|
By John Fortier
|
|
Posted: 09/26/07 07:48 PM [ET] |
After months of rising above all expectations, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) just can’t seem to close the gap with Hillary Clinton. His strengths are finally counterbalanced by his weaknesses, his inexperience, his multiple political personas and his strong opponent, all of which have stopped him dead in his tracks.
In July, Obama offered to sit down for tea with a who’s who of the world’s dictators, and followed it up by suggesting that we might bomb our ally Pakistan to get Osama bin Laden. These comments played into voters’ fears that Obama lacks experience and that he would be thrust onto the world stage without the proper preparation. Mitt Romney had the best line, accusing Obama of having “gone from Dr. Strangelove to Jane Fonda in one week.” But more importantly for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton hit Obama’s softball out of the park. She rightly noted that she would not be used by dictators for propaganda purposes. She portrayed herself as a steady hand at the ship of state. And over and over again, on domestic and foreign policy, she has found ways to emphasize her long history in the political arena. She has even made a virtue out of the failure of her 1993 healthcare plan. When John Edwards carped that Clinton’s new healthcare plan was a copy of his, she brushed his criticism away with the back of her hand — “Been there, done that,” she said, putting Johnny–come-lately Edwards in his place.
In addition to his lack of experience, Obama has become entangled in his two political personae. Until recently, Obama had been able to successfully portray himself as both the most vociferous anti-war candidate and as the apolitical, above-the-fray leader of a new generation. At times he is heir to Howard Dean’s netroots campaign, and at other times he wrings his hands about the partisan bickering in Washington.
These two messages appeal to younger voters who are against the war and more likely to be politically independent than older voters. Often, however, the passion of anti-war activists and the distaste for partisan politics are at odds.
Trying to balance these concerns, Obama played it too cute when he decided to skip last week’s vote condemning MoveOn.org’s ad against Gen. David Petraeus. All of the Democratic candidates for president were in a difficult spot because the ad was grossly unfair, but none of them wanted to irk MoveOn and risk the accusation of being soft in their opposition to the war. Half of the Senate Democrats voted to condemn the ad, but Hillary Clinton voted against the resolution. In a tortured explanation of his missed vote, Obama argued that it is “this kind of political game-playing that makes most Americans cynical about Washington’s ability to solve America’s problems. By not casting a vote, I registered my protest against this empty politics.”
But by trying to have his cake and eat it too, Obama came across as calculating and political, not above politics. Voting on the substance, he should have condemned the ad; voting on the politics, he should have stuck with Clinton and MoveOn.org, but his halfway house did him no good.
Unfortunately for Obama, while he has been having problems, Hillary Clinton has become the candidate of the voters who want change and of those who want experience. Her appeal is back to the future.
The vast majority of polls since Aug. 1 have shown Clinton with 40-something percent and Obama with 20-something. Obama is treading water. His remarkable ascension in Democratic politics has been halted, and unless something changes, all he’ll have is the consolation prize of first runner-up.
Fortier is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. |
