HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON vs. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA:

NO KNOCKOUT IN THIS BOXING MATCH YET - February 15, 2008
 

       
It’s a heavyweight political boxing match and no winner yet between Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Hussein Obama. While more recent US presidential primary contests have ended early with one big knockout, this political fight has both candidates still punching and dancing. She has the Democratic Party establishment. He has captured the imagination of young and independent voters. It is George Foreman hitting hard and Muhammad Ali countering. The contest for the Democratic Party nomination is likely to continue for at least another month, Ohio and Texas on March 4th or even Pennsylvania in April, but even if Hillary still appears to be the champion going into the fight, he has the momentum now entering the last rounds . Senator John McCain is assured of the Republican nomination, except for the unforeseen, and waits for the title bout.

The Obama phenomena and the Clinton muscle have been borne out by the previous primaries. Over half of the delegates to the Democratic Convention have now been elected or pledged, but this political brawl is long from being over. It will be a drawn out battle for the Democratic nomination, not seen in our lifetimes: the Clinton brand name versus Barack’s rejuvenation of the American promise of inclusiveness.

THE FEAR OF FEAR

 
Senator Obama’s success is defined by the word “change.” However, it is not just a word. He personifies the term. This election cycle has witnessed an unprecedented number of previously inactive electorate, from first time young voters to self-professed independents. In the past, these were profiled as the loud moaners, but not inclined to convert their complaints into votes when their time and resources were called upon, especially in the crawl of intra-party politics. This time around, they have actually come out to vote.

Obama has gained large support with almost every demographic. He has even won with many or majority of women in several of the states. Senator Hillary Clinton’s consistent support has been with voters of over 65 and above, the establishment backbone.

Obama is not surrounded on the stage with his establishment backers, and he does have a few. Rather, the background to Obama’s campaign speeches is a spectrum of his more ordinary supporters. They tend to be younger, more casually dressed and more diverse in appearance, even if proportionally more educated. (Unexpectedly maybe, Obama does better with higher income and more educated voters).

When Obama talks of “change,” he does not necessarily speak in detail of the transformative policies. Clinton criticizes his campaign for this apparent lack of substance. “Change” though is in the simple fact that Obama in person represents the most fundamental turnaround from the current trend of exclusion and fear of the “other”. Obama’s skin color and background do not fit the conformism, but his climb is as American as Ellis Island.

Obama most differentiates his appeal from that of the current Bush Administration and his opponents by the term “fear.” Obama has also embraced the battle against terrorism but he purposefully refrains from identifying the enemy by religious or ethnic terms, and he rejects greater power for the Government at the expense of America’s libertarian, inclusive society. In his message, he echoes Franklin D. Roosevelt’s caution: fear is America’s most dangerous enemy. While it had become the fashion to court America’s electorate by telling them what and who to fear, Obama has identified this appeal to fear as the actual enemy of America’s dynamic, open and inclusive society. Obama has turned the attack upon those who he asserts use fear to promote their own political, social or economic agenda.

Maybe some are not too unhappy in the projection of Muslims as the outsiders of American society, if not necessarily as potential terrorists. However, most also recognize that their religion, race, ethnicity or just their non-conformism could quickly transform them into the outsider.

"RUMBLE IN THE JUNGLE" AND "ROPE-A-DOPE!"

The rapidly deteriorating economic situation in the United States has renewed among some, many the yearning for the good days of the Bill Clinton Administration. Senator Clinton is favored by voters who are seeking experience and those who are concerned with the economy.

Hillary Clinton is viewed as the establishment heavyweight. Maybe hard to imagine her playing the role of George Foreman, however she has no qualms in throwing political punches and with ferocity. She also has behind her the political weight of her husband, former President Bill Clinton. This may be having the same effect though as it did on George Foreman in the “Rumble in the Jungle,” in Zaire, 30 some years earlier, relentlessly punching against Muhammad Ali, until he punched himself out.

Hillary’s and Bill’s hard hitting tactics are viewed by some as too much. They have not only

alienated black voters, who were traditionally sympathetic to them, but they are now accused

of “bullying” optimism.

The NY Times has endorsed Hillary Clinton. Ms. Maureen Dowd, in the same paper though wrote: Hillary and Bill Clinton may not get it. Hillary emphasizes experience in a way that promotes her as someone who knows how to fight back, and dirty. Hillary and Bill fought many tough and vicious battles with Republican heavyweights, and won most rounds. However, Obama’s message according to Ms. Dowd appeals to our sense of optimism, something better about America, and many resent Hillary and Bill making this message seem no longer accessible. Muhammad Ali, then and even now seems like something of a higher preoccupation than just punches.
 
