"Bobo's World invades my own", b/w "How Obama can win"

[Crossposted from Sugar Land is Dreaming]

In today's New York Times, David Brooks has a column about what he perceives as the failure of Obama's campaign, and hence his message in general:

Barack Obama had a theory. It was that the voters are tired of the partisan paralysis of the past 20 years. The theory was that if Obama could inspire a grass-roots movement with a new kind of leadership, he could ride it to the White House and end gridlock in Washington.

Obama has built his entire campaign on this theory. He’s run against negativity and cheap-shot campaigning. He’s claimed that there’s an “awakening” in this country — people “hungry for a different kind of politics.” [...]

Now, the Obama campaign is facing another test. There are a few ways to interpret the losses in Texas and Ohio. One is demographic. He didn’t carry the groups he often has trouble with — white women, Latinos, the less educated. The other is tactical. Clinton attacked him, and the attacks worked. [...]

Beneath the euphemisms, what the advice really means is that Obama has to start accusing Clinton of things. [...]

These attacks are supposed to show that Obama can’t be pushed around. But, of course, what it really suggests is that Obama’s big theory is bankrupt. You can’t really win with the new style of politics. Sooner or later, you have to play by the conventional rules. [emphasis mine]

Oddly enough, the conservative Brooks is seemingly channeling yours truly, circa Janruary 22, 2008:

In fact, the lack of content (or any palpable energy) on Obama's blog, to me, highlights one missing entity that's sorely needed in his campaign: Guns. Big fucking guns that are manned, trained on the Hillary campaign, and ready to fire at any time. [...]

How can one successfully defend themselves against the attacks coming from Hillary and still try to raise themselves above the political fray? I'm not sure if Hillary's strategy is to lower Obama into an all out brawl, but if so, she certainly succeed[ed]... What she's offering is shit from all sides.

Obama is on the defensive right now. He started in this position around a week before last Tuesday's primaries when he let Hillary control the messages of the campaign, and Obama will continue to be in this position if he allows Hillary to keep attacking him. But Brooks is right -- Obama will lose if he goes negative. And there lies the conundrum: How can Obama get off the defensive without attacking Hillary? So in either position Hillary wins, right? That's the conventional political wisdom.

I think I have a solution.

To win, Obama has to raise himself above the fray of normal politics. After all, this has been the point of his campaign. Do keep on his campaign's message at this point, and to stay off the defensive, he has to bend the rules and attack Hillary in a way that's not negative, but will force Hillary to reply on his level. What Obama needs to do is propose that he and Hillary have two to three debates under this specific format:

* Each debate will be two hours in length
* Only specific issues will be debate (have the "Foreign Policy" debate and the "Domestic Policy" debate, for example)
* No moderator
* No commercials

With no moderator and no commercials, the candidates pose specific questions to each other about the issues.

It's risky (and some of these debates may not make it into television, save for CSPAN), but if Obama proposed such debates, it would successfully place Hillary on the defensive without having to hurl negative attacks at her. And Hillary can't decline an invitation for such debates -- if she does, then Obama could attack her with it, hanging it over her head while stipulating that all Hillary has to run her campaign on is negativity. And since it's the Hillary camp that wants to draw Obama into a fight, they can't be seen as backing down.

At this point, Hillary has checked Obama. It's upto him to make the right move... Otherwise, it's checkmate.