Sometimes You Cannot Do What You Want to Do
Obama aides stressed that the campaign will not be drawn into a fight for Pennsylvania on Clinton's terms: an expensive, all-out battle focused on her. Instead, the campaign's main target will be McCain -- a point underscored by Obama when he declared himself "ready to start a great debate about the future of the country with a man who loves his country and served it bravely."
Maybe such aides don't want that "battle focused on her" but that's the battle they must fight.
It's understandable that every Democrat wants to engage with McCain. But the nomination turns on whether Clinton continues to build the momentum she captured in the last few days. She did it by attack -- allegations of unpreparedness for crises and doubletalk on Nafta. These allegations foreshadow what McCain and his cohorts will do this fall, so meeting them now is a useful and necessary test for Obama.
Even more important, going on the offense against Clinton is not only Obama's only way to win the nomination, it also is the only way for either Democrat to win this fall.
I think rather than attacking Clinton, Obama needs to get more specific on the issues and on what he'll do as President. He needs to demonstrate that he really is ready to be President. The perception that he isn't ready for the job has always been his biggest weakness and Clinton's ads have reinforced that perception. He needs to build himself up more than he needs to knock Clinton down.
March 5, 2008 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. I think the attack stuff has been overplayed on both sides. Hillary hasn't been THAT rough on the guy. But as you suggest, he could blunt her main criticism by retorting with specifics.
March 5, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Clinton's ads haven't been all that negative--certainly nothing like what we can expect the Democratic candidate to face in the general election. I think Obama would hurt himself by going negative (his positive campaign is part of his great appeal). He must, however, become much stronger in demonstrating his command of policy. He's still weak there, and it's certainly fair for Clinton to expose that weakness as I'm sure she'll continue to do. What doesn't kill Obama can make him stronger--but it's up to him to turn Clinton's fair challenges into strength.
March 5, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that they specify that this all-out battle they intend to avoid would be an "expensive" one is interesting. I wonder if Primary Fatigue, along with the thought of one's donations being deployed not in the cause against McCain, but more immediately in the production of attack ads bloodying a potential Democratic Nominee will have the effect of depressing these record-high fundraising hauls from here on out...? In the longer term, of course, it's all about putting the strongest, most resilient contender forward, but in the short term, it sure is uncomfortable to think of how our money is being spent...
March 5, 2008 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
WHY THE CLINTONS WON'T BE RELEASING THEIR TAX RETURNS?...
http://thememlingindex.com/hillary_clinton_net_worth-wealth.html
March 5, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Obama has to attack Hillary. And Hillary will keep attacking Obama. But for god's sake, can they both do it without praising McCain?
March 5, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Obama has a glass jaw, and he is proving it by running from a fight in PA.
The supine media has (until very recently) given him a pass. His 2004 race was a cakewalk. His political patron is on trial for corruption in Chicago, and when asked about the matter, he ran from the press conference. When the going gets tough, he runs.
Say what you like about Hillary, but she has grit.
She can take a punch, get off the canvas, fight back, and win -- as last night shows.
March 5, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
What do you mean about running from a fight in PA?
March 5, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, maybe you mean this:
"Obama aides stressed that the campaign will not be drawn into a fight for Pennsylvania on Clinton's terms: an expensive, all-out battle focused on her. Instead, the campaign's main target will be McCain. . ."
But I'm not sure I agree that that's "running away from a fight". It surely benefits Clinton more than Obama for him to engage her on the terms that they are co-equal democratic candidates, instead of his acting the part of the presumptive nominee and respond to the attacks that have already begun coming from McCain.
March 5, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Obama is making a classic mistake. It happens in business, sports, and politics. Don't look past the next deal, game, primary. His self-proclaimed "presumptive nominee" status is arrogant, and recklessly dismissive of Sen. Clinton. One might think that he would learn from experience. After Iowa, he let his guard down and did a victory lap, and got slammed in NH. It happened again yesterday. After his streak of wins post-Super Tuesday, he went after McCain, when Hillary was still in the ring. He got slammed yesterday. No way to put too fine a point on it. He doesn't look presidential in taking on McCain and overlooking Hillary -- he looks pathetically inexperienced which, by the way, is exactly Hillary's point.
Go rent the movie Cinderella Man and watch what happens when you take a dangerous opponent lightly.
