Obama Test Markets His "Bold" New Aggressiveness

Could there be anything less inspiring than a candidate who "tests" his plan to muscle-up a listless campaign by inviting in New York Times political reporters to vet his new "aggressiveness"?

Let's be clear that Barack Obama needs to take a tougher tack in what has turned into a decidely uphill challenge to Hillary Clinton's front-runner status in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Obama's recent speeches have been tiresome. Traveling with him earlier this month, I heard people in the crowds making concerned comparisons with John Kerry.

The freshman senator from Illinois knows he must begin distinguishing himself from the junior senator from New York. He did so, tentatively, in the interview that formed the basis for a front-page interview in Sunday's Times.

But let's ask ourselves this: How inspiring is it for Obama to "test-drive" his new aggressiveness to see if it passes muster with Sunday-morning pundits? Like the Bush administration, which leaks policy proposal in order to measure reactions, Obama is sampling sentiments before actually going on the attack.

The headline of the Times piece confirmed the calculation: "Obama Promises a Forceful Stand Against Clinton."

That's embarrassing.

It's too late for promises. Obama's down by double digits nationally and in most early caucus and primary states. The clock on this ridiculously front-loaded race is running out fast.

If Obama wants to tackle Clinton, he should do it -- boldly, publicly and without looking back. Let him say that the United States ought not have dynastic leadership with Bushes and Clintons trading the presidency back and forth. Let him spell out how he is different not just from Hillary Clinton and George Bush but also from Bill Clinton and George Herbert Walker Bush. Obama can, and should, run as the first candidate of the 21st century. It's a good message; arguably the only one that will genuinely distinguish him from Clinton and Clintonism. But it must be delivered without playing insider games that suggest uncertainty and caution -- like test-marketing in the Sunday Times.

Comments (19)

1. His campaign has highlighted his lack of experience and his empty suit stature at this point...the fact remains Hillary is eating him for lunch 1 piece at a time,without chewing...and there isn't much left.

   Posted by JoMa at 10/28/2007 @ 10:59am

2. However, if he chews at her too hard frm behind, she may ban him from future power positions in the party....kind like the old Soviet pictures of parade reviews when it is noticed that some leaders of sorts simply "missed" the, ah, photo op...forever.

   Posted by JoMa at 10/28/2007 @ 11:05am

3. Besides, Hillary always was the 08 candidate...Richardson should be prepared for second bannana seat...that is all that is left to do with the dems....it has been over for years.

   Posted by JoMa at 10/28/2007 @ 11:08am

4. he needs to hit her hard on

   1. the dynastic thing

   2. her stupid vote on the iraq war

   3. her susequent support of the bush presidency

   4. her donors and political bedfellows

   5. her pandering nature

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/28/2007 @ 11:24am

5. "It ain't necessarily so," the old song goes.

   What short memories you all have. Just four short years ago, Howard way ahead in the polls, flamed out in Iowa. And what about Dick Gephardt? Go negative in Iowa and go home.

   Obama isn't "test-driving" his message, as Mr. Nichols suggests. Unlike Mrs. Bill Clinton, who doesn't pass gas without first passing it by pollster Mark Penn. Joma should read the scathing, stomach-churning piece right here in The Nation on the Clintons' very dirty money. If Norman Hsu's "bundling" gives pause, then Terry McAuliffe's "machinations" will make you retch.

   Perhaps Nichols should go to or find a direct source in Iowa and New Hampshire who can give him the real story of what is happening on the ground, as opposed to what he "hears" or "reads" in Times.

   Nichols and Joma -- like so many gullible voters -- mistake Hillary's triangulations for real substance. Mistakes her poll-driven pronouncements for positions. Mistakes her flip-flops for ideals.

   Sen. Obama is making his move at exactly the right time and in the right way. He's got my vote!

   Posted by jade7243 at 10/28/2007 @ 11:27am

6. "It's too late for promises. Obama's down by double digits nationally and in most early caucus and primary states."

