Obama, struggling with a head cold that forced him to blow his nose in
midspeech, tried to deliver a punch against both rivals in Dallas.
"Today Senator Clinton told us that there's a choice in this race, and
you know that I couldn't agree with her more," Obama said. "But
contrary to what she's been saying, it's not a choice between speeches
and solutions. It's a choice between a politicsthat offers more of the same divisions and distractions that didn't
work in South Carolina and didn't work in Wisconsin and will not work
in Texas, or a new politics of common sense, of common purpose, of
shared sacrifice and shared prosperity. It's a choice between having a
debate with John McCain about who has the most experience in Washington
or having a debate about who is most likely to change Washington.
Because that's a debate we can win."
Doesn't strike me as a particularly compelling counterpunch. But then again, it's Clinton who needs to change the dynamic, not Obama; his message is already connecting. Plus Richard left out what I think is the most convincing partof Obama's argument: "It's a choice between going into the general election with Republicans and independents already united against us or running with a campaign that has already united Americans of all parties around the agenda for change. That's the choice."
The whole "politics of common sense" thing doesn't
do it for me, and the suggestion that Clinton-McCain match-up would
center on who has the most experience in Washington is a silly swipe
rather than a real contrast. But if you've ever met a Hillary hater,
the line about Republicans and independents uniting against her
actually seems plausible--and might represent the major difference
between the potential Obama and Clinton Administrations. One out of three ain't bad.