Going on the Offense
Versus Attacking
In the last weeks before any election, campaigns always try to stay on the offense. They want to garner headlines, and conflict generates headlines. They want to control events, instead of being driven by them, and going on the offense helps accomplish that. They want to choose how to present the candidate, and initiating topics, instead of responding to others, empowers a campaign to emphasize the aspects of the candidate that the campaign prefers.
And they want to highlight the weaknesses of the opponents, which again is easier to do by taking the offensive rather than being on the defense.
Napoleon explained when he invented modern warfare that the attack always has the advantage and that the only essential lesson of his campaigns was that one should always attack.
By attack, he meant going on the offensive. By attack, in modern campaigns the candidates and their teams sometimes think the job is to disparage the opponent’s personality, character, ethics, and qualifications. All those sorts of attacks admittedly can be part of being on the offense, but going on the offense and attacking are as different as selecting a battleground versus shooting a rifle. Personal attacks can hit a target, but victory usually lies in a broad offensive campaign.
Clinton’s campaign is fundamentally on the offense. They raise issues, thereby choosing battlegrounds. They wheel in supporters, spend money, gain endorsers, and in all these ways generate momentum, which is a measurement of being on the offense. She herself is constantly seeking advantage by selecting topics. A case in point was her challenge to Obama during the Nevada debate concerning health care. It was not a personal attack, but it was a brilliant offensive maneuver.
Clinton’s campaign knows that a good offense is the best defense. Health care is of course a vulnerability for her, given the record of 1993-95. So it was astute for her to go on the offense on this issue.
Edwards’ campaign tries to go on the offense. But his effort is not broad enough, and he seems reduced too often to rifle shots. He lacks the money, however, to mount an effective air war. He has some labor support but it has not been what he hoped. He himself has not been able to poke significant holes in the Clinton positions on various issues, although as a brilliant trial lawyer he has the skills. It is possible that the mainstream media simply does not cooperate enough in his efforts to give him the resonance that his offense deserves. It is also possible, however, that he has never really focused his offensive efforts on a few salient issues. He could have been, for instance, the one true “green” candidate, but he did not choose that mantle.
Obama’s campaign has a good offensive position on the all-important “change” issue. But the campaign has apparently been reluctant to articulate in detail how Clinton does not stand for “change” in policy terms. Nor did the campaign quickly come to the conclusion that there was a way to be on the offense without abandoning the proposition that Obama offers a way out of the partisanship of everyday Washington politics. Democrats in primaries by and large want to vote for a fighter, and will defect in the few weeks before the voting from any conciliator, as Bradley found out in 2000. Dean’s surprising success lay in his willingness to fight, and had he executed better, especially on the ground in Iowa and New Hampshire, he would have won the nomination in 2004. So Obama’s campaign this fall has plainly been willing to go on the offense. But to my eyes, they have not yet selected the battleground of policy difference where they will fight their last and perhaps winning fight.
Of course, policy debates in and of themselves are not definitive in campaigns. However, policy distinctions are the language of good offensive campaigns. Policy was the basis for Gore’s total defeat of Bradley in the 2000 primaries—health care, in fact. Bradley, like so many other middle-of-the-road candidates in both parties, simply was too much committed to compromise on policy debates to be able to go on the offense against Gore on the issues. His personal attacks were tepid as well, although they foreshadowed and helped enable the vicious Republican and media-enabled attacks that led to Bush’s Electoral College victory. There is, sadly, a place for personal attacks.
But in the primaries voters are of two minds about personal attacks. Within their own party, after all, voters do not like to see too much fratricide (excuse the gender-biased reference). They do relish the most vigorous policy debates, and enjoy candidates explaining in the most pungent ways that so-and-so is wrong and such-and-such is right. So Clinton did well with the charge that Obama was wrong on health care. While the policy difference of mandates or not is certainly not the most compelling reason to vote for one or the other of the Senators, it does provide a language of discourse that permits the voters to see what the candidates are made of. And in Las Vegas Clinton seemed tougher-minded than Obama. That in turn supported the factually tenuous Clinton charge that Obama lacks experience.
By contrast, for Obama to retaliate by charging Clinton with spreading innuendo (because the totally unreliable Novak said so!) is not an offensive action. It is an attempt to announce a defense to a stealthy attack that may or may not have been underway. The Obama campaign tried to turn the maneuver into an attack on character grounds, but again that is not the same thing as an effective offensive maneuver.
The challenge for all Clinton’s rivals is to mount an offense that is not just a series of personal attacks. For her the necessity is stay on the offense through to February 5. If she can do that, she will probably have a mortal lock on the nomination.
There is no shortage of battlegrounds, also known as topics. For instance, which of the candidates wants to take up the challenge of the United Nations’ report of yesterday? The message from the world’s science community is that humanity has seven years in which to abate the growth of carbon emissions. That is less than a two-term President’s opportunity to lead. The next American President effectively will decide mankind’s future relationship with the planet. As of now, no Democratic candidate is making this necessary crusade the centerpiece of their campaign, and every Republican candidate in effect sub silentio supports the melting of the ice caps, drowning of Florida, flourishing of plague and pestilence, and sparking of global war over energy resources. In this latter respect if anything I underestimate the terrible policies advocated by the Republicans. They make the America Firsters of the years before Pearl Harbor look like globalists. The Democrats, however, have within their group no one who as yet is the fervent champion of what Al Gore has won the Peace Prize for. That’s a battleground, and a place where a good offense can win the primaries.
Another battleground is the issue of open politics. Mayor Giuliani does not reveal the clients of his for-profit eponymous firm. Others do not reveal contributions to foundations they have sponsored or fees taken for various activities or payments received by spouses. While the Supreme Court thwarts campaign reform on the erroneous grounds that money has a right of free speech, nevertheless transparency in donations of all kinds is an obvious virtue in a money-saturated democracy. No candidate has yet mounted a sustained offense on this battleground.
The priorities of the federal budget constitute still another battleground. The Democrats are worried, it appears, about being depicted as tax-happy free spenders in the general election, so they are less than intrepid in discussing what to do with the power of the purse. But the truth is that the United States has spent one to two trillion dollars in Iraq that the Treasury did not have without destroying its economy. The American debt load is not the biggest problem faced by Americans, although of course the spending in Iraq has been obscene in size, tragic in direction, and corrupt in method. The big problems instead are priorities. We spend far too little in public and private money on education, savings, scientific research, and especially roads, transportation, and green power. We really need at least a trillion dollars of new spending over five years in all these areas.
The primaries are going to be won by the campaigns that take the offensive on these or other battlegrounds. There will be plenty of personal attacks, but a good offense is much broader than such rifle shots.
Well, Reed, Gibbs figured that a good offense would be the best defense against the Cowboys very good offense. It didn’t help. (Sorry, I missed your weekly Redskin report).
November 18, 2007 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This week they didn't run enough! 1 and 10 on the boys' nineteen and three bad passes; shoulda run on the second down.
November 18, 2007 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
While this is great in theory, the fact is that the candidates going on offense on "policy" is irrelevant, because the media won't cover it -- and without media coverage, you might as well just hang up your cleats (to continue the football analogy).
The unfortunate fact is that, unless Clinton does something stupid, she's the nominee -- the media has already decided that this was a two person race when it decided to relentlessly hype the Obama campaign and all but ignore Edwards (who was winning in Iowa right up until the time that the media decided that Iowa was really the only state that mattered--pretty much promising Clinton that if she won in Iowa, they'd declare her the nominee by default), and literally ignore everyone else -- despite the fact that people like Dodd, Richardson, and Biden each had more qualifications and experience than Clinton, Obama, and Edwards put together.
Obama, of course, fizzled out... but rather than gracefully admit he was not yet ready for Presidential politics, he's decided to crash and burn. So now the media is gonna report the contest as two person race in which one person has been disqualified.
IMHO, Edwards coulda been a contender, but he never did learn how to use his own (more compelling than Obama's) message of change -- and Blitzer completely screwed Edwards, letting Hillary get away with accusing him of throwing mud and using GOP tactics without letting Edwards respond (after letting Obama and Hillary go back and forth a couple of times.) Edwards also should have realized that he could use Obama to his advantage
That kind of attack would be devastating to Clinton -- she can't dispute Edwards' premise, and she can't attack him back because he used Obama to differentiate Clinton from himself.
But its probably too late for him to do that now...
November 18, 2007 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
reed hundt
you are quite right, going on the offensive first is almost always a winning tactic.
see: ghengis khan, jesse james, attila the hun, karl rove, john d. rockefeller, ken lay.
you make a play, you take what you can get, and,
if necessary,
you live with the consequences.
so what the f--- has taken the current cadre (1990-2006) of democratic candidates at all levels so long to learn this?
has anyone observed that this is the m.o. of the gulliani campaign?
say any lie, deny any previous action, take any money,
and then declare that there is no problem or conflict.
big egos and big risks
require big lies.
but, surprisingly, these often have fewer consequences than one might presume,
or worry about.
just ask corporate lawyers.
so, yeah, hillary is smart to take the offensive,
it's something democratic candidates have NOT done for decades,
cf.,
(former) senator tom daschel,
and (former) democratic presidential candidates al gore and john kerry.
like the song says:
"wild women don't worry;
wild women don't get the blues,
in chicago....."
