by Mark Silva
Sen. Barack Obama, fresh from 10 consecutive state primary election and caucus victories in his bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, has formally registered as Target No. 1.
Both his rival for the party’s nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton, and the likely Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain, have taken square aim at the junior senator from Illinois as two of the biggest primaries of the season arrive – the votes in Ohio and Texas on March 4.
The attention of both Clinton and McCain demonstrates just how far Obama has come from the town square in Springfield a little over one year ago when he amassed the first of many large crowds to respond to his calls of hope and change.
And the substantive material of the charges which both are leveling at Obama demonstrate just how strong he may be: They both are challenging his experience.
t is, indeed, the experience of both Clinton and McCain which is causing many voters concern: Voters in both parties are looking at Clinton’s experience as a polarizing figure in American politics, and they are weighing that idea of Clinton II; conservative Republicans are looking at McCain’s experience in immigration reform, campaign finance reform and tax-cutting, and moderate to liberal Republicans are looking at his experience of support for the war and interrogation policies of an administration he long criticized for its conduct of both.
And, ultimately, voters in both parties are focusing on Obama – slightly ahead in the Democratic delegate count, far ahead on the inspiration meter, and posing one ripe target for the Texas and Ohio elections which already are underway today with early voting in Texas.
Clinton, in a speech delivered at Hunter College in New York today, spoke of the historical significance or either she, a woman, or Obama, an African-American, winning the nomination in a nation which once denied voting rights to both. But she also spoke of knowing, more than anyone else, the “loneliness’’ of the Oval Office and the decisions made there.
““We can’t just have speeches,’’ Clinton said today, in a continuation of her “all talk, no action’’ attack on Obama. “We’ve got to have solutions. We’ve got to get America back in the solutions business… The best words in the world are not enough unless you match that with action.’’
Sounding one-part John Edwards – vowing to battle “the special interests’’ – and one part Joan Baez – with a paean to the working men and women of America, an homage to the waitresses and hairdressers and mailmen who make America run – Clinton promised to work both the “day shift’’ and the “night shift’’ in a White House where she will be ready on “Day One.’’
Sounding one-part George W. Bush – vowing to take the war on terror to the enemy – and one part Ronald Reagan – with tough words for the “bully’’ of the hemisphere, Hugo Chavez – McCain presented himself as the only one suited to keep America safe in a dangerous world.
McCain, celebrating his own victory in Wisconsin last night, said: “My friends, we live in a world of change, some of which holds great promise for us and all mankind, and some of which poses great peril. Today political change in Pakistan is occurring that might affect our relationship with a nuclear-armed nation that is indispensable to our success in combating al Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
“An old enemy of American interests and ideals is leaving the world stage, and we can glimpse the hope that freedom might someday come to the people of Cuba,’’ he said. “A self-important bully in Venezuela threatens to cut off oil shipments to our country at a time of skyrocketing gas prices.
“Each event poses a challenge and an opportunity. Will the next president have the experience -- the judgment, experience informs and the strength of purpose to respond to each of these developments in ways that strengthen our security and advance the global progress of our ideals? Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan, and suggested sitting down without preconditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons? I think you know the answer to that question.’’
McCain didn’t mention Obama by name.
He didn’t have to.
Two weeks from Ohio and Texas, Obama’s has become the name to beat.
In November, his may be the same.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Don't worry, Obama... you're far to charismatic and unexperienced for any criticism to stick! Maybe you should learn more about the world and come back in a couple decades, Jr.
Posted by: Steve S | February 20, 2008 10:36 AM
Obama's speech (October, 2002):
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don't oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not - we will not - travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
Let's turn the page,
VOTE OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!
Posted by: FOR THE LOVE OF OUR COUNTRY | February 20, 2008 11:09 AM
WHAT 35 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE?
The Facts:
Senator Barack Obama 1996-2004 (Illinois State Senator)
2005-2008 (United States Senator)
12 Years of Elected Office Experience
Senator Hillary Clinton 2001-2008 (United States Senator)
7 Years of Elected Office Experience
Here are the remaining 28 years of Clinton's experience:
8 Years (Lawyer)
12 Years (First Lady of Arkansas)
8 Years (First Lady of the U.S.)
Since when is 20 years of being a first lady relevant experience for being president?
Senator Barack Obama, Not Only By Virtue Of His Character, Honesty, And Competence, But Also By Virtue Of His Experience, Is Clearly More Qualified To Be President Of The United States.
FIRED UP - READY TO GO!!!!!
Posted by: Cindy | February 20, 2008 11:11 AM
Senator Barack Obama, Not Only By Virtue Of His Character, Honesty, And Competence, But Also By Virtue Of His Experience, Is Clearly More Qualified To Be President Of The United States.
FIRED UP - READY TO GO!!!!!
Posted by: Cindy | February 20, 2008 11:11 AM
Cindy: You need to GOOGLE Larry Sinclair ....if it's true your statment will look real. real, dumb. Perhaps you will be able to explain to us why there is a suit filed in Minn. against Mr. Obama, Mr. Axelrod, and Mr. Dean by above mentioned person, intimidation is a serious charge.
Posted by: Don B. | February 20, 2008 12:24 PM
Steve S - "unexperienced" makes me believe the ignorants are following the blind...
Posted by: dave | February 20, 2008 12:35 PM
Actually, Obama knows more about the world than Hillary who worked behind a desk at Walmart in Arkansas and McCain who never really saw Asia because he was unfortunately locked in a cell. For Hillary, the rest of the world is a labor pool for the US corporations. For McCain, it is people that look different that he wants to take down as a matter of payback for the suffering he went through years ago. Obama - his experience is through growing up around the world with people of diverse backgrounds - those with poverty, and those with money. And then adding to this experience by gaining knowledge at some of the top academic organizations in the world. Furthermore, he was the highest academic achiever of the three. While McCain used his ammo and weapons, and Hillary used the coattails, Obama uses his intellect.
Posted by: jerry g | February 20, 2008 12:45 PM
It is clear that Obama has a rhetorical advantage over Clinton & McCain. Both are trying to mitigate this advantage with the "just words" and experience approach. However, what both fail to understand is how Obama's words translate into leadership. Obama has led people all across this country to the polls. People who have never taken an interest in the political plight of our country before. One of the Commander in Chief's most important job is to lead the country. In this sense, Obama has already proved that he is the most qualified.
Posted by: Obama's Army | February 20, 2008 1:00 PM
RE: WHAT 35 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE?
I couldn't agree more, Cindy. Using the same formula for years of experience that Hillary is using, Nancy Reagan should be running for president. Scary thought!
Posted by: Karen | February 20, 2008 1:10 PM
McCain is using old and discredited Hillary talking points about 'bombing' Pakistan and talking to enemies..points that have already been smacked down?
Oh, I can't wait to see them debate!
Posted by: Terri | February 20, 2008 1:39 PM
Steve S - "unexperienced" makes me believe the ignorants are following the blind...
Posted by: dave | February 20, 2008 12:35 PM
whoops... innocent typo. please forgive me dave.
Posted by: Steve S | February 20, 2008 1:47 PM
Cindy: You need to GOOGLE Larry Sinclair ....if it's true your statment will look real. real, dumb. Perhaps you will be able to explain to us why there is a suit filed in Minn. against Mr. Obama, Mr. Axelrod, and Mr. Dean by above mentioned person, intimidation is a serious charge.
Posted by: Don B. | February 20, 2008 12:24 PM
So the slime machine starts.
Libel and slander are serious charges too, Don.
Posted by: Luke | February 20, 2008 1:47 PM
I'm so tired of hearing about experience. If this country cared about experience, George W Bush never would have been elected. He was governor of Texas for 6 years, nothing even remotely related to government before that. And even after 4 years of being president, John Kerry was far more experienced than him in 2004. So enough about experience.
Posted by: Paul | February 20, 2008 2:02 PM
Don't worry, Obama... you're far to charismatic and unexperienced for any criticism to stick! Maybe you should learn more about the world and come back in a couple decades, Jr.
Posted by: Steve S | February 20, 2008 10:36 AM
That's the problem for your team, Steve-O.
Old man war-monger John McCain/Bush is about as exciting and inspiring as watching paint dry.
Posted by: John E | February 20, 2008 2:18 PM
Here's some highlights from John McCain/Bush's speech last nigh:
"My friends, thanks. Don't listen to good, eloquent speeches. Listen to my speeches. And listen to me talk about how much experience I have. And look over your shoulder. See those brown people? Those terrorists? Venezuela? Yeah. My friends, that's why you have vote for me".
"My friends, the Bush years have been good to us and I will effectivly give you a third term of Bush/Cheney".
Posted by: John E | February 20, 2008 2:34 PM
John McCain/Bush has a new campaign video out, here it is...."my friends":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsE3Zs8xt94&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/04749/8596
Posted by: John E | February 20, 2008 2:38 PM
Here's a little speechmaking tip for Senator John McCain/Bush:
When you talk about death and destruction and terror threats, it's typically best not to break out into a big grin. Scares the children.
OBAMA 08!
Posted by: John E | February 20, 2008 3:12 PM
A "dumb" war? c'mon obama lama ding dong, we are engaged in a "smart" war now...or would you just roll over & pull down your pants for the moslem hordes when they hit chicago? I'm sure that hillbilly & mad mad mccain will bend over with you, and ask that they be "gentle" while they rape our land. We have 3 fools running for office - We need a THIRD party
Posted by: Gareof | February 21, 2008 1:50 PM