In a contested presidential primary, candidates are going to go after one another. It’s practically unavoidable. For that matter, it’s not always a bad thing to highlight differences and deal with criticisms the nominee is likely to hear again in a general election. It’s rarely fun for partisans to hear one leader from their party attack another, but it’s the inevitable byproduct of a competitive campaign.
The trick of it, though, is judging candidates in part on how they go on the offensive against their intra-party rivals.
From my personal vantage point, when I see a Dem go negative against another Dem, I use an informal criterion to judge its merit: is the criticism accurate? Is it fair? Is it hypocritical? And does it help or hurt the party’s broader message?
Given this, I can’t help but think Hillary Clinton’s latest mailing in Nevada may be one of the single most disappointing things her campaign has done this entire cycle. It targets Barack Obama on Social Security and taxes using the most blatantly Republican worldview possible.
The mailer — which was also dropped in New Hampshire before the primary — has some anti-tax, anti-Washington language that might sound out of place in a Dem contest. Such as: “Nevada families need to keep more of their hard-earned dollars — not less…”
And: “We need a President that will help hard-working families keep more of what they earn…”
There’s also a reference to Nevada families sending more of their “hard-earned dollars to Washington.”
The direct-mail adds that Obama embraces “a plan with a trillion dollar tax increase on America’s hard-working families.”
The Clinton campaign used the exact same mailing in New Hampshire and may have come to the conclusion that it helped give Clinton an edge.
That’s a genuine shame, because this mailing is completely ridiculous.
Here’s the test, point by point:
Is the criticism accurate? No. If Obama had proposed scrapping the cap completely, it would stand to bring in $1 trillion. But Obama has said repeatedly that he’s open to raising the cap, not scrapping it.
Is it fair? No. Obama has been quite candid about his approach to Social Security, and has described his plan at debates. Clinton was standing right there; her campaign can’t pretend they don’t know what Obama has repeatedly said.
Is it hypocritical? Shamelessly. Clinton has publicly conceded that she’s open to the exact same policy proposal Obama has made. If she’s attacking his willingness to raise the payroll cap, she’s attacking her own willingness to raise the payroll cap.
And does it help or hurt the party’s broader message? It undoubtedly hurts. Clinton’s mailing could have just as easily been written by the Republican National Committee or Grover Norquist. Clinton is using anti-tax rhetoric that Democrats usually reject as nonsense, not embrace as fodder for attacks against other Democrats. Talk about Dems using conservative frames, this is Exhibit A.
Obviously, politics ain’t beanbag. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are going to take rhetorical shots at one another, and some of them are going to be cheaper than others. I get it.
But this mailing is really offensive from a Democratic perspective. When the Clinton campaign used it in New Hampshire, I’d hoped it was borne of desperation and wouldn’t be repeated. That’s it’s now become a standard arrow in Clinton’s quiver is deeply disappointing.