November 18, 2007 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good analysis, Reed. I'm not well enough versed in campaign tactics to have understood why the Obama campaign has seemed so empty of meaning, and why Edwards just seems to fade back into the woodwork all the time. I think I understand it better now.
So, it looks like I'm going to be campaigning for Hillary Clinton next summer. That's not something I look forward to, but I'm certainly not going to sit it out and watch Julie Annie become president without even trying to stop him.
Hoppy in Sacramento
November 18, 2007 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
To play devil's advocate here, what about the underdog effect? Isn't there a part of the electorate that thrives on the "put upon truth speaker?"
See Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, etc...
Nobody likes a blowout. By nature, we prefer a horse race, and long shots are even more attractive.
And then there is the bandwagon effect..
What I'm saying here is that perhaps we should look at political races not so much as war strategy, but gaming-wise.
Instead of going by Napoleon, perhaps we should look at Lefty Rosenthal.
November 18, 2007 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing is preventing Obama or Edwards from bashing a rhetorical home run out of the park and completely changing the dynamics of the race. Well, nothing, of course, other than their utter lack of ability to do so. The fact of the matter is that Clinton is better prepared, smarter, faster on her feet, more elegant - and dammit, just more presidential all the way around. If either Obama or Edwards had the ability to do it, they could simply be more presidential than she is - but they don't have that ability and they aren't. So that means that they must try and chop her down to their level - and she's not gonna go there easily. Edwards got booed not because he was attacking her substantively, but because he went too far. I know his partisans don't feel that way, but that is what happened.
Both Obama and Edwards would be far better served by working on their own presentation, and coming up with respectful ways to clarify the rather minute differences between the candidates rather than this bushwhacking they are engaging in.
That brings up one more issue - style is more important than ever because, other than Kucinich, most of the candidates have pretty much the same platform. So for most of us, the decision comes down to which candidate you believe can most effectively acccomplish the basic agenda that they are all presenting. And nothing about tearing Hillary down suggests that one would be better at getting their legislation written and through the majority.
Very simply, that is why Hillary remains in first place - because none of the other candidates are better than she is. She didn't have a lock on this from the beginning. Her assets could have been her detriments. But unlike the others, she rose to the occasion. She took what could have been an ungainly situation - the scandals of the Clinton administration, the failure of her healthcare plan, her non-traditional resume - and she triumphed above all of that. And then she showed up and did the best job repeatedly at the debates. She won people over.
That's why the candidates cannot take her down by implying she is corrupt, dishonest or incompetent - what non-partisan Democrats see is a winner. And when Obama and Edwards attack her, they look angry because she is better than they are.
November 18, 2007 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reed,
Why did you ignore the Golden Rule ("He who has the gold makes the rules")?
In this case it's she, of course, but one could argue that this is just an extension of her husband's misrule making the Democratic Party over into an adjunct of the Republican Party.
No one was fooled when Mrs. George Wallace was elected governor of Alabama or most recently the current president's wife was elected to replace a popular president in Argentina. It is a tribute to the power of the Clinton machine to blind the voters to the facts much as The Shadow could blind observers to his presence.
Obama is not without a buck or two from small contributors and some considerable idolization in the press but he may be fatally flawed by high intelligence that leads to nuance. The heroic slogan does not come easily to such people.
Our friend Hoppy says he will be happily campaigning for Republican Light against Republican Heavy. Some of us will once again be casting a protest vote if again the Democrats choose to nominate a Republican to represent them.
Hillary will offer platitudes to the working classes as advised by her pollsters, paid for by the "just plain people like you and me" corporations so she can do for them.
Maybe after the Great Dying that nearly eliminated life on this planet from global warming 250 million years ago, Mother Nature can raise intelligent life forms since the current experiment seems to have failed.
See:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/28jan_extinction.htm
Best, Terry
November 19, 2007 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama needs to attack Hillary's strength, and in doing so he will create debate about an issue that Hillary simply has no answer for: her husband.
Clinton is obviously Hillary's greatest asset. Still hugely popular, more charismatic, and highly skilled than his wife. Hillary would not be within a hundred miles of this nomination if not for nepotism.
In fact, Obama is the Bill Clinton of 2008: the brilliant, charismatic, political newbie who elevated himself by his own brilliance from a humble, fatherless background. And now he's running against someone who is the frontrunner only because of nepotism.
THAT's the winning issue for Obama. Sure, Hillary's smart and capable, and would make a good president, but would she be the frontrunner if she WEREN'T married to an ex-president? A female whose only elective experience is 8 years in the Senate? Not a chance.
After 8 years of the worst president in history, a man who became president purely through nepotism, will the Democrats set before the American people ANOTHER candidate whose chief claim to the office is her relation to a former president? Is THAT the message the party wants to give to America? That it's more important who your daddy is than who YOU are?
It's a can't miss issue for Obama. There's nothing Hillary can do about it. You can bet the Republcans will use it, and they'll probably beat her to death with it.
November 19, 2007 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice try.
Issues are completely irrelevant. The "basic agenda" you refer to is getting elected. While Obama and Edwards have for some reason not gone after Hillary's biggest weakness-her nepotism in riding her hubby's accomplishments and popularity to the Senate and her current front-runnership--you can bet the Republicans will destroy her with it.
After 8 years of a presidency by the greatest nepotist in our history, the Dems seem bent on presenting as their nominee a woman whose only legitimate claim to prominence is that she was married to the hugely popular and charismatic former president.
Sure, she's smart enough to do the job, but so are thousands of other people. The only reason she's the front-runner (after only 8 years in the Senate!) is her husband. The Republicans will kill her with this, if Obama doesn't.
November 19, 2007 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just my opinion, for what it's worth:
Democrats attack their Democratic opponents by calling them liars. That's not very smart.
This author is very kind to Bill Bradley, and all Democrats are currently very kind to Al Gore. But I was in the audience at the primary debate in NH when Democrat Bill Bradley called Democrat Al Gore a liar.
Democrats tear down their own in such a personal way, that when the general election comes, no one can stand your candidate, whoever it ends up being.
Believe me, I went through this with Al Gore. I'm going through it right now as a supporter of Hillary Clinton.
Edwards has called the Democrat's frontrunner a shady character. Obama has said that immoral politics is not beyond the Clinton "machine."
Those are GOP talking points.
You've already announced that your front-running (whether you'll even admit THAT or not) Democratic candidate has major character flaws.
Does Rudy Giuliani have major character flaws? Yes. Have you heard any Republicans call him a liar? No. They've called him a leader.
I'm completely disgusted with Obama and his stupidity today:
The darkest of the darkest GOP operative hinted that Democrats hinted that Clinton "agents" hinted that they have dirt on Obama.
And Obama's response is to attack Clinton as a dirty politician!!!!! Whew.
I guarantee that Bob Noval is laughing his ass off this morning at first-term Senator Barack Obama.
Clinton's attacks on Obama?
Clinton told us that Obama's healthcare plan wasn't universal because it doesn't cover 15 million people -- "about the populations of Iowa, New Hamshire, Nevada, and South Carolina."
How much smarter can you get?
Not only is she smart, she knows that Democrats should be talking about one another's healthcare plans, because the GOP don't have any.
So, did Obama take the spotlight that Bob Novak gave him and blast the Rightwing Slime Machine AND use all the attention to talk about healthcare???
No, he used the attention to put the attention back on Clinton.
And then she got to say she had nothing to do with the rumors and move on.
He's still defending his overreaction today.
The two topics the GOP wants to divide America with this time around are terrorism and immigration.
Democrats on immigration: Comprehensive immigration policy. No differences.
Yet (1) Obama tried to make like there were differences (falling right into the GOP trap), and then (2) he was not able to explain the Democratic stand on immigration any better than Clinton.
Thanks, OB! Now the democrats' immigration message is double-muddled.
Clinton hasn't hurt any of her opponents if they should win the primary.
Her opponents have done to her what Democrats do to all their frontrunners -- they attack the candidate's character.
Why? I don't get it.
And Democrats even attack the characters of Clinton supporters!
Democrats are just basically horrible at teamwork.
The other thing that reveals the Democrats' mental weakness is their claim that the GOP will take down Hillary Clinton. No one in the GOP will take down Hillary Clinton. Every time a Democrat says that, they look weak.
Also, Bill Clinton is campaigning for his wife, but he has been campaigning for ALL the candidates.
