by Michael Tackett
The fun is just starting.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seem to have decided it is time to act like they are actually competing against each other for the Democratic presidential nomination.
While much of America might be putting away the beach chairs, these two have been warily circling each other. And it is a clear window onto what to expect between now and the time when the good folks of Iowa actually vote. Which seems like it could be as early as Thanksgiving, the way things are going.
Obama has started to stake out ground on international matters. He has said he believes the United States should engage its enemies, even through talks with the president. He has said if the U.S. were to have actionable intelligence that a high value terrorist target were in Pakistan, he might act unilaterally to bomb that target--even if it were against the wishes of Pakistan’s president.
Now, those comments might be seen by some right-thinking voters as abundant common sense. Talk to your enemies and you might not end up killing each other. Take out the terrorists when you have them in the gun sites and they won’t live to fight you another day.
The Clinton folks--who know a thing or two about political combat--have pounced. With very little gloss, they essentially have painted Obama as a naif, one with a shoot-from-the-hip world view that would be downright reckless and dangerous. Nice guy, they seem to be saying, but many gray hairs shy from being credible enough to have his hand on the red button.
That is in keeping with their broader strategy. Kill off the phenomenon of the Obama candidacy before it becomes a real threat.
And to hear from the pack, Clinton is probably winning the battle. She is underscoring Obama’s key weakness--his relative inexperience, and doing so about the most important issue of our time. Nothing congeals in Washington so easily as conventional thinking.
But that coin has another side, and Obama is working hard to exploit it.
In a recent interview with the Washington Post, Obama contended he was the better candidate to pull people together. He added that Senator Clinton, with a nod to the impact of the “vast right wing conspiracy,” just might be a tad polarizing while he is the candidate of the warm embrace.
If you want to gauge how effective his criticism of her key vulnerability is, just consider the ferocity of the response from Camp Clinton. They skewered Obama for even suggesting what every national poll, and every national pol, already knew--that Clinton is a polarizing figure.
We knew that Clinton could play the game at the highest, and lowest, levels. Her campaign can goad, and it can attack with a don’t-bring-a-knife-to-a-gunfight vigor.
But maybe in this exchange, it is Obama who is the more subtle, nuanced and perhaps even effective. He drew them out on an issue that they know is their biggest liability. And he did it when several national polls focused on the “likability” question, a question where Clinton fares far, far worse than Obama.
For now, the high priests of politics in Washington are saying Clinton has such an edge that it is unlikely she can be overtaken. That’s quite a conclusion to draw at least 100 days before the first votes.
The Democratic candidates have been essentially fighting in the shadows for almost nine months. They have been training their guns largely on the failings of the Bush administration.
That is about to change, and abruptly.
Michael Tackett is the Washington Bureau Chief for the Chicago Tribune. He has covered every presidential election since 1988 and served as the Tribune's chief political writer during the 1996 and 2000 campaigns. He also served as National Editor for U.S. News and World Report. And, don't hold this against him, he has a law degree.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Neither is qualified to be president in any type of rational thinking.
Posted by: John D | September 12, 2007 9:32 AM
I don't know how anyone can consider voting for hillary. She couldn't be less likeable if she wore a dead puppy around her neck every time she appeared in public.
She is a nasty political fighter though, of that I have no doubt.
Posted by: nisleib | September 12, 2007 9:42 AM
Somebody ought to inform reporter Mike Tackett that his asserted "phenomenon", Mr. Obama, isn't doing so well. In fact, the phenom is flopping. The latest polls (which the Swamp steadfastly refuses to give its readers) tell the story:
CNN--Clinton 46%, Obama 23%
NY Times/CBS--Clinton 44%, Obama 26%
USA Today/Gallup--Clinton 45%, Obama 24%
Rsmussen--Clinton 43%, Obama 22%
ABC/Wash Post--Clinton 41%, Obama 27%
These polls of Democrats were all taken last week, and are remarkably consistent in showing Obama down bigtime, and falling further behind.
Posted by: Bruce | September 12, 2007 10:00 AM
Interesting article to a limited extent, but it doesn't begin to explore the real negatives about both candidates. How about the total lack of administrative experience in two persons who want the highest executive position in the land? Neither one has ever managed even so much as a pay phone. This is a rather tepid review of two Democrats, as is usual from the Tribune Wash bureau. Anyone ever heard of Norman Hsu?
Posted by: Harry T. | September 12, 2007 10:01 AM
"And to hear from the pack..."
- M. Tackett
Herein lies the problem with America's politics.
Rather than just report EXACTLY the facts, reporters "draw conclusions on the wall" and then poll each other and the public, which spews back the conclusions drawn on the wall by these same reporters.
Fact is, Obama isn't changing American policy too much, other than to say he would talk to other world leaders who don't agree with us.
"OMG! That's insane," the opposition says. "It's insane," the pack reports. What do you think, American public? "It's insane!"
Thus, we attack Iraq based on innuendo and self-gratifying motives and we wind up with a war that, according to the president, some other president will have to decide how to conclude.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | September 12, 2007 10:32 AM
Harry, you didn't expect DBC operative Michael Tackett to actually take a critical look at Hillary and Obama, and to discuss real issues that may make them look bad, did you?
Having read Michael Tackett's stuff over the years, it is quite clear he is incapable of writing an objective piece or one that may even be critical of Democrats. That would be like Sigourney Weaver writing love letter to tha alien. Ain't gonna happen.
Posted by: John D | September 12, 2007 11:11 AM
Bruce -
Quoting these polls at this stage is futile.
I've canvassed in NH, where people are supposedly paying closer attention to the race than anywhere but Iowa, and 80% are undecided. And 20% admit they don't decide who they will vote for till the last 2 weeks. So don't use these numbers to draw any conclusions.
In fact as the premise to this article states, the combat is just beginning. If you want more insight into what the polls mean, please read An Idiot's Guide to Polling:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/16/153544/214#readmore
Posted by: Mark | September 12, 2007 11:22 AM
More duplicitous spin from Swamp in a desperate effort to rescue Obama.
We all know Obama was not skewered for suggesting he'd talk to our enemies. He was skewered for saying he'd do it unconditionally. Sorry, Tackett. Hillary offered the more thoughtful and "nuanced" response by saying she'd meet with our enemies once she did her homework and figured out how to leverage ("condition" if you will) the meeting to get something in the interests of America. Obama blew that one, so get over it.
We all know Obama wasn't slammed for saying he'd go into Pakistan, over that government's objections if need be, if he had "actionable intelligence" as to OBL's whereabouts. He was slammed for unnecessarily jumping in front of a mike, pounding his chest and saying so at a very volatile time in that country. And he wasn't even saying anything new or unconventional, Tackett. On the contrary what he spouted IS the "conventional" thinking you seem to hold in contempt. It's just that everyone else seems to have the self-discipline, AND EXPERIENCE, to understand when something so potentially destablizing needs to be stated and when it doesn't.
Sorry, but your attempts to hypnotize the American public with the sound bites "Obama is the only one who will talk to our enemies" and "Obama would take tough action where others won't" and "Hillary can't win 'cause she's mean" aren't working. Americans are smart enough to see them for the shallow, inept pandering lies they are.
But I'm sure you'll keep trying though.
Posted by: Biggdawg | September 12, 2007 11:34 AM
Either Clinton or Obama will CERTAINLY do better than Bush the Inferior.
Heck, even the other Republicans running would do better than the Cheneybush Regime. As wild-eyed scary as Rudy is, he would still be an improvement over the Current Occupant. No matter how you slice it, ANYONE (except the lunatic Mike Gravel!) will be an improvement over the Cheneybush regime. Probably even Barney would do better. He's trainable!
Mike Huckabee? Joe Biden? Ron Paul? John Edwards? They would all be an improvement.
Posted by: snalg | September 12, 2007 12:23 PM
Nice try, Mr. Tackett, The Moose Cholak of Wreporting, reporting the facts of what Obama and Clinton are actually saying, instead of focusing on the candidate poll figures (Thanks, Bruce, old buddy) that are the only thing that has real meaning to us GOPers.
Yet you seem darned and determined to cite plummeting poll numbers whenever you report the failings of the Bush Administration, figures that that have no meaning to us GOPers, instead of focusing on the fact that Our President Bush is "Accomplishing" the "Mission", taking WMDs out of the hands of the man responsible for 9/11 and making the world safer.
You cant have it both ways, Mr. Tackett...no sir...
Can you?
Posted by: Smirky McFlightsuit | September 12, 2007 12:38 PM
"GLOVES ARE STILL ON"
Senator Obama, and Senator Clinton are smarter than the average Media. To beat eachother up is what the media storms want. To be indignant to one another is what the Media Giants want. The press would be happy if Mrs. Clinton just outright called Senator Obama like George Bush did to John McCain by making claim of him having had child out of wedlock. OOOOOOHOOOOHOO. Or Bush to John McCain relating to his spouse's past medical history.
The GOP ran on FAMILY VALUES, MORE TRANSPARANCEY AND ALL THAT RAP MUSIC.
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have reservations for the White House not eachother right now.
THEY KNOW THE WHITE HOUSE STILL CAN EAVESDROP WITHOUT GOING TO FISA OR WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.
The Nixonian instituted in the GOP will self destruct its own party. So why must they tit for tat, when America just wants Civility from just one politician. LOOK AT RON PAUL, 18-24 year old see that as sensible man with sensible realist goal minded ways of America.
Hillary and Obama are just fine. Its who counts the votes not who votes. They know that now!
Posted by: Roger Morris | September 12, 2007 12:40 PM
"Mark", the Swamp runs stories on polls every couple days, yet I never see you post to the "Swamp" that polls this early are worthless. Evidently the "Swamp" can report on polls favorable to Obama and that's ok with you, but when someone like me points out how the Swamp is skipping polls that show Obama free-falling, by odd coincidence people like you come out of the wordwork asserting that early polls are worthless.
And on a side note, I find it very believable that you read "An Idiot's Guide".
The sad fact is, "Swamp" reporters might as well be on Obama's payroll. They assert things like Obama is a "phenom" when the very polls they so often cite tell exactly the opposite story.
Posted by: Bruce | September 12, 2007 12:53 PM
Bigdawg,
Rest easy, the BO candidacy is unlikely to ever be saved, despite the relentless efforts of The Swamp's writers. And in spite of hauling in mammoth amounts of campaign money, he hasn't made an iota of progress against Hillary. He can't win over any of the demographic groups that some people think would be a natural for him.
He has been spinning his wheels for almost a year now.
Or to borrow another metaphor -- put a fork in 'im, he's done!
Posted by: Anonymous | September 12, 2007 12:55 PM
Brucey:
Since you love polls so much, how about this one from CNN - one that YOU would never show:
"The poll also suggests Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton would beat Thompson in a general election by 13 percentage points, 55 percent to 42 percent.
When CNN and the Opinion Research Corp. asked the same question in June, the New York senator edged out Thompson by 4 percentage points, 50 percent to 46 percent.
When paired with Giuliani, Clinton comes out on top by four percentage points, 50 percent to 46 percent. Clinton was ahead by 1 percent in the same matchup in June, 49 percent to 48 percent.
Meanwhile, Sen. Barack Obama also beats Thompson head to head, 53 percent to 41 percent. In June, the Illinois Democrat led Thompson by the same margin, 52 percent to 40 percent.
When Obama faces Giuliani head to head, Giuliani wins by 4 percentage points, 49 to 45. In June, Giuliani topped Obama by 2 points, 48 percent to 46 percent."
Also, I see where Hillary's favorable ratings in the CNN/Time Poll are now at 53%.
Posted by: BobinATL | September 12, 2007 1:05 PM
National polls mean almost nothing now. People will start paying attention in the next few months and the numbers will move. Obama is the brightest talent we've seen running for president in my life.
Posted by: Mark Morris | September 12, 2007 1:12 PM
HI! Let's look at it this way. A black man or woman goes into a job interview. The interviewer says, "We're sorry but you just don't have enough experience and qualifications." The person looks around and notices that everyone working there has less knowledge than he does. Sound like blacks in America over say 100 years? Isn't that what white america has done to them for over 100 years to keep them out of positions that could make a difference? And no one is calling this racist? Anerica...shame on us!
Posted by: richardson | September 12, 2007 1:33 PM
[quote]
Neither is qualified to be president in any type of rational thinking.
Posted by: John D | September 12, 2007 9:32 AM
[/quote]
Regarding bombing high value terrorist targets in Pakistan, Obama is saying EXACTLY what Bush has said - yet John D doesn't think that Obama is worhty of being the president.
Therefore, John D is now on record as admitting that Bush isn't worthy of being president either!
