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

[mcfried]

Clinton has pissed me off beyond belief at this point. To avoid having people look at her record and so called experience she has lied, cheated, fear mongered and hate mongered people into thinking Obama is some kind of fluke. Well she can kiss my a**, she can't win the general that ship has sailed her negatives are way to high against McCain. Hopefully she will go away soon so we can start repairing the damage she has done in time for the general.

[DasBoot]

A little bit of wishful thinking here, Dylan. Those gut-level attacks are hard to counter, and once the general tone of the campaign has degenerated like that, it will be hard to get back to the issues. And let's face it, a lot of the uninformed voters will go with their first impression.

The irony is: I truly believe that John McCain is not as ruthless a campaigner as Hillary. He can actually be shamed into restraining his rhetoric, at least to a degree. Hillary is much more comfortable with dirty politics.

[Krazime]

Its becoming apparent that Obama's qualifications and accomplishments don't matter much. Whether its the kitchen sink or the bathroom sink....if white people say he's not ready, then by God, the man isn't ready.

[CellarDoor]

Indeed. I'm still astounded that nothing that I've seen or read has actually had the temerity to ask "Why does any one member of a race get to determine who is in that race or what the aspects of winning are?"...or, if you prefer..."Why does Clinton get to set the standards for what is and is not valid for winning when she is a competitor and therefore completely compromised by an OBVIOUS bias towards herself." HELLO??? I hate to compare Clinton to Bush (not remotely alike) but her tactics are apparently the same "framing the argument" cheap tactics as the neo-con thugs (and no, McCain is not a neo-con even if he has to woo them to vote for him...the neo-cons are the ones who hate him).

Think about it...you cannot, or at least think you cannot, win a debate by your position so instead you attempt to destroy your opponent on a personal level. When that doesn't work you change the conversation (and reality) by claiming your competitor isn't worthy of competing as if you can be both a judge and a boxer in the same fight...hmm...I wonder who wins? You cannot be a judge and a contestant in the same contest. Folks, this nonsense wouldn't fly in elementary school...why are we as adults allowing this to fly now? I'm not speaking in support of any candidate but for all of them and for us as well (myself included!).

[OSUMercutio]

I'm upset and angry at the Clintons, but I hope you are correct in your glass-half-full analysis.

[Clinton]

Obama is a superior candidate because he is a better person. The experience 'argument' is only effective on those who aren't very familiar with American history. Once this defect in their knowledge is corrected, other more pressing issues can get the attention they deserve. Such as what an awful waste it would be to continue this neo-con madness with HRC or McBomb.

[klashawnd]

Good post. I agree that this is good practice for Obama as he gets smacked with the kitchen sink, the toilet, the dishwasher... and whatever else the Clintons throw at him. I disagree, however, that he has effectively found a way to counter charges that he is inexperienced and/or ready to be president. And while I as an Obama supporter is more than convinced that he is indeed ready and able to be president, there are quite a few out there who have not been convinced yet. Obama and his camp need to find a more effective way of communicating his qualifications and accomplishments.

[inthenitemare]

There are some people who will never be convinced. Just as there are some people who will always think George Bush is doing a good job. But, the experience vs judgement thing should be a no-brainer.