Subtle

Watching the primary campaign, it keeps seeming to me as if Barack Obama is making arguments that, while fairly clear to me, must go over the heads of at least half of political junkies, to say nothing of normal people going about their lives. Noam Scheiber, meanwhile, remarks on Obama's thinking:

At this point, the thinking in the Obama camp seems to rest on two assumptions. The first is that the press will do the work of deciphering his overly-subtle jabs at Clinton. The second is that Edwards, in moving aggressively to take on Clinton, will drive up his own negatives in addition to hers. But, after tonight, at least one of those assumptions may need revising. Edwards looks perfectly capable of firing shots without suffering much blowback. Elizabeth Edwards maybe onto something yet.

That just seems crazy to me. Readers have no doubt noticed that I like Obama and I like what I think his campaign stands for. But it's ridiculous to expect members of the press -- even sympathetic ones -- to make his arguments for him. If he wants people to vote for him rather than for Hillary Clinton, he needs to spell out some reasons why. Months ago, the subtly hinting seemed like a clever effort to lay the groundwork for the campaign to come. But now the time has come. Even hard-core observers of the scene are, under the current strategy, essentially put in the position of trying to guess what Team Obama is trying to say.

Comments

Yeah, increasingly it looks like Obama (really, based on what one can read in the news, Axelrod) really might not have the goods. At least he's pretty.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 27, 2007 11:41 AM

My primary vote is still up for grabs but Obama isn't making it easy for me to move toward him. I need some policy specifics as well as a sense how he'd weather the Mighty Rightwing Wurlitzer's assaults over the course of a looooong general campaign. Right now he looks as though he'd wither the first time the Swift Boats came calling.

Hillary's not my top pick at the moment, but I'll say this for her: her command of the debates assures me she'll know how to hold her ground against the GOP. Plus, there's a real opporunity for her to subvert expectations in the general. She's more electable than most folks realize.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | September 27, 2007 11:47 AM

Obama has been trying to position himself as the non-partisan candidate all along, the nice guy who'll do things differently. Which would work fine if you know, he was the front runner. And since Oprah will only campaign for him at the most useless time for him, the general, he almost seems resigned to hoping and praying and then maybe picking up the VP slot. Edwards doesn't have the worry really of the VP slot so he can be more forceful.

Posted by Rob | September 27, 2007 11:48 AM

You have to wonder whether Obama is thinking about the Veep spot, and that going full-out against Clinton would damage those chances.

Thing is, this kind of approach doesn't make him a good Veep candidate. And it plays into another paradox: he probably appreciates that Senators Don't Get Elected, and the longer he remains a senator, the worse his chances get, even as Hillary tries to break the curse.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 27, 2007 11:50 AM

No way is HRC's team going to pick a black guy as VP. One boundary at a time seems more than enough for those guys.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 27, 2007 11:51 AM

Sometimes subtlety is just a means of obfuscation. The entire campaign is based on a fuzzy evocation of "Lieberman Lite" bipartisanship with a lot of makeup - actual positions are either nonexistent or not compatible with the sales strategy.

This kind of naif thinking is exactly why I usually don't wind up here unless somebody links to it. Wrong Matt....

Posted by b. | September 27, 2007 11:51 AM

I'm not sure Obama is ready to concede, before the fundraising numbers are in, that Clinton is in any way a "frontrunner", which explains his lack of aggression. I mean, if he outraises her again, that will be the story (unless MoveOn puts another add in a newspaper! Ha!) of the week- this debate won't even register.

Let's face it- not even political junkies, much less "normal people", are watching a debate in September. And the "Inevitable Clinton" meme will change without aggression from Obama if he has a great quarter anyway, so there isn't a reason to get harsh so early...

Posted by P | September 27, 2007 11:51 AM

If Obama's counting on the media to carry water for him, he's stupid. Currently the media has somewhat of a crush on him, but that might not last -- indeed, the media might feel spurned by him at some point and go after him. A Dem. cannot count on the media to carry water, period.

OTOH, perhaps Obama is trying his hand at the liberal version of the dog-whistle messaging used by the right? He figures he can't attack HRC from the left too openly, lest he be tarred as a hippy moonbat in the general election if he wins the primary, so he's being subtle so that we in the base know what he is, but without others realizing?

If so, then he might be on the right track with his "subtlety" but he still doesn't have the execution down yet: just 'cause you've figured out that you should use the dog whistle, doesn't mean you automatically know how to blow it correctly.

Posted by DAS | September 27, 2007 11:52 AM

"Edwards doesn't have the worry really of the VP slot"

Why not? The concern about having a woman and an African-American on the ticket isn't heart-warming but isn't crazy.