When Edwards implies the clinton Presidency was a bust... well, I just shake my head and wish I wasn't voting for Democrats these days.
Democrats have had ONE two-term President since FDR. And the Democrats are going to call that guy a failure? Whew.
When he left office, 70% of the nation thought the country was moving in the right direction.
And that's a failure?!!?
No, Gore not winning in 2000 was a failure.
Kerry not winning in 2004 was a failure.
Bill Clinton winning in 1992 AND 1996 was NOT a failure.
Well, enough.
I already know this entire post is a complete waste of time.
Democrats have a reputation as "hard to herd cats" and seem to think that's funny.
It's not.
November 19, 2007 3:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Democrats attack their Democratic opponents by calling them liars. That's not very smart."
And then later:
"I'm completely disgusted with Obama and his stupidity"
:-)
The Clinton attack machine couldn't top that.
Gore, the self-described Conservative Alternative who pickeed Joe Lieberman as vice president, probably didn't lose because Bradley told the truth but probably because:
A. Bush didn't tell the truth.
B. Gore ran as a Republican.
C. Scalia and friends elected the Heavy in place of the Lite Republican.
D. Gore's rediscovered concern for the environment wasn't in evidence during the Clinton administration except as a tool for destruction of the environment.
You are funny though, freespeak. Are you willing to nominate Hillary for the laughs with the possibility as a consequence that another Republican Heavy will win? Hillary is probably the only person who could elect a Giuliani or Romney or even a Huckabee.
Democrats are a fun-loving bunch for sure.
Best, Terry
November 19, 2007 4:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, since no one has been able to kill her with it for the last eight years, that's probably not the reason she's the front runner.
November 19, 2007 4:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama didn't come from a "fatherless, humble background", he came from a fairly well to do family, attended the finest prep schools and ivy league colleges, so much for that theory.
Obama isn't anything like Bill Clinton, let Obama be Obama.
To claim that H.Clinton would not be within a 100 miles of the nomination if she were not married to Bill Clinton is somewhat specious - perhaps if she hadn't been married to Bill Clinton she would have been president by now.
Obama can't use this issue, he's just as vulnerable as she is on "experience".
As to the repubs using it, all she has to do is ask people, "are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?"
November 19, 2007 5:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The protest Democrats (those strong on principled positions and short on political smarts) wonder whether Hillary is using Bill. Why shouldn't she? What is wrong with a candidate using every advantage since that is what gets a voter's vote. I started out an Obama supporter. But, truth be told, I am not sure America is ready for a Black President. We can huff and puff all we want, but that is a real issue for white men, especially in the South. It is tough enough to get a woman elected. And a White one at that.
Edwards has simply not raised the monies needed to get there. So, as someone who wants a Democrat in the White House I will go out and work for the winner of the primary. If it is Hillary so be it.
I need to make sure that Bernie's friend does not get in.
November 19, 2007 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
As an aside, Guiliani's law firm is defending KBR against the lawsuit filed by the families of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq because of KBR's negligence in hiring and training employees.
So here we have a candidate running for the highest elective office in the land and his law firm is defending one of the biggest defense dept. war contractors, and it doesn't even make the evening news.
That's what democrats are really up against.
November 19, 2007 5:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Edwards has not done a great job of making his case to the unconvinced in the debates -- I provided one example of what he should be saying above. But IMHO, the "two person primary" has forced Edwards into a position where his only choice is to be "strident" in his opposition to Hillary -- otherwise, he'd get the same media treatment as Richardson, Dodd, etc...
Edward's needs to hone his message -- not just make it clear that Hillary will be beholden to fat cats, but explaining why her style of governing will be a bad idea.
In other words, Edwards needs to take on the (Bill) Clinton legacy --- and say something like....
That is going on the offensive, without attacking, and without vainly trying to get media attention by focussing on issues.
November 19, 2007 5:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it would be a huge mistake to try to make nepotism an issue with Hillary. Hillary wasn't the kind of wife who passively accepted the role of 'political wife and homemaker', but a woman who forged her own identity throughout her husband's career, and played an active role in his ascent to power in an era when women were simply not considered 'leadership material' and I think it would be considered sexist if any candidate were to try and suggest that she is the front-runner solely because of her husband's name.
As I suggested below, the way for her opponents to deal with the Bill issue is to take a page out of Rove's playbook, and turn a strength into a weakness by praising Bill Clinton as the right president during his time -- while saying that "Clinton-style politics" of conciliation toward the far right in the name of political expediencey is wrong for the challenges we're now facing.
November 19, 2007 6:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
He may not have been as clever as all that, but he tried every way he could to use financing of campaigns as a centerpiece to his claim of representing ordinary Americans. I thought his themes were consistently developed and presented--I just think they weren't covered.
And if Reed were correct--if tactics and content mattered more than predefined narrative, then Dodd would be all over the newspapers. He's run an innovative campaign, his position on Iraq has the least waffle in it, he's taken very strong positions on restoring the constitution and rule of law--and backed up those positions with action.
It's very difficult to penetrate narrative, and pieces like Reed's actually help perpetuate it because they blame the candidates for not finding a way to garner headlines.
When the number of buttons on Clinton's blouse is a big news item, while the preservation of the 4th amendment is not, it's very hard to make headlines.
But credit Clinton's savvy. Peter Daou was a very good hire.
November 19, 2007 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
But the media does not like longshots. They've worked out the story in advance, and having to talk about anyone too far from the chalk is too much work.
An establishment woman against an up and coming black guy was a great story. You would have thought that the automatic front-runner status would go to the VP candidate from last time. That's how it works if you are a republican (see Dole).
But for one reason or another, Edwards was pushed aside.
Or look at the treatment of Thompson. He never did anything to earn "competing for front runner" status. But there he was, in the first rank without ever declaring his candidacy.
Or look at zombie McCain. Ron Paul is eating his lunch on the metrics they say they care about, especially fundraising. One excuse given for dumping Edwards is his trailing in fundraising. But a complete campaign finance debacle in the McCain campaign, combined with horrible polling numbers is not enough to kill the candidacy in the media narrative.
When you get outside the narrative, they just look for ways to kill you off. Look at Dean. They turned a moderate good government centrist into a fire breathing radical, because he opposed the war and had broad grassroots support.
November 19, 2007 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
sorry, but Obama's move was stupid... if he wanted to minimize the impact of the Novak story, he could have called it nonsense, let Hillary do the same, and watch it disappear. If he was looking to change the narrative, the way to do that would have been to take on Novak and the GOP smear machine --- that would have gotten lots of coverage, and made him look forceful.
Going after Clinton based on a Novak column may have taken the emphasis off of Obama's poor debate performance, but it doesn't make him look good (except among Hillary-haters, and there aren't enough Democrats who will support someone who irrationally attacks another Democrat.) His reaction makes him look desperate, and panicked.... its a rookie mistake that no seasoned candidate would have made.
November 19, 2007 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, while the media should be covering that, the Democrats should be forcing the issue by attacking the GOP candidates directly.
I mean, if Edwards, or Obama, or Clinton were to slam Rudy on this -- and then slam his exploitation of 9/11 while trying to hide his record of venality before and after the attack, THAT would change the narrative. Biden got coverage for his slam of Rudy, but the media doesn't take him seriously, and none of the other Dems had the sense to exploit that moment.
November 19, 2007 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I think of senator Clinton's career as being distantly analogous to a NASCAR team: The trailing car drafts the leading car, and when the time is right, will essentially slingshot off the draft to make a move for the checkered flag. This doesn't make the trailing car a loser who depends on the leading car, it's simply a way to make sure the team is successful.
FWIW, I consider senator Clinton to have complete command of the issues and is ready with several general "action points" to face those issues. She does act presidential. Her action plans are based largely on rational thought and careful study. In many ways, I beleve senator Clinton would probably be an excellent president Clinton. Returning to the NASCAR analogy, the team has been successful so far, with both team members (sometimes *very* imperfectly) supporting each other.
But I am uncomfortable with her tolerance, or acceptance, whetever you would call it, of corporate elites. I believe *someone* needs to reign in these folks, and I don't think senator Clinton gives that enough priority.
November 19, 2007 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton did not make the Democratic Party an adjunct of the Republican Party. He just took it way from the out of touch far left. Clinton responded to the Reagan claim that government was the problem by turning the Democratic Party back into the party of liberalism.
Hillary Clinton, Obama, Biden and most of her fellow Democrats are following in the path set by Franklin Roosevelt, a Demcoratic Party that will use government to help provide equal opportunity, not results, and a robust globalism.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
November 19, 2007 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. and a very important one.
Bill Clinton seems to be the only dem leader who understands not to do the GOP's work for them. Recently I saw him on local teevee saying that we're very lucky this election that ALL of the democratic candidates would make a great president--that he has a strong preference, of coure, but he'd be proud to vote for any of them.
