Yes, Obama should get tougher on his opponents. But not in the "old politics" way, but only in the way that reinforces his case for the "new politics" he's offering the country.

::::::::

"One day after his worst showing in a month, Obama blamed negative attacks by the former first lady for his defeats and quickly made good on a promise to sharpen his criticism of her."(Huffington Post)

******************************************

'His campaign aides on Wednesday urged Mrs. Clinton to release her tax returns from 2006, as well as her papers from her years as first lady, which Mr. Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, described as “secreted in the Clinton library.”

“She’s made the argument that she’s thoroughly vetted, in contrast to me,” Mr. Obama said to reporters aboard his campaign plane. “I think it’s important to examine that argument.”' (NY Times)

*************************

"If he indulges his inner Chicago pol, formed in a city where politics is conducted with crowbars, he risks taking the shine off. But his advisers say he has little choice." (NY Times)

******************************

This sequence suggests that the Obama campaign has not yet had the necessary insight into what is needed now.

Yes, he should sharpen his attacks. But no, her income tax forms is NOT the kind of thing he should be talking about. And this matters greatly, because if he makes the wrong kind of attacks he does sacrifice his "shine," as his aides fear. But there is another and much better way of sharpening the attack that will add to the shine rather than squander it.

Here's the key point:

The attacks should be integrally connected with the primary theme of Obama's campaign: I AM OFFERING AMERICA A DIFFERENT, BETTER KIND OF POLITICS, AND HILARY CLINTON AND JOHN MCCAIN ARE THEMSELVES FULLY EMBEDDED IN AND CARRIERS OF THE OLD KIND OF POLITICS.

When Hillary attacks him with fear-mongering, as in the red telephone ad, Obama's reply shouldn't be, "No, I'm better than she is at answering that phone." Rather, it should be:

"For the past seven years, we've had leaders who have worked continually to inflame and then exploit the fears of the American people. They did that to get us into a disastrous war. They've done that to get us to surrender our precious rights as Americans.

"Americans are a proud and strong people. We are a great power. We do not need to be running scared. And we do not need leaders to frighten us for their own political purposes.

"Any of us, as president of the world's one superpower, will have what it takes to protect the American people. That is not the issue.

"The issue, I would suggest to Senator Clinton, is whether we will continue to exploit the fears of the American people for political advantage or whether we will help Americans come from a place of hope and vision, so that we can be empowered to achieve positive goals for our society and summon forth what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature.

"I invite Senator Clinton to raise her campaign up from the fear-mongering level to offering the country a positive vision of how we can realize our hopes to become a better society."

Likewise with attacks from Senator McCain. Here's a candidate that knows that Bush's tax cuts were bad for America, but in order to get the nomination he was willing to embrace them. Here's a candidate who knows better than almost anyone that America should be a nation that does not torture, but he has nonetheless been willing to vote against curtailing torture in order to placate the base of the Republican Party. Here's a candidate who crusaded to tame the corrupting effects of money on our political system, but who has fully embraced the corrupt system of special interest lobbying, so that virtually all the major positions in his campaign are lobbyists.

Obama should say of this record:

"This is a politics of cynicism, and it is not what America needs right now. Not when so much is broken, and when the only way we're likely to transform our broken system is by a politician whose message is to reject cynicism, who works to inspire the American people to believe, "Yes We Can!" have a government that lives up to the promise of our ideals, of our shared values."

When Hillary tries to change the rules in the middle of the game and be awarded the delegates from the disallowed Michigan and Florida primaries, Obama should do more than argue against it. He should say:

"After seven years of a president who has violated the Constitution he took an oath to defend, and who has run roughshod over the rules that are supposed to maintain our precious system of checks and balances, does America need another president who shows so little respect for the rules everybody agreed to follow in this election process?"

Every attack Obama launched should be a way of fleshing out the overall promise of the campaign.

Hillary Clinton and John McCain may have the best of intentions for what they would like to do as president. But they'll not be able to change much. That's because the system is broken, it's degraded. And it will prevent the change we need-- unless the American people are inspired to join together to take back their government. And Clinton and McCain will not be able to summon forth the American people for that purpose, because they are so shaped by that very system.

These people are enmeshed in the old politics of cynicism --the system that's dragged America down in recent years, that serves special interests and not the people, that's become so dishonest and manipulative-- and they cannot call America to restore its soul. They will not be able to summon the American people to the struggle against entrenched interests that are so strong they can only be surmounted by an energized citizenry demanding the politics serve our best values, and serve the people.

Even if their intentions for what to do with the power of the presidency are laudable, they will be able to accomplish little. The system won't let them, and they will not tap into the one power that can redeem this broken system.

This should be the theme of Obama's campaign, and this should be the focus of his criticisms of both his opponents.

When he's attacked unjustly, the counter-attack should be to point out how this confirms Obama's theme of how his opponents are part of the problem in American politics today, not part of the solution. The attacks themselves become evidence of how the other two candiates for the presudency are people who have been shaped by the old politics of character assassination, of distortion, of innuendo, of fear-mongering, of tearing the opponent down instead of raising the country up.

It's an Aikido type of approach: the opponent's attack provides the energy to be used for his undoing. Obama did it deftly, and agreeably, when Hillary tried to reproach him for not "rejecting" Farakan as well as "denouncing" him. With respect to the attacks upon him, he should use those attacks --just as deftly, if not so amiably-- to tie his opponents to what it is that needs changing and to his offer to Americans to provide the leadership to change it.

**********************

If anyone who reads this piece and who believes this advice to be potentially valuable for Obama can help get this into his hands, or the hands of those close to him, please make the effort.

Authors Bio:
Andy Schmookler, an award-winning author, political commentator, radio talk-show host, and teacher, was the Democratic nominee for Congress from Virginia's 6th District. His new book -- written to have an impact on the central political battle of our time -- is WHAT WE'RE UP AGAINST. His previous books include The Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power in Social Evolution, for which he was awarded the Erik H. Erikson prize by the International Society for Political Psychology.