Posted by rilkefan | September 27, 2007 11:55 AM

Hillary voted for Kyl-Lieberman which reinforces my growing belief that out of all the Democratic candidates, as President she would be most likely to do something stupid on behalf of Israel. I will not vote for her in Missour's primary

Posted by wrap per | September 27, 2007 11:57 AM

it keeps seeming to me as if Barack Obama is making arguments that, while fairly clear to me, must go over the heads of at least half of political junkies

What I get from the post is that Matt and Noam Scheiber are characterizing Obama as too "subtle" to be electable, without offering any specific examples of why that might be so. Specifically, Matt, exactly which of Obama's arguments are you talking about here, and why exactly are those arguments too refined for the common folk?

Posted by James Gary | September 27, 2007 12:00 PM

I've read countless stories talking about how things aren't set in stone, 80% of NH voters haven't made up their mind, the race usually doesn't change significantly until about a month before the primaries, etc etc etc...and people are wondering why Obama isn't putting the pressure on now?

Why would he do that now? The time to start sprinting is mid-Nov/Dec, in the run-up to the Jan 5th Iowa caucus, not now. It'd be unsustainable to start now.

People are just hungry for some major conflict, because conflict is an easy story to write, but going on the attack in Sept/Oct was what killed Gephardt in 03. Once you start, you either have to back off (which then creates a lot of stories about how your attack maybe didn't work and you're pulling back for fear of looking over-aggressive) or keep it up indefinitely, turning your entire campaign into a petty dispute. Who thinks 2 months of that is beneficial?

Obama is waiting for the right time. mid-Nov/Dec.

Posted by mop | September 27, 2007 12:04 PM

It's comforting to know that the leading liberal intellectual of our time does not fail to follow tradition and supports a lost cause.

Posted by gregor | September 27, 2007 12:06 PM

Obama may be stuck because his appeal is at the person above partisanship and only attacks will cut Clinton down to size.

But it is also possible that this is a cycle where there really are only pro-Clinton and anti-Clinton votes and the key to winning the nomination is being the last non-Clinton standing. Obama, with his cash reserves, has the advantage in that regard.

But if Edwards is forced to accept the inevitable at some point and drop out, do his voters split between Obama and Clinton or do they (mostly) all go to Obama.

Posted by Lon | September 27, 2007 12:06 PM

Edwards doesn't have the worry really of the VP slot
- Why not?

The race is between Edwards and Obama to be the main not-HRC candidate. If Obama beats HRC and is elected, Edwards is most likely not going to be VP; possible - Edwards is nothing if not practical - but unlikely. But if Edwards beats HRC and is elected, Obama would be the perfect VP, especially in the modern version of the office. One or two terms of Edwards followed by an Obama administration, as the thinking goes. There's your liberal...er progressive, trajectory for the next decade+.

Posted by jonnybutter | September 27, 2007 12:06 PM

Hitlery will pick a DLCer for Veep. It'll be just like Gore-Leiberman but without the intelligence.

Posted by BushYouth | September 27, 2007 12:11 PM

For Obama to attack Hillary successfully he needs to 1) have serious differences of opinions with her, and 2) have those opinions actually reflected in his Senate votes. If I hear one more time about how he was against the war in 2002, I'm going to scream. It was easy to be against the war in 2002 when you did not have a vote!

Now Iran comes along and he has a vote and doesn't use it. It was a chance to prove that all that talk about Iraq in 2002 wasn't just talk. Instead, he's in the same position he's in on Iraq - claiming he would've voted differently, but not actually having voted. Only this time he COULD'VE voted. So how does he go after Hillary on that? Isn't her come back, "if you feel so strongly, then why couldn't you be bothered to vote?"

Of course, Obama hit Hillary hard in a campaign memo on healthcare sent out during/after the debate. Who says he doesn't have courage? And if he really believes as the memo seems to indicate that the Republicans were in a compromising mood on healthcare in 1994 and it's the Clintons' fault no compromise was reached, then he has a very short memory. Note to Barrack: Sometimes Republicans say things publicly they don't really mean. (And how convenient that the one thing the Congressional Dems and Reps who did not pass any healthcare reform legislation can agree on is that that failure is all Hillary's fault.)

Edwards was much more impressive than Obama last night both in terms of substance and policy. I still don't know who I'm voting for in the primary (or even if it will matter by the time I vote), but I've grown increasingly frustrated with Obama and impressed by Edwards. I really do wish Edwards had Obama's money because I'd love to see a race between him and Clinton.

Posted by BDB | September 27, 2007 12:13 PM

Frankly, I'm already suffering from debate fatigue and I haven't even watched one yet. I really don't see these debates as being at all important. Unless one of them makes a huge blunder, this is really more about sifting through tea leaves in a futile attempt to predict the future. Many political junkies (like myself) aren't watching them, and the general public is, at best, only faintly aware that they're occurring.

Overall, I see these things as being part of the bubble-wankfests typical of political campaigns. That's not to blame the candidates, but the media and pol junkies who insist the candidates go through the motions. Candidates are expected to jump through every hoop and answer every question perfectly, or be denounced by the minority of people actually paying attention. In the meantime, the general population really doesn't care, and probably won't start caring until December or January rolls around. By then, the minority will have told them who the "serious" candidates are. I just can't believe that this is already happening in September. People need to get a life.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | September 27, 2007 12:15 PM

Does anyone really think an outsider has any chance of cracking the Clinton inner circle and become the Veep candidate?

