Ah, the advantages of front-runnerdom. For months, Hillary Clinton enjoyed the benefits of having huge leads in every poll, in every state, leading her to remain largely above the fray. She had no motivation to lash out her Democratic rivals — why bother attacking a candidate who’s losing? — and could remind voters that she was doing her part to keep the race positive and issue-oriented.
Of course, now the race is tightening. Clinton’s lead in Iowa has all but vanished, and her margin in New Hampshire is shrinking quickly. Given this landscape, it’s probably not too big a surprise that Clinton would go negative – but I didn’t expect her to go this negative.
With a new poll showing her losing ground in the Iowa caucus race, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) mounted a new, more aggressive attack against Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Sunday, raising direct questions about his character, challenging his integrity and forecasting a sharp debate over those subjects in the days ahead.
Clinton has hammered Obama recently over his health-care proposal, arguing that he is misleading voters because it omits millions of people and would not lower costs. But Sunday, in a dramatic shift, she made it clear that her goal is to challenge Obama not just on policy but also on one of his strongest selling points: his reputation for honesty.
“There’s a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we’re willing to fight for,” Clinton told reporters here. She said voters in Iowa will have a choice “between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who’s walked the walk.”
Asked directly whether she intended to raise questions about Obama’s character, she replied: “It’s beginning to look a lot like that.”
The strategy isn’t hard to understand. Obama’s recent upswing is based, at least in part, on the idea that he’s an honest candidate with integrity. So, instead of targeting Obama where he’s weak (say, years of experience in statewide office), the Clinton campaign is targeting him where he’s strong — an approach to negative campaigning Karl Rove has advocated for years. (This isn’t to compare Clinton to Rove at all; it’s just to note the general trend.)
But attacking a Democratic rival on matters of character is not only rough, it brings with it huge risks.
The new Clinton strategy, acknowledged by her senior advisers as an intentional pivot, carries significant risks and could produce a potential backlash if voters perceive her as growing too negative. The Register’s poll also found that Clinton was seen by Iowa voters as the most negative of the Democratic contenders. […]
Clinton, campaigning across Iowa on Sunday, appeared to be spoiling for a fight with her chief Democratic rival in national polls — even at one point describing the battle as “fun.”
“I have said for months that I would much rather be attacking Republicans, and attacking the problems of our country, because ultimately that’s what I want to do as president. But I have been, for months, on the receiving end of rather consistent attacks. Well, now the fun part starts.”
In a step that seemed unusually cheap for Clinton, her campaign even went after Obama for saying he wanted to be president in kindergarten.
From my perspective, going after Obama on Social Security policy seemed entirely fair. Questioning Obama on healthcare mandates is reasonable and worth discussing. But for Clinton to target another Democrat by questioning his character and challenging his integrity is disconcerting. There’s a decency line that candidates should be cognizant of, and once intentional character attacks become part of a campaign strategy, one starts to get a little too close to that line.
Worse, it looks a little desperate. OK, more than a little. In October, Clinton’s cruising to the nomination, and she doesn’t believe in attacking Dems. In December, Clinton’s struggling, and Obama is of weak character and questionable integrity? C’mon.
For that matter, the desperation seems unnecessary. Clinton is still the front-runner. She’s still leading this race and is the odds-on favorite for the nomination. Lashing out wildly at this stage in the process isn’t likely to do her any favors — Iowa Dems have generally frowned on this style of campaigning.
As for the “fun” line, Obama’s campaign pounced on the opportunity.
That drew a swift rebuke from Obama. “This presidential campaign isn’t about attacking people for fun, it’s about solving people’s problems, like ending this war and creating a universal health care system,” he said in a statement. “Washington insiders might think throwing mud is fun, but the American people are looking for leadership that can unite this country around a common purpose.”
Ben Smith concluded, “I guess it’s safe to say we’ve gotten beyond the point where the Clinton campaign was worried about looking worried.”