I’ve heard some talk from the punditocracy that the Democratic presidential candidates have been surprisingly nice to one another so far. Kucinich and Gravel have lashed out at the top tier with angry outbursts, which tend to be ignored, but the more competitive candidates have been getting along fairly well.
I think that initial let’s-all-be-pleasant phase of the primary race is ending. The Clinton-Obama post-debate dust-up, in this sense, is more than just an interesting squabble among the top two candidates; it’s also a turning point. I think the gloves just came off.
I won’t rehash the whole affair — if you’re just joining us, I explained the clash in some detail on Tuesday — but as of last night, it’s still going strong. Clinton started the sparring calling Obama’s diplomacy answer from the debate “irresponsible and frankly naive.” Obama hit back, calling Clinton’s votes on Iraq policy even more “irresponsible and frankly naive.” Then some Clinton aides had a few pointed comments for Obama in various press interviews, prompting Obama to give NBC his sharpest assessment to date last night.
“I think what is irresponsible and naive is to have authorized a war without asking how we were going to get out — and you know I think Senator Clinton hasn’t fully answered that issue.
“The general principle that I was laying out is that we should not be afraid as America to meet with anybody. Now, they may not like what we want to hear — so if I’m talking to the President of Iran, I’m going to inform him that Israel is our stalwart ally, and we are going to do what’s necessary to protect them — that we will not accept a nuclear bomb in Iran, but that doesn’t mean we can’t say that face to face. And obviously, the diplomatic state work has to be done ahead of time. The notion that I was somehow going to be inviting them over for tea next week without having initial envoys meet is ridiculous.
“But the general principle is one that I think Senator Clinton is wrong on — and that is if we are laying out preconditions that prevents us from speaking frankly to these folks, then we are continuing with Bush-Cheney policies, and I am not interested in continuing that.”
Obama went on to compare Clinton’s approach to Bush/Cheney a couple of more times, concluding that he wants to focus on the U.S. reducing ongoing threats. “To fail to do that is the same conventional Washington thinking that led many including Senator Clinton to go ahead with the war without having asked adequate questions.”
Like Greg, I think Obama’s comparison between Clinton’s debate answer and Bush administration policy is excessive — the Obama and Clinton answers really weren’t that different — but his comments generally suggest that the level of animosity between the two campaigns is high, and it probably is going to get worse before it gets better.
Now, a presidential campaign isn’t a game of bean-bags, and after the age of 10, “she started it” no longer sounds compelling, but I think it’s worth noting that this is arguably the third major dust-up between Clinton and Obama — and in each instance, the Clinton campaign instigated the confrontation.
* Way back in February, David Geffen, an Obama supporter, had a few intemperate things to say about Hillary Clinton. The Clinton campaign fired back by criticizing Obama, questioning his sincerity about “changing the tone,” and insisting that Obama should return Geffen’s campaign contributions. Obama responded, Clinton responded to the response, and the whole thing was kind of ugly.
* In April, at the first debate, Obama was asked how he’d respond to a terrorist attack. He said he’d deal with emergency responders first, then gathering intelligence and communicating with our allies, and then finally moving ahead with a military response. Clinton’s campaign suggested Obama’s response reflected a degree of weakness, and pushed the story pretty hard with reporters. Obama didn’t fight back much, other than to defend his approach.
* And now, in July, the two are in full argument mode about who is more naive than the other.
It’s tempting to think Edwards would benefit from a Clinton/Obama fight, but there’s no evidence of that so far. The trend I’m seeing, though, is that Clinton, despite being the frontrunner, seems anxious to take her top competitor down as quickly as possible. It’s a risky strategy — Obama apparently isn’t backing down from a fight. The more Clinton swings, the more Obama swings back.
Who’s winning this fight? Frankly, I have no idea. What do you think?