The New Phase for Obama, Clinton and the Rest of Us
Obama still leads in the race for the nomination but has been damaged on core issues of character and message. Clinton still can win but only by alienating many voters the Democrats need. The peace and justice movement should be cheered by the attention to Iraq and NAFTA, and keep on pressing the candidates.
Obama must get tougher without contradicting the high standards he is setting for himself. There are two lines he can pursue:
His campaign can demand immediate disclosure of the Clinton tax returns, White House and Library documents that will show where Hillary Clinton's $5 million donation came from, and whether Bill Clinton has used his influence in cases like the uranium contract with Kazakhstan for a Clinton donor who gave at least $31 million to the ex-president's charitable foundation [NYT, Jan. 31, 2008]. It is imperative for Obama to parry the Clintons on these issues while the ugly Chicago trial of Obama supporter Tony Rezko is unfolding in Chicago.
Second, those same White House records will reveal whether Clinton has lied about having lobbied internally against NAFTA as First Lady. Only biographer Carl Bernstein claims she did, but he may be referring to her concerns about the timing of the NAFTA initiative, not NAFTA itself. Obama needs to parry on this issue to offset the story out of Canada that his representative gave secret assurances to Ottawa about Obama's NAFTA proposal.
Finally, in terms of policy, it is becoming increasingly questionable whether Obama can succeed at his lofty visionary level without sharpening a principled policy difference with Clinton that really matters to voters. It is too late to dream up a new issue. The only policy difference favoring Obama that goes straight to the issue of "experience" is Iraq. It no longer is enough that Obama opposed the war five years ago, especially if it appears that there are no differences between the candidates now. For whatever reason, Obama has allowed Clinton to appear to take an identical stand on the war. Is that true? Or is it time for Obama to issue a further clarification of his position separating him from both Clinton and McCain? The peace movement and media can play a role here.
The key questions are these:
- Does Clinton propose a timetable for withdrawing combat troops, like Obama does?
- Does either Democratic candidate plan to withdraw all troops, or leave tens of thousands of Americans behind fighting a counterinsurgency war like Afghanistan today or Central America in the 1970s?
Are these questions too complicated for the media and the candidates to ask themselves? Or is it true once again that the issues which are hidden in campaigns turn out to be the most important in the end?
The peace movement can help force the issue, especially in Pennsylvania, if it is galvanized. Iraq, it is said, is the pivotal issue in the Philadelphia suburbs. The message from the peace movement delivered on blogs, leaflets and in rallies could be something like this:
We oppose Sen. McCain because he wants to continue President Bush's war in Iraq for years ahead at a cost of X lives and X dollars to the people of Pennsylvania and this country. But we have an urgent question for the Democratic candidates: which of you really will end the Iraq war, on what deadline, and not leave behind tens of thousands of US counter-terrorism units and advisers in a bloody counterinsurgency quagmire like Afghanistan today or Central America in the 1970s?
Assuming Obama says nothing new, which is likely at this point, the way is open for Clinton, believe it or not, to become the preferred anti-war candidate. All she needs to do is listen to John Podesta, the former White House chief of staff for her husband, who strongly favors the withdrawal of all American troops in one year. Podesta argues that leaving thousands of troops behind would sink them further in a quagmire. Or she could listen to her husband's former CIA director, John Deutch, who publicly says the US should broker a deal with Iran and get out of Iraq. She could seize on Obama's apparent policy of planning to continue contracts with Blackwater security forces.
Or Obama could stop relying on his five-year old speech and say the time has come to clarify who really wants to leave Iraq. In this scenario, he would say that Clinton has avoided saying whether she would set an actual deadline to withdraw all combat troops, whether troops will be gone by 2013, or whether she would leave tens of thousands of American troops still in Iraq after two terms of her presidency. The evidence is clear that she plans to keep behind trainers, advisers, counter-terrorism units and sufficient forces to "deter Iran."
The math is simple, starting with the Baker-Hamilton assumption of 10-20,000 American troops left behind after combat units withdraw. For 15,000 adviser/trainers there would be a back-up force three times that number, for a total of 60,000. If 50,000 private contractors also remained, the total would run to 110,000 while the current combat brigades were being withdrawn. This could be the greatest false promise since Richard Nixon's secret plan for peace in 1972, which was followed by his carpet bombing of Hanoi with B-52s.
For further on this false promise, see "Many Troops Would Stay in Iraq If a Democrat Wins", Wall Street Journal, Feb. 29, 2008, and "Peace, Or Counterinsurgency Without End", Tom Hayden, SF Chronicle, Jan. 24, 2008.
So what is a sensible alternative to this nightmare scenario? Any serious alternative would begin with the assertion that counterinsurgency in Iraq can't turn around a war that 160,000 combat troops have failed to win. The US units will be caught in a sectarian crossfire. Only a political/diplomatic settlement can contain the damage caused by the Bush policies, and a diplomatic offensive will have to include a pledge that American troops will withdraw before the neighboring countries will become engaged in the issues of refugees, reconciliation and reconstruction.
Beyond Iraq, it is crucial that the US not fall into the Bush-McCain-Neo-conservative scenario, stated by Bush in 2005, of a new Cold War against "Islamo-fascism." Not that American military power shouldn't be available for deterrent purposes against anyone who has attacked this country. But military approaches in the absence of a primary emphasis on diplomacy and political/economic/energy solutions will only sink the next generation in permanent, bloody, costly, and destabilizing quagmires without an exit strategy in sight. It will be like burning down haystacks in search of needles. It is exactly the US policy that Osama Bin Ladin hopes for. [see Marching Toward Hell, by Michael Scheuer, the man who tracked Bin Ladin and carried out renditions for the CIA]
This scenario, if pursued by any of the candidates, will also bury the possibilities of funding universal health care or alternatives to our oil dependency for the next generation, just as Lyndon Johnson's delusional promise of "guns and butter" destabilized the American economy and made us vulnerable to oil boycotts in the wake of Vietnam.
It would create a worsening national security crisis by further inflaming the Muslim world, isolating the US from its allies, and creating the pretexts for multiplying insurgencies, including the possibility of another 9/11-style attack.
Anyone with the brain of a plant can see the US heading right into these traps and quagmires. Read Barbara Tuchman's March to Folly and it will become clear that only a stunning jolt might force a reversal of course. That "jolt", hopefully, will come from a popular and unavoidable demand for peace rather than another military fiasco.
Obama, if he truly aspires to audacity, now is the time to point out that this is the disastrous and predictable future that will result from the policies proposed by those who claim to have superior "experience" and "expertise" in foreign policy. For precedent, he could stand in Springfield, Illinois, and remind the nation that it was another political novice from Illinois, young Abraham Lincoln, who opposed the Mexican-American war and went on to become quite a commander-in-chief. #
TOM HAYDEN is the author of Ending the War in Iraq [2007] and Writing for a Democratic Society, The Tom Hayden Reader [2008].
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
Well done, Tom.
Briliiant Tom- finally we would have a REAL anti-war candidate , not an anti war candidate of the past , but for NOW! Strangely enough , given the failure of this war , the cost to our economy, morale, lives and standing in the world neither candidate has stepped forward.B.
We could make the candidates we want ,not the candidates we're having to settle for!
I do not agree. Right now, Obama is Hillary's best message. She doesn't need to say a lot at all. He's doing it for her.
what is the fascination with trying to figure out where Hillary got the 5 mil to loan to her campaign? As I understand it, Obama got much of his money by writing and selling two successful books. And, Hillary certainly got more than 5 mil for the two books she has had published.
So, there you go. They both got their money from the same place. She used hers to make a loan to her campaign. Obama used his to enter into a deal with Rezko's wife to be able to purchase the house he and his family live in.
Now, if we feel we need to understand where the candidates spouses get their money from. Then lets investigate Michelle Obama as well. How much influence has she used frokm her husband in order to get her cushy job at the hospital> How did she qualify for a recent HUGE raise she got. Did she make promises of using her husband's infulence to help the hospital? I need to know all of this to judge Obama's family character
hillary clinton tells lies about Obama, smears his ethnic bacground, calls him a muslim and worse and you somehow conclude that "has been damaged on core issues of character and message."
You must be joking. If I call you a one eyed midget, it doesn't make it so. Neither do clintons lies and distortion damage Senator Obama's character, issues or message.
clintons lie. It's what they always do. One of their best friends and supports, Geffen, said this is so.
character and message issues
1. Obama mailed a flier into Ohio that used a supposed quote from Hillary which she never said. He was fully aware that the quote was a LIE because it was pointed out to him when he used the same flier in Wisc.
2. Obama said no mtg ever took place between his campaign and the Candian govt. Turns out the meeting did take place. Another LIE from Obama. It doesn't matter what the content of the meeting was, he said it never took place.
3. Obama pledged to take federal matching funds in the general election if the repub nominee would make the same pledge. McCain said OK. Now Obama says maybe not. Is this the politics of change? Or politics as usual now that Obama knows how much money he can raise himself?
4. Obama says Hillary should have read the entire NIE report before voting on the Iraq war resolution. To justify his claim, he says Sen Rockefeller read the report and used his good judgement to then vote against the resolution. The problem here being that after reading the NIE report, Rockefeller voted FOR the resolution, not agaist it. Another LIE from Obama
Shall we go on?
No, please don't go on... you'll only embarrass yourself more.
What was the lie in #1? There was a word used on fliers in a previous contest that were complained about long after that state was done. It was well documented and addressed. So what is this about? Cite a source.
The Canadian issue is still being investigated. What is your source for this new piece of information?
#3 is something that hasn't been broken yet (though I think he should break it because if he doesn't keep his spending options open, mccain will quickly have scores of 527s pumping up the noise for him to backdoor spending and Obama won't be able to fight them without 527s popping up for him) and #4 is just plain "who cares." The assertion is that she should have read the damn NIE. She admitted she didn't read it. So he screwed up on a meaningless detail that was meant to add an example of someone who did their homework. If he said Feingold, would that have made the point any more valid? No. The point is simple. But you're going to claim that that is the same as saying you were always against nafta policy while stating in speeches that it's a great policy? If so, none of you are not credible.
Mr Hayden, I don't pretend to be as ANYTHING as you are, but my feelings are: 1) Except for the statement/tactic you suggest peace movement in PA use, which seems perfectly legitimate, this move on your part isl way too heavy handed. It will hurt Obama and it won't help the peace movement. 2) It gives Hillary way too much credit and way too much trust, and, as vernonbc says, it accepts and disseminates many of her talking points, which are deceptive at best. .
I agree with you on the Iraq issue. There needs to be more detail and now.
However, your approach to some of the other matters is following the mistaken track of Dems in Congress today. When you "demand" access to information and speculate about their contents, you are setting yourself up for a no-win resolution. Only 3 things can happen: 1.) the information is not released (don't have the returns done yet - nothing to show!, "lost it, sorry", "national security," etc.), 2.) they purposely release only parts that DISprove your speculated conclusions, and use plausible excuses to prevent any further release, or 3.) they release it all and it's so vast that you have no time to actually parse it and prove your speculations are true. Every time I hear that approach, I cringe because it's a stone-cold loser.
The right approach is to connect the dots that we know of and publicize a rational interpretation which puts the other side on the defensive. For example, "Former President Clinton lobbied the Kazakh government on behalf of his good friend Guistra so that Guistra could win a uranium mining contract worth billions of dollars and to publicly endorse the Kazakh leader for an international election monitoring post. A few months after Guistra won the contract, Clinton's charity received a $31 million "donation.
Hillary's campaign went bankrupt. She ran out of money. But her poor planning and poor execution didn't sink her because she was able to loan the campaign $5 million. She insists her tax returns are not an issue, but she knows that's not the truth. She knows that people want an answer to where the money came from. Did it come Bill's lobbying efforts? Did you sell something? The fact is, there are Federal campaign regulations in place to monitor where influence in the form of campaign contributions comes from. If Hillary doesn't understand that connection - and I think she does - then she should respect the valid interest of the voters and immediately, fully disclose all the detail surrounding the miraculous arrival of $5 million to her campaign.
"Hillary also tells us that she has spent her time as first lady "making change." But we can't prove or disprove that, can we? We can't because she had her records sealed prior to this election. What does she have to hide? We can only speculate. I doubt we'll get to see anything that is unflattering if and when parts are released. And if anything IS opened, there won't be enough time for Primary voters to see what's in there due to the amount of information there likely is. We need to just take her word.
"The issue is not about releasing tax returns. It's not about your activities in the 90s. The issue is transparency. The issue is change. The bush administration lost millions of e-mails. The bush administration claims that everything is private or of national security. They hide their tracks and find crafty ways to avoid living up to their constitutional obligations. Can someone tell me how Mrs. and Mr. Clinton represent a change from this practice? When someone seals their record right before a campaign begins, does that make you feel like you're in for change - or more of the same?"
That should be followed up with the openness of his own campaign and so on. But that is the message - "What are you hiding information from the public?" Demanding information sounds whiny, shrill, and annoying anyway. I think this sort of track is better than yours, Tom.
Two things. Three things actually. First - you said Obama has been damaged on core issues of character and message. I strongly, very strongly disagree with you on this. His core message hasn't changed. It is adapted to certain times and situations, but he has been true to his message of hope from Day One. And most importantly, his character has most definitely NOT been damaged. He was a fine, strong, moral, ethical man before he started this campaign and he still is and will always be.
Second - as more of the true story comes out, Obama was slimed on NAFTA. Do some research. Read some of the information coming out of Canada. The Clinton version is very distorted. What's that you say? The Clintons distorting something?? Read Susan Rice's diary just up from yours on the index.
Third -you said 'while the ugly Chicago trial of Obama supporter Tony Rezko is unfolding in Chicago'. May I remind you that Obama has done nothing wrong? He has been investigated thoroughly by one of the finest DA's in the country and cleared of any wrongdoing. Yes, Rezko is a low-life and yes, he contributed to Obama's earlier campaigns (but not to his presidential run) but Obama has given all that money to charity. Funny, though, how this little tidbit is ignored. Check out the donations made by the co-defendants in the Rezko trial. Seems Bill and Hillary Clinton both got donations from several of them. A little more vetting of old Hill might be in order. http://www
Excellent Mr. Hayden. I'm very much hoping that the Obama campaign will join with the anti-war movment and that Obama will more boldly and forcefully become the anti-war candidate. One writes these things to his site, but it will take someone high-profile like yourself..
Tom Hayden like many in his generation is still reliving Vietnam. Obama says he will get out of Iraq as soon as possible, but will listen to his military advisers. Clinton says she will get out, but her refusal to admit she was wrong on Iraq and her vote to support Bush on Iran provide cause for disbelief.
A retreat is the most difficult of military maneuvers. That is not to say we should stay inj Iraq one day longer then necessary. But we have to leave in a manner that we can best protect our soldiers and allow the Iraqis who risked their lives to help us get out.
It would be irresponsible for any candidate to make an absolute commitment to get out of Iraq in a certain time. A candidate has no access to military advice of the Joint Chiefs, CIA, and State Department experts. A President does not have to blindly follow their advice, but he must listen and make a decision considering it.
Hayden was right on getting out of Vietnam and wrong on how to get out. The same is true of his position 40 years later on Iraq.
I agree with you in principle, but the geography is small. There are enough places to stage people in Kuwait, S.A., etc. on their way out. Pulling out in 2 months is surely unrealistic. But 2 years is absolutely realistic and completely achievable. The candidates need to state their goal.
Remember, you can assume that tactics will change once it's known that we will be leaving. There's a chance things could escalate and get worse. But I doubt that scenario to a degree because not every insurgency group has large stores of weapons and ammunition. Assuming that they want to have enough to fight off some other militias or ethnic groups, they could actually stand down... maybe even hold the door open for us as we head on out.
For whatever reason allot of people respect bullies, perhaps it's out of fear. People voted Bush again because they thought he was a tough bully. Well something bully enablers should know about bullies, they are not accustom to listening nor negotiating. They are generally very insecure, self severing and struggle with the idea of integrity. To accept people who exhibit bully behavior says something about your character. People supporting Hillary Clinton are willing to ignore her and her husbands behavior in this campaign and are willing to justify it as "well she's tough" she's a fighter. There are other ways to win your battle without losing your dignity and being the bully. Personally I don't excuse nor except bully behavior. I want our leaders to carry a big stick and walk gently. Go to battle but never lose sight of your integrity nor dignity. Obama said from day one he would not win this race if he had to play dirty politics, so if Hillary is allowed to steal this race (super delegates) because she was willing to go to the gutter to win it then so be it. I would rather Sen. Obama leave with his integrity and dignity in tack.
Tom,
I disagree with your advice for Obama. You want him to maintain his high standards but at the same time dig up a bunch of muck that doesn’t matter and ignore the real issues. This is counterproductive. You drop him down to a lower level and waste resources.
The democratic candidates both need to turn their attention to McCain and demonstrate how well they can out argue McCain in the real election. Then we will see who the true candidate is and it would be better use of time and financial resources. McCain has lots of dirt that can be dug up and used against him.
Both Clinton and Obama have said they will begin pulling out combat troops within 60 days after taking office but will leave some behind in the region to fight Al Qaeda as required. The only candidate that wanted to take out all of the combat troops was John Edwards but apparently voters didn’t want to hear it.
Meanwhile the economy is the issue in Ohio and surrounding states and voters are not going to listen to an anti war message so much when they are all wondering where their next meal is coming from and if they are going to be kicked out in the street in the cold.
Both Obama and Clinton have stressed new green jobs in the form of WPA programs by taxing the rich and ending the war.
The best ticket for the Democrats is to have both Hillary and Obama on the same ticket. This might result in them winning the states where Hillary is favored and also winning the states where Obama is favored and shutting out McCain.
My two cents worth.
Best Regards,
G&M
I would like to disagree with you in regard to one point. Obama does not have to say or prove anything to win the Democratic nomination. Why? Because the Democrats know that Hillary will not be able to win against McCain. This is sad but true. The Democrats do not want to take the big chance of backing her nomination because they do not want to lose another election. Now I must say that the Dems have done dumb things before like inject Kerry in to the game. How stupid can one get. Well they could be that stupid again, but I would think they would have gained a lesson from the Kerry experience. I like Clinton but she will energize the Rupublicans to turn out in droves to elect McCain and that is what the Dems do not want at all costs. Obama is thus, a shoo-in no matter what he says.
'twas Lincoln who started a draft that started a riot that killed hundreds in NYC. Though I will admit Clinton did use the tough approach to convince the population she was no peacenic, now that is biting her in the ass. But Obama has no clothes either because he ran for president without becoming a senator demonstrating true convictions and moral leadership against the war. I am bemused by the obamaddicts attitude for him. He is no progressive, just a middleman in the aisle, playing usher at the theater. I just can't see why peace movement progressives are so tilted as they had a clear choice in Kucinich, and even now with Nader. But this is not about leadership, it's about personality -- Rock star style, mythomania placed on a man from virtually nowhere. He wrote a tune everyone wants to dance to. But he can't sing that tune in a debate, only on a stage, with lights and adoring fans. Lincoln also said -- you can't fool all the time.
If Obama starts making strategies that are for the sole purpose of putting him over the top in the delegate count, by that virtue alone he will seem more power hungry than power sharing. He will have to start promising these delegates special favors for their support, and he will be accused of everything the Clintons are accused of continuously, true or not. Neither Democrat can get over the top of the delegate hill, they should both be disqualified just as the Floridians and Michiganders have been.
Bravo Tom. Again. Hopefully you are able to get through to Obama's campaign with this message.
Loading comments…
Posted March 6, 2008 | 06:51 PM (EST)