CE Week #11: “Hit Her Again!”
By Joe Klein
There are plenty of empty seats at some of Barack Obama’s meetings now. His media coverage isn’t as breathless as it used to be. His poll numbers have been static, with the important exception of Iowa, where he is creeping upward. His performances have been static too, nourishing but unexciting. He has been more herbivore than carnivore in debates. All of which occasioned that most banal of modern journalistic ceremonies in the days leading up to the Oct. 30 Democratic debate: a fevered, unsolicited-advice orgy. None of the advice was substantive, of course. It was all about tactics. He had to attack Hillary Clinton. He had to make his move or lose–which, given the tendency of Iowa and New Hampshire voters to make last-minute decisions, wasn’t remotely true. Even his consultants got into the act, requesting an interview with the New York Times, in which Obama announced–pathetically– that he was going to be more specific in his criticisms of the front runner.
And so, there he was onstage next to Clinton the night before Halloween and not exactly dressed as an assassin. He took his shots, judiciously–and more comfortably as the evening wore on. But Obama wasn’t nearly as avid or effective as John Edwards, whose soft Southern accent can camouflage an awful lot of aggression. For most of the debate, Clinton was able to deflect the attacks, mostly by professing her fierce and limitless desire to reverse the depredations of the Bush Administration. But just when it was beginning to seem that her evasions were more potent than her opponents’ assaults, she stumbled–badly, perhaps–on the question of granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. She made the argument for it, then denied she favored it. “Unless I missed something,” Edwards said as he nailed the coffin, “Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes.”
Clinton’s character, her tendency to lawyer questions rather than answer them, is now front and center in this campaign, and that is appropriate. But I’m still stuck on the frenzy to judge Obama’s worth by his willingness to attack Clinton. I spent part of the day of the debate watching a parade of talking heads expatiate endlessly on how dire was the need for Obama to go macho. It was “journalism” at its most useless. The ability to eviscerate your opponents is far less important in a President than the ability to defend yourself. In the nine primary campaigns I’ve covered, the willingness to attack was a) a sign of desperation and b) a leading indicator of failure, especially if it became the defining characteristic of a candidacy. Four years ago, John Kerry wisely decided not to go negative on Howard Dean and won the nomination when Dean and Dick Gephardt slaughtered each other in a negative-ad shoot-out. Now that Edwards has taken the lead against Clinton, Obama might profit by staying aloof and presidential.
But then, Obama’s low-key campaign has been confusing to the press, and perhaps to the public, from the start. A few days before the debate, I spent a day with Obama in Iowa, and the most striking thing to me about the Senator’s performances was the scrupulous honesty of his answers, his insistence on delivering bad news when necessary. A woman asked if he believed that stay-at-home moms should be eligible for Social Security. There is a way most politicians answer such questions: a moving tribute to the virtues of child-rearing, then on to the next question without ever making the commitment. Obama did the moving tribute–with a joke about his ineptitude as a parent–but then he told the woman no. “We can’t extend those benefits without huge financial implications,” he said.
The very next question was about global warming. Obama laid out his rigorous cap-and-trade plan for reducing carbon emissions, but then he said, “One of the themes of this campaign is to tell voters what they need to hear, not just what they want to hear … So I’ve got to tell you there will be a cost to this–and the utility companies will pass it along to consumers. You can expect a spike in electricity prices,” although, he added, the new technology should ultimately bring those prices back down.
I don’t know if this sort of quiet, unsolicited honesty can work in our rude, noisy politics, but it certainly is far more presidential than the dodging and fudging that you get from most candidates. It has been argued that Obama’s style is too cerebral, too élitist. That may be true. He assumes a maturity in his audiences, and in the press, that simply may not exist. But given the stakes in 2008, perhaps it’s time for all of us to grow up and meet the challenge of a difficult moment for our country.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://pkautzman.edublogs.org/2007/11/12/ce-week-11-hit-her-again/trackback/
This sucks. I really wanted Obama over Hillary and Edwards. I don’t know why but he seemed the coolest to me. Yes, the reserved half black/half white guy seems more appealing than the woman (who frankly kind of scares me) or Edwards. Who I actually, truth to be told, don’t know that much about.
What kind of made me laugh was the whole bit about how Hillary tends to “lawyer” her answers. At first I tried to read that as “layer,” because it made more sense. I had to think a bit on what lawyering one’s answers really means. Poke at the truth, but maybe not confront it completely? I guess I personally have read/watched more fiction involving court cases than I have watched of reality court cases, so I’m not sure if that’s the true definition…because I don’t watch REAL lawyers in action I digress though, the point is that Hillary has always answered her questions in this sneaky manner but only recently was she caught red handedly for it. She was nailed/served/owned.