March 5, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that he shouldn't take Clinton lightly. But I am interpreting the (already paraphrased) words of his campaign staff --
-- as meaning that if he focuses on her at the expense of McCain, he's letting McCain land blows that will hurt him without fighting back. And he elevates her stature at the same time -- why should he do that? He's still way ahead in the delegate count.
He is being attacked by both Clinton and McCain. Although Clinton is weathering attacks by the right wing all the time, McCain is directing most of his fire at Obama, and he (McCain) is the one who is getting off easy at the moment.
That makes it especially tough on Obama, as compared with either of the other two candidates still in the race. And Clinton, for her part, does need, at least a little bit, to look past the immediate future toward the general. Her statement in Toledo sounded like praise for McCain -- a really bad move on her part.
March 5, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
My only complaint here is with "double talk on NAFTA". That seems to imply that Sen. Clinton was the only one so engaged. In Ohio, no Democrat seems able to speak anything about foreign trade EXCEPT "double talk", our 2 Presidential candidates not exempted. Does anyone seriously believe that EITHER of them is deeply opposed to NAFTA?
March 5, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be a 'good' politician in this climate, get elected that is, one has to be a shameless and unashamable liar. Hillary's a master. I don't think Obama has the stomach for it, which may get him in trouble. People don't so much want to hear long-winded policy wonks as they want promises, platitudes, hyperbole and in the end, fantasy. Obama's character indicates he may be too uncomfortable going beyond long-winded, laundry-list policies.
March 5, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an Ohioan who's lived in PA for 20 years, and can't seem to help but offer my opinions on this.
Pennsylvania is like Ohio, only more so. Blue-collar, older, conservative, traditional and in the rural areas at least, will have an easier time accepting a woman than a black man.
Obama's got to come up with some new material. I'm a fan, and a donor and supporter, but I'm getting tired of hearing the same speech over and over. I can only imagine how boring it gets for him, but seriously... can we get some new writers?
The key here, as elsewhere, will be turnout in the college towns like Penn State, Pitt and in the Philly suburbs, and in Pittsburgh and Philly. But more important, he's got to spend some time talking to white women and understand how visceral it is for so many to have a woman sit in the Oval Office. This is a problem for him, as for the party. It's becoming very polarized, and either side's supporters are going to be desperately disappointed when one of them loses. He needs to somehow respond to the issues important to women, without attacking Hillary in a way that makes other women feel he's attacking them. He did it in Wisconsin, and he needs to find a way to peel off 8-12% of the women who otherwise will naturally be drawn to Hillary. Not pander to them; listen to them and respond. Tricky, but necessary.
The Muslim smear will work here, as it did in Ohio. Maybe the Ohio example will inoculate him a bit, but he can't get sucked into defending himself against a negative, unprovable charge all the time. I believe the Clinton campaign, at some level, is actively spreading this smear, as are the republicans. It's a common interest they share, in weakening the charismatic black guy that neither one can equal in personality and style. My operating theory: If they don't repeatably and emphatically denounce this smear, they're complicit in it, either as a sin of commission or of ommission. They need to be repeatedly held to account for any wishy-washyness, and for the actions of any surrogates. The issue is not religion; it's sneakiness, deviousness, dishonesty and underhandeness. How hard should it be to make that stick? No, really. How hard?
Finally, I recommend Obama feast on grilled stickies and whoopie pies, a man of the people, even if he has to run the calories off for a week afterward.
March 5, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hundt makes a good point in this post that the Obama minions ought to heed.
As in every campaign, when the message driving the conversation is that of your opponent the tactical objective of your campaign must be to regain the advantage by getting the conversation back on your own message. That may or may not mean fighting the next battle on ground chosen by the opposition. It definitely requires the subject matter change in such a way that the conversation is being driven by your campaign vs theirs.
There are many ways to go about this.
Ignoring the opposition and simply proceeding with one's own message and hoping that turns the tide in your favor is one way of doing that, but it's often a very risky strategy. It is the strategic choice most losing Democratic presidential campaigns have made against Republican attacks over the the past 40 years. Whether it will work against Hillary is unknown and to choose this strategy means that someone has determined that victory can still be had despite the bleeding the opposition has caused.
Will the trickle of blook turn into a flood? Hard to say. But if it does, then either the nomination must be close enough to grab very quickly, or a shift in strategy needs to occur that will stop the bleeding almost instantly. Quite often when this risky strategy is chosen but the flood of blood occurs it is too late for any change to save the day and keep the campaign's chances alive. The Obama people better hope their strategists are wise enough not to let the bleeding continue for too long.
March 6, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink