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
And it is the election of the Supreme Court. Obama, be yourself and go after McCain. Hire Samantha Powers back: "After careful review I have decided that I need people on my team who, except for the f word, speak the truth". Hilary, if you have already arrange the veep with McCain, just go.
Mr. Bromwich
Good strategy on how to approach the national security issue :-)
What strategy should Senator Obama and his camp have to get their ecomonic policies out there? I think they came up with some doable solutions that everyone would appreciate. I would like to hear more about them from Obama and his surrogates on some of these tv shows. How do they get those points across and skip all the other nonsense that comes up on these shows?
Its time to pull out the American memories of the blue dress with a certain stain on it---to remind America of the Clinton years and the embarrassment and shame it brought---and the manner in which it emboldened the neo-Cons..
This is probably the most well thought piece i have read about on this so far.
Words still fail me when I try to comprehend what Clinton's game plan is. In my opinion, and as many have suggested, Clinton knows she can't win this nomination. Her goal now is to damage Obama enough hoping that he'd lose and she'd run again in 4 years.
I can't help but wonder aloud what the "party elders" are thinking. Are they really going to let Clinton damage the party? She might as well be running on the same ticket as McCain. I don't see how the people behind Obama (me included) can rally behind Clinton should she, in some miraculous way, win the nomination.
Let history show that Clinton destroyed the Democratic party while the leadership sat and said nothing. It's a real disgrace to the say the least. At a time when so many young voters, the future of this party/country, are getting involved, Clinton - blinded by her ambition and hatred for Obama, decides to spoil it for everybody.
Assuming that she wins the nomination, how is she going to beat McCain? She has clearly said that he is the most qualified.
Brilliant!
Good Call! Just keep RISING ABOVE, Obama.
Our National Integrity depends on it.
Excellent piece, and I couldn't agree more. Hillary Clinton and John McCain are so alike in so many ways. And Hillary's eagerness to align herself with the Republican candidate reinforces the calculating, triangulating view many of us have of her. Bill Clinton was all to ready to throw his constituents under the bus any time it served his personal ends. Hillary only offers more of the same.
Any Democrat who aligns herself with the Republicans and against a fellow Democrat does not deserve the nomination.
Absolutely right!
Somebody, anybody, please talk with Obama.
Perhaps the monster is angling for the veep spot on McCain's ticket. Experience, after all, is the coin of their realm.
I hope he takes your advice. It sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Perfect!
Very well put. Hillary has defined herself as an extension of John McCain - Obama is the only Democrat on the ticket.
Since Obama is the only Democrat on the ticket, if Hill wins the nomination, I will be voting Green Party instead. I cannot in good conscience vote for a war candidate.
tselfe - excellent observation! I agree - Senator Obama is the only Democrat on the ticket. Well said!
Agreed. This strategy will work against both McCain and Clinton. I hope someone from Obama's inner circle reads and considers this.
Obama's speach on Tuesday was directed to McCain. I totally agree with this position. Obama must present himself as representing an entirely 'anti-Bush' candidate ... the horror of losing Samantha Power in this quest is no small thing, however. She was his best surrogate. I fear however that now that we have learned that Rove is advising Mccain and thus we are up against two "Rovian' campaigns, that the Democratic Party is in deep trouble. Once again, we have been hoodwinked. I think the results of the TX and Ohio primaries and the (particularly in TX) amount of Republicans who voted for Hillary AS WELL AS the suspiciious findings in the official results showing "0" republican votes in about 10 TX counties once again raises the spector of election fraud. We also have that recount in NH, which was called off due to lack of funds to continue which reflected overvotes. I fear that the reason Clinton wins in the primaries is bec ause they still have machines which can easily be manipulated. Once they figure out how to get Republicans to show up in caucuses, we are in deep trouble, and that could be starting today in Wy. and continue in Mississippi. Things look grim.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
