Yesterday morning, the New York Times wrote an editorial widely decrying tactics used in the recently completed Pennsylvania primary. The article specifically focused on Hillary Clinton and her use of negative campaign tactics to undermine Senator Barack Obama in the waning days of that state's contest. The Times criticized the tone and content of the campaign, focusing particularly on the rhetoric and advertisements of Senator Clinton.
The Times is wrong because, but for that communication, the primary almost certainly would have been closer than it proved to be. Exit polls showed that while both candidates were seen as having leveled unfair attacks, the 46% who said that negative advertisements impacted their vote broke overwhelmingly for Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton's margin had dropped to low, single-digits earlier last week when she was in danger of being overwhelmed by Senator Obama's 2.5-3 to 1 advantage in media advertising and campaign spending. Senator Clinton then successfully framed the race as a referendum on Senator Obama and his values, particularly with regards to his comments about Americans being bitter and clinging to guns and religion as a means of dealing with that bitterness. By doing so, she was able to win substantial victories, not only with working-class voters, but with working-class male voters, a key constituency that she needed to win. Her supporters were clearly energized, as she raised $3.5 million in the hours after winning the primary, marking her best overnight performance ever.
The lessons of Pennsylvania are clear for her going forward. She must continue on a negative or a comparative theme if she is to win the upcoming primaries. After running a negative campaign, candidates are frequently tempted to turn back to a positive track to avoid criticism from the media. Given the deficit that Senator Clinton faces in states won, the popular vote and pledged delegates, she does not have this luxury. She must continue to draw contrasts with Senator Obama, raise questions about the nature and extent of his associations with Reverend Wright and terrorist leader William Ayers, and raise more questions about his values in comparison with hers.
Having done 15 years of successful Democratic campaigns in Indiana, I can say with confidence that negative campaigning works effectively with Hoosier voters. Voters in the southern part of the state are very much akin to southern white voters, who have given an overwhelmingly large amount of support to Senator Clinton. They will be quite susceptible to her values-based argument about the flawed candidacy of Senator Obama. Voters in the northwestern part of the state, particularly white, working-class voters, will also be responsive to this appeal, along with Senator Clinton's appeal on economic issues relating to the almost-certain recession. Thus, experience and my own political history suggest that this is the only direction and approach Senator Clinton can take to maximize her chance of success.
There will be ample time once the nominee is decided upon, most likely in June, for the Democratic Party to come together. With only around 20% of each candidate's supporters defecting to John McCain, there is every indication that when the two candidates consolidate once the primary season is over, the Democratic support will coalesce around the nominee. It will further coalesce if we have an Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama ticket, which is increasingly likely. But for now, Senator Clinton has in large part adopted the advice offered in my Washington Post op-ed piece last week. If she is to make the most of her chance for success, she must continue with the same tactics.
Carly Cooperman contributed to this article.
Also, to say that white voters will be "susceptible to Clinton's 'values-based' arguments about Obama's 'flawed candidancy'" is a page right out of Karl Rove's play book. There was a time when all Democrats would have found this kind of rhetoric repugnant, especially when directed at another Democrat. I, for one, have grown weary with Rovian-style gutter politics. Obama represents hope for change in that respect - Senator Clinton just more of the same.
I must have missed that.
Senator Clinton is bashed non-stop for "attacking" Obama - this is absurd. What attacks?
When did pointing out the record or no-record of one's opponent become an "attack'?
When did forcing one's opponent to answer questions that he avoids and won't answer - an attack?
In the debate, one saw the real Obama, a guy who is visibly annoyed when he is asked a question. How dare anyone actually ask St. Obama a question? He reminded us of another cocky guy - he acted exactly like that other arrogrant and cocky guy - named George Bush.
Obama's relationships with a string of unsavory characters - tell us about OBAMA'S JUDGEMENT,
so does his "NON-PRESENT" votes, so does his LIES - here are some of them: He told the people
of Illinois - "I will not run for President in 2008," "I only worked with Resko for 5 hours," He lied about not seeing a piece of legislation, that has his signature on it. And on and on.... This guy's JUDGEMENT tells us everything we need to know about him.
His "hitting the wrong buttons" when he was actually "present" to vote. Do you want this guy's
shaky hand near "buttons?" His wife, she said, "we won't do this again."
Now if that doesn't sound like - we are "entitled" - what does?
If the Democrats are dumb enough to actually nominate this guy, they will
Jennifer Flower's phone sex tapes
featuring Bill's heavy breathing.
Do we really need two people so subject
to blackmail in the People's House?
the old politics of the has-beens is so obviously not good for america. and here you are saying essentially "give us more." jeez.
please move out of the way for the new generation of folks who have to deal with what your generation has given us. we don't want anymore of it. recognize when you are in the way and holding up progress, it's the least you can do for the people of this country, and the world.
"---- If I have to lie, cheat or steal ( by God I'll be the next President of the United States)
But then again Scarlett was hungry. What is Hillary's excuse for telling lies, cheating and stealing. I mean she is the most UNSCRUPULOUS and SCARIEST person that ever ran for office. Can't people SEE that?
Whomever is President in the next four years will face overwhelming problems. Bush has spent the last of any of this nation's wealth and bankrupt the country with the Iraq fiasco. The Clintons do not have any magic nor does anyone else. In fact, they are indebted to the same forces that put us in Iraq and will probably have us bombing Iran. Obama tells folks that "we" working together can "try" to solve our problems. Clinton appeals to the part of the populace that believes that a savior is available. Hence, she continually speaks of "I will do". Unfortunately, from my reading of history, a person like Hillary Clinton often becomes a demagogue and possibly a dictator.
At the beginning of all this, I was excited that she was running and had a deep and abiding respect for Bill. I started listening to Obama and I read his book (which most of the MSM have not). As it went on, I was happy that either one would be great and felt very hopeful.
Fast-forward to today. I can't stand Hillary, not for her positions but for her tactics. She's lied to my face, twisted the facts in grotesquely obvious ways, and seems manically bent on winning at any cost (although I am glad she dropped that weird maniacal laughter thing). Bill has become a joke and maybe that's the saddest part.
Obama has stumbled a bit trying to counter Hillary's desperate mudslinging without sacrificing his principles but I look at him as someone I would trust and admire as president.
If Hillary finds some way, other than winning, to get nominated, I'll probably sit this one out, or write in Obama. I didn't used to feel that way.
Why don't any damn rules apply to Hillary and McCain? Reminds one of how the Romans flocked by the thousands to their Coliseum to enjoy watching those insurrectionist Christians being eaten by the lions! Hmm, remember what happened to the Romans?
We get the leaders we deserve!
Folks, this is what you get with Hillary. She'll not only listen to such people, but they will assume places of importance in her administration. This guy would make a good substitute for Karl Rove, don't you think? Or, maybe the Attorney General's office.
Is this honesty