Obama Loses in Attempt to Out-Macho Hillary Clinton

Barack Obama is foolishly mistaken if he thinks he can out-macho Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic race for the White House.

If Sen. Obama would stop and look around, he'd notice that none of the other Democrats (all men) are attempting to beat Sen. Clinton in muscle or verbal brawn. Hillary Clinton, and her husband, notoriously possess campaign cojones that out-macho every presidential campaign in U.S. history except Bush-Cheney.

So when Sen. Obama opted in a major national security address on August 1 to vie for the title of toughest terrorist fighter, his confusing message fell flat. And when he emailed supporters about "The War We Need to Win," they rubbed their eyes in amazement. Or deleted the email, thinking it was spam or spoof.

Barack Obama has deliberately established himself as the "Kumbaya" candidate, the anti-"I voted for the Iraq War"-Hillary who wisely opposed George Bush in 2002 when he orated:

"I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

"I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president."

(For more, see Barack Obama's Stirring 2002 Speech Against the Iraq War.)

So imagine the confusion of Obama supporters, attracted by the senator's cool-headed judgment on matters of war, when he told the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars:

"It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements:

• getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan;
• developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons;
• engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism;
• restoring our values; and
• securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "

Huh??? More war? After more than 4 years, $600 billion and a seriously depleted U.S. military? By a war-weary nation searching desperately for an alternative to the war-mongering Bush administration?

Comments to Sen. Obama
Sen. Obama, at best, your speech this week was a poorly timed, poorly packaged message. Unless, of course, you're attempting to appeal to Republicans. (See Supported by Republicans, Obama Takes Lead in Presidential Race.) But Republicans won't win you the nomination, senator.

At worst, you tried to win at Hillary's macho game of strength and bone-chilling desire to eviscerate the "enemy." But Sen. Obama, Hillary has an icy stare that can cut glass. Frankly, senator, you're no match for Hillary's macho. I'm not sure anyone is...

After Sen. Clinton's sharp-tongued gaffe in the CNN-YouTube debate, senator, you scored resoundingly with your innate diplomatic impulses. You were above the fray, Sen. Obama, responding to the huffy failings of your opponent. You were on YOUR game.

You had us at "Bush-lite" references to Hillary, senator. So much so that political savant Bill Clinton finally stepped in to wave the white flag of surrender for his embattled wife.

And you unquestionably had (and have) us when you stated on August 2, 2007 that "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance ... involving civilians... There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

But apparently, and oddly, losing confidence in your game, you opted to take on Hill and Bill at theirs.

It didn't work, Sen. Obama. It will never work. They're undisputed champs at brass-knuckle, iron-cojones contests.

Perhaps your message was poorly crafted, senator. Certainly, it was poorly timed. I shudder to imagine that your jagged message was contrived for political purposes.

We hear you, Sen. Obama, that you're emphatically NOT the "Kumbaya" candidate. And that you see the ominous threats in our dangerous world. We hear you that you would be tough on terrorists. We don't doubt that.

But denying your diplomatic instincts and approaches, and overcompensating by donning an angry, Clintonian face, is incongruous with all the reasons why contributors have made you the Democratic fundraising frontrunner, thus far.

It's a loser campaign strategy, Sen. Obama. Lose it, or lose the nomination. Trust me on this.

Related Reading
Rating Barack Obama - Debate Scoreboard for the 2008 Democratic Race
Rating Hillary Clinton - Debate Scoreboard for the 2008 Democratic Race
Obama Evokes Ronald Reagan Values in Response to Clinton Gaffe
(Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)