Clinton takes the gloves off; hearing footsteps?

For practically the entire year, Hillary Clinton has had the benefit of being the Democratic frontrunner, and staying above the fray. Aside from a few random spats here and there, Clinton hasn’t felt the need to go after her primary rivals at all.

Why should she? Going on the offensive raises the profile of your opponents, increases the chance of raising your own negatives, and gives voters the impression that you’re worried. Indeed, when the “gender card” nonsense came up a couple of weeks ago, Clinton was able dismiss it quickly and effectively, arguing that leading candidates are always going to come under fire.

It’s what made Clinton’s comments in Iowa yesterday so interesting.

Fog may have diverted Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s plane from her campaign stop here on Tuesday, but that did not prevent her from continuing her attacks on Senator Barack Obama’s experience.

It was an odd moment. Mrs. Clinton, her voice piped in over a sound system, apologized for missing the event, expressed concern about the safety of food and toys from overseas and, pivoting off the overseas topic, tweaked Mr. Obama for saying on Monday that living overseas as a child had increased his experience in foreign relations.

Mrs. Clinton, who this week in Iowa has been making an issue of Mr. Obama’s experience, said the next president would face two wars and fraying alliances. She said she had traveled broadly and had “met with countless world leaders” and knew many of them personally.

“Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges that the next president will face,” Mrs. Clinton said. “I think we need a president with more experience than that.”

It wasn’t an off-hand remark that Clinton offered casually. After her speech, Clinton campaign aides circulated the text to reporters in a press release titled, “New HRC Comments on Experience.” This was, in other words, an organized salvo aimed directly at Obama on his biggest perceived weakness.

There are two key angles to this: the substance and the broader political dynamic.

On the substance, Obama opened the door yesterday, noting that he lived in Indonesia as a child, which contributes to his knowledge “of how ordinary people in these other countries live.”

“I sit on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,” Obama said. “So I have frequent interaction with world leaders who come to visit here, and I take trips on various fact-finding missions, whether it’s to Iraq or Russia or Africa. But you know, probably, the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact that I spent four years living overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia.”

At a minimum, Obama could have said this a lot better. His foreign policy experience isn’t bad — it far exceeds that of Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, for example — but he’s on much firmer ground sticking to his Senate Foreign Relations Committee work, and not pointing to his years overseas as his “strongest experience.” Or better yet, he might also consider emphasizing judgment over experience.

But in the campaign dynamic, notice that ferocity with which the Clinton campaign pounced. On the one hand, Obama offered Clinton an opportunity, but on the other hand, Clinton wouldn’t have bothered if she were still far ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire.

In this sense, yesterday’s criticism struck me as the first time all year Clinton actually sounded nervous. She went on the offensive because she had to, not because she wanted to. It also suggests that her campaign’s internal polling must also show the race tightening.

For what it’s worth, the Obama campaign hit back on the experience point: “Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld have spent time in the White House and traveled to many countries as well, but along with Hillary Clinton they led us into the worst foreign policy disaster in a generation and are now giving George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran.”

And Edwards is taking Obama’s side: “Now we know what Senator Clinton meant when she talked about ‘throwing mud’ in the last debate. Like so many other things, when it comes to mud, Hillary Clinton says one thing and throws another.”

It’s only going to get more intense.

You left out the part where Obama responded [paraphrasing]

“Sen. Clinton went on to say she has met with a few “world leaders”. Which of those leaders advised her to go to war with Iraq?”

To me that was the best line of this foreign policy squabble.

  • Is Edwards trying to say clinton is throwing shit? Because I think that’s what she’s slinging.

  • Mrs. Clinton, who this week in Iowa has been making an issue of Mr. Obama’s experience, said the next president would face two wars and fraying alliances.

    If ANYBODY had any doubts about Hillary Clinton’s intention to continue the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, or, if she considers those two locations “the same war”, to attack Iran, this should put all those doubts at ease. This obviously means she won’t vote to bring the troops home before the next election and will vote to continue Bush’s illegal actions.

    I hate to muss the hair of you Clinton supporters, but she’s a warmonger, too.

  • In ordinary times, Clinton might be a good president. However, we are living in extraordinary times and a Clinton presidency would do nothing to bring this country together. The visceral hatred for her on the other side is so strong that they would do anything to see that she is not elected. We need someone who isn’t so divisive and who can bring this country together.

