Obama Trauma
Either Hillary is brilliant, or lucky, or both. All her various and seemly unrelated strategies paid off last week.
She became Ms. Approachable and Funny -- both on Jon Stewart AND Saturday Night Live. She attacked the press corps, first by threatening MSNBC and then by putting the travel press in a mens bathroom (brilliant!). And finally -- she dragged out the scary '3am Phone' ad.
Obama's response? Like a deer in the headlights. He retreated to the math -- "we're still ahead in delegates" which hardly helped.
For the first time, Hillary's attempts to characterize him as style over substance seemed to stick.
And Obama's determination not to engage in mud-slinging left him open to attacks.
Or did it?
Why not actually run on a platform of what you'll do once you get in office? Why not take on the 8 years of Bush that the electorate are so deeply anxious to CHANGE.
Hillary isn't the issue -- The last 8 years of the Bush administration is. If this is about change, then why not talk about WHAT is is being changed, and how.
Asking him what he'll do with his office is fair, and should have been anticipated by the campaign. Whether it's Hillary today or McCain tomorrow -- this is going to be months and months of specific issues, ideas, and proposals. There's no doubt that the Obama campaign wants to wait as along as possible before they dig into issues, but why not start now?
Here's a checklist of issues that Obama must have vision, a plan, and credibility with.
The Economy.
Housing, Jobs, Trade. We know he's going to re-open NAFTA. But what does that really mean? Is he going to provide new vision for the country in terms of what our economy will look like? Will we re-build our industrial economy? Pennsylvania isn't going to go to the polls without knowing his position on foreign steel imports. Clearly wading into these waters is dangerous -- since specifics are much easier to punch holes in that grand sweeping visions. But he may have no choice. He can't 'punch back' at Hillary Clinton -- it destroys his most valuable and alluring quality of change in the way politics is done. But allowing her to win by positioning herself as willing to play hardball can't be allowed to stand.
The Bush Administration.
What will he do about Justice? Will he overturn the veto on waterboarding? Will he promise us that FEMA will be read for the next Katrina. If you read the NY Times, his profile today suggests the reason he was frustrated with the Senate was its glacial speed of reform and change. Ok, fine - but as President what are the issues that you'll look to engage?
The Environment.
We want to believe that he's going to take important stands on Global Warming. But will he? Will he sign Kyoto? Will he pump more dollars into renewable energy resources? How much how fast? Will it be a "Manhattan Project" size commitment to climate change? Will he invite Al Gore to lead the effort. What will he DO?
Technology.
It's not clear that he is in sync with what's happening in technology -- but he needs to be. Is America going to lead the world in tech? If so, we need to have clarity about the fact that he's going to pay attention to "Net neutrality" issues. He's going to appoint a new head of the FCC at a time when communications technology is moving far faster than communications law. Clearly he knows this -- but he hasn't said it.
The reason these issues matter is that he can take far more appealing stands on many of them than either Hillary or McCain. He began to do that when he talked about the fact that he'd meet with foreign leaders because meeting with just our friends doesn't solve anything. He can go further. Why are gas prices (and gas profits) at an all time high when America's consumers and our economy are being driven downward by spiraling consumer prices and increasing unemployment. If he can't paint a picture of what he's going to do here -- people will start to turn away. As unfair as it is, people's memories of the economy under Bill Clinton are very good -- and if voting for Hillary is offered up as a way to reset the clock to 1992 -- then people are going to find that appealing.
Finally -- Iraq.
He's used the fact that he voted against the war, and Clinton voted for it, as his single point of differentiation on that issue. Now, despite his solid stance against the war, is called into question when advisors suggest that his promise to pull out is more of a campaign ploy than a actual plan. He needs to do more here, and quickly. What will he do?
Iraq Engagement = Economic Woes.
Here's where he can tie together his stalwart opposition to the war, and Bush's reprehensible conduct in shepherding both our economic interests and relationship with our allies around the world.
Next steps.
Turn "Yes We Can", into "Now We Are..." and begin to set in place a plan. I know it's early, and I know that political insiders say he should remain above the issues for as long as possible. But as long as Hillary Clinton is going to go on 60 Minutes and say "He's not a Muslim, as far as I know" you're going to either need to fight mud with mud, or rise above it and start to take on special interests and issues that Clinton can't. Obama's "Long Tail Money" -- that i've written about elsewhere -- gives him unprecedented freedom to re-work the rules of how government works.
Now he's got to get started. Otherwise, he'll lose.
Follow Steve Rosenbaum on Twitter: www.twitter.com/magnify
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
I am sure Mr. Obama has good intentions but there is an old saying that "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". He says he will have universal health care in four years. How? only a dictator can make a statement like that and guarantee the results. I hope that whoever wins has broad enough coat tails to get a working majority in both houses.
I would love to see a woman president. I am a baby boomer and lived through the "womens movement," however, putting the wrong woman in the presidency will set women back hundreds of years. Hillary is someone who makes good women cringe. Hillary is not the woman for America.
Shame On You Hillary Clinton
Shame on you Hillary Clinton, accusing Senator Barack Obama of plagiarism when he used words offered freely to him by a friend and a member of his own campaign; you have also borrowed words and phrases.
Shame on you Hillary Clinton, comparing tactics used by Senator Barack Obama as tactics right out of “Karl Rove’s playbook”. When Senator Obama’s campaign highlighted your previous views on NAFTA, you positioned a Republican operative against a fellow Democrat, and that’s deplorable.
Shame on you Hillary Clinton, using your own Howard Wolfson to charge Senator Barack Obama with “imitating Ken Starr”. Again, using a Republican against a fellow Democrat. And what were you thinking, dragging out of the closet those old skeletons of Whitewater and your husband’s own impeachment?
And the latest Shame on you Hillary Clinton: you have the audacity to imply that your Republican rival for President of the United States is better qualified to be Commander in Chief than your own fellow Democrat, Senator Barack Obama.
Hillary Clinton, are you showing your true colors now that you are engaged in the heat of this political battle? And your fluctuating anger worries us. Which Hillary Clinton might answer that 3:00 a.m. phone call?
Hillary Clinton, your behavior is despicable. For seven years we have withstood the deceitfulness of the Bushies. You had an opportunity to conduct a political campaign with honesty, integrity and dignity. You had an opportunity to show this country that we don’t have to be warmongers, or fear mongers, or carry on a campaign of divisiveness.
Hillary Clinton, you should have used this opportunity to honestly and with dignity emphasize solutions for universal health care, the economy, the three trillion dollar war, re-writing NAFTA, educating our children and grandchildren, and providing adequate benefits to our vets returning from the wars.
Yes We Can “…have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” 1
1 Gettysburg Address
Thomas Bird
Boulder Creek, CA
Obama Today:
"We need a Commander in Chief who has never wavered on whether or not it is acceptable for America to torture, because it is never acceptable,” said Obama. “While I have consistently opposed torture, in the course of this primary campaign Hillary Clinton has flip-flopped from her past position of tolerating torture. …
“When I am president, the American people and the world will be able to trust that I will outlaw torture, because unlike Senator Clinton I have never made an exception for torture and I never will."
Did you leave out the Canadian incident by mistake since it was the one over which he had control? Followed up by the off the record incident by his adviser while in England? Neither had to do with Hillary.
He has detailed plans on all these issues. Please check out
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/. He has detailed positions on all these issues with no less specificity than his opponent. Did you not do your homework before you wrote this piece?
Lets ask these questions of both democratic party canidates.
This is about change.Either you want Rove tactics of fear, smear, ridicule and lobbysists - Clinton is the largest recipient of drug-company donations of anyone in Congress - or you want to try to fight for change.
Integrity or unbridled ambition. Our choice.
Talk about smearing someone. The Republicans who rammed through the Medicare bill through Congress are the largest recipient of drug-company donations.
"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has amassed the most of any candidate, despite her calls for broad changes to the health care system that could pose serious financial challenges to private insurers, drug companies and other sectors."
http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/102907HA.shtml
do a Google search before you make false statements. Defend Clinton with facts, if you can.
