Clearing the Smoke Around Obama

Watching the Obama campaign viciously attack perhaps the preeminent-eminent progressive economist, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, had the effect of waking me from some early winter political hibernation. Slammed with work of late, I'd been watching the polls from the corner of my eye and saw the slow leak toward the illusion of "hope" emanating from the favorite son of Illinois' political machine. The strange media-fueled Oprah mini-tour of arenas cast a pallid, intoxicating smog over the yacking televised classes, prompting Clarence Page to sweatily bleat "I doubted Chris, but now I'm sold!" on the newly-renamed Softball! with Chris Matthews, "brought to you tonight by Obama '08." So Page and Matthews inhaled, and the Obama campaign's win-the-media strategy continued on its course.

But that's big media, mainstream media, the "village" as Digby likes to put it. In blogland, things are turning on Obama, especially after his camp's tone-deaf Krugman slam. That was a wake-up call, a dash of cold water for progressives - and the question people are starting to ask now that the Clinton "inevitability" meme (always a lazy canard) has worn off is simply this - how does Barack Obama look as a general election candidate, as the Democratic nominee for President of the United States?

Which means, at least in part, how will Obama fare against the right-wing hit machine?

Oprah and the current media infatuation aside, I'd suggest "not so well" as one part of the answer - and "not nearly as well as Hillary Clinton," as the second part. In many ways, Barack Obama is a fat, hanging curve out over the plate for the slugging conservative attack dogs - and you can tell from reading the conservative blogs, plumbing their comments and links, just how much they hope Clinton will be dispatched this winter, rather than living to hurl high, tight fastballs next fall.

Look, I frankly admire Obama's message - both in its tone and its delivery.  I do believe that our country should set its sights a lot higher than we have in the past, that we've grown fearful and defensive as a people, and that good government is part of the solution. I do not dismiss Obama or his supporters, many of whom are friends and colleagues. But in the cold light of day, with the billionaire TV star safely back on her studio set and middle class Americans still looking for a better deal, the bar for defeating the Republicans in the fall is a lot higher for Obama than it is for Clinton.

To begin cleaning up this mess, we need two crucial ingredients, I believe: experience and the ability to win.

I've written much more about why I support Clinton, but it really does come down to those key arguments - she knows how to make it all work, and she's by far the best bet to fight the hit squads next summer. So why does Obama give me pause, make me worry, and frankly scare me as the Democratic nominee?

Regular commenter Bruce B., a progressive who also likes the Obama rhetoric, gets at the problem as well as I can: "who will be the strongest, most resilient candidate in the general election?" Like me, he worries that Obama's record is not well-known, that his public policy positions are not well-formed (he especially dislikes Obama's right-wing take on the Social Security "crisis" and his Krugman battle), and that he may have played his trump card (Oprah) far too early in the game.

The attack on Krugman was instructive to many on the left. Jerome Armstrong linked it with Obama's strangely conservative Social Security stance and said, "It's mistakes like these that make me think that if Obama gets the nomination, it's going to be disgusting to watch as he turns against progressives in his bid for the middle, and as he says, that's the way he'd govern too." Chris Bowers agrees: "During an Obama presidency, progressive media figures could face regular attacks from a Democratic White House. It is a fear that I still hold, and which keeps me from getting excited about Obama's improving position in the campaign." Ezra Klein says that "...Obama's rhetoric has become much, much worse than his plan. That it's ended with him having to go on the offensive against the most forthrightly progressive voice in major American media is evidence of that fact."

Then there's consistency. Today's Politico (which has gotten much better since an uneven beginning last year) has a piece by Ben Smith and Mike Allen about a candidate's questionnaire Obama filled out in 1996 when he ran for state legislature in Illinois. Some pretty standard stuff in the Q&A, which was issued by a voter's group - abortion, gun control, single payer health plan. And Obama gave short, liberal answers - literally "yes" or "no" on some of the toughest issues:

“Do you support … capital punishment?” one question asked.

