Critical Like King: Obama Distinguishes Between Creative Tension and Going Negative

The long-simmering question of whether Barack Obama could fight the Clintons on their own terms without sacrificing the ideals of his choir boy politics was answered last night. He can, and is, doing just that. Appropriately enough, Obama is threading the needle by taking a page from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the man whose presence hovered, heavy with importance, over last night's debate in South Carolina.

In his 1963 "Letter from Birmingham Jail," Dr. King admitted that his campaign of nonviolent resistance did not preclude the introduction of "constructive, nonviolent tension" into the political culture. Indeed, Dr. King made the case that, coupled with one's principles, such tension was necessary in order to bring about any needed change (that ever-present buzzword of the current Democratic campaign).

Constructive, nonviolent tension is as good a way as any to describe Obama's parrying of the blizzard of charges (some more substantive than others) hurled his way last night. As many have observed, the biggest cut he opened over Sen. Clinton's eye came with his crack that while he was community organizing, she was on the board at Wal-Mart. But this jaw-dropping line also raised a substantive point: Are Democrats to consider Senator Clinton's six years of board membership there as part of her "35 years of experience" working for change?

During his Good Morning America interview on the same day, Obama signaled his intention to use unofficial co-candidate Bill Clinton's tortured history with the truth against him. "Statements that are not factually accurate," may indeed ring a bell with some voters. Yet Obama's remarks were not a below-the-belt rehash of Lewinsky-era arcana. Obama immediately used the moment to pivot toward his diagnosis of what is wrong with politics in America: It's the cynicism, stupid.

(For what it's worth, Clinton aide Howard Wolfson is correct that citing Bill Clinton's lies is a right-wing talking point. Though Wolfson -- and much of the left -- seems to neglect the fact that simply because something is a right-wing talking point doesn't make it automatically untrue.)

In truth, the either-or assumption that Obama would have to choose between criticizing his critics or keeping his above-the-fray dignity was always a false dichotomy. The reason is simple. All critical comments are not created equal. Some critiques have substance, while others are just pollution, deployed in order to muddy the waters. Senator Clinton will use either kind of critique. It's part of her "I can take it and dish it out" spirit, and she showed it last night (her healthcare debating tactics were substantive, her "slumlord" smear was not, especially for a member of a political dynasty that has itself taken money from so many questionable characters). Obama, if he is to keep intact the mantle of change he says he wants to bring to politics, must pick his spots more judiciously, as Dr. King himself had to in his "Letter," in which he also found himself responding to critics.

When asked last night whether he thought a hypothetical, still-living Dr. King would endorse his candidacy, Obama wisely took a pass (just as he wriggled his way out of a similarly stupid question about whether or not Bill Clinton was, indeed, the first black president). But it was part modesty. The analogies between King and Obama go beyond blackness and a flair for words. The content of their respective messages -- Dr. King's nonviolent action and Sen. Obama's calls for a less cynically brutal political culture -- share common thematic cause. What wasn't clear before last night was whether Obama shared King's discipline of addressing his critics on purely substantive grounds. Now you can add that quality to the list, too.

Comments

[LeeFromVA]

When Hillary brings up the Retzko thing, she has to paint him as a slum lord. When Obama talks about Bill Clinton being untruthful, there are many points that support his argument, but he doesn't stoop that low. I mean the man was impeached for lying, right? Maybe wagging his finger is the give-away for when he's lying.

[LARichardson]

Thank you for a reasoned account of the recent "scuffles' between Clinton and Obama. It is so refreshing to read analysis by someone who can actually make a nuanced distinction. The current media narrative seems to be the both candidates are down in the gutter, and they are putting Democratic party unity in jeopardy. Oh really? It seems to me that, after Obama's convincing win in Iowa, the Clinton campaign decided to go extremely negative against him. It's basically a smear campaign, especially when it comes to his stance on the war in Iraq, his "present" votes in Illinois (which they claim demonstrate a lack of conviction on abortion rights), and his comments regarding Ronald Reagan. These are all dishonest attacks which misrepresent his record and his statements. They are, as you say, meant to muddy the waters. So, the Clinton campaign, and especially Bill, constantly bait him with outrageous statements, and when he starts to defend himself he is equally complicit?

[S1m0n]

Actually, the record shows that Hillary Clinton CAN'T take what she dishes out. When the going gets tough, she hides behind Bill. Every time.

When's she going to try and show that she can stand on her own two feet?

[CitizenE]

Here's my question about Obama and his MLK creds. When accused of being a Muslim--an accusation of abjectly transparent and hyperbolic ethnophobia and religious prejudice, appealing to the very worst in the American psyche--instead of standing up for the principle of the First Amendment that made our nation the first modern democracy in the world, all Obama can do is repeat over and over I believe in Jesus, yes I do. Something about content of character, I find lacking in that.

