Black Box Report

Barack Obama has his work cut out for him.

Running a distant second in a seemingly static race, Obama is trying anything and everything to close the gap and present himself as a more viable option than his senate colleague, and that includes claiming to be better suited to unifying the divided country than Clinton. At Swampland, Joe Klein agrees:

I thought he was pretty sane and judicious about the differences between him and Hillary Clinton--and was surprised by the toxic reaction from the Clinton campaign… Saying that Clinton is experienced, but brings a lot of 90s baggage with her, is not attack politics. It is simple truth.

And Klein should know, having helped heap that baggage onto the Clintons in the '90's...and more recently. But the issue of Clinton's electability is real, especialy given her high unfavorables, the highest of any Dem candidate. There's still a lot of stiff resistance to Clinton, even on the left (or maybe especially on the left):

The problem with Hillary, besides her power lust, is her baggage and people's very well defined preconceptions about her. The fact is that an extremely large number of people in this country simply hate Hillary as a person and as a politician and those people are well organized.

"...very well defined preconceptions about her." Well, far be it from me to suggest that, when choosing the leader of the nation, someone endeavor to go beyond their very well defined preconceptions, examine them and the candidate with an open mind, and see if maybe some of those preconceptions aren't, y'know, utter hogwash. I know it's easier to reinforce a narrative that one has spent years clinging to, but, sheesh...Don't do the opposition's work for them.

And speaking of which...

The last thing we need, at a point where the Democrats can establish a decisive margin of political power, is somebody out to unify the country. I fear that Senator Obama is turning into the DLC candidate, in all but name.

And then there's...

That's the reason Obama is running? In order to "bring new people into the process and break out of some of the ideological gridlock?"

Not so he can end the war in Iraq, address global warming, provide healthcare to all, reduce income inequalities, address global poverty and HIV/AIDS and other global healthcare crises, create a viable system of public transit, deliver quality education to kids, ensure income security for retirees, and create good jobs and stem offshoring? Not even to end corporate lobbyist control over Washington?...

Just to bring the country together?......

...If you don't run on a substantive progressive program as your core message, you won't deliver one.

Or biofuels? What about biofuels?

I understand that, with the early promise of the empty slate that was Barack Obama, some people may be getting antsy that he's not turning out to be exactly the candidate they wanted him to be. Obama has addressed healthcare, poverty, HIV/AIDS...I think I might have heard him say a thing or two about Iraq, I'm not sure....But because he's not wonky enough for some, he's an empty suit?

Dukakis? That's low.

I understand the instinctive recoil to anything that smacks of DC-brand "centrism," but Obama talking about bringing a divided country together does not automatically qualify. Obama is just doing what Hillary has been doing of late - speaking past the Democratic field and addressing general election voters. If he's not using the precise talking points you'd like him to - get over it. Taking a hit off the Karl Rove crack pipe is NOT what Democrats need right now.

Besides, while even Obama concedes that that most of Clinton's preconceptions and baggage was from unfair Republican attacks, Needlenose (fairly, I think) awards him the August 2007 Captain Renault Award for Feigned Ignorance:

Does Obama really believe that if nominated, he won't be the target of "some pretty unfair attacks" by the Republicans designed to make him a polarizing figure and an object of partisan scorn? Of course he doesn't.

Has Obama forgotten that Bill Clinton himself ran as an anti-ideological, anti-partisan candidate (criticizing the "false choices" of existing policy debates), and that the divisions during his presidency stemmed not from a failure to reach across partisan lines, but from a solid wall of Republican opposition created purely for the sake of denying him success? Of course he hasn't.

In fact, he seems to think that copying Clinton's 1992 approach is a pretty good idea, as long as he pretends not to remember what happened in 1993 and 1994.

Just as long as he doesn't promise "to be a uniter, not a divider."

We know how well that worked out last time.