“No,” the 1996 Obama campaign typed, without explaining his answer in the space provided.

“Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” asked one of the three dozen questions.

“Yes,” was Obama’s entire answer.

Frankly, I agree with most of Obama's answers. They're far more direct and progressive on domestic policy than his current campaign's positions. He's more nuanced now. Which is fine, he's a national candidate with a weather eye out for the general election. But the Politico piece brings up a larger question: it's three weeks to the first caucus vote, and this bit of research only now sees the light of day?

Say what you will about Hillary Clinton, she's been vetted. Fully. Completely. The skeletons aren't in her closet - they're on the front lawn. She's by far the best-known quantity in this race nationally, on either side. Heck, we also know far more about John Edwards, who underwent the full national scrutiny of a campaign in 2004. In some ways, they've been inoculated - you can expose them to the germs, but the disease won't take.

Not so, Obama. Politico's piece on Obama is just a hint of what the Republicans would use against him as the Democratic nominee. I believe the disgusting "Osama" slips and whispers, which I railed against last month, are just the merest hint of what would await the Senator if he prevails in the Democratic battle. There's Obama's admitted drug use, his "lost" early years, his local political career in Illinois, any connection he's ever had. All of that will be fertile territory - I'm not saying it's fair or has any bearing on his fitness for office. Indeed, I'm arguing that the attacks will be unfair.

So far, the nastiness on the right has been trained on Hillary Clinton. But just look at what's happening to Mike Huckabee now that the Republican establishment perceives him as a serious threat. Suddenly, he's not the mild-mannered, socially conservative, successful  and popular Governor of Arkansas anymore. Amazing how quickly he morphed into a rapist-pardoning, liberal, Mexican-loving, tax-and-spend, religious nutcase, isn't it?

That said, I advocate going straight at the attack machine - which still lives and breathes, despite the splintering of the Republican Party in the aftermath of the Bush presidency. To me, that requires the best weapon in the arsenal, the toughest warrior in the arena - somebody tougher than Al Gore or John Kerry, who both seemed tougher than Barack Obama.

I love the theme of the politics of hope.  But not if it puts a Republican back in the White House.

UPDATE: I'd forgotten to include a key post by my friend Fred Wilson, a prominent venture capitalist who doesn't consider himself particularly active in politics. Here's his take off of last weekend's "scar tissue" story in the Times:

And so the other part of my reluctant support of Hillary is this scar tissue thing. I really respect people who've taken their lumps and risen beyond them. I look for that in people in business all the time. I'd much rather have a partner who has taken some losses and learned from them than a partner who hasn't failed yet. Failure is an asset in my mind if you've learned from it.

UPDATE II: There's a great comment over at MyDD by dpANDREWS in response to Jerome Armstrong's latest Obama post that really sums up some of muy worries about Obama:

I have met a lot of very smart people in my life.  A few of them are the type that know that they are smart, and think they are smarter than they are.  They tend to over rely on their ability and it gets them in trouble.

I worry Obama might be one of these.  That he might think is so intelligent that he can get by or get around a problem with just its wits.  That he can talk his way out of it (or give a good speech).  He shows some signs of having this type of ego:

1) He appears thin skinned.  Novak and Krugman didn't do much to get way under his skin and to illicit a response that wasn't proportional to the percieved threat.

2) He doesn't take personal responsibility for mistakes.  He consistantly blames low level staffers when this blow up publically.

3) He appears leary to let us learn too much about him.  I have a real problem with the reasonsing that he gives for changing the names of friends and associates in his book.

Add to this that Obama has never been tested.  He has never ran a race where his opponent has taken it to him and knocked him down, forcing him to get off the mat.  You know that in a general that will happen.  Kerry got sent to the mat with the 'Swiftboats' and he got up, but he was slow to get up and it cost him.  Kerry was a veteran campaigner that had been in some tight spots previously.  Obama has no such experience to draw on.

Furthermore, what Democratic voters need to understand is that to win the general election you have to do more than make some movie star, or U of I prof, or some liberal activist in NH feel good.  You have to convince middle America, unaffiliated voters, who make will make a snap judgement in the final week, that you are the best person to defend them economically, militarily, etc. 

These voters are not going to stare starry eyed at Obama, gushing about a some mythical movement that no one else can see, as they listen to a long speech.

UPDATE III: Here's the latest from ABCNews - it finds "no upheaval in national preferences in the Democratic race, where, again among likely voters, Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama by more than 2-1, 53-23 percent, with John Edwards at 10 percent, all essentially the same as last month." I hope that's true.

Comments

[Kathleen]

"Failure is an asset in my mind if you've learned from it."

Should this ever play as received wisdom, we will all be better for it, fabulously better.

[Dickie Flatts]

Who is Obama?

Why did he change the names of all his friends and associates in his book?

Makes me wonder.

Is he protecting them?

Or his carefully crafted image?

[Slappy]

Apply what you wrote to Edwards and you will find your points even more true. If electability is paramount, Edwards should be your vote. Most of those who are still undecided on Dem or Rep will vote for the candidate they like the best. Meaning, who would they like as a neighbor, have their son/daughter date, have over for dinner, etc. In this country, that edge goes to Edwards. There are many who would be willing to vote Dem but in no way will they vote Clinton, or Obama. Sad but true. The Clinton is a lesbian and Obama a muslim talk has an effect on the electorate.

And nobody but a few liberal eggheads cares or even knows who Krugman is. Meaningless in a general election.

Also, what you may perceive as a liability, Obama's lack of battle scars or experience is for many a positive. When reporters are asking the voters as they leave the booth why they voted for so-and-so, they will answer, "I think America needs a change." Obama certainly represents that more than Clinton. And Edwards certainly more than Clinton.

I still think Clinton will wipe the floor with any Republican out there but her road will be far more bumpy than you expect.

[Anthony]

I suspect that Obama's offensive against Krugman is typical of how he would hit back when Republicans attack him directly by name. Does this bode ill or well for a potential Obama presidential campaign vs. a Republican?

How have Hillary Clinton and John Edwards done in their opposition research against Barack Obama? Does this bode ill or well for their campaigns' skills at oppo research should either of them make it to the general election?

I want the primaries to be a vicious slug-fest so that whoever wins is battle-tested and ready to face the Republicans.

[Tom K]

Al Gore has a much better record of demonstrated failure than Hillary.

Her record basically consists of three things -- (a) power exercised by reason of her husband's election, which she used boldly at first before very quickly becoming so cautious as to avoid any risk of further failure; (b) running for Senate, where she arguably risked some failure by picking a state she had no prior connection with, but more arguably avoided risk by picking the state she was most likely to win; and (c) her time as Senator, where she has avoided risk of failure by avoiding the tough issues, most graphically by voting for the war resolution while reserving the right to snipe at the president after the fact.

Gore, now there's a guy with some failure scars. And they are all the more interesting in that most were acquired via an election where he won the popular vote.

And don't tell me he's a success 'cause of the Oscar, Nobel, etc. He's a politican at heart, and as such he's a failure, and thus better qualified than Hillary. Let's give credit where it's due.

[Slappy]

Tom K, you crack me up sometimes. I'll be writing in the name George Bush on my ballot. He has by far shown the most skill at losing big and surely wears the largest and deepest scars. Who else can lead mankind's most powerful army to failure in such a glorious fashion. If failure betters a man, Bush is superior to us all.

[bruce b.]

this is fantastic!! we are arguing over which candidate has been the biggest FAILURE, thus is destined, according to Fred Wilson, to be the biggest success.

Somewhat reluctantly, I agree with Fred. Remember the song from The Music Man, "The Sadder But Wiser Girl for Me"? Hillary is definitely the sadder but wiser girl.

I believe the Obama upsurge might end up benefiting Hillary. It makes Edwards more peripheral. As an "undecided" voter (boy, am I enjoying this), I was having a hard time not supporting Edwards, who I think has been tremendous on the issues, especially the issue of class. But Obama separating from the pack makes it more of a two-person race.

Hillary has not closed the sale with me yet, for one reason and one reason alone. I believe Obama has a strong argument in that he would be a tremendous visual and emotional signal to the world that a new American foreign policy is at hand. And I believe he understands deeply and viscerally how badly America is viewed in the rest of the world, and how we can't succeed by throwing our (diminishing) weight around.

I feel that Sen. Clinton has made several mistakes, some small, some larger, on foreign policy in this campaign. I don't believe she is going to change on this. So I guess I will have to choose between someone who I agree with more domestically (Hillary) and someone who I agree with more on foreign policy.

TW makes a valid point, which is that electability is a big issue. The polls don't show much of a difference. (Interestingly, today's CNN poll shows EDWARDS as the most electable). I am very cautious about TW's argument that Hillary has been "vetted" more -- we would NEVER be able to elect someone new if we buy into that.

Did anyone else watch the Oprah/Obama rally on TV? I watched the Des Moines event on CSPAN. Oprah seemed to be saying that Obama had been sent by god ("he is THE ONE!"). Did anyone else detect that? i didn't like the tone. Martin Luther King, by the way, NEVER used that sort of triumphal tone. He said his PEOPLE were "god's people" and used Exodus metaphors, etc. But Oprah's language was -- different. Did anyone else see or feel this?

[techinvestor]

A Key Endorsement For Obama -- and, No, It's Not Oprah

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20071211/cm_thenation/45258640

[bruce b.]

Hillary's NH state co-chair today brought up Obama's past drug use as an "electibility" issue.

That was a no-no. This is what is troubling about TW's "vetting" argument.

I consider Obama's honesty about his past drug use to be a credit to his record, not a debit. It is better than "I didn't inhale."

[bruce b.]

In fact, now that I think about it, the title to your posting, TW, "Clearing the Smoke Around Obama", can be interpreted in a way that actually raises this issue. That can't be what you intended!!!

[Tom W.]

Well, it's not a no-no in this way - it affect his electability next fall. Do you have any doubts the Repubs will use it like mad against a nominated Obama? I don't.

Sure, I don't care if, say, he hasn't done any blow in a decade, and even if he had, I'd care only a little bit. Problem is, the vast electorate that barely pays attention and yet still votes may indeed discredit him.

And there's another scary questionnaire out today - one that makes him look like he flipped on several bedrock issues in just four years.

[bruce b.]

TW says:

Well, it's not a no-no in this way - it affect his electability next fall. Do you have any doubts the Repubs will use it like mad against a nominated Obama? I don't.

It's a no-no to raise it in any way, and will backfire in the Democratic primaries. It confirms some bad impressions people have of the Clintons.

Will it affect his electibility? I don't think so. Everyone knew W. did blow, except he never admitted it. In any case, I think this is an argument to have.

I can't seem to find what you are referring to as a second "scary questionnaire." The first one was decidedly not very scary. Can you post the link to the second one?

[bruce b.]

I said:

In any case, I think this is an argument to have.

I meant I DON'T think this is an argument to have. I don't think the argument over "electibility" should be over personal foibles when the candidate(s) were in their early 20s.

The problem with John Kerry isn't that he did things in his 20s that he wouldn't do now. The problem was that he didn't CALL THE REPUBLICANS OUT quickly and surely -- and angrily -- over using that sort of shit.

[Tom W.]

You can call 'em out all you want. They don't care. You have to be able to fight back, hard.

Again, I'm not saying Obama's coke use or his 180s on the candidate Q&A's are wrong. I mean, young guys do drugs and young candidates say what they think will get them elected. Or maybe they're actually liberal when young. I dunno.

What I'm saying is this - it effects his electability. It's part of the equation, distasteful as the equation may be. Same as Romney's Mormonism, Rudy's love life, Hillary's husband. It's just there.

[Tom K]

So, Tom, I guess you agree it would be legitimate for an Obama campaign operative to plant with the media the notion that someone has to get to the bottom of whether or not Hillary has had any sapphic dalliances.

Not that there's anything wrong with it, of course, to you tolerant Dems, but hey, the nasty R's (so much baser than the pure D's), will use it politically, so we must ask the hard question now, to protect the progressive movement!

You OK with that?

[Tom W.]

TK - you might note:

1. It wasn't a media "plant" - it was an on-the-record conversation with a state co-chair, who has since apologized. The drug thing's been talked about on blogs for quite a while.

2. Clinton didn't write about any "dalliances" in her autobiography, unlike Obama's reference to "blow" in his. The wound is entirely self-inflicted. One is a rumor, the other is a public admission.

3. Electability and skeletons/baggage (ie, what the other side will do) is generally considered a factor in primary voting.

[Tom K]

I see. So, if Obama hadn't been honest, inquiry in this area would be unfair. Tom, it's tawdry, let's face it.

But let's get to the real problem with your "tactical" analysis -- using the Hillary/sexual thing as a (deliberately outre) example. If you are right, then the public inquiry becomes proper -- indeed, mandatory for the cause -- if there's enough there for the other side to demagogoue effectively. But how do you know if that's the case or not, if there's no confession? Why, private inquiry, of course. Investigators, etc. The whole ugly package. Which, I guess, works out rather neatly, like a geometric proof -- since we know, from Joe Klein and the like, that this is, indeed, just how the Clintons work.

It is effective. If you have concluded it is necessary to approve this sort of thing, you should at least do so with greater remorse. Better yet, stay on the moral high road.

[Tom W.]

Wait, you're citing Klein's fictional campaign spoof that he tried to pass off anonymously as proof of "how the Clintons operate?" That's crazed!

As for the "Hillary/sexual thing" - what "Hillary/sexual thing?"

[Tom K]

The "Hillary/sexual thing" was my own allusion, earlier, to the notion of the Obama campaign instigating questions into her sex life as a campaign tactic.

I did not intend to imply anything about her sexual history, or whether she has one (though she has a daughter, so I think we can stipulate that she has.)

Rather, my point is that your justifications on the Obama stuff, if taken seriously, would justify (under the guise of vetting) investigation of every candidate from every angle, to see if there's anything the other side might exploit. Sexual behavior would certainly not be excluded from this, even if you arbitrarily decided to limit it to drugs. Similarly, there is no logical reason to limit it to confessed behavior, unless you're looking to reward lying.

Klein's book was fiction, yes, and one can choose to beleive that it had nothing to do with his experiences with the Clintons. Dick Morris, who has written extensively about the Clinton's army of investigators, may be liar (though it is curious he's never been sued for libel for making such specific and damning allegations in this regard.) But let's cut to the chase -- no games about Klein or any other specific source, or about not having proof to meet a legal standard. As a matter of simple political observation (not seeking to convict anyone here), do you seriously doubt that the Clintons regularly used private investigators to dig up dirt on their opponents in the 1990s? Please answer "yes, I doubt it", "no, I don't doubt it", or "I have so wilfully blinded myself to the uncomfortable evidence that I am able to say I have no opinion on the subject."

[Tom W.]

Nice try, but I'll answer my own way and skip the Let's Make a Deal curtains.

I do indeed doubt it, but would not be shocked by it either - but basically the same degree of non-shock that would exist within the context of, say, LBJ, Reagan, Bush 41-43, Nixon, and Clinton (in no particular order).

