« Your World in Powerpoints: Cap-and-Trade Edition | Main | Dani Rodrik is a National Treasure »
December 07, 2007
Attack!
This, by Eugene Robinson, is a good point:
Clinton's decision to concentrate her fire on Obama threatens to turn him into the anti-Clinton. No candidate with negative ratings as high as Clinton's has an interest in signaling to voters who don't like her that there's one candidate to whom they might want to rally.
There was a lot of talk in recent weeks as to why Obama wouldn't take the gloves off. What happened, however, is that Hullary took them off first, letting Obama counterpunch without sullying his reputation for high-mindedness. Well-played by the Obama folks, but not so much by the Clinton people. So far as I can tell, what actually happened is that Hillary felt the heat from Edwards' attacks but responded against Obama, who was moving up in the polls and posed more of a threat to her nomination. That made sense looking at the numbers, but it's played out pretty poorly.
December 7, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
This is more or less my take on it, too. Yet another in a long line of important if unremarked-upon mistakes made by the Clinton camp. I'm really, really hoping she gets taken out early in the primaries now, because I'm convinced that her one supposed asset - her masterful political skill - doesn't exist. The nomination was hers to lose, and she's losing it. God only knows what she'd do in the general.
Posted by: Christmas | Dec 7, 2007 12:49:44 PM
The nomination was hers to lose, and she's losing it. God only knows what she'd do in the general.
It's a little early to say "she's losing it," doncha think? Not a single vote has been cast.
About a year ago there seemed to be a widespread belief that Hillary was too widely loathed to be a successful candidate. Her negatives were deemed too high. I think then, at least, the nomination wasn't "hers to lose." Then later, as we moved into 2007, her campaign appeared disciplined, well-organized, tightly managed, very much on message. As I see it, the earlier, low expectations juxtaposed against the later, competent performance of her campaign got people thinking that, yeah, the nomination is hers to lose after all. I'd say this sentiment peaked late summer and early fall.
Now, the question is, did she peak too early or did Obama peak too early. I don't think her dip in the Iowa polls is necessarily the worst thing in the world, as it lowers expectations. She could plausibly go into Iowa trailing Obama by, say, five or six points, and if she manages to "lose" by only two points, she might be able to claim some sort of "victory." Underperforming relative to expectations is the real kiss of death in primary politics, it seems to me. For similar reasons I thought Huckabee's rise in Iowas polls wasn't necessarily bad news for Romney, and it's also why I think the overreaction displayed in The Speech is very problematic for his campaign.
What I'd really like to know is, does the Obama-Clinton brawl somehow present an opportunity to John Edwards. I hear his Iowa legions are extremely loyal; perhaps that's his ace in the hole. Maybe there's still a hope for him.
Posted by: Jasper | Dec 7, 2007 1:29:45 PM
"What I'd really like to know is, does the Obama-Clinton brawl somehow present an opportunity to John Edwards. I hear his Iowa legions are extremely loyal; perhaps that's his ace in the hole. Maybe there's still a hope for him."
Several possible ways:
a) He can play both against each other while appearing the "reasonable" alternative to voters.
b) It neutralizes their money advantage over him.
c) It allows for a narrative wherein rather than expecting him to win IA- they have made it about Clinton or Obama. Exactly the narrative that Edwards needs going into (I believe) to have the impact needed for NH- a few days later. Again w/ the other to going nuclear and ignoring Edwards- he has enough money and focus on early states to build momentum out of this.
d) Looking at his poll numbers (speaking of unremarked) they have slowly been ticking up in IA and NH. Even bloggers are ignoring this. Earlier this year it was said that he needed to be in the high teens, and Clinton in the low 30s for a bounce to matter.
Posted by: akaison | Dec 7, 2007 1:45:06 PM
The Iowa caucus system is grossly overrated!
Since 1972 six out of seven Democratic caucus winners were not elected! The only Democratic winner of the Iowa caucuses to be elected was Jimmy Carter. Actually Carter came in second to uncommitted. :-)
The only Republican winner of the Iowa caucuses to win election since 1972 (excluding incumbents) was George W. Bush.
Since Iowa does such a lousy job of picking winners, why the hell does anyone care who wins the caucus? Seems self defeating to me.
Posted by: RalphB | Dec 7, 2007 1:45:31 PM
Hillary felt the heat from Edwards' attacks but responded against Obama
Why do Edwards and Obama get the benefit of the relatively formal use of their last names, while Clinton is called by her first name? This happens a lot; doesn't it have the cumulative effect of dimishing Clinton as a less serious contender? You'll also often see her called "Mrs. Clinton" in the same paragraph where Obama is "senator Obama" --but she's a senator, too. I'm not a Clinton advocate, but I do think that these naming habits have a subtle, pervasive, harmful effect, and that they should be avoided by fair-minded writers.
Posted by: Dyon | Dec 7, 2007 2:10:37 PM
There was a lot of talk in recent weeks as to why Obama wouldn't take the gloves off. What happened, however, is that Hullary took them off first, letting Obama counterpunch without sullying his reputation for high-mindedness.
That's a curious historical take. I recall that just a few short weeks ago, Obama did take the gloves off.
Posted by: dry_fish | Dec 7, 2007 2:13:05 PM
SIMPLER THEORY:
Hillary's lead in the polls consisted entirely of people who had no idea she had been a vociferous and longstanding supporter of the Iraq War.
Once the campaign heated up and people found this out, they gravitated to the candidate who was right on that issue (which, of course, was not Edwards).
I predicted this a long time ago. I said Hillary couldn't win the nomination before it was fashionable. People overestimated the alleged inevitability of Hillary and underestimated the importance of the Iraq issue to the base.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Dec 7, 2007 2:25:05 PM
The Iowa caucus system is grossly overrated!
That's not something you hear every day. Is there anyone outside of Iowa who doesn't believe that the prominence of the Iowa caucus is anything but unalloyed madness?
On the other hand, it might well be impossible not to overrate it, as its stupidity is infinitely deep and multifaceted, and likely incapable of being fully captured by mere words.
Posted by: Jason C. | Dec 7, 2007 2:29:38 PM
"Why do Edwards and Obama get the benefit of the relatively formal use of their last names, while Clinton is called by her first name?"
Because that's the name she goes by. Her campaign stops all put "HILLARY" in big bold letters behind her when she speaks, not Clinton. Her campaign also uses just Hillary on t-shirts and bumper stickers.
Posted by: mad6798j | Dec 7, 2007 2:49:00 PM
Because that's the name she goes by. Her campaign stops all put "HILLARY" in big bold letters behind her when she speaks, not Clinton. Her campaign also uses just Hillary on t-shirts and bumper stickers.
That's right, and it goes back to decisions that were made about "Rodham" and "Clinton" and the views of feminists and anti-feminists about her candidacies (and before that, Bill Clinton's candidacies).
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Dec 7, 2007 3:00:10 PM
Why do Edwards and Obama get the benefit of the relatively formal use of their last names, while Clinton is called by her first name? This happens a lot; doesn't it have the cumulative effect of dimishing Clinton as a less serious contender?
Um, maybe because her signage and her website banner all say "Hillary for President?" Just a guess.
And it's not particularly different from the current POTUS using "W" in his campaigns... anyone who carries a political name into a campaign has to tinker with the brand.
Posted by: latts | Dec 7, 2007 3:09:18 PM
Damn... posting at work really does slow a slacker down, especially when everyone keeps sticking their heads into one's office.
Posted by: latts | Dec 7, 2007 3:12:26 PM
Ezra, are you trying to kill Bob Somerby? Have a heart. Stop before his head explodes.
Posted by: hf | Dec 7, 2007 3:20:33 PM
Actually, the public record shows that it was in early November when Obama derided Clinton's ambition when he made a series of speeches which included the false account of a 20-year plan for Clinton to return to the White House.
Why is it not OK for Clinton to stand up for herself? Why is it OK for Obama to have ambition, but not Clinton? Why is not OK for Clinton to provide factual proof that Obama is attacking her ambition while simultaneously cultivating his own?
Seems fair to me!
Why doesn't it seem fair to you, Ezra? You seem way too eager to jump into the Archie Bunker Lazy-Boy chair of journalism with Matthews here.
