This is not entirely new language from Obama, and as an attack it is actually kind of tame (at least ocmpared to "Bush-Cheney light"). However, it is new that he is using it to overtly differentiate himself from Hillary Clinton:
"I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can," Obama said. "I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be running."(…)
"Her argument is going to be that 'I'm the experienced Washington hand,' and my argument is going to be that we need to change the ways of Washington," he said. "That's going to be a good choice for the American people."
Saying that Bill Clinton's presidency was good for America, he added: "The question is, moving forward, looking towards the future, is it sufficient just to change political parties, or do we need a more fundamental change in how business is done in Washington . . .? Do we need to break out of some of the ideological battles that we fought during the '90s that were really extensions of battles we fought since the '60s?"
Obama never used the term "polarizing" to describe Clinton but made it clear he has studied polls that show that many people have an unfavorable opinion of her. "I don't think there is anybody in this race who's able to bring new people into the process and break out of some of the ideological gridlock that we have as effectively as I can," he said.
There is quite a bit to unpack here.
First, there is a reference to Clinton's high unfavorables, which is basically an electability argument. (Update: some have argued that this is not an electability argument, but instead an argument about passing legislation once elected. That is possible--Chris) I think we all knew this would be used against Clinton from one campaign or another, probably either Obama or Edwards, at some point. Electability has almost always played a major role in virtually all Democratic primary campaigns for some time, even though I certainly haven't seen much of it floating around so far in 2008 (except as a "coattails" argument). What is perhaps most interesting about Obama's "attack" is how he tries to soft-pedal and tip-toe around the issue with several qualifiers, including the notion that Clinton's higher unfavorables are the result of unfair attacks from the right. I wonder how much of this is fear of angering the base for attacking Clinton, worries that the last attack on Clinton did not go well for the Obama campaign, and trying to stay on his campaign message of "a different type of politics." It is probably a combination of all three.
Second, there is a strange "meta" moment where Obama repeats the media and campaign narratives so far. This is part of a growing trend where candidates, especially Democratic candidates, want to be media pundits, for some reason. (I think Biden and McCain are a good examples of candidates who want to be pundits really badly.) I don't think it is particularly appealing to voters, and Obama would be better off staying away from the meta campaign talk when he is actually the candidate.
Third, there is an interesting, generational jab at the 1960's: "do we need to break out of some of the ideological battles that we fought during the '90s that were really extensions of battles we fought since the '60s." This is a direct appeal to younger Gen X, Gen Y, and Millennial Voters, not to mention to differentiate himself from Clinton (Clinton = 1990's in this formula). I have to admit, it is appealing to me because, as I wrote last year, I am so sick of American politics being fought over issues that took place before I was born using cultural references to events that happened before I was born (which basically was politics in the 1990's). However, it is important to remember that the primary and caucus electorate is older than the general election electorate, so a direct generational appeal might be dangerous territory. But I still like it, because it is appealing to me. :)
Fourth, Obama uses the term "ideological gridlock" in a way that is less progressive than his more recent "post-partisan" rhetoric, including "a more fundamental change in how business is done in Washington." However it was intended, "ideological gridlock" sounds very centrist, and very non-partisan. This, I think, presents a huge opening for the Clinton campaign. Instead of talking about ideological gridlock and post-partisanship, Clinton could emphasize her progressivism and Democratic partisanship, and actually come at Obama from the left. She has done a decent job so far with labeling herself a progressive, but I think if she really wanted to hit back at Obama over this, it would be the perfect moment to emphasize that she self-identifies as a progressive. It would also be a good moment to start emphasizing that she is a Democrat since, as Matt points out, neither she nor Obama did so in their first Iowa ads.
Certainly an interesting development, even if I don't think these messages from Obama will work very well if employed broadly. Still, Obama is clearly going to be the initiator of these attempted moments of differentiation, since he is currently in second place in most polls. He has to do something. Due to her lead, Clinton can instead focus on differentiating herself from Bush and Republicans, which puts her in a stronger rhetorical position. It won't be easy for Obama to break out of his current position, but he is trying to find ways to do so.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
