Running Above Partisanship

by Steve Soto

The NYT runs an interesting analysis today that addresses some of the long-held concerns many of us have had about Obama’s political philosophy and campaign style, namely how a candidate who talks about being above partisan politics can assume the mantle of a party nominee and engage his opponent in a bare-knuckles fight for the presidency. The story shows us that Obama does not shy away from pointing out differences with his rivals, even after he has complimented them for not being stupid, but he attacks their judgment instead. This is evident in his critiques of McCain’s attacks against him on foreign policy, when Obama says simply that McCain is wrong and his real defect is that McCain, like Bush before him, never admits a mistake.

Mr. Obama sets up his political jabs with a to-be-sure-my-opponent-is-not-a-knave disclaimer. He reminds his audiences that Mr. McCain, of Arizona, is a war hero, and he honors his service. (That Mr. Obama’s tone sometimes suggests that Mr. McCain, 71, might have been a Civil War veteran is surely coincidental.)

When a question is raised about Mr. McCain’s recent, incorrect assertion that the number of American troops in Iraq is at “pre-surge levels,” Mr. Obama waves his hand magnanimously. Everyone, he tells listeners, makes a slip of the tongue.

At this point Mr. Obama slips the rhetorical shiv into his rival.

“The problem is that John McCain can’t admit he made a slip, and we’ve seen this movie before,” Mr. Obama told an audience in Great Falls, Mont. “Just like George Bush, John McCain refuses to admit a mistake.”

However, to the candidate and his team, they still refuse to engage in, and abhor partisanship.

Mr. Obama’s advisers argue, gamely if implausibly, that he has not dipped his cup into a partisan well. “I don’t look at it as partisanship,” said Robert Gibbs, Mr. Obama’s communications director. “I look at it as a difference of philosophy.”

Obama wants to be accepted as a nonpartisan political leader, after twenty years of noxious partisanship. It is a large part of his appeal, and yet leaves many cold who yearn for a political reckoning against those who have taken this country astray and engaged in private gain over public interest.

There is also an interesting, if late acknowledgement in this story that while Obama easily connects with the many, Hillary masters the art of connecting on a more personal level. One wonders if a good team can be cobbled together between one who speaks to the masses above partisanship, while another works the trail to make such a connection directly with voters in smaller groups, reminding them that there are real differences between the parties.

You know, a partisan appeal.