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

[S1m0n]

Hillary's candidacy doesn't exist until she manages to tear down Obama. Her tooth-and-nail strategy is therefore risk free: the worst outcome possible is identical to the status quo.

[grendl]

Don't be too sure about running it back for a touchdown .

In truth Barack Obama's comments could be construed as elitist, if only for this reason.

He didn't think blue collar Pennsylvanians could handle the truths he spoke in San Francisco. If so he should have said them in Altoona. Barack made the mistake of practicing too much diplomacy, employing a two tiered system of truth, the hope filled message reserved for national forums, and the colder, harder, more cynical truths that he perhaps thought the intellectual elite might better understand of nuances of.

He's playing the political game, but he fumbled in this case. People want to be told the whole truth, not learn that behind the closed doors of some fundraiser you're telling something much more elaborate, or incisive or interesting in this case. Because I think the bitterness claim is an undeniable truth, but it should've come out to the public, if he indeed is the messenger of change.

Hillary is the last one we expect to let us see the woman behind the curtain. We thought Barack was showing us everything, but his transparency isn't as clear as we were led to believe. Maybe he talks about bitterness on the campaign trail, and in his book. If he doesn't and relegates that kind;ve talk just for the rich, that's very problematic.

[SeriousBlack]

Man, you are WAY over-analyzing the comments in question. WAY over.

[grendl]

Actually I'm not.

Because I feel I should've heard Baracks comments directly, not through some secret audio tape from someone on the Huffington Post.

If Barack feels the way he does, about disillusionment and religion, and guns, I wanted to hear that on the campaign trail, not learn he was simply saving that talk for wealthy people in Marin.

Not because he's wrong, but because he's absolutely right. And he didn't come forth to the mass electorate with that unadulterated, and really unassailable truth. He did it out of fear, thinking I couldn't handle the truth, or that iron worker in Pennsylvania couldn't handle the truth, or Hillary the vulture would swoop down and eviscerate his words, but fears no excuse. If you're running on a platform of honesty, do not pull your punches, and tell us how you really feel only after you've gotten caught saying those things to a select few.

[aftershock]

"not learn that behind the closed doors of some fundraiser"

This has to be the most absurd line of attack in this nontroversy I've heard. Hannity's been harping on it non-stop. Behind closed doors? Didn't think anyone would find out what he said? The room was filled with camera phones all aimed at him, and you think he didn't see those, that he didn't think the residents of PA would hear about these statements? Come on now, this whole argument is entirely disingenuous. Not to mention, that this isn't the first time he's made this argument. He made a similar one in 2006.

[grendl]

Perception is everything.

An audio tape of his answering that question, revealing things he never revealed to the Pennsylvanian electorate while in Pennsylvania, creates a credibility problem. Almost as if he didn't trust that the people of Pennsylvania could handle the truth.

I'm not saying its true. Of course he knows everything he says goes on record. But when its as revelatory as the guns god and bitter statements, such things need to come out in the proper setting. If only not to look like he's only giving the elite in San Francisco the entire story.