by Michael Tackett
It must be getting a little claustrophobic in Sen. Barack Obama's Ivory Tower.
He's living in that place where he wants to talk about hope and change and all that good stuff in those speeches that attract people by the tens of thousands.
Sure, some "bitter" people might be "clinging" to their guns and God while Obama keeps clinging to the idea that he can win the Democratic nomination without meeting Sen. Hillary Clinton on the low road.
It's not getting any easier.
Those pesky things we like to call issues--the war in Iraq, the economy, health care--have been sideshows of late in this longest-running of primary campaigns.
When was the last time either Clinton or Obama made a point of a major policy difference?
Maybe there are just not enough hours in the day. Not when you can talk about things that are sure to divide if your goal is to conquer.
And that is the Clinton goal in this race. The math just doesn't work for her in terms of pledged delegates or states won or even the popular vote. So the real play is to destroy the Obama candidacy or to hang in long enough on the chance he destroys it himself.
For some reason, Obama refuses to call Clinton out on, well, Clintonism.
You don't see from Obama, for instance, any reprise of Clinton's speech about being under sniper fire in Bosnia when that clearly was not true.
Look closely at the key elements of her answer to that question from Pennsylvanian Tom Rooney during the debate in Philadelphia:
"Well, Tom, I can tell you that I may be a lot of things, but I'm not dumb. And I wrote about going to Bosnia in my book in 2004. I laid it all out there. And you're right. On a couple of occasions in the last weeks I just said some things that weren't in keeping with what I knew to be the case and what I had written about in my book. And, you know, I'm embarrassed by it. I have apologized for it. I've said it was a mistake ... I have talked about this and written about it. And then, unfortunately, on a few occasions I was not as accurate as I have been in the past ... And I have said that, you know, it just didn't jibe with what I had written about and knew to be the truth."
The brilliance of this answer, truncated here for space and italics added for emphasis, is that Clinton never utters a sound bite that can later be used against her as uttering a knowing lie.
Also, you don't see Obama hammer the Clintons for being Clintons when they now are arguing that vote totals in Michigan and Florida should count.
Here is what former Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle said Sept. 1: "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.
"And we believe the [Democratic National Committee's] rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC-approved nominating calendar."
Not a lot of ambiguity there. All the major candidates agreed to not campaign in Michigan and Florida. But somehow, Clinton still had her name put on the ballot in Michigan and held a "victory" party after the results had been counted in Florida. And now she wants to count the totals in both states to make the case that Obama doesn't have the lead in the popular vote.
You don't even see Obama challenging the former president on playing the "race card," an issue that reached a new level of contortion after Obama and Bill Clinton engaged in a back-and-forth about Jesse Jackson.
In an interview on WHYY radio, Bill Clinton said of the Obama campaign, "I think that they played the race card on me. And we now know from memos on the campaign and everything that they planned to do it all along."
A day later, when Clinton was asked what he meant, he, with legendary finger-wagging, responded, "No, no, no. That's not what I said. You always follow me around and play these little games."
The Clintons are masters of the game for a reason. They are brilliant, focused, and they always know their goal. They know that politics is not a nice business, and they have no problem calibrating tactics to meet the moment.
If they know that rural voters might be the last to feel comfortable voting for an African-American candidate, then Bill Clinton is quite willing to park himself in rural areas and talk about the race card being played on him, with a wink to all those Bubbas whose bias might need a little reinforcement.
Obama's campaign, which has at least a couple of seasoned gunfighters, might be punching walls behind closed doors because these rejoinders are the lowest of low-hanging fruit. But their strategy got them this far, and they seem unlikely to change.
Michael Tackett is the Tribune's Washington Bureau chief.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The process of 'achieving' the top of the Democratic party ticket is stupid.
If they want to keep the caucusing bit--if they don't want to get the big corporate money out of the picture to make Iowa and New Hampshire (better for determining who the front runner of the Republican party ticket) newspapers richer--fine.
But then there needs to be a Democratic party VOTE in a PRIVATE voting booth situation--with ONLY those people who registered and VOTED Democratic in a prior Congressional election say--or, maybe those who volunteered for a political candidate will select just exactly who is the Democratic party candidate.
This time--Repugs and those intimidated seem to have skewed things.
And that mainly has helped Obama. And he knows that.
So for him to not want to make himself available for a debate--to not want to stand up like Kucinich and Edwards and all the others did---is less than impressive.
Ideally--we'll get the big money out of the race and have a one day primary long term.
Why not do it NOW?
Posted by: One Day Vote for Primary | April 27, 2008 8:25 AM
The 'Tone' of the article seems a little over the top for a Senator who does nothing but run from the media, who excludes the journalists he does not approve of from junket, and who lets his bloggers attack those who disagree with his 'uniting' message of 'hope'.
Posted by: inthebagforobama? | April 27, 2008 8:29 AM
Yes, I'm absolutely certain that Bill Clinton visits all those rural cities to play the race card on behalf of his wife. So discerning of you to uncover this dark maneuver. After all, who needs rural Pennsylvania and Ohio during the general election, anyway.
Posted by: Mimi Schaeffer | April 27, 2008 8:37 AM
Mike Tackett asks, rhetorically: "When was the last time either Clinton or Obama made a point of a major policy difference?"
Do reporters every consider that maybe, just maybe, the reason for they don't highlight major policy differences is because there ISN'T any major policy difference between the two?
Posted by: Bruce | April 27, 2008 8:52 AM
He's running from a news media who now feels they will no longer risk being called RACIST for merely VETTING him the way EVERY OTHER candidate he used to have to debate was.
He's not different than any other politician--except Edwards and Kucinich--who did not NEED to accept corporate money to feed the mass media piggy bank.
And then all these fake, 'cultural' liberals say he's better than the woman the hippies got so used to having fetch the rice and beans for them.
Hillary has the issues but not the 'cultural' trappings on the limited checklist of the 'radical' left--radical when it doesn't hurt their pocketbook, that is. It's a PERFORMANCE of left--it's like a 3rd generation Italian American cooking certain dishes or a modern African American cooking certain dishes--it's how to perform culture.
And it's fine. It's just that they're so dogmatic about it.
And Obama plays to it NOW that the non--cultural--the REAL lefties are questioning his pro nuke, pro 'clean' coal, PRO WAR (yes, look it up), PRO USA PATRIOT ACT (yes, look it up) duplicitous positions.
And he's playing to the far left now that he can no longer play the anti-woman card. (Remember how he and Michelle used to look down their noses at Hillary and question her 'tone').
He's also now dodging select journalists.
And ALL journalists and those who say they love free speech must challenge this.
He said amazing statements to the McClatchy reporter before appearing on the Daily Show--and then she was skedaddled off the pool.
This is McCarthyistic tactics.
And, by the way--it's got NOTHING to do with 'Ivory Tower'--Obama's position was part of the massive growth (40%) in academic jobs. This was during a period in which there emerged two strong tracks--the politically connected academics--and those who actually have the proper credentials.
WHERE ARE OBAMA'S TRANSCRIPTS? 30 YEARS OF TAX RETURNS FOR MICHELLE ROBINSON, BARRY SOLETO, MICHELLE OBAMA, BARACK OBAMA? (Oops. That's a question. He likes them preapproved and asked by the nice journalists).
Don't call this political opportunist 'Ivory Tower'--it is insulting to the people who TRULY work with our nation's young folks--without cameras rolling, without a soundtrack.
Posted by: Ivory Tower? | April 27, 2008 9:01 AM
So what was the purpose of putting out this personal attack on Hillary Clinton advertised as an evaluation of Obama? All Obama does is attack Hillary on a personal level, and his fans are there cheering him on with every viscous attack, helping him at every step. Obama is the master of the nonsensical take all sides statement. What did Obama say about Reagan and Obama's own weaknesses? Those were two of the most convoluted statements I have ever heard from a politician. And you wonder why those of us who support Hillary will most likely vote for McCain.
Posted by: poet1b | April 27, 2008 9:07 AM
Ivory Tower or not he is by far the better choice. Hillary is a liar and a whack job. Her ego is out of control and she boarders on CRAZY!!! Quite frankly McCain is not a whole lot better. Obama 2008.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | April 27, 2008 9:16 AM
More posts like this, please, and less of Frank James' bias.
Posted by: Jeff | April 27, 2008 9:30 AM
I see why Paul Krugman has the stature of a New York Times Op-Ed columnist.
