Obama does it...with Integrity

Ten weeks ago, as the Democratic nomination fight teetered on the brink of its really ugly phase (with Wright and bittergate yet ahead), David Brooks mocked the Obama campaign's purported belief that "they can go on the attack, but in the right way. They can be tough and keep their virginity, too. " Strange for a conservative to denigrate and sexualize a politician's attempt to restore a measure of integrity to public discourse, but Brooks did rather pungently frame the task Obama has set for himself.

Now we're in the end game, and guess what -- Obama has beaten Clinton, and maintained his integrity. In fact, he's beaten Clinton in large part because he's maintained his integrity while she has publicly sacrificed hers, shred by shred. The contrast in the way each has handled the other's gaffes has been dispositive.

Recall Hillary's gleeful seizure of Obama's "bitter" remarks -- remarks betraying a measure of condescension that she's more than matched on multiple occasions -- as a campaign bludgeon. This was at the height of their endless Pennsylvania slugfest. Here's CNN's account on April 12:

INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana (CNN) - Hillary Clinton sought on Saturday to fan the flames surrounding Barack Obama's controversial assertion that voters in some small towns are "bitter."

Clinton told an audience of automotive workers here that she was "taken aback by the demeaning remarks Sen. Obama made about people in small town America."

"Sen. Obama's remarks are elitist and out of touch," she said. "they are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans, certainly not the Americans I know, not the Americans I grew up with, not the Americans I lived with in Arkansas or represent in New York."

Clinton aides said they planned to make Obama's comments central to their message on the campaign trail this weekend. The New York senator will campaign across Indiana Saturday, and will return to Pennsylvania on Sunday.

In a soft-spoken denunciation of her Democratic rival that lasted several minutes, Clinton played up her own faith and Midwestern roots before attacking point by point Obama's claims that people who feel disenfranchised in small town America "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

"Americans who believe in God believe it's a matter of personal faith," she said, to periodic applause. "People of faith I know don't cling to religion because they are bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor but because they are spiritually rich."

On the issue of guns, Clinton said: "People of all walks of life hunt, and they enjoy doing do because its an important part of their life, not because they are bitter."

By that date, the Clinton campaign was already clothing supporters in "I'm not bitter" tee shirts.

Now contrast Obama's response to Hillary's bizarre, disturbing, overdetermined reference to RFK's assassination on Friday. As soon as the news broke, the campaign did stick the shiv in. It was an arthroscopic cut, unimpeachably appropriate, tightly restrained, and not repeated:

Sen. Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign.

The New York Post that very swiftly poured gasoline on the fire, misleadingly headlining its scoop, "Hillary Raises Assassination Issue." But the understated Obama campaign statement struck the match (a one-match fire, as we liked to shoot for in summer camp). Hillary's comment is impossible to interpret -- yes, she was illustrating that primary fights have often stretched into June, but why illustrate the case with an assassination? -- and the Obama camp did not pretend to. But their statement did validate most readers' and viewers' impression that there was something deeply creepy about the RFK allusion.

Obama himself waited a day to respond directly. When he did, speaking to Radio Isla Puerto Rico, it was with the magnanimity that's become a personal signature. Yet that very magnanimity drew a sharp if unstated contrast to Clinton's response to his own longest-resonating gaffe:

I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Senator Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make and I think that is what happened here. Senator Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it and I will take her at her word on that.

The Obama campaign's two-step response to the assassination allusion culminates a pattern established over many months. Repeatedly, Obama's attacks -- occasions on which he has called out the Clinton campaign tactics -- have been precisely calibrated to highlight flaws that Hillary (and Bill) were displaying day-by-day on the campaign trail. But these rebukes have been modulated by statements of praise, validations of the overall Clinton effort, even excuses for their excesses. A few occasions on which he's killed with kindness:

March 30 news conference in a high school gym in Johnstown, PA:

My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants. Her name is on the ballot. She is a fierce and formidable opponent, and she obviously believes she would make the best nominee and the best president.

Beaufort, S.C., Jan. 24: Playing the adult in the Clinton sandbox:

Black voters shouldn't blame Senator Clinton for running a vigorous campaign against me," he said. That should be a source of pride. It means I might win this thing. When I was 20 points down, I was a 'person of good character' and my health-care plan was 'universal.' The fact that we've got this fierce contest indicates I'm doing well, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that....

Let me sort of dispose of the whole issue of President Clinton. I have said this repeatedly. He is entirely justified in wanting to promote his wife's candidacy," Obama said. "I have no problem with that whatsoever. He can be as vigorous an advocate on behalf of her as he would like. The only thing I'm concerned about is when he makes misstatements about my record. That's what I'm seeking to correct.

Good Morning America, Jan. 21:

You know the former president, who I think all of us have a lot of regard for, has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling...He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts -- whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas.

Obama's attacks on Clinton have not been any the less effective for their soft edges. From January on, he has used her attacks to argue that her immersion in Rovian politics -- her willingness, as he's said at his sharpest, to "say anything to get elected" and "calculate and poll-test" positions -- has distorted her judgment and limited her power to reform the political process, as he has pledged to do. In a sense, that's a character attack, as Geoff Garin charged in an April 25 op-ed. But it's one that resonates, as Hillary has demonstrated these limitations over and over. Obama has simply added accents to the self-portrait she's drawn.

Surprise, Mr. Brooks: Obama has managed to "attack, but in the right way." And "virginity" is your hangup. Obama does it with integrity.

Related posts:
Pause, refresh: Obama's core case against Clinton
Obama endorses Hillary!
Changing 'the rules' on Clinton
Debunked! Obama spanks the Clinton Kids again
Truth and Transformation
Obama Praises Clinton, and Buries Him
Obama: Man, those Clinton Kids are Something

Pause, refresh: Obama's core case against Clinton

After several weeks' full immersion in what Obama calls the "silly season" of our politics, it's clarifying to look afresh at the core of Obama's case for himself rather than Clinton. Here's how he put it on April 22 in Evansville, Indiana, after congratulating Clinton on her win in the PA primary:

We can be a party that says there's no problem with taking money from Washington lobbyists - from oil lobbyists and drug lobbyists and insurance lobbyists. We can pretend that they represent real Americans and look the other way when they use their money and influence to stop us from reforming health care or investing in renewable energy for yet another four years.

Or this time, we can recognize that you can't be the champion of working Americans if you're funded by the lobbyists who drown out their voices. We can do what we've done in this campaign, and say that we won't take a dime of their money. We can do what I did in Illinois, and in Washington, and bring both parties together to rein in their power so we can take our government back. It's our choice.

We can be a party that thinks the only way to look tough on national security is to talk, and act, and vote like George Bush and John McCain. We can use fear as a tactic, and the threat of terrorism to scare up votes.

Or we can decide that real strength is asking the tough questions before we send our troops to fight. We can see the threats we face for what they are - a call to rally all Americans and all the world against the common challenges of the 21st century - terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. That's what it takes to keep us safe in the world. That's the real legacy of Roosevelt and Kennedy and Truman.

We can be a party that says and does whatever it takes to win the next election. We can calculate and poll-test our positions and tell everyone exactly what they want to hear.

Or we can be the party that doesn't just focus on how to win but why we should. We can tell everyone what they need to hear about the challenges we face. We can seek to regain not just an office, but the trust of the American people that their leaders in Washington will tell them the truth. That's the choice in this election.

Three interlocking points here. First, metapolitics: we can't change our policies until we change our political process. On one level, "Washington is broken, we need an outsider" is the oldest schtick in our politics. But Obama has done something about it, almost singlehandedly. He's refused lobbyist money, and pac money, and opened the floodgates of small donations. He's changed political funding forever. We tend to forget what a tremendous accomplishment this is. His argument is simple: change the money flow, and you'll change our politics. Why should we believe he can do this? Because he's accomplished part one already.

The second point is also simple, but true: I opposed this war from the start. I offer a clean contrast with McCain. Clinton can reduce this difference to "a speech he gave in 2002," but the fact is that Obama spoke out repeatedly against the war from October 2002 through to the day of invasion, March 20, 2003, and beyond. And the contrast has bite because there's resonance to the charge that Hillary supported the war primarily to preserve her own political viability. Why else would she neglect to read the NIE before voting to authorize force? Why else would she rally round in early 2003 when Bush "rushed to war" precisely as she warned him against doing in her Oct 10, 2002 speech supporting the resolution authorizing force?

Finally, there's the "truthiness"argument, which Obama grafted onto his "change our politics" argument back in January, when he first started calling the Clintons out for distorting his record -- and suggesting that these Rovian tactics undermine voter trust. Here's how he put it in the Jan. 22 CNN debate:

there's a set of assertions made by Senator Clinton, as well as her husband, that are not factually accurate. And I think that part of what the people are looking for right now is somebody who's going to solve problems and not resort to the same typical politics that we've seen in Washington...the larger reason that I think this debate is important is because we do have to trust our leaders and what they say. That is important, because if we can't, then we're not going to be able to mobilize the American people behind bringing about changes in health care reform, bringing about changes in how we're going to put people back to work, changing our trade laws. And consistency matters. Truthfulness during campaigns makes a difference.

In yesterday's Washington Post, Clinton's new chief strategist Geoff Garin tried to cast this three-pronged critique, which Obama has stuck to and sharpened for months, as a character attack. What it is in truth is a penetrating critique of Clinton's campaign and of her decisions and actions while in office. The attack is on "character" only insofar as Clinton's campaign and tenure in office express her character. Obama never suggests that Clinton is a bad person. He does argue explicitly that she is enmeshed in those elements of the political process he's trying to change. The attack also remains in bounds -- not violating Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment -- because Obama states repeatedly that Clinton will make a far better President than McCain (or Bush).

There may be 80% overlap in Obama and Clinton's written policy proposals. But the differences outlined above are real, and they're fundamental. The Obama campaign remains on focus.

Related posts:
Obama endorses Hillary!
Changing 'the rules' on Clinton
Debunked! Obama spanks the Clinton Kids again
Truth and Transformation
Obama Praises Clinton, and Buries Him
Obama: Man, those Clinton Kids are Something

Clinton campaign seeks response to Garin op-ed

The Clinton campaign is inviting feedback to an op-ed published by chief strategist Geoff Garin in today's Washington Post, arguing that it's the Obama campaign, not Clinton's, that has set a negative tone. The core of Garin's claim is that the Clinton campaign has stuck to issues when attacking Obama, while Obama has attacked Clinton's character.

My own response is below.

Geoff Garin:

Your argument is disingenuous. Obama's "character" attacks, as you deem them, are a direct critique of the kind of Rovian campaign Clinton has run. Your Bin Ladin ad, on the other hand, continues your campaign's "3 a.m. theme" that Obama is unfit to be commander-in-chief. That's the kind of unfounded but resonant assertion that undermines a same-party rival -- in this case, the party's likely nominee.

Obama has repeatedly asserted unequivocally that Clinton would be far preferable to McCain as President. Clinton has reciprocated only under duress -- and continues to strongly imply otherwise on the most visceral issue of all, national security.

Moreover, Clinton's claim to have 'crossed the commander-in-chief threshhold' -- presumably hand-in-hand with John McCain while Obama lingers on the 'untested' shore -- is based in large part on exaggerations of her record epitomized by the Bosnia sniper fiction. Obama's rebuttal -- of this and other Clinton untruths -- does necessarily imply a character issue. I

When the Clintons have distorted Obama's record, he's called them out on it (as in the Jan. 21 debate, when he said that both Hillary and Bill have said things about his record "that are not factually accurate"). He's then made the point that such distortions undermine voter trust and so make it impossible to build the kind of working majority that can effect real change. To call that critique a 'character attack' is to persist with the kind of distortion that characterizes the Clinton campaign.

Your campaign is in fact a self-inflicted character attack. Sixty percent of Americans believe that Hillary cannot be trusted to tell the truth. That is why she will never be President.

Clinton campaign seeking feedback

Geoff Garin, Hillary Clinton's new chief strategist, is asking those on Clinton's email list to 'send your thoughts about our campaign.' Anyone can respond here. This is a golden opportunity for those who believe that Hillary is undermining the best Democratic opportunity in decades to build a working majority to tell the campaign what we think.

Nothing short of a resounding primary defeat in a major state in which she's strongly positioned is going to make Clinton drop out. But a few hundred thousand emails from committed Democrats letting the campaign know the extent to which her tactics are disaffecting large swaths of the party base and destroying her own standing might might inhibit the earth-scorching a bit.

A sample response:

To: Geoff Garin
From: A former Hillary supporter:

Since late March, Hillary Clinton's role in advancing the Democratic agenda has been entirely negative. She has been relentlessly undermining the likely nominee, violating Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment and shredding her own credibility in the process. Her relentless flattery of McCain, her baseless claims to have crossed some mythical commander-in-chief threshold and her desperate willingness to seize on any minor gaffe of Obama's disqualify her to be the party's nominee.

If Ms. Clinton continues working to undermine Obama's core credibility as a candidate, she will permanently destroy her own standing and leadership stature within the party.