Further, I find it highly questionable that Robinson so carelessly played the race card and trashed Clinton by putting words in her mouth that would paint her as thinking herself superior to African Americans. There is nothing in the public record that indicates that Clinton did, in fact, call Obama "uppity", no matter how much Robinson's feigned outrage makes it seem as if this non-event actually happened.
Indeed, it all stands in stark contrast to the way the MSM once pined for a more contentious race.
Months ago, when Clinton tried to remain above the fray, she was derided by the MSM as trying to waltz to her "coronation". Indeed, the MSM vocally encouraged and prodded both Obama and Edwards to launch what would become a month of attacks on Clinton's character, honesty, and ambition.
But those rules for the other candidate, not candidate Clinton!
I wish Klein, Robinson, Matthews, Russert, Huffington et al. would get together and decide what exactly the rules are for ALL the candidates.
And when the grand inquisition convenes, they should agree on ONE rule book for them all. Not ONE rule book for Clinton, and A DIFFERENT AND MORE-GENEROUS one for her opponents.
Finally, the media should better-acquaint themselves with the public record. In the end, it will save them the embarrassment of writing fiction dressed-up as news and stretching the truth about events that never really happened.
Posted by: JoeCHI | Dec 7, 2007 3:37:30 PM
Why is it OK for Obama to have ambition, but not Clinton?
Sigh... personally, I'm fine with ambition, allowing for the usual failings associated with it. And it's stupid to pretend that anyone who's a candidate for office eschews ambition.
But I also find a sort of qualitative difference between HRC & Obama when it comes to ambition, and one which favors him: his political storyline is actually pretty straightforward, while hers is one of zig-zagging & shortcuts. He basically did the organizing, state rep, statewide election thing before jumping into national politics, after all. HRC's story is one of ambition (not necessarily presidential ambition) deferred for the traditional reasons women so often allow to sidetrack them, then it was not only revived, but she leapfrogged to a position that no rational person would have expected her to earn had she not moved into the top tiers of politics with her husband. I know that I'm well in the minority of women-- and possibly even among feminists-- in thinking that this path to power validates the marrying-well tradition more than it breaks any glass ceilings, but it is by no measure comparable to the usual path of the politically ambitious. It's more like GWB's own success, or that of the massively wealthy men (including Edwards) who enter politics at a level that is absolutely inaccessible to regular citizens.
Posted by: latts | Dec 7, 2007 3:52:28 PM
excuse me- are you comparing someone who work his ass off to get to where he is (Edwards) to Bush who was born with a platinum spoon in his mouth? seriously? it's this sort of mentality that gives real class issues a bad name. you seem to dislike wealth because one gained wealth, versus having a problem with how wealth is used against others to gain power over others. are you arguing that edwards is like all the wealthy, and if not why bring it up?
Posted by: akaison | Dec 7, 2007 3:57:03 PM
there's no way "JoeCHI" is serious.
Posted by: yoyo | Dec 7, 2007 4:18:41 PM
excuse me- are you comparing someone who work his ass off to get to where he is (Edwards) to Bush who was born with a platinum spoon in his mouth? seriously?
Edwards worked his ass off to become wealthy and connected, but his first political office was in the US Senate, hardly the result of years in the political trenches. GWB's was Governor of Texas; HRC's was also the US Senate. Those positions are unattainable for those without great wealth and/or high-level connections. IIRC, Molly Ivins went on at some length about this sort of rich-man's-leapfrog back when Ross Perot was running for president; she noted that they don't seem to want to start as lowly city council members or metropolitan mayors, or even US Representatives.
Actually, I'd say that all three Dem frontrunners are playing a bit of catch-up on their resumes, since none has much over half a decade of experience as a federal (or executive, which is useful although it doesn't apply here) officeholder in their own right. None have been outstanding senators who displayed real leadership while in office, or governors, so we're all projecting our own biases & hopes onto them to some degree or another, relying on fame, speeches, and/or personality to inform our decisions.
Posted by: latts | Dec 7, 2007 4:30:40 PM
Obama went to Columbia and then Harvard Law. By any imaginable standard, that makes him one of the elite.
Posted by: Jason C. | Dec 7, 2007 4:31:12 PM
Latts, at least now you are being even handed.
