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

[AnninCA]

The truth seems to hurt Obama supporters. However, today, the Repubicans did, indeed, launch their attack.

I'm afraid they will wipe the floor with him on this issue.

So it's up to voters to determine if she's accurate and should be the nominee.

[amazedandoutraged]

I think Hillary and Obama should start now to demonstrate who is going to be the most affective opponent to John McCain and let us be the judges. Right now, Hillary is losing big time.

[kreidsy]

Great post! I hear Obama has room for a new aide...

[nochickenhawk]

Excellent advice! Well, what of it Prof. Bromwich? Obama needs to hear your thoughts first hand.

[TN]

Yea, I said this last week, well not as good as you. It was either on this blog or the democrats.org site. I also said the media is trying to paint him into a box saying that he can't be negative. He said he wanted to change washington politics, being in the back pocket of major corporations. He has always done well when he has cut down cheney and bush, before the primaries. Remeber the time it was raining at one of his outdoor events and he said, "and Dick Cheney said it was going to be sunny today." The crowd, and me, went nuts for that stuff. Just keep talking to the people barrack, make sure you address everything that smells bad in your speechs, and compete against your true opponent, John McCain.

[rogerbarton]

I think the best tactic for Obama is to completely ignore Hillary McCain-Bush Clinton. If she attacks just tell the media and the world her attacks do not mean anything, because she is no longer competition in this race for the White House, John McCain is. Tell them she stopped being a competitor back when I won 12 states in a Row. Tell them she is nothing more than a Democratic Huckabee.. Just an annoyance with no significance in this race any longer. Continue that approach and I think Americans and the media will follow his lead.

[DRHoen]

Totally. I think he may actually have started doing this. When she questioned his commitment to get out of Iraq, he said something like "she doesn't have the standing to question me on this." LOL - I love it.

[MysticMichael]

Right on the mark, Mr. Bromwich. By having cozied up to John McCain, Hillary has shown her true colors, i.e. her disdain for party unity and her natural affinity for corporate and military-industrial complex values and priorities. She has thus given Obama a superb opportunity to exploit the contrast between his positions and hers - which he is 100% justified in doing.

Obama wins by staying on the high road, and by magnifying the issues...

[WharfRat77ch]

Yes, launch detailed attacks on the disaster that is the Bush administration's policies. Yes, attack John McCain for his pledge to continue those misguided policies and ask the public rhetorically, is the continuation of a bankrupt policy the definition of "crossing the commander-in-chief threshold"? Frame Hillary's statement as an endorsement of Bush's policies, showing her as the war-monger she is. Give the public a clear choice between change away from the last 30 years of Republican policies or more of the same. If that is a recipe for disaster, as stated by another poster, that America will again be swayed by the politics of fear, that we haven't learned anything especially after the last 8 years, than we deserve what we get.

[NotWaldo]

Clinton's praising of John McCain's candidacy is absolutely unacceptable. McCain is the same man who sang jokingly about bombing Iran, talked about staying in Iraq for 100 years and promised more wars to americans. What the hell is wrong with that woman ?

[altohone]

To summarize-

THE PRIMARIES ARE THE ELECTION!

The future of the country will be decided, and the choice is status quo Hillary or McCain, or change Obama.
This post is excellent and I hope Obama follows your advice.

Since I'm not part of the Obama campaign though, I'm not bound by his decision to rise above.
I refused to stay silent when Bill lied, or when the Hillary camp tried every smear in the book.
I thought enough people were made sick to their stomachs by their actions that it was over, but now we have Hillary supporters selling the idea that going negative and blatant lying is necessary and desirable.­.. that it's actually a pre-requisite in order to face the GOP.

That's not my Democratic party.

If that's what sells, I will hand deliver copies of my letter informing all of my departure from the party at the convention in Denver... followed shortly by a lawn sign that reads "I used to be a Democrat".

The choice between revelling in slime or holding my nose is not a choice.

[englishprof]

I agree! I suspect this article offers a brilliant approach for the rest of Mr. Obama's campaign. My wife and I will quit the Democratic party and actively work to destroy it if Billary becomes its nominee -- with all his/her slimy tactics, such as trying to seat delegates from a state (FL) in which all candidates did not campaign.

[spence17]

I love how Obama people are now trying to portray themselves as the only true Democrats now. I find it humorous considering Hillary is the only candidate left who will truly fight for the values of the Democratic party. Go ahead and put your sign up, we don't need you.

[DRHoen]

Even worse, they are trying to pin the negativity label on Obama. They keep slinging mud and then screaming (which the media parrots), "stop slinging mud!" Where is the Free Press!?

[NotAConspiracyTheorist]

Thank you very much for that post. I have been despondent about the turn this race has taken.

I have been thinking along the same lines myself. It is time for Obama to differentiate himself from both of those `experienced' opponents. He can do this without going negative. All he needs to do is point out where all of this experience has gotten us and show us how he will lead us in a new direction.

[elkabong]

They're married and Hillary carried John across the "threshold­."

Barack should feel free to link Hillary, John and George in every assessment he makes. John and Hillary are sittin' in a tree because Hillary invited him up. Obama wouldn't be out of bounds to speak their names as a phrase from now on.

Simultaneously, he should exploit Philly and give a speech series. If he's going to rise above it, he needs to do it in a big, attention getting way.

[TN]

Yea, I like it.

[TLV]

Who wants to join me in a collective scream?

The same KKKarl Rove who said that McCain had fathered a black "love child" in 2000 is now recruiting Bill O'Reilley to say McCain is the best choice for president because he adopted a daughter..­.the same girl they let stupid Americans think was that illegitimate child!

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/08/the-oreilly-factor-karl-rove-points-to-mccains-adopted-daughter-as-example-of-mccains-worthiness/

[YellowDogInRedCounty]

I think you hit the nail on the head, elkabong. I think every time Obama mentions Clinton, it should be "Clinton-M­cCain-Bush­" as in the "Clinton-M­cCain-Bush War", the "Clinton-M­cCain-Bush lobbyists", "Clinton-M­cCain-Bush recession", etc.

[Upsen]

The one thing that bothers me most about a possible Clinton presidency is something that seems to get very little attention. If she is elected and serves two terms, it will mean that two families will have had control of the most powerful office in the world for 28 years. If you count Bush Sr's years as VP, it means that those families and their circle of friends and advisers have been in power for 36 years. I keep being surprised by the lack of discussion about this, since it goes against a lot of the fundamentals of our system of government. It's also surprising that coming off a great a example of why you shouldn't elect a person based (at least somewhat) on being related to a previous president, some are all set to do it again.

[TLV]

That's why Hillary Clinton's tax records are vitally important. If she and Bill are as deeply indebted to corporate war profiteers as a source of income, she should not be president. She will not remove a huge source of ready cash if she can help it.

[Stoyver]

The word "oligarchy" come to mind.

[DRHoen]

Agreed. Belief in authority is the scourge of democracy. People in power are automatically perceived to have authority. Some key elements to counteract this problem are: term limits; a separation of powers between branches of government, each with the authority to oversee one another; a free press; advanced education (especially learning to think critically and question authority). All of these are decaying in contemporary America.

[DietrichMoody]

Your point, "Senator Clinton spent the past week tying herself to John McCain .. thus simplified Obama's task." is an EXCELLENT point. And couldn't be stressed enough. Hillary's fundamental mistake is not that she thought that this Country needs a candidate with strong experience that will guide us through war. But she miscalculated on what type of guidance American's want. She is assuming Americans want guidance ruled ONLY by being "On the Offensive - Tough - Confident". Unfortunately, she will lose this hand against McCain, since he came out on the offensive with tough lines such as "I willl follow Bin Laden to the gates of hell - and the surge is gonna work" This is confident and he is ok with it, because he is displaying Republican reasonable­ness-lite, and Republican thoughtful­ness-lite. Whatever it is, its more than Hillary's. On the Offensive - Tough - Confident, this is what Hillary is NOW trying to run on but her big Miscalculation was that she omitted from her analysis is that Americans not only a candidate that is tough and confident but Americans want reasonable, thoughtful, judicial, and decisive candidates as well.

On the Offensive - Tough - Confident, this is what Obama should continue to concentrate on. Obama, showed his toughness and confidence with his decision to let go of Powers. It was a tough but right decision,showed backbone, and he needs to continue to show confidence. Hillary cannot respond to him effectively, if he acts all three "On the Offensive - Tough - Confident, because she lacks greatly in what he has: reasonableness, thoughtfulness, judiciousness and decisiveness. These aspects, of course, guiding ones, ability to be "On the Offensive - Tough - Confident", this is what Americans really want. Great post, btw.

[Burningspear]

I sincerely hope that someone at the Obama campaign read this post. It is right on target and provides Obama with a sure way to win while still maintaining his integrity. Who would have imagined that Hillary Clinton would turn out to be Joe Lieberman ESQ.

[kb]

Obama is a phony and this article proves it. He's always been out for himself and never cared about the issues concerning his constituents.

http://dallasobserver.com/2008-02-28/news/obama-and-me/print

[TLV]

Lots of feelings and opinions in that piece. Got anything factual?

[chlllfactor]

KB - If you want to throw labels about, it is Clinton who is the phony, not Senator Obama. I believe one of the reasons educated voters vote for Obama is because they posses great critical thinking skills (an important faucet of education) and are not swayed by the Clinton bulldozer machine. Clinton's aligning herself with McCain in order to bring-down Obama is treachery of her own party at its height

[DRHoen]

I agree. Critical thinking vs. belief in authority is playing a major role in this election.

[Politihal]

Thanks. Nice piece of literature for a rainy Saturday afternoon read from a Yale literature professor. . You've got a wonderful imagination.

Halli Casser-Jayne

http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com