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
I like the advice to Obama.
The problem I see with Obama doing just that, is, for some reason, Clinton is always able to play both sides of the coin. She is either the "fighter" or the victim. The uniter, which I don't see, or the polarizer, that I do see.
How can she say that Obama had a free ride with the press when, she can cry on TV and get a boost then go right back to the cold woman she is?
35 years of experiance in learning how to play the same old game, thats how! Why did she wait 35 years to bring the change she talks about?
Where are the tax returns???
Obama has had a free ride because the media has allowed him to play the race "victim", while his campaign is busy painting the Clintons as racists.
Obama seems to think MLK is just another tailor-made tool for him to use as a martyr against whom Hillary has created grave injustices while Obama drapes himself in the MLK legacy.
That's not only a free ride. That's a cynical boost the media has given him.
It's unfortunate that the media has been taken in by transparent reverse race-baiting that the Obama campaign has used as a central strategy.
I wont argue here. Only say that I don't agree with the race thing.
I think that the central strategy has been cool, calm and collected. Use better judgment and remain ubove the fray. Don't forget that he is winning agianst one of the most entrenched establishments in all of politics. For Obama to even be even with the Clintons is a negative to the Clintons..
I am very offended by her claim that being someone's wife is experience enough to count as much as women who have real hands-on experience. That position is horribly sexist.
I want a woman president soon, but I want her to get there on HER merits, not her husbands or that of some other male relative!
Clinton does have experience, but her claims to superiority require that we includes time as first lady at both the state and federal level and without those years, it's just not enough for the job she's applying for.
I agree with what you are saying.
I don't like women supporting her because of a desire for a woman in the oval office. I am not opposed to a woman as president. I am very opposed to her. There are plenty of women who are far better prepared and much more worthy of the position. I think that Hillary stayed married to Bill because she needs him. On one hand she is a stand on her own self assured woman and on the other, if she weren't still married to a former president>>>she wouldn't be in the race at all.
I don't see this is the major defecting from party loyalty that others do, but Bromwich's strategy is a good one. He should attack McCain, and then dish it back to Clinton by proxy.
Please explain why. I can't understand it.
Excellent advice and extremely sound logic, sir, unfortunately 'the Clintons' seem to belong to their own party, and now hear JUST the 'siren call' of their continued ambition for POWER. It's now 140 years since the previous impeachment to Bill's of a decade ago, yet this 'most polarizing' couple in OUR country's politics, since perhaps Richard Nixon, would have us believe they will somehow unite everyone for a better tomorrow.
Thank you for the reality checks you provide us, some blindered supporters WILL be reached.
I think we should be careful about holding the Clinton responsible for the impeachment, Whitewater, bitter partisanship fo the time, etc.--they were 95% the product of the right wing smear machine that can't wait to sink it's tusks into Obama. If you hate the Clintons now as a symbol of partisanship, division and personal destruction, then you'll hate Obama after his first term ... Because the right wing smear machine is going to make him one too. Think about it.
Either you choose not to remember, do not know or you've not read much of Bill's early Presidential years. They were SO despised because they broke EVERY deal they ever made with ANYONE, to change ANYTHING.
If you think the distrust for them by republicants(and others) was JUST due to a sleazy smear-machine, exactly like they now run against Obama, and that THEIR responsibilty was ONLY 5%, you really should get out more and talk with folks that DON'T drink Clinton kool-aid. I don't know a single person that won't vote for Hillary that doesn't have logical reasons, mostly involving their LIES.
Smear machines being used against Obama will HAVE TO start from scratch and may never gain traction, where Clinton material is decades deep and OUR country does NOT need to relive all that '90s crap, that eventually brought us the current preznutz.
YOU think about it....