   Your data is grossly inaccurate. But, perhaps you are okay with that.

   Double digits nationally, yes, but in early state caucuses he is either leading (as when earlier this month he took a four to eight point lead in Iowa that was vastly under-reported) or he is neck-and-neck with the quasi-incumbent.

   Second, among voters who know ALL the candidates, Obama leads by double digits - 15%.

   I sincerely hope you and your colleagues are watching YOUR role in the "staggering," "unstoppable," "double-digit" lead nationally. If I were ignorant and had not done my research - based on what you and others lazily report - I would vote for Clinton, too! (Yuck!) By the way, Newsweek is or the New York Times are much better sources for old school intelligent unbiased stories. (FYI - I don't work for President Barack Obama or any journalistic media company. In the last 15 years I have voted for Republicans, Independents and Democrats.)

   AA

   Posted by Alakoye1 at 10/28/2007 @ 1:14pm

7. plus i would hazard to guess that less who claim in polls to support hrc will vote in primaries than those who claim will vote for others. because she has succeeded in selling herself as the already decided dem chosen, i think she is most likely to get the nod in polls from semi know nuthins who are as likely to sit on their asses come primary day as they are to switch over to whoever wins the first few primaries...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/28/2007 @ 2:19pm

8. Obama is doing A LOT more than test marketing. He is making the case that he has "better judgment" on the important issues of the day, and certainly Hillary's "poor judgment" on giving George Bush a blank check on war with Iraq and now war with Iran will not be lost on the American primary voter come January.

   He also is making an effective case for being the only leading candidate that can finally get us out of this political corruption mess that led to the Kyl-Lieberman resolution being passed even though 94% of Americans OPPOSE an invasion of Iran. Hillary is "TOO TIED TO SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS" that believe American government is supposed to serve their interests and not the interests of the majority of Americans.

   There are huge majorities (70-80%) in both political parties that are tired of this kind of political corruption, and Obama has the freer hand to change they system so that it functions like a democracy.

   And finally, Obama is making the case that he can unite the country that has been bitterly divided during the Clinton/Bush and era by turning the page on the "RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY THEORIES" of the Clintons with a new kind of inclusive politics that appeals to both Democrats and Republicans.

   Posted by Metteyya at 10/28/2007 @ 2:50pm

9. Remember when Obama was "something new"...not the same ol' poll-tested politics...and going to bring a NEW politics, and not the old partisan attack-style confrontations?

   Well...that didn't work. So now he has to EAT all those claims to "not being negative" and "new kind of politics" and get dirty if he wants to take down Her Majesty.

   If he can ride out calls of hypocrisy, it's about all he can do, to do it.

   Posted by Mask at 10/28/2007 @ 4:07pm

10. Posted by MASK 10/28/2007 @ 4:07pm

    still time for re-invention. he's being most maligned here at the nation, but "out there" in adult add non nation-land...who knows?

    but its time to attack, and lord knows i think there's plenty to attack.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/28/2007 @ 4:21pm

11. So now he has to EAT all those claims to "not being negative" and "new kind of politics" and get dirty if he wants to take down Her Majesty.

    You are wrong on this one, Mask!

    Obama can distinguish himself from Clinton by highlighting her poor judgment on the important issues, her coziness to special interest groups that have corrupted the democratic process, and her polarizing "us vs. them" view of politics, without going "negative" in a personal sense.

    I don't think you would ever hear Obama, for example, question Hillary's personal ethics and morals for not divorcing Bill for infidelity because of her own political ambitions. This sort of attack would be too personal and would portray her as no different than the gold-digger wife who hangs onto a failed marriage for money.

    Posted by Metteyya at 10/28/2007 @ 4:21pm

12. Nation Magazine to Obama: Make your symbolic gestures this way, not that way.

    IMO, blocking the Von Spakovsky FEC confirmation is pretty bold, and fairly thankless...unless the Nation would like to interrupt its nonstop demands for Inspiration to praise an actual legislative action taken to protect the civil rights of millions of Americans and the integrity of the civil service and federal elections.

    Posted by RLawrence at 10/28/2007 @ 5:54pm

13. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/28/2007 @ 4:21pm

    He built an early, but problematic campaign.

    By claiming that he would "bring a new tone" or whatever, he set himself up GREAT...if he had been tied or better with Hillary (or even Edwards).

    But by claiming he would be "clean and positive" early, now that he's lagging (and NEEDS to go negative to bring her down)...he looks like a hypocrite, ESPECIALLY since he wasn't attacking Hillary earlier, when he looked like a rising star...but is doing it NOW when he's 20% down in most states.

    Posted by Mask at 10/28/2007 @ 8:14pm

14. Will he be boldly against merit pay for teachers?

    Aggressively against nuclear power?

    I thought not.

    Back to John Edwards, then.

    Posted by neaguy at 10/28/2007 @ 9:00pm

15. IBBLE,

    My condolence to the Gamecock family for the Beach house tragedy!

    Posted by Happy at 10/28/2007 @ 11:25pm

16. I agree with FRANKGRITS, it's the wrong strategy for Obama to take. Clinton's got more than just poll numbers; she has substantial goodwill in the base. The "I'm not Clinton" approach is not going to win over those who are comfortable with Clinton - especially those who really are looking for a positive campaign.

    Though he clearly has charisma I haven't yet seen the real substance that I'm looking for in Obama for a 2009 President (either in debates or in official campaign materials), so I wrote to the campaign a couple of weeks ago and invited them to make the case to me (without bashing any other candidates). I didn't get a reply - they just added me to their mailing list. In contrast I've gotten phone calls and personal e-mails from Hillary's campaign.

    I'm left without much confidence in the real "grassrootsiness" of the Obama campaign. There's more broken here than a calculated stand against another candidate will fix.

    Posted by ccorbell at 10/29/2007 @ 2:36pm

17. I didn't like Bill Clinton, and I don't like Hillary Clinton either. They are both republican lite. Both are in thrall to large corporate interests from everything I've read about them. Ms. Clinton is a warmonger, shill to the insurance industry, and divorced from the needs of the average American. Think NAFTA, her current health insurance proposals, her votes in favor of the invasion of Iraq, and her drum banging about Iran.

    She might roll back some of the tax cuts for the wealthy, but I have no confidence that industry-friendly, environmentally unsound legislation, "unitary executive" trends, or escalated war promotion will be turned around by a Clinton presidency.

    Eugene Debs said "I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don't want and get it." I don't want Hillary Clinton, and I won't vote for her no matter who she is against on the ballot.

    In 1996 and in 2000, I voted for Nader. (And my little Nader vote in West Virginia did not hand the election to Bush - it wouldn't have mattered even if I were in Florida because the Republicans were determined to ensure a Bush victory. Period.) But in spite of my better judgement, I voted for Kerry in 2004. You can see how much good that did. Voter fraud in Ohio instead of Florida (because lightening striking in the same place twice might have caused a stir) made Bush the non-elected resident of the White House for the second time.

    I will never, ever make that mistake again. I like Kucinich, I like his message, I like his vision of America. And if he is not on the ballot, I will write him in. I will never vote for what I don't want in the hope that I can prevent something I want even less. To repeat a cliche, "the lesser of evil is still evil." I won't be part of it.

    Posted by LeeAnnG at 10/29/2007 @ 3:34pm

18. Nichols is right. Obama's whole political career has been like a movie promo. You'll laugh! You'll cry! You'll see a new kind of politics! Enough promises. It's time to deliver.

    Posted by Binkley at 10/29/2007 @ 5:43pm

19. Obama is simply not tough or experienced enough to win. Hillary knows how to fight and win. Those who say there is no difference between Hillary and the Republicans are the same individuals who said there was no difference between Gore and Bush. They voted for Nader and look where we are. It is time to rally around the strongest candidate and stop eating our own Democrats. Hillary will make a great president.

    Posted by DrA at 10/29/2007 @ 9:14pm