Wes Clark is the obvious choice to pair with Hillary. He's pretty, he won't turn off Southern whites, he's got national security bonafides, and he probably will do a better job on TV after his experience in 2004. Add in the fact that he is the least threatening candidate to pair with Hillary, is not hated by the NetRoots, and would make a hell of a traveling tag team on diplomatic missions with Bill and you have yourself the overwhelming favorite for Hillary's VP.

Posted by dan k | September 27, 2007 12:17 PM

It was easy to be against the war in 2002 when you did not have a vote!

Maybe in Fantasyland. Not if you had a future political career in mind. (And various bloggers have spent eons bitching about how pro-war folk were mean and called them pansies or traitors.) But if Obama wants that to be the base on which he builds support, he needs to make an argument, not just point at his position and smile.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 27, 2007 12:18 PM

One must live in a very insular world to think that Obama can actually win the general election. He does not even provide a hyper-idealistic platform to justify the attraction paid to him by so many people, mostly young and overeducated.

Posted by gregor | September 27, 2007 12:19 PM

If Hillary is the nominee, Edwards will be a three-time loser. Only a fool or a romantic would bring him onto the ticket.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | September 27, 2007 12:21 PM

He missed the vote because (1) Reid originally scheduled it for Tuesday night, (2) Tuesday night Reid pulled the bill and said it would be tabled for the foreseeable future, (3) Obama heads off to campaign in NH, (4) Reid schedules the bill for a vote at noon on extremely short notice. It happens. Now you know, so stop spreading bs that he could've voted.

Posted by Keith | September 27, 2007 12:25 PM

At some point if you are going to claim to be Clinton's chief challnger, you are going to have to, uh, challenge her, openly. Edwards did that well last night.

Posted by AJ | September 27, 2007 12:30 PM

I was at an Obama rally in Portland, Maine on Tuesday, Sept. 25th. Subtle perhaps, but he did succeed in forcing the local (right leaning) paper to define 'bipartisinship' as 'being opposed to the war', and 'supporting universal health care'.

While this won't create a widesperead narrative change in the national press, it does show to me how Barak Obama can be a liberal, support liberal ideas, while couching his opinions in terms acceptable to timid moderates.

Posted by Scoopernicus | September 27, 2007 12:33 PM

Obama expects the press to do his dirty work because Obama finds going on the attack distasteful, which is exactly why he is the wrong person to take on the Republicans.

Posted by Junius Brutus | September 27, 2007 12:42 PM

"Hillary's not my top pick at the moment, but I'll say this for her: her command of the debates assures me she'll know how to hold her ground against the GOP. Plus, there's a real opporunity for her to subvert expectations in the general. She's more electable than most folks realize."

Kerry won the debates. Look how much that helped him. Obama and Edwards have a lot more crossover appeal. Non-political junkies believe she's a moonbat liberal, while in reality she is the most conservative of the top three. Do we really want to do this to ourselves again? She'll have Kerry's baggage of "I voted for the war and I still would have knowing what I do now, but I would have just executed it better" that bombed last time around.

Posted by Reality Man | September 27, 2007 12:56 PM

"her command of the debates assures me she'll know how to hold her ground against the GOP"

And she has Bill available as an attack dog to hit back harder at the GOP than she can without seeming shrill. We just saw a demonstration of that with repect to the vote on the MoveOn resolution. Hillary voted against it and calmly explained her postion. Then Bill really let the Republicans have it, angrily accusing them of hypocricy and mock outrage (Right on!). Bill would not have done this without Hillary's approval. This is a sample of how they will handle the attacks and smears the Republicans will throw at her. They will work as a tag team.

The Republicans will throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at the Democratic candidate, whoever it is. Neither Obama nor Edwards have demonstrated that they can fight back effectively.

Posted by CaptainVideo | September 27, 2007 12:56 PM

Frankly, it seems to me like Obama is acting like John Kerry. Does he have some of the same advisors? It doesn't give me hope, really.

Kerry tried to stay above it all when what we needed was a candidate willing to throw a few elbows.

Posted by Jeff | September 27, 2007 12:59 PM

Uh, I'd be willing to bet Obama is more comfortable going on the attack against Rs than against his fellow Ds. For example, imagine an Obama v. Giuliani debate televised in primetime about a year from now. I'm more than willing to take my chances with Obama, but I'll vote for whoever wins the D primary.

Posted by fnook | September 27, 2007 1:06 PM

mostly young and overeducated.

Could you simply just say "young and well-educated"? I realize that it must be difficult to handle the fact that Hillary Clinton polls well amongst the low-information, uneducated voters, but you should embrace it, rather than running away from it.

Posted by Tyro | September 27, 2007 1:07 PM

It's still very early for Obama to make a move, and he's wise to hold off and wait for Edwards to drag Clinton and himself down a bit. People will start paying attention much closer to January. Maybe after Thanksgiving is the time.

Posted by right | September 27, 2007 1:11 PM

"trying to guess what Team Obama is trying to say."

Obama has a simple message; elect me and I will end divisiveness and partisanship. It is as simple as simple as electing a well intentioned person.

I am not buying it.

I am not buying his argument that divisiness is due to lack of civility and good intentions. We have deep divisions in this country because there are fundamental policy differences between the two parties. We don't have a consensus.

His message is simplistic, naive and insults my intelligence.

I thought Edwards did the best in the debate. He got his message across very effectively.

Posted by DonB | September 27, 2007 1:15 PM

It should be remembered that Bush rarely did any dirty work, leaving it all to surrogates. He took the highroad, often complimenting his opponent, while others dragged them deep into the mud. I'm sure that appealed to his sense of dirty-play, but really was a good strategy.

The main problem for Obama is that Dems don't have the dirtywork infrastructure Repubs do. If he doesn't do it himself, he really needs to make sure someone's doing it for him.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | September 27, 2007 1:16 PM

Re: "Kerry won the debates. Look how much that helped him."

Winning the debates helped him a lot. Just because he lost doesn't mean that he didn't do some things right.

I've been an Obama supporter up to now, based mostly on his good judgement wrt the Iraq war.

But this non-partisan hope stuff that he's selling doesn't work for me. I want a nominee who will aggressively go after the Republicans. Hillary's debate performances are making me give her a second thought.

Posted by Jim W | September 27, 2007 1:17 PM

"Obama and Edwards have a lot more crossover appeal."

Where is the evidence to back this up?

I have seen polls showing Edwards the most electable Democrat but I am yet to see a poll showing the crossover appeal of Obama.

Polls seem to show people think he is likable but not ready.

There has been a whole bunch of state polls recently. Most of them show Edwards the most electable Democrat. Hillary does as well or better than Obama.

So this argument that Obama is more electable is based on wishful thinking, not facts.

Posted by DonB | September 27, 2007 1:22 PM

Yawn.

Posted by kafka | September 27, 2007 1:22 PM

[Wes Clark] won't turn off Southern whites

I guess now that I live in the South, if I ask around outside the University and Synagogue bubbles with which I normally associate, maybe I can find out directly, but why would Wes Clark not turn off Southern whites (or at least turn them off less than any other Dem. candidate)?

The problem with H.R. Clinton/Clark is the same as the problem with W.J. Clinton (with H.R. in the background) ... H.R. Clinton is a carpetbagger and both W.J. Clinton and Wes Clark are scalawags.

Haven't y'all ever heard of the Southern reaction to reconstruction? Don't they teach that in school anymore? What is it that William Faulkner said about the past (as it applies especially in the South)?

Posted by DAS | September 27, 2007 1:25 PM

Obama's "problem" is that he is a counter-puncher when it comes to competing. People misread his "above the fray" approach, thinking that makes him a puppydog. That's not accurate. He is simply reluctant to draw first blood.

I've been impressed with Obama's responses to attacks--some of which have been quite sharp. But if he isn't attacked--Richardson tried to lay a glove on him last night--then you never get to see that aspect of him.

This is especially problematic in large group debates. His one-on-one performance in debates, I'm willing to bet, likely comes across differently.

Posted by moodmovesmarkets | September 27, 2007 1:26 PM

BDB,

"And if he really believes as the memo seems to indicate that the Republicans were in a compromising mood on healthcare in 1994".

Obama is running a "pox on both houses, I am above partisanship" campaign.

He is saying Hillary is a nasty, divisive woman which is why the GOP would not compromise with her. I am different. I am warm and fuzzy and the GOP will reach out to me.

If he believes this he is deluded.

If Obama became the nominee he would lose on a McGovern scale. The GOP would eat him alive.

Edwards did very well in the debate. He might emerge as the real alternative to Hillary. This is something the Hillary camp probably fears.

Posted by DonB | September 27, 2007 1:30 PM

DonB, all of the polls I have seen with matchups of the top three Democrats against the top three Republicans all have Edwards and Obama doing better than Clinton overall.

"I want a nominee who will aggressively go after the Republicans. Hillary's debate performances are making me give her a second thought."

How, exactly? Maybe Bill will do it for her? She first took a strong stand against torture, then bother her and Bill went back and forth obscuring their strong stance once they got criticized. What does she ever take a strong stance on? The Iraq War? No. Gay marriage? No. On healthcare she has been a wimp ever since 1994. If you don't ever take a strong stance on anything, you can't hit back hard on the issues. In the end, she offers pretty much the same Republican policies, just with the edges sanded off and more competently implemented. That never really sells.

Posted by Reality Man | September 27, 2007 1:42 PM

. . .why would Wes Clark not turn off Southern whites . . .

