Politics

Staid Obama Lets Hillary Run Out the Clock

Getty Images

If polls showed Barack Obama 23 points ahead of Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, then he would have been the easy winner of Wednesday’s latest Democratic debate and we’d all be wondering why Mrs. Clinton was so reluctant to engage the front-runner.

But it is Mrs. Clinton who has the big lead, both in New Hampshire and nationally, and so it is Mrs. Clinton who scored—yet again—by sticking to the front-runner’s script in the debate last night at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. For his part, Mr. Obama passed, yet again, on a high-profile chance to fuel his second-place candidacy with a badly needed sense of urgency.

NBC’s Tim Russert, eschewing the lengthy introductory remarks that previous moderators have offered, began the questioning immediately at the top of the broadcast, asking Mr. Obama whether he would guarantee that no U.S. troops would be in Iraq at the end of his first term, more than five years from now.

In responding, Mr. Obama had two choices: He could use the question to call attention to Mrs. Clinton’s vulnerabilities within the Democratic Party on Iraq and to challenge her deceptive and self-serving claim that she didn’t believe she was actually okaying a war when she voted to authorize the use of force back in 2002. Or he could kill the clock.

As he consistently does in these settings, he chose the latter.

After a harmless and perfunctory allusion to his differences with Mrs. Clinton over the ’02 vote—“Had my judgment prevailed in 2002, we wouldn’t be in this predicament,” he said softly—Mr. Obama then listed the various reasons he’d like to guarantee a complete withdrawal by 2013 but would nonetheless be unable to make such a pledge.

Then it was Mrs. Clinton’s turn, and—minus the passing reference to the war vote in ‘02—she gave the same basic answer, even noting at the outset her general agreement with Mr. Obama.

As the undisputed front-runner—a recent poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire showed that she now has the support of 43 percent of likely Democratic primary voters in the state—Mrs. Clinton can only benefit from the willingness of her rivals to be as cautious and “presidential” as she is—and as Mr. Obama was last night. The 20 percent who now support him may have found his performance reassuring, but it offered no compelling reason for undecided voters to think that he could win the nomination.

The pattern persisted for most of the night.

Mr. Russert’s second question focused on Israel and Iran, asking whether Israel might be justified in taking military action if it determines that a nuclear-armed Iran represents a direct threat to its national security.

Given the first response, Mrs. Clinton immediately challenged the premise of the question, citing her previously established refusal to address “hypotheticals.” Seemingly prepared for such evasion, Mr. Russert promptly challenged her categorization, noting that Israel seemed to use similar logic to justify a recent military incursion into Syrian airspace. At least it sounded as if this is what Mr. Russert was saying, although it was tough to tell since Mrs. Clinton refused to yield the floor and talked right over him. Finally, after a lengthy filibuster, Mr. Russert succeeded in putting her on the spot, at which point Mrs. Clinton declared that she simply wouldn’t answer the question.

The exchange could have been damaging for Mrs. Clinton—if Mr. Obama, who was given the same question after her, seized the opportunity to say something, anything, definitive. Once again, he took a pass:

“Iran is in a stronger position now than it was before the Iraq war because the Congress authorized the President to go in, and so it indicates the degree to which before we launch attacks or make judgments of this sort that…” And on and on he went with a rambling and utterly soporific dissertation, assuming the bloodless demeanor of the college professor he once was. Only at the very end—after Mr. Russert interrupted him in an effort to pry something specific and intelligible out of him—did Mr. Obama mention that “one of the things that we need to try is to talk directly to Iran.” Next Page >

  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Facebook
  • Stumble Upon
  • Netvibes
  • Windows Live

Comments
Post a comment

martin baker (not verified) says:

for God's sake go after the bitch....i am a democrat and

ourpolls show a real problem for her to get elected....we

do no want her again....step up to the plate, and stop letting

her say anything.....you can win this.....if you are not

going to try stop taking donations. The base does not

want her or the rapist in the W.H.

Obama if you are not going to run a race get out now and

stop playing games. A lot of people have supported you

and given you a lot of money , and it was not to give

Hillary a free pass, and run her mouth all over the

country with lie after lie....wake up or get out now.

BObama supporter (not verified) says:

i have to agree, if not with so many words! what gives....???One can take a more assertive and aggressive stance without making it become a low-class, dirty, smearing and desperate looking campaign. If Mr. Obama would just address the facts, the dirt will fall where it belongs. I realize he has taken an approach to avoid dirty politics, but that should not include taking a passive and gentler approach to gathering support and eventual votes when one needs to make and shake the status quo into a realization of just what another 4-8 years of Clintonism will mean for this country! The sleeping masses must be awoken out of their complacent stupor of accepting and condoning "biz as usual" as "major change never takes place except in a time of crisis" A. Lincoln

Please take up the torch of exposing the crisis we face at this critical point in our country's direction for both those at home and around the world!

And, I wish Mr. Obama would come out and address the Muslim thing, as just because he has a parent of that religion is being confused with his current Christianity and the rumor that he has sworn on the Koran!?!?! Please put an end to this fallacy because I am tired of hearing people say, "Obama? But he is a Muslim!!!?" and all the implied generalized negative values that rascist connotation has nowadays!

I hope to see a turn around in the policies of the Obama campaign as this is crucial to his success, AND hopefully will stop that horrid laugh of Ms Clinton in its tracks!

Jay Kei. (not verified) says:

Barack Obama thinks, and rightly so, this Muslim thing is STUPID! He is Christian and has endeavoured to make that so.

I opine the "slash and burn" debate is a delicate one. If he participates, he turns off many female voters. If he doesn't, other candidates walk away without due diligence. I'm sure his campaign is up on the pros vis-a-vis the cons.

Post a comment

The content of this field is kept private
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><br> <p> <i> <b> <embed> <img> <blockquote> <span> <strikethrough> <u>
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

By checking this box you are giving permission for Observer staff to contact you to obtain contact information and permissions required for publication.