At first, it seemed very strange for Clinton to attack Obama for once favoring single-payer health care, but to now pretty much favor the same type of health care plan she does. Here is a video her campaign released making this attack:
Why would Candidate X attack Candidate Y not over a policy disagreement, but for once disagreeing with Candidate X and now agreeing with her? It makes sense as a "flip flop" attack on Candidate Y, but in this case it also highlights how both candidates are against single-payer health care. So, at first, I come away from the video thinking that both Clinton and Obama are inadequate on health care.
The more I thought about it, however, the more brilliant this attack seemed. In addition to the flip-flop charge, the attack is actually a well-designed attempt to keep swing liberals from flocking toward Obama. The ad makes the charge that Obama may seem like this great left-wing progressive, but when push comes to shove he doesn't actually champion the more progressive position. It is precisely the same attack the Clinton campaign has been using against Obama on Iraq. Sure, he may have opposed to the war from the start, but what has Obama done to actually end the war that is any different from Clinton? The same thing applies to health care. Obama may sound all left-wing, but liberals should take note that he isn't any different than Clinton. In other words, the Clinton campaign is attacking Obama for being a paper tiger progressive.
Even though the attack implies that she is also a paper-tiger progressive, there is an ingenious logic behind it. It manages to incorporate a "flip flop" charge, a blurring strategy, and a claim that Obama is not a progressive leader all at once. When combined with partisan rhetoric about defeating the Republican machine, it is, effectively, Clinton's pitch to swing liberals, even though it does not paint her as much of a liberal herself. It effectively forces Obama into a position of having to take real leadership on a progressive issue, or to not appear any different than Clinton to progressives. (more in the extended entry)
Pam Spaulding and John Aravosis both weigh in on the Caldwell/homophobia situation, and note that Obama has handled it much better than he did McLurkin. Meanwhile, it appears Obama is not only walking back his Reagan remarks, he's getting explicitly ideological.
Today Senator Obama responded to their criticisms at his Columbia, South Carolina rally, saying his statements have been mischaracterized - just another Washinton "trick."
"I didn't' say I liked Ronald Reagan's policies," Obama explained. "What I said was that was the kind of working majority we need to form in order to move a progressive agenda forward.
That is not actually true, since Obama didn't say that a working majority is necessary to move a progressive agenda forward. If he had said that he wouldn't have gotten the endorsement of the right-wing paper he was working to secure. Still, this is a step forward. Obama doesn't like ideology, so to hear him rebut claims about Reagan by appealing to it is something of a shift. He probably gets that the Reagan stuff has cost him. Jerome Armstrong points out that he is losing because swing liberals have moved from his camp in Iowa to Clinton's in Nevada (splitting in New Hampshire). This, combined with the decline in percentage of the electorate comprised by the youth vote and his lack of appeal among voters who make up their mind at the last minute, were costly.
Meanwhile, Clinton let loose with a rip-roaring progressive economic discussion, arguing for a stronger government to regulate the economy, lower CEO pay, higher taxes on the wealthy, and massive public investment in a clean energy economy akin to the highway system of the 1950s. Clinton's always had a coded populist streak that women hear very loudly and men do not, but it's coming out very clearly right now.
We'll see if this is a trend on either or both of their parts.
STATE BLOGS