The point is that the republicans know to run against the democrats from day one. Sure there's a bit of sniping but they're focusing on Hillary and the other democratic front-runners, less on each other. It's what the base wants to hear. At the end, GOP voters will select the one that did the best job of opposing democrats, not opposing other republicans.
The democrats run, on the other hand, against each other. At the end, we select the one left standing. The base is disgusted, the frontrunner is hobbled.
Instead of recruiting and inspiring their base, they're afraid of being associated with them, since they've bought the GOP spin that democrats are out of touch with America. So people start talking about "electability", since they believe any democrat is naturally offensive to most of the country.
And then the Democratic Party starts campaigning for the general election at a disadvantage, having taken NO opportunity to define the republican nominee until he has been anointed, at which point he starts off looking strong. The democrat, on the other hand, can't even win the support of other leading democrats and so he or she looks like a loser from the start.
That's the road we've taken since 2000, and it looks like the road we're headed down again.
November 19, 2007 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
FDR and his successors never dissed the working classes. They appealed to them.
Nobody said it more bluntly than Harry Truman.
Clinton changed all that. That was the purpose of the DLC - to remake the Democratic Party into Republican Lites. The hell with the left out. We need to look after the "middle class;" i.e. upper classes. Only Hillary consistently hews to that line.
Obama at his worst ain't no Republican or DLC'er. That is precisely what Hillary is.
Best, Terry
November 19, 2007 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Bill Clinton did a great job while President, why can't we go back to Clinton style politics?
November 19, 2007 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I saw this column up, and its title, I was hoping it was about finally going on offense against Republicans. I'm disappointed to see that it's not.
I'm eager to vote for a candidate that can define himself or herself against the Republican disaster that we've all witnessed. Instead I keep hearing how they'll be ABLE to go against the Republican disaster. Just get in there and do it already guys-- run against Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, even Paul, and yes Bush, and then I'll be excited about your candidacy.
By going on offense against each other, all the dem candidates are doing is feeding into the line that none of them are worth it, making us think they believe a republican would be just as good as their primary opponents. I think all fo these candidates could be great, esp compared to what we've got right now. I want to hear them acknowledge that and go against the greatest ill facing the country today:
No, it's not some nitpicking difference between competing democratic policies, it's Bush policy and it's Conservatism.
I don't want to hear about how they differentiate from each other. I want to hear who can differentiate themselves the most from the GOP disaster.
Until they do, I'm more and more discouraged that they can lead this country in a new direction in the coming years. And more discouraged that any of them will even get the opportunity.
November 19, 2007 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
the real answer is that Clinton didn't do such a great job (it just looks great in comparison to the people who came before and after him) ....
the answer that a candidate would give is that Democrats have to start playing with our eye on our own goalposts, and not the 50 yard line -- that times have changed,and that the last seven years of Clinton-style accomodation of the far right is why the GOP has been able to wreak havoc on America. We need a new, bold and agressive game plan if we ever hope for America to achieve its full potential.
November 19, 2007 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Hillary would make a great dictator -- if given absolute power, she'd consistently do the right thing.
But we don't live in a dictatorship. And we watched Hillary for six years use her Senate position solely to position herself for a run at the presidency.... and I think the odds are overwhelming that she'll spend the first four years of her presidency positioning herself for re-election, rather than tackling all the problems that need to be tackled.
November 19, 2007 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reed's post was worth reading carefully. Still, it bothers me. For one thing, it's more theater criticism than political commentary, already playing into the media horse-race bias. But I realize it's inevitable for the Beltway to talk that way. What really nags at me is that it isn't very good theater criticism.
I say that as an arts writer (at times). It's just not good criticism to say "he's great" and "he sucks" without at least making some effort to describe what was good and bad, then explain why it's good or bad. (A really great critic lets the description and explanation carry the judgment for itself, but I guess I don't expect that from daily papers, so we won't hold Reed to serious standards.) Here, try to find anything. It sounds good, but reread it. What makes Edwards's attacks rifle shots and Clinton's not? And just what attacks? After all, her line about her pants suit or Obama's lack of mandatory health insurance in his plan were just quick one-liners prepared in advance. Obama came back, and she came back repeating what she'd said, and it was a good exchange, but what distinguishes it?
Well, as one person pointed out, part of what distinguishes it is that it was an exchange, whereas Blitzer mostly asked loaded, poor questions and then diverted answers from anyone but the anointed leaders. I'd have liked Reed's commentary better if it had been informed by, say, the observation of the Times public editor Sunday, which has not got any mention at TPM, documenting how Edwards was drastically underreported. He mentioned only lack of front-page articles, conceding that it's not the only measure, but it might be wiser to note that it's only a single symptom of how sweeping the anointment really has been.
The only reason Clinton is using heavy artillery rather than a rifle has nothing to do with her smarts. She's been better armed, and I don't mean by her political position.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
November 19, 2007 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
All military history points to the advantage being on defense, requiring a successful attacker to muster overwhelming force if he is not to rely on too much luck. Napoleon was defeated by his refusal to either A) throw all his weight behind obliterating the Spanish partisans or B) abandon Spain and throw all his weight against Russia. Obama had a chance to at least reach parity with Clinton but not overwhelm her, in which case he could have rolled the dice on an all out attack when his support was near it's peak. With a little luck he might have won. But, victory goes to the bold and he chose to finesse it a few months ago. Now, he's going to have to try to sneak up on her, which is going to require a lot of luck.
November 19, 2007 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to this month's Atlantic Monthly, Clinton's campaign has been feeding negative Obama information to Matt Drudge. In true experienced political operator fashion, they have kept their fingerprints off these attempted smears. But it does suggest that Obama is justified in believing the substance of Novak's column, even if the source is, well, Novak.
Oh, and Reed:
"Clinton’s campaign ...on the offense. They raise issues, thereby choosing battlegrounds."
What issues might those be? "I've taken on the right wing, and beaten them every time?" Or, what about, "I have the strength and experience to be President from Day One?" Or, maybe her signautre issue is "I'm your girl."
The reason she doesn't attack her opponents is because she has a 90+% name recognition, and even by acknowledging them negatively, she gives them publicity.
Clinton is trying to run an almost substance-free campaign, based exclusively on the fact that she sat unelected in the West Wing for eight years. All of her policy papers have come out after the two other major candidates', and she simply seems to co-opt whatever Edwards has already done.
November 19, 2007 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point. I just finished reading Foote's three-volume Civil War history. All of the significant early combat victories went to the south, by virtue of an effective counterattack strategy. The only full-on attack by the confederates was Gettysburg, which signaled the beginning of the end. A truism throughout those battles was that the attacker needed overwhelming numbers (on the order of 3 or 4 to 1) to succeed.
November 19, 2007 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am dazed by a number of commenters. Do we want a Democrat to win? If so, why are Obama and Edwards not going after Guiliani or Romney? They are taking the easy road and trying to knock out Clinton. Boy, that is really going to get them ready for 2008. Politics is the art of the possible. For those who sound principled the best thing you can do is go out and take part. There are just too many arm chair critics for who Hillary and Bill are easy targets. We know Bill's faults. He did not get us into Iraq? He floored the Republicans. Remember Gingrich and Livingstone? But because some want Obama or Edwards to win they are following a Republican tactic: go after a Clinton, either one, it's easy. It is also cheap.
November 19, 2007 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. The media does not cover policy differences and that is why Clinton is able to get away with blurring distinctions. There are meaningful policy differences between Obama and HRClinton the problem is that those differences do not fit into a 30second soundbite and the media fails to provide any policy analysis articles nor within the context of the 'ask the candidate forums' which are NOT debates.
It is even worse than this. The truth is that Clinton has done stupid things but the media has failed to cover it. Clinton is allowed to attack the messenger and not the substance of the message. Early on in the campaign the media allowed this when they refused to address the earmark issue that Obama raised while focusing on the attack of it being an ethnic slur that the Hillary camp chose as the SPIN instead. The same goes for when HRClinton was WRONG on foreign policy when calling Obama 'naive and irresponsible' the media once again failed to point out that she was wrong on her FP stance and that several emminient foreign policy experts agreed with Obama. The media also failed to call that an ATTACK on the CHARACTER of Barack instead once again buying into the Clinton 'spin' of it being an experience issue, when it was nothing more than a character attack. It was not an issue of policy as Clinton offered nothing as a counter=policy. More importantly, the media failed to point out that the FP experts Clinton relies on were all wrong about going to war with Iraq and that her attack dog Albright was wrong while those FP experts supporting Obama got it right. Where were the interviews of FP experts to provide the real policy debate? The media offered nothing for the America public to make a real decision with other than HRClinton's spin on experience. The media also gave HRClinton a pass when she waited until both of her political rivals presented their healthcare plans before she provided one. And that her healthcare plan was in many ways a duplicate of their ideas. It is the media's role which is causing serious damage to HRClintons rivals and their ability to take her on, on policy issues. It is not a lack of offense on their part..it is a failure of coverage on the part of the media and even worse it is their willingness to focus on the 'spin' from her campaign than the SUBSTANCE of the issues.