[Herrington]

I was impressed by Obama’s handling of the MLK endorsement question. It showed poise. Edwards said me, me. Clinton, taking a cue from Obama, said the same thing as Obama only incoherently.

There is so much at stake though, emotions are so high, after eight years of being brutalized by Bush. We have seen our fortunes fade faster and further than was imagined by the worst cynic, me. Reagan started this rush to the end times but Bush has not even paid lip service to our survival as a species.

Still I believe that if there is one thing that can stop the tidal wave of geopolitical and economic disaster caused by the sea floor dropping out from America’s ability to reason, I believe that thing to be words.

The Clintons perfected the “on message” sound bite media tailored campaign, and have treated us like a bunch of trained seals. The Republicans may have invented it, but the Clintons perfected it. The trouble is, unless you know the secret code, it communicates nothing. It gets you elected by the mice in the Skinner box.

Our problems have become so critical, so deep, and the vested interest in keeping them so become so entrenched, that we desperately need a voice that can reach the foundations of our consciousness. We need a voice so true that it resonates through us enough to put a crack in the invincible wall of doing nothing other than fight fictitious foes.

Obama might be that voice. His proposals for what to do for America are almost indistinguishable from Clinton, Edwards and not even too far from Kucinich.

If we take a chance on his elect ability and lose, it will be bad. But if we do not take the chance, we will lose the opportunity to make a statement. And that statement is that we wish to be led by reason rather than trust any one man or woman to govern us.

[mommadona]

I would suggest Obama ignore Bill Clinton completely:

"Yes, I heard the former President say that. He's a private citizen and responsible for his own words. You might want to ask him what he meant by that"....

And FOCUS on HILLARY and the SUBJECT MATTER.
DLC views versus DNC views.
That would help.

[GLaB]

"You said the Republicans were the party of ideas."

"WAL-MART."

Substance?

[andy65]

i appreciate this thoughtful consideration of obama's current predicament. he knew it was going to be tough. last year at another civil rights event he spoke about a difficult road that lay ahead in biblical terms. i can't remember the specifics but i got the idea. i will never forgive the clintons for what they are unleashing right now. they are so negative. what a drag. i guess i won't be voting in the general.

[krissymax]

This post denies reality just like the Republicans. Obama went negative in putting forth a four page talking points memo suggesting that the Clintons were racists. Remember Tim Russert held it in his hands in the Nevada Debate. Second, Obama went negative in putting forth a Spanish only radio ad flat out stating that Clinton did not support latinos. Further, last night Obama tried to suggest that he only spent five hours on this Slum Lord Rezko's file as an associate attorney - that is a flat out lie about his relationship with Rezko.

[Chacha]

Good post. Success of Obama depends on him withstanding the 'no holds barred' attacks of the Clintons, without stooping to the same level. It is not an easy thing to do. There is not question that Obama has been damaged by the tough tactics of the Clinton campaign.

[RealBlackGirl]

I couldn't agree more. When Obama stated that Dr. King would be holding each candidate accountable to the core principles of equality and justice. His response spoke volumes about the difference between him and the others.

[SDnavyPROUD]

I think its pretty ironic how most of the corporate pundits on cable complaiin about Hillary being the next pres, then in the same breath give props to "the Clinton machine" with all the stragizing and manipulation of the facts. The truth is they love this bickering because their ratings really shoot up. Its a big load of crap, how can we ever get to a solution, if they continue to encourage higher ratings over effective government.

[pigeonweather]

Bush - read my lips ...
Clinton - I did not have sex with that woman ...
Bush - Saddam has weapons of mass destruction ...
Clinton - you said Reagan had better ideas ...

Can we end this cycle of Bushes and Clintons who have such a habit of getting up there and just plain lying to the American people?

[feelfree]

Creative tension?

You people really are sensitive. Everythings a kumbaya moment for you all.

Yeah we'll see how the creative tension works out if Obama gets the nomination and the Republican roll out their machine.

[dijo]

Thank you for a clear representation of the issues that many others are simply "spinning" about today. Obama had no choice but to confront the false accusations against him. He did so with with truthfulness. Clinton knows full well that the Obama is not guilty of any wrongdoing in the Rezko case. She and Bill do not have a truthful bone in their bodies.
Obama has so many negative issues he could bring up about the Clinton's, but he chooses not to so that he can be an example of the new kind of politics he talks about. I was reading an article (written by a republican) the other day that said of Obama's positive message, "the damn fool actually means what he says!" Yes and no. He is not a fool by any stretch of the imagination.