Why Hillary Clinton's Slash-and-Burn Politics May Hurt Her More Than Obama

The only way for Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination would be a precipitous collapse in Barack Obama's candidacy. Obama's pledged-delegate lead is virtually insurmountable. And Super Delegates seem increasingly inclined to go with the pledged-delegate winner.

Rather than respect the outcome of the primaries, the Clintons have decided to do everything they can to make Obama appear to be a risky general election choice to the remaining Super Delegates and the media. But Clinton's negative tactics may actually hurt her candidacy more than they hurt Obama's. There are three reasons:

First, a negative attack has to ring true to the people you are attempting to persuade. Initial polls seem to indicate that most of the people who are receptive to the "Obama-is-a-condescending-'elitist'-argument" already supported Hillary in the primary before the attacks began. Clinton's attacks may rally some of her troops, but the argument doesn't seem to be that persuasive to actual undecided voters.

Of course one reason may have to do with the credibility of the messenger. It's tough to attack someone else for "elitism" if you've spent the last 16 years in Washington as First Lady and Senator, and your family brought in $107 million over the last seven years. Assuming an eight-hour workday, that means that Bill and Hillary made as much every two hours as Barack Obama made each full year that he organized out-of-work steelworkers for a coalition of church groups.

Second, the fact of a negative attack itself can backwash on the candidate who makes it. Making negative attacks makes people look mean and unlikable. That is a particular problem when the audience for your attacks includes Democratic primary voters and Super Delegates who really want to win the White House in November.

Clinton's negative attacks on Obama have especially begun to backfire with Super Delegates. I've talked to a number of undecided Super Delegate Members of Congress who are furious at her willingness to attack the candidate who they consider almost certain to be the Democratic nominee.

Most think that Clinton has no more than a 10% chance of winning the nomination, so the odds are great that she is doing nothing now but legitimating the Republican narrative for the general election. The story line that Democrats are "elitists" who look down on middle class people is taken right out of Karl Rove's playbook. It's been used for decades to convince everyday Americans to re-elect Republicans that outsource their jobs, destroy their unions and lower their wages. Many Democratic Super Delegates are apoplectic that Clinton would give credibility to that Republican line of attack on their likely standard-bearer.

We've already seen examples of high profile Super Delegates (like Bill Richardson) who have gone with Obama partially because of Clinton's negativism. We'll likely see many more.

Finally, her attacks have allowed the Obama campaign - and the media - to parody her desperate attempts to appear "working class." When Obama conjured up images of Hillary Clinton sitting in a duck blind it called to mind those unforgettable pictures of Michael Dukakis in a tank.

People want leaders who are self-confident, who are comfortable in their own skin. Candidates need to connect with voters by demonstrating the things that they really share, not pretending to be someone they are not. Hillary Clinton is a long time advocate for gun control - not "Annie Oakley." Shooting back Crown Royal with a beer chaser in a neighborhood tap just isn't Hillary Clinton.

The Clintons may have viewed Obama's "bitterness" remark as the opportunity they'd been looking for to throw a long "Hail Mary" pass in the closing minutes of the primary battle. I'm betting Barack Obama picks it off and runs it back for a touch down.

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

[mommadona]

"Most think that Clinton has no more than a 10% chance of winning the nomination, so the odds are great that she is doing nothing now but legitimating the Republican narrative for the general election. The story line that Democrats are "elitists" who look down on middle class people is taken right out of Karl Rove's playbook. It's been used for decades to convince everyday Americans to re-elect Republicans that outsource their jobs, destroy their unions and lower their wages. Many Democratic Super Delegates are apoplectic that Clinton would give credibility to that Republican line of attack on their likely standard-b­earer."

EARTH TO 'UBER-DELE­GATES'....­she's a GOLDWATER GIRL.

What did you expect?

Willing to face reality?

DLC = DINO.

Now, can you just put this puppy to bed, eliminate the parallel DNC (DLC) operatives and return to being the PEOPLE'S PARTY?

[hollyo]

It happened to me.
I voted for her in Missouri and now cannot believe how crazy she is and what she's doing to the party.
They don't give a damn who burns so it's hard to believe they care about anything but themselves.
How many more Hillarys are in there?
SHUDDER!

[Amminadab]

What is it that you think she is doing to the party? Are you really saying that you don't think she should campaign against her opponent? That's nuts.

