Attention Pundits and Press: Tough Questions for Clinton's Last-Ditch Campaign
After each primary, the press and pundits go into a frenzy of over-analysis, pronouncing death for the candidate who lost the last primary. To be expected, I guess, in a 24/7 media system where writers have to generate new questions and columns every day. Now that Obama has been chewed over (following a primary in which his opponent netted only about a dozen delegates), it is time for the next round of tough questions -- which should go to Hillary Clinton's overtime campaign::
-- Senator Clinton, a new Harvard Institute of Politics poll shows that -- by a huge 70% to 30% margin -- young Democrats favor Senator Obama for the party's nomination. You consistently lose this group, which Obama has energized and drawn to the polls. Why should party leaders and superdelegates give up the party's future to throw the nomination to you?
-- The Democratic Party can win general elections only by inspiring cross-racial coalitions and drawing huge majorities of African Americans to the polls. Your campaign started out with strong majority support among African Americans, but you have steadily alienated and angered these voters. Can you prove your appeal to black voters, starting in the big, swing state of North Carolina? [Note to Press: Having Bill Clinton go around to rural areas and arouse the white Bubba vote doesn't cut it. That doesn't expand Hillary's appeal.]
-- As demonstrated in PA, Senator Clinton, you do best in "closed" Democratic primaries where Independents cannot easily vote. But Republicans have nominated a 2008 candidate with strong appeal to Independents. Why should party Superdelegates prefer you to Obama, who consistently shows broader appeal to Independents?
-- For months, polls have shown that Senator Obama will put the Republicans on the defensive in many more states this coming November. That will help elect more Democrats to Congress, and swing more states to the Democratic presidential column. Why should Democrats give that up -- especially knowing that Bill Clinton in the 1990s presided over historic losses for Democrats in Congress and in many states?
Comments (42)
I'm kinda baffled that she hasn't been asked what her 'path to winning the General Election' is.
I mean, sure, the rules allow for her nomination, with the supers technically able to overthrow the decisions of the voters.
But that would almost certainly mean a loss in the general.
Given that, she needs to explain her plans. Maybe she's counting on Obama being on the ticket as well. That WILL not happen. She has some 'splainin' to do.
April 25, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, ma'am. Which is it?
According to the Harvard poll, Ms. Clinton should not do well in closed primaries.
Maybe the supers aren't baffled by BS.
April 25, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, where's the logic in your argument?
Among Dems, Clinton gets older voters. Obama gets younger voters.
Obama has been getting more and more of the older voters. Clinton has been getting less and less of the younger voters as the campaign progresses.
Add on top of that the fact that her appeal among independents and non-Limbaugh republicans is almost non-existent.
You're left with the conclusion that she doesn't have anything near a winning coalition.
She shouldn't drop out. She should just explain how she thinks she can still win. The big one.
April 25, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Logically" if Senator Obama is getting 70% of the democratic vote, Senator Clinton should be losing "closed" primaries.
Simple. You can spin it, but them thar's the facts of the matter.
April 25, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
70% of the *young* Democratic vote.
April 25, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, My bad, the *young* vote.Whatever that means. According to the exit polls in PA it sure ain't the *white young* vote Senator Obama is getting 70% of.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#PADEM
I have a firm distrust of people that cite polls without linking them.
"Lying with statistics" I call it.
The fact is, is Senator Obama was doing so well, and Senator Clinton so poorly, she would have stepped down already. What we have is a divided electorate, there are ways of coping with that, it's called "Super Delegates."
I'm 46, born in the same year Senator Obama was. It's not the youngsters turn, it's OUR turn. Good grief, we've had enough BS from the boomers, and we've learned patience the hard way.
That's more then I can say for the *young* voters.
April 25, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Young in this case means 18-24, and here is a link to an "executive summary" of the poll. I have to admit, it wasn't as easy to find as I thought it'd be. Here' the relevant snippet for you:
I don't think it's any coincidence that he'd be doing that well with both the very young Democratic crowd and the independents. There are some commonalities between those two groups.
