If Barack Obama heeds the advice to get tough with Hillary Clinton and ends up in the political version of a knife fight -- after having run on the idea of rising above negativity and cheap partisanship -- does he undermine the entire core theory of his campaign?
That's David Brooks' theory, writing in the New York Times today, and I think he has a point.
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has further thoughts:
Obama has coasted on “hope and change” for months, ascending into front-runner status on the basis of personality and platitudes alone. Given the high negatives of his opponent, that’s all he’s really needed, and it took Hillary’s team several weeks to figure that out. Hillary tried besting Obama at New Politics, and no one bought it for a moment. Now she has reverted to type, and hopes to get Obama to follow her.
The virginity analogy is especially apt, for two reasons. One cannot start off practicing New Politics, then start slinging mud, and have any credibility to return to New Politics later. Once that virginity is lost, it’s gone forever — and given some of the reporting from the Rezko scandal, one could wonder whether it existed in the first place. Secondly, the naivete of the Obama campaign falling for Hillary’s ploy bolsters uncertainty whether Obama really has the skills to win a national campaign, at least at the moment.
Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine argues that some of what Clinton has done -- the 3 a.m. ad for example -- is not "attack" but "substantive debate." Fair enough. So then the question boils down to whether Obama can win on substance.
Yes, that is the question, and if Obama want to lead the nation he'll have to answer it persuasively.
Speaking of Obama, did you see this blog entry on Obama supporter Jeffrey Hart and the somewhat bizarre things he has to say about Jews. Is it anti-semitism if they LIKE Jews? Hard to say.
Obama Supporter Jeffrey Hart Misses Jews
Posted by: carnegie | March 09, 2008 at 01:14 AM