[FLA1]

Nobody has a problem with Clinton campaigning, but it is not necessary to be negative. You cross the line, when you say that a Republican has passed the Commander-in-Chief threshold, but Barack Obama has not. Especially, when based on McCain's lack of comprehension of the region, is particularly striking. This is something that could affect Obama in the general election.

Now, to attempt to turn remarks that when you hear them in their entirety, I would think are not offensive at all. People should try listening to them in context. Here is a link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMkQ6OPi3RU

It is going negative when you turn a gaffe into a talking point that Obama does not respect your religion. Economic problems sometimes make people focus on things that are not very important. No democrat is stopping you from purchasing a gun, provided you pass a criminal background check, but often people vote on these issues. Abortion--first, the Supreme Court clearly isn't touching that issue . so why is it such a hot button voting issue?

They have the same positions on these issues.

This is not helping Clinton win because there is such a thing as alienating voters, but it is a greater hurdle for Obama to overcome. Clinton keeps saying the party will come together, but I find myself believing that the longer this goes on she really means the party will come together, IF I AM THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE.

That is unfortunate.

[AC500]

Time for the Super Delegates to put their money where there mouth is. Past time. Why so much power is given to such a lame group of people is beyond me. Reminds me of the Democratic Congress.

[clbrune]

Too bad Joe Lieberman (Obama's mentor) lost his Superdelegate status, eh?

[Amminadab]

And Obama campaigned for Lieberman.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

Senator Clinton should have gone out of her way to show how nice she is rather than adding to her negative image. Also, as an historic woman candidate she shouldn't have surrounded herself with so many old school men such as Bill Clinton, Mark Penn, and Ed Rendell. It makes it look less like her own campaign and more that she is the front (wo)man for the Democratic establishment.

She already killed the stereotype that a woman president would be more "nurturing" and "emotional­." That was good. But since she wasn't going to win the Warmest Personality Award-- either due to sexism about powerful women being cold, or because her public persona actually does lack warmth-- then she should have aimed for the Most Competent Leader Award. Refreshing after Bush. But that would have meant firing Mark Penn a lot sooner.

I can honestly say that, while I was an Obama supporter from the start, one year ago I was not minding the idea of voting for Hillary Clinton in the fall of 2008. When I think of what her campaign could have been . . .

[MichaelTenery]

Right there with you. A year ago, I thought all the republican attacks on Hillary were just nutty. I'd have voted for just about any of the candidates on the Democratic side. A year later I understand why Hillary has earned such enmity. She general says and does whatever she needs to, including going against her own previous position and sometimes even in the same week as in one week she was anti NAFTA in Ohio and then talking up how the Clinton (her husband's) economic policies (including NAFTA) helped Texas.

It truly surprises me I didn't see it sooner. She is so obvious about it.

[Glowcy]

Until this primary season, I thought that Republicans had deep-seated hate for the Clintons only because they were Democrats. If Obama was not as successful a candidate as he has proven to be, many of us would have never known that the Clintons are special interest owned and dedicated to being perceived, along with their uber wealthy supporters, as The Democratic Party. I had the mistaken belief that the Democratic Party belong to all members, not just the very wealthy and the Clintons.

[nynick]

Jeez, I've read lots of puff peices here at HuffPo fawning over Obama but this one takes the cake. You don't address anything of substance, it's just a bunch of attacks on Clinton and praise for Obama. I'm down with that if you would offer something useful to consider like his vote on this or that bill or his taking a stand when it mattered or anything beyond the "confident", "comfortable in their own skin" babble. I like the anchor on Sportscenter to be confident and comfortable in their own skin, I would hope we might be able to set the bar a little higher for the leader of the free world. Obama appeals to the masses because he looks good and the media love him. He has also been helped by the fact that is opponent is so well known and loathed by that same media folks who drool over Barack. We focus on this or that phrase, soundbite or image. What we never seem to focus on is how these people would actually govern. Obama would govern like the man he is. Aloof, indifferent to those who don't kneel down at this alter and assured that no matter what happens, it will never be his fault.

[dadumdee]

"it will never be his fault" - WTF? He's one of the most responsible politicians I've ever seen. Dude, he fired a foreign policy expert for calling Hillary a monster. He bravely confronted the racial divide, criticized his preacher without disowning him, and spoke the uneasy truth to America voluntarily. He apologized for making a true comment (which, as a Pennsylvanian, I can assure you is true...not just in small towns, either. GWB has gotten all of us a little survivalist minded [read: bitter] these days) You can say what you want about the man's beliefs, style, etc., but you can't say that he can't admit when something is his fault.

[Amminadab]

Then why is Hillary blamed for every mis-step Obama makes?

[clbrune]

Yeah, "aloof, indifferen­t...never his fault."

Hmmm....th­at sounds like George W Bush.

Creepy.

[Mesaywar]

Well, maybe. But, at least he'll do it in a thoughful, organized and efficient way.
To me, that beats a down-home dimwit who pretends to care and can't keep track of her lies, debts, or personalities. Or, a clown who has no clue about people he's willing to "bomb bomb bomb," much less the major players in the war on terror he's supposed to fight.
I don't know about you, but I choose elitist, detached and effective over a friendly dummy that I can feel comfortable having a beer with.
After all, I am choosing a president, and I have plenty of drinking buddies already.

[nestormcdade]

HRC would govern just like she ran her campaign - rudderless, unethical, and dishonest. Obama tells the truth, HRC lies. Obama will be a loyal supporter of the Democratic party even if he is shafted out the nomination. HRC has shown signs of pulling a Lieberman. He has been gracious and she has been petty and small. I bet you haven't even taken the time to read his so called bitter statement in context. There is no disrepct there at all. Only truth and understanding. Be honest and fair. Difficult for HRC supporters, but give it a try.

[Eiffel]

Then maybe you should consider doing your homework as well. Obama's and Clinton's senate record are almost identical. There are differences in their approach to the same subject. For instance..­. take the lead paint issue. Clinton offerered a bill to give tax breaks to companies who would help remove lead based paints from older homes. Obama on the other hand wanted to prevent toys made with lead based paints from contaminating this country by ensuring such products do not make it past inspections once they get to US soils. How much of a difference to do you think Clinton's bill will actually touch on this subject? The homes with lead based paints are far and few now, while the toys are happening today in large quantities and being sold to our children. With that point in mind... it comes down to judgement and approach..­. and Obama in my eyes has the wisdom and understanding of the bigger picture.

[deltahotel2001]

This may be wasted effort because the odds that Hillary will ever level with the voters are essentially nil. Articles from reputable sources are circulating that Hillary was fired from her position with the Senate Watergate Committee for conduct that should have gotten her disbarred. According to the story, Hillary wrote a brief arguing that President Nixon did not have the right to counsel during his impeachment. She did so even though she knew full well, based on the Justice Douglas impeachment proceedings in 1970, that Nixon in fact did have a right to counsel. Then she attempted to hide this fact by physically obtaining the documents that would have shown otherwise and locking these documents away to prevent their use by the Watergate committee. Considering the enormity of such actions, Hillary should thank her lucky stars that Nixon resigned when he did or else her political career might not have ever gotten started. Maybe that's why she high-tailed it away to Arkansas.

Hillary should ponder her course carefully. Does she really want to continue down this road of attack and smear? There are people who are much better at it than she is. Hillary has much more to lose than anyone else. With her at the helm, the Republican spin-machine can be put on hiatus because, unfortunately, her record speaks for itself.

[Amminadab]

What you are calling "reputable sources", has been rejected by real reputable sources.

[indc]

Although not the most graceful introduction, in contrast to his Philly speech on race, it brough to the fore what has been mostly unspoken about the economic realities of government policies since Reagan and implement to varying degrees by Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and which would continue under Annie once she finished with her shot and beer breakfast, such the country be so unfortunate to have her as president.

She is a proven liar, a fraud, and an incompeten­t...this campaign is simply another of her incredible failures. She is very much like Bush in this regard, but instead of daddy Bush and friends pushing him forward and bailing him out, she has Buffalo Billshit and his friends like Penn, Begala, an the LA loon... she has failed even when opportunities with almost certain success have been handed to her because she is Buffalo's wife... she is a miserable failure, a liar, a cheat, and together that have sold out American economic and physical security for personal profit.... they are profiteers who want another big payday of 100M$ or more.

[Moose49]

I hope you're right, Bob, and I think you probably are for two reasons.

1) Hillary has already proven that she is a congenital liar who will say anything if Mark Penn tells her it will get her a little micro-slice of the vote. She already built that reputation through Bosnia, NAFTA and other falsehoods; she only added to it with her Annie Oakley story about guns. Her negatives are sky-high and the more she attacks, the worse they get.

2) Obama can use the episode to remind voters that he does know how badly working families have been screwed by America's real elites -- those running our government, lobbying firms and corporations -- including Billary, why they have every reason to be bitter about the status quo, and why attacks on his comments only show how clueless and patronizing his attackers are. She should use some ju-jitsu here to reinforce the point that he is the only candidate of real change in the field.

[ljsfolly]

Moose49: The word for Hillary is Pathological liar. The means that she lies so much she no longer can tell truth from fictiion and to lie is so much a part of who she is no one can trust than anything she says will hold truth. She has consistantly lied to her favor for obviously a long time. When working on the Watergate trial she was not given a letter of refence when done because she not only lied she showed a basic disrespect for the constitution and the laws they were dealing with during the investigation. She may not have been fired but she obviously showed her self as she still is. For anyone to support her they should be very careful of what she says for they might back something they will pay for later. Like with NAFTA she supprted it whole heartedly until faced with those who lost jobs. Her husband has been making millions by shopping the US companies and jobs overseas still to this day. His most current work is shared by Penn in Columbia a country were they torture and kill their own citizens.

[Moose49]

You're right -- pathological is the right word here.

[Spontini]

Yes it was really the slash-and-burn politics of HRC that caused Obama to stick his foot in his mouth in SF, AND it was the slash-and-burn politics of HRC that cause HUFFPO to headline Obama's demeaing, condescending, out-of-touch remarks. Every child knows that when you are caught doing something you shouldn't have done, the tactic of first resort (and also the most transparent) is to deflect attention toward someone else. Obama needs to grow up.

[gulopartisan]

Why is it that speaking honestly is "sticking foot in mouth" and HRC's constant, incredible stream of lies and hypocrisy is Ok? I just don't get it. But I do know that the Clintons, with absolutely no help from "Obamanuts" of any flavor, have lost my vote forever, for anything.

[Glowcy]

These days, politicians do not dare to speak to truth. Obama is not speaking accidentially or coincidentally, he is speaking from his heart about what he knows is true. The Obama manner of being candid and forthcoming is rare and puzzling because so many people have become accustomed to poltitical lies. Sadly, MSM demonizes truth which happens to help Clinton and McCain.

[unscum]

I dread the possibility of have another 4 years of a republican president. The only consolation is the democratic party may extend their lead in the congress and senate. But the war will go on, and on, and on. However, the way Hillary Clinton's negative campaigning is destroying Obama's candidacy, I feel all we'll end up with is a McCain presidency.

[ObserverinVancouver]

I think Sen. Obama should question Sen. Clinton's patriotism by asking why she is drinking Canadian rye instead of good ol' American bourbon. (He should especially run ads in Kentucky.) Also, has anyone reported the brand of her beer chaser? Ironic if it's Bud, no?

[DMHendrix]

Hey! That was a great point! Don't you know those bluegrass people are going to wondering why she wasn't slamming back the Jack or the Jim ?

Awesome comment.

[Serfie]

When has Hillary negatively attacked Barack Obama?

You Obama Thugocrats never cease to amaze me. You just make shit up as you go along.

[MrKnuckles]

I like, "Thugocrats". Its a great terminology, but I think you're sadly and painfully delusional in its use.

[hollyo]

Rip Van Serfie wakes up once a year to read the news and then goes back to sleep.
I guess the last time was a slow news day.

[hawkeye58]

Make things up, like dodging bullets in Bosnia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9_PgvjPmqM

[Conservativeslayer]

When has Hillary negatively attacked Barack Obama? Are you serious or making a joke? You can't be this delusional. When has Hillary attacked Obama? Just about every single day since the campaign began. You are posting on huffingtonpost, a news site that specialized in politics. A site that has documented every single negative attack made by Hillary against Obama, and you ask when has Hillary ever attacked Obama? Do you know how to read? Because you are making me laugh my friend. Also I love the thugocrat line. It's not good enough to just disagree with Obama supporters, you have to call them names. That's really classy.

[Amminadab]

So, apparently you can't name a single instance where Hillary has negatively attacked Barack Obama. Yes, I see you can bluster a lot, but you still failed to name a single instance.

[hbw3]

Oh, why Serfie, you must be Rip Van Winkle, lately woken from the slumber you fell into shortly before Hillary came third in Iowa.

[JudgeCrater]

Brilliant!

[SeriousBlack]

"I'm betting Barack Obama picks it off and runs it back for a touch down."

I wish that were the case, however I think that's a little optimistic. I think the best we can hope for is that he weathers this particular attack and any subsequent cheap shots by Clinton and still manages to win the Democratic nomination, and THEN manages to win the general DESPITE having been so thoroughly trashed by Clinton.

[clbrune]

If you think this is "thoroughly trashed" you better brace yourself. Seriously, are all Obama followers so delicate, fragile, and hypersensitive?

[batspaul]

Believe it or not, McCain has been the model of respect so far. But, of course, that's because he's got Hillary doing the dirty work (and funding it) for now. Smart approach.

Look, once this election is about real, sharply differing policies and political philosophies, the personal attacks won't be as compelling. It's because Obama and Clinton have to battle for the same political turf that it's like this.

If you find that Obama's supporters are hypersensitive, it's probably because no one expects to be trashed by their own side. We expect McCain and the Republicans to impugn the Democratic candidate as elitist, out-of-touch, lacking in patriotism, etc. Coming from another Democrat with the same stated agenda, whose slim hopes of getting the nomination are predicated upon her inflicting serious damage on the likely nominee– what can I say? Yeah, that's troubling.

[Countess]

After the campaign of lies, smears and pathetic pandering that Hillary Clinton has waged we are still seeing her popularity among the elderly, the uneducated and the neocon faction who still are an important force within the democratic party. The odor of her campaign is enough to kill normal people but she goes on and on without anything positive to contribute and she is slowly but surely poisoning the entire political atmosphere.

[zstroud]

This site will never stop bashing Clinton. Is she not supposed to attack. Doesn't HE attack her? Why is it STILL ok for him to do so but not for her?

[leftcoastliberal]

Clinton can and should attack Obama, but on policy - not personality. Charging him with being a liberal elitist is just silly campaign blather. She should get back to the issues.

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

That would underscore the fact that on policy you need the laboratories from all the CSI shows to tell the difference between them on policy. Electability is the only real differentiation. And it's becoming clear Obama is the most electable.

[Ramus]

This nonsense about calling Obama an elitist from a Wellesley and Yale Law grad who has millions of dollars is going to come back and bite her in the face. This is a very good article. What does she do if she even goes back to the issues? Defend her vote on 10/11/02? Defend her vote for Kyl/Lieberman or her lack of support for the Levin amendment? He vote for the bankruptcy legislation that is preventing many Americans from being able to declare themselves bankrupt and keep their homes? She's been voting the wrong way. What can she say? She has lost and the Clintonistas can't believe it. It's over. She's toast.

[SeriousBlack]

That depends on what the meaning of "is" is, er, I mean "attack" is. Disingenous attacks that are damn close to lies, just like the ones that Republicans have been taking cheap shots at Democrats with for decades that have made all of us Democrats sick to our stomachs? No, not acceptable.

[GQB]

No, she is not supposed to "Attack", she is supposed to persuade. And her attacks have been personal, not policy based. "Elitist", attacking him via his pastor, etc. His criticisms of her have been about HER judgement.

I supposed its moot that she's taking the Rovian low road, since the repugs will do that in any event.

[papasalas]

He usually doesn't attack her first. In fact, he had stop talking about her to focus on McCain before this whole bitterness deal. He counter-attacks and he does it on the issues: taking money from lobbyist, shaky record on trade, etc. He didn't say anything on Bosnia when asked about it.
When Senator Clinton attacks Obama saying she doesn't think that his health care plan is universal, that's fair game. But to say he's elitist is a bit much because it gives arguments to the Republicans.
I think if she would had defended him, giving him the benefit of the doubt as he did with her with the Bosnia mess, this whole thing would had played to her advantage.

[Spontini]

Yes, don't you know? BO never attacks anyone, he merely speaks THE TRUTH, which we bitter folks are simply supposed to accept and not dare question BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS IT'S TRUE, once he utters it.