Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Republicans lead, Democrats follow
If Clinton wants to discuss the Wright issue as it may reflect on Obama's character and judgment, as part of the battle for Democratic votes - fair enough. But when Clinton argues to superdelegates that Obama is unelectable because of what the Republicans will do to the Wright story, then I have a problem.
There is a fine line between being strategic and being a weak, fearful and defensive follower.
In the following scenarios, which are the Democrats - strategic or weak?
Scenario A: The Democrats feel compelled to make a pass on the candidate that inspires them and that they feel connects most to Americans, because they fear that the Republicans might smear him and stir American xenophobic sentiment.
They effectively let the Republicans decide their nominee.
Scenario B: Having chosen Obama as the nominee, the Democrats feel compelled to pick a VP with national security credentials, as opposed to the one who would work best with Obama, who would be the best choice for president in a tragedy, and who would best argue in knowledge and experience the merits of the Democratic platform.
The Democrats would effectively let the Republicans choose their VP nominee.
More importantly:
The Democrats would let the Republicans dictate the issues of a general election campaign.
The Republicans want to compete on the basis of national security credentials, so the Democrats accept the inevitability of the Republicans being able to set the agenda, and try desperately to compose a defensive team (Webb, e.g.).
What's wrong with this picture? Where is the leadership, vision and courage to set a Democratic agenda, to control the general election narrative, and to put forth candidates that speak on that agenda eloquently, and have the experience to buttress that agenda?
John Edwards had the leadership, vision and courage in this respect when it came to health care. He determined what the primary battle would be about during his campaign and Clinton and Obama were playing catch-up and defense.
It is well past time that the Democrats lead and convince Americans why the issues of their choosing should decide the election, and why the candidates of their choosing representing those issues are better equipped to see the changes they espouse implemented.
It is also time that Democrats follow Obama in appealing to the better angels of our nature. The Republican strategy for winning is to appeal to xenophobia and fear and Clinton has accepted this same strategy to woo superdelegates. It is the politics of cynicism about the hearts and minds of Americans.
The politics of hope take courage. Leadership takes courage.
The Democrats seem doomed to consistently follow. The Democrats seem doomed to operate out of fear - fear of the ignorance and xenophobia of some Americans, fear of Fox news, fear of the Republican smear campaign.
If we select Clinton as our nominee, let it be because we believe she is best qualified to lead the party and the nation, and to demonstrate that leadership to America. Please let it not be because we fear what Republicans will do otherwise. If we choose the latter rationale, then we will continue to follow the Republican lead.
Comments (24)
Well-said, ms jane. One point you mentioned that I'd like to emphasize; leading the narrative.
I think the democrats need to build a narrative bigger than the two democratic candidates. And as a party, reinforce that narrative consistently every day right through the election.
Democrats have been saddled with a reputation of folding like lawn chairs. Deservedly so. But that's changing. I was pleasantly surprised that they stood their ground on rejecting telecom immunity. Talk about one issue that interrupted the entire republican narrative. For the first time, they stood up to the fear card that has been in play since 2000.
I know a lot of people who were drawn back into the political dialogue once they saw how easy it is to put a chink in the Republican armor.
The stronger elected democrats stand in congress, the better the chances are of winning the white house.
And one final point. Winning this election should be as easy as shooting catfish in a barrel. There's a perception that the Republicans are as strong as they were between 2000-2005.
I think they are a shell of what they were. Granted, they are not to be underestimated, but they are continuing to implode on themselves.
With the right leader and unified support, there's a great legacy just waiting to happen.
April 1, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
As always, Ms Jane, a good post.
Obama/Webb 2008!!!
April 1, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
A good post, and I believe Obama has a strength here. He has proven effective in calmly deflecting negative criticism. I think with good strategic planning, Obama's team can handle the Republicans. The Wright affair can't be raised by the Right with McCain actively courting the evangelical whackos. McCain's "national security" credentials are tenuous with his ardent support of the Iraq war and his gaffes as to whom the Iraqi players are. While McCain is to be respected for his endurance in the Hanoi Hilton and service for his country, he was a legacy admission into the Naval Academy, finished second to last in his class, rose to the level of a mid-rank officer. That experience doesn't necessarily translate to Commander In Chief.
Perhaps the Republicans will run 527 ads complaining that Barack doesn't pass the ball enough on the basketball court...
April 1, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some people seem to be uncomfortable with Obama because they're so unused to the idea of a Democrat doing something other than adopting the Republican frames on key issues. When was the last time you saw a Democrat bold enough to challenge the Republican frame and push for a re-framing of an issue?
But that's what Obama has done. Hillary adopts the Republican frame on "experience." Even if she hadn't had her absurd exaggerations on Bosnia and other things slapped down, she still wouldn't have been able to win that debate. In fact, several of McCain's recent ads seem to be mocking Hillary, with McCain using the tag line "Ready On Day One".
Obama didn't take that approach at all. He instead re-framed the question in terms of judgment, rather than experience. McCain has more years of experience, if that's all that counts. And he's been under real enemy fire, he doesn't need to invent that. But his judgment? Atrocious. Deeply and consistently poor judgment.
And on the Wright issue. Look at how many people noted that Obama's speech in response to that issue was "bold". Why? Because he didn't just cave in and do the standard sort of politician response to this sort of thing. He didn't just adopt the standard Republican frame of blurring the political and the spiritual, as if there's no distinction that can be made between the two.
And there are other, less dramatic examples. He got right-wing talk show hosts all agitated when he dared to suggest that patriotism isn't equal to wearing a flag pin, for example.
These things scare a lot of Democrats. You can see Hillary supporters here expressing their deep and no doubt genuine concerns about how the Republicans will take advantage of Obama's refusal to play the game the way the Republicans insist the game should be played. And they praise Hillary for boldly plunging into the Republican frame and agressively trying to respond within that frame. The problem with that is, it simply doesn't work.
April 1, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post, I agree with your argument, except for your VP pick analysis. JFK had LBJ, a southerner with experience to round out his ticket. Similarly, I think Obama could use a tactical VP pick that shores up his perceived lack of foreign policy experience and helps him appeal to the blue collar dem base. I don't think it's buying into a Republican theme to agree that foreign policy cred is a plus for a Presidential ticket. There is a practical reality to the perception of a balanced ticket when you are seeking support from over 50% of American voters.
I absolutely agree that the dems should set the tone of the campaign, and keep it away from being a contest of traditional foreign policy bona fides. I also have long lamented our fear of the Republican boogey man lurking in the shadows waiting to pounce on our every gaff. But, I think a tactical VP pick is a way to appeal to a wider constituency, and address their concerns, without having to make those concerns themes of the campaign. That's why I like the Webb idea. It isn't out of fear of the Republicans or an effort to play defense; it's because I think that ticket will appeal to more voters, by assuaging some concerns people might have of Obama when he's standing alone (whether justified or not voters' concerns are a reality that every campaign has to address). I also think it gives us a very good chance of picking off VA, which would be of huge strategic benefit.
Sure, the President needs to be able to work with his VP to some extent. But VPs typically don't have great influence over policy. I'd be more interested in Obama appointing a dynamic Cabinet.
April 2, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ms. Jane, You hit it out of the friggin park!
April 2, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful post and right on.
I really do believe we have the opportunity in this election to not just halt the damage that's been done by the Bush administration, but to take the country to a new level FDR-style. But to achieve that we need leadership.
Obama is the first politician I've seen in my lifetime who rewrites the narrative and reframes the issues in the ways that we need. He's shown over and over again an ability to step outside of other people's narratives, which is why he confounds his critics so often. He's not perfect. He still can be sucked into the politics as usual mode, but eventually he always steps back and gets back into his own plan. He's a true leader.
April 2, 2008 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it too much to ask that Democrats take national security serious enough to consider that on their own with their candidates and running-mates?
Is national security an afterthought for Democrats? Was 9/11 just a Republican issue?
Similarly, has the red state/blue state thing been dismissed as a complete mirage? I don't think it was as strong a divide as presented, but I'd still argue that there were some issue differences. Will the "concern about Rev. Wright is only being xenophobic" angle play well in red states come November?
April 2, 2008 4:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero:
I think if you try not to be argumentative, you will find that few would disagree that Democrats should take national security seriously. At issue is whether that should be the defining issue of the campaign and if it is the defining issue, why and who made it so. America has got some seriously depressing domestic problems with respect to the economy, education, health care, executive power, civil liberties, etc. If we ignore these and focus solely on national security, we sacrifice our national security in the end.
Your 9/11 comment I won't take seriously.
No one denies that there are conservative and liberals in this country either, but Obama and many of his supporters do argue that there are more things that unite us than divide us, and that in order to move this country forward, we need to focus more on the former, not the latter. That seems like a no brainer to me.
Finally, no one is saying that to disapprove of Wright is to be xenophobic. I am not a Wright fan, and I have heard him preach and was impressed by much but alarmed by a little. Before Wright, Obama was already being perceived as "foreign". Moreover, the style of Wright was as jarring to people as were his messages. Much has been said about how little people know about "the black church", and its style and culture - all of which color Wright's messages. Many of his criticisms of the US government have come out of the mouths of conservative white pastors too, but these pastors have not become the subject of cable news for weeks on end. My point: Wright makes Obama seem foreign to some people, not just lacking in judgment when it comes to selecting his pastor.
April 2, 2008 6:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am mystified by the national-security question. No one has a monopoly on understanding the world, especially on the Republican side. McCain talks war but knows squat. All he knows is the radio chatter.
Hillary Clinton did not have a presidential-level security clearance, so she has no advantage, either.
April 2, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did Obama have a passport between the time he was 10 and 44? Is having a security clearance the only issue for a woman who visited 80 countries as First Lady? I know, Obama must be right, Hillary must be wrong, now let's just fill in the blanks from there.
April 2, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Tom was not putting it in simple enough terms:
No one has a monopoly on understanding the world, and traveling it as the First Lady does not necessarily give you any measurable advantage.
Having a security clearance that let you in on confidential information and discussions might.
April 2, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Travelling the world as First Lady has no "measurable" advantages? Measure it as number of stops, number of miles covered, number of heads of state met, numbers of local situations and customs she's been briefed on, numbers of state dinners she's attended, numbers of high-level leaders she can call up at 3am and doesn't have to say, "hey, you don't know me but....".
The world is driven by relationships, but for some reason the Obama team has decided relationships don't count. (Uh, why was Obama calling Kenya to try to stop the fighting then - was it someone he KNEW?)
April 2, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I understand it, state leaders change on a semi-regular basis. Unless you mean dictators.
And frequent flyer miles do not equate to relationships. Being the head of state does kinda get you into places. You act as if Obama will not get past the bouncers because they do not know who he is.
Relationships can and must be developed. What are we talking about? Ten years ago?
April 2, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
How was it Hillary already knew the Australian PM? They're not just meeting heads of state, they're also meeting other high ups in government who stick around.
April 3, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are arguing that Hillary is a better negotiator, then you have somewhat of a discussion, although little information with which to compare the two.
What could we use? their campaigns? Their voting records?
If you are arguing that by virtue of her being a woman, she will do better negotiating... it would be interesting to see something to back up that idea.
How about how she negotiated her first iteration of health care? Then you could talk about how she learned from that experience. Then we could look at the FL/MI debacle - examine how she has handled that. She accepted the situation going into the primaries, and when she started to realize her mistake, she began to back peddle. That has worked smashingly so far.
April 2, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, security is a prime issue because bin Laden, Hussein and Bush made it so.
Now we're stuck with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we do have Sadr going to Iran for help, whether Bush is the cause or witless accomplice. Aside from this, we have a disconnect with the Middle East - Pakistan being especially worrisome, and we have to consider the dangers that an re-invigorated and oil soggy Russia presents, along with the continual developments in China which we've unfortunately let go with no thought for the last 7 years (ever since they grabbed our plane). Along with the effort to expand NATO and add further military infrastructure in East Europe - too provocative, or necessary? This is a backdrop that makes security pretty serious. Now civil liberties issue can be dealt with pretty easily - "stop breaking the Constitution". Stopped. Executive power? Draw it back a little, but not too much for Congress to get its spine back. Education? Well, is that one of the critical 5? So now we're down to health care and the economy, so presuming Obama's better at those than foreign policy, he likely needs a security VP. There, Republicans didn't make us do it, I solved it rationally.
Regarding the Wright stuff (sorry, no pun intended), Obama started running as a foreigner - Kenya and Indonesia, world citizen, so it's hardly surprising he's seen as a bit foreign. Regarding Wright and his church, they're not the only model for black churches, and even amongst prophetic preaching you can go check out Vashti McKenzie sermons and see if her message feels like condemning America and the government for all ills. I could say Rev. Ike exemplifies all black churches as well, and it wouldn't be true. If we start lumping in conservative white preachers, well I've been complaining openly about Falwell for well over 2 decades, as well as teaching creationism in Kansas and other attacks on secular education. How is this germane to a Democratic campaign aside from facile "they do it too" argumentation?
April 2, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess that is a good question for the candidate of your preference. How is he germane? Why is he brought up as a part of Hillary's campaign?
April 2, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero, Although I disagree with almost your every word, I just have to ask,
What did "Hussain" (I guess you mean Saddam; the one we deposed and gave to a kangaroo court to hang) have to do with making security a prime issue.
I agree that Bush, in his willfull neglect of it prior to 911; and BinLadin, in his capitalizing on Bush's pathetic-ness, ceratinly made it a prime concern, but Saddam? Or as you so cleverly reference him --> Hussain (wonder why?)
Oh, THAT's right! He was the REAL master-mind behind 911! I forgot, Cheney told me all about it!
One more thing: the more trips to Europe you have had really doesn't make you better at security; it does't make you more honest; it doesn't make you a better leader. I agree that it does enlarge your view of the world, and it's tons of fun to travel. I hope that President Obama does lots of it; Michelle too. I DON'T think that will make Michelle Presidential material after 8 years, however.
April 2, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said "bin Laden, Hussein, and Bush", all last names of well-known people. I often write "Clinton and Obama" though also frequently use "Hillary" to avoid confusion. Sometimes I even use "Barack" for equal time and "Little Barry" when I want to be condescending. Occasionally but not very often I use "Osama", and sometimes I use "Saddam" but since he's not my neighbor or a hero of mine or local politician with cute marketing, I think I more frequently use "Hussein".
Does that answer your question? (And no, I didn't spell it "Hussain").
April 4, 2008 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama in my view has as much [arguably more] foreign policy experience than did Hillary's husband or his VP in 92. To me its about intelligence, prudence and temperament.
You know who had a lot of foreign policy and national security experience? Dick Cheney. Donald Rumsfeld. Doug Feith. Paul Wolfowitz. Richard Perle. Robert Zoellick. John Negroponte. Caspar Weinberger.Colin Powell.
April 2, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great point that often gets overlooked as we argue about some ephemeral concept of experience.
April 2, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't see how Webb is a defensive pick. Webb has national security experience. I don't see how we define that as irrelevant, or should want to, as if we wouldn't win arguments over it.
Picking Kerry was defensive in this way, and I think it almost worked. Kerry went at Bush in an aggressive critique of his failures against Bin Laden and in Iraq, and made headway. The first debate, I think from Miami, was widely regarded as a drubbing on these important issues.
Also, Obama likes and works well with Webb. Your post seems to suggest that we should have Edwards, but by your criterion of who Obama likes and works well with, Webb would be Obama's pick over Edwards. Also, if John Edwards added anything in 2004, would someone please explain what it was? No state in the South was even in play.
Good post, just a little pushback on VP.
April 2, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post. Screw the Repubs. Who cares what they think about our nominee? Only 30% of the country is even willing to be labeled Republican any more.
Jim Webb is a fine VP choice. We're about to return to the days when VP's go on diplomatic missions and photo ops, instead of orchestrating war, so the VP nod is just symbolic.
April 2, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment