a limb voters to go for Obama. If we don't do something about putting on a good face to the world, and real soon, we can kiss our U.S. economy and Rock & Roll Lifestyle goodbye.
A REALLY GREAT COMMENT! David Bromwich, I take a bow and tip my bowler to you. Your comment was EXACTLY, what was needed to lay out the next steps to be taken by Barack Obama and his campaign to finally prevail in this contest.
I dearly hope, someone at the Obama-headquarters wil take your piece and read it to the attendees at the monday-morning-conference. You're right: By launching (perfectly justified) attacks against Bush, the Obama-campaign will hit BOTH at a time: McCain AND Hillary. Why? Because they ARE one of a kind - brother and sister in arms, one might say.
Mr. Bromwich, you made my week. I will gladly spread your article to all on my email list. Of course, I wanted to let you know that so you would not think that I am plagiarizing you ;-)
Agreed. *** applause ***
Brilliant analysis! Hope the Obama campaign is listening.
Loading comments…
Posted March 8, 2008 | 12:43 PM (EST)