Can Obama Take the 'High Road' to the White House?

As John McCain and his Republican allies have ratcheted up their attacks on Barack Obama's foreign-policy record in recent days, they've repeated one criticism in particular: that Obama once voted "against our troops." The swipe first appeared last Friday in a McCain spot called, appropriately enough, "Troop Funding"; it resurfaced today in the RNC's new "Obama Chooses Washington Over Our Military" ad (above), which, as we reported earlier, is set to air tomorrow in Berlin, N.H., Berlin, Penn. and Berlin, Wisc. "There are few votes as important as funding our men and women in uniform," says the announcer. "But when our military needed necessary resources, Barack Obama failed to stand up."

The attack itself--which has been a staple of the Republican playbook since the Iraq war began in 2003--isn't particularly noteworthy. What's intriguing, however, is how much Obama's response to it has changed over the past five days. As we wrote last week,

Last Friday, Chicago chose to respond to "Troop Funding" by fighting fire with fire. "MCCAIN REPEATEDLY VOTED AGAINST AND OBAMA REPEATEDLY VOTED FOR FUNDING FOR MILITARY EQUIPMENT FOR SOLDIERS," wrote spokesman Hari Sevugan in an email to reporters--repeating, in effect, the same misleading, out-of context attack that McCain was leveling against the Illinois senator. Today, however, Sevugan--now reacting to the RNC's ad--was a changed man. "There are honest differences between Senator Obama’s position on Iraq and Senator McCain’s," he said. "But there’s no question that both support our troops. Under the RNC’s definition, John McCain would have also chosen politics over our military when he urged George Bush to veto funding for the troops, and we know that’s not the case. This is the sort of distasteful and misleading attack from the Rove playbook that the American people are tired of." As Ben Smith puts it, Sevugan went for "a high-road tone last seen (on both sides) sometime late last summer." This doesn't mean, necessarily, that Obama is taking the high road; it means that he wants voters to think he's taking the high road. Going after the political process is as much a political tactic as going after your opponent's strengths. In effect, Obama is using McCain's attack to reinforce his candidacy's "change our politics" theme.

The shift is subtle, but it's also revealing. In the five days since "Troop Funding" first aired, Obama has enjoyed a remarkable run of foreign-policy successes--or strokes of luck--from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki endorsing his withdrawal plan to President Bush dispatching a government official to chat with Iranian leaders. McCain, meanwhile, has been forced to go negative--early and often--to compete for coverage. The result is a definite change in dynamic. While Obama now "seems" confident, competent and unperturbed--swanning around the globe with foreign leaders has that effect--McCain suddenly "seems" angry, annoyed and even desperate. (NB: "Seems" is the operative word here; it's about political perceptions.) On Friday, Team Obama felt they had to aggressively rebut the "anti-soldier" attack; today, they're comfortable dismissing it as "old politics" and floating above the fray. Chicago clearly hopes that Obama's overseas adventure will allow him to maintain that kind of altitude for the rest of the race. But they should be careful what they wish for. If you'll recall, Al Gore and John Kerry followed similar flight patterns in 2000 and 2004--and lost. Obama is undoubtedly a savvier strategist. Still, he shouldn't forget that McCain--and the Bush-Rove alums on his team--know a thing or two about combat.