As for your PA exit poll, you'll probably note that if you look at exit polls across the country that these numbers vary widely. For example, if you looked at VA's exit poll, you'd come to conclusion that the only demographic that Clinton leads in is the "demographic" that thinks that Clinton is "most qualified to be Commander in Chief". (Surprisingly, she manages to get a mere 1% in the "demographic" that thinks that Obama is "most qualified to be Commander in Chief".)
April 25, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just go the the Harvard Institute of Politics website, or to Taegard at Polico, which links to the poll. "Young" was all Democrats 18-24 years old. A standard definition -- and a newly enlarged and energized slice of the Democratic/Indpendent electorate this year. Vital for future party growth.
April 25, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, in re-reading how the question was worded these aren't necessarily Democrats, but merely "plan to vote for a Democrat in November". That would include those independents and even Republicans who are planning to vote for Obama.
April 25, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's some interesting analysis of the "youth vote" here:
http://www.civicyouth.org/
Pardon me if i can't get too worked up over a demographic that traditionally gets seriously diluted by the time they reach 30.
Thanks for the links, Ben.
April 25, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Under 30" is also a "standard definition" of the youth vote. It all depends on what slant one is reaching for.
Sure, they've grown, but not by much, and although Senator Obama has successfully tapped into that movement, he sure didn't start it. What bothers me is that the "youth vote" is overwhelmingly educated whites. I mean really, how much effort does it take to get them involved? I'd be more impressed if some real outreach to all income and ethnic backgrounds in this age demographic were being reached.
As it is, I'll be impressed if they actually show up on election day.
April 25, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Any chance we could up that to "under 40"? I'm still a "youth"!
Well, they sure let us down in 2004. I still don't understand why so many of the 18-24 crowd did not vote in that election.
April 25, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we must all keep in mind that Obama would not be winning or have the lead he has if he were not receiving support from all of the demographics represented.
I feel like we are falsely being led to believe by the MSM that Obama is not receiving any support from the working class or older voters but this just cannot be the case when his lead says otherwise.
The AA community and youth vote alone has not carried Obama this far. I refuse to be mislead. Clinton was able to capitalize on the older voter and blue collar working class vote in PA and OH but that does not mean that there are not segments of these demographics that do not and have supported him.
If Clinton is losing the race, despite the PA and OH win, she is losing because she in fact is the candidate that is not finding the same support across the board as he is.
April 25, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Skocpol's point isn't that these are the only demographics that Obama does well in, but that these are demographics that Clinton does spectacularly poor in.
April 25, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point is simply that if it is ok to ask Obama about doing better in demographics he loses relative to Clinton (in an INTRA-party battle between two very similar candidates in policy terms), it should be equally relevant to ask Clinton why she can't do better in important slices she loses: young voters, Independents, African Americans, Red State Democrats, etc.
The really glaring omission is African Americans. There is a quietly racist assumption that they just don't matter. But I don't see even an analytic justification for this. They may remain largely Democratic no matter what, but their turnout can vary enormously in general election battles. They are a major part of the Democratic coalition that Clinton has steadily lost and increasingly alienated.
Why doesn't she have to speak to that?
April 25, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the turnout question. I don't see this raised nearly enough. Everyone's talking about those Clinton/Obama voters who've said they'll vote for McCain rather than Obama/Clinton should he/she be the Democratic candidate, but few acknowledge the real issue (since I expect most of those threats will be empty) that some Democrats will simply stay home, or will not go the extra mile to convince their friends and family to vote a certain way.
That's one reason why I really hate it when I see Obama supporters saying things that will alienate Clinton supporters. They might not vote for McCain, but they just might find an excuse not to vote at all that day. It's raining. The line's too long. I'm not feeling well.
April 25, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
She doesn't have to speak to that, Prof. Scokpol, because the media doesn't require her to. Witness today, how Jim Clyburn's complaints were barely picked up anywhere. And what this tells black voters is crystal clear: Only white votes matter, only white votes are a story. Even worse, there's no argument against this conclusion. If Joe Lunchbox gets bent out of shape because Obama tweaks his pinky, the press is on it. But Hillary Clinton can insult every black Christian in the country with how Rev. Wright wouldn't have been her pastor and Obama really has to answer for that, totally distorting what she no less than you or me knows to be true of Wright. She can moreover, win less than 10% of the black vote EVERYWHERE but pays any of this any mind at all. Senza problema, and no one questions her electibility because of it. Now, again, this is the fault mostly of our mainstream media. But voters, as I'm sure you realize, blame it on the Democratic party -- which I have to say, is to a great extent complicit. So it's with good reason that the black community feels the message is "Democratic party to black voters: Drop Dead."
April 25, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its becoming more and more apparent that Obama supporters are simply placing the faith of the Party's future in a candidate who is prepared to tackle the vital issues of the day by closing his eyes and clicking his heels three times. Like the suicide squad in LIFE OF BRIAN, this is how Dems always manage to screw themselves out of a future. How about, for once in an election cycle, Dems choose a candidate who'll fight tooth & nail for the political win? How about selecting the candidate who's spent an entire life devoted to providing public service by understanding and managing the political system? Instead Obama's supporters are willing to screw the Dem future by clapping and clapping loudly so that this cycle's Tinkerbelle-of-the-Month candidate can lose the general election.
I agree that Obama will give the Dems a chance to increase its hold on the Senate & House by a couple of seats more than Clinton. But I also think that after four years of high oratory the Nation will be of an Obama administration that couldn't get anything done. That would spell disaster for the Dems' future and open the door once again for a hibernating NeoCon movement to waken up.
April 25, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Theda,(if I was hillary)
1. As your Harvard studies can attest to bringing young voters into the political process is a goal of the Democratic Party in general and Hillary Clinton particularly. However, the rub is that historically this group of voters have been extremely hard to turn out in a November election. I truely hope that we get younger voters to get to the polls and be involved. Yet, reality teaches me that we need to do all we can to make sure we attract the majority of the rest of the elctorate that can be counted on to show up at the polls. John Kerry knows of what I speak.
2. This historical election pits two of the most important majority groups that have supported this party. Women and African American voters. Rather than running around and asking how we can get one or the other group to vote for me or Barack I think its extremely important that we try and get all groups to be a part of this process. As to African American voters. My record on Equal Rights and Minority issues speaks for itself. My qualifications to be a leader on this issues is greater that Mr. Obama. That can't be argued. I am positive once the General Election enues that I would be more than able to attract African Americans to my candidacy.
3. Actually this third premise is not at all correct. Ohio, Texas, Mass, Florida, Mi, NJ, NY, CA were all open primaries that I won. However, I plan through the use of our party's platform and my Candidacy to attract Independent voters. My results in Ohio and in Pa would lead me to be bullish on my efforts to do this. Mr. Obama, cannot say the same thing in states that are battlegrounds for a Presidential Election. Lastly, we Democrats are the majority in this land. If we do a good job of making sure that we all VOTE then as a party we should be ok. I simply believe that I can accomplish this the best.
4. Lastly, although Bill Clinton was the leader fo the Party, and deserves the blame for the Contract On America he is not the only one that is at fault here. If you remember at that time we had plenty of other problems within this party. Tom Foley/Jim Wright/Robert Byrd....do we need to go on? Legislation that was being promoted by Mr. Clinton's administration wasn't being pushed through Congress with any vigor. There was little or no help from the Progressive side of the party to help get our measures through. In this void, it was easy for a back bencher like Newt Gingrich to rise. The problem wasn't in the Presidency it was in the Congress that had gotten to fat on 40 years of domination and were way too comfy with the "right" of control. That said, my ability to help Candidates all across the country bring forth a larger majority for the Democratic party is unmatched. One only need to look to 2006 in states like Ohio where our help was instrumental in getting back control of the statehouse there as well as defeat a 2 term Republican Senator. It was our efforts that made that happen. Unfortunately, my opponent was on the sidelines at the time trying to put together his team for a Presidential bid rather than making things happen for other Democrats. On this issue lets be clear. We have made this party prosper and grow from our involvement. To say that the party was hurt by our involvement has hurt this party is simply untrue.
