TIME
Thursday, Feb. 15, 2007
How to Build a Bonfire
By Joe Klein
(snip)
I suspect that Obama's aim is to rebuild the bonfire of Howard Dean's grass-roots campaign, minus the scream. But raging infernos don't just happen. First comes courage. Dean never would have had his bonfire if he hadn't opposed the invasion of Iraq in clear, plain, inspiring English. Even then, Dean had trouble stoking the fire: the campaign was failing long before his fatal Iowa mating call. It had become a campaign cult, too enamored with itself, with too much blabber about the money being raised on the Web and not enough about issues other than Iraq.
Obama is trying to ride the war too, but he's not doing it as well as Dean did. His biggest applause lines are about Iraq. "I opposed the war from the start," he says, which often brings a standing ovation. "A war that never should have been authorized"--a reference to the votes of John Edwards and Hillary Clinton to authorize it--"or fought." And credit is due: he was right. But that was four years ago, and Obama gets into some trouble when he tries to differentiate himself from his opponents on the war now. He says he has the "most specific" plan to end the war, but it is specific only at the back end: he would have all the combat troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. He professes not to know where Clinton stands on how to end the war, and yet less than a year ago, they voted for exactly the same Iraq resolution, a phased withdrawal without a fixed timetable. Both he and Clinton voted against John Kerry's proposal to withdraw all troops by July 2007, for reasons that still sound good today. "What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq," Obama said on the Senate floor last June. "A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field ... insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy." Clinton remains opposed to timetables, but Obama decided to change his position and in January announced the March 2008 date. Aside from that, there isn't much practical difference between Obama and Clinton on the war: both oppose the surge, both support a phased withdrawal, neither of them would cut off funding. And when pressed, Obama concedes that his March 2008 deadline can be "adjusted," depending on events on the ground.
This is hardly a Dean-like stand. But then, there may not be many Dean-like stands to be had this year. Obama readily admits in his stump speech that the Democratic candidates are emphasizing the same issues this time. "Each of us is going to have a health plan," he says, sounding slightly bored. So what does the Senator have to sell? At the Democratic National Committee meeting in Washington a few weeks ago, he said his campaign was going to be more about "hope" than "specifics."
(snip)
To be fair, "hope" is probably Obama's way of saying "leadership." But leadership doesn't come from the grass roots. It is about as "top down" as you can get. It is best demonstrated through courage. And despite all the rhetorical confusion, there were some early signs Obama might not do too badly in that department. At his very first Iowa town meeting, he showed the courage to tell his Democratic audience things it didn't want to hear. Asked if he would cut the Pentagon budget, he said, "Actually, you'll probably see an initial bump in military spending in an Obama Administration" in order to add troops and replace the equipment lost in Iraq. Then he told a teachers' union member that he supported higher pay for teachers but also--the union's anathema--greater accountability. The crowd was silent as he said these things. But there are different sorts of silence, and in this case, they were hanging on his every word. •
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1590439,00.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
