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

[Demonax]

Obama needs a strategy to counter the combined forces of McCain/Clinton. Given that Hillary can't win, one can only assume she remains in the race to do McCain's dirty work. Maybe she wants to be McCain's running mate.

One thing's for sure: Hillary is ripping the Democratic Party apart. She's attacking Obama in ways that Republicans could never get away with, if Hillary hadn't gone there first. If McCain had said half the things about Obama that are coming out of the Hillary campaign he'd have been branded as a typical right-wing racist. But because Hillary said them first, now Republicans can all pile on. How do Hillary supporters feel about Rush Limbaugh's call for conservatives to vote for Hillary?

John McCain has clinched the GOP nomination and yesterday Ron Paul dropped out. Meanwhile Hillary compared McCain favorably with Obama. She said that both she and McCain have experience, while Obama has "one speech." If by "experience" Hillary means the number of years as a corrupt Washington insider then she's right, she has more "experience." In no other way is Hillary Clinton qualified to be President. Would you let your surgeon's wife operate on you? The longer Hillary remains in the race, the more likely our next president is to be John "100 years of war" McCain.

[Centaur]

Since Obama has somewhat boxed himself in by saying he wants to try and run a smut-free campaign unlike his opponent who is willing to say and do anything to win the nomination, I tjhink there may be a way that he can let her have it without sinking to her level by aligning not only McCain with Bush but Clinton as well since she has endorsed a republican over a democrat. So, he can now say that McCain and Clinton will be nothing more than four more years of Bush policy. He might also mention that Limbaugh and Limbaugh wanna-be Coulter has essentially endorsed her as well.

[mix2007]

I honestly do not know why ANYONE in the party is tolerating this behavior.

She has to go. She's a traitor in my book. This is truly unprecedented.

[jteschke]

Dr. Bromwich has stated the central issue of the campaign and of this moment in history. Do we want a free republic or imperial dictatorship leading in a short time to bankruptcy. As Ms. Huffington and Drs. Stiglitz and Bilmes indicate, there is no dichotomy between the economic and military issues, they are two halves of the same walnut. Hillary, even if she somehow could win, though I think she can't: people, in a choice between two fascists inevitably go for fascism heavy over fascism light, would inevitably fail because the economic problems cannot be solved unless the military hemorrhage is addressed.

[research]

Good one.

[Plank]

You are absolutely right. Obama needs to concentrate on McCain and the failed GOP policies. Hillary's alignment with McCain will allow Obama to kill 2 birds with one stone. He would also start the healing process within the democratic party and enhance his electability.

[CorkExaminer]

A powerful article. Excellent strategy.

[AireLes]

HC's comments about McCain and Obama are tantamount to an act of treason against the Democratic Party!! Cannot think of anything more egregious than what she has done. The party better quickly get rid of her and wholeheartedly rally behind Obama to propel him to the presidency. HC is a deadly cancer to the party and more important, the country. So listen up Democractic Party elders, you better get rid of her in the immediate sense otherwise for the party and the country it is "ICEBERG AHEAD!!!"

[JWLANDSCAPES]

I like this argument happening in the vacuum of a liberal anti-armed services blogosphere, it really adds credibility to your clear distaste and disrespect toward a Veteran, POW, and elected official with 45+ years of public service. You may disagree, as do I, on his positions and his solutions for what ails us today, but please spare us your diatribe against our armed forces and any candidate who recognizes the realities of todays world and the threats facing us here and abroad.

I am democrat, through and through, and I believe in maintaining a strong military. Senator Clinton is one of two Senators for New York, and was at ground zero, a first hand witness to the devastation, pain and loss of her constituents, he people. Only one other Senator can share that responsibility and he too voted to authorize the use of force in order to ensure without a doubt, there was no threat existing in Iraq. Keep in mind, a small 50 ml pyrex tube could contain enough biological contagens to kill tens of thousands of people if properly added to a drinking water source, and Saddam Hussein was a known harbinger of such agents, having used them against his own people. Barack Obama fortunately, did not have such responsibility, being he was still a private citizen, with no mantle of responsibility.

Senator Clinton did not add any ammunition to the Republican campaign against Obama that isn't already stairing everbody in the face. His lack of experience, his lack of any foreign policy experience, his lack of any military experience or intelligence experience are all going to be called into question and exponentially harsher than the few mild remarks from Senator Clinton.

Let Senator Obama stand up for himself and show us what he's made of. If he survives this, then he gets my vote!

