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.

Comments

[Indedave]

Can you picture what Hillary's camp would resort to if Obama ignored her? Maybe she would slot in just fine as McCain's sidekick so she could really get her digs in.

[BrooklynLager]

It's hard to imagine what Clinton's campaign would do that it hasn't already. Come out and EXPLICITLY call him a muslim? Resort to blatant race-baiting? Carry a sustained line of argument that says that John McCain would be a better president than Bar... wait - they've already done that one.

[UNCLEJOE]

The GW Administration has been the most catastrophic period in American history. Obama has to remind the public of each and ever anti-American decision GW has made from lying to invade a nation which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and to the President's Patriot Act plus GW's 72 Executive Resolutions limiting civil rights that would criminalize anyone violating any of GW's unconstitutional resolutions.

People have short memories (Machiavelli) and need to reminded of GW's past anti- American and anti-constitutional acts that have cost untold deaths and maiming of innocent humans and has run our government's finances into a three Trillion national debt.

And then Obama should tie these Bush criminal acts to the Senators who supported every bill GW sent to the Senate, and Hillary was one of these Senators who gave Bush carte blanch to cary out his nefarious agendas..

[bish66]

She is running for President and has to distinguish herself from Obama. One contrast she has been trying to establish for some time is her superior experience compared to him.

Senator McCain, like him or not, is a well-respected Senator with lots of experience and a record of bipartisan work in the Senate. If you disregard the fact that he is a republican, then there are only a few politicians in Washington that can match his status. Obama surely can not match McCain's experience. By comparing herself with McCain and contrasting him and herself from Obama, she is trying to drive home the point that Obama is a freshman Senator with little experience and I think that this is legitimate.

She is not applying for the VP position on a McCain ticket, she is trying to win the nomination. As soon as she has won that she will go after McCain and she will win.

[Dragon5616]

But if her argument is based on experience rather than judgment, she loses to McCain on that issue hands down.

[realistxxx]

QUOTE
____________

"Obama surely cannot match McCain's experience­."
____________

Neither can she, my dear, neither can she.

[thebirdstheword]

You can try to justify it as much as you'd like, and you're trying really hard. But to ignore that she's made a huge gaffe either shows you to be pigheaded or ignorant.

I expect you to start backing McCain the day after Obama gets the nomination.

[boonagain]

spin, spin spin

[BrooklynLager]

In terms of foreign policy experience, Senator Clinton is probably in the bottom third of Senators, and certainly nowhere near the level that John McCain is on. Her attempt to move the debate onto ground that McCain, frankly, thrashes both of the Democratic candidates is puzzling, and while it definitely hurts Barack Obama's chances in November, it does nothing to bolster hers whatsoever.

[KRANKY]

Repuke dream ticket:
John Bush McCain/Hillary Dubya Clinton
2008-2108

[anons]

"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."

Are u listening Clintonites?? Probably not because you have shown a remarkable ability thus far to overlook Clinton's hypocrisies, and two faced politiking.

I'm not even a dem but if CLinton is meant to be the old guard of the dem party, and her supporters find themselves in a similar category, her aligning herself with McCain seems....w­ell...righ­t in line with her unpredictable win at all cost style. THat's the kind of president we need

[armadillious2002]

I agree 100% and have been thinking this for several days. He needs to just rise up now above Clinton and zero in on McCain.

[brueso]

I disagree. If he ignores the negativity from Billary without specifying why it is so repugnant, some undecideds will just view him as someone who shrinks from a fight. When he said at the debate about 6 weeks ago "I was organizing while you were on the board of Walmart", Hillary was enraged- to the extent she spit out her line about him 'representing a slum lord'. Many said after that "I don't like to see our candidates fight"- but Hill backed off him for a few weeks. Those so-called 'lunch bucket' Democrats want to know that their candidate is a tough fighter- and this is factored in when people decide who they think will protect them from terrorism, etc.. Obama is a tough fighter- he has to just stop double guessing himself about demonstrating it. Smacking back when you've been hit- as he has been by her 'threshhold' comments- is not seen as being negative- it's seen as standing up for yourself.

[SleepDeprivationSociety]

Hillary's rhetoric has been disgusting lately. It forces one to question her true motives.

[brueso]

what is there to question? She wants to be the Presidential nominee and she doesn't care if she jeapordizes the chances o fher Obama if he is the nominee. Her first priority is winning the nomination- and if that doesn't happen, she doesn't really care if the Democrats lose to McCain. Christ, the way she's been talking, it's like she's been angling to be McCain's running mate.

[DRHoen]

The biggest obstacle I see to this tactic is how to execute it without appearing to sink to her level, how to avoid making favorable comparisons of McCain compared to her.

[brueso]

People who have been following the campain know that he's tried to keep things on the high road. But the Clintons have no hesitation to attack- even if it means it helps McCain- and he Obama needs to fight back or those who are undecided will just decide to go for one of the 'tough' candidates. She's given him openings to attack- she says she has 35 years experience- it's totally appropriate for him to ask her to detail what she's done in those 35 years. Already her bragging about Ireland, China and Kosovo has made CNN (which has been pretty- pro Hillary) doubt her. Who has donated to Bill's library and what might they expect if Hill is President? She keeps talking about releasing her returns on April 15- well, why wait til then? Why didn't she read the Joint Chiefs briefing before the Iraq vote? What are the actual details about what she intends to do in Iraq? These are all legitimate questions that are not personal attacks. Wolfson likening Obama to Ken Starr was a joke- the pundits laughed- but alot of voters don't even remember who Ken Starr is- and many don't see him as negative as the Clintons themselves do.

[kempis]

Well, I agree that Obama needs to run against McCain. That would be a great strategy.

I disagree, however, with just about everything else, including *how* he should run against McCain. He can't run as the philosopher-king who's above war. If he does, those lunch-pail democrats who voted for Hillary in Ohio will vote for McCain in droves.

Obama needs to fight back on judgment--and on integrity. He needs to hit McCain on that horrid photo-op he did in the Baghdad market and go after McCain's disturbing "spin" on Iraq. He needs to present himself as a speaker of facts and hard truths on Iraq. He needs to out-straight-talk the "straight talk express." And he needs to do is crisply and soon.

If Obama doesn't project strength and integrity in a way that resonates with blue-collar dems, he may win more delegates but lose the popular vote, which will throw the party into a quandry. And if he's awarded the nomination by the superdelegates on delegate count only--having lost key demographic to Hillary in the big swing states--he most likely will not defeat John McCain, which would be tragic.

He's got to fight back. I agree that fighting back against McCain would be smart. But he needs to start forcefully and crisply speaking to some of the issues he'll address in the general and do it NOW.

[mesuki]

Can somebody please tell me who are these people voting for Hillary? Do they not know her past? The Clintons are the most dishonest ,corrupt,and unscrupulous couple I've ever seen.Do people think that when they get back to the whitehouse,they're going to change the way they've done business all these years. Hillary has no shame.she will do anything to be president. She reminds me of a spoiled child that when they can't get their way they start whining. I feel sorry for her husband,she must be hell at home. I admire strong women( I'm one),but Hillary is an embarassment to me.

[realistxxx]

"It Takes a Village Idiot" to fall for these tired old "politics as usual" attacks from HRC.

Oh! That's right Bush won in 2004 using the same approach..­. I guess Americans aren't as smart as we claim.

[eli10]

Obama doesn't seem to be able to run against anybody. His acolytes seem a lot tougher than he is. Just saying.

[nellie]

"I have some news for John McCain. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before George Bush and John McCain invaded Iraq." —Barack Obama.

Don't tell me he doesn't know how to fight back.

[rosal]

Is this why the the woman wants to be on McCain's ticket? She reminds me of Zen Miller. I almost said Marc Rich. Do your research. Speaking of Marc Rich, when is she releasing her tax records, husband's list of donors to his library, her phone logs? Just saying

[vaughan]

Funny, someone "not able to run against anybody" has more delegates and is winning more votes than anyone else running.!!

[thebirdstheword]

Look at the delegate scoreboard- he's cleaning Hillary's clock.

Hillary's enormous mistakes in campaigning, most notably putting all her eggs in the big states only, has caused her a ton of problems.

I thought she was experienced???

[BrooklynLager]

I love these "Barack Obama just isn't cleaning Hillary Clinton's clock thoroughly enough" arguments. Last time I checked, the candidate with the most votes wins. That ain't Hillary Clinton.

[shengirl]

Excellent! Thanks. Now let's hope someone from Obama's campaign reads it, and takes it to heart. There needs to be a middle ground for him, between down and dirty in the gutter, or trying to float above it all. Running against McCain, as if he [Obama] already had the nomination, and not against Clinton's screeching, would be perfect. Let Clinton rant and rail; Obama's busy with Policy.

[Manx]

I agree with your post. Obama must stick to the high road and not lower himself to Swillary's level.
In her scorched-earth approach to the nomination, there are no rules of decency. She doesn't care whether she ruins it for Obama and takes the Democratic party down with her. By endorsing McCain over Obama, she has become an opponent of the Democratic party. Swillary is a defacto Republican, supported by the likes of defacto Republicans, Dianne Feinstein, Lanny Davis, Lieberman and the like.

By endorsing McCain, Swillary has confirmed what we already knew.

[dlswriter]

She's more like Zell Miller. Call her Zellary. She should be at least kicked-out of the Democrat party like Lieberman, but I prefer they run her out of town like Miller.

[marykins123]

This article is by far the BEST I have read to date....th­ank you. Now the problem is - will the Obama campaign read and head the advice that is given - the question of the day for Barack and his advisers.
I am an Independent that has hours logged in the Gore campaign (because I scared of the Bush policies on the environment and our Supreme Court). I spent +40 hrs/wk on the Kerry campaign even knowing John was, my opinion, a weak candidate (because of environment, deficits, Supreme Court and the Iraq war).
2008 I have supported and still believe Obama to be what is best for our country and the world. He, in my opinion, will get the citizens on board that there are real hard times facing our nation and we ALL must be part of the solution. McCain and Clinton have scared me from the beginning, but I would have, once again, supported a Democrat on the ticket....­..NOT anymore...­..once Clinton threw HER support over McCain over a fellow from her own Party I am now sitting on the outside waiting to see how the Democrat's select their candidate. IF the DNC Machine, headed by Bill and Hillary, put a Clinton on the ticket after attacks on another Democrat like Clinton has been waging - I will not support, vote for either party, do a write-in (worth nothing other than I did vote), and shake my head in shame wishing that everyone in this country that votes would have to show a PURPLE finger so I could question their rationale for the vote they cast.
PLEASE, someone bring sanity back into the process of selecting the leader of our country and the world!

[EJ99]

You took the words out of my mouth. Having spent the last few months reading avidly online it is certainly amongst the best analyses I've read, and the writer is to be commended. I hope his 'team' is listening, yet really they've run such a finely tuned campaign (and yes, I include in that the fracas around Ohio/Texas which has been way overplayed in terms of its centrality in material terms except perhaps in terms of the perception factor) I'm sure they are.