He correctly notes in his candid April 25 column, 'Self-Inflicted Confusion': "..But how negative has the Clinton campaign been, really? .... To listen to some pundits, you’d think that ad was practically the same as the famous G.O.P. ad accusing Max Cleland of being weak on national security. It wasn’t. The attacks from the Clinton campaign have been badminton compared with the hardball Republicans will play this fall. If the relatively mild rough and tumble of the Democratic fight has been enough to knock Mr. Obama off his pedestal, what hope did he ever have of staying on it through the general election?"
Now that's independent thinking and solid political analysis.Obama admits in his books that he did not want to stay in the Senate too long because his voting record would reveal where his mouth and actions really intersect, and that he would make enemies. Enemies with whom? Other senators? The national electorate? So it seems he & Axelrod hatched a scheme to try & get him elected before the "Real Obama" became recognizable to the electorate.
Many Edwards & Clinton voters in the early primaries suspected something was afoot. Now, more sightless pundits are whining ‘fowl’ as more of the electorate opens its eyes.
Voting on character issues is as fair play as voting on economic policy. Self-inflicted wounds, indeed. If the dem party brokers stupidly gambled in not ‘vetting’ 46-yr. old, rookie senator Obama, then I’m glad Clinton helped us democratic voters do their work for them. Nonetheless, Nov. 4 around midnight, 2008 will likely go down as the latest example of democrats’ crafty talent to lose presidential elections. An eighth loss out of eleven campaigns will make it hard to deny that democratic voters, pundits and the party brokers have an unusual predilection for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Posted by: Avl Dao | April 27, 2008 9:33 AM
Hey. Whatever it takes to expose Obama for what he is. A radical far left wing want to be politician with unseemly associates that got him this far and now it is back firing...He will never win..A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain. If you want 4 more years of Bush vote for Obama...HRC is our answer..BRING OUR SOLDIERS HOME..
Posted by: kaye m. | April 27, 2008 9:55 AM
Well Mike, Hillary Clinton has given the Messiah a golden opportunity to salvage his empty campaign, to finally raise pertinent issues instead of vague slogans, to call out the differences between him and her. So we're finally going to see an actual debate a la Lincoln v. Douglas, right? With real ideas and real policy positions, right?
[Cue: cricket sound fx]
Posted by: MJ | April 27, 2008 10:31 AM
A Lincoln Douglas style debate---where Alice Palmer steps onto stage and puts the naughty Hawaiian prep boy over her knee! (Finally he'll learn what iit's like to be raised Black!)
I love it!
Obama stepped on Alice Palmer's NECK and now this REAL, LONG-TERM, never SOLD OUT to REZKO to RUIN public housing activist gets to campaign for Hillary.
Ya gotta love it!
Educate yourselves, koolaid drinkers:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403
obama-ballot,1,57567.story
Newspapers are a wonderful thing! Have been for quite a while.
So are Knock-knock jokes.
Knock Knock!
Who's there?
Posted by: Karma! Karma Who? | April 27, 2008 12:15 PM
Since when did ivory towers have basketball courts? It is the media that has been ensconced in ivory towers, having the candidates come to them for their stories! How many debates have the Democrats have, 21. That was 21 times the media didn't have to go out into the hustings and be with the people, the voters. What a bogus topic to present!! Stirring up the pot again, I guess!!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING OUR TROOPS HOME, ALIVE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | April 27, 2008 12:55 PM
Don F--woman hater--who would rather let McCain win than vote for Hillary, the better candidate---
COLLEGE CAMPUSES HAVE PLENTY OF BASKETBALL COURTS.
Hardly a non-elitist game.
But, I digress. Your messiah lied today.
Again.
Wanna hear a REAL problem with truth?
It's Obama's duck of the real, national news media.
Seems like a kid who was raised by a bank vice president, don't it?
There were not 21 debates. Just 4 with the one candidate the news media could not eliminate FOR the junior Senator from IL.
And how'd he get there?
He threw Alice Palmer under the bus.
Read it:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story
Newspapers are a beautiful thing. they help not just with literacy, but with math too.
Posted by: 2 ≠ 4 | April 27, 2008 1:46 PM
If for whatever reason mr obama gets the nod I just wont vote. Go Hillary!
