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

[MPeter]

Clinton is focussed on destroying Obama and Dems. She knows she stands no chance at the nomination. She has been trounced at every run and she is now losing on every imaginable indicator. Yet she, her lying philandering husband and a few old Clintonistas are still more interested in nothing but another Clinton regime. Do not donate to them; send the to Chappaqua.

[tanyainsacramento]

BTW good article

[tanyainsacramento]

Clinton and "mild" shouldnt even be in the same paragraph. She has been attacking him since she accused him of plaigerism. Then she stood on a stage screaming "shame on you Barack Obama" like he was a child. Nothing mild about Hillary. Her harshness and over emotional lashing out is what makes people switch from her to Obama.

[lbrillante]

What is interesting to me is that I don't think people have any idea how much restraint Senator Obama and his campaign has shown in not attacking the Clintons heavily on all sorts of issues and circumstances that they could have....

CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!
OBAMA '08

[SteelMaggie13]

He's in a no win situation that way...

If he got pissed off and fired back, he's accused of being negative and attacking.
If he shows how stately and unflappable he is, they try to apply the "wimp factor".

The bottom line is even his detractors see what brilliant possibilities are in this man. They just hate that he's not "their guy".

He's got class. They do NOT.

[McFlipFlop]

This is so true. I see many reasons -- not wanting to play the old-style slash and burn politics to begin with, not wanting to hurt a fellow Democrat (let's stick to the issues), not wanting to hurt the Clintons themselves -- stalwarts of the Democratic party, not wanting to be rude to a lady, and finally, not wanting to disenfranchise HIllary's voters.

I can't wait to see how direct, strong, and quick Obama will be with McPander -- it's going to be a new show, and something to see!

[DreamConjuror]

I guess the only thing we need to worry as fas as McSame goes is sympathy for his pathetic performance. Let me guess, thats when the media jumps on the "unfairness" of the GE debates.

[kinderworld]

Great post, I agree with you!!!

[BillZBubb]

It is funny you attack Clinton for Rovian tactics then riddle your article with a few of your own. Clinton alledgedly says Obama can't win because the Republicans will " " (fill in the blank). You attack Clinton for it. Then you say Clinton can't win because of "Clinton fatigue", "Clinton doesn't represent change", etc. etc.

Clinton has been very mild in her attacks on Obama. She waited far to long to go after him. If you fear the little pinpricks she's created about Obama's patriotism, you'll go apoplectic when the Republicans go after him. The Clinton campaign has been deficient in attacking specifics of Obama's "change". They haven't gone after the obvious contradiction between Obama's necessity to work with the Republicans and any meaningful change. The two are mutually exclusive.

If Obama loses the Pennsylvania primary to Clinton, Obama will not win the general election. You can take that to the bank. He'll be the third coming of Dukakis.

[Citizenofreality]

Must be very satisfying to have such a crystal clear, crystal ball. Since you offer absolutely no proof and only conjecture that Obama will be the "third coming of Dukakis" I'll offer my opinion too and say that I think you are wrong and that nothing could be further from the truth. Obama has shown the capacity to attract Independent and uncommitted voters and some Republicans. I think the coalition of voters that will help him win the White House in November will prove the old saying that politics makes strange bedfellows. As far as your worries about working with the Republicans to achieve meaningful change, there are polls that show Obama helps Democrats in downticket races more than Senator Clinton and that we have a better chance of achieving a majority in Congress with him at the top of the ticket.

[BillZBubb]

My political crystal ball is very good. I predicted Kerry's defeat early in 2004 when he was well ahead of Bush in the polls. The signs were clear. He was setting himself up as the perfect target for the Republicans. As for this election, no modern Democrat has ever won the White House who didn't win the primaries in California, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. There is a reason for that and Obama won't overcome that history.

Obama has been attracting independent voters early on. No doubt about that. But that was before the Republicans go after him. I read these posts about how tough the Clintons are on Obama and can't believe anyone who has ever followed a Republican campaign could even put the Clintons in that league. Evidently, people's political memories are short.

Once the Republicans do their hit job on Obama, his appeal to the independents will fall significiantly. I still think Obama can win the election IF he does well in Pennsylvania. That will show his campaign has resiliency and can appeal to the working class Democrats. If he loses Pennsylvania, he will not win the general election.

[ebbtide]

No, she has not been mild in her attacks. She has Bill as her tag team out there also not being mild. She certainly has not been mild with her outright lies, and the spin and lies she told to cover up her lie. Bill also, is upfront stage with his lies. So is Chelsea.

They are not mild. This is a primary, not a general election, where it is anything but mild for a Democrat to come out in favor of a Republican instead of the Democrat. She does not have to endorse Obama, but to come out and try to knock down another Democrat and elevate the Republican over him is NOT mild. It is just plain vindictive, mean, cheap and tawdry. That describes the Clintons, the three of them, to a "T"

[iLogos]

In all fairness Chelsea hasn't really lied outright our even attacked Sen. Obama in any meaningful way, AFAIK. She has stayed to the stump speech and talking points of her mother.

[Softnsweet]

Clinton has been attacking Obama since she started losing. Obama answered all the questions there were asked him in the debate numerous times. I would get upset myself if someone continued to ask me and I answered them already.

Hillary Clinton goes to court next month, why wasn't that brought up.. She has not only told one lie on Obama but many and she has the nerve to stick the knive in his back. She will never win the GE. Too many people dislike her. You can take that to the bank.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/303/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/375/

[speechteach]

I, too, thought Obama responded in a thoughtful manner when asked the same questions once more about his patriotism. I have yet to hear him question Hillary Clinton about the many skeletons in her closet; just in case, you know, the Republicans do that in the general election!! When Obama questions her, it is in response to something she has said during the course of the primary contest. I hope the Americans are wise enough to disregard anything that Rove or his hatchet people come up with. Hasn't our country learned a lesson, considering the mess we are in under the current administration? I believe we have Rove to thank for that!!

[moda31]

making the assertion that another clinton administration is hard to sell as representing real change when faced not just with the "newcomer" obama, but any candidate from a family that hasn't previously occupied the white house is hardly a rovian attack. if this were really about who the republicans have more to throw at during the general, it's pretty clear that clinton wins that hands down. she's been fortunate that she's had an opponent who didn't take the very obvious route of dragging out every single skeleton in the clinton closet. for various reasons however, she finds herself in the situation she's in now, which is that she's a long shot to win the nomination. her best chance is to literally destroy obama, and that means convincing people that these smears are true. the guise of preemptive swiftboating, is complete nonsense, she's not doing it because the republicans will in the fall, she's doing it because she doesn't have any other path to the nomination and she knows it.

[iLogos]

And that is the truth of it. I have no problem with supporters of Sen. Clinton on the whole. I have a problem with those that blindly believe what she says and why she says she says it. Too many have become so emotionally invested in her race that they are quite willing to vote against Sen. Obama if he takes the nomination, just because he beat their candidate.­.. and why is that? Because they have wrongly believed the lies, mischaract­erizations­, and ad hominem attacks of her campaign. Sen. Clinton knows that a lot of what she is putting forth are half-truths at best and untruths at worst (knowing that there is no verified nor verifiable truth behind the claims and charges she levels, but someone on the internet said/recor­ded/made-u­p something so it is "fair-game").

What do the Obama supporters have to point to as reasons why voting for Sen. Clinton would be unpalatable (and God willing ALL of them would vote for her anyway if she got the nomination­)... the fact that she willingly distorted the truth about any number of issues to get the nomination, when they (and by that I mean we) have been motivated, inspired, nay moved, to find a new path, a new way, a new vision of how politics, this country, this world could be.

Having hope is not a liability, it is our greatest strength as a nation, as a people.

[Tejano1]

more of the same b.s. "if you think she's been hard on him, just wait till the rethugs...­" oh really? what more are they going to do? tie him to an education prof who forty years ago was an anti-vietnam war radical, tie him to his pastor, go after flag lapels, or after the old, old, old "bitter" crap that has been thrown around by hellary for months? just what are the big, bad rethugs going to do that hellary hasn't already done? you clintonistas cheering on your loser candidate have already done the dirty work, dummy.