After weeks of furious primaries, the Democratic race for the nomination has hit a bit of a lull. Race, gender, and the Spitzer saga knocked both candidates off of their fundamental arguments and a bit out of the news. In one sense, that may be a blessing. These events have given them a brief opportunity to retool their appeal.
For Senator Clinton, not much is required. She's now far enough behind, and growing more so each day, that her only real option is to attack and hope (but that's a bad thing, isn't it?) that she can so shred Obama's character that the superdelegates will vote for her. This seems unlikely to me and a sure route toward burying whatever political future she may have after this campaign. But I'm not her, so who knows what she's really thinking. For Senator Obama, the story is different.
In general, one doesn't want to mess with success. But it strikes me that the changing campaign circumstances, particularly the steadily deteriorating economy, offer the Senator some interesting opportunities. Here's one thought from a humble blogger.
I'd urge the Senator to rework a section of his standard stump speech to emphasize the theme of transparency in government. Sounds boring, right? A rerun of Jimmy Carter in 1976? Well, a bit. But there are ways of making this work, not only as a line of (somewhat) subtle attack on his two rivals, but also as a way to demonstrate his leadership.
In one (but let's hope the only) way, the current recession resembles the Great Depression. For the first time in a long while, the collapse of the financial sector has become the face of our economic troubles. Many other factors, from the prices of basic commodities (energy, food) to income inequality, have played a major role, but if one looks to the headlines, one sees a subprime mortgage crisis morphing into a liquidity crisis morphing into what threatens to be a financial system catastrophe. Much of this has resulted from the continuing (remember Enron?) deregulation of the financial sector and the consequent evolution of such bizarre finanacial instruments that no one feels comfortable assessing value. How do we know what something is actually worth? If we do not know that, why would we loan money or buy companies? This is, in fact, much like the problem that FDR solved with the Securities and Exchange Commission--whose first head was the notorious financial pirate, Joseph P. Kennedy. When asked about that odd appointment, FDR reportedly replied, "Set a thief to catch a thief."
The time has come again to catch the thieves. It seems to me the Senator from Illinois can lay out an argument that runs something like this. Explain the financial meltdown. Attribute it to a lack of oversight. Note that the government itself, from Cheney's energy task force to nearly everything else, refuses to be transparent and encourages, by its example, lying and cheating in other sorts of transactions--especially financial ones. Make a bit of the argument I make above, but do it with Obama's characteristic clarity and eloquence.
Then argue that the Clinton Administration did much of this deregulation, with the enthusiastic support of the First Lady, and neither McCain nor Clinton have exactly been in the forefront of financial reform. In fact, Senator Clinton, in particular, shows all of the same habits of secrecy as President Bush. She refuses to release her tax returns, she refuses to release records of donors to the Clinton Library, she refuses to release even the records of her meetings--just the topics and people!--that she had as First Lady even as she touts her experience in that role as her primary qualification for the presidency. Similarly, Senator McCain has filled his campaign with lobbyists and shows every sign of being as cozy with the financial sector as President Bush. In short, neither one of them can clean up the mess in Washington.
In this way, Obama can link the income tax return, etc. concerns to a larger, public issue. How can Clinton regulate the same people that have given she and her husband millions of dollars? How can McCain regulate the people running his campaign? And without transparency, without a government that the people can hold accountable and a financial sector that the people can trust (and that can trust itself), how are we ever going to get out of this mess? Might be even nicer if Obama could give a major speech on this issue with the Oracle of Omaha sitting in the crowd and offering his support for transparency in government and finance.
Just the humble opinion of the Oratorical Animal. But I suspect that this could be a way to go positive/negative simultaneously and do so in a way that helps now and in the general election. Not a bad move.
I've been saying this for months now... in a campaign where there are very few big policy differences between the candidates, this is a huge one, and one where Obama's record and plans paint a very clear picture and make him clearly the better choice. Reform of government, with a new commitment to transparency, oversight, and ethics, is the beginning of reform of things like health care, energy, etc. - not an optional add-on.
If I'd add anything to this excellent post, it would be an emphasis on the centrality of technology to Obama's open government plan. The ethics/transparency and technology issues sections on his website make it clear how integrated the ideas of open government and open communication technologies are for him - and no less a luminary than IP/tech law genius Lawrence Lessig has endorsed him.
Great insight.
Posted by: James Gilmore | March 16, 2008 at 06:26 PM
Great point, James. If I understood these issues a bit better, then I'd have included them in the original post. But it's clear that Obama's way out in front on these concerns, as the folks over at Obsidian Wings have told me. Isn't Lessig now considering a run for Congress for Santos's seat?
Posted by: oratorical animal | March 17, 2008 at 06:21 AM