HOME / politics: Who's winning, who's losing, and why.

Obama's Achilles' HeelWhat's he ever done?

(Continued from page 1)

These problems can be fixed. Interviews with Iowa and New Hampshire veterans suggest Obama's organization in the early states is far better than Howard Dean's was, and he has a better chance of capturing the African-American vote than the other brainy failures of the past. He can also improve his market share among Democrats who want change. In the recent Washington Post/ABC poll, party voters valued a candidate who brings a new direction and new ideas more than they valued strong leadership and experience—by 52 percent to 42 percent. Though Obama trails or is even with Clinton on the question of which candidate better represents change, his look and manner are so new it's not hard to imagine how he might convince voters.

On the campaign trail, Obama can shrink his crowds and move from the delicate soufflé speeches to ones that talk in a concrete way about how he is going to change people's lives. He did this in a recent urban poverty speech and has taken to reading to audiences what specific government services they're being denied by the billions being spent each month on the Iraq war. John Edwards, among others, had criticized Obama for offering voters only hope, but at the last debate, Edwards praised Obama for the seriousness of his health-care plan. It's not a bold and transformative plan, but that may not matter so much. Obama merely needs to make the case that he's serious enough, so that when his ideas are matched with his charisma, he can build a national consensus for policies better than any other candidate. "We all bought Bill Clinton's blue sky," says Iowa Woodbury* County Democratic Chairwoman Teresa Wolf, who is not backing a candidate. "Why not Obama's as long as it's a blue sky."

What Obama can't grow on the campaign trail is a different life experience. And Hillary Clinton and her campaign are going to be relentless in raising the experience issue. To fix this problem the Obama team is insisting that Obama has a different kind of what they call "real" experience. They're running television commercials highlighting his years as a community organizer and state senator. "A lot of people think that Barack Obama was born at the DNC convention in 2004," says his communications director Robert Gibbs. (That's probably because the campaign uses the clip so often to promote him.) The ads start with chapter headings for each of the stages of his career and plenty of black-and-white photos to suggest he has had an epic life. On the stump and in debates, Obama is also stressing his past. When he spoke about his urban agenda, he pointed out that poverty was "the cause that led me to a life of public service almost 25 years ago.''

The campaign is also redefining what experience means for Clinton, using her years in the Senate and White House to brand her as a creature of Washington and the past. Beyond his prescience on the Iraq war, Obama is making a larger claim: that he has better judgment than any other candidate on foreign-policy issues because he is not a captive of the Beltway. He supports this by pointing to his early years growing up overseas, which he stretches into "a life of living overseas." His reception in Africa last fall certainly suggests he has a world appeal like no other candidate. In an attempt to add a little military shine, he has enlisted a retired Air Force major general to his campaign who has been crisscrossing Iowa on something called the Obama for Commander in Chief Tour.

Plenty of candidates have won the presidency without foreign-policy experience. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush lacked foreign-policy experience. Even during the Cold War, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were elected. But unlike Obama, these presidents at least had executive experience as governors.

By claiming a special judgment in foreign policy, Obama exposes himself to uncomfortable follow-ups. He made dramatic claims that Clinton's conditional views on negotiating with rogue nations meant her approach was merely "Bush-Cheney light," but Obama had expressed a nearly identical view just before the big spat. He says he wouldn't be afraid to tell leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hard truths face to face. On what past experience will he draw for these high-wire negotiations? What high pressures has he endured to prepare him for the appealing, but risky, diplomacy he promises? Obama supporters are fond of comparing him to John F. Kennedy, but they have forgotten that Kennedy's first meeting with Khruschev didn't go so well and his first foreign-policy adventure, the Bay of Pigs, was a disaster because of the new president's inexperience and naiveté.

Obama also exposes himself politically by focusing too keenly on Clinton's Iraq record in the Senate. His argument is that she was insufficiently questioning of the administration, but despite his prescience as a candidate in 2002, he was hardly an anti-war leader when he got to Washington. His record in the Senate is not consistent with his self-styled campaign image as a bold, transformational leadership voice on Iraq.

The best thing going for Obama in the fight with Clinton over his leadership credentials may be the fight itself. He gets to show that he's combative, self-assured, and not afraid of a confrontation. In fact, he seems to delight in it. Since Clinton is considered a formidable opponent, he's getting the chance to demonstrate toughness to voters that isn't readily apparent from looking at his actual career.

Correction, July 30, 2007: This article originally claimed that Teresa Wolf is Democratic chairwoman of Waterloo County, Iowa. She is Democratic chairwoman of Woodbury County. (Return to the corrected sentence.)

Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
John Dickerson is Slate's chief political correspondent and author of On Her Trail. He can be reached at .
Photograph of Sen. Barack Obama by Charlie Neibergall/AP.
COMMENTS

Remarks from the Fray:

In Spring 2006 I went to a lecture by Lee Hamilton, Vice Chair of the 9\11 commission. While I can't remember his quote word-for-word, when asked about how we were dealing with Iran, he said,

"During the cold war the Soviets were our absolute enemy. We openly called them evil, and we tried to actively undermine them at every turn. We fought wars intended to weaken them. But we never, ever, refused to talk to them. No matter what the rhetoric or international situation, we always kept diplomatic channels open."

Coming from him, I took this to heart. So when I see Obama getting dragged through the mud for saying that he would continue the tradition of keeping diplomatic ties with countries, even though we consider them our enemy, I had to scratch my head. I do think that the "without precondition" caveat in the U-tube question was thrown in with the knowledge that putting conditions on diplomacy is a defining characteristic of this administration. Therefore, I think Obama saying that he would meet with enemies is much like voting "no" on Bush's foreign policy approach - its not a nuanced answer, but televised debates aren't nuanced events, and he's clarified his response a lot since.

Calling anybody Bush-Cheney lite is pretty insulting, but the mudslinging had to start sometime soon. For what its worth, I don't think Clinton really supports the Bush way of doing things - its just a way to play the experience card. Regardless, I'm more committed to the candidate that calls it like it is and acknowledges that dictating terms before even talking to foreign nations has gotten us nowhere.

--jwschmidt

(To reply, click here.)

Today's essay implies that [Obama] has to move heaven and earth simply to catch up to Clinton. Here's why it's not true.

1) Obama's attack on Clinton's Iraq vote isn't narrow, it's everything. Bush relied on insiders instead of his own vision. HRC relied on insiders instead of her own vision. A casual observer would, in the lead up to the war, have had more questions than anyone in our professional leadership caste. Frankly, HRC shares Bush's arrogance with respect to foreign policy and beltway 'establishmentarianism'. Her vote proves it. This isn't a paper issue, it's a fundamental reason why many in this country simply won't vote for HRC no matter what. Shouldn't leaders be punished for folding to the CW when the CW ends up being horribly, horribly wrong?

2) HRC has a ceiling and Obama may not -- with men and independents. She'll also ensure a factional and chippy political debate for the next 8 years.

3) We need a few years off from boomer scions in the White House.

We sit at a moment of tremendous frustration with our government. Hillary is here because she's been spending the last 15 years getting ready for this moment. Obama is here because voters are unbelievably dissatisfied with the current state of affairs.

When the issue is 'corrupt/arrogant/inept insiders' vs 'naive outsiders', resumes don't add up to much. It's just a way of articulating what people already think. Call it a hunch, but when Edwards and Kucinich drop out of the race, do you think their supporters are going to flock to HRC's camp? I doubt it. The Democratic party loyalists are deeply divided. Clinton is going to have to be risky and shake off her intellectual lethargy if she wants to really rid herself of the Obama revolution. She might do it! But she might not.

--Sickday

(To reply, click here.)

(7/30)

What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
TODAY'S DOONESBURY
TODAY'S VIDEO
Back in the summer of '69—in Afghanistan.85/090701_TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on Iraq.22/090701_TC.jpg
Tongue of Newt. 52/DoonesburyPlaceholder.jpg