Another interesting subject. Should women be allowed social security if they are a stay at home mother? Well, despite Obama’s obvious and honest answer, I thought… no. No they shouldn’t. Not only are there some mothers out there who don’t do their “jobs.” Hell. Some of the people who are on social security shouldn’t be…not naming any names or anything… but getting paid to sit on your butt your whole life because you can’t possible hold down a job just kind of makes me angry…
Initially, I thought this article was going to bash Obama ruthlessly by the author’s choice of words in describing Obama’s apparent passiveness and his choice to stay removed from attacking his opponants. However, the author begins to side with Obama nearing the middle and ends up coming full circle. He calls Obama presidential and mature, and I completely agree with him. I find politics very frustrating in the fact that we as a people attempt to instill pure morals and integrity (for the most part) into our younger generations and I feel like politics are frequently completely corrupt and lacking altruistic motives. If Barack Obama is the man to bring integrity to this election and his campaign, then more power to him. I don’t think people should bag on him for being honest and refusing to attack his opponents faults. I think it’s very admirable. It will be very interesting to see how it works for him in the society of magnifying faults and media manipulating, but I appreciate his brutal honestly and him running a seemingly clean campaign.
I love that Obama’s defining characteristics are honesty and a presidential appearance. If he “assumes a maturity” in audiences and the media, maybe the country will rise to his expectations and focus more on substance, less on horserace tactics. Obama is right; global warming is not an issue to sugarcoat. The drastic change required to make our country less destructive to the planet will cost money and effort. Perhaps a politician who admits the negative reality and effectively demonstrates how energy conservation will be worth the cost can earn the trust of voters and raise the bar for campaign strategies.
-grace
This article adresses a point that I think really needs to be reached in the world of politics and elections. For once, a canadate told the people not what they want to hear, but what was the truth. With this step of professionalism and maturity, I believe that Obama should recieve more votes for being so honest and straightforward with the public. This is completely opposite of what happened with Hillary. She said two contradictory things about illegal immigrants being able or not being able to recieve drivers lisences in less than two minutes as John Edwards articulated. This is the opposite of how Obama is presenting himself. It seems that the dishonesty of Hillary Clinton almost could remind people of her husband, wild Bill Clinton and his reign of lies, even though she promises a presidency of change-away from the clinton, bush era. I don’t think that that is possible with her first man being Bill Clinton. Who knows how much power she will give him, or who he will do, and who they will lie to about it, and how much they will pay people to cover it up. That is the risk we run if we elect Hillary Clinton as president.
Obama is one of the several candidates that I admire. I, like many who have posted on this blog, admire his willingness to be honest and sincere in his answers. There aren’t to many people in politics these days who are willing to give the down to earth honest answer. Of course, I’d have to agree that this may not help help Obama’s campaign. The world of American politics is a nasty world. I hope that Obama sticks with answering questions in his quiet, honest way. There’s too much noise in the political arena. But the author has a point when he expresses his skepticism when addressing Obama’s tendency to tell the truth. But as an American voter I like the fact that I know and can be assured that I’m getting the the truth from at least one Presidential hopeful. At least I can take comfort in knowing that Obama isn’t making hollow promises that he won’t be able to follow through with when elected. That’s a trait that I admire.
GRACE -
I totally agree with you. The sad fact is that this country has seriously dropped in it’s maturity level. Just look around us. Maybe an honest President – someone like Obama would bring out the best in people. That seems like an exaggeration but really, Obama is a great example of what a President should be. I’m glad that Obama is willing to tell us the truth about things like social security and global warming. If he is willing to be truthful with the bigger issues we can surely be comforted in the fact that he will be honest with us in everything.
This is amazing. I love how Obama has taken the battle to Hillary and that this tactic is working. From the beginning of the election till now, Hillary has been on the offence and hasn’t taken any real stance on any topic but now that she has taken a stance things have changed. Obama has taken this chance to attack back. Now he is on the offense and Hillary has been doing everything in her power to stop the inevitable. The stumble of the granting of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants has put Hillary in the line of fire and I don’t think that she will be able to evade any real answer to the question now that all of the attention is on her. Now for the part about Obama being honest. To me this is the best way to show that he would be a good president. I personally believe that being honest is the way to go. They don’t hide anything and if he does something wrong the press can’t chew him apart because he already admitted that he was wrong or that he made a mistake. To finish up I place my predictions on that Obama will decrease the gap between him and Hillary and may even take the led in the very end.
I really liked this article; the title really did explain a lot of things. “Hit Her Again” I think its funny that all the guy candidates are ganging up like brothers to beat down this one lonely women candidate, that just shows how much times change. There was a a time when women could not even vote, now that can run for president. I like how Edwards called Clinton out about this whole illegal immigrant driver’s license thing. But she does need to pick a side, you can’t just be that one lone middle man, you need to pick a side especially if you’re running for president; you need to show how assertive you are, not how indecisive you are, that just gives you a bad image in itself. Another thing that I think is funny is that Obama pretty much said that stay at home moms won’t be issued social security. I would like to know more about his reasoning why not. Overall this was a pretty fun article to read, but it kind of goes of topic at the end. I still cannot wait for the presidential election to be over with because that is pretty much all the headlines; lets mix it up or something.
I have to say that while I was reading this article I was thinking to myself, why would anyone bash on Obama when he is only telling the truth? I can understand the point that people make in that American politics is a nasty game and politicians only want to win the love of the fellow people. But I think that a politician should be able to win our love and support by telling us the truth, telling us what we need to hear, not just what we want to hear. By the end of the article, one could see the positive aspects of Obama being presented. He was stated to be mature and presidential, which I think is exactly what he is. Obama is simply answering the questions with the answers that he believes to be true and right. I don’t find anything wrong in Obama stating the truth, what Americans need to hear. I do think that these answers have shocked people, being a bit different than they have been used to. People need to realize that each politician is going to have their own opinions on issues and is going to state their opinions how they believe they should. I do not think that people should be making such a big deal about how Obama is simply telling us the truth. If they don’t like the idea, they don’t have to believe it.
I love straigh forward answers. LOVE THEM. I prefer brutally candid to long, evasive answers. When I hear politicians talk in circles around the answers, I assume that the politicians thinks I am stupid and won’t know exactly what they’re doing. I also admire Obama’s sense of maturity, it reminds me of America’s first presidential elections, where the candidates didn’t actually campaign (can’t you just imagine Jefferson winning the nomination, and saying, “well, if you insist…”?). It’s not that I don’t like some of the candidates, it’s just that I have a general disdain of politicians in general; it’s seems they are always playing the game and manipulating the players. So it’s refreshing to get a character like Obama-one could say the same about Jimmy Carter, but he makes a much better humanitarian then politician.
a reply to Callie:
Me too!!! I thought the author was criticizing Obama’s calm demeanor and unwillingness to attack opponents. I also agree with you that hopefully his tactics towards campaigning will raise the bar in the primaries (and maybe even the general election). Although I find the TV bash-ads absolutely hilarious (you know, the ones that say ‘democrats hate kids and are satanists’ or ‘republicans bath in oil and kick small dogs’ style), I am curious to see if Obama can set the standard above that. Attacking your opponent viciously says nothing good about a candidate’s maturity. I also agree with you Callie that politicians are fighting for values they discard in campaigning, etc. To me, Obama is the youngest candidate, but shows the most maturity in his answers. By telling the frank truth out front, there is no disappointing the voter later if, for example, illegal immigrants don’t get their driver’s licenses.
As with most of the people who have already posted in this article I really like Obama and the way he has been acting throughout the campaign. At first he was the rockstar without really having to do anything. He was just different, fresh, and honest. Three things that people really want as their next President. Instead of pulling a “Hilldog” and riding the fence and being completely indecisive so as to not piss anybody off, Barack Obama gives his opinions straight up without all the smoke and mirrors of normal politics. He tells the people how he feels on the issue and how it will probably affect them. Even though they may not totally enjoy what he has to say about increasing energy bills and that sort of thing, at least he is honest and has an opinion on matters. Good Luck to Barack Obama and I wouldn’t mind seeing him in the oval office come 2009.
Reply to Cody:
Honestly, I agree it is hard to form an opinion about Hilary when she doesn’t really take a definitive stance on issues. But on the other hand, I can’t blame her at all. I mean, if I was her and I was the leader of the Democratic candidates, I would totally ride that wave for as long as I could. Hilary is playing it safe, and where we, as voters, might be frustrated by it, she is doing what is the most beneficial for her campaign. And I agree, it is sort of ironic that just decades ago women couldn’t even vote, and now the leading democratic nominee contender is a woman. A women, who has all her other male candidates worried to the point of them ganging up on her in an attempt to overthrow her. I also want to know why Obama said that stay at home moms shouldn’t get awarded social security. I suppose one reason would be the fact that they don’t pay taxes into it, but to me it just doesn’t seem right. Maybe that is because my mom stayed home with me and my sister for 15 years and I know her job is much more demanding and meaningful than some white collar office job. Also, I don’t mind all the headlines being about the upcoming election. I mean it’s better than Brittney Speare’s latest psychological breakdown or Kirstie Alley’s current accumulated weight loss.
Everyone in this county seems to cherish the people pleaser leaders—the ones that always tell us what we want to hear. I have to wonder, whatever happened to honesty always being the best policy? I know I have never had the opportunity to vote. But when I get the chance, I really would like to know who it is exactly I am voting for. I get it that Hillary needs to appeal to as many people as possible to get votes, but this bi-polar disorder has got to be the reason why there is so much complaining always going on about the politicians that WE elected in the first place. The vote was cast when there was nothing to disagree with. Well the truth hurts, but I would rather have disliked all of the candidates before the election than end up hating the chosen one’s evil twin. I would much rather just pick my poison and know what I am getting into, but maybe that’s just me. We really did create this mess ourselves because we like it when politicians stick our heads in the sand; we like it when there’s a candidate running for office that we can just agree with. It makes life so much easier.