John B. Judis: Obama Rising, Where Hillary went wrong--and how Barack took advantage

[flpoljunkie]

Obama Rising
Where Hillary went wrong--and how Barack took advantage.

John B. Judis, The New Republic
Thursday, November 15, 2007

After the first Democratic debate, at the end of April, when Hillary Clinton made her main rivals seems small and insignificant, I expected that Barack Obama would fade from contention even before the Iowa Caucus. And in the months that followed, Obama seemed to be doing just that. But Clinton's recent missteps, amplified by John Edwards' strident attacks upon her, provided Obama with an opening--and in a stirring speech before the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Des Moines November 10, Obama took it. Based purely on opinion polls--and some scattered interviewing--I still see Clinton as the favorite for the nomination, but I can now envision a scenario in which Obama could surpass her.

Let's retrace Clinton's critical missteps over the last six weeks. First, on September 26, she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran, which designated Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. It also committed the United States to structuring its forces in Iraq "with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy." The Kyl-Lieberman amendment was merely a "sense of the Senate" resolution. It did not bind the Bush administration to doing anything. But the resolution seemed to affirm the administration's bellicose posture toward Iran and could, perhaps, be used as a justification for a military attack.

Clinton's reason for supporting the resolution was that, as the Times put it, she was shifting from "primary mode, when she needs to guard against critics from the left, to general election mode, when she must guard against critics from the right." Clinton, the article said, was also "solidifying crucial support from the pro-Israel lobby."

These explanations reinforce the impression that for narrow political reasons, Clinton lent her support to a measure that might eventually lead to war. And that, of course, revives doubts about Clinton's vote in October 2002 for the Iraq war: Namely, has she really rethought her support for the Iraq war? And even if she has, will pressure from Washington lobbies or from political opponents who accuse her of timidity sway her to back new military misadventures?

more...

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=c8aebe97-6289-4ec2-b6c8-ad14e59ccc0a

John B. Judis is a senior editor at The New Republic and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

[TwilightGardener]

1. Great article, thanks!

[Colobo]

2. Gobama!

[sundancekid]

3. when you look at the fundamentals, hrc and obama were only being themselves ...

and no matter what, at a common sense level, voters KNOW THOSE DIFFERENCES and whether any lilies are being gilded ....

GOBAMA ALL THE WAY TO OUR WHITE HOUSE!

[Adelante]

4. Terrific

Thanks for posting that :)

[AtomicKitten]

5. That's what I'm talkin' about.

[BenDavid]

6. Oh to see HRC trip up and lose some points, and when

Obama does not win in Iowa and this "You live by inevitability and die by inevitability." does not work. What is Obama gonna do, I predict he'll fly to New Hamster and say, "A new day is upon us...

Keep in mind the 10 days between February 5 and the 15th. Why? Because somewhere between these dates HRC will have won enough delegates to become the democrats nominee.

Ben David

[BringBigDogBack]

7. kick

[ellisonz]

8. K & R

[Drunken Irishman]

9. Edwards attacking Hillary might backfire and hurt his candidacy.

People don't like perceived dirty campaigns and when they continue in this fashion, it often turns voters off. This happened leading up to the Iowa Caucus in 2004. Dick Gephardt, knowing his campaign was going nowhere, began critically attacking Dean. That hurt Gephardt, pulling him from 1st and 2nd in most polls, down to 4th and even 5th closer to the caucus date. Dean's problem, however, was that he combated those attacks with attacks of his own, which led to both Edwards and Kerry rising above the fray, looking clean and both appeared they were better than in-party fighting. Now while I wouldn't say this will backfire on Edwards, these attacks could have an adverse effect on his campaign. If people feel he's resorting to mud slinging, instead of just idea discussion, they'll start looking at other viable options, instead of either Clinton or Edwards.

If I'm Obama, I continue to attack Clinton's record, but in a subtle way where it doesn't appear he's throwing mud. No creating websites to attack her, no throwing down the gauntlet, either. Just gentle slams in debates and on campaign trails that can be taken as nothing more than just competent campaigning. Allow Edwards to be the attack dog, because voters, most likely, will turn off of both Clinton and Edwards if this continues. They'll shy away from Clinton because Edwards will beat it into the voters head that she is not a good candidate and they'll turn on Edwards because he spent a good portion of the buildup to the Iowa Caucus slamming Clinton. That will turn primary voters off and it's a perfect chance for Obama to showcase his ability instead of stooping to the level of primary playground fights.

[DeepModem Mom]

10. K&R

[jenmito]

11. K&R! I hope he smiles more as someone on CNN just advised he do...

and just disagree without being disagreeable. Let Edwards be the attack dog. It's not helping him. But it's hurting Hillary and helping Obama.