[deutchs]

Wait-a-second, what foreign policy experience does Hillary have? Answer: NONE She is a bald face liar. Since Ohio's primary it has been revealed that the neo-con Canadian government falsely accused and lied about Obama's stance on NAFTA.

In truth, it was the Clinton campaign that called the Canadian government to reassure them that Hillary was lying to the American people about her Nafta opposition. For the full TRUTH check out Keith Olbermann. Lying to the public is a tactic straight out of the Neo-con playbook.

Carl Rove has said many times, attack your opponent with your greatest weaknesses. Remember how the Bush machine attacked Kerry's military heroism, while brush military history is of a drunken spoiled rich kid running away from even minimal responsibility.

The Hillary campaign is hoping that if they throw enough mud and shit in the eyes of the voters they can fabricate a reality where she is not a loser. What she do not realize is it is already too late. She cannot win, only make Obama lose.

[HowardRoarke]

I feel sorry for you, to go through life with such fear.

[kevinmcd]

Clinton voted for the war for the same reason many other did--they did not want to pay the political price for any opposition. You forget that the so called evidence was based on distortions. And tat she did not even read the relevant intelligence report that caused others to not vote for the war. I, for one, never believed Sadaam was a threat to us. And I was in full support for the war in Afghanistan. There was no evidence that Sadaam was planning an attack on us. The whole idea that this lowly dictator in the impoverished country under constant UN watch was a threat to the US was inane. Why, after we had just invaded Afghanistan and destroyed those in power there, would Sadaam then have taken such a huge chance and planned any action against the US. The whole thing never made any sense. There are countries that could do us 1000 times as much harm, like Korea. Yet we don't attack them when we know that they would likely wipe us out if they could. The Iraq was violated all our principles; we attacked a country when there was no imminent threat to us. We are paying the price for it. You may love the military. And you may be very proud of your service and McCain's. However, we are all entitled to our First American rights to voice our opinions about the war and our strong opposition to it. Those who served in the have no right to suggest that those who disagree with the use of the military are attacking the military itself. Your opinion on these issues is not worth any more than any other American's opinion. To suggest otherwise means you believe the military should control political decisions. That is something our country has never stood for. In fact, the founders did not even want a standing army for fear of the abuse of power. The great general and President Eisenhower warned against the "military industrial complex. " His fears were well founded; the vote for the Iraq war was the ultimate abuse of our great powers. Obama was wise and brave enough to stand up for what he believes in. I believe McCain believes that the War is correct. (Though he must know at some level that the surge will never fix Iraq). But Hillary is all about political posturing-she voted for the war to appear tough, it was popular and she feared to look weak on defense. All with an eye on the White House. Then she switched to saying that she wanted to end the War. Again she did it for political reasons; to appeal to the Democratic party faithful. She believes in nothing but her own right to win. She will likely have another change of heart is she were elected and we would be in Iraq until she is just about to run for re-election,

[DRHoen]

Who said anything disrespectful of the women and men in uniform? I must have missed it. Quite the opposite.

But it is a mistake to make foreign policy experience an issue in this election since none of the candidates have much real experience. McCain will win the battle of perception by default, because of his service and what he suffered (even though it's not really relevant to being a president). Clinton absolutely is helping McCain since she adds much credibility to the arguments he is bound to make by preemptively agreeing with them, and even worse by stating that McCain has more experience than Obama.

[freecasey]

While we're at it in, Obama would be wise to release an ad ASAP with the clip of McCain saying he doesn't know much about the economy. End it with, "I'm Barack Obama, I have a plan, and I endorse this message." Given the news of the last couple of days, that should swing a few votes permanently away from both McCain and Clinton.

[OneLiberalLady]

AMEN AMEN AMEN !!!

Why are we wasting valuable time in nit-picking cat-fights with the Clintons? And Obama has the moral hjgh ground on the war because he always opposed it, as well as on just about every other stand of Bush/McCain. With Bush's approval ratings in the low 30s why aren't we hearing more attacks on the Republican mis-judgments and mismanagement that got us to the sorry state we are in today??

[thegulliblecitizen]

The last time I looked, Bush's approval ratings were in the teens!

[freecasey]

The race is mathematically over as long as the superdelegates don't abandon the popular vote (caucuses incl.) and delegate lead. Your suggestion is right. Obama should start acting like the nominee, reframe his stumps to GWB failure, McCain's desire to continue that downward spiral, profiteering hawks, et al. When Clinton attacks, say sour grapes and leave it. She's not the opponent anymore.

[AireLes]

I totally agree. Obama should act as the nominee and focus on McCain. He should just treat HC as an "annoying case of flees he can brush off."

[Erdgeist]

Apparently, both Hillary and McCain feed from the same lobbyist trough in Washington D.C. I can understand their mutual respect for each other. Also, both have a lot in common with Bush; both are psychopaths (read Professor's Robert Hare's book, Snakes in Suits).

[RichLiberal]

Hillary was just stating an obvious fact. Obama has spent most of his adult career in downtown Chicago doing community service work. In 2004, he was elected to the Senate and has been running for President ever since. I' m not even sure if he has time to move his family to Washington yet.

His foreign policy resume includes such impressive result as being Chair of a Foreign Relations Subcommittee that was supposed to cover Afghanistan and related areas. He never held a single meeting of that subcommittee in over a year as chair. Why? Too busy running for President.

Both Hillary and McCain have foreign policy and national government experience dating back to the 70s when Hillary helped out in the Watergate hearings and in the 60s when McCain served in Vietnam.

Obama, by comparison, substitutes "experience" with "hope", "change", some kind of "vision", etc. Some people are very inspired and excited by that. Good luck to them. Next time they see a doctor ask if they want a community service activist with hope and vision or someone who has actually been to medical school and trained as a doctor.

So, Hillary is not "siding" with the Republicans. She is simply acknowledging that many Republicans also have "experience". It's kind of like the difference between a professional athlete and a fan or sportscaster.

Hope this helps.

[bobdob]

And good luck to Hillary in the general when McCain takes her claims of "foreign policy experience" in both hands and pummels her to death with them. She's GOT to be kidding. Either that, or insane.

[DRHoen]

thanks for saying what i was thinking

[Ajita]

You forgot to mention Obama's 7 years in the Illinois senate. That gives Obama more legislative experience than Clinton.
Your politician-doctor analogy also works against you. I would rather have a young doctor who is up on the latest medical discoveries and has better judgment, than an old out-of-touch quack.

[Plank]

Hillary's foreign policy experience is a myth. She cited among other things her involvement in the Irish peace process. One of the central actors in that process, Lord Trimble had this to say:
"Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml

Please stop this Hillary Foreign Policy experience crap. She may have fooled you and other naive voters, but she can't seem to fool those foreign officials who were there. It seems this so-called foreign policy experience stops at the borders.

[shengirl]

When she was on the Wal Mart board, did she have experience with importing cheap crap from foreign countries, to sell in their stores? Maybe that's what she means...

[Tinuviel]

Actually Hillary was stating a lie. The subcommittee that Obama chairs is not responsible for Afghanistan, it is responsible for Eastern Europe. Yes Hillary and McCain have been to "medical school"so to speak, and they have both been responsible for the mess the country is in now.

[silverball]

...your first paragraph sort of suggests that you don't know what you are talking about....." in downtown Chicago"....ther is a LOT of difference from the south side and your implication of a michigan ave work space..... i think the other "replys" correct the rest....and if you haven't figured this out yet...it's EXACTLY her experience we don't want or need any more of...

[CWWest]

Running against McCain is a good approach. To truly end the ugliness the superdelegates need to start breaking towards Obama.

Hill has now irritated all the repubs and half the dems, and we don't want an irritating 25% leader making DC more of a cesspool than it already is.

[MikeB08]

As a HRC supporter, I hope Obama does begin to run against McCain. That way voters will hopefully realize he can't win against McCain while there is still time to nominate HRC. Her shrewd campaining and years of experience is what it will take to win the White House. Obama's so called high road campaign will only earn him a seat next to John "turn the other cheek" Kerry during McCain's inauguration.

[maggieb]

Yes, yes, yes!!! Well said. They seem to have forgotten what happened to Kerry when he was running in 2004. He was crippled because he did not know how to what> FIGHT. The repubs just rolled all over him. So Obama, keep that up, or learn to rumble before you get blown away like Kerry.

[DRHoen]

Are you completely oblivious to the current state of the American psyche? Do you think it will be difficult to beat the Republicans? Only if you claim as your strengths that which they already own, like national security. (And this is exactly what the Clintons are doing.)

I wonder how far she'll have to go before your faith is shattered.

[GDliberal]

Great article.
She stepped over the line,she should pay the price. Every important issue should be framed as being a bush/mccain/clinton issue.
Unfortunately there is one set of rules for the clintons an another for the rest of us mere mortals so she'll claim foul and fools will follow and push the claim.