Hillary Clinton clearly won some impressive victories in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island yesterday, but how did she pull it off?
I’ve been thinking the last few days about this piece that ran in the New York Times last Tuesday.
After struggling for months to dent Senator Barack Obama’s candidacy, the campaign of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is now unleashing what one Clinton aide called a “kitchen sink” fusillade against Mr. Obama, pursuing five lines of attack since Saturday in hopes of stopping his political momentum.
The effort underscores not only Mrs. Clinton’s recognition that the next round of primaries — in Ohio and Texas on March 4 — are must-win contests for her. It also reflects her advisers’ belief that they can persuade many undecided voters to embrace her at the last minute by finally drawing sharply worded, attention-grabbing contrasts with Mr. Obama.
I was a little skeptical about this strategy. First, Dems at least claim to be turned off by negative campaigning — especially within the party — and Clinton ran the risk of a backlash by launching relentless attacks. Second, I thought the kitchen-sink strategy might be too unfocused. Sometimes, it’s best to focus on a couple key points and hammer away. When one goes on the offensive with 10 areas of attack, the message becomes garbled — the criticism starts to resemble one giant mass of negativity, and people lose track of what it is they’re supposed to be upset about.
But my skepticism proved to be unfounded. The Clinton campaign threw everything they could think of at Obama, and as it turns out, some of it stuck.
I’m sure I’ll miss a few things, but off the top of my head, the attacks included:
* Rezko
* Canada/NAFTA
* Accusations of “plagiarism”
* Obama’s crisis-management abilities at 3 a.m.
* The media has given Obama a break
* Obama’s healthcare mailings are “Karl Rove-style politics” (“Shame on you”)
* Obama’s experience is similar to George W. Bush
* McCain’s experience is preferable to Obama’s
* Pictures of Obama wearing African garb
* Obama didn’t hold holding hearings as chairman of a Senate subcommittee that is in charge of overseeing NATO troops in Afghanistan
* Obama “denounced” Farrakhan, but didn’t “reject” him
* Obama’s message of “hope” is worthy of mockery and derision
* “60 Minutes” — Obama’s not a Muslim “as far as I know”
And those, believe it or not, are just from the last week or so. Some of these were obviously nastier than others, but, in total, it constituted a classic kitchen-sink-style attack. Some of it was bound to have an effect.
Now, I should note that I’ve seen some Obama supporters use this to rationalize major losses yesterday. As the refrain goes, “You won, but only because you took the campaign in an ugly direction.”
That, frankly, sounds a little petty, and it’s not the point I’m trying to emphasize. Rather, Clinton’s kitchen-sink strategy is a clear explanation of what worked and changed the campaign dynamic over the last week. It’s not even a mystery — one can look at the Ohio polls before the attacks began and after. And in Texas, before and after. Obama had narrowed the gap, and Clinton had seen her double-digit leads disappear. Then she launched the no-holds-barred attacks, and for the first time in the entire campaign, Obama’s numbers slipped. It’s hard to call this a coincidence.
This isn’t a value judgment. If you’re an Obama fan, the argument is, “Clinton couldn’t make an affirmative case for her nomination, so she had to tear Obama down. She’ll do anything to win, even if it hurts the party and helps Republicans.” If you’re a Clinton, the argument is, “We played rough, and it worked. This proves that Clinton is a fighter. Besides, if Obama can’t withstand relentless attacks now, he won’t be able to withstand relentless attacks later.”
Who’s right? In all likelihood, both are.
Going forward, there are two angles to keep an eye on. The first is whether Obama, who has been very reluctant to attack Clinton aggressively, sees the results as evidence that negative campaigning works. If trying to focus criticism on the other party is going to lead to primary defeats, Obama may not have a choice but to go after Clinton the way she’s gone after him.
The second is whether Clinton’s kitchen-sink style ends up undermining the party over the long haul.
[I]f Texas and Ohio are any indication, the negativity will take its toll. Exit polls published by CNN showed that barely more than four in 10 Democrats said they would be satisfied no matter which candidate won the nomination.
That kind of malaise is a stark contrast to the kind of universal enthusiasm seen from Democratic voters through early voting in January and much of last month. Even as Clinton got blown out in South Carolina, for example, more than three-quarters of voters said they would be satisfied if she were the nominee.
If the campaign stretches to June or even to a contested convention in August, reuniting the party could be difficult for either candidate.
My hunch is that yesterday’s results will take the campaign in an increasingly ugly direction. Voters sent a message — people respond well to negative attacks. The consequences for the party will likely be discouraging.
