I'm with Ambinder on this -- I think it's very strange of Barack Obama to be running a campaign against a shadowy "some" who have a lot of opinions that hard-core political junkies understand to be Hillary Clinton's, but that the voters to whom he's supposed to be appealing probably don't recognize. After all, in order to even understand that these lines are supposed to be attacks on Clinton you need to already realize that she has the characteristics Obama is trying to convince people she has.
« An Expert for All Seasons | Main | From Bogota to Kabul »
"There Are Some"
08 Oct 2007 10:20 am
Comments (15)
(months days ? maybe just "months")
That's bothered me for awhile. It's so passive aggressive.
Obama just doesn't want to blow his VP shot. AS long as he doesn't attack Clinton by name he can go on MTP and not have to deal with Russert playing "gotcha" for 60 minutes making him a great VP nominee.
"I think it's very strange of Barack Obama to be running a campaign against a shadowy "some" who have a lot of opinions that hard-core political junkies understand to be Hillary Clinton's, but that the voters to whom he's supposed to be appealing probably don't recognize."
Jesus Christ.
The Obama campaign has been making it explicitly clear for the past 6 months that they aren't going to run an aggressive campaign to win him the nomination in 2008.
If Edwards and Clinton engage in a murder-suicide pack, Obama will happily accept the nomination, of course. But he's not going to jeopardize one iota of the future of the Obama brand by engaging in a fight.
Is this really so difficult to understand after all this time?
I think the problem here is that the pundits (including the blogosphere) presume that he is talking about the other Democratic candidates in general, and Hillary, specifically. That doesn't seem to be the case. The problems he's talking about aren't specific to one person (i.e., Hillary) or unique to one party. Instead, I see his argument as an indictment of party politics, in general. No need to specify that the Republicans generally are against increasing CAFE standards or that politicians in both parties are beholden to the energy companies.
And to Petey's point, the minute he's PERCEIVED as attacking HRC or any of the Democratic opponents, it will be deemed desperation on his part, as he's clearly abandoned the politics of hope. At least that's my read of things....
Oh and Rob: there's no way in hell HRC is picking him as a VP.
The argument is generational. The target is conventional thinking. i.e. "You had a chance to do something and instead you fell back on old hackneyed positions on crippled rhetoric with little substantive change--so it goes on Iraq, on energy, on SCHIP, and now Iran." "Some" is not just Hillary, some is conventional wisdom, establishment thinking, some is a sad cynical plodding veteran of battles fought and lost and now half forgotten. Perhaps it's quixotic, but I admire the guy for trying to shake things up a bit before the political concrete sets and we are locked in place for another 8 years. No matter what happens on 1.3.08, I owe Obama a debt of gratitude for showing us all that at least it's possible. Also, while I understand why politicos can't hear it--probably because they don't believe it can change which from their vantage point is probably a pretty reasonable position to hold--I think this message does resonate. Taking shots at hillary, making her the embodiment of the problem won't change a thing--breaking down the easy conceptual divisions that consultants and their clients have spend 10 years building, that could make a difference. The American people don't care how bloody awful some other candidate is, they want someone who has real, creative, innovative solution to kitchen table problems--school loans, education, mortgages, public safety, justice, fairness, the bills. This whole cottage industry of commenting on commenting on commenting is interesting, but i wish people like yglesias and ambinder would holster their rhetorical bunkerbusters and get in the fray. Run for the school board, become a Big Brother, host a bake sale for the local fencing team, teach debate in an afterschool progam in Adams Morgan. We have all gotten a little too comfortable with this armchair dungeons and dragons politicking.
"And to Petey's point, the minute he's PERCEIVED as attacking HRC or any of the Democratic opponents, it will be deemed desperation on his part, as he's clearly abandoned the politics of hope."
Yup. Decisions were taken by Team Obama in the first three months of the year that firmly locked him in to having no clear path to the nomination.
I'm a big Edwards booster, but I was toying with shifting my support Obama around New Years. But as said, they made it quite clear that this was all about 2016 for them, not 2008. And thus my interest faded quickly.
The strategy certainly makes long-term sense for Obama, but it's not all that helpful for the Democratic Party over the next 8 years.
But as said, they made it quite clear that this was all about 2016 for them, not 2008. And thus my interest faded quickly.
The strategy certainly makes long-term sense for Obama, but it's not all that helpful for the Democratic Party over the next 8 years.
Here's where I disagree with you Petey. If this strategy doesn't work for you NOW, then it never will because in eight years it will be the same message (since arguably nothing will have changed during the preceding eight years). So maybe the politics of hope (as advance by Obama) will never be for you.
It's bad enough to be self-fulfilling but to demand that a candidate expressly point out a target because _you_ think that's who he's aiming it, is expecting too much.
It's bad enough to be self-fulfilling but to demand that a candidate expressly point out a target because _you_ think that's who he's aiming it, is expecting too much.
If he's not talking about Clinton, who is he talking about? Given that his biggest competition is currently Clinton, it's not unreasonable to assume that Clinton is at least one of the "some" Obama's referring to.
If Clinton is not included in the "some," then what's the point? Obama's supposed to be making the argument that he is the best of the possible choices for party's nomination for President of the United States, not just that he's better than "some" of the people in Washington, DC.
Dusty:
So if he said he was better than HRC would be making the argument that "he is the best of the possible choices" or just better than HRC? My point is that he is making the argument that he is the best choice, but stating his qualifications and ideas, rather than comparing himself to any of the other candidates.
And last time I checked, Dodd, Biden, Edwards and Kucinch are all current (or former) congressmen, so they would be included in that "some" as well.
Obama doesn't have a choice. He's boxed himself into a corner with the "politics of hope" talk. If he attacks her directly he will look like a hypocrite.
Wow--it is not like Obama is the first politician to use this "some people say" formulation, nor will he be the last. It is a standard approach to hitting back at your critics without sounding overly defensive or concerned about the original attack (and note this is just a variation on his standard reply to criticisms about his supposed lack of experience).
Obama hasn't had to be specific because the talking heads do it for him. He makes his general attacks and every blogger and pundit gets on their platform and says, "Obama's being critical of Clinton!" Time will tell how well it works, but I, for one, am glad to see one politician not spending all of their time saying, "The other candiate sucks! Vote for me 'cause I'm not them."
Comments closed October 22, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
well, maybe he's trying to appeal to political junkies and the press, instead of voters, at this point. it's still three months days away from the first primary, ya know.
Posted by cleek | October 8, 2007 10:43 AM