    And, CB, you nailed it when you said that judgment not experience is more important. Her vote on the war resolution is a prime example of that.

  • But you know, probably, the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact that I spent four years living overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia.

    I have to say I strongly agree with the sentiment expressed. The many people I know that have lived extensively overseas have by far the deepest understanding of and empathy for other cultures and peoples, there differences, and what really affects real people (even of countries they haven’t lived in!). One reason I bristle every time I hear some politician pronounce how they really understand Iraq after traveling there for a week on a hand-holding guided tour while meeting with high level US personnel and maybe the occasional Iraqi dignitary.

  • This won’t shut up the Hils inevitability nonsense, but I hope that this opens up a needed debate on foreign policy so needed.

    Can anyone explain to me why do people consider her the anti-war candidate? It surprises me about a lot of folks who were against the Iraq war, support Hils as if they were ignorant or in denial of her voting record. What bothers me even more is that Rupert Murdoch has donated to her and actually likes her and the silence from Bill Kristol and crew on the matter. What also gets lost in the memory hole is that Bill Clinton liked W and wouldn’t say anything about him during 2004 when he might have stumped for Kerry.

  • The next president is going to face two wars because there is no way we will be out of Iraq or Afghanistan by January 20, 2009. No way. I would even be surprised if we were at pre-surge levels by then.

    The votes that are taken in the next year will be telling – but that assumes that they will even show up to vote; at this stage, they are missing more and more votes, and one wonders if that is a function of logistics, or not wanting to be caught in a Kerry-type trap of what seem to be inconsistent votes on the war.

    It’s possible that we will see more movement on the part of the GOP, which will realize that taking credit for winding down the war – or making big redeployments on a schedule that is timed to coincide with primaries and the general election, will be more beneficial to them politically than keeping it going.

    Whatever the state of the wars is, I don’t think it means that whoever is president will necessarily continue or prolong those engagements, but it will mean that he or she will have logistical and strategic issues to contend with. Bush is not going to make it easy – we know that.

    As for Obama’s experience living overseas when he was a child, I have no doubt it was an experience that colored his life, and probably made him much less insulated and afraid of those who were different as he settled into life in America. I don’t know, though, that I would consider it “foreign policy” experience, and to call it that is a stretch.

    Without getting too “Dr. Phil,” I think Hillary is not particularly familiar with professional failure – and as a classic overachiever and someone who strives to be the best and the smartest, she is not reacting well to these down ticks in the polls. She needs to get a grip, or she’s going to implode, and my fear is that her implosion may come at the most inopportune time.

  • If the presidential race comes down to Giuliani vs. Obama in November 2008, I just can’t see the Democrats winning the White House.

    Here’s my ranking of preferences: 1) Edwards, 2) Dodd (or Biden), 3) Hillary, 4) Richardson, 5) Obama.

    In all due respect to the candidates, this expression applies: “Just win, baby.”

  • Triangulatin’ Tilly is starting to realize that her career as a would-be world leader is going to be over in 99 days, after the primaries are over and she has withdrawn from contention.

    God, only 99 more days and we don’t have to hear the name Clinton ever again.

  • Maureen Dowd nailed Hillary on this one today:

    “(Hillary) went on some first lady jaunts and made a good speech at a U.N. women’s conference in Beijing. But she was certainly not, as her top Iowa supporter, former governor Tom Vilsack claimed yesterday on MSNBC, “the face of the administration in foreign affairs.”

    “She hasn’t accomplished anything on her own since getting admitted to Yale Law,” wrote Joan Di Cola, a Boston lawyer, in a letter to The Wall Street Journal this week, adding: “She isn’t Dianne Feinstein, who spent years as mayor of San Francisco before becoming a senator, or Nancy Pelosi, who became Madam Speaker on the strength of her political abilities. All Hillary is, is Mrs. Clinton. She became a partner at the Rose Law Firm because of that, senator of New York because of that, and (heaven help us) she could become president because of that.”

    Though (Obama) did not mention the quick “color me experienced” trip Hillary took with some Senate colleagues to Iraq and Afghanistan just before she started running, Obama might have been thinking of it when he mocked Kabuki Congressional junkets:
    “You get picked up at the airport by a state convoy and a security detail. They drive you over to the ambassador’s house and you get lunch. Then you go take a tour of some factory or some school. Children do a native dance.”

    But is living in the White House between the ages of 45 and 53 foreign policy experience?”

    Read it all here.

  • If the presidential race comes down to Giuliani vs. Obama in November 2008, I just can’t see the Democrats winning the White House. -sknm

    Why? Because of the ‘latent racism’ you talked about yesterday? I don’t think that’s a factor. I’d wager that people harboring racism strong enough to disqualify a candidate are not considering anyone from the Democratic field.

    What states do you think Giuliani (who’s star is fading fast) would win against Obama that Edwards, Dodd (or Biden), Hillary, and Richardson would win?

  • I don’t feel the need to denigrate Hillary’s experience. She is a formiddable woman and I respect her strength and appetite. I don’t respect her judgment.

    What I find interesting in this is Edwards’ support of Obama. I don’t think he’s angling for the VP slot. I think he does not want Hillary to win, probably for the same reasons most of us have reservations about her. If he’s willing to throw himself under her train to derail it, I for one will be enormously grateful.

  • Hillary would do her campaign, and the nation, an awful lot of good if instead of attacking fellow Dems to claw herself to the top of the primay pile she would actually LEAD on foreign affairs issues using her bully pulpit in the Senate. Actions would speak a whole lot better than negative words.

  • If the presidential race comes down to Giuliani vs. Obama in November 2008, I just can’t see the Democrats winning the White House.

    You overestimate Giuliani… I think. It amazes me that he’s managed to survive on the campaign trail this long without his core nature–the vicious, almost superfluously cruel autocrat New Yorkers came to know and, through 9/10/01, largely detest–breaking through. Between that nature, his many hypocrisies and personal missteps–hell, his own kids don’t talk to him–I struggle to see how he wins.

    Or maybe you think that Obama will suffer from the black candidate phenomenon that hampered Doug Wilder among others–more people expressing willingness to pollsters to support African-American candidates than actually will vote for them. I don’t think this is as bad a problem as it was 15 years ago, but there might be something to that argument.

    For me personally, though, an Obama-Giuliani campaign would be the easiest to deal with–the candidate of greatest hope, whose election would be a joyful affirmation of our best nature, against a person I really see as the monstrous embodiment of what American fascism would look like. If I didn’t believe we’d win that fight, I probably should just move to Canada.

  • Or better yet, he might also consider emphasizing judgment over experience.

    his attempts to hammer hillary over her war votes have done virtually nothing. people like resumés more than ideas and erudition, and since she’s well aware of this, she can talk about her “experience” from being the first lady as the sort of experience that we somehow need.

    what would it take to make hillary focus more seriously on judgment over experience? oh, right, she can’t really stand on her flaws.

  • Gee, if Hillary’s experience in being first lady and meeting world leaders qualifies her to be president, wouldn’t that qualify Laura Bush for the presidency, too?

  • Not for nothing, but I would not say that Clinton has been particularly shy up to now about tweaking Obama’s nose. It would be more accurate to say that she rarely passes up an opportunity to do so. Most of the die-hard Obama fans I’ve come into contact with are firmly convinced she’s been downright mean to him. And “drawing distinctions” (as they say) with regard to their relative levels of experience in government has been a favorite frame for her jabs at him.

  • Because of the ‘latent racism’ you talked about yesterday? I don’t think that’s a factor. I’d wager that people harboring racism strong enough to disqualify a candidate are not considering anyone from the Democratic field.

    I agree that in the really Red states that it won’t matter who the Democratic nominee is. However, what about the battleground states like Missouri, Florida, Ohio and Iowa? Or even the emerging battleground states like Virginia, Kentucky, Colorado and possibly even Indiana?

    Are you truly confident that the swing voters in those states will so easily overlook race (or gender for that matter)?

    I hope so. I truly do.

  • Are you truly confident that the swing voters in those states will so easily overlook race (or gender for that matter)?

    I hope so. I truly do. -Edo

    I’m more hopeful then confident, but I am confident that the same people who would dismiss Obama because of skin color would dismiss Clinton because of gender.

    I also don’t think that ‘swing voters’ really exist. I think it comes down to motivating people who have already made up their mind, and if relegated to the choice between Obama and Clinton, I think Obama motivates more voters, especially in areas where, historically, lines are long and polls are few.

    We need to make sure those people believe in who they are voting for and will suffer the indignity of a 7 hour wait to cast their vote.

  • Comments are closed.