Well, for one thing because he's white. But he is a Democrat and whites in the South hate Democrats. Therefore, he would be of no help. No harm either.

Forget the South. That doesn't mean abandon it or ignore it, just don't expect to win there, especially with Hillary at the top of the ticket.

The Southwest is where Democrats can make inroads: Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada. Ohio is there for the taking.

Hillary's problem remains the same. That is that at least 50.1% of this nation will never, ever vote for her.

Posted by Pug | September 27, 2007 1:42 PM

If he believes this he is deluded.

I'm not an Obama supporter, but the last best hope he has is that he doesn't really believe that rhetoric he's spouting and that all his talk of "bipartisanship" is just code for "bipartisanship means everyone getting behind my initiative."

I think we've spent so much time trying to convince people that the economy isn't a zero-sum gain that we forget that some scenarios are a zero-sum game, and politics is one of those.

Posted by Tyro | September 27, 2007 1:43 PM

People are just hungry for some major conflict, because conflict is an easy story to write, but going on the attack in Sept/Oct was what killed Gephardt in 03.

In Sept/Oct '03, Gephardt could already see that he was toast. That's why he started attacking; he needed to shake up the dynamic in some way if he was going to have a prayer in the Iowa caucus. Obviously, it didn't work, but sitting back wouldn't have helped him, either.

Posted by Clark | September 27, 2007 2:36 PM

the whole primary is confusing me in several ways. i immediately leaned towards Obama, as I believed the Dems needed to put forth a candidate who had not supported the war. to me, that ruled out Clinton and Edwards right away, support for the war was a politically unforgivable mistake in judgment. but now all three are saying they can't promise to end things by 2013? they're all dead to me now. all three of them want to keep our imperial embassy, and leave a "residual force" in place - to be murdered and thereby draw us back into the conflict in full force. with that point of view, I don't care how subtle Obama is about any other issues, he can't have my vote.

neither, of course, can Edwards or Clinton. that leaves...Dodd. Biden and Richardson are too pompous and arrogant, and too prone to actual 'gaffes' - not the fake kind Obama is accused of having. Kucinich is too shaky on abortion, and too likely to make rash decisions which could paint Dems with broad brush of silliness.

for me, right now, its whittled down to Dodd. I don't like some of his rhetoric about China, he sounds almost xenophobic. but that's a smaller issue than the proper handling of the war right now.

Posted by onceler | September 27, 2007 3:07 PM

Reality Man,

The reason strong debate performances makes a difference to me is that it indicates Hillary will be a good candidate in the general election. I'm much more concerned about a good election result for the Democrats than I am about the policy differences between the Democrats.

Posted by Jim W | September 27, 2007 3:12 PM

"Dems don't have the dirtywork infrastructure Repubs do."

This is a problem for Democrats. The GOP has the Right Wing Noise Machine. Democrats don't have anything to counter it with. It leaves them at a huge disadvantage.

"matchups of the top three Democrats against the top three Republicans all have Edwards and Obama doing better than Clinton overall."

I suggest you check state by state polls. Edwards does the best. Hillary does better than Obama in most of the polls.

"we forget that some scenarios are a zero-sum game, and politics is one of those."

This is the weakness of Obama's candidacy. He thinks the divisiveness is due to personality and incivility. He is wrong. We have deep divisions because we don't agree on the major issues. At the end one side will win, the other side will lose. It will be a nasty and divisive fight. Edwards and Hillary seem to understand this dynamic better.

Posted by DonB | September 27, 2007 3:14 PM

I actually think vicious partisanship and divisiveness is a good thing...Why exactly you want to build a campaign around ending it, I'm not so sure....

Posted by Hank Essay | September 27, 2007 3:16 PM

Obama is just plain cowardly. So is Hillary, but she's in a position where it doesn't matter as much.

To points raised above about Obama's electability:
1. His name recognition is lower than the other two, therefore when his polls are lower, it's less of a "oh my god people don't like me" and more of a "some of those people dont' know me yet"
2. That said, he's been in the news a lot more than Edwards has been.

To points above about the WhiteSouthroner, Please don't forget about 'em. Like it or not they're a demographic in need of eddication. And, statewise, a lot of them are still democratic. They just hate knownothing northerners.

That said, a few pictures of people riding horses and experiencing a bit of the "civil war culture" might make a far better soundbyte than Nascar.

How about it folks.

Posted by Miako | September 27, 2007 4:11 PM

It's easy for me to choose.

I want the war to end, and I don't want to go to war with Iran.

I'm voting for the candidate who has opposed the war from the start and has voted against continuing to fund it with borrowed dollars from China.

I want true Universal Health Care for all Americans.

I'm voting for the candidate who has been advocating a single-payer system for years, not one of the other 7 insurance salesmen.

I want to bring our jobs back to America and get rid of NAFTA and the WTO. Fair trade agreements with human rights and environmental protections.

I'm voting for the guy who has been right all along on these issues.

Even if he isn't tall.

Dennis Kucinich - the man who stood up against the corporate blackmail of the bankers and energy companies when he saved Cleveland MUNY Light. When he honored his campaign promise it was the end of his political career, but he honored his promise, none-the-less. An honest politician, go figger.

Dennis Kucinich - If he looked like Tom Seleck he might get the cred he deserves, but I'm voting for him anyway. You can vote for more war, corporate health care profiteers and "free-trade" if you want to. I don't.

Dennis Kucinich

Posted by nuQler ostrich | September 27, 2007 4:14 PM

"Dennis Kucinich - If he looked like Tom Seleck he might get the cred he deserves"

I respect Kucinich -- he seems smart, honest and ideologically consistent, even if I disagree with virtually all of his positions. He's also a good speaker. But if looks are what's holding him back, maybe he can groom his wife for a career in politics, and be her Svengali behind the scenes. She's no Tom Selleck, but she is tall and striking.

Posted by Fred | September 27, 2007 4:37 PM

"But now the time has come."

No it hasn't.

As we found out last time, if you have money and people, you can get your message out in a few days for the primaries. Polls a week before the Iowa caucus mean nothing. Polls today mean less.

Posted by Njorl | September 27, 2007 4:41 PM

... but now all three are saying they can't promise to end things by 2013? they're all dead to me now.

Posted by onceler

Amen.

They have handed the White House in 2008 to the republicans.

Posted by Econobuzz | September 27, 2007 8:17 PM

Man, I feel like I have entered the short memory zone. Obviously no one commenting here has any actual campaign experience and doesn't remember the arcs of any of the presidential campaigns over the past 20 years.

At the very beginning of the campaign, you write out the whole narrative of the campaign, and you work to incorporate it into a rough calendar of events. You have a lot of fundraising, fundraising, fundraising early, followed by policy roll-outs (foreign policy week, healthcare week, tax week, energy week) mixed with retail campaigning and debates.

You step up the sharpness of your arguments pretty slowly over a long period of time. Nothing that happens until a few months before the election even begins to matter. Then you start putting out ads (going up on TV in the early states) more often, finding the best ads to resonate with people, preferably strong personal narratives first and then slowly rolling out a few highlighting how you are different from your opponents (but not naming them by name). At this time, you also have surrogates start saying some things about your opponents.

The campaign is over if you get tagged as an "angry" candidate, so you avoid that at all costs.

Anyway, my point is that the campaign has just begun, and it's beyond ridiculous to write off any of the top three candidates, who are just now leaving the introductory stage of the campaign and beginning the part of the campaign that really matters. Iowa and New Hampshire voters have no problem changing their minds several times over the course of a campaign, including at the end.

Posted by bob | September 27, 2007 8:17 PM

The 2013 thing is dumb. Russert was just baiting them and trying to get them to pander.

It's obviously not preferable to have troops there for that long, and all of the candidates made that clear. You seriously can't think of any reason why we might need to have some troops in Iraq in the future? No scenario whatsoever, no matter what happens? That is a startling lack of imagination.

But if you want someone who panders, like Kucinich or Richardson, with their impossible dreams for how we will possibly move all of our troops and equipment out of Iraq in no time flat, go right ahead. Dodd you could tell knew what the honest answer was and knew it was a trap but couldn't help himself.

Posted by bob | September 27, 2007 8:24 PM

This is a problem for Democrats. The GOP has the Right Wing Noise Machine. Democrats don't have anything to counter it with. It leaves them at a huge disadvantage.

The only thing worse than the way in which the Republican noise machine has destroyed our political process are the legions of Democrats who apparently wish their party would adopt the same tactics.

Hillary wants to fight Republicans whereas Obama wants to work with Republican. Contrary to the hatred for anything right-of-center some of us may feel, fighting isn't governance.

Obama has a record of reaching out to Republicans to enact common-sense yet politically significant legislation; he worked with Tom Coburn on government transparency, he worked with Dick Lugar on conventional weapons deescalation, and he worked with a whole legion of Republicans in the Illinois State Senate on videotaped confessions during capital cases.

I don't feel comfortable nominating a candidate whose greatest claim to the office is her experience (counterproductively) bickering with Republicans.

Posted by Dave White | September 27, 2007 8:37 PM

Wow this thread sucks. Good thing the real world doesn't look like a Matt Yglesias comment thread.

For my part, I hope Obama doesn't go on the warpath against Clinton. That would be a serious strategic blunder. I am confident he will not do it.

Posted by Korha | September 27, 2007 8:37 PM

The 2013 thing is dumb. Russert was just baiting them and trying to get them to pander.

Posted by bob

Pander? To whom? The American public? The folks who put them in office? If a dem candidate can't state unequivocally that he/she intends to have virtually all combat troops out of Iraq in 6 years -- when they should never have been there in the first place -- we have a very serious problem.

Why not just state that, barring unforeseen circumstances, I intend to have the vast majority of troops redeployed or brought home by 2013?

Not being able to state that much reflects a kind of cowardice that takes the war off the table completely as an election issue. What issue are we going to win the election on? The economy? Health insurance?

Posted by Econobuzz | September 27, 2007 8:39 PM

Not being able to state that much reflects a kind of cowardice that takes the war off the table completely as an election issue. What issue are we going to win the election on? The economy? Health insurance?

What if they genuinely believe removing all troops by 2013 is bad policy? Should they support it anyway, just because it would help them win elections?

Everyone's always so bent-out-of-shape about politicians pandering and basing bad decisions on electoral politics, yet we're constantly all but begging them to be nothing but pandering fools.

Posted by Dave White | September 27, 2007 8:48 PM

I think they all basically did say that "barring unforeseen circumstances, I intend to have the vast majority of troops redeployed or brought home by 2013."

It's going to be more along the lines of our current engagement in Afghanistan. We will prevent any set-piece engagements between the parties in Iraq and have a small number of special forces on the ground to track down al-Qaeda terrorists who remain in Iraq (it's a very, very small number now).

SENATOR OBAMA:

And let me also say that had my judgment prevailed back in 2002, we wouldn't be in this predicament. I was opposed to this war from the start, have been opposed to this war consistently. But I have also said that there are no good options now; there are bad options and worse options.

I hope and will work diligently in the Senate to bring an end to this war before I take office. And I think that it is very important at this stage, understanding how badly the president's strategy has failed, that we not vote for funding without some timetable for this war.

If there are still large troop presences in when I take office, then the first thing I will do is call together the Joint Chiefs of Staff and initiate a phased redeployment. We've got to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. But military personnel indicate we can get one brigade to two brigades out per month. I would immediately begin that process. We would get combat troops out of Iraq. The only troops that would remain would be those that have to protect U.S. bases and U.S. civilians, as well as to engage in counterterrorism activities in Iraq.

The important principle, though, is there are not going to be any military solutions to the problem in Iraq. There has to be a political accommodation, and the best way for us to support the troops and to stabilize the situation in Iraq is to begin that phased redeployment.

MR. RUSSERT: Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?

SENATOR OBAMA: I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there.

What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office, which it appears there may be unless we can get some of our Republican colleagues to change their mind and cut off funding without a timetable, if there's no timetable, then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there.

I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out.

Posted by bob | September 27, 2007 9:02 PM

Everyone's always so bent-out-of-shape about politicians pandering and basing bad decisions on electoral politics, yet we're constantly all but begging them to be nothing but pandering fools.

Posted by Dave White

WTF? Promising to end the biggest moral and strategic catastrophe of our lifetime by 2013 is pandering? What planet?

Posted by Econobuzz | September 27, 2007 9:04 PM

WTF? Promising to end the biggest moral and strategic catastrophe of our lifetime by 2013 is pandering? What planet?

I'm not so sure we should think about ending the "biggest moral and strategic catastrophe of our lifetime" as a matter of "What issue are we going to win the election on?" as you've framed it above, a comment that seems to be asking for a pander.

The biggest moral and strategic catastrophe of our lifetime is a big deal and should be ended by policy far removed from electioneering. If Obama, Edwards, Clinton et. al. truly believe the end of the biggest moral and strategic catastrophe of our lifetime requires some small amount of residual forces left in Iraq over the course of the next five years in order to be executed effectively then I hope they come to that decision based on conviction and judgement and not on elections.

Their judgement may be different from those of us reading Matt's blog, and that's fine, but all this "They should just tell us they'll do it cause that's the strategy to win the election" BS is an insult to the way things should work.

Posted by Dave White | September 27, 2007 9:20 PM

Econobuzz, I just pointed how Obama said basically exactly what you asked for the candidates to say, so I don't know what else you want.

Posted by bob | September 27, 2007 9:25 PM

I thought Hillary did very poorly last night. She was arrogant, refusing to answer questions, and combative, steamrolling Russert's attempts to ask the questions. What is Hillary's vision for America beyond 2008? I don't know, but she obviously feels entitled to the Oval Office.

Hillary has no chance of winning the white male Democratic vote in the South, no matter who her running mate is. She could run with Robert E Lee and still not get the white male vote. Her strength in the South is the black vote. It's a good thing for her that African-Americans make up nearly 50% of the Democratic Primary voters in many Southern states. It is surprising to me how little Obama has gained in this area.

I agree with those who think it's too early for Obama to go on the attack. I just wish he'd work harder to define his vision for America beyond 2008. Bush ran as a uniter not a divider and look how he's governed. I don't think America wants a reminder of that mistake.

Posted by Just Karl | September 27, 2007 9:51 PM

bob is exactly right.

All of the Democrats want to get all of our troops out of Iraq, well before 2013. But, Timmy Russert asked a "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question by framing the question as a promise to have the very last US soldier out of Iraq. No sane President would commit to that six years down the road. Heck, no sane President would make an ironclad promise to have zero troops in Germany six years down the road.

Nobody knows what's going to happen in Iraq when the Demcratic President begins pulling troops out at one or two brigades a month in Jan. 2009. There are a wide range of possibilities and those outcomes influence what we will do farther down the road. For example, it is possible that the civil war and ethnic cleansing will have progressed to the point where the Iraqis see more benefit in reconciliation than in continuing to kill each other. It is possible (not likely, but possible) that the Sunnis and Shia will have reached some accomodation and Al Qaeda blowing up mosques really is the only roadblock to putting the pieces back together in Iraq. We don't know. None of the Presidential candidates know.

In that case, we might very well have a constructive role to play in reconstruction, peace keeping, humanitarian relief. Any candidate who would tie his or her hands on a five year timetable just to answer Timmy's hypothetical "gotcha" question doesn't have the sense to be President.

The alternative is the pure pander. The empty Kuchinich or Richardson "promise". That's what the Republican candidates do ("stay there until we win or hell freezes over, whichever comes first"). Fortunately, the top-tier Democratic candidates behave like grown ups. They take it seriously.

Posted by hwc | September 27, 2007 10:13 PM

I don't believe Obama is expecting the media to carry his water. I think that the campaign (and I agree) expects the media to be critical of the candidates. I've read tons of stories about Obama not being aggressive enough. Where are the stories discussing Hillary's pattern for not answering questions? Where are the stories analyzing Hillary's constant references to Bill's presidency, but when asked to clarify how she participated/contributed she claims the answer is protected by marital privilege? There are tons of stories about Elizabeth emasculating John. Hillary is declared the winner of every debate as long as she stays behind her podium and speaks when it is her turn. I am not suggesting she hasn't had some good answers, they all have, but she is not exemplary. The moderators are still asking Obama about his Black credentials. In what recent debate has Hillary been asked to speak to how much her hawkish stance is influenced by her gender? Further, I have yet to hear her describe with passion and heart a vision American that would make me open my wallet.

Posted by RealB.G. | September 27, 2007 10:15 PM

It kind of amazes me, although I'm prone to thinking things are obvious when they're not. BUt HIlary Clinton has no principles, and Barack Obama has strongly liberal principles. Barack is less obvious about it than edwards, but edwards would lose a general election. Yes, folks. He really would. Fair or unfair, the Republican machine has deep hooks in him. He fails the character test in some shallow way, the same way Kerry did, despite also being a good guy.

Barack is the sweet spot - vague enough to not allow the Republican Fear Machine to smear him with the principles he actually has. He's the democratic John Roberts - a stealth liberal missile.

Hilary Clinton, on the other hand, has never known a liberal goal she wouldn't hide from. She has no principles. I have no idea why people think she's good at fighting back. It's a terrible joke. She's good at ignoring people who pick fights with her and neutralizing attacks by sucking up. It's a terrible thing for liberalism.

Posted by glasnost | September 28, 2007 12:06 AM

At this point, the thinking in the Obama camp seems to rest on two assumptions.

Is it just me, or is the press constantly reading the minds of the various campaign camps? If Noam is right maybe he could have gotten someone actually in the camp to confirm it.

Then again, maybe this is just Obama's style - nothing particularly strategic about it - he's just a bit more subdued than Edwards.

I don't think any of the campaigns are foolish enough to assume the media will decipher Democratic attacks on Hillary. Most of the media have already decided on the primary. Obama is too green. Edwards is too vain. They've all decided it's Hillary's year. Subtlety won't crack that framing.

Posted by Jinchi | September 28, 2007 1:17 AM

Where are the stories discussing Hillary's pattern for not answering questions?

You're understandably confused. The media do cover that. They consider it an asset. To them Hillary wins if she doesn't make news, doesn't make mistakes, doesn't fall into the trap of giving an actual answer to a question.

Posted by Jinchi | September 28, 2007 1:20 AM

"but edwards would lose a general election."
excpet he leads almost every match up between the Dem candidates and each of the Repugs. Yes, folks. He really does.

Posted by ed2008 | September 28, 2007 9:55 AM

"It kind of amazes me, although I'm prone to thinking things are obvious when they're not. BUt HIlary Clinton has no principles, and Barack Obama has strongly liberal principles"

OK and we want Obama to be the front-runner but I'm with Yglesias - even though it's too early to write anybody off, Obama appears shy. Remember John Kerry was the great closer? The candidate who comes from behind at the end to win the race? We said just wait, he'll pull it off. Not again. Better to get this critique out there now while there's a chance it will be heard and heeded.

And no, Obama does not need to dispel this perception by attacking Hillary or any opponents. Cart before the horse. He just needs to go out and grab the lead. Appear comfortable with power. If that entails attacking Hillary, so be it. He may agree he'd be a great president but still not really want the job. Convince us you want this job, Senator.

One more thing - while unity is a great thing, there's a fine but critical line between diplomatic and conflict-avoidant. I can't articulate the difference, but it's there.

Posted by AF | October 9, 2007 11:09 PM