Now that the Beltway establishment, jolted by the Iowa polls, is frantically revising its premature blueprints for a Clinton coronation and declaring, as Time’s inevitable cliché would have it, that Mr. Obama has “found his voice,” it’s worth looking at some campaign story lines that have been ignored so far. They tell us more than the hyped scenarios that have fallen apart. Indeed, they flip the standard narrative of Campaign 2008 on its head: Were Mr. Obama to best Mrs. Clinton for the Democratic nomination, he may prove harder for the Republicans to rally against and defeat than the all-powerful, battle-tested Clinton machine.
The unspoken truth is that the Clinton machine is not being battle-tested at all by the Democratic primary process. When Mrs. Clinton accused John Edwards of “throwing mud” and “personally” attacking her in a sharp policy exchange in one debate, the press didn’t challenge the absurd hyperbole of her claim. In reality, neither Mr. Edwards nor any other Democratic competitor will ever hit her with the real, personal mud being stockpiled by the right. But if she’s getting a bye now, she will not from the Republican standard-bearer, whoever he may be. Clinton-bashing is the last shared article of faith (and last area of indisputable G.O.P. competence) that could yet unite the fractured and dispirited conservative electorate.
The Republicans know this and are so psychologically invested in refighting the Clinton wars that they’re giddy. Karl Rove’s first column for Newsweek last week, “How to Beat Hillary (Next) November,” proceeded from the premise that her nomination was a done deal. In the G.O.P. debates through last Thursday, the candidates mentioned the Clintons some 65 times. Barack Obama’s name has not been said once.
But much like the Clinton campaign itself, the Republicans have fallen into a trap by continuing to cling to the Hillary-is-inevitable trope. They have not allowed themselves to think the unthinkable ”” that they might need a Plan B to go up against a candidate who is not she. It’s far from clear that they would remotely know how to construct a Plan B to counter Mr. Obama.
I kindly disagree. Obama is quite left-wing and has the record to show it. He’s getting a pass on that so far. A smart Republican won’t give him a pass at all. I think he’s an easier target than Hillary, though he certainly doesn’t have her “negatives” . . . yet.
While I often agree with Frank Rich, he is very misguided and frankly, blind, if he thinks there’s no racism in America. Hello Mr. Rich???? Does Katrina ring a bell? The same country that has allowed New Orleans to linger in disrepair and poverty is going to elect Obama as it’s President? I don’t think so.
Obama lost me when he said he would personally meet with the world’s dictators if he was the president. His political naivete may be refreshing to some but with all of the challenges the next president is going to face, we simply can’t have a “learn-as-I-go” leader. There’s far too much at stake.
This would also provide a lot of fodder for the Republican nominee if he was the Democratic nominee. In a wide field, when attention is dispersed among a field of candidates, he’s not getting the laser beam attention to his every word that he would as the nominee. I don’t believe he’s savvy enough to stand up to that sort of scrutiny.
I’m glad his wife finally quieted down. Her “Barrack is stinky” remark and attacks with Elizabeth Edwards were just looney.
Thanks for that post, Fred. I actually laughed out loud at that post.
Of course there is racism in America. But does anyone think that a racist American would vote for a Democratic candidate in any case? I suppose there might be a few, but they couldn’t amount to more than .00001 percent of the electorate, or certainly less than the number that will not vote for Mitt Romney because he’s a Mormon or Rudy Giuliani because of his marital past (among other things) or against Huckabee because he’s a Southern Baptist minister.
I’m not yet in Obama’s corner–in fact, I am enamored of none of the Democratic candidates this year. When it comes to experience, probably the best candidates are Biden and Richardson, and look how well they’re doing. But I think two of Rich’s points are well-taken: 1) Clinton does not have the nomination sewn up, and 2) some of the possible Republican nominees, particularly Giuliani and Romney, will have a harder time beating Obama than Clinton, since they’ve been pretty much counting on her negatives to get them past the finish line. It’s the Republicans who have not been busy reinventing themselves (at least not as much as Giuliani or Romney) who would have a better chance against Obama, since they–McCain and Huckabee–will be running on who they are, not on who the other candidate is.
Frank Rich has obviously fallen into Karl Rove’s clever trap to make him [i] think [/i] the Republicans don’t have a “Plan B” to deal with Obama! Hah!
Karl Rove is very sly. I am positively giddy waiting to personally sling the all-powerful, stinky, battle-tested mud and other clichéd metaphors I have stockpiled.
I read Mr. Obama’s first book and was impressed by the fact that he lived outside of the U.S. for a few years. As an estadounidense who grew up outside of the U.S., I find such people to have a more realistic understanding of the world outside of the U.S., especially those, like myself, who did not live on a U.S. military base but lived among the people of the nation in which they lived. Mr. Obama is not a perfect candidate, but no such person exists, at least not in my lifetime.
IRNS, I agree with your analysis, except for your implicit assumption that all racists, all ten of them, are Republicans.
I’m hoping that the general election, whoever is running, will shape up as a debate about the future course of the country. I distrust Clinton, but she could be confronted more effectively on her ideas and public record than on the personal negatives. The same applies to Obama.
Wait, wasn’t Karl Rove’s trap to make you think that Frank Rich thought that Republicans don’t have a Plan B??
Seriously, that’s why Rove has been pushing a Clinton candidacy at every turn?
But does anyone think that a racist American would vote for a Democratic candidate in any case?
You’ve never encountered racist liberals or racist blue collar union supporters who would never think of voting Republican? You need to get out more. Having lived in both the north and the south I can attest to lots in the north who despise southern racists yet who still speak contemptuously of blacks. It’s a well known trait of northern racism to think blacks should have equal civil rights but not want them near where you live.