Here's the thing- they are all as the last poster explains part of the elite class in America. Name a President except maybe Carter who wasn't.
It's also not the standard. This has the smell of "edward is a hypocrite because he is wealthy" argument that pervaded the press earlier this year. the point amongst thinking liberals has never been no wealthy people, it has been wealth is not morality or the end all be all of power in our society. really very different argument than the status of wealth as an indictment.
Posted by: akaison | Dec 7, 2007 5:41:58 PM
akaison, it has nothing to do with the "Edwards is a hypocrite because he's wealthy" argument (though I do think that what Edwards supporters miss about that argument is that there's a difference between BEING wealthy and LIVING wealthy, one the newly rich have missed since at least the time of F. Scott Fitzgerald, and if you don't LIVE wealthy (i.e., smaller house, cheaper haircuts), you avoid the criticism).
Rather, the argument is that there is value to political experience, there is value to dues-paying, and the sort of fame and riches that allows one to leapfrog others to the front of the line isn't really a qualification for office.
Plus, as latts points out, with Hillary, there is the additional point that it really is a setback for feminism if the only way a woman can become President is by sleeping with a President rather than climbing her way up the ladder.
But neither of those arguments is the "Edwards is a hypocrite for being rich" argument.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Dec 7, 2007 5:53:42 PM
Edwards paid his 'dues' Maybe its your inability to see that because you are too busy worrying about being wealthy versus acing wealthy- which basically comes down apparently to you not to how he use his time and effort politically, but whether he actually spends his money. We didn't miss your point. we just find it a false argument and is the worse kind of liberalism that fits conservative and moderate stereotypes of liberal- all status and form, no substance of arguments made.
Posted by: akaison | Dec 7, 2007 6:01:17 PM
Akaison, Dilan Esper basically said what I would have if I'd gotten back in time.
Obviously, I think I'm "even-handed" most of the time, LOL, but I will say that while I like Edwards' positions more than those of either of the other two, I have far, far less confidence in his political abilities (meaning the ones essential to governing, not campaigning) than in theirs, and would in fact place him below a few lower-tier candidates as well in that respect. That's where political experience comes in, knowing the nuts and bolts-- or if you prefer, having mastered sausage-making-- that give one an advantage in dealing with the many, many egos and various hurdles that impede a political agenda.
Oh, and regarding another comment that may have been directed at me, I never said that Obama wasn't one of the elite, just that he started in politics closer to the ground floor than either Edwards or Clinton, which is after all true. It's very convenient to make a candidate's alma mater the primary standard for determining how much of a commoner s/he may be-- that makes good ol' boy Bill Clinton quite the elitist, btw-- but it's nowhere near the whole story.
Posted by: latts | Dec 7, 2007 6:54:00 PM
latts look, beleive what you want to believe but thats not what he said. and as for what you believe, show me the money with actual results or I am going to accuse of living in a delusion. peace.
Posted by: akaison | Dec 7, 2007 9:44:37 PM
Akaison, you may want to point out exactly where I'm "living in a delusion," aside from just not being gushy enough for your taste about John Edwards-- since I only seemed to arouse your ire when I noted that he jumped into the Senate as a wealthy man, mollified you slightly when I spread my criticism to all three candidates, and then angered you again when I specifically pointed out what I perceive (and noted it as my opinion) to be his critical political deficiency, I'm inclined to simply put your challenges into the 'wah, she dissed my candidate' category.
Here's the deal:
Hillary Clinton is a second-term senator who is in that position, not to mention that of presidential frontrunner, because of the benefits-- some substantive, others simply operational-- of her marriage to a popular former POTUS.
Barack Obama is a relatively young first-term senator who started in politics as an organizer and state legislator, before [admittedly] lucking out in his first federal race and shooting to national prominence on a combination of presentation and valid criticism of conventional wisdom.
John Edwards is a one-term senator with no prior political experience and who spent most of the last couple of years of his single term running for president/vice-president, then focused intensely on policy & political philosophy after he no longer had a political job.
Now, we can argue about what's significant about these individuals' histories, but I don't think I actually misrepresented the histories themselves.
Posted by: latts | Dec 8, 2007 11:47:53 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