Peace
April 25, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
She cannot get the black vote back. It's gone and she richly deserves it after all the sniping and carping about Rev. Wright. If she had had the grace Mike Huckabee had on this issue, she would've had a clear shot, but the woman has no largesse, and she never misses a chance to trash her oppopnent, so she's utterly ruined her chances here.
April 25, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you know she can't why?
April 25, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because her and Bill betrayed the black community's loyalty which they lived off for many years. The black community were the most staunch supporters of the Clintons at the height of the impeachment. Which is why Hillary knows she is abusing Wright horrifically. After all, it was the black ministers who came to Bill's aide during that time and Wright was invited to the WH to help restore Bill's character.
What Bill and Hill have proved to the Black community is that they simply used the black community for their political expediency. They needed the votes and they pandered and now all black folks can see their true colors. Bubba Bill and Golwater Hill will never have the black vote again.
The Democratic party may have lost it's staunchest support group as well given the way the female Democrats have turned on black voters and the party leaderships failure to address Hill and Bill for the good of the party.
Black folks can see that the only votes that count are white votes and especially female white votes. the only affirmative action Democrats support is for white females other than that it is used to polarize the electorate and racial divide the country. Affirmative action queens get a free pass..Ferraro and Hillary get to attack Obama but no one asks the white female how they got to the front of the line on affirmative action solely on the basis of gender and race.
The black vote is gone. That is why Clyburn spoke out he knows that he can not make a case for the Clintons to ever get another black vote.
Black Americans were the only Americans to die for the right to vote and they take it seriously.
Bubba Bill and Hill can forget it.
April 25, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nastywolf: It is completely reasonable for you to have concerns on 'rolling the dice' with Obama because of his apparent lack of Washington experience. However, please bear in mind that if the founders of this great Nation did not roll the dice against a decision to fight the British, there won't be the USA today. Obama and the prospects he holds for a better America certainly worth the bet. By the way, no one could be worst than George W Bush . Any of the three remaining candidates would be upgrade.
April 25, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's better: a candidate who'll attack viciously or a candidate who'll attack effectively?
Yes, absolutely. On one hand we have a candidate who spent his early life devoted to providing public service through community work, and on the other hand we have a candidate who was on the board of Wal-Mart and working at the Rose law firm. Which of those qualify as having "spent an entire life devoted to providing public service by understanding and managing the political system"? It seems like you're the one who's bought into a particular candidate's talking points.
April 25, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ben, If your going to speak of experience at least be honest about it. Hers is one of a record of helping people and can be viewed here. At least, get the facts right. sheesh
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/about/mom/
April 25, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh good lord, how can you possibly think that linking to Hillary Clinton's own propaganda site provides objective evidence in her favor? Your policital naiveté is astounding.
April 25, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was referring Ben to her CV. He seemed to suggest that Rose Law and Walmart were her only gigs.
April 25, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point Ben, and Theda I also meant to add that I agreed with your initial blog about asking Hillary why she can't seem to do better in those demographics that Barack seems to be winning over in higher margins.
Why in fact isn't this being asked more??
April 25, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Louisville has reasonable answers -- IF this were much earlier in the primary season and something Clinton could go on to win on overall elected delegates. But now she needs more than a set of reasonable responses to worries, because she (with overwhelming certainty) cannot win on elected delegates by June 3. She needs a beyond-all-reasonable-doubt set of arguments about why superdelegates should literally throw it to her, and she isn't close to that.
As far as polls can tell us, HRC and Obama run evenly against McCain. Both are excellent candidates who will certainly rally most Democrats (primary voters saying they won't vote for one or another just won't stick with that, past research shows). I happen to believe Obama will do much better among Independents (and the young and Af Ams) who have not voted in these primaries, but will be in play in November. But even if HRC has counterbalancing strengths, she certainly does not have enough of them to ask superdelegates to overthrow Obama's elected victories within the existing rules of the game, given the bitterness and chaos that would spark.
It is sad that the first woman and first Am Am presidential contenders with strong claims to the nomination are running against each other, but the fact is that the Clintons (both of them) lost this long ago with their own mistakes. (I regret that Hillary is not more her own person, rather than part of the Clinton brand, but of course she got to the brink of viability that way.) I say all of this as someone who supported both Clintons in the past. Sadly, they are functioning as spoilers.
April 25, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know, I feel your pain. I too supported both Clintons in the past and have been greatly saddened at the way this campaign has brought out the worst and just plain ugliness in both of them.
At the end of the day though, no matter how much of a fighter people may see Hillary, it was Barack who had to do the real fighting against an established name, against Hillary, Bill AND Chelsea AND McCain........and last this long with so much support. Truly amazing.
April 25, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Theda, Then these questions for you:
1. Mr. Obama you say you want to be the Nominee of the Democratic party. However, as of yet, you have only on 1 of the top 10 in population states in the Union. You've not won key battleground states that a Nominee must win to be successful in any General Election. Why should we pick you over a Candidate that has demonstrated the opposite?
2. The Democratic Party has never won the Presidency without having the support of blue collar white catholics.(FDR -> Clinton) How do you expect to be able to bring those individuals into your coalition when you've done such an abysmal job of winning them in the Primaries?
3. Why should the party put its support behind your candidacy and risk that there will be no coattails to help other fellow Democrats. Sen. Clinton will be able to do that judging from her efforts in 2006.
April 25, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama didn't do so well with young Democrats in Pennsylvania. My guess is they are starting to get disillusioned. I say better now than in November when he is defeated by McCain. Or better now than when he is President.
April 25, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's only so many times you can ask a supporter to point out ONE accomplishment by their un accomplished candidate, before that supporter stops showing up at the field office.
April 25, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are no yojng people in Pennsylvania. Outside of Florida, it's the most geriatric state there is.
April 25, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Media will try to convince us otherwise because that sells audience and air time but its clear to me that either Dem candidate will win in a match up against McCain. The only question for me is which Dem candidate will handle the presidency in a manner that will help continue or hurt a Dem resurgence after 2012? Oratory and Hope will not help the millions of working families and college grads through the Recession...only good public policies and the willingness to fight for them will. despite her flaws, there's no one in the race who's shown more willingness to go to the mat for the American People than Clinton. Obama can't even hold his ground, despite outspending all candidates by large margins. What makes you think he can fight the Repubs?
April 25, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nastywolf, I am just curious, do you think it would be fair to say that Obama and Clinton differ vastly on their plans for addressing the key issues (economy, terrorism, education, healthcare, green jobs, etc...), or do you think they are pretty similar or share pretty much the same ideas on how to address these issues compared to McCain?
April 25, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Louisville,
I think the evidence shows that Obama creates great coattails for Democrats across a large number of states. Every analysis I have seen suggests that the breadth of his likely favorable impact on downlist candidates is one of his greatest advantages. That is a large part of the reason I support him, because I think building strength in Congress is just as important as taking the presidency. This is also why he will quickly get a lot of Superdelegates after either May 6 or June 3. It will happen sooner if he actually wins both states on May 6, and after June 3 if (as I expect) Clinton narrowly carries IN.
The big state issue is a bit misleading in my opinion, because it includes a number of states sure to go to ANY Democrat, such as MA, NY, NJ, MI, CA -- and PA. The Rendell machine and other PA machines will deliver for any Democrat in November (and Clinton was greatly helped by having them in the primary). OH is dicey, but would be for Clinton, too. The only large state I see as significantly easier for her is FL. Obama is way ahead, meanwhile, in many mid-level swing states where she is behind. As I said earlier, the best state-by-state analyses we have show it to be a wash between these two. And, frankly, either is likely to win in November, because McCain will be vulnerable as soon as we have a nominee, and because so many new Democrats are registering or switching.
Clinton would be enormously weakened going into November if she blew the party up to get the nomination. But I am 90% sure that will not happen.
On the New Deal coalition, it is not what it used to be. HRC is a bit stronger with that traditional core, while Obama is stronger with recently growing categories of Dems and with Independents. That is why it is a wash.
I also would expect -- and very much urge -- that Obama pick a Vice Presidential candidate who supported Clinton and could be very strong with blue collars. Ohio Governor Strickland has been mentioned as a possibility, but I am sure there are others. We get so focused on the primaries that we forget there will be additional steps a candidate can take as soon as the person is settled. Obama could also go so far as to designate some of his Cabinet nominations (for example, the Secretary of State), which would build his profile for the general election.
April 25, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Theda,
You make good arugments but if you look at the electoral map we are dealing with from 2004 you will see that there isn't much that either Democrat can do to change the basics. I know that Obama supporters think that CO, VA, and MO are in play. History doesn't support that. There would have to be a seismic shift for that to happen. That kind of shift would help either Candidte regardless.
You speak of Growing Dems...well the growth is in the Hispanic community. That is the new base of the party. He doesn't do well there. I suggest that even in the GE he will not do well in that community. I could be wrong but I doubt it.
The big state analysis isn't a wash. Of course NY/CA/NJ/MA will be won by either. But the battleground states. OH/MI/FL/PA.....all need a more centerist Democrat to get the job done. He isn't it. I've said it before and it bears repeating. Progressive Democrats have not elected a President ever. Not, even close. DLC or its precursors have over time. Its a fact that we can't hide from.
We might think the new deal coalition is gone but we can't win without it. I'd love to hear how to win Ohio, for instance, without those voters. I think the late Howard Metzenbaum or John Glenn that it isn't possible to win Ohio without them. Same can be said for PA. Ask Rick Santorum.
From a Hillary supporter I would like to see Obama supporters be real about the predictions. Look at the past and what is likely to happen and try to shape it out.
As far as VP's either Candidate can make this argument as the Competition can as well. What would be the effect on the Democratic ticket with a Colin Powell or Condi Rice as Republican VP?
Lastly, the effect of downticket can't be known until after labor day. I think we both know that. Its not easy to guess at this point. If it mattered now I would point to Minnesota and say that Obama is hurting Al Franken. Probably is incorrect but he leads there in GE polls.
April 25, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but CO, VA, MO are already in play for Dems and have been for some time. Several other upper Midwest and central Midwest states that the Dems must have show Obama way over McCain, but McCain over Clinton. And as for MI and PA, polls show Obama beating McCain -- more than Clinton in MI. MI is my native state and I follow it closely. Because of the primary timing dispute, the myth has grown that it is pro-Hillary. But if a fair primary had been re-scheduled, Obama might have won -- and either he or Clinton will take MI in the fall.
I am a New Deal liberal and certainly not against mobilizing working-class support. I just believe that Obama and his running mate will do it in many states (not WV or KY, but Clinton loses there, too). They will also attract the new kinds of voters that Dems need and are mobilizing recently.
Latinos have gone for Clinton in the primaries. They knew Bill Clinton as their friend. But they are very attractable to Obama or any Democrat in the fall -- and a leading Latino fundraiser for Clinton has just defected to Obama! He knows what is going to happen.
April 25, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
From: "Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/04/garin-on-negative-campaigning.html
"Friday, April 25, 2008
Clinton, Obama, and Negative Campaigning
Just as there is a "Fog of War", the "Fog of Campaigning" can also breed short (and at times false) memories.
Geoff Garin, the replacement on the Clinton team for Mark Penn, claims in today's WP that there has been "one campaign...that has been mean-spirited" and "unfair" and that it is "not ours".
Garin, who seems to be a genuine and decent professional who has been dropped to the helm of a listing ship, attempts to right it not by changing the direction of the boat, but by trying to reverse reality.
Let's take a look:
Clinton at the Jefferson-Jackson Day Speech:
"I'm not interested in attacking my opponents, I'm interested in attacking the problems of America. And I believe we should be turning up the heat on the Republicans -- they deserve all the heat we can give them."
November, 2007:
New York Times: "Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, which is now attacking Senator Barack Obama on a daily basis." [New York Times, 11/30/07] NBC's First Read:
MSNBC: "Another day, another Clinton campaign knock on Obama." [First Read, 11/29/07]
December 2007 (leading to the January 6 Iowa primary, including the notorious use of an essay that he wrote in Kindergarten):
Chicago Tribune: "This Clinton Attack On Obama Could Boomerang." "The Clinton people are citing a kindergarten essay by Obama as evidence against him in a presidential campaign. Good thing he was born before widespread pre-natal ultrasounds. Who knows how they might've used that against him? Clinton's people have thrown similar jabs before at Obama but it hasn't fazed him. So their seems to be a little more fury behind the punches as now that Obama's may have taken the lead in Iowa according to the Des Moines Register's most recent poll." [Chicago Tribune, The Swamp, 12/3/07]
Washington Post: "Losing Ground In Iowa, Clinton Assails Obama." "With a new poll showing her losing ground in the Iowa caucus race, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) mounted a new, more aggressive attack against Sen. Barack Obama." [Washington Post, 12/3/07]
New York Daily News: "Hillary Clinton Attack On Barack Obama Comes After She Loses Iowa Lead." "Hours after a new poll showed her falling behind for the first time in Iowa, Hillary Clinton launched a blistering personal broadside on rival Barack Obama." [New York Daily News, 12/3/07]
New York Times: "An Attack, From the Candidate's Mouth" [New York Times, 12/2/07]
New York Times: "Battered by Poll, Clinton Hits Back" [New York Times, 12/2/07]
Clinton Release: "In kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President. 'Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,' the teacher said." [AP, 1/25/07]
And what did the voters think?
Which Candidate is the most negative?
Hillary Clinton 21%
John Edwards 9%
Dennis Kucinich 9%
Barack Obama 8%
Joe Biden 3%
Mike Gravel 3%
Christopher Dodd 3%
Bill Richardson 3%
None/Not sure 43%
Source: The Iowa Poll
[Des Moines Register, 12/2/07]
What about after Iowa? She surely must have changed her tactics then...
After Iowa Loss, Clinton Ramps Up Attacks:
January 06, 2008
AP: "Hillary Clinton Comes Out Swinging, Politeness Lost Along With Iowa Caucuses" [AP, 1/6/08]
Los Angeles Times: "Clinton lets arrows fly at Obama"..."Staggered by her third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses, the New York senator was the aggressor throughout a 90-minute session" [LA Times, 1/6/08]
Washington Post: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton tried repeatedly to knock Sen. Barack Obama off his footing during a high-stakes debate here on Saturday night" [Washington Post, 1/6/08]
AP: "Clinton criticizes Obama in NH mailer" [AP, 1/5/08]
Newsday: "Clinton sharpens attack on Obama" [Newsday, 1/5/08]
Reuters: "Obama under attack ahead of New Hampshire debates" [Reuters, 1/5/08]
Newsday: "After weeks of playing nice in Iowa, the Clinton camp sharpened their elbows when the campaign went wheels-down in New Hampshire, readying TV ads targeting Obama that were expected to focus on health care and his legislative record." [Newsday, 1/4/08]
Washington Post: But she and her aides also signaled their intention to now ratchet up the race, aggressively countering Obama in the five days ahead. She is also now planning to draw even sharper distinctions between herself and Obama on the question of change, after watching voters who wanted a new direction select her main rival for the nomination on Thursday night. [Washington Post, 1/4/08]
Well...that must have been just a momentary reaction to January's surprising defeat. She surely didn't continue that strategy...
The State: "Clinton camp hits Obama -- Attacks 'painful' for black voters. Many in state offended by criticism of Obama, remarks about King" [1/12/08]
New York Times: "Clinton's Campaign Sees Value In Keeping Former President In Attack Mode" [1/25/08]
Greenville News: Ex-Democratic Official Criticizes Clintons' Attacks On Obama [1/23/08]
First Read: "Clinton Justifies War Vote, Hits Obama" [1/13/08]
Politico: "Hillary Clinton attacks Barack Obama" [1/13/08]
Perhaps it became more substantive and dignified in February:
Feb 25, 2008
2008 Presidential Election
Clinton Circulates Pic of Obama in Somali Garb: Report:
For some, Barack Obama's "Hussein" middle name has been something worth picking on. For others, it has been pushing the unsubstantiated rumor (debunked by Snopes) that Obama is or was a "radical Muslim." But this - this is truly low. ..Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams said, "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed."
