Will the Real Uniter Please Stand Up?

From the beginning of this campaign, Senator Obama, his campaign, and his supporters have been pushing the idea that he has the ability to unite the country and work with Republicans:

“I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can,” Obama said. “I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the ’90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t be running.”

Note the qualification that it “is not entirely a problem of her making.”

Now I concede that polling data indicates that Obama does better among registered Republicans. An analysis of polling data by Politico last month indicates that against John McCain, Senator Obama is likely to carry more votes from Republicans than would Senator Clinton (10% to 8%). [It also noted that John McCain picked up more Democrats against Senator Obama (17%) than Senator Clinton (14%).]

Despite the polling data which shows that Obama does better among disaffected Republicans, which candidate actually has a track of reaching out to and those across the aisle? Let’s compare Senators Obama and Clinton. After Senator Obama took a beating in last Wednesday’s debate, he responded by blaming the moderators for picking on him and implied that he would not participate in any further debates. When a voter asked him about future debates, he responded

“We’re trying to figure out what our schedule looks like,” he said. “But I’ll be honest with you. We’ve now had 21, and look, in the previous three, you know, we did very well and so it’s not as if we don’t know how to do these things. I could deliver Senator Clinton’s lines. I’m sure she could deliver mine.”

With such lackluster support from Senator Obama, it should be no wonder that the next debate, schedule for April 27 in North Carolina was cancelled yesterday:

Mr. Obama showed interest in an April 19 debate in North Carolina, which would have presented viewers with a second debate before the Pennsylvania primary. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign expressed concern that April 19 was the first day of Passover, and the organizers went back to the drawing board to propose alternative dates. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign subsequently agreed to the April 27 date, but Mr. Obama’s did not.

This is not consistent with what Senator Obama said at the Las Vegas debate in November, when he suggested that the American people were looking for “straight answers to tough questions.” If he is unwilling to face tough questions in debates, how can Americans get their answers. Senator Obama delivered the aforementioned line in a debate when he accused Senator Clinton of refusing to provide these “straight answers,” but it appears that he is the one who is trying to avoid “tough questions.”

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has not been dodging anything. In fact, she has reached out to some of her biggest critics recently. A few weeks ago, she met with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, a newspaper owned by Richard Mellon Scaife. If you followed politics in the 90’s, that name should ring a bell. Scaife is the guy who financed and gave rise to the “vast right-wing conspiracy:”

In the resulting book, “A Washington Tragedy: How the Death of Vincent Foster Ignited a Political Firestorm,” Moldea confirms — again — that Foster’s death was indeed a suicide and that a cabal of right-wing groups — financed by banking heir Richard Mellon Scaife — is responsible for keeping the case alive for years in an effort to tarnish the Clinton White House. Moldea also blasts the media — particularly the Wall Street Journal op-ed page and reporter Christopher Ruddy — for stoking the conspiracy fires with specious facts and inflammatory rhetoric.

This meeting was criticized by Slate and by Keith Olbermann, another critic of Senator Clinton who had the opportunity to grill her on his show last night, only a month after accusing her campaign of playing racial politics. I find it very interesting that anybody would criticize Hillary for meeting with Scaife and the editorial board of his newspaper. As Hillary explained on Keith Olbermann, leaders have to reach out to their opponents:

But I do believe in redemption, Keith. I believe in deathbed conversions and I think it’s possible for anyone to see the error of their ways. So I’m bringing people together as we speak. Anyone who doubts my ability to bridge the most incredible chasms can point to those recent remarks.

Indeed, Senator Clinton, and they can also point to your willingness to be interviewed by a man who only one month ago accused you of running a campaign rampant with covert racism.

Over the weekend, the Herald-Tribune, noting that Senator Obama, the candidate who says he can bring Republicans and Democrats together, yet refuses to meet with the editorial board, endorsed Senator Clinton:

More important, she is extremely knowledgeable on crucial foreign issues. Meeting with Trib editors last month, she ticked off an impressive list of international challenges and the solutions. (In Wednesday’s Philadelphia debate, Obama praised George H.W. Bush’s foreign policy — apparently not realizing that one of its architects was then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, a man he regularly excoriates.)

As we noted at the time of that meeting, Clinton’s decision to sit down with the Trib was courageous, given our longstanding criticism of her. That is no small matter: Political courage is essential in a president. Clinton has demonstrated it; Obama has not.

Hillary Clinton is willing to debate. She agreed to an interview with Keith Olbermann, who has hardly been the impartial bystander he has claimed to be. And she has also shown a willingness to make peace and work with some of her toughest critics and former advesaries. For example, Hillary made her peace with Sen. Lindsey Graham, the conservative South Carolina senator and a leader in her husband’s impeachment, working together to expand health care benefits for our troops in the National Guard. In an article in Time two years ago, Sen. Graham said of Hillary:

In the Senate, a small body of big egos, Senator Clinton, 58, is sought out by her colleagues to form legislative partnerships. Her high-profile status, combined with a reputation as a smart, prepared, serious Senator, creates real influence. In a short time, this blue-state Senator with a blue-state perspective has managed to build unusual political alliances on a variety of issues with Republicans Bill Frist, Sam Brownback, Elizabeth Dole, Rick Santorum and other conservatives.

As a red-state conservative, I have found common ground with her on improving health-care benefits for members of the National Guard and Reserve. We also created a bipartisan Manufacturing Caucus to help promote and address the problems facing America’s manufacturers.

Senator Clinton would be a formidable opponent for Republicans in November 2008 as the nation remains closely divided. Some say she cannot be elected President. I say those who underestimate Hillary Clinton do so at their own peril.

From Senator Obama? We have talk of hope and promises of change. But no more debates. And still no appearances on Fox News Sunday, which has hosted Hillary Clinton on numerous occasions. And still no “straight answers to tough questions.”

What do we value? Words or action?

I have to agree with the Tribune-Review on this one:

In policy terms, relatively little may separate these two. Obama ranks as one of the most liberal U.S. senators, but Clinton is no conservative. Determining how they differ is difficult, though, because Obama is long on soaring rhetoric yet painfully short on record.

He has spent just three years in the U.S. Senate. Before that, he spent just eight years as one of 177 state legislators in Illinois. Before that, he was a university lecturer, a community organizer, a civil-rights lawyer.

Quite simply, this is no portfolio for a president, the world’s most powerful leader. The presidency is no place for on-the-job training in the best of times — and certainly not when the nation is at war, the economy is struggling, and federal governance in general is adrift.

In sharp contrast, Clinton is far more experienced in government — as an engaged first lady to a governor and a president, as a second-term senator in her own right. She has a real voting record on key issues. Agree with her or not, you at least know where she stands instead of being forced to wonder.