Clinton's Attacks on Obama Patriotism Have Nothing to Do With "What the Republicans Will Say in November" - Everything to Do with Her Own Strategy

For the last several weeks we have been inundated with statements from the Clinton Campaign (and some media pundits) arguing that their incessant attacks on Obama's patriotism, their use of McCarthyite "guilt by association", and attempts to make Obama look like a "cultural elitist" are all justified because "the Republicans will do it in the fall".

They justify lifting whole chapters from Karl Rove's Republican playbook as an attempt to demonstrate to Democratic voters and superdelegates that these kinds of charges will make Obama "unelectable" in the general election.

Many Clinton surrogates pick up the refrain with statements like: "Well I know Obama doesn't agree with those video clips of Rev. Wright, but that's what the Republicans will say about him." Or: "I know Obama's not really an elitist, but the Republicans will make him sound that way." Or: "They'll trot out all of his past associations, so it's important that we examine them now."

There are two things to say about this line of argument.

First, Clinton knows that her keyhole-sized chance of winning the nomination hasn't got a prayer if all she can do is make an argument to superdelegates for the "possibility" of what Republicans can say about Obama. The bottom has to fall out of the Obama candidacy. That requires a lot more than showing superdelegates that Obama might be vulnerable to Republican attack. They have to convince the voters that the charges they are raising are true -- that Obama is an unpatriotic elitist.

Clinton needs a stampede of superdelegates in order to win. That requires that Obama loses the final primaries by big numbers, and that his numbers in the national polls tank.

The problem for Clinton, of course, is that Obama is the furthest thing from an unpatriotic elitist, and that by relentlessly making these charges she has been raising her own negatives to dizzying heights.

The next time you hear the old "we're just bringing this up because the Republicans will say it", remember the kids in high school who used to go up to you and say, "I don't believe this about your friend Amy, but I'm telling you what other people are saying for your own good." Neither justification is true. In both cases they want you to believe the content of the personal attack.

Second, the general election will not be decided based on narratives constructed about past associations and old friends of the various candidates. And if it were the Republican slander machine would be equally well supplied by the Clinton's stable of past political and business connections (think pardon recipient Marc Rich).

To succeed in this year's general election, the Democratic nominee must convince voters that he or she is better equipped than John McCain to change Washington and lead America into the future.

Both Clinton and Obama bring some negatives to the general election fight. But Barack has a pretty short stack when compared to Clinton's 60% negatives, her difficulty making an emotional connection with the voters, and her positioning as an "experienced insider" in an election where the voters want change.

There is voter fatigue with the two-decade run of the Bush-Clinton show that has defined American politics since 1988. It's possible to imagine that even though McCain's election would, in fact usher in a Bush third term, many swing voters could be convinced that McCain is more about change and fresh approaches to future than Hillary Clinton.

The contrast of past and future, of change and the status quo, is crystal clear in a match up between the 46-year-old newcomer Obama and 72-year-old insider McCain.

Obama's ability to inspire enables him to reach out to independent voters that otherwise find McCain very attractive. It also gives him the ability to mobilize millions of young and African American voters that will change the electorate.

Most importantly, Obama's proven ability to mobilize at the grass roots gives him the credibility to convince voters that he can accomplish what they want most -- that he can lead a movement to change the way things are done in Washington.

The narrative that over incredible odds, a young African American Senator has challenged the conventional wisdom, won the Democratic nomination for president, and found 1.3 million grass roots donors to finance his candidacy gives him enormous credibility to argue that he can take on the special interests and force members of Congress to guarantee health care for everyone. It gives him credibility that he can lead a movement to remake our economy to benefit everyone and not just the wealthiest among us.

And, of course, Obama's judgment in opposing the War in Iraq from the first day, contrasts sharply with McCain's commitment to four more years of Bush foreign policy. Hillary Clinton's early support for that War does not.

To win the 2008 election, Democrats don't need to worry so much about all of the charges the Republicans will make about them and their pasts. The election depends upon what we say about the voters and their futures. In the end, that is why Barack Obama is by far the strongest Democratic candidate for president.

Robert Creamer is a long time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book: Stand Up Straight. How Progressives Can Win, available on amazon.com

Comments

[nclayla]

Thanks, Robert Creamer, for a great article - well said!

[Ohioismyhome]

Last Tuesday a woman in her late 70s came in and wanted a Hillary button left over from the shout-out in Ohio. She said she would have trouble with that Obama if he was the candidate since he was a Muslim who didn't believe in the flag. I told her the truth and mentioned that even if she didn't support Obama, Dems told the truth, Right? And then a man in his late sixties walked limping through the door - just a few hairs on his head and no teeth on the east side of his smile. He wanted an Obama sticker. I was curious. What did this now put-out-of-work blue collar white guy like about Obama? "He cares about working people," he said . " Not just that NAFTA stuff." He seemed genuinely sad when I told him everything was gone. I told him we'd have a lot of stuff once there was a candidate. He smiled. "I'll be back," he said. "Can't let McCain win Ohio this time." And left. I really wanted to tell him we'd have a candidate soon. Maybe that Obama guy he thinks really cares about an old outtaworkwhiteguy from Ohio.Then we can get back to the business of being a real party with principles and a real platform - and maybe this time we might just win.

[WAstateliberal]

So what did she say when disabused of the myth that he is a muslim who doesn't believe in the flag? And BTW, what does it mean to believe in a flag? I always thought believing in America was the issue.

[BinAgain]

I don't worship idols,I don't kneel to the flag.Does that make me unamerican ?

[melann830]

Mr. Creamer, you are mistaken. I have randomly contacted people in PA for weeks, some who are republicans and they do say that Hillary Clinton is the candidate they would vote for over McCain, not Obama. Please stop deluding yourself and other readers who entertain in your wild assumptions about Hillary Clinton's intentions. Many republicans do not like his policies, period. I know what I hear from people and it is not what you believe to be true. She is the viable contender here for November. Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but someone had to wake you up.

[najablah]

Republicans support Hillary because they know she can be defeated. True McCain supporters fear Obama because he will crush McCain in the general.

[shep1900]

He won't carry _any_ of the crucial swing states, except possibly Ohio, and very faintly Virginia. Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and probably Wisconsin. Current polls show that NJ and NY are shaky. (?!!) Rove's been flogging for Obama for a reason--he knows that the Republicans can beat him effortlessly.

[rationalthought1]

Hillary doesn't have the judgement and instincts. She's been programmed by 30 some years of b.s. - to the point that she seems to like the smell.....­remember her remark regarding negative campaigning, "Now, the fun begins!" She's thinks she's being one of the boys by trying to prove she can be an even bigger a$#hole than them. Her negatives are sky high - not because she's a woman but because of her transparent dishonesty. I'm sure she wants to do good - but over the years she, like Bill, has been corrupted. Its a sad but age-old story.

[iLogos]

Very interestin­g... since all polls indicate the contrary. Do you have any verifiable data to back this claim up, or are we just supposed to take your word for it that this is true and that you are an unbiased source?

[PennP]

LOL, you said you "randomly contacted people in PA for weeks...."

You also said in another post, "Since volunteering for HRC, making calls to Pennsylvanians and having many conversations in great length regarding the issues they feel are important.­..."

Of COURSE HRC's fans dominated your contacts! Most Obama supporters would terminate the call once you revealed your affiliation. I know because I'm in PA, and have had two personal calls from Hillary's people, both of which I ended within 30 seconds of picking up the phone.

Mr. Creamer, you're aces. Have a nice night.

[DreamConjuror]

Well reasoned and stated, Mr. Creamer.

[johnnygoodwud]

if she can make obama unelectable, the day after the nov. election she starts campaigning for 2012. she only cares about herself. and my bet, she'll dump bill, start actually wearing dresses, and be the 'new and improved hillary.

[Indedave]

Unfortunately, any "new and improved" HRC would still be dogged by her 50 percent negative ratings. And that number could easily rise higher should voters (rightfully) come to blame her as the witless cynic who cost the Democrats a slam-dunk presidency.

[shep1900]

Why blame Senator Clinton for Senator Obama's weaknesses, failings, and lack of experience? Did you think the Republicans were politely going to pretend not to _notice_, or remark upon any of it, in the general election?

I can't figure out why Obama supporters seem to have so little grasp of the American political system. Does Kool-Aid kill brain cells? It must.

[twinkerbell]

And, if she costs the Dems the presidency in 2008, she will not be the candidate in 2012. The only "modern" Democrat who was the candidate again after losing the first time he ran was Adlai Stevenson (lost in 1952) and he lost again (in 1956). Maybe she's thinking she can be VP on a McCain-Clinton unity ticket if she does not become the Dem nominee.

[newunderground]

I doubt you can find a more partisan democrat than me. If Hillary somehow sqeaks through and wins the nomination, I'm done. That will be the final straw. I am sick to death of weak kneed DINOS, who cater to the corporate class, and tuck their tails and run when they're inevitably called elitists who paradoxically also engage in "class warfare". I especially hate the values free politics of triangulation that the Clintons practice so well. Then they stoop to rovian tactics, destroying their own party for their selfish ends. I am not a religious man, but there is a passage in the bible that makes sense to me:
What is the profit to a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul (something like that).

Think about it Democrats. We have them on the ropes. People don't vote with their head, but with their hearts. Go with your Heart Vote OBAMA.

[ladyv]

She's been campaigning for 2012 for six solid weeks, now. The Clinton campaign can do *math*. Their sole focus is on destroying him for the general.

[McFlipFlop]

I am also concerned that some of the less politically involved are getting this message: If a fellow Democrat, and a Clinton at that, is saying bad things about Obama -- then maybe they are true.

Poor Clinton. "Senator Clinton has internalized a lot of the strategies, the tactics, that have made Washington such a miserable place."

[bluevillage]

1) There's a fundamental error of logic in the notion that Hillary is attacking Obama with right-wing tactics because this is what the Republicans will throw at him as the nominee, so he might as well prepare for it now. THIS ASSUMES HE WILL BE THE NOMINEE. On that assumption, she has either no right to be in the race or no right to attack him (on right-wing grounds), but on the contrary, should be defending him. It drives me crazy to hear the pundits, as I did on Wall St. Journal Rept. on Fox this weekend, repeating her rationale without pointing out the obvious paradox. Clearly the Dem. party leaders see it but haven't expressed it other than to worry vaguely about damage the candidates may be doing to each other.

2) Now that she & her surrogates are pressing the Ayers connection, her attack is actually McCarthyist. I think this should cause her to forfeit her membership in the party, not to mention her right to be its leader. When the party leaders/su­perdelegat­es call her out on this? Shame on you, HRC. Have you no decency?

3) A digg submitter headed this article "Concern Troll Clinton...­" -- pinning down exactly what Clinton is doing.

[Sketchartist]

Saying "we are only doing it because the Republicans will" is, in fact, a CONFESSION that Hillary & Co. are behaving like Republicans.

Is THAT what Americans want four to eight more years of? I hardly think so., but if they do, why the hell would they vote for a faux Republican when they can have the real thing?

[ladyv]

God, that's exactly it. It's the Concern Troll campaign. I think I just threw up a lot in my mouth.

[LondonTownNY]

Mr Creamer, it is always a pleasure to read your well reasoned point of view. As usual you are 100% dead on accurate.

[Fabienne]

I second that, LondonTown.

[RThM]

The coming election will be a referendum on George Bush and the sorry state of the country for which BOTH parties hold responsibility. McCain is almost an after thought in that context and the Clintons have bathed in the political mire for too long.

[realtalk]

HILLARY CLINTON WILL BE THE PRESIDENT WHO IS TALKING OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF HER MOUTH. SHE IS "SAYING SHE IS AGAINST THE COLUMBIA TRADE DEAL, NAFTA TRADE DEAL, AND CHINA TRADE DEALS, BUT HER HUSBAND HAS RECEIVED, $800000 DOLLARS FROM COLUMBIA TO PROMOTE THE COLUMBIA TRADE DEAL, BILL HAS RECEIVED $1.2 MILLION DOLARS FROM CHINA TO PROMOTE THE CHINA TRADE DEAL WHICH NOW EXISTS. AND BILL CLINTON SAYS HE LOVES NAFTA, DOESN'T SEE ONE THING WRONG WITH IT, AND WILL NO DOUBT BE DOING ALL HE CAN TO MAKE SURE NO CHANGES ARE MADE TO NAFTA (I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED IF HE HASN'T ALREADY GOTTEN A FEW MILLION FROM MEXICAN OFFICIAL ALREADY).-­-- WE KNOW THAT BILL CLINTON HAS OVER THE PAST 6 YEARS RECEIVED $15 MILLION DOLLARS FROM A COMPANY WHICH REPRESENTS THE MUSLIM LEADER OF THE COUNTRY OF DUBAI. BILL CLINTON, AND HILLARY CLINTON WILL NOT REVEAL WHAT THEY DID TO GET THAT $15 MILLION DOLLARS FROM THAT MUSLIM LEADER!!! (COULD IT BE THAT BILL WAS TRYING TO PUSH THE DEAL FOR THE MUSLIM COUNTRY OF DUBAI TO BUY 6 U.S PORT)
IT IS GOING TO BE INTERSTING TO WATCH AS "NOTHING" HILLARY HAS BEEN PROMISING TO DO GETS DONE, NO FIXING OF NAFTA, NO FIXING OF TRADE DEAL WITH CHINA, NO HEALTH CARE FOR AMERICANS, IT WILL BE 8 WASTED YEARS OF THE CLINTONS, BUT HAVE NO DOUBT THE CLINTONS WILL COME OUT OF THIS PRESIDENCY RICHER THAN EVER!!! BACK DOOR DEALS DO THAT!!!!

[dmj618]

I agree with you but could you press that button on your keyboard that says "caps lock" and type normally instead of in all caps?

[nclayla]

"Hillary Clinton will be the President who is talking out of both sides of her mouth."

Stop right there, please! Hilliary Clinton will NOT be the President!

I certainly agree that she would probably act just as you have stated, but there is no need to worry because she will never sit in the oval office. (Unless, of course, President Obama allows her to visit and is kind enough to ask her to have a seat.)

[Sitco]

This excerpt from another Huffpost pretty much summarizes my position about the Clinton brand. We deserve better. The future is too important. She's the one who claims to be so much more experienced and vetted. Let's NEVER forget her real "experience and vetting":

"She was there. She lived it. She survived it. Bill's affair with Monica Lewinsky broke in January 1998 and impeachment resulted; a self-inflicted, self-indulgent wound that occupied the last three years of Clinton's presidency and made him, in effect, a one and a quarter term president.­"

Bill (& Hillary) Clinton received $50 million for speeches (as reported on their JOINT tax returns). Some of that money from countries (Columbia) she now says she opposes a trade deal with. $50 Million Bill Clinton: an IMPEACHED president, a convicted perjurer, and a disbarred attorney.!

What’s next Americans, a Bush Adminsitration speaker’s bureau for war criminals with sold out crowds and millions of $$ for those who have methodically dissembled OUR country? I am ANGRY.

Thankfully Obama will hang in even as we all continue to permit more distractions from the real issues - only now from a "Democrat".

[SMP]

also lets not forget this

found today on CNN

But over the past few months, her presidential campaign has taken its apparent embrace of former media adversaries to a new level, sending reporters articles that praise Clinton and attack Barack Obama drawn from conservative outlets including the National Review and the American Spectator, and quotes from Republican pundits like Ed Rollins and Grover Norquist.

And former President Bill Clinton made an appearance on talker Rush Limbaugh's show the day of the Texas and Ohio primaries - contests in which the conservative radio host had urged listeners to vote for Hillary Clinton as a means of sabotaging the Democratic nominating process


sabotaging the Democratic process is something the superdelegates left should consider..­....

[SteelMaggie13]

All of the visits that the Clintons and surrogates have made to the likes of Rush LImbaugh and Fox News should be dealbreakers for ANY respectable Democrat.

And being endorsed by arch enemies SHOULD be a clue, for those who can see.

I can't see how ANYONE really watching and understanding could support them when it is SO clear what they are doing. Embracing the right wing... emulating the right wing... She's friggin' nuts... and I used to love her soooo much!

[DoninJoisey]

Her campaign, like her attributes, are all negative.

[aznurse]

Sorry, my mistake. When Clinton was asked if she thought Obama was Muslim she said "No,no, as far as I know." on 3/3/2008.
She's still sneaky and snide.

[aznurse]

Great Post!!!
Remember her little"as far as I know" addition to her answer when asked If Obama was a Christian.­?
She's sneaky and snide.
Sounds like a republican to me.

[LoloZ]

Obama can certainly win the general election and i'm sure that is how it will play out. I hate Hillary, and until recently thought she could never beat McCain if she were the nominee. But McCain recently has shown himself to be so out of touch, so unstable, so obviously showing serious signs of senile dementia I think he is beatable by whichever democrat. All the dems have to do is show clips of Lieberman whispering into McCain's ear the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims, because McCain can't for the life of him figure it out the players in the Middle East, and they will beat him.

[SShaw490]

You'd think so. But keep in mind that the vast, overwhelming majority of Americans vote for the guy they just happen to like the best, not the most qualified or the one who has shown the best judgement or the one who has the best plans. Hillary's implication that he's a Muslim, that he's a guy who takes political advice from a radical preacher, that he's a guy who does deals with an indicted criminal, that he's a guy who doesn't care about regular people, that he's a guy who hangs out with 60s radicals - those implications will carry more weight than you know for the average guy. The average American is already deciding who they're going to vote for, and the image that Hillary has painted of Obama is a slanderous, false lie - but it'll stick.

Keep in mind that your dealing with voters who voted for George W. Bush - twice. These aren't analytical, bright people.

[WAstateliberal]

Interesting observation. I agree with most of it, except the part about the people having voted for Bush twice. It was only once. And the second time, the election was decided by stupid "terror moms" who, we are hoping, will regain their senses and vote based on their grocery bills this time, and not on irrational fears that Bin Laden is coming to slit their throat. There is no question, however, that this election will be close. The question is, who is going to get those 3 million swing votes? And who will get the states that, because of the idiotic electoral college which has long since outlived its purpose, decide all presidential elections (Florida, Ohio, and Penn)? Interesting to note that the electoral college was designed to give a voice to small states, yet the way it works now, three large states get the most attention. After all, when was the last time anyone set foot in Wyoming (except for in this Democratic primary process)?

[dmj618]

Not only that but whenever Democrats tell the truth about Republicans, the MSM will NOT publish it, they bury it. McCain will get all ass kissing all the time from the MSM while they manufacture these scandals and controversies about whoever the Democratic candidate is.

[nclayla]

You have some good points there, SShaw490.

However, if you can believe the polls, she has a very low approval rating for honesty and she loses ground with the public whenever she has gone on the attack. Hopefully, this will neutralize, or at least lessen, any fear of Muslims, radical preachers, indicted criminals, and terrorists on the part of less politically engaged citizens. (Strange, isn't it, how BO is supposed to be both Muslim and under the influence of a radical Christian preacher?)