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

[Jacky1]

HRC is a disgrace to the Democratic Party. I am a loyal Democrat but if HRC gets the superdeligates to nominate her over Obama I believe there will be some very serious repercussions throughout the party. A person who lacks any loyalty to her own party might also lack that same loyalty to her own country.

[OckhamsElectricRazor]

Your assertions assume that Hillary will play fair and square -- a giant leap of faith.

[SamThornton]

Here's a quote about a former president who arguably was among the very few who have actually had extensive national security experience:

"The President was without policies or popular support. He was compelled to remake his Cabinet under a grueling fire from reformers and investigators; half its members were utterly inexperienced, several others discredited, one was even disgraced. The personnel of the departments was largely demoralized. The party that autumn appealed for votes on the implicit ground that the next Administration would be totally unlike the one in office. In its centennial year, a year of deepest economic depression, the nation drifted almost rudderless­." -- historian Allan Nevins writing in "Hamilton Fish"

Nevins was writing about Ulysses S. Grant, winning General of the Civil War and leader of one of the most corrupt administrations in U.S. history.

“Experience is the name every one gives to their mistakes.” -- Oscar Wilde

[Kordo]

Nice to read a poster here who's not in abject terror of the big, bad Republican Attack Machine. Dylan, you are the first guy I've read to actually talk about what a clownish paper tiger that Boogeyman is. Nice work. What can they do? Run around scaring hicks (and fewer of those everyday) that he's some kind of Al-Qaeda sleeper? This guy is the best Pres candidate we've had since RFK, black, white, purple-wit­h-yellow-f­rakkin polka-dots. Anyone ignorant enough to buy the slime isn't worth the space in our heads....

[KimberlyKay]

The problem with your conclusion is as Mark Twain once said "the only difference between a lie and a cat is that a cat only has nine lives." The more Senator Clinton claims Senator Obama lacks experience; the more people will hear and probably believe. Senator Clinton is also a fellow Democrat savaging a fellow Democrat which lends more credibility (if though it is dubious) to her attacks.

I hope you are right. I also have to remember that Senator Obama has outperformed all of my expectations from the beginning of this Campaign to right now. It is about time I start trusting his obviously superior judgment and stop fearing that anybody's attack machine can actually cause him any permanent harm.

[soylentgreenleftovers]

Maybe the outrage stems from the fact that it is Hillary who is questioning Obama's readiness. She is absolutely ridiculous when you compare their experience. She has less experience than he does legislating as well as leadership. About the only thing she has on him experience-wise is picking out china patterns & christmas ornaments for the white house and brown-nosing bush on his foreign adventures.

[ndolomar]

i'm sorry, but this whole thing has spiraled to a point at which it's now irreparable. you can blame clinton; you can blame obama, but -- regardless -- the democrats used their biggest opportunity to waltz into the white house and turned it into a pathetic race to the bottom. when i watched mitt romney essentially "thanking" hillary clinton for doing the republicans' dirty work via her "kitchen sink" strategy, i realized that this november -- heck, this august -- will be approached with a very sour taste in the mouths of many democrats. the question now is: how do you guys (i'm a republican) plan to unite in the fall? when will your candidates turn their message toward one of unity among all political parties (let alone itself)? while most of the talking-points' posts can be chalked up to people just trying to rile things up and continue the stratification, there still are supporters on both sides whose advocacy of their respective candidate has morphed into hatred for the other; however, you have to remember most of you say you want a democrat in the white house, and this infighting is not going to lead to that outcome. how long do you plan to wait before you get it together? do you reeeaaallly want mccain to continue the policies that have led to a 60% increase in foreclosures (in calif.), a dismal job market, a war that's costing lives and tax payers, the slow omission of citizens' constitutional rights? i mean, if you like this pattern, by all means, vote mccain in the general -- you don't even have to use the excuse that your "candidate didn't win the nomination" as a reason to do so. but this has just grown disgusting, which is so very sad, because it's progressed into a milieu from which america (and the democrats) may not recover.

[TekTami78]

As a republican, let me ask you a question. How is it that the entire republican party has 'united' behind John McCain? Before, there were 'true conservatives' who said he wasn't conservative enough and several other flavors of conservative that had beefs with him as well. But now that McCain is the republican nominee, all that talk is done and over and everyone has fallen happily in line behind John McCain. Aside from him securing the nomination, what changed? Where did all this 'unity' come from all of a sudden?

As an Independent Obama supporter, I can tell you without hesitation that I WILL NOT vote for John McCain out of protest, and I really don't believe that any Democrat with one eye and half-sense would either.

[ndolomar]

To answer your questions, Tek, it's simple: short-term myopia bouyed by long-term greed. I'm not among the Republicans who currently rally behind McCain because I don't subscribe to the ideology that has taken over the platform. I'm a Republican because I registered that way for many reasons. There are policies Democrats prefer upon which, no matter how many others we agree upon, we'll never find common ground. However, despite my supporting school vouchers, pro-life movements, small government and "business-­friendlier­" economy, I don't rally behind a candidate simply because he or she has an "R" after his/her last name. I like Obama because he's pragmatic -- much more so than what the mainstream media recognize. While Sen. Clinton probably veers more to the right than he, I've been turned off by her campaign, so she's lost my support.

Protest votes never work, and kudos to you for voting your ideology. I, too, will vote for Obama in the general (if possible). However, if I'm to go with my ideology and the pragmatic candidate doesn't reach the general election, like many other disillusioned Republicans, I may have a tough November.

[Unrepentantliberal]

I agree. While I am pissed as hell at Clinton, I at the same time, gleeful at her campaign's self-destruction. Obama, getting his so below the belt so early by someone who is as ruthless and underhanded as the republicans, will be much better prepared for the general election.

[SaltySaltillo]

But isn't the real problem how to get back those voters who rejected Obama and embraced Clinton because of her kitchen sink persuasion? I have seen it on these comment boards over and over again - how is someone who has swallowed the 3 AM ad and the "Commander­-and-chief­" threshold hook-line-­and-sinker in the primaries now going to see Obama through new spectacles when he stands against McCain in November?

[wolfi101]

Slash and Burn. Slice and Dice. Scorched Earth. How Democrats could support a candidate, who would be willing to tear her own party apart to get what she wants - is beyond me.

And btw, you can argue, that McCain and Clinton, have been in offices longer, but I think, you'd be hard-pressed to say, they had gathered more experience. Obama is the only guy, who seems to know, what he's doing. (The "experienced" candidates have been denounced by segments of their party, been involved in huge numbers of scandals, blown their campaign financing, etc. This isn't the kind of experience I look for in a candidate.­)

[fun2bfree]

Experience-
DIck Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld could not have had more experience. It did not save them from their poor critical thinking skills. Their approach to problem solving is the issue.

Clinton has the same fault--most noticeable to anyone who knows anything at all about how she completely messed up health care reform the first time around...h­er current barking of her plans and how she is going to fight fight fight about everything demonstrates this is not something she can or will change...-­- she thinks she is smarter and knows best and the rest have to line up behind her majesty..o­r she will destroy them---..w­e have had enough "experience with that kind of "leadershi­p."

[melann830]

Mr. Loewe,

Deal with the facts, while as democrats, we don't like republicans, the truth is McCain does have more experience than Obama. This doesn't make Obama a bad person or a bad candidate, just a less prepared one. We should all try to understand the difference. The fact that McCain is known as a moderate conservative, which nearly caused him to lose the support of the republican party also demonstrates why he is not such a bad candidate. This is what I believe Hillary Clinton was trying to bring forth. She is not going to disregard her respect for John McCain who she has known for years, including his personal life and political ideologies just because he is republican. I believe this is why she appeals to my sensibilities. She follows her heart and speaks what she believes is the truth. She doesn't only follow party politics. This is why we have to stop playing party politics. This is why she said she would employ both sides within her cabinet, not just democrats. There are decent republican politicians, why are you all so biased against them? Many of the republicans who voted for the war also wished they could take their votes back and do express remorse. I think the problem with many who post is that they can not seem to find a happy medium with respect to the issues. Since Obama has made it clear that he is unwilling to consider VP, and that is his perrogative, there is nothing wrong with Clinton commenting on a rival candidates preparedness, even a republican candidate. My feeling is that democrats like Howard Dean, who are so left-leaning are actually the divisive forces in this nominee race and not really the two candidates themselves.

[Loculi]

You miss the point entirely, people are angry because Hillary is (ostensibly) a DEMOCRAT. For her to be, in effect, endorsing a Republican over a rival democrat is the very definition of egomania and slash and burn politics at any cost. Of course Insane McCain has more experience than Obama, he's also got about 30 years on him. The question is, is it proper for a democrat to begin siding with republicans in an attempt to score some cheap political points? I really don't believe you're a democrat if you're defending this tactic.

[melann830]

Being a democrat doesn't mean I have to lie to prove a point. Democracy is supposed to represent fairness and freedom-such as freedom to believe and express what you want, as long as it isn't done out of malice. Even then we are guaranteed freedom of speech. If this weren't so, Mereidth Viera would be out of a job right now for allowing her guests to blame Silda Spitzer for her husband's patronization of prostitutes. No one person has the right to dictate to others how to feel, what to believe and what to say. That is what democracy and being a democrat represents. She did not say she endorsed him or would vote for him, she said he is more capable- pointing at his experience and as you also pointed out she is correct in her assessment. Partisan politics is what got us into this whole mess from 2000 on. In my heart, I truly believe we have to reform the election process in this country. Both sides may be misbehaving, but we are only hearing criticism about Hillary's campaign. Despite what you feel , there is a huge degree of sexism in Obama's campaign. He has said that she would make a qualified commander in chief, but his campaign doesn't reflect this sentiment. At this point I think it is a bit too late for them to get together and unfortunately, the Democratic Party has not mediated this very well. Dean should step down and let someone more qualified resolve this conflict because obviously he has failed miserably at it. It is like we are living in Roman times and all the democrats and the media are waiting to see both candidates devour each other. Truly the democrats are behaving inappropriately. Now some are attacking Ferraro's remarks as racist. She comes from the most culturally diverse borough in NYC-my borough, Queens, where I lived and worked for many years. We have the most languages spoken than probably anywhere in the USA. Trust me, she isn't racist. But her comments were taken out of context by David Axelrod and the media to further hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign. David Axelrod has even worked with Ferraro representing Fernando Ferrer in his fund raisers and fully knows the content of her character. She is not even employed by Clinton and merely gave a fundraiser for her. These accusations are going to push people like myself who love Ferraro and Clinton into voting for McCain if Obama should get the nomination. Furthermore, after much thought and consideration, I believe that Obama should not be our first black president, it should be NY Gov. David Patterson, who has an open and proven record and is known as an extremely decent, likable, hardworking and non-sexist man from an amazing and classy family. He supports female entrepeneurs, hispanics, the disabled and african americans alike. He would clearly tell all the race card theorists to take a chill pill. I NOMINATE DAVID PATTERSON AS OUR FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT!!

[AnninCA]

I've never quite understood the furor over her remarks about his readiness. He's a state legislator who chose to run for presidency and skipped over any real national experience or tenure. He absolutely made the decision to have no record. (Could be smart.) He absolutely designed his strategy knowing he would be vulnerable on this issue.

And so he is.

What's the complaint here that everyone has noticed?

And what idiot running against him WOULDN'T make a point about that?

The pundits make no sense to me at all on this.

[Merin]

I dunno about "furor" but plenty of Presidents have has about as much, or less, political experience as Barack Obama.

Olbermann did a good job of listing a bunch of them in his recent special comment, but here's one for you -

Bill Clinton. He had something like 2 years more political experience, overall, and was the same age as Barack Obama when he ran.

[DavidK08]

A great deal of what he is running on is change. He is showing through LEADERSHIP that it can work. By him not following HRC into the gutter politics that is the same old game, he is showing that he, not only can change Washington, but is change.

He is a leader. Rare indeed. It is just taking some people a while to notice it. It is through his actions, not his words that inspire.

Even HRC's supporters have to admit that he is running a far more civilized campaign. What HRC is doing is the path of least resistance. What he is doing is standing firm even when it gets tough.

Hillary's red phone experience is "let me get him".

[JimR]

No national experience or tenure? So Bill Clinton was not qualified to be president?

[melann830]

Bill Clinton served as the governor of the state of Arkansas before becoming president. Governors have tremendous responsibility and experience in running the economy of their state, domestic affairs, health care, education and their states security and knowledge regarding natural disasters etc.. Bill Clinton was indeed qualified to be our president. Many presidents have been governors: LBJ, Reagan to name a couple. But barely two years as a senator before starting his campaign does not qualify Obama to serve as a president. Even Kennedy had more experience because of his family's influence in politics. Obama did not even receive the benefit of either of his parent's involvement in our political system.

[NC4Obama]

1 big problem with this. It devides the party.

[akhmed]

The primaries are not "practice" for the general election. The primaries are a separate, within-the-party election. And they are public.

While a candidate could learn from the attacks of his primary opponents, in this case, I think it's counterproductive. Continuing this fracas means that Senator Obama comes off looking half-baked, and Senator Clinton comes off looking as Bush lite with healthcare.

Under such conditions, Democrats will lose the general.

Let's get back to policy, not to these nebulous qualities like "experience" and "electability" which are unquantifiable and whose metrics change from administration to administration.