David Brooks takes on the "niceness" issue as it relates to Barack Obama. The guy wants a fair race -- I mean (Brooks implies), how naive can you be!
He’s run against negativity and cheap-shot campaigning. He’s claimed that there’s an “awakening” in this country — people “hungry for a different kind of politics.” This message has made him the front-runner. It has brought millions of new voters into politics. It has given him grounds to fend off attacks.
Yeah (we read between the lines), let's see how long he lasts playing the game that way. But even in discussions among Clinton and Obama supporters at the Texas caucuses the other night, there were little shivers of doubt among Clinton supporters when the "tone of the Clinton campaign" issue was brought up. That was usually brushed off as the "Bill factor." But nastiness remains troubling for all. Many Americans want a different kind of politics.
“If I gotta kneecap her,” he said, “I’m not gonna go there.”
Obama isn't just fighting against bad manners and the old politics, he's fighting against the sense of privilege we've all been battling during the eight-plus years of George Bush. "Plus," because Bush's campaign, most of us remember, contained that "privilege" taint. What is it about wives and sons of past presidents that makes them think they are owed a freshly swept, private path to the presidency?
Brooks concludes:
... The real softness of the campaign is not that Obama is a wimp. It’s that he has never explained how this new politics would actually produce bread-and-butter benefits to people in places like Youngstown and Altoona.
If he can’t explain that, he’s going to lose at some point anyway.
The leap of about 20 points for Obama in Ohio and Texas in a period of about six weeks in the run-up to those states' primaries shows he can explain that. Obama went from largely unknown to the impassioned choice of voters in both states -- I think most would agree that it was the Obama phenomenon which has driven the unusually large turnouts. All he has to have is time to go out, get seen, get listened to, and his chances of winning the nomination increase exponentially.
So what about Florida and Michigan? Howard Dean's statement that the rules are the rules makes a whole lot of sense. Fighting that notion are politicians who have a stake in a Hillary win. Still, the issue must be resolved.
“We haven’t ruled out rerunning these contests,” said Harold Ickes, a top adviser to Mrs. Clinton and her chief delegate hunter. “We’ve said we think it should be settled. We believe some configuration could be devised that each party is not happy with but each party is willing to accept.”
That's a cumbersome and costly solution, but it may be the most acceptable one. The Obama campaign's proposition seems more sensible.
David Plouffe, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, floated the idea of allocating the delegates from the two states 50-50, which would erase Mrs. Clinton’s hypothetical advantage and essentially make the two states meaningless in the competitive delegate count. It would, however, allow Michigan and Florida delegates to participate in the national convention.
It may seem unfair, even a cheap shot, to compare the Clinton campaign with the George W. Bush campaign and subsequent presidency. But there are elements of truth in the comparison. Playing by the rules has a much better outcome for a democratic republic than playing by one's own rules.
A lot of us are tired of people most of us run into daily: people with sharp elbows, access to finances from hidden sources, and road rage. Above all, we're fed up with anyone who changes the rules in the middle of the game, from presidents to cell phone service providers to lending agencies to freeway drivers -- to political candidates.
