Jon Ralston finds Obama retargeting ‘change’ mantra from GOP foes to Clinton

Sunday, Jan. 13, 2008 | 2 a.m.

Amid Barack Obama’s invocations of JFK and MLK, nestled inside his soaring rhetoric that energized the crowds at the Culinary Union headquarters and Del Sol High School, were words indicating a change of a very different kind.

This election, at least for the moment, is not as much about “bringing jobs to the jobless, hope to the hopeless” or engaging people who “are hungry for a new kind of politics” as it is about Obama putting aside or at least putting in perspective his gauzy idealism and focusing on only one change that matters in the short run: demonizing Hillary Clinton as an impediment to change, as a relic of the past.

You have heard strains of it before. But as the music thrummed through that gym Friday night, the signs bobbing with the beat clearly had a double meaning.

“Change We Can Believe In.” The slogan may seem upbeat and hopeful, but what it signifies now for the Obama campaign is that Clinton is change that can’t be believed and now Obama is not afraid to amplify it. Just listen to what he said and the Illinois senator has an uncanny ability to contrast without seeming to criticize, to thrust deftly like a swordsman with a lightning-quick epee that draws blood before you know a blow has been struck.

For many Democrats, George W. Bush and the Republicans running for president are a “they” to be reviled. But for now and when the political archaeologists excavate this presidential race for clues, they will find the change in the Obama campaign began in Nevada his “they” is Hillary Clinton.

“They say, ‘Obama may have good ideas, he may be inspiring, but he hasn’t been in Washington long enough,’” Obama told the Culinary members. “They want to season and stew me and boil all the hope out of me.”

They. He’s not talking about John McCain. He’s talking about Hillary Clinton.

“The real gamble is having the same old folks doing the same old thing over and over again,” Obama declared a few moments later.

The same old folks. He’s not talking about Mitt Romney. He’s talking about Hillary Clinton.

“I talk about hope a lot,” he said a couple of hours later at the high school. “Some people say, ‘He’s so naive, his head’s in the clouds, he’s a hope-monger.”

Some people. He’s not talking about Rudy Giuliani. He’s talking about Hillary Clinton.

There was more, too. Consider Obama’s offhand ridiculing of that attempt weeks ago by the Clinton campaign to bring up Obama’s childhood ambitions to be president. And you know whom he was referring to when he proximately declared, “I’m not running because I thought somehow this was owed to me or that it was my turn.”

The candidate of the heart is now using his head to directly confront a campaign train that is similarly recasting itself after going off the tracks in Iowa, morphing from The Inevitability Express to The Sensitivity Tour.

The day before Obama was issuing his thinly veiled broadsides, Clinton was emoting in a Las Vegas neighborhood, and people were responding. As he tries to become less real for political reasons, she is trying to become more real for political reasons.

In so doing, though, he will have to confront very real issues about his candidacy that have mostly been overwhelmed by his nonpareil oratorical abilities. When I write that the presidential hopeful was a state senator a state senator! just more than three years ago, it’s hard not to include the exclamation point in that sentence. And when he talks about words mattering, as they do, he also has to confront the reality that deeds and experience do, too.

But more than anything, whatever the Obama phenomenon is, no matter how real it palpably has become at Nevada venues and elsewhere, winning is about more than hope and change.

And in less than a week, in the caucus that could change the course of this race, winning will be as much about grass-roots politics and confrontational, bitter trench warfare. A lawsuit that threatens to undermine the Culinary’s influence for Obama could do more damage to his chances than anything.

That is change Obama cannot afford, but it is now more real than any of his words that resonated Friday.

Jon Ralston hosts the news discussion program “Face to Face With Jon Ralston” on Las Vegas ONE and publishes the daily e-mail newsletter “RalstonFlash.com.” His column for the Las Vegas Sun appears Sunday, Wednesday and Friday. Ralston can be reached at 870-7997 or at ralston@vegas.com.

Discussion: 14 comments so far…

By aw

1/13/08 at 6:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

from the article you state:

"And in less than a week, in the caucus that could change the course of this race, winning will be as much about grass-roots politics and confrontational, bitter trench warfare. A lawsuit that threatens to undermine the Culinary’s influence for Obama could do more damage to his chances than anything."

