Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope? [Barack Obama in his keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in 2004]
For the record, when I endorsed his candidacy over a year ago Obama was polling within five points of the putative winner, Hillary Rodham Clinton. But today, similar polls have him trailing her now by more than twenty….
Meanwhile, on a more positive note, Obama seems to have overcome what loomed as one of the biggest obstacles of his campaign; namely: absurd (intra-racist) questions about whether he’s black enough. In fact, any lingering doubt in this respect had to have been erased when the brother showed that he definitely has rhythm by getting jiggy with Ellen Degeneres on the Monday edition of her talk show.
Alas, more substantive obstacles loom. But, remarkably enough, Obama is the one throwing most of them in the way of his campaign. For example, even I was moved to wonder if he was “Dan Quayle(ing) his campaign” when his gaffes had political pundits questioning: Is Obama ready for prime time?
And, in this vain, I was stupefied when he announced to the world – via the New York Times on Sunday – that he plans to “get tough with Hillary” to bring his campaign more into focus. Because the best way for him to do this is to be more passionate, precise and, indeed, aggressive in talking about his agenda for restoring trust in the presidency and redeeming America’s goodwill and moral authority around the world.
But frankly, this pugilistic strategy is fraught with political peril, not to mention hypocrisy.
After all, Obama has pledged repeatedly that the raison d’etre for his campaign is to restore civility to politics. Now he has cast himself as an attack dog intent on taking a bite out of Hillary’s campaign, which gives the impression that he cannot beat her with his political ideas.
I’ve got to do something in Philly. [Obama telegraphing his get tough strategy just days ago]
Therefore, after all of the boxing metaphors that were used to hype last night’s debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia, most viewers were probably only interested in how many blows Obama would be able to land on Hillary.
(Which, of course, allowed her to do the rope a dope with her “politics of hope” and show that she can take a licking and keep on ticking.)
Unfortunately for Obama, the debate might as well had been billed as Edwards vs. Hillary. Because, invariably, it was Edwards attacking her – with very clean blows incidentally – by criticizing her “double talk” on the issues (e.g. for saying with indignant certitude that she supports and opposes giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants), cozy ties with big business (including defense contractors for crying out loud!) and craven willingness to say anything to anyone to get a vote.
Meanwhile, because of his ill-advised strategy to fight, everything Obama said came across as a desperate attempt to wound Hillary politically. Even worse, because he was so elliptical (i.e., professorial) whenever he threw a blow, he always seemed to be just piling on after Edwards had already landed his direct jabs and uppercuts.
Therefore, I urge Obama to stick with the “new kind of politics” he promised. And this is critical because, notwithstanding gallant efforts to draw sharp distinctions during these debates, there really are no substantive differences on the major issues among the Democratic candidates. Whereas, what truly distinguishes Obama from the others is his inspiring biography and the unimpeachable character of his public service.
In fact, this is why I endorsed him….
Besides, there’s no reason for Obama to pick fights with Hillary (in a misguided attempt to derail her coronation) when Edwards seems so intent, and professionally disposed (as a former trial lawyer), in this regard.
So, let’s go Obama! I’m still with you Bro….
Related Articles:
Barack is Dan Quayle(ing) his campaign
It’s TIME: Run Obama run!
Democratic presidential debate
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.