Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
What Clinton could have said about experience and C-in-C
Hillary didn't need to say that McCain had "crossed the threshold" to being C-in-C (or whatever her exact words were). She could have simply listed his accomplishments, mentioned that she has crossed this "threshold", and then asked if Obama has. If she had done that she wouldn't have been giving the Republicans a ready-made endorsement. The same thing goes for her experience comments.
For those who haven't seen Keith Olbermann's take on this, you can find it on YouTube.
What I don't understand is, if I can see how this different strategy (of merely listing the facts on McCain, instead of praising his C-in-C-threshold-ness and experience) is better for her and her party, why couldn't she and her campaign staff? Are they that out of touch?
I'm especially interested in hearing from kensdad and another_reader since they're two rational Clinton supporters. I'd include at least one other in that list, but it seems as if he's recently become an Obama supporter. There are also a couple other supporters who have already weighed in and don't seem to see why what she said was at all wrong or how it could be used against Obama when he ultimately wins the primary. (Maybe this is partly due to the fact that they don't think he will win the primary. I don't know—I really can't understand why they think this isn't treacherous.)
Comments (18)
FWIW, I think that those that think that the kitchen sink strategy isn't treacherous are either so focused on their candidate that they can't get beyond the Black/White/No-Gray-Allowed notion that anything that is good for Hillary and/or bad for Obama is good for them; else they respond to it because it subtly pushes a view of Obama that they themselves share, as a weak, milquetoast idea guy with a glass chin who will run crying to mommy the first time he confronts the Big Bad Real World.
That's the meme behind the whole "toughen him up" argument - it's essentially the same frame that folks use to justify locking a child in a dark closet in order to cure their fear of the dark.
March 7, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
She is trying to push Obama out of the picture basically frame the Presidential Election as her versus McCain.
Its basically a re-tooled version of Mark Penn's "inevitability" strategy from last year. "Hey you had a nice run there Barack. But its time to run-along and hand the ball back to the 'grown-ups'. Just like it should be, just like it was always meant to be."
Obama should not only not hand that ball back, he should take it and run with it. She just framed herself as placing herself above her party. That makes her on par with Joe Lieberman.
March 7, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
At your service, Ben. Thanks for calling me rational. :)
To me, the idea is that Obama started this dialogue. He has said in the past that experience does not matter. I think to most people, rightly or wrongly, he has ceded the experience argument, instead saying that you need to be right, and lumping Clinton and McCain in with the same wrong ideas--authorizing the war.
So, I think she just extended the argument to say, OK, but McCain and I have the experience. We have had to make tough choices. If you want to say experience doesn't matter, fine, but Americans believe, in her opinion--this is why she's pushing it--that a President needs to have both judgment and experience. It's his argument that you can have "bad" experience, and he has already lumped her into the same category as McCain on that one, so I think she just accepted that and has now turned it around on him.
A quote from Obama:
"If you choose change, you will have a nominee who doesn't just tell people what they want to hear," Obama told them. "Poll-tested positions, calculated answers might be how Washington confronts challenges, but it's not how you overcome those challenges; it's not how you inspire our nation to come together behind a common purpose, and it's not what America needs right now. You need a candidate who will tell you the truth."
He's basically calling her cold, calculated, and divisive. Those are character attacks. Experience is a qualifications attack. Isn't it better of her to attack his qualifications than attack his character?
I know that I may not be seeing this from a clear perspective--we both admit we're biased, so please help point out the flaws in my argument. :)
March 7, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's fair to say that he's saying her positions are calculated, but it says nothing about being cold and divisive.
The trouble here for Clinton is that her stance on the Iraq war has very closely mirrored public opinion. The height of her anti-war sentiment came in the beginning of 2007, when public sentiment was it's highest. Now she's begged off of that again as polls indicated that at least some people seem to be satisfied with the 'surge is working' narrative. Since she hasn't really offered much of an explanation for any of this beyond some very, very tacit admissions that her initial vote on AUMF Iraq was a mistake. And she can't really go much farther than because if she does she'll be faced with 'voted for it before she voted against it' should she go on to general (something she'll likely face anyway.)
Now, these tendencies may say something about her character, but calling her on her record is precisely a matter of qualifications, not a character attack.
March 7, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
This McCain/Clinton tactic just seems to me to be very short sighted. Not only because is tends to rip a hole in the Democratic party, but in addition all the gop has to do is take clips from these videos, add "I'm John McCain and I approve this message" and they'll have a ready-made campaign ad.
I would certainly take advantage of it if I were in the McCain camp. She might accuse them of plagerism or copyright violation, but her endorsement of McCain still comes across. I don't think they'd care about all her objections because of the attention it would bring to their candidate I just can't see it as a smart move.
March 7, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
She could have made those points without actually praising McCain's experience or threshold-ness. She could have put the facts out there, talked about experience and her own threshold-ness and her message would have been just as clear (probably clearer) without her actually endorsing McCain.
March 7, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still think "endorsing" is a little strong for what she said. When Obama calls McCain a "war hero" or Nader and "American hero" it is understood that he has respect for what everyone knows about these people. That's not an endorsement. And while I said I agree she should just state the experience and leave it at that, I don't think it's an endorsement until she says she would choose McCain over Obama, which in the past she has often said is not the case.
March 8, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure Obama started this and he has been framing differences with Clinton. But he has never said as directly as Clinton has that McCain is more capable than she is. That is the actual threshold he has not crossed. He has directly said she would make a fine president but he thinks he would be better. Over the last 2 weeks Clinton has not once said Obama is better than McCain and has framed the debate as her and McCain are capable and he is not. Plus I do think the 3Am was a visceral "fear" ad.
and to those who say they hope she intended to say it differently, I find that hard to believe as she is no amateur and the repetition of the attack makes it clear what the intent is.
I am fine engaging in a tough experience debate, foreign policy debate, or any debate where they say they are far better than their opponent. But I cannot forgive that she has said in so many words that McCain is more qualified than he is.
March 7, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, yes, but why bring McCain along for the ride? Isn't that argument made just as effectively without adding McSame into the mix? Actually, it's made more effectively; if that's her play, she's much better off not inviting anyone else to the party - all that does is piss off Obama fans and the Hate wing of the Right.
It's hard to see how writing Ann Coulter's jokes for her is really the best way to go here...
March 7, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think (and bear in mind, I failed to get Ben's endorsement as a rational Clinton supporter hehe) that what *she's* saying is that in a Hillary-McCain match-up, she can't say that he is lacking in experience, and equally he can't level that charge at her. However, in an Obama-McCain matchup, McCain can play the inexperience card, possibly to great effect.
If voters think that McCain can win the experience argument against Obama, and get mileage out it, but that he can't win it against Clinton, then Clinton may well be the stronger Democratic candidate, and they should vote for her accordingly.
March 7, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
No offense intended—your name didn't come to my mind at all. I hope you don't find that an even worse insult! ;)
March 7, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I forgot to add was that even though I agree with her argument and her right to raise it, I do think it would be better to leave out repetition of McCain's experience. It would be better to simply mention that he'll run on experience, not that he has it. I understand how this could rub Obama supporters the wrong way, and I wish she would stop phrasing it so clumsily.
To DF: Has he called her divisive?
http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Obama_calls_Clinton_divisive_figure_01302008.html
It was the title of an AP story.
But let's go back to the quote I put up:
"You need a candidate who will tell you the truth."
Do you not think the implication there is that Hillary is untruthful? Is that not a character attack? Isn't his whole campaign based on his superior character and judgment?
March 7, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this was my point. She has the right to raise the experience argument (although her "experience bookkeeping" leaves something to be desired), but she could have done it without actively praising McCain (over Obama).
Sure, mention he's a war hero, that's fine. I like and respect McCain. However, don't state that his war hero status makes him a better C-in-C than Obama. That's treachery.
March 7, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, Obama has had character "attacks" on Clinton as she has had on him. That is politics.
But he did not say, "I will tell you the truth, McCain will tell you the truth, and Hillary told the truth only in 2002." The point is that one can forcefully and vigorously and critically say I am better than my opponent. But when you say in effect, "and so is the Republican," I think that is damaging and reveals something about her and reveals something I find unpleasant and destructive to our party.
March 7, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try this:
Obama's gig is "experience doesn't matter". Against Hillary.
Now re-frame the picture:
Obama with Mccain: "experience doesn't matter".
Look out of focus?
Try it this way:
Hillary with McCain: "experience doesn't matter".
Which of the latter two looks the least surreal?
Or what other stock line will we hear for November?
March 7, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then why not just say that without coming across as endorsing McCain against Obama?
The way you phrased it is much closer to what I hope she intended, and presumably you don't charge as much as her campaign advisors!
March 7, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about trying this:
Hillary: "experience matters"
Okay, so if she is up against McCain, it's a no brainer: I vote for McCain.
The real issue is that her alleged "experience" is so puffed-up, that Terry McAuliffe couldn't find a way to weasel out of Bill Maher's question on how come experience didn't matter for Bill Clinton in 1992.
Obama has this right all along: judgment matters. At least he is consistent with his argument. Hillary never has a well-thought out, logical position, which is why her views shift in the wind.
She is not capable of leadership as a result.
March 8, 2008 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two Hillary supporters assert above that Obama has said that "experience doesn't matter."
Hillary has said that Obama has said that experience doesn't matter. But that doesn't make it true. If it is true I'd like to see a citation.
Obama has made various points that could be misconstrued this way (deliberately or not). He's made the point that judgment matters more than experience, i.e., experience without judgement doesn't give you someone you want answering that phone. And who could argue with that?
Prove me wrong if you have a citation, but I don't think Obama would say "experience doesn't matter" (unless those words are taken out of context, i.e., "ultimately experience doesn't matter as much as sound judgment"). And if you look at what he's said about it, you can't honestly claim that he's taken the position that experience doesn't matter. He's clearly taken the position that experience without sound judgment is not sufficient, but that's not at all the same thing.
A bigger point is that the whole discussion is rather silly when you look at what Hillary has to count in order to claim "experience":
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/182303.php
What would happen if she gets the nomination? McCain lines up his actual experience against Hillary's faux experience, and she looks pretty stupid for having raised the issue. Imagine a commercial with images alternating between Hillary's "experience" years as First Lady, lots of flowers and dinners and fancy dresses, etc., and images of McCain in uniform, images of him looking somber in meetings with foreign leaders, etc. Devastating.
March 8, 2008 4:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment