Battle-Tested

With the emergence of Sen. John McCain as the presumptive Republican nominee, the choice for the Democrats in the 2008 presidential election now shifts to who is best positioned to beat him, in what promises to be a more hard-fought campaign -- and perhaps a nastier one -- than Democrats anticipated.

Sen. Barack Obama's promise of transformation and an end of partisan politics has its seductive appeal. The Bush-Cheney era, after all, has been punctuated by smear campaigns, character assassinations and ideological fervor.

Nobody dislikes such poisonous partisanship, especially in foreign policy, more than I do. I am one of very few Foreign Service officers who have served as ambassador in the administrations of both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, yet I have spent the past four years fighting a concerted character assassination campaign orchestrated by the George W. Bush White House.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of the few who fully understood the stakes in that battle. Time and again, she reached out to my wife -- outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson -- and me to remind us that as painful as the attacks were, we simply could not allow ourselves to be driven from the public square by bullying. To do so would validate the radical right's thesis that the way to win debates is to demonize opponents, taking full advantage of the natural desire to avoid confrontation, even if it means yielding on substantive issues. Hillary knew this from experience, having spent the better part of the past 20 years fighting the Republican attack machine. She is a fighter.

But will Mr. Obama fight? His brief time on the national scene gives little comfort. Consider a February 2006 exchange of letters with Mr. McCain on the subject of ethics reform. The wrathful Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of being "disingenuous," to which Mr. Obama meekly replied, "The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you." Then one of McCain's aides said of Obama, "Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong."

Mr. McCain was insultingly dismissive but successful in intimidating his inexperienced colleague. Thus, in his one face-to-face encounter with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama failed to stand his ground.

What gives us confidence Mr. Obama will be stronger the next time he faces Mr. McCain, a seasoned political fighter with extensive national security credentials? Even more important, what special disadvantages does Mr. Obama carry into this contest on questions of national security?

How will Mr. Obama answer Mr. McCain about his careless remark about unilaterally bombing Pakistan -- perhaps blowing up an already difficult relationship with a nuclear state threatened by Islamic extremists? How will Mr. Obama respond to charges made by the Kenyan government that his campaigning activities in Kenya in support of his distant cousin running for president there made him "a stooge" and constituted interference in the politics of an important and besieged ally in the war on terror?

How will he answer charges that his desire for unstructured personal summits without preconditions with a host of America's adversaries, from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Kim Jong Il, would be little more than premature capitulation?

Senator Obama claims superior judgment on the war in Iraq based on one speech given as a state legislator representing the most liberal district in Illinois at an anti-war rally in Chicago, and in so doing impugns the integrity of those who were part of the debate on the national scene. In mischaracterizing the debate on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force as a declaration of war, he implicitly blames Democrats for George Bush's war of choice. Obama's negative attack line does not conform to the facts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I should know. I was among the most prominent anti-war voices at the time -- and never heard about or from then Illinois State Senator Obama.

George Bush made it clear publicly when lobbying for the bill that he wanted it not to go to war but to give him the leverage he needed to go to the United Nations and secure intrusive inspections of Saddam's suspected Weapons of Mass Destruction sites. Who could argue with that goal? Colin Powell made the same case individually to Senators in the run up to the vote, including to Senator Clinton. It is not credible that Senator Obama would not have succumbed to Secretary Powell's arguments had he been in Washington at the time. Why not? Obama himself suggested so in 2004. "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don't know." He also told the Chicago Tribune in 2004: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." According to press reports, Powell is now an informal adviser to Mr. Obama.

In his tendentious attack, Obama never mentions that Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspectors, declared that without the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force the inspectors would never have been allowed into Iraq. Hillary's approach -- and that of the majority of Democrats in the Senate -- was to let the inspectors complete their work while building an international coalition. Hillary's was the road untaken. The betrayal of the American people, and of the Congress, came when President Bush refused to allow the inspections to succeed, and that betrayal is his and his party's, not the Democrats.

Contrary to the myth of his campaign, 2008 is not the year for transcendental transformation. The task for the next administration will be to repair the damage done by eight years of radical rule. And the choice for Americans is clear: four more years of corrupt Republican rule, senseless wars, evisceration of the Constitution, emptying of the national treasury -- or rebuilding our government and our national reputation, piece by piece. Obama's overtures to Republicans, or "Obamacans" as the Senator calls them, is a substitute for true national unity based on a substantive program. His marginal appeals have marginally helped him in caucuses in Republican states that Democrats won't win in the general election. But his vapid rhetoric will not withstand the winds of November. His efforts will be correctly seen by the Republican leadership as a sign of weakness to be exploited. While disaffected Democrats may long for comity in our politics after years of being harangued and belittled by the right wing echo chamber, the Rovians currently promoting Obama are looking to destroy him should he become the nominee. Obama's claim to float uniquely above the fray and avoid polarization will be short-lived. He is no less mortal than any other Democrat -- Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry -- all untouched at the beginning of their campaigns and all mauled by the end. We should never forget recent history.

In order to effect practical change against a determined adversary, we do not need a would-be philosopher-king but a seasoned gladiator who understands the fight Democrats will face in the fall campaign and in governing.

Theodore Roosevelt once commented, "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly."

If he were around today, TR might be speaking of the woman in the arena. Hillary Clinton has been in that arena for a generation. She is one of the few to have defeated the attack machine that is today's Republican Party and to have emerged stronger. She is deeply knowledgeable about governing; she made herself into a power in the Senate; she is respected by our military; and she never flinches. She has never been intimidated, not by any Republican -- not even John McCain.

Barack Obama claims to represent the future, but it should be increasingly evident that he is not the man for this moment, especially with Mr. McCain's arrival. We've seen a preview of that contest already. It was a TKO.

This article is adapted from a piece published in the Baltimore Sun on February 12, 2008

Comments

[grailskr]

A necessary read for those Obama supporters of which until recently I was one...however Mr. Wilson is not saying that Obama should not be president, he is saying-just not now, not at this time.
Quite frankly the Repubs really are going to have a field day with this guy, to see why and how go to Hillary's website and click on "facthub"-
Unfortunately Mr. Obama has gone from humble nice guy to arrogant ass, and in the process has shown he is not yet ready to take on the role of "Commander­-in-Chief" and since we've already had one adolescent yahoo in the White House I really don't think we need another.
Let's face it he's been a terrific "Cheerleader" but the pep-rally is over it is time to get down to the real nuts and bolts of what's at stake and what needs to be done and according to his voting or should I say his N(on) V(oting) record while in Congress he will have a very difficult time assuring me and a hell of alot of Repubs that he can handle the job. Once he has matured, then I hope to go back to being an Obama supporter, but until then first things first - get the repubs out of office, bring back diplomacy, bring the troops home... she's saying 60 days from when she takes office-as I recall he only says "soon" ...Re-work NAFTA to OUR advantage, etc... want more go to her website she has it all laid out, haven't seen a plan from him, but I suppose if I wait 5 minutes he will have gone to her site too and just copied it...
By the way-has he really done anything of substance for the people anywhere-she has in fact one of the programs she started back in Arkansas is still around 30 years later-you know damn well McCain will bring up his years of service and rightfully so...and Mr. Obama has how many years of Public Service???

[ErinG]

Repeating the Hillary spin over and over again doesn’t make it true.

[ErinG]

Nonsense! Bottom line: Hillary gave Bush authority to use force in Iraq.

[dkmedl]

Hillary joined in with a majority of the Senate to authorize the war if necessary to protect our national security. She spoke out against a "premptive strike" and expected Bush to let the U.N. inspectors do their job. Bush and his cronies planned and executed the war.

Obama was not even around to actually vote on the resolution. And he has admitted that he doesn't know how he would have voted if he had been there (in a more candid moment before the truth of the lies about WMDs in Iraq was known). At one point (before the war became so unpopular), Obama even said that he and Bush were "on the same page." That was taken off his website for obvious reasons.

[ErinG]

Since other Senators voted to give Bush authority to use force in Iraq, Hillary’s vote to do the same doesn't reflect bad judgment? Bad judgment is bad judgment, period.

[jrizal]

Obama supporters are like all those people who got themselves into the mortgage crisis by buying into a dream and not caring about the fine print.

[laughingcoyote]

BLAH BLAH BLAH...More negative words from the Clinton Cabal...i guess you must tear this fine man(Obama ) down instead of lauding your own choice...this just has the effect Joe of encouraging those of us tired of negative attacks and divisive politics to reaffirm our choice for president ...Sen. Barack Obama !! Yes He and We Can !!!

[thatvisionthing]

Take Hillary so we can fight better longer stronger? We win, you lose? I don't want divide and conquer. I want reasoning and good faith. I want win-win. I hope for that. Before the Republicans were hijacked, they were decent people. I think they long to be again. Everybody does. But Hillary needs bad guys that she can personally be smarter and stronger than. That's so narrow and not what we need now.

[Neoconstant]

Wow Joe, way to rewrite history:

1. Obama's comments about incursions into Pakistan (to take out bin Laden) were not a "careless remark" but the cold truth. You'd prefer Hillary let bin Laden go so that Musharaff's perch is stable?
2. The dictator in Kenya is upset Obama campaigned for his opponent? Sounds like something W. would be upset about - democracy.
3. So, The Authorization to USE Military FORCE wasn't a vote for war? If I hear this asinine argument one more time, my head will explode. A VOTE FOR WAR IS A VOTE FOR WAR, PERIOD! Anyone sez otherwise is misleading.
4. Obama's 2004 comments about the war were carefully crafted to avoid undercutting war supporters Kerry/Edwards campaign (I guess they were voting for inspections & not war too, huh?)
5. If "battle-tested" Hillary can't take out 'soft' newbie 'inexperienced' Obama, how does she expect to take on John "I was tortured for five years" McCain?? Answer that one!

[yowza1]

Yes I concur with your thesis Mr Wilson, thank you for your incisive thinking on this important matter. I knew there was a reason why I just couldn't give up my rooting for Hillary despite my distaste for her having supported Bush's request for acquiescence during his maniacal yet calculated push to invade that poor hapless country. She should have known better, the whole fucking country should have, but apparently not all that many did. Actually I think most probably intuited that it was a rotten egg but couldn't give up their "patriotic" support of the president, no matter how much of a charlatan he had shown himself to be even at that relatively early stage of the game. `

[angelroost]

I am (still)an Obama supporter, but thank you for writing this. This is probably the best pieces Ive read in support of Hillary's candidacy.

[Neoconstant]

If she's so "battle tested," why can't she take Obama down? If she can't end the Obama insurgency, what makes anyone think she can handle McCain?? Answer: she can't take either one of them...

[ergoth]

because the MSM is attacking her at every opportunity while it praises their pet candidate, the smug saint obama.

give your head a shake.

[MKWrites2]

Well, I voted for Obama, but I don't like who he is becoming and I agree with Joe Wilson. The reason Hillary can't "take Obama down" is that the corporate-owned media and the Republicans are all pushing for Obama to win. I heard two men talking at the Daytona 500 this weekend about a game that's going on with Republican men to "take down" Hillary so Obama gets the nomination because the Republicans have crap on him and they know they can beat him in the general election. It's not a racial thing. They honestly think he's a socialist. They are calling it a "Counter Movement for Patriotism." One learns a lot from the other side when incognito in NASCAR gear. ;.)

Anyway, I talked to another woman online who said two Republican neighbors of hers asked for Democratic ballots and when she asked if they were Republicans, they just sheepishly smiled. She knows what they are up to but she can't stop them from voting. I know of another woman in Virginia who was told by her Republican friends directly this is what's going on. They estimated about 7% of the vote for Obama in Virgina was created because of this scam.

I know that's not really "scientific" evidence but if you're skeptical, go check it out yourself. Call your most hard-core Republican friend and ask if they are not getting emails like this. I am sure they will tell you the truth.

Folks, no matter how "uniting" someone is (or claims to be in spite of his own hypocrisy), do you all REALLY think all these red state guys are just itching to vote for Obama -- a guy they think will take away their guns- because of "Hope?" Right... and haven't you all noticed all the Republican pundits suddenly "praising" Obama as the man to beat, and all the neo-cons dumping money into his campaign? He may not take money from PACTS, but he's sure going to be indebted to a lot of people.

Us Dems are getting punked here big time.

[ErinG]

Beware of Hillary cheerleaders! They’re saturating the blogosphere with spin.

[AF2]

Thank you Mr. Wilson for your profound words and insightful recount of the facts. We agree with you completely. We've waited for over 7 yrs to hear someone state the obvious truth. Congress giving the President the authority (in good faith) to declare war as a last resort, is not equivalent to declaring war. The fault for the Iraq War lies w/ the President. Anyone who blames Congress for this war, subsequently diminishes the blame from it's rightful owner, GW Bush & cronies.

[BlueAsh]

Let's not forget that Mr. Wilson has had a long personal relationship with the Clintons.

What he knows of Obama seems to come from the media, the Clintons, or those close to the Clintons.

His views on WMD may have been reliable. His view on Obama is not.

[Anjisan]

Thanks Joseph - and thank you also for writing about Senator Obama's shocking dearth of international experience in your last article. This mass hysteria is fueled by people who have bought into the Obama slogans that imply that Hillary is Bush/Cheney light -actually, she is the strong woman who is best able to fight the right wing, and no-one is more qualified than our Hillary.
I agree with Paul Krugman in "The Conscience of a Liberal" says:
"The progressive agenda is clear and achievable, but it will face fierce opposition. The central fact of modern American political life is the control of the Republic Party by movement conservatives, who's vision of what America should be is completely antithetical to that of the progressive movement. Because of that control, the notion, beloved of polital pundits, that we can make progress through bipartisan consensus is simply foolish."

I myself am in the boomer generation - I make a plea to my generation to support Hillary in her quest to disempower the far right agenda.

[starcycle]

Joe Wilson - a strong voice of reason once again. Obama supporters need to wake up and smell the coffee. They are falling for emotion over reason, and the republicans are going to have a field day with Obama should he get the nomination.

[mutron]

Hillary Clinton has run a very weak and inept campaign.

[rbe1]

I used to despise republicans. After reading the insufferably self-congr­atulatory, ballistic mental masturbation of the Obama crowd, I find myself despising a lot of so-called democrats as well. Maybe the American social fabric really is descending into the toilet of history.

[BardEric]

Its not to late to stop the flush.

[BARBLS]

Joe Wilson is so right in his analysis of the two candidates. You Obama people never do your research and just throw out insults against the Clintons, which is always so ridiculous. Obama was never passionately against the war or he would have spoken out more. He would have made speeches on the Senate floor, and made an attempt to unite the Democrats and Republicans to end the war. The truth is that he speaks the same rhetoric that has been heard in every campaign, but he has an advantage of having a monolithic MSM protecting and grandising him, and at the same time attacking HRC with such bias reporting and venomous characterizations. They completely distort everything the Clintons do and say. When in his life has Obama been a uniter and a man who has brought great change? In fact who is he? He made a good speech at the Democratic convention, and the next thing he is running for President. The reality is that when Obama came to the Senate he voted for funding the war, for the Patriot Act, and against any time lines. Has anyone really looked at his voting record or what exactly his accomplishments are? We are at a point in our history where we need a pragmatist, and not an orator. We need someone to rectify what has been done in the past 7 years, and we definitely need to bring back competency. I have read both Hillary's and Obama's proposed policies on Health Care, Energy, Education, etc., and Hillary's addresses the problems we are facing so much better than Obama. If the rhetoric and the brainwashing do it for you vote for Obama, but beware of what you wish for. I have a feeling that Obama is the Democrat's George Bush. You know the one the MSM sold America 7 years ago. The uniter, the man to bring change, the likable one. The compassionate conservative. This time the Democrats are buying it without questioning what they are buying.

[CroneWoman]

Obama has been "battle tested" from the moment of his birth! Doesn't it count that he is BLACK? Fighting racism gets him more credit as "battle tested" than Hillary's battles with Right Wing Sleeze Machine that she has indeed weathered well. But her "tested"ness cannot compare to the kind of battles and tests that Obama has had to fight. And that he has come through unbowed, with dignity, still able to be charitable . . .

[allison]

Mr. Barak has no idea what he will be facing, if nominated, from the ugly swiftboating, mean-spirited, conniving blast that will test his mettle and show his previous "battle tested" past to be a mere precursor to a real battle of his strength. The republicans will spin his campaign so hard and fast, he'll never see it coming.

[joelaf]

I haven't decided for either Hillary or O'Bama , but I have decided it will be one of the two. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. For those who say the repubs will have a field day with Hillary, do you think O'Bama will be pelted with roses by them? For those who say O'Bama has no experience, most of the people alive today who have experience being President are JOKES. Beat each other over the heads if you must, but in November lets turn the herd before we go over the cliff, lead by yet another war mongering, "free market", save-the-rich Republican. The trickle down theory has been pissing on my head for way too long.