How exactly can Hillary Clinton say the caucus process is not fair because not everyone can vote and AT THE SAME TIME champion a lawsuit limiting the rights of people to vote (because she was not endorsed by their union)

Hypocritical to say the least --
Disgusting to tell the turth
By slbk

1/13/08 at 6:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Clinton is not championing this lawsuit. She has no comment on it and has nothing to do with it.

Why wouldn't all workers in Nevada be able to chose to vote where they work, by the way, even if they aren't actually working that day, especially if that vote is going to carry more delegates?

It seems a bit undemocratic to me. Give all workers the freedom to vote near work, and it might be fair.
By yardman

1/13/08 at 7:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

So does it really offend you that a black presidential candidate can speak as well or better than an ex-president or ex-presidents' wife? Bill Clinton had less to work with when he ran than Barack Obama.
By aw

1/13/08 at 9:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

slbk

how do you explain the "coincidence" that the lawyer who files the suit on behalf of the teachers' union is also the attorney for the Nevada Clinton campaign?

see headline and link from Wash Post-

"The Nevada State Education Association, some of whose top leaders have individually endorsed Clinton, filed the suit and is using a law firm with close ties to the onetime front-runner, Kummer, Kaempfer, Bonner, Renshaw, and Ferrario. Former congressmen James H. Bilbray (D-Nev.), a lawyer at that firm, has endorsed Clinton and is stumping for her in the Silver State."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail...
By CHernan

1/13/08 at 9:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

When elected President, Bill Clinton had served for one term as the Attorney General of Arkansas and for 6 terms as the Governor of Arkansas for 6 terms. He had been the Chair of the Governors Association. He had balanced budgets, transformed the economy of Arkansas and dramatically improved the educational system (through a commission that was headed by his wife, Hillary Clinton). After becoming President, he took the country from a deficit to a surplus. And he left office with a 65% approval rate, the highest of any post-World War II president.

Barack Obama is a better speaker than Clinton was when he ran for President that is clear. Obama may even become as good as Bill Clinton at governing but no one knows that at this point.

So please don't take on Bill Clinton. President Clinton has proved what he can do. You cannot win that comparison and frankly it doesn't matter.

The race is between Senators Clinton and Obama!!!
By kindacurious

1/13/08 at 9:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Hillary has a knack for manipulating the law and making things smell dirty. She accuses those that don't support her candidacy as being unfair and ties up the system. Can you imagine her doing that to our country?!
By jc6580

1/13/08 at 11:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

I don't see your point, kindacurious. Hillary isn't manipulating or calling people who don't support her "unfair." I believe she's working for change, the same as Obama has - the only difference is, Hillary's done it a lot longer.

I'd rather have a president who knows his or her way around the Oval Office and doesn't have to develop relationships with world leaders, especially after the debacle known as Bush. Hillary has a depth of knowledge Barack doesn't - she does not need a learning curve. Hillary can work with Republicans for real change.
By eades

1/13/08 at 12:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

In the bipartisan battle of "experience" vs. "change," one thing seems clear: There is no shortage of experience in Washington. If Washington experience came in dozens, it would be a dime a dozen. Washington experience is what led us into the foreign and domestic mess we're in today. What we are short of in Washington is fresh ideas and unifying vision. Put a president with these in the White House, and all that Washington experience can be put to work taking America in a new direction. This is why I support Barack Obama for president.
By dailyfare

1/13/08 at 4:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

When I hear people emphasize Obama's oratorial skills, and that's all they talk about, it reminds me of how Dr. King's life has been distilled down to his "I Have A Dream" speech, almost dismissing the years of hard work and sacrifice that came before it.

Obama could have been Mitt Romney, but instead chose to work in the neighborhoods of southside Chicago with citizens struggling to make their lives a little better.

He's a Harvard Law School grad. He's worked 7 years in the Illinois senate, has more elected experience than Hillary Clinton, and knows that, ultimately, nothing gets done unless both sides come to the table and listen to one another. That's real.

He is not Muslim; his home church in Chicago is not radical. Hopefully the voters who are susceptible to internet smears stay home on election day.
By CynicalObserver

1/13/08 at 8:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

"They're drinking the Obama Kool Aide" really sums up what is going on with the huddled masses. They are so dazzled by Obama's rhetorical style that they can't tell you what he is saying.

He could be criticizing Hillary Clinton, George H.W. Bush, or Mother Teresa and the audience would not notice much difference.

I hate analogies to West Wing, but to tell the truth, the really important question is "Who will shape Obama's opinions when he is president?" Who ARE his Leo, Toby and Josh?
By Jade7243

1/13/08 at 8:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Does the fact that Hillary Clinton was First Lady! First Lady for 20 of her exalted 35 years of experience merit an exclamation point, too? Does the fact that her "foreign policy experience" consisted of touristy trips with her husband, USO tours, speeches as "women's events" and similar non-diplomatic venues? That persons closely associated with the so-called diplomatic ventures she was on minimize her involvement, noting her contributions were minimal at best?

Does an exclamation point go with her failed healthcare plan, the continuing Bush vetoes of S-CHIP, her Iraq war "use of force" resolution vote, her non-binding Iranian revolutionary guard terrorist" vote, her Patriot act vote, her war funding vote? Should we raise our eyebrows at her assertion -- and that of her husband -- that they were ALWAYS!!!! against the war from from the start? Should we question her support of GLBT issues when she and her husband brought us the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask Don't Tell? Should we furrow our brows with worry when we remember all the "-gates" that were attendent to her tenure in the White House? Should we overlook -- as we all did in 1992 -- the telltale signs of prevarication and triangulation, of shading the truth or just downright lying? Should we hesitate and catch our breaths when she turns on the faux-black accent, or chows down on guacamole and chips? Do we not consider the $70 million dollars we spent last time around to have her end up "the most vetted! the most investigated! and the most innocent!" (her words, not mine) candidate of all time? Are we to ignore the chill that runs down our spines when we catch her mid-lie, mid-sentence, and watch her turn on a dime and reverse her position as she did in Philly? Should we not be a little cynical when she claims she is piled on (and makes a commerical to prove it) and piled on again (and sends her husband out to defend her honor) and delivers just enough waterworks that we see the tears welling, but she maintains just the right amount of control to go immediately on the attack in one breath?
By Jade7243

1/13/08 at 8:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

PART II -
Are you subscribing to the notion that time spent not in Washington doesn't count? That a candidate's resume of pushing for a moratorium on the death penalty in Illinois doesn't count? That ethics reform in Washington -- sitting down or standing up -- doesn't matter (when Bill and Hillary own supporters moved on to cushy lobbying jobs too, post 2001)? That being elected and elected and elected to the Illinois state senate should be denigrated as a part-time job?

Now forgive me for being cynical -- as an avid Obama supporter I know I need to throw the old ways of thinking overboard -- but the Constitution provides for only two requirements to be elected: natural-born citizenship and at least 35 years of age. There is no requirement for "experience." On-the-job training has been good enough for some of our presidents under the most trying times. A lack of Washington experience did seem to hurt Dwight David Eisenhower all that much. Foreign policy wasn't the strong suit of William Jefferson Clinton. Herbert Hoover clearly didn't have economics as his strong suit, and if it wasn't for that pesky stock market crash...

My point is we have plenty of folks with high-powered resumes and "experience" in Washington or willing to go to Washington. What we lacked in the White House recently is someone who has a brain and knows how to use it (Bill Clinton. included... he seemed to always be thinking with that other "brain" -- the one that got him in so much trouble). We don't need someone who is pre-occupied with his legacy and getting re-elected from day one. And we certainly don't need a husband and wife "team presidency" and a continuation of dynastical politics -- no more Bush Clinton Clinton Bush Bush Clinton.

It's time to get out the box we're in, not just think out of the box. And to me the only way to do that is elect someone who breaks stranglehold a certain class and generation of people have had on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
By Jade7243

1/13/08 at 8:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Should have been: A lack of Washington experience didn't seem to hurt Dwight David Eisenhower all that much.
By Si_Se_Puede

1/14/08 at 5:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

not as much about “bringing jobs to the jobless, hope to the hopeless”? Are you kidding me?

In Iowa, we had David Yepsen who lost crediblity after Obama won Iowa. In Nevda, we have another weird character in the name of Jon Ralston, who will also lose credibility and will be forgotten after Obama wins Nevada.

But we all remember visionaries like Rheka Basu and Ann Selzer who saw what everyone else in Iowa couldn't see.

« Previous Ten Next Ten »

Live chat: Tuesday, noon PST; Chat with Krista Creelman; Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question