How Obama Might Lose
Hopefully Barack Obama is learning that a principle emphasis on style, particularly a post-partisan style, may not be enough to win the nomination without having clear policy differences with Hillary Clinton. But he has squandered those opportunities while Clinton has brilliantly postured herself as seeming to agree with Obama on issues where she is vulnerable, such as Iraq and NAFTA, while emphasizing her signature difference over the popular issue of universal health care. Having erased the issue differences, she has thrown "the kitchen sink" against Obama in order to tarnish his claims to a new political style.
There is little time for Obama to open up a difference on policy that matters to voters. But there is an opportunity. In their last debate, Clinton declared a policy of "massive retaliation" against Iran in the event of a war between Iran and Israel. She extended the same NATO umbrella to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other US allies in the Middle East.
On its face, this was a pledge of unilateral intervention, perhaps including nuclear weapons, if a conflict breaks out between Iran and any American allies in the Middle East. While she was making this pledge, US officials were blaming Iran for masterminding and enabling the killing of American and Iraqi soldiers in Basra and the Green Zone, specifically identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Clinton already had voted to identify the Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist organization", making an American or Israeli strike on Iran easier to defend.
Clinton was threatening her massive retaliation without a requirement of Congressional consent.
Clinton was using the Cold War code word for atomic or nuclear weapons.
Clinton was extending the NATO nuclear shield to Israel and Arab oil monarchs without Congressional consent.
What exactly would constitute the commencement of hostilities in this case? An Iranian response to an Israeli attack on Teheran's nuclear program? A Tonkin Gulf incident in the Persian Gulf ? What would be the projected casualty levels and costs? What would be the impact on oil supplies and gas prices? What would be the endgame if Iran survived and counter-attacked?
Given this bizarre pandering, Obama could raise the question of whether Clinton has learned anything from the Iraq debacle. Instead, he has been silent for ten days, which implies that he declines to disagree. The media has failed to follow up, implying without the slightest evidence that there is a consensus among Democrats favoring an escalation of the Iraq war. The House and Senate Democratic leadership have been missing in action as well.
Obama has a chance in the next two weeks to question Clinton closely as to what she meant.
None are as important as this one, but there are ample opportunities to sharpen the policy differences:
Clinton still claims that her 2002 Iraq vote was not a vote for war, even though the legislation in question was titled a war authorization bill. Clinton still has produced no documented evidence that she privately opposed NAFTA while First Lady. Clinton still claims late night exhaustion, not outright lying, as the reason she claimed to be under sniper fire at the Bosnia airport. These are not reassuring patterns of leadership in a time of war, recession, and public disillusionment with government.
But Obama's basic problem is that he relies on stylistic differences rather than substantive ones, because he believes he cannot attack Clinton on policy grounds and still maintain his centrist orientation. She senses that, is therefore neutralizing the policy differences, and taking the offensive to demolish his character claims. Between two candidates with personal baggage, she figures the voters will ultimately vote for experience.
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 I disagree with this articles basic argument. What ultimately wins elections are the things that yank at our impulses, prejudices, and fears. Policy is secondary.
Clinton if elected would no doubt perceive subtle yet strong pressure to prove herself as a president in America. The sexual revolution is in no way over, and we as women have not even nearly resolved our collective identity crisis. This scares me a little, and not because this Clinton is a woman, but because of the lengths Clinton shows she will go in order to sway public opinion to her liking, however dishonest the tactic may be.
Sen. Obama is in a tuff spot. If he goes all-out againt Hillary it will get spun as a mean black guy picking on a woman. She is victim and victimizer.
I agree he needs to go after her right wing foreign policy, "coursive diplomacy" she called it in one debate. Wanting Iran to see thing our way do we have to starve their children f irst?
The Obama team need Tom Hayden.
`
excellent analysis
Gentleman B needs to get some brass ones
and confront Lady Hill for being a Hawkish, Bush-not-so-Lite
McCain doesn't have anything to prove bc he has his war record
Lady Hill is itching to prove she can be a war president
god bless 'merika & the Lady Hil Hawks
.
I see many disagreements with the post. With all due respect, I think it's correct and it's a manifestation of the condition I most feared in Obama: running on the premise that you must respect everyone at all times. That premise works when everyone else plays by the same set of principled rules - which isn't the case in a campaign nor in DC.
There are times when people do or call for things that demand admonition and earnest repudiation. Tom listed the most egregious issues and Obama has gone out of his way to give hillary a pass on them. Hillary-mccain, expect that from Obama and will continue to kick him in the nuts until he falls down.
Kerry and Gore lost mainly because they refused to defend themselves against rove in the exact same way that Obama lays off hillary. They didn't want to say anything "negative" about bush, too. Obama laces innuendo into his speeches and ads that address her shortcomings, but those messages are lost on the older and under-educated demographic.
She will be telling superdelegates this and may ultimately steal the nomination. Don't get me wrong, she'll be obliterated in the general election and probably lead to repug control of the House. But on face, the argument ('he's running like Kerry and Gore') has some merit and it will not fall on completely deaf ears. He HAS to show that he's willing to directly challenge hillary's severe indiscretions or it's going to get ugly.
This race is not comparable to Kerry's campaign. Obama is running against another Democrat. It doesn't bode the party well to attack HIllary. He's running on a "change" campaign. If he goes to far over the edge overtly attacking Clinton he loses the credibility. He is allowed to defend passionately, but he cannot sink to Clinton's tactics. Her record and honorable public service is almost dismissed when she uses dirty tactics to continue campaigning.
Thank you for posting this Tom--you are dead-on and I know you are backing him. He should listen to you.
I LIKE OBAMA, but my struggle with him has been his inability to bring details. To me it suggests a laziness and aloofness.
I read a great book by Twyla Tharp who suggests that the great masters of art excel on three levels.
1. Large level (Style, concept, overall look, big picture, strategy, charm, feeling,)
2. Medium Level (relationship between ideas/images, implementation, tactics, building consensus )
3. Small Level (details, tactics, fit and finish)
I think this is not limited to artists but to any craft such as politics, business, teaching, engineering, etc. In relation to politicians, JFK, FDR and Bill Clinton excelled with brilliance on all three levels. Hillary is just okay on the large level (which is okay because her big picture ideas are in line with the dem philosophy), has experience in the medium level and is down right brilliant on small level. Obama is brilliant on the large level, has no experience on the medium level and appears to be too above explaining the small level details to us.
He needs to show us the details, if he wants to prove he's better than Clinton. That means using attacking her on issues. He better start fighting or I don't think he can beat McCain.
Hey, that was a wicked interesting comment. It's got the cogs in my head turning. Thank you.
Not to spoil the fun, but the 2008 Democratic nominee for President is Senator Barack Obama. After the May 6 primaries, it will be Senator Barack Obama, after June 2 it will be Senator Barack Obama and after the Democratic Convention it will be Senator Barack Obama.
I know a dead parrot when I see one, and anyone who disagrees needs to think about opening a Pet Shop.
The only math that matters to the SDs in a race this close, is the math of the GE. While anything can happen, Clinton is a sure thing and Obama is a risk.
Obama 264, McCain 259, Ties 15
Clinton 284, McCain 244, Ties 10
http://www
http://www
Kerry was a sure thing, too.
Your map doesn't exactly replace 6 months of actual campaigning and media intervention and dirty tricks.
She's just tired and shagged out after a long squawk.
Barack does have issues. They seem pretty easy to fix and he is uniquely positioned to face them. The issue isn't that he is wrong, he is right, but he hasn't answered the questions completely. It is stupid to wear a flagpin and it is an empty gesture but going one step further would be to answer why? His answer would be better than mine so I'll leave him to that. The bitter thing is a little tougher but if he went one step further than he has gone to date, he would find the reason behind the truth. You can't rail against politics as usual, you have to call bullshit when you see it and explain why it smells so bad. It is annoying to have to do this, but the reason he is the only candidate in this presidential race who is worth a damn is that he isn't pandering. The riteous indignation from McCain and Clinton is easy and chickensh*t but it is effective. Barack is not going to change the minds of Americans by wishing we were better, but he is the only one who gives us the credit for being better. This isn't easy stuff, christ we got into a war because of ignorance, but if he really wants to be transformative he is going to need to take his campaign at least one step further. He needs to speak to our better angels, but he needs to find them first.
Right strategy, wrong tack. Single payer. He's on record saying objectively it's the best, so it's not a flip-flop. It's got the support of the majority of doctors. It's got popular support. Neutralizes Elizabeth Edwards. Doesn't alienate "pro-Israel" dems. Doesn't alienate white working-class hawkish dems.
Get him elected, then feet to the fire on peace.
No substance? I think a lead in delegates and the popular vote is substantive. It means he will be the nominee.
I have to disagree. He needs to cut into voters 65+ and blue collar whites. Hillary has proposed an assured destruction policy on Iran. Not making her jewish voters happy but how many of those are there in indiana and north carolina.
Now the 65 plus voters they lived and survived through the cold war based on a Mutually Assured Destruction strategy. This is one better as it doesn't involve the assured destruction of the US. I suspect her idea poles quite well with them. Lets ignore the fact China would never accept the radioactive cloud that would head their way that's a detail you don't have time to explain.
Hit her on MFN status for china and talk about what a disaster it was to remove the tying of that status to human rights. Mention that while NAFTA has been harmful china has still failed to operate fairly in the global market. Point out china purchased a measely 65 billion in US goods in 2007 while exporting over 300 billion in goods to the US. mention that when their mfn status was unlinked from their human rights status in 1994 they only exported 38 billion to the US. Talk about the jobs lost as a result of that trade imbalance. Ahh yes the AFL CIO 2,166,000 US jobs since 1997. Not counting any lost in 2007. That's your club if you decide to club the senator. Since you've won clubbing her is probably not the best idea.
Pop Quiz:
Which of the 3 candidates said this back in July:
The United States had an "absolute obligation" to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success.
"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster ... It would dishonor the men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspectiv
(Ill post answer later w/link)
The new Democratic President will be CIC, and will set the policies to be followed by the diplomats and the military. This will change the situation on the ground immediately. The word 'success' can be defined, and part of achieving that 'success' will be more diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors.
This is all doable, and both Clinton and Obama plan to pull out troops on a timeline, not all at once. There is nothing wrong with the statement you quote, only with the W administration's strategy to achieve it.
In June, 2007, Obama voted no to Senator John F. Kerry’s proposal to remove most combat troops from Iraq by July 2007, warning that an “arbitrary deadline” could “compound” the Bush administration’s mistake. He voted instead for a Republican
http://noq
Obama! See links below:
http://www
http://www
Forgive me, I disagree with the thrust of this post. The real difference between Obama and Hillary is., .he is grounded, authentic, PRINCIPLED, VISIONARY presence not about the end justifies the means.....
The only way he can loose, is: if there are more malleable people able to be exploited by the her (Rambo) version of "tough" than not; if there are more bigots than people free of that sickness, and if there are more women around who do not blindly identify with someone with a uterus than women who are DISCERNING reINDIVIDUALS.
If?
last time i check Obama is the virtual nominee,so the only way to beat this, is steal it from him and that never going to happen....
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
