Personal Attacks vs. Disagreement on Issues: Obama and Edwards Know the Difference

“The notion that somehow changing the tone means simply that we let them say whatever they want to say or that there are no disagreements and that we’re all holding hands and singing ‘Kumbaya’ is obviously not what I had in mind and not how I function.“

— Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), New York Times, Sunday, Oct. 28, 2007

“Mr. Obama said Mrs. Clinton had been untruthful or misleading in describing her positions on problems facing the nation.”

— Same article

“You know, most of the people I’ve known in this business, Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, were good people, honest people, and they did what they thought was right. And I hope that I’ll live long enough to see American politics return to vigorous debates where we argue who’s right and wrong, not who’s good and bad.”

— President Bill Clinton, June 14, 2004

* * * * * *

Barack Obama understands the essential distinction President Clinton was making between disagreeing on issues and engaging in personal attack politics. That distinction was an important theme of his inspirational book, The Audacity of Hope, and the early themes of his “politics of hope” campaign speeches.

He knows that the choice is not between “holding hands and singing ‘Kumbaya’ ” versus attacking Sen. Clinton’s integrity — calling her a liar (which is exactly what the word “untruthful” means). That is a bogus set of choices. There is another alternative, as President Clinton put so well, consistent with Sen. Obama’s promise to “turn the page”: “vigorous debates” on the issues, where candidates can disagree agreeably, without demonizing their opponents.

The question is, will Sen. Obama’s — and John Edwards’s — recent focus on attacking Sen. Clinton’s integrity work? What are the political effects of the Oct. 30 Philadelphia debate, in which Sen. Clinton was the focus of their attacks virtually throughout the entire evening?

Egged on by Supporters and Pundits to ‘Go Negative’

Clearly Sen. Obama and former Sen. Edwards have been under a lot of pressure from supporters to “take the gloves off” and “go after Hillary Clinton.” That always happens in campaigns that are not gaining ground or, in the case of John Edwards, actually losing ground. In addition, many national political reporters and especially the TV cable pundits appear to be reveling in the new Obama-Edwards turn to personal attack politics — even egging them on.

Look at the reaction of MSNBC’s Chris Matthews immediately following the Philadelphia debate. He sarcastically implied that New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D), who notably refused to join in the personal attacks on Sen. Clinton during the debate, had done so only because he was angling for the vice presidency. But Gov. Richardson went on to specify what he believed to be his strong issue differences with Sen. Clinton.

The failure of Matthews and his other post-debate panelists to credit Richardson with sticking to the issues should not be that surprising. It would be just as unsurprising that those who attended the Roman Coliseum in ancient times did not come to cheer the gladiators on to debate the issues, but rather, preferred to enjoy watching them try to kill each other.

In the world of political journalists and the TV punditry, it is not that surprising that personal invective and food fights are of greater interest (and produce higher ratings) than serious substantive debates. If not, why would any responsible TV program or host possibly invite Anne Coulter to be a guest?

The Eliot Spitzer Spat — And the Missed Opportunity for Serious Discussion

The main issue that led to the most pointed personal attacks on Sen. Clinton during the debate by Sen. Obama and ex-Sen. Edwards concerned New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s (D) proposal for a limited form of driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.

Sen. Clinton would probably be the first to admit that she could have expressed her position on that proposal more clearly and succinctly. On the other hand, it wasn’t so easy for her to be clear and succinct while being repeatedly interrupted and talked over not only by Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Obama and Edwards, but also by moderator Tim Russert.

Actually, Sen. Clinton’s position, as she tried to explain it during the debate — although it was somewhat garbled amidst all the interruptions — is legitimate, coherent and worthy of serious discussion. She expressed sympathy for governors like Spitzer who, in the face of the failure of the federal government to enact comprehensive immigration reform, tried to address the public safety problem of possibly millions of undocumented drivers without insurance or any safety test requirements.

Spitzer’s proposal for a limited type of driver’s license that cannot be used to board airplanes or for other uses that affect security, made sense, Clinton said, at least as one stopgap method that should be considered in the absence of comprehensive national immigration reform legislation.

But, she said, it is not the preferred solution that she advocates. What she favors, along with Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and a large bipartisan group of members of congress and the Bush administration, is federal legislation that combines strict border security, a system of identification and classification of all illegal aliens, fines for violating U.S. laws, and a process of a challenging pathway in the future to permit illegal immigrants to gain legal status over a significant period of time.

That is her position. It is nuanced. It is not black and white. It requires explaining. The Philadelphia debate, with its contentious atmosphere and contentious moderators, was not exactly the best place and venue to explain this position clearly. But I still believe her position was more than just defensible. To me, at least, it is thoughtful and correct.

Had Messrs. Obama and Edwards taken the time to discuss this difficult issue in a serious manner or criticize it and offer alternatives, it could have been informative for the viewing audience — and constructive for the Democratic Party. But that was not to be. Instead, they chose to attack Sen. Clinton not for lack of clarity but rather, as Mr. Edwards put it with a nasty edge in his voice, intentional “double-talk.”

But What was the Position of Obama and Edwards on the Spitzer Proposal?

Meanwhile, ironically, neither of the debate moderators pressed Sen. Obama or Edwards to explain their positions. Why?

Sen. Obama seemed content to state simplistically that he agreed with giving illegal immigrants driver’s licenses and said nothing more. Neither moderator asked him to explain further or to acknowledge the complexities of this issue.

It reminded me of Sen. Obama’s simple and rather abrupt commitment in a prior debate during the summer to visit personally in his first year as president without preconditions all five dictators of Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, Iran and North Korea. (His post-attempt spin-meisters attempted to depict this answer as a willingness to “negotiate with hostile governments.” No, that is not what he said. He committed to personal visits with all five leaders — in his first year as president — without preconditions.)

Ironically, while Mr. Edwards criticized Sen. Clinton for “double-talk,” he stated no position at all on the issue, and the moderators did not press him to. Talk about double-talk.

Will Personal Attack Politics Work for Sen. Obama?

So back to the opening question: Is Sen. Obama wise in “turning the page” in the negative direction, attacking Sen. Clinton personally, as so many of his supporters and the pundit class have wanted him to?

I submit the answer is no, for at last three reasons rooted in logic and history.

First, Democratic primary voters (not different than Republican ones) historically do not reward the candidate who engages in personal attacks on members of his or her own party during the primaries, attacks they know can be used by the other party against them in the general election.

This is particularly true among today’s Democrats, so many of whom are nearly desperate to re-take the White House, get out of Iraq and restore the checks and balances of constitutional government from the Dick Cheney theorists who believe in the unilateral, “unitary” presidency that is a law unto itself.

Look what happened to John Edwards. He began his campaign with positive, even inspirational themes, of returning the Democratic Party to its progressive roots, to fight for the middle class and the dispossessed.

Then, early on he started to turn more and more negative towards Sen. Clinton, and look what happened. According to monthly polling in Iowa by the nonpartisan polling organization the American Research Group, last March he was virtually tied with Sen. Clinton among likely caucus–goers with 32 percent of the vote. After six months of increasingly negative, even nasty, attacks on Sen. Clinton, in a recent poll of 600 likely Iowa caucus voters taken by ARG between Oct. 26 and 29, Mr. Edwards’s total had dropped more than half, to 15 percent, putting him in third place. (Sen. Clinton led in this poll by 10 percent — 32 percent to 22, over Sen. Obama. Of course, it is way to early, given the fluidity of the Iowa caucus system, for that to offer much confidence for Sen. Clinton.)

Second, past experience shows that Sen. Obama’s personal attacks on Sen. Clinton’s integrity, even if they are believed by some Democrats, are not likely to accrue to his benefit. History teaches us that in a multi-candidate field, the candidate who goes personally negative is more likely to turn voters to another candidate other than himself.

And third, Sen. Obama’s attacks on Sen. Clinton will not deal with the fundamental problem of his candidacy to date: To many people he comes across as inexperienced, at times impulsive and naïve, lacking some quality — call it gravitas or maturity, I don’t know the right word — to be president. And he has yet to spell out a specific set of programs or vision for where he would take the country in the future.

The line delivered by Vice President Walter Mondale in 1984 that ultimately did in former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart, who also claimed to stand for a “new politics,” comes to mind: “Where’s the beef?”

Meanwhile, two facts cannot be disputed:

— As of now, Sen. Clinton is considerably ahead in the polls, nationally and in all states, and defeating all the Republican candidates by comfortable margins.

— Sen. Clinton has focused on positive solutions to America’s major problems — getting out of Iraq, healthcare, education, global warming and energy independence — and on President Bush’s failures, and has refused to attack her opponents personally.

I believe those two facts are related.

It won’t be long, a matter of a few months, when we will know whether Sen. Obama’s and John Edwards’s different strategy of personal attack politics was the wiser one.