Obama Must Shed Adlai Stevenson to Give Hillary a Race

Everyone I know who knew Adlai Stevenson loved him -- but also said that he wasn't savage enough to win the presidency -- or even if he did, to "be" president.

As things look now, Barack Obama is running an Adlai Stevenson campaign. He's smart. He's fresh. He's inspiring to many, including me. But he's also a bit of a triangulator. And he has not yet developed the cold, unsentimental confidence that a leader needs in reserve -- at least I haven't seen that in him yet.

Obama says he wants to differentiate himself from Hillary Clinton now -- but he's doing it in lukewarm, safe ways. He has my whole-hearted support in his views on reframing America's Cuba policy -- but he's still sort of squishy on Iran. He believes in vigorous, aggressive engagement -- but what about doing something real to preclude a war in the next year?

And what about the real issue in the Middle East? Israel and Palestine?

November will be a big month for the Middle East with November 15th being the date of release of Mohammed ElBaradei's next IAEI report on Iran -- and the Israel/Palestine Peace Summit will take place in Annapolis in a few weeks.

Helping to call for an end to the "fake efforts" in establishing Palestine and using his political weight to make the point that the only pro-Israel strategy for this country is not one that forsakes the Arabs in the region, or the Palestinians who have legitimate grievances that must be dealt with.

We'll see if November turns out to be a month in which Obama diverges or generally runs parallel with Hillary Clinton.

And as for Hillary Clinton -- "you" have the heavyweight status in the country now to call for a real solution in the Middle East -- and to move beyond the incrementalism of the Bush administration on Israel, Syria, Iran, Iraq, and the rest. If you want to really leap-frog out of the quagmire America is in today, we need to jump into a new set of bargains that re-establish a regional and global equilibrium.

I think Hillary Clinton actually has the advisors and the vision to engineer a leap-frogging effort out of Bush's nightmarish mess into something better and different -- but she must resist the urge to bandwagon Bush's Iran delusions and must get out of the zero sum game that she has been helping to promulgate when it comes to the balance between Israel and its neighbors.

I hope Obama rises to the challenge of saying what needs to be said about Palestine -- because whether or not he wins, that challenge may move the Clinton camp to realize that they too must get out of Bush's grooves in how the opportunities and constraints in the Middle East are defined.

-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note

Comments

[MichaelJames]

"...I think Hillary Clinton actually has the advisors and the vision to engineer a leap-frogging effort out of Bush's nightmarish mess into something better and different..."

Who, exactly, are Hillary's advisors? Albright? Wes Clark? Sandy Burglar?

Obama, in contrast, has dozens of foreign policy and military heavyweights helping him, including people from Bill Clinton's administration.

Barack Obama opposed the Iraq war and the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, while Ms. Clinton supported both.

If we want to "engineer a leap-frogging effort out of Bush's nightmarish mess into something better and different..." I think the best approach to take is to go with Barack Obama, who did not support Bush's initiation of aforementioned nightmarish mess.

[Doofus]

If Obama is really channeling Adlai Stevenson,
there's probably not much he or anyone else
can do about it, if it's in his character.

Nice guy & egg-head Adlai lost to nice guy
& war-hero Eisenhower *twice* in the 50's.

Nice guys (who aren't war-heroes) don't get to be President.

[Mainstream]

"I'm not Hillary, but I play one on TV". Did Obama notice that it wasn't the real Hillary that he was shaking a finger at on SNL?

[PhyloSeFiser]

Mr. Clemons,

If you're going to say that Obama is a triangulater you might might to provide some solid examples to back up your assertion. Triangulation is all about taking what's popular from the left and the right and positioning yourself comfortably in the wide middle.

You say Obama is squishy on Iran? In the last debate, the candidates were asked about their "red-line" on Iran. As I recall, all of the candidates took the bait and gave us the usual tough talk about how they can't be allowed to get nuclear weapons, but diplomacy must come first.

Obama (and Biden) was the only one who recognized that the whole context was wrong and said that we shouldn't even be talking about bombing Iran. We're nowhere near that point yet. What Obama did with his answer was amazing. He didn't allow himself to get suckered into talking about the red-line, he said wait a minute here; let's reexamine the whole context of the question. That's what a true leader, with big vision, is able to do. He doesn't buy into the conventional framework. He questions the framework itself.

And you say he's squishy on Iran? Compared to what? He's the one who has taken a firm, and politically risky position of engaging in direct talks with the leaders of Iran without preconditions. He took a lot of heat on that from the right, and from Hillary. Hillary is the one playing it both ways on Iran. She's the one who is triangulating.

Sorry, Clemons, but this is just a backdoor way of supporting Hillary. Sell it somewhere else pal. Or at least be more honest about it.

Phylo out.

[Countess]

Obama will not get down and dirty and Mrs. Clinton is surrounded by thugs so it is perplexing that she has so much suuport among women voters.

[KRANKY]

There are plenty of self-tests on the web, many advertised here on huffpo.
We have the luxury of a multitude of candidates, but the media annoint only the biggest fundraisers....not because they are the 'best', but because they are the best for them.
The independent,online polls all show ONE candidate standing above the rest.

That is Dennis Kucinich, who captures an over 50% majority COMPARED WITH ALL CANDIDATES!