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2007/10/29/daily33.html
Well, I would say that until one of the candidates stops lying, I don't really think there's much of a point in discussing the issues. Read the following article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml
Hillary Clinton is destroying the women's movement right in front of their eyes and they are actually voting for her. After the women in this country have fought for thirty plus years to level the playing field, they are going to get shut down by one singular liar who belittles the American feminist movement by these types of lies. This gives those that would belittle women's accomplishments a big leg up both now and in the future. Don't women see what she is doing to them? She is setting them back, not forward. Lies have no place especially when we are considering the POTUS and the feminist movement. I believe that there are many very accomplished and deserving women of the success that they have achieved and when one of 'their own' does this to them, it is a big stab in the back. Ask any feminist and they will immediately tell you that you cannot ever, ever, ever overstate your accomplishments and that those that do aren't really feminists.
Experience as "wife of" is really, really, demeaning to women who have made it on their own.
Finally someone has realilzed the truth about Hillary Clinton and her reflection of women in front of the entire world. Who in their right mind would wan
Nice article. I agree that Obama should stick to the high road. I liked your questions but there is one problem you overlooked. If Obama was to really answer those questions with honest answers he would either reveal himself to be not all that different from McCain and Clinton or he would drown in an avalanche from the MSM slime factory. Until he is president he has to walk a tight rope between sticking to principles and not venturing too far outside the lines that delineate acceptable discourse. For example, its OK to say that we really f*ed Iraq by starting a war that never needed to happen but not OK to imply that we never really gave a damn about democracy or the Iraqi people.
I am still waiting for Obama to talk about what change will mean in an Obama administration and I am pretty concerned that time and again, his statements are reversed by his staff.
I applaud independent thought, but I also applaud discipline and good judgment. surrounding yourself with such people does not show a sound judgment, if you ask me.
I read in a news site a few days ago that Obama tried to put more substance into his ralleys, with the result of people leaving quickly or starting to read newspapers.
In today's NY Times article, Obama is shown as a senator who has star power, but only plays a minor role http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html?hpp). It is suggested that he quickly lost interest in his 6-year-job:
"But frustrated by his lack of influence and what he called the “glacial pace,” he soon opted to exploit his star power. He was running for president even as he was still getting lost in the Capitol’s corridors."
Will he walk away from the Presidency, if things get boring because congress blocks Obama's pet projects?
"He voted against the withdrawal of troops and proposed legislation calling for a drawdown only after he was running for president and polls showed voters favoring it."
I prefer Clinton. She made her mistakes and she will make mistakes in the future, but at least, she takes the responsibility for them and does not say that she accidentally pressed the wrong button.
OK, so issue based is good. The article is misleading, however, and falls into the "Obama weak on substance" category. This is a mischaracterization. As a few examples, the Obama renewable energy policy has been available, in writing, for a very long time now. He promises a new and multibillion investment in renewable and zero/low emissions energy generation. Both Senators Obama and Clinton are advocates of cap and trade emissions policies, so not much difference there. On waterboarding, Senator Obama has made clear policy statements on the subject of torture and human rights in writing and these have been reiterated on the trail and in the debates. In fact, it is Senator Clinton that has hedged on waterboarding. Senator Obama regards waterboarding as torture, as did US-run war crime tribunals. HRC, not so clear on this issue.
I appreciate your focus on issues... but if you're going to do this, do your homework.
This is a sloppy piece which undermines the very points you're trying to make.
Do... your... homework.
>>Either Hillary is brilliant, or lucky, or both. All her variousand seemly unrelated strategies paid off last week
Sorry Rosenbaum, but your article is very superficial. The fact of the matter is that as we speak, Obama is still winning the number of states, delegates and popular vote - so I am not sure how you can justify that she is either brilliant or lucky - specially since she has come to say that her Republican opponent is better qualified to be president than Obama. Not smart at all.
>>> Here's a checklist of issues that Obama must have vision, a plan, and credibility with.
Why just Obama, and not Clinton and for that matter McCain?
>>> He's used the fact that he voted against the war, and Clinton voted for it... as his single point of differentiation on that issue.
He never voted against the war... because he wasn't in the senate at that time. He was openly against it when it was deemed "unpatriotic" to defend such position. Sorry, get your facts straight before spouting Clinton's political narrative.
You write: He's used the fact that he voted against the war, and Clinton voted for it, as his single point of differentiation on that issue.
Go fact check yourself, he never voted for against it.. and ya, on the issues do you research too before you spill hillary talking points around here..
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