Hillary makes lots of stupid mistakes but the media fails to cover it. She also attacked Obama about his stance on Pakistan and the media failed to report how Obama's stance was present American policy based on the very AUMF that Hillary had voted for!. The media fails to point out how Hillary did not even read the NIE report and how the recent vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was for political expediency AGAIN on her part to straddle the line with AIPAC. Hillary has done many many stupid things...but it is the failure of the media to cover these incidents that makes it APPEAR that her campign is great and flawless when it is far from it.
I agree. However, Edwards did this very thing at the Yearly Kos convention and the media failed to focus coverage of it. Just like they fail to report how Hillary recieves the most corporate lobbyist money of the entire presidential field, that she receives the most healthcare lobbysists dollars and the most military industry lobbyist dollars. It is not that Obama has fizzled or that Edwards is not bringing a strong attack. The media is even allowing Hillary to say that she has 35 years of public service as if she is the most experienced candidate while not challenging her on the fact that she has very little ELECTED office experience. Less than ALL the Dem candidates EXCEPT Edwards! It is the media's failure to provide ACCURATE reporting that allows HRClinton to dominate this race.
Just as Hundt has written this simplistic analysis of 'offense' vs. 'attack' narrative frame rather than delve into what are the real facts of how the media is shaping the campaign to conform to their own narrative and that Hundt has even bought into HRClinton campaign spin of substantative policy issues being characterized as an 'attack'.
The media allows the Clintons to manipulate them by bowing to pressure from their campaign. There is no way that GQ should not have run that story nor that Wolf Blitzer should have allowed Hillary to get away with switching her position of driver's license for immigrants without him hammering her about that change. But he did. He failed to cover how her campaign pressured the Spitzer administration to drop the issue, as well. The media is also failing to cover how she is using the gender card while there cannot be any race cards played by either Richardson or Obama. ..and that diamonds and pearls question was absolutely despicable!
November 19, 2007 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who has tried to kill her for the past 8 years? No one. So to say they failed is invalid. Obama and Edwards appear to be doing a pretty good job in Iowa of running neck and neck with her. Despite her receiving 'hands off' coverage from the press. The press is not barreling down on Hillary about the substantance fo the issues they are raising. If they were, Hillary would be toast.
November 19, 2007 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama pretty much said what you wrote at the J&J dinner. He went on the offense without attacking. The HRClinton campaign spin however of them 'attacking' her is the one that the media and Hundt is falling for. Hillary has not been attacked once, she simply whines...and works the refs...if this were basketball, she is a flopper.
November 19, 2007 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. However, Edwards did this very thing at the Yearly Kos convention and the media failed to focus coverage of it.
the media was doing everything it could to ignore Edwards at that point (if Obama had said it, it might have gotten coverage) -- and to treat yearly-kos as a bunch of "unserious" people.
The only reason that Edwards got any coverage out of the Philadelphia debate is that the media was demanding attacks on Hillary from Obama -- and Obama didn't come through for them, so they highlighted Edwards. Edwards approach was only marginally more critical of Hillary in Philadelphia than it had been previously.... but in Philadelphia his agression fed into the pre-determined media narrative better.
In the current media environment, the non-Hilbamas needed to not just say the right things, but say the right things at the right time to get attention. Edwards had a slight advantage because he couldn't be completely ignored -- and the rest of the field didn't do the things that they needed to do to get attention (attack Rudy, or McCain, or Mitt, or Thompson -- or attack the media for its refusal to cover issues of importance to Democrats, and for using GOP "frames" to approach every issue.)
November 19, 2007 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I could disagree with you.
I'm pretty fed up with those who so believe in their rightness that their will should be translated directly into national action with insufficient participation by those of us who are affected by their decisions.
Wish us luck, we will need it...
November 19, 2007 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you provide any facts to support this. This is an oft repeated meme propagated by hearsay. Hillary has no political identity other than as Bill's wife. He is the reason she has wield power, not anything she achieved on her own.
It might be considered sexist, but even if it were..the point is that it is the truth. Just as there are things that are true that may be racist as well such as the chances of a black male being incarcerated vs. going to college.
Edwards and Obama do need to challenge Hillary on this and they have tried to do so as with the case of her schedules and papers fromt the WH years. This is a matter for WJClinton and since he is out there defending his wife from 'all the boys' he should be pressed on releasing those papers. The press however is failing to do their jobs and demand that both Bill and Hillary be accountable.
November 19, 2007 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
The South like corporate America is far more sexist than it is racist. Men would rather deal with another man in any venue than to have to deal with the gender dynamics that ensue when a female joins the group.
Obama is electable in the south, just like Andrew Young, Artur Davis and less we forget Douglas Wilder...as governor in Virgina the HOME of the confederacy..no less.
November 19, 2007 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, then what is your basis to decide on who to vote for in the primary. What you are saying here is the basis we vote on a candidate in the GENERAL election. Not how we decide which candidate best represents the democratic base and it's platform.
November 19, 2007 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary is probably the only person who could elect a Giuliani or Romney or even a Huckabee"
That's nonsense.
Jack
November 19, 2007 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Obama and Edwards would both like to able to show their faces in public and not worry about being a pariah among women, so no, they aren't going to try that argument because it would doom their bid. Hillary had an impressive resume before Bill took office, and there is no reason to think she wouldn't be exactly where she is had she not married him.
November 19, 2007 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the asbestos pants suit line was typical of working the refs and of playing the "lone woman running" card, all with zilch to do with real taking offense. It works, too. Take a look at Yglesias again today, on her way of effacing foreign policy stances.
It's really thread drift, but I believe the military value of offensive vs defensive strategies has varied historically with such things as the availability of sheer manpower but even more with changes in technology. Going into WWI, people assumed that offense still ruled as for Napoleon, and they ended up in a trench war. Something not dissimilar had happened even earlier in the American Civil War, where artillery and sufficient maneuverability to retreat well made defense effective. For a few years, each side would get confident after the other side advanced and got mowed down, then it'd do much the same. Finally that left one side much stronger and clearer on the idea of overwhelming force, and it marched south.
Going into WWII, the French still thought they were in a situation where defense ruled, and the Germans went right around them. Defense still had enormous potential with newer German strategy in Italy and Japanese on the islands, but it took the willingness to absorb a lot of losses. One could argue that Vietnam and Iraq show that political realities can achieve the shift in advantage that technology once did.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
November 19, 2007 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
re: "According to this month's Atlantic Monthly, Clinton's campaign has been feeding negative Obama information to Matt Drudge. In true experienced political operator fashion, they have kept their fingerprints off these attempted smears. But it does suggest that Obama is justified in believing the substance of Novak's column, even if the source is, well, Novak."
You are unbelievable gullible.
Why would any Democrat ever be "justified" in believing anything Bob Novak had to say???
Are you thinking that Bob Novak is watching out for Obama?
My favorite part of your post:
"They (not the Rightwing Slime Machine -- the Hillary Clinton's campaign!!) have kept their fingerprints off these attempted smears."
Gad. L.M.F.A.O.
November 19, 2007 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ultimately there is one election.
If the candidates can articulate a vision for the country that is based on differentiating themselves and the democratic party from that other one, then that is how I would want to choose them for the GENERAL election.
I expect to consider their stated and implied motivations, their policy statements &c., but their vision and distinction as the leader most capable to change this country's course will weigh heavily.
We're not picking a technician, we're picking a leader.
November 19, 2007 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
Neither Guiliani nor Romney are faux Democrats running in the Democratic primaries. They ain't much but at least they admit what they are.
In order for a Democrat to be elected president, one must be nominated by the Democratic Party.
Best, Terry
November 19, 2007 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a Democrat, but maybe I just found out the problem.
Re: "What you are saying here is the basis we vote on a candidate in the GENERAL election. Not how we decide which candidate best represents the democratic base and it's platform."
Don't ALL your candidates represent the Democratic base? Don't ALL your candidates represent the Democratic platform??
If you want to know the different nuances on the DEMOCRATIC issues, why don't you go onto their websites and find out the nuances? Then sell those nuances to the rest of us.
I'm not talking about "the issues."
I'm talking about Edwards and Obama using words like "polarizing" and "unelectable."
Those aren't policy differences. Those are personal attacks.
And when Richardson tells those candidates to cut it out, the rest of you simply dismiss his advice as pandering for the VP job. No, he's trying to tell you there won't be a VP job available to ANY Democrat if they keep on, very publicly, eating each other alive.
Do Democrats think just Democrats are watching them in the Democratic primary?
EVERYONE IS WATCHING YOU.
So, If Clinton wins your primary and Independents have heard Edwards and Obama -- her fellow Democrats -- call her a liar, polarizing, and unelectable, how many Independents will want to join your lying, polarizing, unelectable team?
I challenge anyone to find me a statement by Clinton that would hurt any other Democratic candidate in the general.
She talks about healthcare, healthcare, healthcare. Why? Because the GOP has no healthcare plan, and it's the SECOND biggest issue for voters!!!!!
(Contrary to the GOP talking points, immigration isn't even on the radar with voters. Neither is SS. Yet two weeks ago, Obama was pounding Clinton on... yes, immigration and social security!)
And what's Obama talking about today?
He's busy talking about how he's well within his rights to suspect Hillary Clinton is a sleazebag, because Bob Novak told him so.
Do you WANT to indice your fellow Americans to be fellow Democrats?
Then stop disrespecting your fellow Democrats.
EVERYONE is watching.
November 19, 2007 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with this strongly for two big reasons.
First, the people here who want Obama or Edwards to win want them to win because they represent a different type of leadership than Hillary. To say, as many on this thread have, that there is little diference between the three Dems and that we should choose Hillary because she is the most likely to win is the same sort of flawed thinking that gave us John Kerry in 2004.
Second, the reason that Obama and Edwards are going after Hillary is that, as Hillary herself would say, she's ahead. If Obama or Edwards talked about Bush or Rudy or Romney (and they have) all that Hillary has to do is release her own statement on the same issues...and the media will be waiting to see what the great Hillary has to say about these issues that the "minor candidates" have brought to our attention.
Look, I don't know why Rudy is choosing not to run in Iowa, but the media narrative on that side of the aisle is that Rudy is the front runner but could be challenged by whoever comes out of Iowa...and we all expect that to be Mitt. If Huckabee wins Iowa it screws Romney. With the Democrats, all the marbles are in Iowa. If Hillary doesn't win Iowa then perhaps the media will craft a new story, at least for a little while, but one thing is clear to me...
Once Hillary becomes the nominee (very likely) then the media will take out the long knives, because she is the one they want.
November 19, 2007 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are making my point for me.
Democrat primary = CIVIL WAR????
For the rest of us, this is about the war we are having with Republicans, not the civil war Democrats are having among themselves.
-----
re: "it might be wiser to note that it's only a single symptom of how sweeping the anointment really has been."
It's intellectually lazy for Edwards to call this "an annointment."
Edwards was ahead in Iowa. He lost that lead to both Clinton and Obama. He hasn't kept up with Obama in any measure, and Obama is holding his own against Clinton.
Annointment? No, just sour grapes.
John Edwards has failed to capture the spirit of the voters.
November 19, 2007 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 19, 2007 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's fine. Neither is Hillary but she won't admit it. She is a DLC'er; i.e. Republican Lite.
"I am a Democrat."
How many more you want?
Fine. I missed that.
What's the plan? How is it paid for?
She says she's for universal health care but hasn't shown the slightest interest in rational discussion near as I can tell. She did say Obama was plumb against national healthcare. She is right but he denies it.
Kucinich is the only one who can say truthfully that he is for national healthcare without qualification. John Edwards at least has admitted there will be a cost.
The Republican plan is: Heal thyself, pig. Don't expect the country to pay.
Hillary's healthcare is a little different. "Take care of my backers, the corporations, and they will take care of you."
Bank on it.
Best, Terry
November 19, 2007 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thompson is a good example of the media creating and sticking to its fixed narrative. When it comes out that Thompson, ultraconservative, was a well-paid lobbyist pushing a pro-abortion bill, and then he denies it, blatantly lying, the press matter-of-factly reports this on A-26 and drops it. At that time, the media was too busy squealing about Edward’s haircut.
And of course, Thompson’s performance out of the gate would have buried any other candidate. To be fair, the media mentions his wife’s age difference every chance it gets. That’s examining the issues, right? Giulianni is as radical an authoritarian as they come and doesn't hide it when he's talking to his base groups, but John Q. Voter will never know it.
This critical manipulation of elections, uniform across major newspapers and broadcast mediaand getting worse every cycle, seems almost impossible to overcome. I think Bill Clinton did flip the narrative in ’92 by counterattack, in part, but mostly by moving right and signaling that he would be one of the boys (just as Hillary has done).
November 19, 2007 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, this is misleading.
Obama was raised by a single mother. He was sent home from Jakarta to his grandparents house, and they were nowhere near 'well to do'. There was certainly no father in the household. He went to a prep school in Hawaii on scholarship and to Occidental College. Occidental College is not ivy league. He then transferred to Columbia, and came back to the community to work as an organizer prior to going to Harvard Law. This is not the background of a well to do affluent person. Obama relates very well to single mothers raising children on their own far more so than any elite prepatory 'havemore' class of folks such as GWBush.
Obama is not vulnerable on experience in any manner such as HRClinton. There is nothing in HRClintons background since she left Yale that she can claim as experience without her having relied on Bill's political ties. NADA. She has not earned her accomplishments based on her pesonal success. Obama has. Hillary has no significant legislation to her name and the one policy issue associated with her was a complete and utter disaster. Obama has no such political policy disasters. Hillary has a track record of partisian enmity and Barack has a track record of bipartisan succes.
Hillary can be hit very hard on her lack of experience if the press chose to fairly cover the issue.
If the truth was told Hillary is the most vulnerable candidate of all when it comes to 'experience' she needs to release white house records to validate any experience she claims other than her time in the Senate and she is unwilling to do so. Just as her and Bill refuse to release the donors to his Global Initiative or Library. If the press was doing their job. WJClinton would be under the same microscope as Hillary since they are once again running as a team. Therefore Bill and his fiancial shenaigancs and dalliances with females are fair game.
If we only had a press with the testicular fortitude to provide forthright coverage her and Bill would be sitting at home and America would be looking at having the best Presidential team in the past 40 years.
Obama/Edwards 08!
November 19, 2007 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why would any reasonable person NOT beleive Novak, independent of party affliation? After all, everything he wrote about the Plame affair was true, no?
November 19, 2007 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wholeheartedly agree that we are picking a leader, not an individual who spouts the best 30second soundbite in a pseudodebate format or who wears the title of best fighter. I certainly want a leader as well.
However, the primaries are about who represents the Democrats the best. That is how the rivals have to distinguish themselves. They are not running in the primaries against the GOP. Their audience is solely democrats as only democrates get to select the party nominee based on the number of delegates.
Whatever the candidates say about how best they can represent the party against the GOP has no relevancy UNLESS they become the nominee. It is presumptious even for a candidate to beleive that they can run on how they are differenent from the GOP as opposed to how well they represent the Democratic platform as there is NO guarantee that they will even be the nomineee to represent our party against the GOP.
Selecting a leader is far more important than who can fight the GOP the best. That leader has to first demonstrate he can lead the democrats of our own party first though.
November 19, 2007 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry if it was unclear, but the operative word above there is BEST.
And no not all candidates who run as Democrats represent the base as the democratic base is very diverse. There is a large anti-war base and HRClinton does not represent that base. There is a large anti-NAFTA base and HRClinton doe snot repreent that base. There is a large anti-lobbyist base and HRClinton does not represent that base, either. HRClinton is still running as a democrat but that is primarily based on social issues. When it comes to economic and foreign policy issues HRClinton is far more of a DINO and a neo-con. If you paid attention to her voting record you would know that.
I know the nuances. Which is why again, in my previous statement the operative is best.
I disagree unless you had this same response to HRClinton calling Barack 'naive and irresponsible'? Did you?. If so then we can agree that HRClinton has been using personal attacks since the campaign began as she also attacked Barack about what Geffen said. Obama nor Edwards called HRClinton unelectable nor polarizing.
While I can see why you might want to frame them as 'personal attacks' in reality it is about the political issues given that partisan politics and polarizing is what renders HRClinton ineffective on policy differences and her being unelectable due to that same polarization also makes the policy differences mute. In other words she lacks the leadership to drive whatever policy differences there might be and THAT is a far bigger problem for the democrats. We do not need a candidate who beleives that partisan politics trumps reasoned discussion. We cannot govern the nation with that attitude.
I disagree. Richardson is indeed pandering and Joe Biden said it best if HRClinton is the nominee there is no need for a VP as WJClinton will be the defacto VP just as Cheney has been the defacto President during GWBush's administration.
Independents already know that she is a liar, polarizing, doubletalking termagant and unelectable. Obama did not raise 75M dollars as a rookie politican up against a 16 year national scene veteran because the Democratic base believes that HRClinton excells at leadership is forthright and exudes integrity.
I suggest you pay closer attention to what she says...she accused Edwards of mudslinging when he asserted she voted for neo-con policies and she called Obama 'naive and irresponsible' when he stated he was willing to meet with leaders of enemy nations. Both of these were scurrilous character attacks.
Hillary can talk all she wants about healthcare and it is meaningless because she lacks the ability to lead on the issue and to mold consensus to make that universal healthcare a reality. How do we know this? All you have to do is look at her track record on issues and how she is unable to drive any issue that requires bipartisan support. She lacks the negotiating skills and the ability to compromise. In fact she is so uncompromising that the Democratic base refuses to support her as she is unwilling to acknowledge that her vote was wrong on the most consequential issue of our time..the bogus Iraq war.
That's right because Hillary is on the wrong side of the issue and lacks the moral strength and clarity to take a stand on the issues. SS is important and Hillary won't state what her plans are because she is trying to have it both ways so that she can whatever the hell she wants as President which means she will not represent the citizenry and we already have enough of that washington insider game. Been there done that. Just a minute ago you were claiming her rivals were not talking about policies, but now you decry them when they do point out real issues by dismissing them as non-issues. Non-issues to who? YOU? Well, there are lots of other citizens who do care about immigration and SS who are also smart enough to know that Hillary talking about healthcare is a smoke screen as she has the most money from the healthcare industry lobbyists of all the politicians in DC...so we will NEVER get universal healthcare with Hillary as the nominee as she has already sold out to the corporations and lobbyists because as she told us...'lovvyists are Americans too'
If you paid attention to what Edwards and Obama said you would know that!
Obama has never called Hillary a sleazebag, ever. What he has done is demand that she denounce Novak IF what he said is false. If Novak is making false statements they are AGAINST HER. If, Novak is wrong then HRClinton WOULD denounce him and the fact that she chose not to but instead attacked Barack is all the more reason to believe that Novak is CORRECT just as he was ACCURATE about the Plame incident. You need to quit buying the Hillaryteam 'spin' and pay attention to the facts.
Do you want America to be great again? Do you want our President to represent the people and not corpoate interests? If so, you need to look for the candidate with the leadership, integrity, judgement and moral clarity to lead this country instead of being bamboozled by all that doubletalk and being first lady is experience to be President coming out of the Hillary camp.
You may be watching but the rest of us are listening and you might want to try listening as well.
November 19, 2007 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then explain the Atlantic allegations. Since you're unable to understand my post, I'll try to explain. The idea that the Clinton campaign is attemtping to smear Obama has been suggested INDEPENDENTLY of Novak.
November 19, 2007 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Clinton is not as experinced as she is despised. If she really cared about our country she wouldn't be running.
November 19, 2007 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you provide any facts to support this. This is an oft repeated meme propagated by hearsay. Hillary has no political identity other than as Bill's wife.
I didn't say "political" identity; I said "identity". But throughout her pre-first Lady career, Clinton practiced law while becoming an important advocate for children, families and women on her own, served on numerous boards, and was even named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America twice.
In other words, Hillary Clinton accomplished a great deal on her own, and the idea that she's just "Bill Clinton's wife" is ridiculous. She is a woman of consistent and signficant accomplishment, and as qualified, if not more qualified, to serve as just about everyone running except for Dodd and Biden.
And btw, I'm not a Clinton supporter. I'm just bothered by the level of anti-Clinton venom that manifests itself in these kinds of sexist, and baseless, accusations.
November 19, 2007 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
deleted
November 19, 2007 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
there is a difference between "smearing" someone (like trying to connect her personally to Norman Hsu) and distributing the kind of negative information about another candidates record to point out their hypocrisy and such.
So please provide an example of where the Clinton campaign did anything close to urging a reporter to cover Bill Clinton's post-presidential sex life.... because the Atlantic says that is what an Obama aide did, because the Obama campaign strategy was based on the assumption that the media would be doing their dirty work for them without being encouraged to.
November 19, 2007 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
No.
November 19, 2007 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one had better coverage than Obama - covers of weekly news magazines, puff pieces in the monthlies like VF, Esquire, front page coverage of all the major newspapers, appearances on all the tv talk shows, endorsements by celebs. The idea that this guy didn't get any coverage is baloney.
November 19, 2007 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one can deny the world speed record champtionship for the blizzard of cattle future trades on her very first day. Some horrid traders said it wasn't possible under the rules and that her crooked broker assigned other traders' profits to her account but then rules are made for other people.
Her employment by the Rose Law firm wouldn't have had anything to do with her husband being governor would it?
We misognynists like to consider such things as family ties of all kinds for men and women. TPM I notice is kind of big on nepotism too.
Like Walmart's board of directors, when she wasn't busy advocating for "middle class" women and children, you mean?
I am not so sure that is a recommendation but then I am not real high on the profession as a whole.
It is considered a liability for Edwards by most I think.
November 19, 2007 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have the article in front of me, but I believe there has been an ongoing charge that someone connected to Clinton originally pushed the "Madrassa" story.
And I think expressing frustration that the media hasn't behaved in a certain way, as the Obama aide was, is much different than "pushing" a story.
In presumed agreement with you, my fear is that the media is saving the Clinton sex stories for the general election. Probably October 2008.
November 19, 2007 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have responded to my last two comments with complete misreadings of them. Either you are too stupid to understand basic English, or are simply trolling because you disagree with my comments, but are unable to muster any retaional critique.
Here's a deal: you don't respond to any of my comments unless they are directed at you, and I'll stop being annoyed at how utterly obtuse you are.
November 19, 2007 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe Hillary Clinton has displayed great leadership skills, lots of integrity, wonderful judgement, and noticable moral clarity.
Like I said at the beginning of this topic, I sat in the audience when Bill Bradley accused Vice President Al Gore of lacking leadership, integrity, judgement, and moral clarity.
He publicly called Gore a liar.
These days, Al Gore seems to be pretty close to God among all those Democrats who once loudly cheered Bradley on.
I now understand exactly why Democrats have been losing elections for approximately the last half century.
I give up trying to help you win elections by encouraging you to become team players.
Eat each other alive. Enjoy!
November 19, 2007 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
no.
maybe i'm mis-reading your comments because you don't know how to communicate.
why are you bringing CIVIL WAR tactics to a blog discussing attacks between your fellow democrats?
November 19, 2007 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: "my fear is that the media is saving the Clinton sex stories for the general election. Probably October 2008."
The problem is your fear.
THE ELECTORATE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT BILL CLINTON'S SEX LIFE!!!!!!!
What in the world makes you think they do?
(Bob Novak?)
November 19, 2007 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, he did not. He did not go to any school on any scholarship. Read his book.
As far as your Clinton hatred, I heard enough of that over the years from Coulter, Olsen, Limbaugh and the rest. 100 million spent in special counsel investigations and they came up with, what's the word you used...wasn't it nada?
November 19, 2007 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 19, 2007 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: "To say, as many on this thread have, that there is little diference between the three Dems and that we should choose Hillary because she is the most likely to win is the same sort of flawed thinking that gave us John Kerry in 2004."
I'd just like to say that this is a mis-reading of my message, if this is directed anywhere near me.
Compared to Republicans, there IS very little difference between the Democrats.
If you need to differiate yourselves, please do, but understand that many of us aren't leftwing liberals, and we would like to vote for one of your Democratic candidates.
[For example, Obama and Edwards want HRC to engage with them on SS. No, she doesn't think it's in crisis.
If you think it is in crisis, then she's not your candidate. That's a REAL difference.
But no one should say her answer is fuzzy.
It's not:
(1) Re-lock the lockbox and (2) commission a bi-partisan commission, with a promise to embrace their bi-partisan recommendations.
Again, if you don't like that answer, she's NOT your candidate. No problem. Go solve the crisis that you believe ss is in among yourselves.)
I do NOT want anyone to choose Hillary because she is "the most likely to win." I really just want Democrats to recognize that she might win, and that's she's on YOUR team.
Other than that, I want everyone to support their own candidate both enthusiastically and joyfully.
imo, John Kerry was a flawed candidate because he didn't fight the Rightwing Slime Machine.
Hillary Clinton is getting ready to beat the living crap out of that Rightwing Slime Machine. It's one of the reason why I love her.
November 19, 2007 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have one thing right. Eight paragraphs and not one claim is correct.
November 19, 2007 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I am a Democrat."
From your postings I would more likely believe you're a 10%er, voted for Nader in 2000 or would have if you could vote.
Jack
November 19, 2007 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
My fear is that democrats buy these wingnut hit jobs as fact, and then willingly disseminate them on political forums.
So who first published this story? Insight magazine owned and operated by the Washington Times.
November 19, 2007 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
We may have read different Foote's three volume Civil War history, because nowhere in my copy of the volumes does it say anything remotely like that. Lee laid out his offensive strategy in numerous letters to Davis. Secondly, if it was a truism that the attacker needed overwhelming numbers to succeed, McClellan would have one the first battle, and the war, I might add. Napoleon, whose battles were studied quite extensively at West Point, said that the way to win was to occupy the best terrain, which Lee was very, very good at. Foote also points out that Lee took many long chances, which would hardly bespeak a "defensive strategy."
