Clinton, Edwards eye avenues of attack against Obama

January 5, 2008

Because of the compressed calendar, there are just five short days between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, which poses a challenge for Hillary Clinton’s and John Edwards’ campaigns: how to blunt Barack Obama’s post-Iowa momentum quickly. Tom Edsall offers a look at the chosen avenues of attack.

Upon her arrival in New Hampshire this morning, Hillary Clinton signaled that she intends to play on Obama’s as yet unexploited political weaknesses: “Who will be able to stand up to the Republican attack machine?” she asked at an appearance in Nashua.

Hillary’s aides point to Obama’s extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with “left-wing” intellectuals in Chicago’s Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants’ rights as subjects for examination.

Along the same lines, ABC reported that Clinton aides gave the network various examples, of Obama’s controversial stands. The aides cited Obama’s past assertion that he would support ending mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes, pointing to a 2004 statement at an NAACP-sponsored debate: “Mandatory minimums take too much discretion away from judges.”

Just as I go to the trouble of defending the Clinton campaign from charges of “triangulation,” it turns around and starts blasting “liberal voting records.”

Worse, according to Time’s Karen Tumulty, a Clinton media advisor said voters would soon see “some very sharp” ads from the senator’s campaign, which may include criticizing Obama for being liberal on gun control.

There’s been quite a bit of discussion in recent weeks about whether Obama has been relying on “conservative frames” to get ahead. If Clinton is going to take on Obama from the right, that discussion is going to shift in a hurry.

I have to admit, it’s Edsall’s report that raises the most red flags. Obama has a “progressive record”? It’s a Democratic primary; it’s hard to see where Clinton hopes to go with this. He’s aligned with “left-wing’ intellectuals in Chicago’s Hyde Park community”? I seriously hope this isn’t as red-baiting as it sounds. Obama has embraced a progressive approach to defendants’ rights as subjects for examination? Given what we know, this sounds like something for Obama to brag about, not something for Clinton to use as a cudgel. And Obama thinks mandatory minimum are a mistake? They are a mistake. This makes me like Obama more, not less.

Interestingly enough, we then have Edwards’ new tack.

Edwards’ staff also immediately began to take shots at Obama: Appearing on MSNBC this morning, Edwards’ manager David Bonior described Obama as a sellout to corporate America: “Barack Obama’s kind of change is where you sit down and you cut a deal with the corporate world.”

Hmm, Clinton is poised to hammer Obama for being a liberal. Edwards is already hammering Obama for not being liberal enough.

Somehow, I have a hunch the Obama campaign finds all of this pretty helpful.

HEH! Why are you talking about the third runner up to Obama, and not the second, John Edwards??????

  • Whoops didn’t read far enough…saw the little paragraph near the end…none the less…the focus seems to be mostly on Clinton for some reason.

  • I just sent the following e-mail to the Hillary Clinton campaign office:

    Good morning:

    I have been a supporter of Hillary Clinton running for President since before she officially announced. I feel that Hillary is probably in the best position to take on the Republicans; and I agree that she probably has the most valuable experience.

    Having said that, over the last month I’ve seen some campaign tactics I do not approve of personally. Sure some of the players have been fired, but this morning I read that the Hillary Clinton campaign is planning on attacking Obama for some of his liberal stances.

    I’m here to let you know, that if you are willing to stoop to the Republican level, I will support Senator Obama from now on. Senator Obama is a credible candidate as well, and I do not wish to see Democrats attacking each other.

    If the Hillary campaign feels that you can’t beat Obama on substance, and have to attack him with Republican / Rovean tactics, then, you will not get my vote.

    Progressives aught to be above this despicable behavior.

    Sincerely

  • Yeah, I think when Obama goes and distinguishes himself from Clinton by calling her a conservative, Clinton is just venturing further in the swamp by saying “Look how liberal he is.” I don’t think “attack their strength” is going to work here. When the anti-Hillary people are tring to sow division and drag Hillary down on the blogs, they talk about how liberal she’s (allegedly) not. Caucusing is in some way, shape, or form about the base, so there are a lot of people involved who are just not going to accept that you can’t promise and deliver to them exactly what they want.

  • I sincerely hope that attacks among Democratic candidates don’t get out of hand — or blown out of proportion by a press looking to sell more pulp. The most important thing to Democratic voters is not so much that one or another candidate win, but the inauguration of a Democratic president in 2008.

  • Bring it on, Hillary! This tactic will just accelerate your ultimate defeat! You got nothin! LOL

  • I’m about as shocked at this tactic as Claude Rains was to see gambling in Rick’s American Cafe.

    There’s no line the Clintons won’t cross to win. Thing is, those tactics work when you’ve got a political genius front and center; with Hillary, I’m pretty confident they won’t.

  • I wondered if Clinton would tack to Obama’s right – she needs a comeback in a state that (a) is to the right of Iowa – followed by S Carolina which is also to the right of Iowa; and (b) has a totally open Primary – Republicans and Independents can freely vote.

    I hope she doesn’t; it is a deal with the devil that may help in the next couple of states, but will kill her in California and much of the rest of the Feb 5 slate.

    I was in a restaurant with a TV in the background, so I couldn’t hear, but it looked like she was taking Q&A, so at least she may have learned that lesson from the last-minute bad press she got in Iowa.

    As Steve said, Edwards and Clinton (assuming the apparent/rumored strategies are true) by being so out of synch on this create the perfect possible world for Obama.

  • The whole argument that Obama was arguing from conservative frames was ridiculous to begin with. If anything it played into Obama’s strengths and highlighted the weakness of those who used such arguments. What this argument against “conservative frames” really said was “We are right on everything. If you even consider issues from the point of view of others you are guilty of a thought crime.” The perception that Obama does consider the views of others is one of his strengths, and these attacks wound up helping Obama.

    Clinton’s attacks on Obama had an air of desperation even before the Iowa loss, and now are getting worse. She has even resorted to trying to sound like Rudy Giuliani:

    http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2647

    Also note that in the post I have a photo from the article where I quote Clinton. Hillary is out of focus and instead the picture focuses on Bill in the background. That also symbolizes one of Hillary’s problems.

  • I think Obama has been kind of taken for a ride. It strikes me as over-reacting that he went and poked fun at Hillary for the Kindergarten thing yesterday (readers of my comments may recall I questioned how personally responsible she probably was for that gaffe statement). It seems to me a Hillary-Obama combination, no matter who took second-billing, would be strong in both campaigning and governing, a shrewd alliance. It’s dispiriting that Obama has seemed to turn away from the possibility. When I am speculating, I think maybe Obama has found an unfaithful confidante who speaks to Obama about what ‘the common black man’ is going to think (Obama is upper-class). If anyone is telling him that black men are not going to respect a black guy who loses to or plays second-string to a woman, or especially a white woman, they are painting with too broad a brush and blowing it way out of proportion. What do you say to the hordes of black guys who every day work with a white woman, or take orders at a job from a white woman? Cross-racial cooperation and cross-gender cooperation is a fact of life, and you can’t try to avoid it now unless you want to be an anti-social reject. If this was what Obama was thinking, he’s become one in a long and never-ending line of examples of how upper-class people don’t understand lower/middle-class people and let stereotypes live decades past when they’ve begun to fail to apply often.

  • Cross-racial cooperation and cross-gender cooperation is a fact of life, and you can’t try to avoid it now unless you want to be an anti-social reject.

    It’s also something liberals should be encouraging and accepting, instead of treating prejudice and ill-cooperation as unsurmountable facts of life.

    Broader point: If Obama has really been convinced he can’t be bested by or cooperate with a white woman, then what does he think he would say to all the black guys out there who have a white supervisor? “What’s wong with you, are you a man or not?” Of course not– all that stuff doesn’t apply anymore, except for a few people, and lots of men who work with or for women can accept that they are smart, make valuable contributions, or can get a chance to supervise.

  • I’ve noticed that Obama has a lot of patience for people, even polical opponents, who say a lot of nasty- even racist- things about him. He’s very diplomatic, magnaniomus and forgiving towards the, ‘oops, I wasn’t really being racist’ defense, although he must notice that some of these attacks really have crossed the line. He criticizes about as much as anybody, I guess, but he keeps his real barbs in their holsters, often.

    But when it comes to Hillary, he gets a little prickly. It’s almost as if someone is exhorting him against her.

  • I think the support for Clinton may be about as hard as it can be, so Edwards needs to peel votes away from Obama – because as sure as we’re sitting here, Obama is going to be trying to peel voters from Edwards – and unless my ears deceive me, Obama has already started mimicking Edwards’ rhetoric to that end.

    With Obama’s new front-runner status will also come – I hope – increased scrutiny -and both Edwards and Clinton have to be poised to both play off of it and play into it.

    I am looking forward to the debates tonight to see how the rhetoric and messaging is changing, and what effect that has on Tuesday’s vote.

  • In the last several weeks, Mrs. Clinton seems to be moving to the right, towards the vile vicious Republican gangster regime. Her recent attacks on Obama seem destined to fail: going on about his been “too liberal” on gun control and prison sentencing… Hillary has been “working on” health care since 1992, trying to keep it corporate… She is just a shill for the corporate interests that have been backing the Bush regime for the last seven years.

