Obama's Social Security Crisis

By David Corn | October 31, 2007 12:12 AM


Last spring, I was chatting with a top Barack Obama strategist. The junior senator from Illinois running for the Democratic presidential nomination had been on quite the streak: record fundraising, crowds of thousands. But he trailed Hillary Clinton in the polls and, perhaps more important, he had not signaled how he could surpass her. When would he take Clinton on? I asked the Obama-ite. I wasn't inquiring when he would start hurling mudballs at her, but when he would explicitly argue that he was better than her and start saying things (about policy, about politics, about life) that she could--or would--not. It's coming, the Obama aide said, it's coming; we hear you, and it's coming.

Summer arrived and departed, and it didn't come. A series of Democratic presidential debates transpired and one-third of the fall passed, and it didn't come. But now the time has...well, come. Last week, Obama told two New York Times reporters he would start confronting Clinton more forcefully and more directly. He made this declaration when the Iowa caucus--moved up to January 3--was a mere ten weeks in the future.

Too late? Perhaps. Obama's people have argued for months that there was sufficient time. But in that period, Clinton became a better candidate and solidified her lead in the national polls and in surveys of Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire. The timing matter aside, Obama's new initiative against HRC was curious for what he chose as his opening salvo: Social Security.

On Sunday, the Obama campaign released a television ad that focused on Social Security. In it, he tells a group of Iowans, "I don't want to just put my finger out to the wind and see what the polls say. I want to bring the country together to solve a problem." This was an attack on Clinton, whom Obama has accused of "ducking the issue" of Social Security by not saying what she would do as president to preserve and protect the retirement program. Her approach, Obama charged at one campaign event, is to "hedge, dodge and spin, but at all costs, don't answer." Indeed, Clinton has not detailed what she would do about Social Security, vowing that she would convene a bipartisan commission before making any decisions. Though Obama does not refer to Clinton by name in his ad, he essentially calls her out for not having the guts to deal forthrightly with what he depicts as a looming Social Security crisis.

There are two problems here--one political, the other policy. First, the political: will Democratic voters believe there is such a difference on Social Security between Obama and Clinton that they will choose him over her? They certainly do not see Hillary Clinton as a rabid privatizer who ought to be feared. And what Obama proposes for Social Security--protect benefits, prevent privatization, remove the cap on Social Security taxes for the wealthy--is a mainstream Democratic position. It's John Edwards' position. With his ad, Obama was attacking Clinton not for having a lousy position but for not having proposed a Social Security plan. While this could win him a few Clinton-leaners, it's not a definitional blow.

As for policy, by assailing Clinton in this fashion, Obama was, in a way, aiding Republicans and conservatives who have hyped the problems with Social Security to pave the way for privatization. I'll let Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future, a liberal outfit that led the successful opposition to George W. Bush's partial privatization of Social Security, explain. He tells me:

Obama and his advisers have chosen to attack Hillary on Social Security from the right and the left at same time. He makes a big issue of the looming retirement of the baby boom in the same way right wingers do. And then he makes a big deal about how he won't solve the problem in a conservative way. It might work in a general election, but it doesn't impress Democratic voters in primaries. He might consider attacking on issues that the primary voters care about -- like the war or energy policy.

Hickey is right. Democratic voters do not seem to be clamoring for Social Security change (even if some changes are needed to deal with projected shortfalls in the coming decades).

During Tuesday night's face-off of the Democratic presidential candidates, Obama's assault on Clinton's Social Security stance (or lack thereof) was a matter of debate. At the start of the night, Obama challenged HRC's credibility, accusing her of flip-flopping on Nafta, the use of torture, and the Iraq war. He did not mention Social Security. But when he was later asked about his recent Social Security poke at Clinton, he said that Hillary Clinton has not been truthful or clear about her Social Security position. (He was referring to published reports saying she had privately voiced support for raising the cap on Social Security taxes paid by the wealthy.) Clinton, ready with a reply, countered that there are no real policy distinctions between her and her chief Democratic rivals on this front. This was no knockout punch for Obama, for he was slamming her for basically agreeing with him (and with Edwards) while declining to say so in public.

At the Philadelphia debate, John Edwards landed better punches on Clinton, saying that she was a candidate of "double-talk" and incapable of taking on and fixing the broken and corrupt system of Washington. Several times when Obama jabbed at her, he seemed tentative and even stammered.

Back to Social Security: many Democrats believe Bush tried to create a phony Social Security crisis to serve ideological and corporate interests. They are probably not yearning for a candidate who will talk tough about Social Security. Obama needs to move on. And, once again, he needs to do better in the next debate.

BTW, Jonathan Stein, my colleague at Mother Jones recently took a look at what Obama has to do to distinguish himself from Clinton. After last night's debate, that need remains.

FYI. This week, I officially began as head of Mother Jones's new seven-person Washington bureau. As my first official act, I ordered a teamwork-building exercise, instructing the staff to form pairs and assemble bookshelves, with no one allowed to use his or her dominant hand. The team that completed the task first won a poster proclaiming there's no "I" in "Team." Seriously, ladies and gentlemen, I've been dealing with logistics (new computer, new phone, moving 20 years of files) but will soon be producing articles as I did at The Nation . In the meantime, I will be contributing postings to our group blog, MoJo Blog. Please check it out.

Send tips, leads, praise, and (if you must) complaints to Cornblog@hotmail.com.