Clinton's Rivals Adopt More Partisan Approach

Obama has spent much of this year talking about a "new kind of politics" and "politics of hope" that could transform Washington by transcending old divisions. The message holds obvious appeal, but faces a challenge of timing -- many Democrats believe that the problems of the past seven years stem less from a faulty political system than from mistakes made by Bush and other GOP leaders. Clinton, by contrast, has offered a more pragmatic appeal: to restore Democratic control and competent leadership to the White House.

Now Obama is offering sharper swipes at Republicans and casting himself more explicitly as the best person to carry his party's standard. He is also stressing more traditional pocketbook issues, such as high gas prices, in trying to connect with voters who aides say are less interested in rhetoric about reforming politics.

Obama's new theme surfaced in the last debate, in which he criticized Clinton for being too cautious in addressing Social Security. "This is part of the politics that we have been playing, which is to try to muddle through, give convoluted answers. Ultimately, we then don't have a mandate and we can't bring about change, in part because we're afraid to give Republicans talking points," he said. "I'm not fearful . . . to have a debate about this with Rudy Giuliani because we've got the facts on our side."

He expanded on this in a speech in Spartanburg, S.C., on Nov. 3, and again at the Des Moines fundraiser. "Not answering questions because we're afraid our answers won't be popular just won't do it," he said there. "Triangulating and poll-driven positions because we're worried about what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just won't do it. If we are really serious about winning this election, Democrats, then we can't live in fear of losing."

He added: "I am sick and tired of Democrats thinking the only way to look tough on national security is by talking and acting and voting like George Bush Republicans."

Kenneth Baer, a former speechwriter for Vice President Al Gore who has not chosen sides in the Democratic race, said the feistier tone will help Obama, although he disagrees with the senator's critique of the Clinton administration as "poll-driven."

"It's good for him, because a lot of Democrats are wondering if he had a fight in him, if he was a little too laid-back, a little too conciliatory," Baer said. "He's trying to be the candidate of the future and the left; that's a winning place to be in the Democratic primary."

As the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses near, Edwards and Obama are also eyeing each other, gauging how much to attack one other as they jockey in Clinton's shadow. Joe Trippi, a top adviser to the Edwards campaign, questioned Obama's more partisan message. Trippi said that the senator is simply following Edwards's more aggressive lead, and that he doubts Obama can offer himself both as a fighter for the party's cause and as a unifier. "It's hard to move from an 'I can bring people together' consensus-builder to all of a sudden saying you're going to be this partisan lightning rod," he said.

Axelrod countered that Obama's emphasis on fighting for the party is not new. "This election has always been about who can rally the country around a progressive agenda, and it still is," he said. "What we're debating here is what direction the party should go. Do we fight for our principles . . . or do we calculate shifts on the ground according to political conditions?"

He also disputed the notion that Obama cannot be both a fighter for Democratic values and a post-partisan unifier. "They are compatible," he said. "Independent voters and disaffected Republican voters will give you a fair hearing if they don't think they're going to get a bait-and-switch. They want to know where you stand."