A candidate supporter diary for MyDD
The recent psychological victory of Senator Clinton's campaign in the March 4th primaries forces a strategic and tactical review of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination on the part of Senator Obama, his campaign staff and his supporters. While the underlying delegate advantage has not shifted significantly it would be foolish to assume that the context of the campaign has not undergone a fundamental change which Obama's campaign can only ignore at their peril.
War is merely a continuation of politics.Carl von Clausewitz - Vom Krieg 1873
To date Obama's campaign has enjoyed unexpected success in gaining the advantage in this contest; novel applications of organisation, fundraising, media management and message have been adroitly synthesised to provide significant victories and a winning position for Senator Obama. Like the surprising military successes of fluid combined arms operations against static defences or ju jitsu against a conventional fighter the campaign's early successes deftly outmanoeuvred the Clinton campaign and neutralised what had been widely perceived as their insurmountable advantages. Round one to Obama.
But like all successful advances there comes a time when resistance stiffens and fluid tactics no longer prevail. Obama's spectacular success has multiplied his enemies and forced him to divert his substantial resources to protect his flanks:
TOLEDO -- So this is what being a front-runner deep in primary season looks like: taking flak on three sides.Sen. Barack Obama found himself today facing insinuations from Republicans that he lacks patriotism, charges from Hillary Clinton that he is a hypocrite on campaign ethics, and put-downs from Ralph Nader, who in announcing his third-party candidacy this morning dismissed Obama as well-intentioned but in hock to the corporate agenda.
So far, at least, Obama is showing that he can stand his ground and return fire on all fronts.
Alec MacGillis - Newly Engaged in a Three-Front War The Trail, Washington Post 24 Feb 08
In the days leading up to the March 4th primaries Obama's advance came within range of the heavy artillery of her overtly negative attacks, the 'kitchen sink' barrage, and was interdicted by her successful manipulation of the media's fragile, and fickle, sense of their own integrity. In spite of throwing everything into this critical battle, a sensible gamble on Obama's part, the Clinton campaign had cut their losses and reorganised for a last stand in a traditional, positional defence which successfully blunted what might otherwise have been a knock-out blow with limited collateral damage. Round two to Hillary. The Obama campaign has relinquished their momentum but not their resources and it is time for a determined, prepared attack on Hillary's position.
The late, great military tactician Sir Basil Liddel-Hart famously said 'Never check momentum, never resume mere pushing.' It is time to dismount and winkle the defenders out of their field fortifications by frontal assault, irrespective of casualties on either side. The ground Hillary has chosen is 'experience' and suitability to be Commander-in-Chief of the United States. Let's take a look at this well known battlefield and weigh the prospects for a successful offensive against a tenacious but familiar adversary on this terrain.
What 'Experience' is That Again?
Hillary claims 'thirty-five years of experience' implying a long and distinguished career of public service. Yet we know this career, from the work she did as a Congressional counsel during the Watergate hearings through her partnership at the Rose Law Firm has had, excluding the eleven years as First Lady of Arkansas, it's share of controversy and included much private sector work, including her service on the board of Wal-Mart. And are her eight years as First Lady of the United States really credible as the kind of executive experience which suits a candidate for the presidency? What was her security clearance during her husband's presidency? What national security issues was she even authorised to know about?
"One of the things, you know, I hope people start asking is what exactly is this foreign experience that she's claiming," Obama said on his campaign plane before flying home to Chicago."She talks about visiting 80 countries," he said. "It's not clear, you know, was she negotiating treaties or agreements or was she handling crisis during this period of time. My sense is the answer is no. I have not seen any evidence that she is better equipped to handle a crisis."
Obama said the media has given Clinton the benefit of the doubt that she has more experience than him.
John McCormick - Barack Obama takes tougher tone today The Swamp, The Tribune 5 Mar 08
It seems entirely appropriate to put the burden on the Clinton campaign to demonstrate what this 'experience' comprises. If her experience comes down to the years she has served as junior senator from New York, which is indisputable, she can be judged fairly on her public record and national security credentials.
Who is 'Vetted?'
Senator Clinton has constantly made the claim that she is thoroughly 'vetted,' yet what she calls 'vetted' really means that she has survived numerous controversial investigations, whatever their motivation or origin. There is no suggestion that Senator Obama should engage in the kind of insinuation or guilt by association which Hillary's campaign has descended into recently. However her standards of disclosure relating to relevant and current activities warrant the attention of the media and the electorate, for example:
"She's made the argument that she's thoroughly vetted, in contrast to me," Mr. Obama said as he flew back to Chicago from Texas Wednesday. "I think it's important to examine that argument, because if the suggestion is somehow that, on issues of ethics or disclosure or transparency, that she's going to have a better record than I have and will be better able to withstand Republican attacks, I think that's an issue that should be tested."Michael Luo - Obama Moves to Sharpen His Critique of Clinton NYT 5 Mar 08
The release of documents relating to the Clinton White House would also seem relevant to this discussion, as well as, tangentially but no less relevantly given her recent personal finance of her campaign, the issues of her husband's financial dealings such as the Kazakhstan energy negotiations he denies participating in and the contributions to the Clinton library, to name a few.
Hillary is Fighting Obama and the System
To secure a credible path to the nomination Hillary must at some point overturn the process as it now stands. She must erode Obama's lead by either insuring the FA and MI delegations are seated at the convention, poaching pledged delegates or securing the endorsement of the lion's share of superdelegates. In any or all of these endeavours she must expend time and resources to overturn the status quo. The Obama campaign can stand pat and let the burden of energy and friction fall on her campaign:
"I don't think it's for our campaign or her campaign - we're in a heated contest here - to have to be the facilitators here," Plouffe said. "This is between the DNC and those state parties."Nedra Pickler - Do-Over in Michigan and Florida? AP 5 Mar 08
Furthermore, any attempt by Hillary's campaign to manoeuvre for position may likely meet resistance by the party itself, whether the DNC, superdelegates or even her own campaign insiders who have a higher sense of duty to the party than her campaign has evidenced recently. All Obama needs to do is keep tabs on this potentially acrimonious wrangle, keep to the high ground of the party's best interests and point out egregious activities to the media and the public if and when they arise.
The Threat of a Superdelegate End Run
Since Hillary's campaign has clearly escalated this conflict Obama's is entitled to fight back, though within the Geneva Convention of War. At some point it is plausible, assuming this is a protracted and effective campaign, and given the borderline tactics of the Hillary campaign and their propensity, recently demonstrated, to compare Senator Obama unfavourably to the Republican nominee, that the party would feel the need to bring this phase of the campaign to an abrupt conclusion.
Reflecting on ... the fickleness of superdelegates, Cleaver [Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II] said, "If another country elected leaders the way we do, we'd ask them to bring in the U.N. monitors."Josephine Hearn and Amie Parnes and Josh Kraushaar - Superdelegates play hardball Politico 5 Mar 08
Although this is unlikely before the Pennsylvania primary it is entirely reasonable to assume that some time before the convention the party steps in through the mechanism of the uncommitted superdelgates or a major series of endorsements to choose a nominee. Under the circumstances it is unlikely that Hillary would be that choice and this is a circumstance which will constrain her campaign's behaviour and keep them looking over their shoulders as the Democratic race drags on and McCain solidifies his message, organisation and fundraising.
Hillary admires herself as a 'fighter' and considers this kind of campaigning a virtue, let's show her what the Obama campaign is capable of by the same criteria. Until now Obama's campaign has sought to stay above the fray and this clearly has put him at a disadvantage in the new operational environment of the contest for the nomination. No one can blame him for rolling up his sleeves and getting stuck into her, especially if he does so with clarity of purpose and stays within the apparently liberal guidelines for fair and legitimate 'contrast,' as it is euphemised these days. And it would surely put to rest the disingenuous notion of a unity ticket. Fix bayonets.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 185 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