Posted by: BC | September 12, 2007 2:16 PM
Lets see Obama in 3rd in Iowa. A distant 2nd in NH and a distant 2nd in SC. So I can see why all of the Obamites are trying to convince themsleves that early primary states polling means nothing. Keep telling yourselves that and maybe eventually you will really believe it. Face it the guy is done before he even started. He ran too soon. He has never done anything. No one really knew who he was so some people were looking at him for the 1st time. After further review he has been seen as a fluff candidate. He is the Paris Hilton of Politics. You know he is famous but no one is really sure why. He should have worked in the Senate for a a while and ran later, now he may never be able to run again after he gets trounced by Hillary. I love how he tried to inject his candidacy ito the Patreus questioning yesterday and didn't even have enough time to ask a ? after promoting himself for 6 of the 7 minutes. Maybe he will actually do something for IL once he loses though.
Posted by: Vinny | September 12, 2007 3:51 PM
BC, do you know just how ridiculous and ignorant you are? For your own good, please look for the nearest Huntington educational center or perhaps re-enroll in day care and begin working your way back up the grades until you actually learn something.
Posted by: John D | September 12, 2007 4:49 PM
"As wild-eyed scary as Rudy is, he would still be an improvement over the Current Occupant. No matter how you slice it, ANYONE (except the lunatic Mike Gravel!) will be an improvement over the Cheneybush regime"
I couldn't possibly disagree more. Rudolph Giuliani is THE natural heir to the Bush/Rove/Cheny legacy and I certainly don't mean that in any good way. He is the only candidate who could actually turn out to be a worse President than our current Commander-in-Chief.
It is rather clear that all Giuliani has to fear is the lack of fear itself, 'cause that's all he's got going for him. Elect Giuliani and expect a further expanding partisan divide and more and more war and profiteering, coupled with endless "terror alerts."
Giuliani is the worst of the worst in terms of character, and is also the least QUALIFIED candidate. 2 term mayor? Puhleaze!
He left NY with a bigger deficit than he inherited even at the end of the Go-Go Nineties. And though he does deserve some credit for turning NYC around, he also was mayor during a time of essentially endless peace and prosperity, where the whole country experienced strong drops in crime, increased feelings of well-being, and unprecedented economic growth.
Oh, and the only reason he got the glorious optics of being on the ground at 9/11 was because he put his command center in the WTC against the advice of security professionals. That decision very likely hampered the response and may have been responsible for more death than had Giuliani chosen the less sexy location in Brooklyn that experts favored.
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | September 12, 2007 5:47 PM
If you are white, have an accent, regardless of good judgement and experience, "YOU WILL BE PRESIDENT". That is what l read the other day from somebody.
It really made me feel outrage and pissed with America poltics.
We are so racist in this country that anything good coming from other race that is not white is not eligible to be put in a position of authority and power because other race are inferior.
Obama is good man, an honest man who want to bring about good for the American people and yet we cannot see beyond his skin color. He is very intelligent, eloquent, good moral judgememt, sound education, good family man, passed bills that has helped to improve lifes of people, was never for the war, has a good health care plan for this generation and the next, has confidence and charisma, very authentic in his politics, does not flip-flop like Hilary. I am honestly done with the Clinton's.
The Question we should ask ourselves during this election is " Do we want the experience of the old political garbage and lies (which Hilary represent) OR do we want the change that will benefit our children and our children's children? ( which Obama represent").
Our votes makes a change, please America, let us use it wisely! This is the time we need somebody like Obama in the white house. God bless America and the world as a whole!
Posted by: Julie | September 13, 2007 10:50 AM
[quote]
BC, do you know just how ridiculous and ignorant you are? For your own good, please look for the nearest Huntington educational center or perhaps re-enroll in day care and begin working your way back up the grades until you actually learn something.
Posted by: John D | September 12, 2007 4:49 PM
[/quote]
HAHAHAHA!
You're such a funny guy - taking time out from your research to PROVIDE PROOF positive for your allegation that Edwards pays as much as Bush does for his custom-made suits. We're still waiting for your post - what's taking you so long?
Posted by: BC | September 13, 2007 12:24 PM
Ahh, that was entertaining. LOL
So far the Dems all act like they are running for Vice President or gopher to the President. The country will be split down party lines. Those that want to elect a Marxist and those that want to keep their capitalistic Republic.
Posted by: Eden Carroll Weis | October 8, 2007 8:20 PM
Clinton is having to learn from Obama, she has confessed she doesn't understand Iran, the reason she called Obama "irresponsible" but when she understood it after listening to Obama she now is ready to negotiate with Iran.
She even says she wants to turn the page
Keep learning HRC
Posted by: Challenger | October 14, 2007 3:04 PM