Has Obama consciously applied the old Ali boxing tactic of “rope-a-dope” allowing Clinton, both of them, to punch themselves out is? That’s speculative. Regardless, Obama is clearly gaining both in voter and money support. He has gathered new funding in the last month at levels that are significantly higher than for the Hillary corner. Hillary was thought to be the Democratic champion that no other challenger could beat. She is still close on points, the number of delegates. However, this is also misleading: Barack leads by a significant margin with elected delegates, while Hillary has stayed close with her substantial advantage in “super-delegates,” the establishment select, selected not elected. The problem with counting on the super-delegates is that they are like the entourage that quickly shifts allegiance. Regardless, the longer that Obama stays in the rink, the less formidable Hillary appears and the less inevitable her victory, in the Democratic primary or November general election. For those who do not remember, Ali knocked out Foreman. It was an unexpected flurry of punches and Foreman losing the will to fight back. I just don’t expect Hillary, or Bill, to lose heart and quit so easily.

The Republicans Are Looking for a New, Authentic Face to Lead America through the Bush Wars
After Obama’s victory in Iowa, Republicans started to also adopt the slogan “change,” as mantra. However, there is not so much a promise of change as they are trying to convince the Republican base that they will lead in the same direction with fresh face and enthusiasm. The Republican base still largely supports President Bush’s political agenda, just not the execution. Most of the candidates dare not stray too far from the script: conservative social values, terrorism, immigration. Some throw around the term “Islamo-fascism” as to prove their credentials.

Senator John McCain may be more than just a new face. He is authentic in his roots when Republicans feel that genuine leadership may be needed to lead America during the wars started during this Bush Administration, and maybe others yet to come. He is the clear leader for nomination, if not crowned. He was counted for lost only a couple of months ago. However, for the second time, he has come out of the hole after being presumed dead. The first time was thirty more years ago when he finally walked out of a Hanoi prison. McCain is not a very polished campaigner, but he is a survivor. Perseverance means a lot in any effort. When you are an American war hero, it is the stuff that political careers are made of.

Senator McCain has the opportunity to bring together a Republican Party caught-up in divisions and contradictions. The rhetoric of most Republican candidates had been the kind of food fight where America starts to look splattered by the debris. How does one become more American by appealing to un-American ideals?

THE RETRO COWBOY?

 
Unlike maybe in most “old-world” states, no one can really claim to be the authentic American, except the Native American, and they have not received the respect or due as the “real.” Some may direct the term “cowboy” at certain American leaders as an insult. However, this is a misrepresentation of, if not slur upon cowboys: the libertarian ideal of individualists, non-conformists. While Republicans have recently been served a more closed society, this used to be the party of the libertarian and the defender of the open society. That segment has been pushed aside more recently. Is Senator McCain the retro cowboy.”

In the early 1990’s I engaged in a few debates, on CNN, with Senator McCain, on the role America should play in Bosnia & Herzegovina. He argued that the US had no strategic interest in BiH. At one point he also impulsively questioned my right to American identity while also representing BiH. After the TV program though Senator McCain, called me personally to apologize for his intimation that somehow I was less American. That left an impression upon me: a US war hero would correct himself and respect my American identity which came from a rather different background than his own. It left upon me the hope that Senator McCain would promote a more open society. On the other hand, I am concerned to what extent will Senator McCain succumb to a small Republican core pumping out a rhetoric of fear and exclusion.

The problem with fear and exclusionism as strategy to win votes: it only goes so far before it has no more supporters to consume, especially in a society based on multi-ethnic and multi-religious blocks. Until we get to the Native American core, no one else can really securely claim to be the real American to the exclusion of all others.

ATTACK ON OBAMA'S MUSLIM HERITAGE

 
Senator McCain can win by appealing mostly to the Republican core, 30% of the American electorate. If the core ultimately compromises 50.1% of the actual voters, this is a proven winning strategy over the last couple of years, as long as no more than 50% citizens actually come out to vote. That had been increasingly the tendency in American elections, until maybe now. The Republican nominee had to more concern himself with getting the core to the polls rather than winning over new converts.

Obama may be the most problematic enigma for the Republicans. He is dramatically reversing the trend of lower voter turnout with an appeal to idealism that could sound to many more patriotic than pleas to the “fear of the other.” On the other hand, Senator McCain could be the best Republican challenger, appealing to enough of the core and independent voters, with his cowboy maverick image and secure status as military hero.

Unsigned, untraceable emails and letters have been appearing from nowhere claiming that Obama is a “closet Muslim.” Obama is a professed Christian; although he has shown no particular inclination to constantly repeat that theme. However, by “accusing” him of being Muslim, some believe that they can harm Obama’s appeal with Christian, Jewish and some other Americans. And, at least, according to this strategy, the more Obama denies, the more he distances himself from potential Muslim American voters.

The New York Times calls Obama’s appeal “Unity through Diversity.” The consequences, though, are also more practical. Obama is not building a core but a continuum. Obama has brought in new voters in all the primaries. That is where the Obama continuum starts to overwhelm a Republican core.

Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of the assassinated President John F. Kennedy, has now endorsed Obama. If the voters did not already have it in mind, she has consciously compared her father’s breakthrough as America’s first Catholic President and personal dynamism to the current campaign and person of Barack Obama. Camelot may be a myth, but capturing people’s imagination can convert into real votes.

DEMOCRATS NOT ASSURED OF VICTORY
 

Some myths do fuel Obama’s rise. His speeches are delivered with the great oratory rhythm of Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.; however his political record does not necessarily reflect their priorities. Obama is not anti-establishment as much as Hillary Clinton has been embraced by it. Obama is attracting new “political veterans” into his camp, most recently the former Presidential candidate and New Jersey Senator, Bill Bradley.

Sen. Clinton projects Obama as less able of winning in November. Exactly the opposite may be true. Hillary has a strong core of supporters, but maybe an even more committed column of detractors. Further, Hillary may have only a limited upside in new support compared to the rising mythology and reality of Obama. Against Senator McCain, Senator Hillary Clinton will have trouble securing what seemed like an almost inevitable victory for Democrats. Just recently released polls by both CNN and Time have evidenced that Obama beats McCain while Hillary is in a dead heat with the same projected Republican nominee. The difference appears to be not in “black” voters, but American males who significantly are more likely to vote for Obama than Hillary. Has gender bias become the bigger hurdle than racial bias or is it just Hillary versus Barack?

(Former President Bill Clinton may have also suffered, at least temporarily to his own standing. By so actively jumping into the rink to back up his wife, he is now projected more as combatant and less statesman. Over the last week or so, he has recognized, even admitted the miscalculation that he may have done more damage by tag teaming with his wife in the rink. He has more recently taken a step back out of the center of the rink in favor of what is projected as more of the role of the “second.”)

COULD POLITICAL QUARREL END WITH POLITICAL LOVE AFFAIR?
    

That would fit the Hollywood script, and there may be some real politic considerations to bring about this marriage. Some Democrats believe such a Presidential ticket in November would be unbeatable by bringing together the diverse talents and appeal of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

But if this political union makes sense, who would be on top? Obama campaign managers perceive talk of a Hillary/Obama ticket as a trap. They believe that by this logic, the desire for change would be satisfied by offering Obama the Vice President spot, and Hillary would claim the right to lead as President due to her perceived experience advantage.

Besides the potential trap, it is perceived that anyone assuming the role of VP in a Hillary Presidency would actually not be second, but somewhere below the “first-Husband,” Bill. Obama would not want to bury himself into that obscurity when he has established his own compelling base for further political ambitions, including another Presidential run in the future, should he lose this one. With especially Obama’s younger and more educated base, this arranged marriage would seem as being absorbed by the establishment and denied their fresh political identity.

I have little doubt that for Hillary, Obama as VP running mate to her would be desirable, but probably not for him. Obama supporters may not be so interested in sharing a ticket with Hillary on top or bottom. They probably believe that they do not need her so much as VP, nor are they inclined to be potentially suffocated by the legacy and personality of her and her husband, both again so near to the Oval Office.

Hillary is probably not so inclined either to be VP to Barack or anyone. President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton are influential personalities on their own. Anything but the top spot in the White House might be viewed as a step down. She is probably more inclined to lead in the Senate, while former President Bill Clinton would go back to nurturing and then expanding the legacy of his Presidency and applying his influence to favored causes as well as earning money, (something that might be unduly scrutinized if Hillary was VP or President).

While the Hillary-Barack marriage is unlikely, many current advisers to either candidate will potentially find a home in either Administration. The incestuous relationship may be surprising to some, but behind closed doors, the main players on the foreign policy teams have long shared histories.
 
OBAMA'S, (HILLARY'S) FOREIGN POLICY CIRCLE

 
Anthony Lake was President Bill Clinton’s National Security Adviser during the first term, 93-96. He is Obama’s chief foreign policy adviser. He is a gentleman who speaks in restrained tones, confident in his talents and instincts. In Dayton, he was the person I took most seriously.

In one of our longer conversations sitting on the stairs at the end of one of President Bill Clinton’s reception, he won my respect for his frankness: Despite public statements of some to the contrary, he offered that religious labels did play against the “Bosnian Muslims” from 1992-95. I respected that he was cognizant of the stereotypes while others did not want to admit, or worse, did not even recognize within them.

Samantha Power has also advised the Obama camp on foreign policy. She has been writer, activist and now lecturer/professor at Harvard, but I met her when she was Ambassador Mort Abramowitz’s intern at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, at the outset of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Power has been active on Dafur and written books and articles on the Rwanda and Bosnian genocides, not losing the connection between the murders and policy under the Bill Clinton Administration. Her conclusions on Rwanda and particularly Srebrenica suggest acquiescence in the least, a similar view to mine. However, do not judge Power to be an idealist. Her insight is sharp while her words are expeditious and with political purpose.

Former colleague as UN Ambassador and the Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, and my Dayton counterpart Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, are both in Hillary Clinton’s camp. Unusual partnership, since frequently on a personal and political level they were not on the same page, and more unusual, since Lake and Albright were closer than either was to Holbrooke. Regardless, if Hillary Clinton is defeated by Barack Obama and returns to safe-harbor in the Senate, a guess, but I would expect Albright to end up on the Obama battleship. (In a Hillary Clinton White House, Albright and Holbrooke would be competing for influence, if not jobs).

Ambassador Albright has many doors open, without having to pry. Albright’s old friend and sometime mentor, Tony Lake, may find her a true and experienced molder of an Obama multilateral and bilateral approach to US allies and international institutions.

Holbrooke pointed to Tony Lake, in an interview with the French writer, Sylvie Matton, as the official that gave him the “instructions to sacrifice Srebrenica, Gorazde and Zepa.” Srebrenica and Zepa were “sacrificed,” betrayed, but I’m not certain that Holbrooke’s recollection of events is either accurate or that Tony Lake does appreciates being handed Holbrooke’s hot potato. This would not foretell a relationship of confidence on the same foreign policy team.

Governor Bill Richardson, who recently dropped out of the Presidential race and was for a brief time my colleague as US Ambassador to the UN, is likely to also find a position in a new Democratic Administration. While Senator Joe Biden will position himself for Secretary of State, in either a Hillary or Barack team, Richardson could be an effective partner to Barack as Vice President running-mate. Bill’s Hispanic roots could give Barack some badly needed inroads into this constituency.

Senator Biden was a vigorous activist for inclusion of the new democracies of central/eastern Europe into Euro-Atlantic institutions. Advocating NATO expansion, he also urged integration of these new democracies into the European Union. Like other fellow “internationalists” on both sides of the American political divide, he also advocated a more robust multilateral and US response to the conflict and genocide in Bosnia.
  
Samantha Power could well end up being the rising star. She has none of the skeletons of the previous Democratic Administration. She has made few enemies while making an impression as perceptive and principled. Shrewd is not necessarily a talent normally associated with a journalist/writer/lecturer, but then Samantha Power has been into a new phase before most noticed it.

Muhamed Sacirbey

--------------------

Mr. Muhamed Sacirbey holds B.A. degree in history and J. D. degree from Tulane University in New Orleans. He also holds M.B.A. degree from Columbia University. Prior to becoming Bosnia’s Foreign Minister and Ambassador to the United Nations, he practiced as an attorney in New York City and worked for several years as an investment banker. He presently writes his book “A Convenient Genocide, in a fishbowl ” and is a commentator on human rights and political issues.

--------------------

Related articles:

Obama and America's Original Sin - April 7, 2008

My House Divided - March 24, 2008

Will Florida and Michigan Determine Next U.S. President? - March 12, 2008

The Continuing Democratic Race - March 10, 2008

Super Tuesday Truth - February 8, 2008

Into the Stretch: Landscape before Feb. 5 - February 2, 2008

Turnaround! - The New Hampshire Primary Results - January 10, 2008

Out of the Gate: Obama makes history - January 5, 2008

Mike Huckabee Story: From out of Nowhere - December 27, 2007

American Health Care - December 17, 2007

At the Starting Gate - November 15, 2007

Iowa and New Hampshire - October 4, 2007

A fifty/fifty nation - September 8, 2007

Obama: a foreign policy visionary or neophyte? - August 12, 2007

Democratic contenders - July 3, 2007

Immigration debate - May 10, 2007