Obama Turning Tail?

Some insurgent. Apparently Barack Obama wants to run a Rose Garden strategy now, limiting his debates with Hillary Clinton to one before the next big round of primaries on March 4th. Clinton wants one a week, which seems reasonable, given how hot this race is -and how important the issues facing the nation are. But Senator Obama had better not try to smell those fragrant, protected petals in February. Now that we've all had the first whiff of the Obama pop culture phenomenon, we all want to learn more about this man from Illinois.

“I don’t think anybody is clamoring for more debates,” Mr. Obama said. “We’ve had 18 debates so far." Mr. Obama added that he would agree to at least one debate, but noted, “It’s very important for me to spend time with voters.”

Like, perhaps, on national television, Senator Obama? One of the fascinating tidbits from the Super Tuesday polls was the very late break toward Clinton: "those who reported making their decision on the last day bucked the trend, tending to vote for Mrs. Clinton, of New York," reported the Times. My friend Fred Wilson was one of them, and he is dismayed this morning by Obama's run for cover:

Well Barack, I am clamoring for more debates. That makes one person. Please weigh in via the comments if you too would like more debates. I honestly don't know a better way to "spend time with voters" than by answering questions side by side with his competitor in front of a national television audience.

[snip]

For me, a big part of my decision was the substance she showed in contrast to the lack of substance that Obama showed in the Los Angeles debate. If Obama is going to be the nominee, and I've said many times that I'd be fine with that, then he needs to show more substance, define what exactly he'd do to fix the big issues that face our country. And now that the country is watching, there is no better way to do that than a debate a week for the next month.

Every time they've made a move, the Obama campaign has done something dumb to counter it - and it seems to me it stems from the personality of the candidate himself. Iowa's victory was diminished by "likeable enough." The Kennedy investiture turned into "the snub." And now an encouraging tie on Super Tuesday becomes "run and hide." A long-time commenter and all-around bloggy friend - and by "friend" I mean "Blue Girl" - has been after me to be more positive about Hillary Clinton, rather than focus so much on the rampant sexism in the media. It's a good point, and to me, the difference in their personalities provides a point of separation for the two Democrats - I like Hillary's better. He's prosaic, shiny and removed. She's spunky, she's tough, and she won't quit.

Want proof? That $5 million loan shows real commitment and fire. It's far more of an investment on a percentage basis than Mitt Romney or another other candidate has put into this campaign. Say what you will about the Clintons - they're all in. They believe in their campaign and their issues. And it fired up the sleeping Clinton base. The campaign has raised more than $4 million online since the polls closed Tuesday night, with 35,000 new donors coming in behind Hillary.

Yet, the Obama camp is so smug in its impressive fundraising abilities that it sees fit to mock Clinton's personal financial contribution with a sneering and distasteful anti-Clinton graphic. Ah, the politics of hope. The more you get to know the Obama personality, the more you're reminded of a certain kind of towel-snapping bully who used to hang around the high school locker room.

Speaking of that snoozing Clinton base, it's coming alive and it won't like the mocking graphic or the politics of turning tail on serious policy debates. In a must-read, all-time great post over at Shakesville, Melissa McEwen (she of the former Edwards blogging status and all-around great liberal) dissects the rising feminist sentiment for Clinton's historic campaign. Please the whole thing and comment over there, but here's a bit:

Every time she mentions being a woman, mentions being a mother, mentions being a daughter, mentions being a wife, or even makes any oblique reference to running a historical campaign or being the first woman to do something (like win a presidential primary), she is accused of playing the gender card. She is diminished, ridiculed, criticized, and dismissed using dog whistles, slurs, graphics, and bluntly misogynist commentary. When her womanness is the weapon most used against her, is it any wonder that women who support her may be hesitant to scream it from the rooftops, reluctant to stand behind her in large numbers, lest we undermine her? When womanness is hated, it will inevitably make women feel like a liability.