Call me an evidentiary fool, but I'd dare to suggest that actions publicly confessed in completely voluntary fashion do carry more weight with people than completely unsubstantiated rumor. That said, I'm sure the Obama-Giuliani-Romney people have looked into it...

[Tom K]

The take-away here is that that you claim to doubt that the Clintons used PI's to investigate their political adversaries. I'll trust fair-minded readers, even in this progressive forum, evaluate that for themselves.

Well, I'll help 'em a little. The record is very clear that Clinton used PIs investigators against his enemies more aggressively than any president since, at least, Nixon. I'll admit Dick Morris is (to me) an unappealing person, but I have yet to hear any convincing explanation of why he would write extensively, and testify under oath, purportedly from his personal knowledge, falsely about this.

Before Nixon, this behavior might have been more common -- though I suspect govt., rather than private, investigators were favored then.

As to your last point, treating admissions differently than rumours, that is fine IF YOU THINK THE OTHER SIDE WILL RESPECT THE DISTINCTION. But, by your own logic, it is their extremes of demagoguery you are out to protect against, so you must mirror their tactics. If they will track down every rumour how, by your logic, can you avoid concluding that it is not only permissible, but in a sense necessary, to do the same? Unless you start from the assumption that certain rumours (persumably, those about candidates you like, or involving behavior you feel should be respected) must be conclusively presumed to be false?

Or, maybe this gets back to your point that Hillary is better because she has been so thoroughly vetted. That is, further inquiry into her personal life is unwarranted because there is no reason, at this point, to believe any new life can be drawn from those exhausted fields. But consider this: if that is your point, you are retroactively justifying the ugliness of the 1990s (which I don't recall you favoring), since it would be proper to do at least much of it now if it hadn't been done then. And, you are saying there is no moral obstacle to this sort of investigation, just a practical one -- which means, among other things, the whole subject should be properly open to inquiry once again if, somehow, it appeared that there might be something there (on this or some other salacious personal topic) that was somehow overlooked.

That's a pretty amoral position. Funny how supporting the Clintons tends to lead one to abandon traditional notions of decency. Dredge up dirt on fellow progressives -- check. "They didn't do it and if they did it's OK cause everyone does" (as you argued above about the PI's.) Feels like 1998.

Going over this has reminded me just how unpleasant these people are.

[Tom K]

*That said, I'm sure the Obama-Giuliani-Romney people have looked into it...*

Suppose for a moment they found something. (Anything's possible in this world.) How could you be sure they would publicize it now? Maybe they'd wait until the general election -- especially if it was something inflammatory enough to ensure her defeat. You may advocate making their tactics your tactics (at least where Obama is concerned), but surely you recognize that they will deploy any fruits of those tactics to their own advantage, and against the perceived interests of your camp.

You buy into the rumor-mongering, it's gets real tough to stop. I don't mean this is uniquely your problem, or the HRC campaign's -- everyone in politics who has any moral qualms at all has to deal with it. (I'll assume, for current purposes, that group includes somebody). But your position on the Obama stuff really brings it to the fore, and I think you ought to take stock of your moral balance before you find yourself in freefall.

[Slappy]

When it comes to digging up dirt and scandalizing others, I have one word to add to the conversation: Valerie Plame.

If my Democratic candidate does not use PIs to dig up dirt on their Republican adversary in the general election, I will accuse them of gross negligence. Its not the most pleasant of tactics but to paraphrase Tom W's earlier post, "It's just there."

[Tom K]

*If my Democratic candidate does not use PIs to dig up dirt on their Republican adversary in the general election, I will accuse them of gross negligence.*

That obviously raises moral issues, too, but they are different ones. The question at hand is such digging among one's own party. Where are you on that?

[Tom W.]

Thanks for the advice, but I actually feel pretty well balanced at present.

Most - but not all - of the ugliness of the 1990s (as you put it) came from the major political party the Clintons do not belong to. And I'll not accept Dick Morris as a legitimate source for the sky being blue.