Obama's Run Against McCain Begins Today
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.
Loading comments…
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
Bravo!
Hillary should get her ass thrown from the Democratic party for her comments regarding herself, McCain and Obama. Any party leaders out there? Hello? Hello?
http://www
This might help get it started.
Hillarys comments should disgust anyone who is truly a democrat
It was a clear example of how she puts herself before the country
and why she should be denied the democratic nomination (besides being behind in delegates and popular votes, of course)
Simple and briliant. I enjoyed reading your analysis Mr. Bromwich.
It is painfully obvious to Democrats who are paying attention to this nomination process that Obama is running against McClinton. After Hillary's unprecedented comments today that McSame will be a better president than Obama, Hillary has sunk to a new low. Any Hillaryland supporter that still thinks she is running for president to help this country has been totally discredited. Hillary is running this campaign for her own ends (period).
If Hillary thinks that McSame would be a better president than Obama she should just run as McSame's VP. She and McSame have so many of the same policies and traits in common anyway.
-Both are extremely hawkish and have EXACTLY the same voting records on Iraq and Iran.
-Both would not talk to our enemies.
-Both have 20 or more lobbyists in there campaign or as fund raisers.
-Both are probusiness to a fault and take PAC money from corporations.
-Both do not believe in change, hope or unity.
-Both measure experience by their corrupt lives in Washington politics.
-Both use fear to get themselves elected
-Both have notorious tempers.
-Both are come from a long line of Republicans.
-Both appeal to the same demographic, older white people.
-Both use wedge issues to divide the Democratic party.
-Both are fighters especially with those of their same party.
-Both favor NAFTA. Remember it has now come out that it was the McClinton campaign that were told to take their NAFTA rhetoric with "a grain of salt".
A vote for McClinton in the next primary is a vote for McSame no matter how you look at it.
McCain said his campaign was going to focus on the economy. Nice, considering he was instrumental in funnelling 40,000 jobs overseas and locking out Boeing.
His "motivation" was the American taxpayer. I think the American taxpayer would prefer to pay a little more (if that is even the case and I doubt it) and have the money STAY IN THE UNITED STATES as wages for our workers than to ship it overseas.
This requires some serious investigation.
Briliant! Spot on! I hope someone from the Obama campaign will get a chance to read this superb essay. David Bromwich, you've made my day! Thank you. I am going to pass it along and so should everyone on this blog who is a supporter of Sen. Barack Obama.
Excellent post.
Thanks for this article.
Asking for details on just what Ms Clinton officially did that warrents her claiming 35 years' experience would certainly be a start.
Asking the question and not letting it go, politely, graciously, forcefully, then following up with as many questions about claimed experience by Ms. Clinton is information the voters have a right to know.
If, by experience Ms Clinton means she was there when an event happened, that's not experience in the event itself.
Obama should not give up, given the opportunity to confront Ms Clinton to back up her claims of vast and superior experience, with details of decisions that she actually was officially involved in making.
I think that Ms. Clinton expected no serious opposition to her candidacy and is almost offended that Barack Obama has caught the imagination of the entire country and other coutries as well.
Hillary and McCain are a team. If either one of them win, the War Machine wins. Their operatives have a financial interest in this war continuing. I am not speaking out of my behind. Here are some facts:
Hillary Clinton's Chief Strategist is Mark Penn. He is the CEO of Burson-Marsteller, a Public Relations and Public Affairs firm.
Burson-Marsteller is owned by BKSH, whose Chairman is Charles Black. Black is Senior Advisor to John McCain!
While he is on the BKSH payroll, Black lobbies in his spare time as well; His clients include General Motors, JPMorgan, AT&T and none other than United Technologies.
United Technologies is the parent company of Sikorsky..
Sikorsky, sells Black Hawk and Comanche helicopters and various missile systems, including helicopters presently in use in the Iraq war.
IN addition..
I guess the question is, who does UTC want to swing the election to, McCain or Clinton. Probably anyone other than Obama, who does not have ties to these Defense contractors.
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. All of these facts are independently verifiable.
Why isn't the media running with ThIS?
Because it's disgusting and the media is owned by MIC connections as well. We must have FAIR elections. Paper ballots with the count overseen and documented. Although, a dumbed down electorate doesn't help. Conversely, life was better when I was dumber. All this dirt is depressing.
I add my vote: this article is spot on. I hope the Obama campaign is listening.
Excellent.
The Audacity of Smoke & Mirrors
Behind in all the major criteria by which a candidate may lay claim to a nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) has resorted to a Smoke & Mirrors strategy to salvage her once presumptive victory.
Behind in State primaries and caucuses won (nearly 2 to 1), behind in pledged delegates (including super-delegates), behind in the popular vote by nearly 250,000 (including Florida), HRC would now have us believe that she is that much closer to the nomination, after having won Ohio and Texas.
According to HRC, both she and McCain have crossed the threshold of commander in chief; according to HRC, both she and McCain bring a lifetime of experience to the Presidency; according to HRC, a Clinton-Obama ticket would be formidable in the general election; according to HRC, doubt is raised as to Obama's inability to win the 'big' states.
Such statements, innuendo, comparisons and insults, are nothing more than rhetoric built upon a temporary spike in public opinion and timely favorable media coverage.
This latest strategy is designed to shift the conversation away from unforgiving math, to the less certain realm of salesmanship.
This strategy will fail as it belittles those States which Obama has clearly won (primaries & caucuses included); the strategy will fail because it attempts to silence the majority of the popular vote; the strategy will fail as it attempts to nullify the delegate count.
Oddly enough, in a consumer oriented society, as is the United States, we can be sold practically anything. Dare not forget the Iraq War.
For this sale though, we're not buying.
Hillary is like the rowdy drunk who doesn't realize the party is over and you have to think of a way to get him out of the house.
Ignoring her is a great idea. Eventually she'll understand that nobody is listening to her nonsense anymore...
The "35 years of experience" she attributes to herself is simply a lie; very similar to "the surge is a success." There should be rules in political campaigns. We don't seem to have a nation of laws anymore. To lie about one's resume in a campaign should be illegal. It's illegal in the business world. It's basic FRAUD. Someone running for the top job in the country shouldn't be allowed to flaunt the law. She's thumbing her nose as us. Giving us the finger and then the crazy ass laugh. This is unbelieveable.
The Obama camp should hire you as an adviser.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