David: A brilliant, brilliant piece, thank you! In HC's manipulative maneuverings around "McCain alignment" she may have hopefully dealt herself a death blow. How bizarre too that the Clinton's (not forgetting that Obama is also running against Bill, too. That makes for 3 opponents. Obama is a bad-as, no?) in Mississippi mentioned a ticket that included Obama. Nutty is all I can think of! Hah! Many Obama supporters like myself would never tolerate a ticket that included HC. And certainly Obama himself is smart enough to know that as HC's VP he would play second fiddle to Bill, like Gore did to Hillary. And, I cannot imagine Obama enduring the humiliating bimbo eruptions and scandals that are endemic to "Clinton" political life. No, I agree with you. In focusing on McCain he defeats HC by association and by refusing to play it her way!! Go Obama!!
I think they should privately agree to "offer" the nomination each other the nomination -- and loudly advertise it -- and also agree to decline the offer. This should assuage at least some of the animosity. I only wish that Obama could then offer it to another woman, but I'm afraid that might be suicide as, sadly, there are many white men who are not ready for a black/woman (or woman/black) ticket.
enjoyed this.
As always Professor Bromwich, an excellent post. Until the past couple of weeks, I would have been glad to support either of them against McCain, although I leaned slightly toward Obama. But not anymore. She has crossed a line so bright red that I can't understand how any democrat could support her any longer.
I know! What are they thinking???
my sentiments, as well.
Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. What a difference to the lightweight commentary I had to read elsewhere lately. David Brooks already celebrated the fact that Obama is tied to his positive message and thus cannot fight back against HRC. As always with Brooks, a short-sided analysis. Obama cannot win on her turf, but he can move his army and attack her in the rear, where she has firmly attached herself to McCain, and therefore Bush.
From now on it should be: Obama vs. Hillary, McCain, Bush. HRC will either have to distance herself from the Republicans or defend them. Let's see what she will do.
And yes, please somebody send this to the Obama campaign.
Memo to the mainstream media:
Hillary Clinton DID NOT win Texas. Obama won the caucuses and ended up with more overall delegates. Please stop reporting that Clinton was the winner.
And, she WAS NOT the "underdog" in Texas either, as she and the MSM have led us to believe. She was 20 points ahead a month ago. She won by 4 points (not including the caucus). She did not "stop" Obama dead in his tracks (he GAINED ON HER BY 16 points!). She did not gain momentum for herself in Texas or stage a big "comeback". Losing 16 points of your lead in one month is NOT, repeat, NOT "gaining" anything. The MSM (now, apparently being led by Clinton if they weren't all along) has shaped this race from the start. Exactly the way they've shaped all 20 of the "debates". Didn't the Womens' League used to sponsor debates, back when there was actual substantive debate content? The MSM spin could once again determine who controls this country - as it has for the last 3 elections. And we still call ourselves a democracy?
I agree with your assessment Mr. Bromwich, I don't know how Clinton thought that buddying up to John McCain was going to provide her bona fides for winning over the rest of the Democratic voters in the remainder of our primary season but if that isn't shooting herself by revealing her infidelity to the party and alienating the remainder of the superdelegates whose help she now needs, I don't know what is. She is supposed to be running against McCain, not getting him elected! And yes she is making Obama's job much easier.
Actually, I think Hillary means that Bill carried her across "that threshold". I heard a pundit on NPR say that up to 20% of Hillary's supporters will become McCain supporters if Hillary is not nominated. Shades of Lieberman. I wonder if Hillary, like her DLC friend Joe Lieberman, will support McCain if she loses the nomination? What a slap that would be.
I agree this thing done. Really, I don't want a revote in FL or MI because just like in real life, our voices aren't always heard. If push comes to shove I want a caucas. Caucases allow the more intelligent, driven voter to choose the leader. Representation doesnt matter as long as we get it right. Also, don't worry about Hillary's voters. If we name Oprah as the VP we will win back the white female voter in droves.
At last I've found a soul mate on the blogs re caucuses. The caucus format is very democratic because it allows for political discourse which is what I think democracy meant to the ancient Greeks. It is open so is likely to discourage the crossover tactic to disrupt the democratic process as we saw in the Lieberman/Lamont and which we will see in some of the remaining 12 contests thanks to the Republicans already having a chosen candidate. I used to be fond of the secret ballot, but I think in the age of electronic voting, it is better to have openness.
