Obama's process critique of Hillary

Once a goo-goo, always a goo-goo?

As I wrote back in March, Barack Obama's campaign is based on the false hope that we can all get along. As a result, he's been frustratingly reluctant to go negative on Hillary Clinton. Even when he did start to criticize her directly a few days ago, he focused on her failure to be sufficiently forthcoming with the American people -- a process-based critique that is not likely to resonate with Democratic primary voters.

In Tuesday night's debate, Obama finally challenged her directly, but even then it was more process criticism:

But look, we have big challenges. We're at war. The country is struggling with issues like rising health care. We've got major global challenges like climate change. And that's going to require big meaningful change, and I'm running for president because I think that the way to bring about that change is to offer some sharp contrasts with the other party. I think it means that we bring people together to get things done. I think it means that we push against the special interests that are holding us back, and most importantly, I think it requires us to be honest about the challenges that we face.

It does not mean, I think, changing positions whenever it's political convenient.

And Senator Clinton in her campaign, I think, has been for NAFTA previously, now she's against it. She has taken one position on torture several months ago and then most recently has taken a different position. She voted for a war, to authorize sending troops into Iraq, and then later said this was a war for diplomacy.

I don't think that -- now, that may be politically savvy, but I don't think that it offers the clear contrast that we need. I think what we need right now is honestly with the American people about where we would take the country. That's how I'm trying to run my campaign. That's how I will be as president.

It's just not feasible to take down a frontrunner who is perceived as a strong Democrat and reviled on the other side by criticizing her for flip-flopping. Democrats are sick of their candidates being called flip-floppers (Bill Clinton, John Kerry). More importantly, it recapitulates the failings of previous "wine track" reform candidates like Bill Bradley, who had little success accusing Al Gore of not being honest (though it did tee up Republicans for the fall campaign).

The big question is simple: Where are the issues? On what issues is Clinton wrong? If Obama doesn't have a strong issue-based critique, he won't win.

I will give him credit, though, for one of the great debate pivots ever when he was asked about life on other planets:

MR. RUSSERT: I'm going to ask Senator Obama a question in the same line.

The three astronauts of Apollo 11 who went to the moon back in 1969 all said that they believe there is life beyond Earth. Do you agree?

SEN. OBAMA: You know, I don't know, and I don't presume to know. What I know is there is life here on Earth -- (laughter) -- and -- and that we're not attending to life here on Earth. We're not taking care of kids who are alive and, unfortunately, are not getting health care. We're not taking care of senior citizens who are alive and are seeing their heating prices go up. So as president, those are the people I will be attending to first. (Laughter.) There may be some other folks on their way. (Applause, laughs.)

Here's the video:

Comments

[Rob]

I don't disagree with a thing you say, but I do find one of your turns of phrase very interesting. You write of Obama's campaign theme, "Call it the Rodney King approach to presidential campaigning."

Only five months ago, you complained about John McCain's "slam" of Barack Obama when McCain said, "Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong." You wrote, "Given Obama's racial background, the danger is that these attacks will be used to trigger ugly racial stereotypes about him, particularly once Republicans shift from bong jokes to talking about cocaine, which Obama admitted to trying in his first book."

It does seem curious that when a Republican uses "Obama" and "bong" in the same sentence, it raises a danger of triggering ugly racial stereotypes, but when you essentially compare Obama to a drug-using, law-breaking lowlife, who by the way happens to be African-American, that's perfectly okay.

I'm not saying it's wrong of you to invoke Rodney King. I am saying it's further evidence that you find racism in remarks from a Republican that would simply pass as ordinary political discourse if they came from others.

[Dave White]

...a process-based critique that is not likely to resonate with Democratic primary voters.

I'm not so sure this is true.

This">http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/">This dial group gave the biggest scores of the night to Obama's critique of Clinton's approach to executive transparency, something he linked to Bush administration executive secrecy, and something he drew in contrast with his record of accomplishment on government reform.

Perhaps the focus group was disporpotionately filled with a bunch of process nerds, but I doubt it.

[Kevin Walker]

The more Hillary was attacked, at this last debate, for being secretive and dishonest, the more I cringed. If she does end up the nominee, we don't need the Republican candidate hammering the point home saying, "even Obama and Edwards think she's untrustworthy!"

I agree it's better to challenge her on the issues. The Lieberman/Kyl amendment seems like an issue that can do her real damage, without jeopardizing her chances should she survive the primaries. There are probably others.

[Brendan Nyhan]

It's a fair point to object to my King reference so I've deleted it above.