I don't even think this is a conscious feeling in many women. It certainly has taken me a long time to reach the point where I found this hesitation within myself, that I could bluntly engage the grim realization that I had internalized the expressions of contempt for a strong woman and let them manifest as a disinclination to speak too loudly of any admiration I had for Hillary, lest the contempt for me, for this strong woman here and her strong opinions, add to the weight of disdain Hillary carries already on her shoulders.

I know one thing, there's a new online group of about 150 bloggers and DailyKos/MyDD posters that didn't exist two weeks ago, most of them women. It just sprung up out of frustration and, dare, I say it, hope.

The Hillary surges in this campaign tend to be quieter, well below the radar of the enraptured media. She does well when she debates policy. She wins all the closed-booth, big state Democratic primaries. But those surges are there, and after the split decision of Tuesday night the road points to March 4th and the big states. Clinton's base? Fired up. Ready to go.

UPDATE: Senator Obama has turned down Senator Clinton's offer to appear together at a Maine town hall event in the name of party unity and a discussion of the issues. Wonder why?

UPDATE II: Jane Hamsher on Obama's "claws come out" crack.

Comments

[JoeySky18]

Woo Hoo.. rock solid supporters come to the rescue, male and female alike. Don't worry Clinton, we got your back! You go girl.

[zeke]

Spunky, tough - sure...but utterly lacking in judgement. Once burned, twice shy is the rule. But Ms. Clinton, after trusting George W. Bush to do the right thing in Iraq and getting royally burned, somehow came to the conclusion that it would be wise to give Bush a free hand in Iran too. Her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq can be explained away by the somewhat disingenuous claim that "gee, everyone else thought he had WMD's too." Her support of Kyle-Lieberman can only be explained as the result of some sort of flawed political calculus. It certainly wasn't grounded in moral principle.

[Mike P]

Tom,
You're a great advocate for your candidate, but you're doing a little of what you accuse Obama people of doing as well, which is simply shading things to put your candidate in a better light.

Hillary has big advantages in both Texas and Ohio (and probably Penn as well). One of the things that has worked for Obama in this campaign is getting out on the ground and meeting voters. The more they see him up close, the better they like him. It makes perfect sense from his point of view to forgo debates (a format that Clinton is her best at) in favor of trying to cut into her margins by meeting folks in the next round of primary states. He plays into her hands if he decides to meet her for a debate every week. He didn't say he wouldn't debate her anymore...just not every week, so your 'fraidy cat title post (which is somewhat juvenile to start with) is a bit misleading. A smart candidate doesn't fall pray to manipulation from rival campaigns (I'm sure you would argue that's the case for Hillary, correct?)

I have to laugh at the thought suggestion that Obama was "lacking in substance" in the L.A. debate. It was generally viewed as the most substantive debate so far and they both held their own.

It's also very funny to see Clinton claiming an insurgent campaign as she continues to say she is leading in superdelegates...which are basically party insiders. Yeah, the establishment is out against her in force.

And yes, Hillary's base is mobilizing...good on them! But so is Obama's. He's raking in money at a high clip right now as well and we've seen no evidence that's he's not it in to win it.

I have always maintained that either would be a good nominee for the party. I'm just over the I have to tear down the other guy stuff. It's old.

[zeke]

Oh, and one more thing: a "sneering and distasteful anti-Clinton graphic"? Give me a break! When I went to the link, I thought there must be some kind of mistake. Surely a small blue box comparing the money contributed by Obama's supporters with the money loaned to the Clinton campaign by the Clinton's themselves can hardly be characterized as "sneering and distasteful?"

Well, evidently it can if you are an overly defensive and somewhat disingenuous Clinton supporter.

Listen, I am not a member of the Obama cult, but I honestly believe he would be a better president. But I will vote, and gladly, for Hillary if she is the Democratic nominee.

I think people are becoming a bit overwrought on both sides of the primary campaign. Perceived offenses like Obama's "likeable enough" or Bill Clinton's "Jesse Jackson won S.C" have been blown way out of proportion. These people are in the midst of a hard-fought campaign, and not every critical comment aimed at Clinton is sexist, just as not every swipe at Obama is racist.

Whining is not an attractive trait, and I'd like to see supporters of both candidates do a lot less of it.

[Kathy]

Thank you for this. Your blog is the first place I've seen Sen. Clinton's fundraising surge mentioned. The MSM has focused squarely on Obama and desperately wants him to win the nomination. Not because they all think he'd be a better president, but because they want someone new to discuss. They'll rip into him at the first opportunity.

[Kathy]

Thank you for this. Your blog is the first place I've seen Sen. Clinton's fundraising surge mentioned. The MSM has focused squarely on Obama and desperately wants him to win the nomination. Not because they all think he'd be a better president, but because they want someone new to discuss. They'll rip into him at the first opportunity.

[goldberry]

I think Melissa's point is illustrated well by SusanG's reaction to the NOW statement of about a week ago. I probably wouldn't have written that statement either but I certainly understood where NOW was coming from with Obama sort of jumping ahead of Clinton with not even half the experience. It's something that happens to women every day.
But SusanG took the opportunity to bash NOW for writing it. She was just as reactionary as they were irate. I was PO'd. Here was a female blogger with a huge bilboard and she failed to see the pattern of diminishment. Instead, she focused on tone of the NOW statement, that is was somehow offensive to Kennedy, one of our patrons.
There is no doubt that DKos is in the grips of Obamamania but they don't see how reckless they are by accepting the anti-woman, old woman, has been, theme. It's going to set us back decades.

[Redstar]

Another great post. Glad I found you via Shakesville!

[Whitecat]

Thank you. More good Hillary stuff, please.

[norrismorris]

Obama is being a coward. And an unvetted one at that. There is much in his Illinois backstory that is more than snarky,devious, and downright unethical.

He needs serious vetting, and is scared to hell of being bested in debate by Hillary. He should be challenged to do this. Write to your Media.

After hurling his accusation in SCarolina debate to Hillary about WalMart........guess what??

Michelle Obama for years sat on WalMart's Board, and resigned without truthful explanation in 2004 prior to Obama went to US Senate.

There's MUCH more, and it's time to make him accountable.

[ozamerican]

"That $5 million loan shows real commitment and fire."

Or desparation.

"And it fired up the sleeping Clinton base."

Sleeping? So much for commitment and fire.

"Clinton's base? Fired up. Ready to go."

About time, huh?

Why on earth would Obama bend over backward to accomodate Hillary's scramble to grab free media via the debates when he's cruising on a full tank now?

Did you forget this is a competition?

[ozamerican]

"Michelle Obama for years sat on WalMart's Board."

Get your facts straight--this is completely untrue. Michelle Obama has never sat in WalMart's board. This is from Wikipedia:

"She served on the board of TreeHouse Foods, Inc.,[14], a major Wal-Mart supplier with whom she cut ties immediately after her husband made comments critical of Wal-Mart at an AFL-CIO forum in Trenton, New Jersey, on May 14, 2007."

Big difference, huh?

[Bo]

EVERYONE knows the frontrunner should refrain from substantive debate that could further education and enlighten voters. I mean, that's just politics as usual. EVERYONE knows it's a competition, so of COURSE he must be expected to lie about the existence of a national clamor for him to move beyond rhetoric to substance. That's just politics as usual...

Oops... I mean, what a brilliant, radical new strategy to unite. Obama transcends the old paradigm of educating voters by replacing boring old debate with a glorious new political religion. You either See the Light, or you don't, and He shouldn't be expected to waste time with those who can't simply Feel The Love.

[Shafqat Khan]

An interesting post, though rather polemical. The Democrats are not too far apart on domestic issues like Health Care, Social Security etc. The seminal issue of our time has been making the right judgement on the war. On that issue, sadly, Hillary's judgement nor her subsequent tortuous defense of it, points to a major character flaw in her which is to say or do anything to win the moment. Additionally, there is a real fear that she will start another war just to show she is tough.

We were ardent Clinton supporters and have recently switched. Our rationale for switching is fully explained on http://newpoliticos.blogspot.com