    It is truly breathtaking how the corporate media have been ignoring and slighting John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich… But, that’s the corporate media for you: looking our for corporate interests. The Fox Fascists in the Morning are all in twist about how populists such as Obama, Edwards and the Huckabee dude are “threatening capitalism,” as if the Bush gangster regime represents capitalism. Bush cronyism and Bush no-bid contracts are the opposite of competitive free enterprise capitalim, Foxers…

  • I think (hope) that Obama won in Iowa because of his very public religiosity. That’s what I don’t like about him. On the other hand the thing about being Too Progressive is something I do like about him. I think I’d prefer Edwards or even Clinton, but if Obama is Too Far Left I could support him too.

  • Right now, the only thing that’s going to stop Obama in NH is Obama. I don’t see a strategic option for Clinton to stop Obama cold in NH. I think the larger danger is to do something drastic which completely knocks her out of the race, or attack from the right and lose the base. I’m no political guru, but it seems the best thing she can do is be consistent, persevere, and hope like hell her organization gives her a shot in February.

    As for Edwards, his best shot is to come in second in NH, beating either Clinton or Obama and make it a two way race. If Obama stays strong, he’s going to suck the ‘change’ vote from Edwards.

    As for Obama, it’s either going to take a complete meltdown, or some extraordinary dirt to come up from his past to slow his momentum.

  • So is it better for the Democrats to dredge up “problems” about each other and get them out in the open, or to wait for the Republican candidate to do it? (I do not consider being liberal a problem and if Clinton thinks it is, she needs to change parties. The Republicans could use a decent candidate about now.)

    Part of me feels that any attacks will harm the election, but having any problems out in the open now gives time to counter. Both Edwards and Clinton have gone through this before so there shouldn’t be much to uncover.

  • jen f–good question. Certainly you can argue it either way.

    As for Clinton’s “rightful” party, I’ve maintained for awhile that her deference to economic elites, belief in relatively unfettered executive power, instinctual support for use of military force and relative social liberalism make her a legitimate moderate Republican. In terms of agenda-setting and leadership style, one probably could argue that she’s slightly to the right of a Nelson Rockefeller.

  • Hillary= To the Right of the Roberts/Alito Supreme Court.

    You thought black folks liked Obama before? Watch us stampede towards him now. Obama is the only candidate who has a detailed platform regarding formerly incarcerated people and transitional employment, and has the intelligence to couch them in the conservative-friendly theme of “family” rather than say, “justice.”

    Also, if Hillary wants to get tough all of a sudden, she might want to withdraw her support for the stalled second chance act in the Senate.

    Of course, that would put her to the Right of Sam Brownback.

  • The whole argument that Obama was arguing from conservative frames was ridiculous to begin with. — Ron Chusid

    Exactly. Maybe Clinton’s behavior now will be an eye-opener to those who thought that Obama was veering to the right a week ago.

    And while I can appreciate the need to distinguish yourself from the other candidates — Edwards is taking a sharp left, Clinton going to the right, Obama is staying center-left or center — this makes it impossible for me to sympathize with Clinton any more.

    You thought black folks liked Obama before? Watch us stampede towards him now. — dnA

    Especially in South Carolina I’d imagine. Clinton and Obama were about tied among black people there with Obama peeling more and more away from her, Obama is definately going to get a boost now.

  • Hill’s campaign is getting nervous because by going negative so early she’s off of her original game plan and is working not to draw people to her but away from others. This is the old school, “we’re Democrats, let’s figure out a way to lose this election” politicking.

    This nation is so ripe for change and Hill’s tactic is cling to what has fallen out of favor. Bush did us the “favor” of showing this nation the true black heart of conservatism and this nation is rejecting it. Hill should be proving her bona fides of progressivism rather than tinting herself with the color of Bush. I’m trying to like Hillary: she should quit making that task so hard for us voters.

  • All the people complaining about How Hillary Clinton is taking the negative road… how about taking a few minutes and send her an e-mail. I’m sure (maybe naive?) that if her campaign gets enough disapproving messages, she’ll get a clue and stop her ‘going negative’ stance…..

  • I think the smartest thing for the Edwards camp to do would not be to attack Obama, but rather go for Hillary during the debate tonight. Get her on her triangulation, and the Republican lite thing. Make sure she comes in 3rd and then after SCarolina we’ll have a real horse race between Obama and Edwards on policy differences.

    Going after Obama will only make Hillary look week and will remind everyone how emotionally battering the Clinton years with the screechers from the right. They’ll realize that they do not want another 8 years of that.

  • “Who will be able to stand up to the Republican attack machine?” That’s pretty funny. I’d say it’d be the candidate with the least baggage and the fewest skeletons in the closet. The Clintons have been attack machine fodder for years, and the Republicans have built up quite a dossier. This might be a good time to mention – probably not the last time you’ll hear it, either – Hillary’s vote for the war.