This is the first post I have read by Prof. Bromwich, and I want to thank you, sir, for putting so succinctly what many of us are trying to express. One need not add anything to your comments.
Haha--yeah, let's END secret ballots!! Keep deluding yourselves
I like the idea of paper ballots and people, under surveillance (maybe video & other people), counting the votes. I also like having voting over a couple of days, with one day being on the weekend, like a Sunday, when more people are available. Caucuses sound good too, but just not to the exclusion of paper ballots and flexible timing.
A little-discussed fact is that, under the current rules of the Democratic Party, there can NOT be a re-vote for a primary election do-over. The do-over must be in a different format, i.e., if the disputed contest was a caucus, then the do-over would have to be a primary or some other method, and vice versa. I suppose they could just decide not to follow the rules, but I don't think they will.
Brilliant analysis! Would you be so kind as to email it to the Obama campaign?
Obama must adopt the strategy Prof. Bromwich is suggesting with the equation, Clinton=Mc
"Would you be so kind as to email it to the Obama campaign?"
All of us should do this.
His campaign staff, which filters communications to Obama, can't ignor all of us.
Done!
Ignore Hillary at your peril.
Hillary is asking the Super delegates to do something unamerican
She won 1/2 the states that Obama won. Now you say that it is delegates that matter. Well you also know that he is way ahead there too. The only other count is the total tally...Oh
She is done. Now she is, as Pelosi hinted, taking her marbles and going home. And, giving the republicans the election while she is at it. 35 years and she still acts like a 12 year old when the time comes.
She is in it for herself and now she is showing that.
Her plan is to make up some arbitrary criteria, like these states are important while these others don't count. Then convince her look-alike followers that it is the only just way to think about it. (Forget delegates, the entire system is meaningles
I am afraid of this scenario.
He's not saying to ignore her. He's saying to make sure the people see (as evidenced by her own words and actions) exactly where she stands. And that happens to be over on the Republican side of the fence. Right next to McCain and Bush.
Dream on.
True enough statement, but a parasite is still a parasite! It doesn't become better just because you pay attention to it.
Do the math.
Brilliant article! The Clinton's have stooped to the lowest denominator by endorsing McCain in this way and betrayed the Democratic party. The Clinton history is one of weakening their own party ushering in 14 years of Republican dominance in congress and the two terms of G.W.Bush. They are at it again - short term gains for long term disaster. I hope Senator Obama can and will fight back with candor, dignity, intelligence, and passion. Have no doubt that the Republicans have gone to bed with Hillary - Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have encouraged their constituents to vote for Hillary. It is transparent that the only hope for Republicans is to run against the Clinton's and they know it.
Senator McCains new campaign slogan: "IF IT'S BROKE, DON'T FIX IT"
I like that IF IT'S BROKE, DON'T FIX IT!
I cannot believe that we have allowed Mae Ling Clinton to get so far. The Clintons, Joh Breaux, Robert Strauss and others were the architects of the DLC. They championed the stripping of power from the unions and from all of the old Democratic power blocs. They donned the robes of Republicanism and sauntered to the center with welfare reform, nafta, and the gospel of a balanced budget. Today, Hillary is retracing her steps to court those same Demcrats that the DLC stabbed in the back. We should never have allowed her to cast herself as the champion of those they had formerly betrayed.
Barack Oboma is the logical son of the DLC and should be its standard bearer because of his eloquence and ability to lure young people and Republicans into the Democratic party. He is the champion that the DLC intended but now they want to stop his arrival by running back to the very unions, minorities, hispanics, and less knowledgeabe voters that they turned away from when they created the DLC, to create an electorate of uneducated voters that doesn't remember their wiles.
I think that this is the key to Pennsylvania-to run at the very blocs of her support that they have beguiled until now!
What I don't understand is why Hillary is tying herself to the old white man standard.
If she is suppose to be an agent of change shouldn't it be more then a change in the gender of the butt sitting behind the desk in the oval office?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