CNN: "Clinton Sharpens Attacks On Obama" [CNN, 2/14/08]
Concord Monitor: "Clinton Attack Still Riles Some" [2/4/08]
Guardian Unlimited: "Clinton Goes On Attack As Obama Closes Gap" [2/3/08]
March:
The Politico, Ben Smith, March 2:
"A weird moment of TV, partially captured in the clip above. Clinton denies she thinks Obama's a Muslim, but her denial seems something other than ironclad, and the interviewer goes back at her on the question...
“You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not…a Muslim. You don't believe that he's…,” Kroft said.
“No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” she said."
April:
MSNBC: April 14: Clinton Attacks Obama On Air
Sun-Sentinal: April 22: Clinton attacks, Obama hopes
And what of recent words of Mr. Garin himself?
From the April 20 Meet the Press:
MR. AXELROD: ...Did you not put a negative ad on this weekend in Philadelphia? The--100 percent negative ad attacking Senator Obama?
MR. GARIN: No. I don’t believe we did.
MR. AXELROD: Yeah, you did. Go back and check with your people, and it was, it’s an ad on lobbying, and it’s circulating...
MR. GARIN: It’s not. It, it ends up, I believe, with...
MR. AXELROD: No, no, it’s 100 percent negative ad, Geoff. Go back and ask your people. I understand you’re new in the campaign, and I love you, man, you’re a good friend of mine. I know you to be a good, positive person.
MR. GARIN: Right.
MR. AXELROD: But I think that there’s some vestiges of the old regime still in place.
MR. GARIN: Well, look, when, when, when...
(Garin never answers this question--Axelrod later in broadcast: "The—well, first of all, that’s what’s in your negative ad that you didn’t know about in Philadelphia.")
Note: This of course leaves self-inflicted attacks (i.e. sniper fire) aside. Incidentally, while I have known people to err when they are tired (for example to say "sniker" instead of "sniper"), I have never seen anyone invent and repeat an entire episode that did not occur as a result of exhaustion--although, of course, this commonly does occur when people are completely asleep.
Hendrik Hertzberg, in this weeks "Campaign Trail" (New Yorker) has noted the tragic and inevitable game here, whereby Obama, who has tried to run a different type of campaign--explicitly principled and positive--has been drawn into defense by the incessant attack. This attempt to now flip and revise history in this very fundamental manner is something that we have seen in our recent Presidential past--and is something that should give us pause.
From:
Head of State:
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/04/garin-on-negative-campaigning.html
April 25, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about a plain and simple fact?
Democrats don't get to the White House without strong support from African American voters.
African Americans are not just "an important group of Democratic supporters"; they are the single largest, and most faithful, voting bloc in the Democratic Party, representing something around a third of all votes cast for Democrats in presidential contests for the past 40 years.
If the party flips them off, which is what it will be doing if Hillary gets the nod on the say-so of the supers and the funny accounting on the popular vote we've seen the Clinton camp advance in the last few days, there's no point in bothering to campaign for the general election, because a lot of black voters will, with complete justification, sit it out. Add that to her high negatives and the ability of brand Clinton to energize the nuttiest of the wingnuts to show up to vote against her, and it's over before it ever begins.
The media, the Clinton campaign, and Hillary supporters all blithely try to ignore this glaring fact, but the supers can't ignore it, not least because I'm sure the Obama campaign is making sure they don't.
April 26, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
But.....
Wisconsin, Minn., Colorado, Iowa, are not very black and he took them. The working class in the upper midwest voted for the person that spoke to the intelligent, well read community. He will also win CA, NY, NJ and Illinois. What he won't win is the Republican states of TX, OK, AZ, Utah, and probably can't win Ohio. Michigan is the state he could win and quite frankly Penn. registered way more Dems so who knows. I think the latino vote in Florida, New Mexico could make the difference. Perhaps a VP from Penn or Florida could take one or the other.
I'm a working class white chick that can't stand the thought of the trash the Clintons will bring to the white house. I supported the Clintons in the day but they will not be able to govern with all the history they have. EXPERIENCE is not all it is being mediasized to be. Has everyone really thought through how many favors (appointments aka Brownie)and trash McCain or Clinton's bring to the house if elected.
April 28, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink