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
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Between the Clinton campaign and the right-wing, they've already used so many outrageous invectives and innuendos against Obama, that by the time the general election arrives, they'll have exhausted their supply of insults. By then, the outrageous charges will have lost their impact. The public will have become more inured and sophisticated. It's not a surprise to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that the Republican party is capable of swiftboating and sliming no matter who the candidate is. If they can slime a war hero like Kerry and make the public think he was a demon, then nobody is safe in the general election, not even a saint.
That Obama is unelectable is a self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of the Clinton campaign. By their scorched-earth campaign, they want to render him unelectable so they can justify their claim that he is unelectable.
Two things are simultaneously true, IMO.
1. That Hillary is a Concern Troll.
2. That though her motives are those of a Concern Troll, the ammo "against" Obama is apparently so thin and so absurd that in fact she *has* done something of a service the past two weeks or so, if only by showing us that when it comes to Obama, the "kitchen sink" weighs practically nothing and is forgotten w/in a single news cycle.
REPUBS HAVE BEEN VOTING FOR OBAMA IN CAUCUSES AND PRIMARIES, BUT WILL NOT VOTE FOR HIM IN THE GENERAL ELECTIONS.
Please explain how the person who is losing the race can be the most electable? She started with a huge lead and lost it to someone who was almost unknown. How does that make her the best cadidate?
where's your proof lady?
its true here,s a link to the audio from the show : http://and
another question George neglected to ask Clinton - why are you supporting Rush 's operation chaos?
No, sorry.
That's the Clintons.
You know, Bill went on Rush Limbaugh to beg for votes, while Limbaugh spewed out his "operation chaos" plan.
Next manufactured distraction please.
What is with these people who can't figure out how to turn off the caps?
I do know of a few Republicans who have voted for Obama because they are family members, and they believe he will make a better president than McCain. They will vote for him in the general.
On the other hand, Limbaugh has operation chaos, those Republicans are voting for Clinton in the primaries but will not in the General.
I know several long-time Republicans who will vote for Obama in November. I even know someone who says, "I'm voting for the n-----", as well as someone who said on NPR, "I'm voting for the black boy." In a weird way, this is heartening.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT IF OBAMA WERE TO WIN THE NOMINATION; HE WILL NEVER BE ELECTED...
But Hillary is even less electable. She has the highest negatives in poll after poll. Fully 50% of Americans say they'll never vote for her under any circumstances. It's a joke that she's even running.
Thats what I have thought since '04. I mean if she can turn off a life long democrat like myself, I can only imagine how many simply hated her since the 90's
Gosh, you must be a clairvoyant. Maybe you're one those folks who is so in tune with the American electorate that you could get a job as a talking head on cable television, kind of like a female Chris Matthews.
Big laugh! Thanks
Maglatina, you are a Republican troll. Your use of the term "Democrat Congress" where the context clearly requires the term "Democratic Congress" reveals your true party affiliation. George Bush and his ilk call our party the "Democrat party" as a slur. A review of your posts reveals that you are neither a progressive nor a democrat. Go back to Politico.
Yup, SHOUTING MAGLATINA is certainly in the Republic Party.
Get off the caps already - other bloggers become very tired of shouting.
THANK YOU! What an excellent post. I wish all the superdelegates will read it and see the logic of this argument.
Thank you for pointing out something that is obvious!
What astounds me is the number of people who actually beleive that those kind of attacks are justified.
I DONT understand why the dem party lets her red bait him though - that is the new smear.
To use Bill's metaphor: The Clintons say that just before the big game we have to take a baseball bat to the star quarterback because the other team is going to beat him up anyway. Bill says not to worry because broken arms and legs won't affect the outcome of the game.
Nice. Not to mention that the second-string QB -- Miz Hillary -- has lately been tossing the ball to the opposition with suspicious regularity.
LOL.. that's right! I liked IndeDave's answer too
I've been thinking along those lines too.
Seems to me that its generally bad form to kneecap the QB during a SCRIMMAGE. We are all on the same team after all... aren't we?
Take out the brass knuckles when the repugs take the field for the general election and not one moment sooner.
-briber
It's real simple. Clinton is not really a Democrat. She belongs to the Clintonian Party; the party that only cares about two people!
You have crystallized my thoughts eloquently
If this were a Western, Clinton would be the gal in the black hat.
I enjoy all of your articles. Thank you. I think that there is a misconception among media and party leaders that if Senator Obama is the nominee, many Clinton supporters will not vote. Considering her negative ratings and the fact that those of us that have supported Senator Obama from the beginning are not going to change position and absolutely can be counted on to come out and vote for him, I would wonder how they can believe the polls that indicate that. I cannot accept the validity of such a claim. Has anyone seen any polls addressing this issue? I have never seen any actual numbers but have only heard the claim made.
It is a red herring. All the polls I have seen show Obama with more support nationally than HRC has right now. Those numbers will only go up after HRC's loyalists heal up from their wounds.
It's a red herring.
The opposite is true - I think a lot of Obama supporters would sit it out if Hillary is the nominee. I mean, the swarms of young people and previously disengaged
There are a lot of people who will get out of bed to vote *for* Obama who might not, for her. And worse, there are a lot of Republicans who will get out of bed to vote *against* Hillary who might not, for Obama.
But Kerry did not have the same sort of rapid response team set up to discount republican attacks
heres a tid-bit of info posted by CNN on their political ticker....
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.
the above is a fact..not speculatio
I would question Clinton's patriotism after seeing that she is destroying her own party for her own self-serving greed. A hundred millions since they left the WH is not enough for them. They want much more, deriving from another term to have a nice nest for their bright sunset years. Who can still believe that once she gets into the WH again, she won't revert to the tyrany, combative persona she had dispayed when she was there in the 90s? "My way or nothing because I am THE President"! In fact, she would be worse this time around because she thinks she gets the mandate and people love her lies and her bullying fight- to- win- at- all- costs.
Attack your own fellow Dem for the Repub is an act of betrayal. It's unforgivable.
People talk about their wish to have a woman as President but there are more women who deserve it more than Clinton. Obama should have a woman (not Clinton) as VP.
Voters don't believe the Clintons anymore. But we will see if the Clintons' spins still work. It is a pity if we have a candidate in Obama who can excite more people to get involved, and then miss the opportunity of a lifetime.
In the end, that is why Barack Obama is by far the strongest Democratic candidate for president
I see this. Many other people see this. Why can't Hillary Clinton see the writing on the wall?
Hillary sees the writing on the wall. She wants to erase it, but she can't. She's toast. She'll 'win' in Pennsylvania and get a few more delegates but Barack is so far ahead, it won't matter, and he's ahead in the other upcoming primaries. It's a shame it continues. Remember, be true and steadfast for Obama. We can pretty much guarantee the other side [Republican or other] will make sure there's a big scare tactic before the election so let's not be fearful. We lose freedoms that way. Be courageous, especially the women and don't go looking for big bad MCain to protect you when the inevitable happens..W
http://www
How Hillary can win the primary
Loved the YouTube link. Without being able to change the past, there can be no future for a President Hillary.
Made my day. Thank you.
Good one!
It isn't just that McCain defeating Obama in November would position Senator Clinton to win in 2012, it's that Obama has broad cottails that would give total control of the Congress to the Democrats. Senator Clinton, on the other hand, does not have any coattails to speak of, much like her husband in the 90's. It appears that helping Democrats win new seats in the Congress is against the Clinton political religion. Sort of : "I've got mine, now you go get yours." The last thing President Clinton needs is Democratic control of the Congress and White House. Clinton would then have to put her name on legislation that would potentially be controversial, displease the Republicans (a major sin in the Clinton political religion) and jeopardize her chances of re-election in 2012. No the best thing for President Clinton would actually be for the Republicans to re-gain control of the Congress, then she could devote 4 years to partisan warfare and 4 more years of gridlock. That would perfectly position her for a re-election bid in 2012, running as the candidate of "change", of course.
NEVER SEEN, HEARD, READ SUCH A CINICAL COMMENT... IT IS SO ABSURD THAT NOT EVEN RR BELIEVES IT... I GUESS RR JUST LIKES TO THROW WOOD TO THE FIRE OF POLITICAL TRASH...EV
Wrong. Since many of them will not vote for McCain. They will sit out the election.
I am not sure if you knew, but if you are typing in caps to better read your own writing, you can always use ctrl plus the + key to enlarge the font of your browser. It helped my father a lot.
I don't think you get it. Senator Clinton has not 'coattails'. Senator Obama does.Senat
An open letter to Hillary supporters
I think the biggest misconception HIllary supporters have of Obama supporters is that we are against their movement. That somehow Obama supporters are anti-woman.
But the one of the reason Obama supporters are so dedicated and sometimes intense to a fault, is to show HRC supporters that we are all fighting for the same thing. That we are in no means against them. We are just looking at the same problems from different point of view.
From a HRC supporter perspective, they believe she is experienced and can go into washington and play the game and make things right.
From an Obama supporters they believe that change is this country is not the take of politicians alone, but through co-operation and hard work of people. The concept is you do not leave the work for others, you have to go out right now and work for that change. That is why his supports are so involved and continue to draw in more people that want to take an active role in shaping their futures. People that were once cynical about government are now understanding that each and every individual has his/her role to play in improving America and that is where the excitement is coming from.
Same team with different approaches.
What most impresses me most about Hillary is her understanding of the political process over that of Barack. Hillary learned the basic lesson that our founders put into our Constitution, that contending interests must be factored into strategies for winning policy results. Barack dismisses these basic facts of political life, as if human nature can be repealed by his demand for change. Barack's year in the Senate prior to running for president apparently convinced him that he should opt out of the Senate because of difficulties in getting changes adopted; if he cannot manage to deal with that, how can he possibly deal with the entire political system and global contenders? That Barack's position is erroneous is demonstrated by Carter, who campaigned against evils in Washington but found the power structure there unwilling to adopt his beliefs instead of self-interest. That Hillary understands how to function effectively within our constitutional framework, and the global political system, is shown by her use thereof to improve people's lives throughout adulthood. She has used these systems on national and global scales to benefit the voiceless and oppressed, especially children and women. These were selfless acts, since most of her beneficiaries may never know of her work. Some may even support her opponent, because his words inspire them! But what are his words, compared to her deeds? We have no way of knowing whether he can perform!!! How much can Barack do when he challenges the political system established by our constitutional framework?
self appointed "political
I think you disregard the type of sea-change this country is experiencing. When you look at the record level registrations and turnouts, you see that people in this country want something different. And the candidates their are supporting with their money as well as their time are new blood, new voices for the same kind of change that Obama is endorsing. Look at Dailykos and the fundraising efforts for the congressional races. So if Obama can keep the grassroots energized, there will be many new faces in Congress who support him and unlike Carter, will have a base to help enact the changes he envisions. No one is saying it will be easy, least of all Obama, but just because it is hard is no reason not to try. As for Hillary's devotion to the underprivileged, I agree she has done some significant things, but Obama has not only worked for but with the underprivileged. As an example, look at the money and prestige he passed up when he graduated from Harvard and chose to work with the poor. As for your last line, please explain how he is challenging our constitutional framework? I don't understand what you are refering to. Thanks.
I hear what you are saying, and it's a good point.
But I think the idea that hard-core partisan politics is inevitable is flawed. It's only been the past 20 years that the really bitter culture wars have been going on. The vast majority of the country fits into a kind of middle ground. The battles arise when the two parties pick off voters according to wedge issues that overwhelm the agreements most of us have. To see this kind of politics as the only way that change can be addressed is wrong. Obama sees the possibility for finding common ground on some of the central issues, like health care reform, like Iraq, like trade. Moving forward on these issues requires a bipartisan approach, and not wheeling and dealing on votes.
Playing people against one another is one way to accomplish things, but it has limited results. Think about some of the shameful legislation passed by Bill Clinton, like the Defense of Marriage Act, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and China's Most Favored Nation trade agreement. These are not progressive policies, and I worry that we will get more of the same. Health care reform was lost because the process was closed and strictly controlled.
Anyway, I understand your support of Clinton, but I think you are mistaken that her approach is the only one. I personally really don't want to return to the bickering and stalemates of the 90s.
Hillary hasn't done a damn thing that didn't benefit her or line her pockets...
"contending interests must be factored into strategies for winning policy results."
How interesting. Did you take that out of "The Audacity of Hope?" It's certainly not anything that HRC has ever shown any willingness to embrace.
"How much can Barack do when he challenges the political system established by our constitutional framework?"
Uh, well, gosh, he's not challenging the political system established by our constitutional framework. He's challenging the political system established by those who have run this country for the last 28 years - one controlled by special interests and resembling our constitutional framework about as much as your words resemble those of an actual political scientist.
Hillary Clinton has become the Norma Desmond of the Democratic Party.
An aging actress from a bygone era, ready at last for her close-up, claiming it isn't her campaign that got small, it's the Democratic Party, who slapped her in the face in Iowa, and silenced once and for all her self perception of invulnerability on Super Tuesday. And she is very much an actress, swigging beers and Crown Royal with gun toting duck hunting Pennsylvanians, whose rights to own weapons she's continually tried to curtail.
The Democratic Party, Joe Gillis, has been in the Clinton bed too long, carousing with the Bushes, watching power shift between two families. Some have failed to see what an egregious betrayal of party it was when she endorsed Senator McCain over Barack, a video clip that could easily come back to haunt Barack in a national election. But it was nevertheless.
It's time to leave the house of Clinton. But she won't let the party end. She won't let us go.
If she wins, she will descend the steps after her swearing in, thanking Mr. De Mille, and Max, her husband/lap dog, and all those beautiful people out here in the dark.
Great analogy! I can picture it in my mind's eye. LOL
i LOVE when I can both laugh AND say.. "Wow, that's poignant!" Thanks for that.. I love the analogy...
Here's my analogy for what I see in Obama...
http://www
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