Voting for one's principles over personality is NOT a romantic notion.
Voting for people based on their name or looks, when they clearly have made wrong decisions in the past, is wishful thinking at best.

In your heart, you know he's right.
In your mind, you know he's been damn right.

KUCINICH 2008!

[DANIELLECLARKE]

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2006/1304

Molly Ivins I will not support Hillary Clinton for president January 20, 2006 AUSTIN, Texas ---
I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president. Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges. ETC ETC ETC

[DANIELLECLARKE]

I think everybody is tired of division politics

Barack offers uniting politics

This is why she has such negative numbers and Baracks are so much more positive where even republicans will vote for him versus she will bring out republicans in full force to make sure she doesn't win

I am a progressive who would vote for ron paul over hillary clinton

I am tired of the bush clinton regime

[Lisette]

Obama is terrific!!!

[Inaru]

Oh this is really old now, let it go Steve C. Check it out: Alice Walker, who was a gracious fundraiser for Kucinich in SF, CA in 04 and strong supporter (as I was), is now supporting Obama (as I am). Hmmmm, could that be because he's just like Hillary? No, I don't think so, not even close, not in any way, not in policy, not in donors, not in advisers, not in legislative history, not in background. The comparison to Hillary is utterly facetious except in terms of Obama being the closest to her in polls despite her immense advantages and his immense disadvantages.

You know why Obama has such broad support so early [really, it is still quite early] in the primary season? Because he's not doing this to appeal to any single-issue voter. On the contrary, he has shown that he is the best all-around candidate, with regional plans, not idiotic generalizations about Islam or about the sects competing for resources, or about the so-called ally we have in Saudi Arabia.

Obama was on good terms with the late Edward Said, and he's taken heat from the hardline conservatives and some so-called progressives just for that!

And in case you forgot, Steve Clemons, Obama's middle name is Hussein, his father was born into the Islamic religion, Obama attended elementary school in Indonesia, and Obama is black - all factors that preclude any trust from the American liberal constituency that is still willfully blind to the imbalance of power in the Middle East, specifically Israel and Palestine.

If you honestly want a President who will change the course in the Middle East, stop being ridiculous in your demands and shooting yourself in the proverbial foot. Go tell Edwards to do what you so glibly demand of Obama.

Man, this armchair quarterbacking and lack of real analysis of Obama's very detailed Middle East policies are exhausting and such a waste to read. So, unless the next alert about these anti-Obama Clemons pontifications says he's changed his ways, I won't even click.

[SamEllison]

I would like each of the Democratic candidates this week to make a speech on how they would use the "signing statements of the unitary executive" to circumvent the Constitution of the United States of America and send the GOP to obscurity.
Followed by a united effort to impeach Richard B Cheney and rid our country of the cancer that is the "signing statements of the unitary executive".
If they fail at least we know which candidate has what it takes.

[gcee]

Old ideas. Tired re-runs of "triangulation" that smack of antiquated thought processes!

We do not have the luxury of wasting time tinkering on the edges. America's problems are serious but not insurmountable, but to solve them require fundamental shifts in our paradigms NOW!!!

CHANGE means just that.

Obama 08!

[naijaman]

Is this guy serious? This article is a pro-Hillary piece disguised as being pro-Obama. So your contention is that Obama should act so that it will spur Hillary's campaign?

Surely you jest.

[larry278]

Sen Obama is addicted to being hyper-rational, looks & acts like a monied post-preppie who fears being take for a yuppie. He isn't Adali at all. There will be no photo of Sen Obama wearing well worn shoes with holes in the soles. He must change clothes & shave every 4 hrs & has his hair cut every 2 days. He has a humble but forever fresh wardrobe. He looks like he never sweats. He is oh so concerned but not fervant, angry or fierce. He may be like Bob Dole in that his ambition to be POTUS doesn't smolder constantly in his guts or ever fiercely burn to get out to replace composed, concern with burning fervor much less anger & rage at injustice. Sen Obama is fated to be a terminal also ran in this race. His brand of concern, competence, conscience & hunger for justice may allow him to be a power in the Senate, perhaps a king maker & policy wonk, but never POTUS.
The accomplished, avid trial lawyer John Edwards is starting to use & direct the fire of a skilled attorney in presenting his injured client's case in a personal action to get the nomination for POTUS in '08. When Edwards takes off his coat, rolls up his sleves, unbuttons his shirt's collar button, raises up a sweat, growls & raises his voice to make a point-you can see the POTUS in John Edwards taking control of his audience. That man is aiming to take the nomination from Sen Clinton in a wearing, grueling, passionate, most exhausting campaign. The man isn't used to being the under dog. The DLC types have met their match. John Edwards is primed to show the DLC types that their control of the party has ended by winning the nomination & the Nov election in '08. The DLC types aren't suited to adopt a Fabian approach to survive. The DLC will become a spent force be it by a massive implosion, a series of public & humiliating abject failures to control the factions who will unite to make Edwards POTUS or by withering on the vine.

[NoDrama]

The sort of people who follow the old texts on how to get elected to the Presidency got us into this mess. I'm ready for somebody who brings a new paradigm to the campaign process, and a new vision to the leadership of the country.