More Kitchen Sink Please

There has been a high level of concern expressed by many Obama supporters about the tone and temperament of the Clinton campaign. Believing her win in Ohio was, at least in part, the result of a strategy that called Obama's readiness into question, the Clinton campaign has continued to press the commander in chief conversation. She has now, on several occasions, explicitly judged John McCain has more capable of being commander in chief than Barack Obama.

For plenty of worthy reasons, Obama supporters and Democratic Party loyalists are furious. At this point, Obama's pledged delegate lead is insurmountable, and his popular vote lead is nearly out of reach. The idea that Hillary Clinton, a legend in her party, would willingly jeopardize the Democratic frontrunner's chances in November is surprising enough. That she would go out of her way to compliment John McCain's experience and leadership was, at least until now, truly unthinkable. Framing an argument to suggest that Obama is less qualified for the presidency than Clinton is one thing. Suggesting that he doesn't measure up to John McCain is quite another.

But for all the commotion, there is reason to believe that the Clinton kitchen sink strategy will actually be quite beneficial for Obama.

There can be little doubt that the bulk of John McCain's campaign against Barack Obama will focus on two prongs: Obama's inexperience and his readiness. There is no other direction from which McCain can successfully attack. The American people side with Obama on foreign policy issues, whether it's withdrawing from Iraq, muting the saber rattling against Iran, or revaluating our strategy toward Pakistan. They side with him on domestic issues as well, preferring Democrats over Republicans on economic issues, and preferring a plan that strives for universal health care over McCain's plan to do nothing all. As a result, McCain will continue, as he has already begun, to hammer Obama on his only perceived weakness -- his readiness to lead.

Counter-intuitively, Clinton's aggressive strategy and questionable tactics may, therefore, be quite helpful to Obama's long term interests. For the next six weeks, and perhaps until June, Obama is playing in what has become, for better or worse, an exhibition game. Despite the Clinton campaign's denial -- and the media's enthusiastic willingness to enable it -- Clinton lacks any conceivable path to the nomination. Her attacks on him cannot, as a result, prevent him from the nomination. They can, however, allow him the opportunity to practice responding to attacks he can expect down the line. He can try a series of trial balloons -- different messages, rhetoric, and posture -- learning which defensive and offensive strategies are most effective.

We have already seen that with time, the Obama campaign learns how to diffuse opposing arguments. The experience message that became the centerpiece of the Clinton campaign has now become, at best, a punch line. With precision, Obama responded, time and again, that it is judgment and not longevity that the presidency requires. By now, the experience argument appears to be Clinton's least effective.

The readiness issue will likely achieve a similar fate. Can there be any doubt that, at the conclusion of the Democratic race, Obama will have become far more agile in responding to these kinds of attacks?

The Clinton campaign's regrettable strategy will have been ironically beneficial for Obama; he will have mastered his message and minimized his primary weakness, all while his real opponent, John McCain, struggles to get noticed at all.

Comments

[TN]

Why is it that the very states that would be hurt and have been hurt most by republicans seem to be the ones that will vote for McCain. It's kinda like driving down the interstate and seeing a broken down, old car with a Bush bumper sticker on it. Soo Sad.

[DAbraha]

While in one side I agree with your analysis, the other side is the kitchen sink strategy divide the party unless the losing candidate publicly endorses that other and apologies for throwing the kitchen sink at Obama. Regardless, Hillary is not qualified to be a President. PERIOD!

Hillary = Bad Judgment, divisive, paralyzing, polarizing, vindictive, scorned, untrustworthy, MONSTER!

[hopelessobama]

liberals never learn. they forget that some of the biggest rallies and inspiring speeches came from...guess who.....mcgovern! rallies even bigger then obama's. yea....he lost 49 states. carter had a 33 point lead at this point, reduced to 1.5 by gerald ford, and he had to defend NIXON! dukakis was up 17 after convention, and was beaten soundly. john kerry, a decorated war hero and experienced senator was reduced to an indecisive, flip flopping, coward by the republican machine. underestimating them and overestimating obama, a man who has NEVER run against a strong republican, much less a war hero with a bi-partisan record a mile long lik mccain. there is a rude awakening coming for obama folks.

[CBS]

Obama is now only 7 super delegates behind Clinton having picked up more than 50 since January to her dozen in the same period. He will be the nominee. As for McCain, his views on the war will effectively defeat him. Right now the American public is solidly against the war, unlike during the period in which McGovern was running. There is a rude awakening coming but not for Obama folks.

[standforpeace]

I love the way that folks reach back into history to cherry pick examples or provide interpretations that somehow prove their point. Obviously, the chief problem with your analysis is that we don't have any countervailing examples because we can't know how the choice of a different Democratic nominee would have affected any of those races you mention. In any case, at this juncture, the best chance that the Democrats have against McCain is the nominee preferred by not just Democrats but also independent voters. Unless of course you think we would do better with the woman with a 47% unfavorable rating?

[hopelessobama]

wow you know exactlky nothing at all huh? you do realize that obama's and clinton's negative numbers have both gone up during this 'kitchen sink' strategy, while mccain has closed gaps with obama from double digits to statistical ties, before even beginning to campaign against him. white voters are steadily trending away from obama as clinton redefines him. AFL-CIO is so paniced about losing reagan democrats to mccain that they are launching their largest negative-campaing in history. thanks to clinton, obama is now losing in florida, ohio, pennsylvania, and michigan to mccain, without john stepping foot in those states. yes please, more kitchen sink!

[baschenis]

Obviously Obama has huge vulnerabilities in a general election, Clinton probably more so. But bomb bomb McCain, the guy who thinks we are safer because of the three trillion dollar war in Iraq (see Bilmes and Stiglitz) that is wrapped around his neck, offers America yet more wars, more ptsd, more wounding, more debt, fewer jobs, and an acceleration of the destructive policies of the last seven years that the people of this country have now rejected. One of McCain's added problems is that the conservative movement, after 30 years of dominance, is collapsing, while the straight talk express is driving into Hagee-land.

[MAWWforObama]

I would like to correct a post I made earlier. The gross municipal product of the city of Chicago is $390 billion (I said $589 billion, which is that of the state of Illinois) making Chicago's gross product only 4 times larger than the gross state product of Arkansas ($87 billion). Even so, I'd put the mayor of Chicago's experience or that of an Illinois state senator up against the governor of Arkansas' any day.

[Tankan]

That's John McCain's strategy, a covert campaign, then jump out of the Texas bramble bushes at the last moment and surround the enemy, all on his own, Rambo style!

[nunzia]

OMG, the innocence of youth!
Do you really think that that these
little feather flicks from Hillary in
any way at all reflect what the
reichwing will do to your candidate?
Get real.
And, since you insist that he be
the candidate,
GET READY.

[PioneerKing]

DYLAN:

You've got to get out into the heartland and - scratch the surface and the racial divide is immense. The republicans will shred Obama on whether he is a muslim; his lack of experience and his readiness and finish off Obama with racial attacks.

[DavidK08]

True that is some parts of the country, ignorant parts, that might happen. But, if it were to happen in this day and age, the internet and cable news companies would cover it and it would disgust the rest of the country. It would have a bad effect on anyone who tried that Bull s#$t.

[MAWWforObama]

Could we put this experience thing into context for once?
Barack Obama:
7 years Illinois Senate
3 years US Senate

That equals 10 years.

Hillary Clinton:
7 years US Senate

10 minus 7, by the old math at least, used to equal 3. So in elected experience, Obama should stop letting her feed the Republicans lines about his "lack" of experience.

Here's the thing: Illinois is the 5th largest state in the US with 12,831,970 residents. That makes it larger than many countries, including: Hungary, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Austria, Ireland....you could go on and on here. The point being that, just because the Clinton campaign continues to spread specious half-truths, doesn't mean that experience as an Illinois Senator is irrelevant.
And here's something else: Bill Clinton became President after being governor of Arkansas, a state of less people (2.6 million) than the city of Chicago (2.8 million)! So, in other words, the mayor of Chicago, actually governed a larger electorate. But even more important, the gross state product of Arkansas is $87 billion while the gross municipal product of the city of Chicago is $589 billion -- almost 7 times as great. Yet, Bill Clinton's gubernatorial experience is somehow deemed more valuable than had he been mayor of Chicago or certainly, by the Clinton logic, a senator from the state of Illinois.

I am a 58-year-old, white woman, who is extremely proud of the accomplishments of the women's movement but falsely claiming "experience" for being "the wife of..." as Hillary is doing sets the women's movement back decades. Are we going to have to vote for Chelsea in eight years because she'll have 16 years "experience"?

[massimo1]

I hope you are right that the dark Clinton cloud has a silver lining for Obama. As much as I'd despise a republican-lite Clinton presidency, I can't imagine anything worse for America than a McCain/Romney presidency.

[richcpl]

When the clintons finally accept their doom, bill will say, w/ that unctuous grin, that this was their plan all along once the SuperTuesday results were in. "We knew Barack was unbeatable, but it was important to give him a good, tough workout to prepare him for McCain. Today, I pronounce him prepared."

[fullkelly]

THE AUDACITY OF HOPE? GOD DAMN AMERICA. tHE CAMPAIGN OF CHANGE? GOD DAMN AMERICA.

[lvdragonlady]

I have read lots of blogs today and have a couple of questions, for the masses.
(1) Is hrc really running for the Dems or the Reps?
(2) Wasn't the term - Commander-an-Chief- coined by Richard Nixon?

I never liked commander-n-chief, it always sounded like 'control freak in disguise' but I notice that since the 70's everyone has used that term to describe the office of the president. Obama never uses that term, or I have not heard him use it.........Does that tell us that he will be our President instead or our Command -n- Chief? I think President has a better ring to it.

[austinobserver]

But..but.. isn't Hillary Wal-Mart Clinton brilliant as well as experienced? Didn't she manage to memorize all the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) talking points? Didn't she "cleverly" adopt Rove's strategy of using surrogates to undermine her opponents? Doesn't she distance herself from such surrogates when the public turns on them, while she continues to hope the seeds they planted grow into large noxious weeds in the public discourse? And, most astonishingly, didn't she manage to surround herself with DLC members and Republicans from Wall Street and then convince unsophisticated working class voters that she is on their side? Doesn't that prove anything?

[JulieSA]

"Didn't she "cleverly" adopt Rove's strategy of using surrogates to undermine her opponents?"

It's probably vice versa, actually. The Clintons have been successfully campaigning for much longer than Rove has, and many of their techniques have been copied by him and others. Credit where credit is due.

[Openeyes]

You make an excellent point. Thank you for finding the silver lining in a very black cloud. Hillary's behavior is inexcusable. (Please Hillary suupporters, don't tell us it's "just politics" - there needs to be a threshold level of support and respect among candidates from the same party). Obama's team has been very quick to respond - they had a counter to the "3 am ad" out very quickly, so I do have hope they will try defenses out to these jabs.

My only question, why is Hillary's conduct surprising? This contest has always between Barack, who wants to lead, and Clinton, who wants to be in the lead. Only one of them is really interested in working for the country, rather than for themselves - guess which one?