    Obama came more or less out of nowhere, and his worst moments as an irresponsible young man have already been dished to death. About the only arrow left in the Republican quiver is the ridiculous contention that he is a Muslim, building his own madrassa in his back yard so the press won’t catch him on his way to worship. The only folks who still lend that foolishness any credence are those halfwits who still think it’d be a good idea to elect a president who’s more like themselves, instead of one with a few firing neurons left.

    If this is the best you’ve got, Hillary, it’s time to start folding the tent.

  • Obama, what change?

    Someone who voted against immediate withdrawal from the Cheney Protectorate of Iraq, voted for the “Patriot” Act reauthorization (an unconstitutional and egregious breach of the Bill of Rights), voted for $500 billion to continue Dick’s Private Empire in Iraq (while 70% of Americans favor withdrawal from Iraq and our National Debt continues to skyrocket past $9 Trillion—leaving our grandchildren’s grandchildren to sort this mess out while we continue to maintain an American Empire of 700+ military bases in 130+ countries around the world), ducked out on the vote for Kyl-Lieberman labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a “terrorist organization,” ducked out on the vote for the “Protect America Act” which granted King George and the Dicktator unprecedented ability to spy on American’s phone calls and internet traffic (hi NSA! Tell convicted felon Scooter Libby that I said hi!)—effectively repealing the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, opposes investigating and impeaching the Bush Laden Cabal for capital crimes and treason, favors the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007” which would effectively outlaw the American Revolution and contains the kind of vague language that George Orwell would be proud of, voted for the Defense Authorization Act of 2007 which granted the Dictator-In-Chief unprecedented authority to declare martial law at his discretion and use the National Guard as a police force within the United States without the consent of the respective state’s governors, voted for the REAL ID Act—without ANY debate in the Senate–which will impose an RFID micro-chipped National ID card on all state’s drivers licenses starting in 2009 (all U.S. passports are now REAL ID compliant and RFID micro-chipped as of 2005) –come and get your mark of the beast friends and countrymen, and whose wife is an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (along with Dick Cheney, Rudolf W. Giuliani, and Huckabilly’s advisors to name a few), will affect “change” in this nation’s Federal Government? What does Michelle Obama have in common with Dick Cheney’s and Rudolf W. Giuliani’s foreign policy vision and what does the Senator from Illinois think about her association with this group of NeoCon Globalists bent on One World Government?

    I guess this kind of “leadership” is considered “change” here in 1984. However, I still believe in the spirit of 1776 (aka real change).

    Of course, you will not hear these criticisms from Mr. Edwards or Ms. Clinton because their respective records are all very similar in these respects.

  • So the current meme of the hour is Clinton “going negative” and “tacking right.” Is there any, like, actual evidence of this?

    There will be a televised debate tonight. I will watch what happens before leaping to conclusions. But that’s just me I guess.

  • you should have looked me up – i work near what was RP HQ!
    were you riding around on “The Constitution Coach”?
    (and you say “you will be” to my question about being in Iowa – if you are, you should probably go on to another state. its too late here. but it was sweet that you creamed Giuliani.)

  • Just as I go to the trouble of defending the Clinton campaign from charges of “triangulation,” it turns around and starts blasting “liberal voting records.”

    And what have we learned?

  • “I think (hope) that Obama won in Iowa because of his very public religiosity. That’s what I don’t like about him.” –CH above.

    To some degree this has bothered me but I support Obama despite this. The ideal way for a politician to handle religion would be how the fictitious Arnold Vinick did on The West Wing in this clip:

    http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1868

    Unfortunately no candidate is likely to be able to say this.

    There are some mitigating factors which led me to support Obama despite the number of times religion has crept in to his campaign. One is that Obama has a problem with a whispering campaign against him, claiming that his is a Muslim. Some of his talk about his religious views are to counter this.

    Another reason is that Obama has also defended separation of church and state more strongly than I’ve heard any of the other current candidates:

    http://liberalvaluesblog.com//?p=1907

    Obama is certainly not perfect, but from the point of view of preserving separation of church and state Obama is our best choice. Perhaps his religious views might even be beneficial here. The religious right often tries to confuse support for a secular government with opposition to personal religious views. Obama provides an excellent example that this was not true.

  • Pingback: Obama’s Momentum Going Into New Hampshire - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

  • I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: the Clintons are moderate-to-conservative Republicans . They’re DLC scum all the way,

    If she’s taking advice from that leering sack of month-old pork rinds she shares a bed with, then this demonstrates all the talk of his “acumen” is as accurate as all the defenses of his “fidelity.”

    Having the Clintons try to “Sistah Souljah” Obama is proof of what a pair of traitors they are to the Democratic Party.

    • Comments are closed.