November 19, 2007 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
How could it be a mistake to use nepotism. Do you imagine for a second that Hillary would be the FRONT RUNNER for the presidential nomination--after only 8 years in elective office--had she been married to Bill Bailey, or even Bill Richardson, and not Bill Clinton?
Rosalyn Carter "played an active role in [her husband's] ascent to power in an era when women were simply not considered 'leadership material'" also. So did Nancy Reagan and Betty Ford. Is it sexist to suggest that Bush became president solely because of his father's name?
You're right that Hilalry didn't "passively accept the role of 'political wife and homemaker'", but she sure didn't do anything to qualify herself to be a presidential nominee. As First Lady, she pooched the health care portfolio Bill gave her, then basically hid out for 6 years.
Nepotism is nepotism, regardless of the sex of the nepotist. It's just absurd to say that Hillary's current advantage isn't due to her marriage to Clinton.
November 19, 2007 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read his book.
He grew up fatherless. Did you miss that fact when you were reading?
I have heard enough of you characterizing valid facts about HRClinton as hatred. You resort to that pathetic defense every single time you are flat out wrong. Somehow you think facts are partisan and they aren't. As for Coulter, Olsen Limbaugh and the rest perhaps you listen to them which is why you have an inability to produce any facts in support of your assertions and rely on bloviating instead.
I could give less than a darn about those investigations. The points I raised were about HRClintons present day candidacy and as usual you have no way of supporting her corporatist neo con policies so you instead scream HATE... Statin ain't hatin
it is TRUTH. Hardcore truth. Deal with it. Or join Hillary in her too hot kitchen where she fails to turn up the heat on republicans and capitulates to their policies.
She is too stupid to even grasp that taxing tht top 6% is not a TRillion dollar tax increase on the middle class. I suppose you consider that hate too...ooooh that's right Hillary claims it is firefighters salary...riiiight....
November 19, 2007 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are thousands of people in the US as smart and qualified as Hillary. Where are the hundreds upon hundreds of other "100 most influential lawyers of the year" of the past 20 years? Why is she the frontrunner, and not Hillary Smith, or Hillary Jones, or Nancy Pelosi or Janet Granholm? Is it just chance that the frontrunner is married to the most popular, charismatic, and successful president since, at least, John F. Kennedy?
I'm not saying she wouldn't make a good president, or is unaccomplished, and it isn't "venomous" to say that she's benefiting from nepotism, it's just reality. I mean, Christ, she sure doesn't have a lot of charisma of her own! Get real.
November 19, 2007 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't grow up "fatherless", in fact, he had as he said, good father figures.
Gee, you're awfully upset.
November 19, 2007 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is this a sexist argument? Do you think it's just by chance that the Democratic frontrunner is married to the hugely popular and charismatic Democratic former president?
Where Hillary would be had she not married Bill is a metaphysical question. Maybe she would have paid the same political dues as Pelosi, Granholm, Feinstein, Mikulski, Boxer, etc, and had an outstanding and hard-earned decades-long political career. She didn't. But she's still the front-runner for the nomination. Gosh, I wonder how THAT happenned!
November 19, 2007 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is one and the same. Hillary Rodham could not run for President as it is not a name of any identify or achievement and it certainly would not garner frontrunner status in national polls. Hillary Clinton has ONLY a political identity and that is as MRS. Clinton.
Her pre-US First Lady career was dependent upon Bill's political career as US Atty and then Governor in Arkansas. She made partner in the Rose Law firm because she was able to bring in clients who wanted access to Bill. Yes, she was ranked as one of the most influential lawyers but that again was due to her being MRS. Clinton. Note how the word 'influence' is political. She sat on Wal Marts board and she headed the board of Children's Defense Fund thanks to Marion Wright Edelman who she no longer even ackowledges, not even in her book despite thanking countless others. Welfare reform she supported was devastating to poor women, children and their families.
No it is far from absurd and I challenge you to provide evidence that she did anything of note that was not tied to Bill's political career or ties to his connections. She has earned nothing on her own. Which is why she is the absolute worst example of a woman to be President. Her status and public persona are based on her being MRS Clinton and the power she derives from that association. The only major policy HRClinton was put in charge of she turned into a disaster and then capitulated to the healthcare industry.
This is completely false. Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and Obama ALL have more ELECTED experience than Hillary. Name a significant achievement or piece of legislation she is responsible for that had was meaningful and not simply a renaming of a theatre or arts building. She likes to talk about how she 'helped' with Schip but she was not even an elected official when that was passed. Hillary was on the wrong side when it came to welfare reform and helping children to the extent that her and Edelman are no longer friends. There is not anything consistent about Hillary other than doubletalk. She has been on the wrong side of the bankruptcy issue when it comes to consumers. She voted for the war. She voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.
You have been bamboozled and bought that sizzle. Hillary has NO remarkable achievements to her name. NONE. Why do you think she will not release her White House documents of the time she was First Lady? If there was anything of note there, Bill Clinton would be ranting in the press daily about how they were keeping his wife's record out of the public eye so as to make her look unqualified. Instead they keep them hidden so as to decieve the public into believing she is qualified.
It is not venom. It is facts.
I also requested you provide some facts. Why haven't you?
Folks want to tout credentials the woman does not have. I would love for you to rebut any accusation you think is baseless. When you go to her website, be sure to look for words like ENACTED for successful legislation rather than introduced or sponsored. Don't be fooled by all those adjectives like ...assisted, served on, led effort, worked on or expanded. Look for her ACHIEVEMENTS and ACCOMPLISHMENTS. There is a difference between being busy and having outcomes, between activity and RESULTS.
November 19, 2007 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, I do not want to be counted among the Hillary-haters at all. I like her, and the idea of 8 more years of her and Bill in the White House is fine with me, though I'd prefer Obama.
But I also believe in facing facts. Were Boxer, Feinstein, Granholm, or Shaheen to have declared their candidacies after their first 8 years in public office, they would have gotten some polite smiles, and that's about it. Hillary does it, and she's the odds-on favorite. Reality may bite, but it's still reality.
November 19, 2007 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about some facts to dispute his statements to go along with your claim.
November 19, 2007 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes he did. Father 'figures' in case you didn't know are not fathers which is why they are called 'father figures'. I know you know this.
I find your whinning hate everytime you are faced with unassailable facts about Hillary annoying.
November 19, 2007 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I won't vote for Clinton because of her hawkish positions on Iraq and Iran and her unwillingness to stand up against the undermining of our civil rights. That's not an attack, it's just a fact. I won't vote for her.
November 19, 2007 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful judgement? You mean like on Iraq? Sorry, I'm not climbing on any hawk team.
November 19, 2007 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, did you hear her in the last debate stating without hesitation that national security trumps human rights?. Translation: our civil rights mean nothing when it comes to national security if she is President.
Folks better wake up and start listening to this powermad dictator in the making. HRClinton will make internment of Japenese citizens and Gitmo look like insignificant events, if she is elected to rule over us with her ironfist...none of our civil rights or liberties will matter to her. The woman is a tyrant who will do and say anything for power.
Only Obama had the good sense to say that the two were not contradictory. He understands that security without freedom is NO security.
Who was it that said...he who trades his liberty and freedoms for security deserves neither? They were right and all those Hillaryland folks will learn that when they are peering out from behind barbed wire and electronic fencing.
November 19, 2007 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, I think you're unhinged about the Clintons and having spent years defending the Clintons from the rabid, fruitcake wingnuts of the right, I am no longer going to enable your attacks.
November 19, 2007 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typical Clinton spin...attack the messenger.
I spent decades defending the Clintons just like most Democrats. It seems that you are stuck in the nineties and believe you need to continue defending the Clintons which is a sign of a serious mental defect. We can have better. The Clintons carried this country down into a cesspool of their own sordid relationship. It is time to move on.
November 19, 2007 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The Clintons carried this country down into a cesspool of their own sordid relationship"
jeez, talk about stuck in the nineties
Jack
November 19, 2007 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Benjamin Franklin is one of those old dead white men whose views we don't care much for today. :-)
Those, like Hillary, who hold in contempt the values that make Americans what we are do not deserve the right to even be called Democrats let alone be nominated for president by the Democratic Party IMO.
Thanks, whiterosebuddy.
Any citizen has the right to hold any views, no matter how repugnant. That is very good.
Deciding how others should think and what they should believe in is not something any Democrat should be involved in. Republicans or Greens or Libertarians or Progressives shouldn't either but that is for the members of their parties to decide.
No one denies that the country has a right to defend itself against sabotage by enemies and that difficult decisions must be made at times but overriding those concerns by denying Americans their constitutional rights destroys the very basis of America. How do you top George Bush and crew outing an American spy for political gain in pushing a lie in order to invade Iraq?
Best, Terry
November 19, 2007 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
John makes v good points, imo.
November 21, 2007 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink