« So Many Friedman Units, So Little Time & Other News From George Bush’s Forever War
Is He a Pandering, Flip-Flopping, Character Assassin? »



Toughen up, Obama, or concede the White House now

January 24th, 2008
By JILL MILLER ZIMON

Print Print

_6A315C84_8527_43DD_89F8_93E607681AF5_.gif

The Medina County Democratic Action Committee (in Ohio)* wants Barack Obama to withstand the Clinton machine, or else be prepared to lose everything.

The group’s shout-out derives from this Washington Post article that examines the quality (bitter some say) of recent Clinton campaign moves and their potentially destructive results (losing the nomination, and losing the White House). The article only highlights the tactics employed and the Obama camp responses so far.

MCDAC raises the issue that is often made when primary battles play out in state and local political races: a tough primary better prepares the competitors, elicits the bad stuff early and, in general, makes for a stronger nominee once the primary is over.

The question, then, is: have we seen enough from Obama to know that he will be able to handle the heat in a general election? From MCDAC:

Look, we are concerned about the increasingly bitter tone of this contest. We undertand that when there is little difference between the candidates on issues, each side is going to look for an edge, no matter how small. We also understand that the Clintons are upset that African-American voters who stood behind Bill Clinton in his presidential campaigns are abandoning the 2008 Clinton campaign for Obama. We also understand that supporters of Barack Obama are so impressed by his personality that they can’t understand why the Democratic Party just doesn’t give him the nomination by acclamation. But, here’s our question: If Barack Obama can’t take the heat from the Clintons, how is he going to stand up to the Republicans this fall?

I tend to agree with MCDAC’s conclusion, but I’m honestly not sure whether that’s a good thing (being able to deliver as well as recover from a punch) or not:

The Clintons can take a punch and they can deliver a punch. What Democrats need to know is whether Obama can do the same. This campaign will tell us what Obama is made of and how he reacts under pressure. It is important to know that because Democrats who think that the Clinton campaign against Obama is like Karl Rove’s either suffer from amnesia or are terribly naive.

*Why MCDAC matters: Medina County has been profiled multiple times as emblematic of how Ohio is turning from red to blue; it’s a classic swing state county that appears to be swinging. Read more about it here.

PS: I did not add that image myself, dear readers! Thank The Powers That Be for dressing up my post. Cute, folks, real cute, laughing. You know - we could get pretty creative, putting images on everyone else’s posts. Hmmm…how long until April Fool’s Day?



This entry was posted on Thursday, January 24th, 2008 at 7:26 am and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, Primaries, Negative Campaigning, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Gender, Race, Hillary Clinton, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 21 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    As my grandfather says all the time about politics:

    There's no parties. Just snappy dressed folks fighting for leverage.

    There's been enough spin in the Clinton and Obama camps along with MSM to advance Earth's orbit 100 years in the future. I've seen no evidence that Obama "can't take the heat". I've seen him get angry at the Clinton Machine but what's wrong with that. His anger hasn't caused him to melt down.

    I haven't seen any of the players (both Democrat and Republican) exhibit "Can't The Heat Syndrome" yet. But silliness has reared it's colorful head again. And it promises to get even more silly.
    • ^
    • v
    I tend to agree with you, T_Steel. That was something the MCDAC post didn't address much - just how IS Obama handling it.

    My only caution would be, and this is just me, I take full responsibility for it, but when I've seen Obama get angry or say something he doesn't like to say, he looks very angry and almost mean or not nice. Now, I guess that could be said about a lot of people - and I think about how Steve Martin had a bit about how you can be anything you want when you play a banjo because it always sounds happy - do you know that comedy routine?

    But seriously, for example, when Obama said the "you're likeable enough" thing, and I've seen some other photos of him. He just looks very unhappy - which I suppose he would be.

    I don't know - who does angry good? lol anyone?

    That all aside - I imagine Obama is more than tough enough - but I think the experience the Clintons have weathered give them an edge. Not that Obama can't get up to speed and won't, but like preparing for debates, someone should be preparing him big time. Because for as much as everyone has said how the GOP will sling at HRC, they'll do the same to Barack, no doubt.

    This is a wild one.
    • ^
    • v
    I don't know - who does angry good? lol anyone?

    I know I don't and I've tried hard the "happy anger" bit. But I'm a former college offensive lineman. We are supposed to look mean. lol...

    I do agree that he needs to get better prepared for debates. He seems to lose his focus at times. But he's in a unprecedented position:

    1. First legitimate black presidential candidate.
    2. Up against a machine lead by a former popular president.
    2. Up against the potential first female president.

    Talk about some pressure on a historical level. This is DEFINITELY a wild one.
    • ^
    • v
    And, to put a positive spin on those three points, if he can stay even or rise above all of them, then truly, we do have someone who should be able to get this country on a better path, across the board.

    Really makes the GOP side look so lame. And isn't it ironic? For all the talk of being tough, of not backing down, of pre-emption and what not and military strength, the GOP candidates are just mush, total, utter mush?

    Did I show my lack of being centrist on that issue too much?
    • ^
    • v
    Obama and his surrogates need to stop going on TV and whining about how the Clinton's are a bunch of meanies! It makes Obama look weak and unprepared for the office he seeks.

    What does he think he was getting into, a quilting bee?

    No doubt, the Clinton's have the best punch and counter-punch in contemporary politics. And while there may be some "Democratic Party Leaders" who are reaching for the smelling salts, it's only because they haven't seen a successful Democratic Presidential campaign since 1996, and forgot what one looks like.

    Democrats take note: this is how Presidential campaigns are won!

    As a Democrat who desperately wants a Democrat back in the White House, the Clinton's muscle-flexing gives me every confidence that they actually know what it takes to win one of these things. After all, there is a reason why the Clintons are the only Democrats to win the White House twice since FDR.

    Finally, that Obama finds himself so easily thrown off his game by a little bit of friendly fire from the Clintons tells me that he will be eviscerated by the balls out business end of the GOP attack machine.
    • ^
    • v
    Well - let me play devil's advocate to you and myself, to be honest!

    About being easily thrown-off: How much of that is Obama thinking that the rules of engagement weren't going to allow for what has gone on in the last week or two? You know, maybe we're just seeing him being surprised but not necessarily unable to rise to the occasion.

    And, on the third hand, are the Clintons really being any meaner than anyone else ever has been? I don't know the answer to that, but I'm guessing that even if they are the meanest campaigners ever, we can assume that the GOP will try to be meaner, yes? So it's all good proving grounds material.

    Now, stepping back for one minute: I've been told repeatedly that if we want kinder, gentler campaigning, then we have to send that message with our money - that is, we don't give it to folks who spend it in ways that lead to tactics we detest.

    In practice and on a national scale, how realistic is that? It would result in dire consequences.

    But should we be more serious about it? What would be gained, what would be lost? Especially if a battle is a battle, regardless of whether it's in the civil discourse or not.
    • ^
    • v
    This is an important post and a critical juncture for Obama. If he can't play on the same court with the Clintons but somehow wins the nomination, he'll be eaten alive in the fall campaign.

    This has been an extraordinary election cycle because of the tremendous changes and upheavals that have occurred with such stunning regularity. If Obama can't hunker down between now and Super Tuesday he's toast.
    • ^
    • v
    Shaun - what's your sense - two questions:

    1. Do you think Obama can hunker down?
    2. What would the result of hunkering down look like - that is, what do you think he needs to do to show his mettle, and have it succeed?
    • ^
    • v
    Jill:

    Obama's strategy has been to part the electoral waters by preaching change through bipartisan ship and finding fresh approaches to old problems. It is alluring because he sounds like he means it and as I have written before, my generation has blown it bigtime and I am wiling to give Obama's generation a go.

    The problem is that Obama is being forced down into the gutter and I just don't think he can compete at that level while continuing to sound his overall message.

    I am not sure that he can hunker down. If he can't, he won't be able to compete.
    • ^
    • v