A lengthy record for the RNC to exploit

June 4, 2008

In every presidential race, in every cycle, party leaders worry about primary rivals going too negative and giving the other side fodder for the general election. Drawing contrasts is one thing, but it’s best for everyone when candidates restrain themselves from making things easier for the competing party.

But looking back, this doesn’t seem to happen too terribly often. Campaigns have their own messages to get across; they don’t need to run ads featuring candidates from the rival party.

In March, after Hillary Clinton suggested that she and John McCain passed a “commander-in-chief threshold,” and Barack Obama didn’t, Kevin Drum posed an interesting question: “It occurred to me today that primary opponents attack each other all the time, and yet I don’t remember ever seeing a general election ad taking advantage of that. Once the general election starts, nobody seems to think it’s worthwhile trying to make hay out of old attacks.”

Off the top of my head, I couldn’t think of any major examples, either. But the RNC has been paying attention, it’s kept all of Clinton’s attacks against Obama handy, and it’s ready to exploit the treasure trove of criticism.

Hours before the polls closed Tuesday in the final two Democratic presidential primaries, the Republican National Committee began circulating a video of Hillary Clinton questioning Barack Obama’s qualifications to be commander-in-chief, and acknowledging John McCain has this important presidential credential.

“Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, I will bring a lifetime of experience and Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002,” Clinton says in the one-minute video of CNN’s coverage of a news conference she held on March 8 – the day Obama won the Wyoming caucuses. “I think that is a significant difference. I think that since we now know Senator McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that.

“And I think it is imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold. And I believe I have done that. Certainly, Senator McCain has done that. And you will have to ask Senator Obama with respect to his candidacy.”

An RNC official told CNN that Republicans would use Clinton’s criticisms of Obama “repeatedly” throughout the general election campaign.

Now, with Clinton’s help, pushing back against the RNC’s efforts isn’t too difficult. For one thing, I think most Americans realize that intra-party, like-minded rivals sometimes get a little aggressive in the midst of a heated primary. When one Dem attacks another Dem, it’s be taken with a grain of salt.

For another, once Hillary Clinton steps up to start defending Obama and going after John McCain, the RNC’s project will certainly lose its salience.

In the meantime, though, it’s frustrating. And it probably doesn’t help Clinton’s chances of making it onto Obama’s ticket.

Post Script: By the way, it’s worth keeping in mind that this tactic is not without historical precedent. Some of Kevin’s readers highlighted some noteworthy examples:

* In 1980 a group calling itself “Democrats for Reagan” made an ad with Ted Kennedy criticizing Jimmy Carter. It went off the air pretty quickly, though, since it was made without Kennedy’s permission. […]

* George Bush’s “voodoo economics” line against Reagan was used by Carter and others. It didn’t show up in an ad, as far as I can tell, but during Carter’s October 29 debate with Reagan he said, “Governor Reagan recently mentioned the Reagan-Kemp-Roth proposal, which his own running mate, George Bush, described as ‘voodoo economics’ and said that it would result in a 30 percent inflation rate.” […]

* In 1964, LBJ ran an ad quoting several Republicans calling Barry Goldwater a lunatic. Phil has a video of the ad at the link. […]

* In 1972, Richard Nixon ran an ad that quoted Hubert Humphrey criticizing George McGovern’s plan to cut defense spending.

Kevin concluded, “[S]everal commenters suggested that things are different in the YouTube age. Maybe some of the Obama/Clinton attacks won’t show up in 30-second network spots, but they might become big hits on YouTube and in the blogosphere and gain traction that way.” The RNC certainly seems to be following that script.

Once Clinton concedes and gets on board, this will be a non-issue. She will go after McCain in a much more aggressive manner than the restraint she showed in the primary. Poor old Grandpa Simpson is going to get beat up by a girl.

  • people keep saying that hrc is shooting herself in the foot if she wants to be obama’s vp. she doesn’t. she wants to be mccain’s vp.

  • Two points:

    Patrick, your theory rests on the premise that the Clintons is more interested Obama’s victory than defeat. I hope you’re right, but to say the very least, the evidence is not in. Certainly they haven’t acted that way in the last 24 hours.

    Also, I’m pretty sure that Bush Senior’s Willie Horton attack in 1988 was initially launched by Al Gore against Dukakis in the primary that year.

  • I guess if the RNC had any credibility I might be worried. But they’ve been backing the worst president ever, and everyone knows it. Nothing they say will be believed by the majority of voters, who despite years of dumbing down can still percieve that Bush has hurt them quite badly.

    Frankly IMO Hillary’s attacks on Obama give him an edge, since he’s not just running against McCain, he’s running against Washington.

  • once Hillary Clinton steps up to start defending Obama and going after John McCain

    Your faith in the essential goodness of the human soul is touching.

  • For another, once Hillary Clinton steps up to start defending Obama and going after John McCain, the RNC’s project will certainly lose its salience.

    You’re delusional if you think Darthette Clinton, that bimbo traitor, will do this. Or didn’t you listen to what she actually said last night????

  • I think that we will be seeing a lot of that tape of Hillary saying that Obama doesn’t pass the “commander-in-chief threshold,” all the way through November. Then a voice over: “John McCain – tested!”

    That’s just one reason why Obama / Hillary is our Nightmare Ticket. For the Republican slime machine, Obama / Clinton will be the scary black Muslim guy, and Hillary, who is…

    Well, she’s Hillary!

  • Also, I’m pretty sure that Bush Senior’s Willie Horton attack in 1988 was initially launched by Al Gore against Dukakis in the primary that year.

    Nope. That was entirely the thugs.

  • With any luck the attacks won’t work for McCain any better than they worked for Hillary. Besides which, learning that Hillary is a sage whose wisdom must be accepted respectfully is going to be more than a little disorienting for his supporters.

  • But the RNC has been paying attention, it’s kept all of Clinton’s attacks against Obama handy, and it’s ready to exploit the treasure trove of criticism.

    Great idea, since it worked so well for Hillary.

    Isn’t the definition of insanity repetition with the expectation of different results?

  • “Once the general election starts, nobody seems to think it’s worthwhile trying to make hay out of old attacks”

    Ah but there’s a difference this time – Clinton has basically attacked Obama as being worse than McCain on national security – the question is, has THAT explicit comparison ever happened before? That’s probably why general elections to date have not yet had the opportunity to make hay of primary attacks…

    I have no question in my mind – Obama cannot afford to have Hillary on the VP ticket, unless we see her (1) say one nice thing about Obama and the way he ran his campaign – just one. (2) stop the “popular vote” b.s. – yeah we know the race is close and that’s good enough.

  • The fact that HRC made these sorts of attacks, and the way they undermine her current attempts to get the VP slot, is of a piece with the way she handles things. Making poor choices that later come back to bite her (AUMF, hiring and keeping on Mark Penn, stubbornly sticking with an “experience” electoral strategy in a “change” year,” continuing her campaign long after it became clear she’d lost) is a Hillary Clinton trademark.

    Obama should not allow her on the ticket.

    We dodged a bullet when we didn’t nominate her. God knows what sort of spectacular flameout she would have managed in the general, or, failing that, as President.

  • Well she tried them and lost. So John McCain, good luck with that.

    This is why she won’t be the vp nominee.

  • And the Hillary fans wonder why were so pissed at her. More than 1/2 the RNC commericals will have her in them. Yes I’m still pissed and bitter thank you.

  • Using Hils playbook only worked so far. The RNC better remember that she lost (despite what Mary and Hils thinks.)

    And McCain? A Fart in church is probably better welcomed than that sad excuse of a speech last night. It’s not like McCain has no negatives like say Vicki Iseman or Jack Abramhoff. McCain and his record is as clean as a sewer pipe.

  • It’s pretty clear that they are making a swipe for angry Clinton supporters, which is why they are using the same language. Plus, since she attacked Obama from the right fairly often it’s not like they really need to change the wording anyway.

  • * In 1964, LBJ ran an ad quoting several Republicans calling Barry Goldwater a lunatic. Phil has a video of the ad at the link. […]

    I was born in 1969 and I have a tough time thinking of Barry Goldwater as a lunatic. Considering that my attention to politics basically started with Ronald Reagan’s election, he is far less radical than the average Republican in my own experience. I wonder what Republicans in 1964 would have thought of Cheney and McCain, not to mention the outright loons like Inhofe or Patrick McHenry?

  • ooops…someone better send Condi the talking points memo:

    the first black ever to win a major party presidential nomination — an accomplishment that drew Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s attention.

    “The United States of America is an extraordinary country. It is a country that has overcome many, many, now years, decades, actually a couple of centuries of trying to make good on its principles,” said Rice, the first female black secretary of state in history, serving in a Republican administration.

    “And I think what we are seeing is an extraordinary expression of the fact that ‘We the people’ is beginning to mean to all of us.”

  • 1a. Obama could/should pick a woman, but not Hillary Clinton. Several good choices from swing state senate and governors.

    1b. He must NOT pick a misogynist anti-female male such as Jim Webb, or others who are anti-choice. That will give women excuse to stay home or even vote for McCain, especially if McCain selects a woman (even if that woman is anti-choice).

    2. Very scary for Democrats if McCain picks a woman. That is the only McCain VP choice that makes a difference. It could actually swing some of the supposedly outraged Clintonista white women to McCain, despite his and his party’s immensely anti-female personality and policies (anti-choice, anti-equal pay, misogynist horndog (called wife c*&t, cheated multiple time on fist wife, etc.) militarism, supreme court choices, etc).

    3. Some argue that Clinton believes that Obama cannot win and is positioning herself for 2012. Let us be clear: If Obama loses (with Clinton having already undercut him), there is no way she get the nomination in 2012. There will be new people running, including new women, and Clinton (both of them) will be remembered as having destroyed the Democratic party and the country.

  • Two lessons I’ve learned in the digital age. Whatever you say one place will show up in another. And you can’t float a check.

  • In 1980 a group calling itself “Democrats for Reagan” made an ad with Ted Kennedy criticizing Jimmy Carter. It went off the air pretty quickly, though, since it was made without Kennedy’s permission.

    Hmmm. Seems to me that there is one last chance for HRC to demonstrate that all these nasty things we’ve been saying about her aren’t true. She failed what seemed to be the final tests yesterday. She didn’t concede — or keep from stealing Obama’s thunder — and with all her comments about the importance of a Democratic victory, she failed to criticize McCain or his positions — the only thing that could have justified her making any speech other than a concession that wonderful, historic night.

    But ‘chance has put in her way yet another chance for redemption.’ So, I call on her to publicly denounce the use of her statements by the Republicans, to state that they were used without her permission — ideally referring to the Kennedy example — and to demand they pull the ads.

  • With any luck the attacks won’t work for McCain any better than they worked for Hillary. Besides which, learning that Hillary is a sage whose wisdom must be accepted respectfully is going to be more than a little disorienting for his supporters.

    Well, his supporters are masters of cognitive dissonance. How else could they adore a lobbyist-laden guy who’s unbeholden to corporate interests, a straight shooter who’s continually caught lying, a maverick whose lips are firmly attached to Bush’s bottom? Today’s Republicans are nothing if not committed to reconciling contradictory notions that share the goal of making the other guy look bad. Just ask the Christian Muslim wimpy savage they’re running against.

    I hope y’all are right that this endeavor will be fruitless. I can’t forgive Hillary for giving this to the GOP gift-wrapped simply because the Clintons have become fundamentally incapable of seeing past themselves.

  • As bad as the attacks on Senator Obama have been, I do not think they will really matter in the general election. Senator McCain is even a weaker candidate than G. W. Bush was. He has a long voting record in the senate to document his views on different topics and he has to continue the Bush policies. The policies have to be continued because that is what McCain’s corporate handlers are telling him to do. So far Obama does not seem to be as much under control by corporate interests. This will allow him to continue to go after McCain in a variety of areas. The main thing is that Senator Clinton (and William) need to stop attacking Obama now that the primaries are over.

  • Great idea, since it worked so well for Hillary.

    Attacking Obama from the right didn’t work with the Democratic primary electorate, but it might work better with general election voters.

    Note to Hillary: Running as the Republican in a Democratic primary might not have been such a hot idea, no matter what Mark Penn says.

  • Building on what RacerX said:
    This is the point that Obama needs to keep hammering McCain on–all his years of experience has gotten him a) no better, if not worse, judgement than the average Joe on the street, and b) hopelessly entrenched in Washington insider politics/lobbying, which I would think is one thing that voters are looking to avoid.

  • Shalimar:
    Goldwater grew tremendously in stature and respect after his campaign, and yes, the later Goldwater deserves much admiration. (Two factors that forced him to grow were the winding down of the Cold War as the #1 issue and his perception of how his campaign had opened the door for the looneys to move in.)

    But when he ran, he was a different person. He chose to vote against the Civil Rights Act, he was all but a proponent of a ‘preventitive war’ against Russia, his biography was ghost-written by Phyllis Schlaffly, his followers’ treatment of opponents who supported Rockefeller was the first real ‘thuggishness’ in mainstream politics, he had been a McCarthyite red hunter, or at least a cheerer-on, etc.

    “Lunatic” was, then, a good example of how he was viewed.

  • There are a lot of things to be critical of Hillary over, but you have to admit she can campaign hard. I really believe that she did a good job. The thing is, everything that she did, Obama just did better. By slamming her, it kind of takes away from Obama’s incredible accomplishment. She kept her word to her supporters and saw it through to the end. There is plenty of time for the party to come together. Just because her concession speech didn’t happen last night doesn’t mean she is going to destroy the party. Remember that there is not that much difference in either democrat’s policies and pledges. The differences are between us and the republicans.
    Kropotkin, you are right about McCain’s long Senate record. There will be so much to go after. How much has he flip flopped this year alone? They dished it out to Kerry. I don’t think they are going to like the taste of their own medicine.

  • You’re all stark raving bonkers if you think McMaybe and his RNC masters can exploit this successfully in the general campaign. Think about all of McMaybe’s “years of experience—otherwise known as his years of absolute disasters.

    How many planes did “RampStrike” trash before getting himself shot down by doing a “nyah-nyah-nyah” wiggle-waggle over Hanoi? It was called “SAM City” for a freaking reason, people.

    Care to bring up his “Wet Start” stunt aboard the Forrestal? How many “heroes” does it take to trash a “supercarrier”—something big enough to land a C-130 Hercules on?

    How many “mavericks” does it take to cause a train-wreck—and whatever happened to the “mortal remains” of that “Straight Talk Express,” anyway?

    How many neocon scum has this guy cozied up with? How many “good lobbyists” are on his campaign? How much “good lobbyist money” is being poured into GOP coffers, so he can use the Party as his own private bank account?

    How many FEC members have given the green light to his “withdrawal” for federal campaign funding—especially now that he’s exceeded the limits to his agreements?

    How many lies? How many broken promises? How many “this” in the morning, “that” in the afternoon, and “the other thing” in the evening has that pudgy little rat-faced slob peddled on his “audiences?”

    How many people attended his Quaalude fit “speech” last night? even FOX dumped on him!

    McMaybe is a great big target of opportunity. Lock, load, and fire for effect.

    What was it everyone around here used to say a year or so ago? Oh, yeah—-

    Attack!
    Attack!
    Attack!

  • Ah, yes. Hillary’s March C-in-C remarks. The day I STOPPED thinking, well I support Obama, but would be happy to vote for Clinton if she were the nominee.

    The stuff she pulled since that time have solidified my initial decision.

  • Attacking Obama from the right didn’t work with the Democratic primary electorate, but it might work better with general election voters. -jimBOB

    Maybe, but it is prudent to remember, and last night’s results illustrate it well, that Obama is at his best when the voter pool isn’t restricted to card carrying Democrats. He has a broad appeal that I think will play even better in the general than it did in the primary.

  • A part of me still fears that she’s going to bolt the party and take her supporters with her

  • Obama has quite a knack for political judo. It was wonderful to see how he grabbed “change” and left Hillary stuck with “experience” (and then to see Hillary flailing to get a crowd to chant “yes we will”, and McCain last night trying to claim to be the agent of change – that was priceless!). Giving his speech at the site of the Republican Convention is going to allow so many unfavorable comparisons to be made later this summer (every time anyone’s oratory fails to be rousing, in fact). His timing of delegate announcements after losses has been excellent, and his team’s whole management of yesterday was astonishing. Grabbing “hope” so that Bill Clinton couldn’t claim he was the man from hope without sounding like he’d switched bandwagons – sheer genius, and gosh, that must have chafed the Clintons. His judgement versus experience meme works perfectly, and his line about ‘recognizing McCain’s accomplishments even though McCain failed to recognize his’ was darned good too. I think that on election day McCain is going to find himself flat on his back on the mat without knowing quite what hit him.

  • Channeling MaryGreg:
    This shows yet another of Obama’s unexploited weaknesses and why McCain will get my vote in the fall. While Obama continues to try to silence the female candidate by staying in the race, McCain has shown Hillary the proper respect she deserves by bringing her accurate statements to the forefront.

    Besides, if you don’t want Hillary’s words to be used against Obama after the primaries end in August, there’s still one easy way out of this: Pick Hillary at the convention. You’ve got no one to blame but yourself.

  • Generalisimo Franco is still critically dead…

    Clinton’s dead and refuses to admit it. Can you image the outrage from her camp if Obama pulled this shit!

  • For another, once Hillary Clinton steps up to start defending Obama

    If Hillary Clinton…

    I would like to really like to talk why it is outrageous that women want as their ultimate representative a woman who tried to discredit female victims of sexual harassment by her husband.

    However, I have decided that it’s time to put her out of our discussion, and talk about our nominee.

    As for MaryGreg, good luck with that idea of making a Justice Janice Rogers Brown. That will get you a lot of “respect,” just not equal pay. Smart move.

  • Also, I’m pretty sure that Bush Senior’s Willie Horton attack in 1988 was initially launched by Al Gore against Dukakis in the primary that year.

    Nope. That was entirely the thugs.

    IIRC, dajafi is referring to the fact, dredged (Drudged?) up by RightwingRadioRepublicans, that early in the primary campaign Gore made a single critical reference to Dukakis’s furlough program. Or maybe it was two references. At any rate, this became–via the miracle of GOP-patented False Equivalency™ to blow up this minor reference into something they could hang a claim of “He dunnit first!” off of.

    Thanks dajafi for demonstrating (perhaps unwittingly) that rightwing canards never die.

  • Yeah I was basically undecided until that point. I was for a Kucinich/Edwards ticket but this was a no-no that I could not overlook.
    However Obama should have no trouble discounting that idea because look at all the “experience” of the Bush administration. Experience can bring its own prejudice and the longer you do something badly or make mistakes continually then experience becomes just a bad reputation. Sometimes you really can’t teach an old dog new tricks or evolve with the times. I don’t believe Clinton’s remarks as used by McCain will make Obama look bad, it merely makes Clinton look bad. The elderly always have “experience” but they lack perspective and energy. Who wants years and years of bad experience where people stubbornly refuse to change?

  • Sounds like gravy to me – the Republican attacks will ensure that there is no need for Hillary on the ticket. True progressive supporters of Hillary will be enraged that her words are being used by the Republicans, making them less likely to vote Republican and more likely to want to vote *against* McCain. In the end, using Hillary against Barack will backfire – not only for McCain, but also for Hillary.

    Gravy, man, gravy…

    • Comments are closed.