Posted by: brigitte | April 27, 2008 1:52 PM
It so great to communicate with reasonable people and then you have the occasional contributers whose best foot forward, is into their mouth. Who ever told them that name-calling and fanaticism are reasonable responses to something one disagrees with, or dislikes. I hope they can re-think their positions, we are Democrats, who happen to be supporting different candidates. I have absolutely no problem with a woman candidate for President. I just do not think Senator Clinton would be the best Presidential candidate that, as Democrats, we can present, at this time. I have always admired her steadfastness and her loyalty to former President Clinton, during the Republican's assault upon his Presidency. Her contributions to Children's causes and the underprivileged are admirable. No, I do not hate Senator Clinton, and I certainly do not hate women, and it is unfortunate that you found it necessary to make that false charge.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | April 27, 2008 2:43 PM
Don---your comments have consistently been sexist, misogynist, and way off the mark.
That's why you get accused of being in the bag for 'anyone but clinton'==and that doesn't help the
SOLDIERS--they're people, not troops-that word helps them be thought of as less than the individuals they are.
Posted by: just the smart ones, Don? | April 27, 2008 4:15 PM
"Obama keeps clinging to the idea that he can win the Democratic nomination without meeting Sen. Hillary Clinton on the low road."
- M.T.
Not only POSSIBLE, absolutely NECESSARY.
I wrote as much MONTHS ago.
Obama has to have the optimism of Ronald Reagan.
Reagan's cheerfulness was what turned away Carter and Mondale. You don't need to get into the gutter to win.
What's more, Obama getting angry is going to scare a LOT of white folks. Hint, hint...
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | April 27, 2008 4:46 PM
I Know this comes from 'that other paper' but the Trib may have this story elsewhere.
But it's important for obama supporters to read this:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/rezko/2008/04/aiham_alsammarae_and_tony_rezk.html
Dry your tears and get to work to help HRC take back this country from the Repubs
Posted by: It's Okay to Be Sad | April 27, 2008 5:58 PM
Hey. Whatever it takes to expose Obama for what he is. A radical far left wing want to be politician with unseemly associates that got him this far and now it is back firing...He will never win..A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain. If you want 4 more years of Bush vote for Obama...HRC is our answer..BRING OUR SOLDIERS HOME..
Posted by: kaye m. | April 27, 2008 9:55 AM
Earth to Kaye M your girl Hillary voted to SEND our troops there. Wake up!!!
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | April 27, 2008 6:46 PM
Logic Prisoner (that's a great handle for you)--Obama woulda had to do the same if he'd had competition--bush pulled a fast one.
What were they supposed to do--go home to nothing--and get nothing. the country was NUTS then.,
You remind me of the radical weather a*sh***s who ruined the left for us.
Fight smart!
Unlike your indictable messiah--he'll share a cell with blagojevich, daley, kjellander, and others.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/rezko/2008/04/aiham_alsammarae
_and_tony_r
by the way==what did he take on 'vacation' with the little girls in the black muslim from the early 60s dresses?
Posted by: CASH OR DOCUMENTS? | April 27, 2008 8:43 PM
Obama is a weak candidate at best. He could not even beat Bobby Rush - a former Black Panther. Remember, Mr. Obama was the LAST CHOICE of the dems for this senate seat - the others having been disqualified for various reasons. If not for EMIL JONES and the same "MACHINE" that got the "guv" elected, Obama would still be the undistinguished state senator that earned the questionable reputation for voting PRESENT. How fitting that he replaced Carol Mosley Braun - small, crooked shoes to fill for sure. Maybe this is just his karma for throwing a wonderful, dedicated woman like Alice Palmer under the bus.
Posted by: Sweet Polly Purebred | April 28, 2008 10:00 AM
This doesn't matter. Neither McCain or Obama or going to be allowed to take office.
Bush is probably going to declare a State of emergency after he attacks Iran in September anyways.
That way when the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Attack us back ... here is the US ... he can declare Martial Law and stay in office.
His top 1% constituency can than go on making the big money grab ... what ever the market (that's us) will bear ... and then some ... take every penny.
Than the Bushies will have to Deal us with the training and experience ... and they will loose ... badly.
Just watch ... it will happen. The top 1% money interests have to been making too much to just walk away.
Rangers Lead The Way!
Posted by: Ranger r | May 23, 2008 11:29 AM