the counterpunch test
It's not a great insight on my part to say that Obama's challenge is the ultimate one of this election and of governing: fight back effectively. Hillary Clinton traded in smears and fear-mongering terrorism ads to raise the negatives on Obama sufficiently to win by a narrow margin (sound familiar? See Bush-Kerry 2004)
If Obama can't knock back Clinton's swiftboating, he can't do it against McCain either, so this is the test. Obama’s unity over partisanship appeals to Republicans are a big liability when he gets attacked with rightwing themes. If he wants to find common ground with Republicans, what's he going to do when they call him bad names? To call his attackers out as rightwing hit men inevitably takes him into attacking conservatives as such undercuts the uniter message (You’ve questioned the ethics of Rush Limbaugh? Millions of honest conservatives listen to him even if they don’t agree with everything he says. Are you calling them immoral, too?). To do nothing and say he’s above this, makes him look wimpy and that's the Dukakis-Gore-Kerry end of the race.
Thus far in the GWB era, no Democrat has been able to successfully land an effective counterpunch in a national campaign without co-opting rightwing talking points, and they’ve yet to take it to a Republican. In the 2004 primaries, Kerry cleaned up after Dean's remark that Saddam's capture had not made the US safer, but Kerry did that by adopting an argument handed to him by Rove and company. Clinton is doing the same with Obama right now.
If Clinton could trade in the same dirt with McCain, one could look at this as regrettable but necessary in that Clinton is the only one capable of pushing back against the right. But I doubt we’ll see general election tactics that question McCain’s religion, patriotism, and racial affiliation. Nor will the Clinton campaign run a “3 a.m.” ad against McCain. This was the stuff of the Ohio-Texas attack on Obama was straight out of the Bush playbook, whereas attacks on McCain are more likely to emphasize social issues, and ideological inconsistency, to counter his presumed national security strength. McCain's presumed national security strength will be magnified with McCain's own, better version of the 3 a.m. phone call ad. Such a re-hash of the 204 campaign might still get the Democrat elected (Kerry came close under less favorable conditions), but not without conceding a lot of ground on the rightwing security narrative.
Obama has been impressive as a campaigner, and could reverse the trend, but this story in this morning’s Washington Post is really bad news if it’s true:
“Obama aides also expect to take concentrated fire from McCain (Ariz.) and his Republican allies, who have already begun raising questions about the 46-year-old Democratic senator's credibility, authenticity and even his patriotism.
For months before his victory in Iowa, doubters questioned whether Obama had the stomach to deliver the blows necessary to wear down Clinton's advantages. Now, the question is whether he can take a punch -- "and you know they will be coming," said former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack (D), a Clinton supporter.
Some Obama supporters are increasing pressure on him to shift tactics, frame more sharply his criticism of his opponents and begin inoculating himself from the GOP attacks, but Obama remains reluctant to change the approaches that he still thinks will secure him the nomination. "I have said consistently that we do things differently," Obama said. "It's worked for us so far. And I'm not going to do things that I'm not comfortable in doing." “
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/04/AR2008030403392_pf.html
Obama's got it absolutely backwards if you ask me.
