While the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to trade shots, both sides are simultaneously characterizing the other as the aggressor. The motivation, of course, is obvious: voters have (some) tolerance for political disputes in the heat of a competitive presidential campaign, but no one likes a bully.
Greg Sargent, in a terrific item, explores the “spin war” over which of the two leading Dems is perceived as “the fair-fighter being victimized by the other’s out-of-control aggression.” He thinks Obama is winning this angle of the campaign.
At risk of overgeneralizing, much media coverage and commentary right now appears to be hewing closer to the Obama campaign’s chosen narrative, which is roughly that the Clinton machine is using every gutter tactic at its disposal to halt the triumph of new politics and the making of history. […]
Big Dog’s entry, whatever its upsides, has made it far easier for Obama to carve out the role of victim for himself. That the Obama campaign has worked to squeeze that latter factor for advantage is overwhelmingly clear. There was a very palpable shift in the Obama camp’s strategy last week, when after weeks of responding to Bill Clinton’s criticism tentatively he went on ABC to hit back at both Clintons and argue that he was facing “two formidable opponents.”
The Obama campaign (no advisers were available for comment) has rightly pointed out that Bill’s criticism has only grown in volume, forcing them to respond more aggressively. And there’s little doubt that Bill’s criticism of Obama — blared through that big megaphone of his — has been brutally harsh and perhaps helped tip Nevada to Hillary.
At the same time, the lesser told part of this story is that the Obama campaign has very consciously — and skillfully — used this development to its tactical advantage, by casting Obama as the David heroically battling against a kind of two-headed Clintonian Goliath. “I can’t tell who I’m running against at times,” Obama said during the debate, in a refrain that the campaign’s been pushing ever since. Much of the press coverage of late has adopted this view and tone.
That sounds about right to me, but I’m still wondering whether Obama can win the “spin battle” while losing the “spin war.”
In the Democratic primaries, there may very well be a temptation to root for the little guy. Everyone loves an underdog, and in this contest, Obama is the scrappy challenger, facing the most powerful, monolithic Democratic machine in generations.
Indeed, Greg’s point highlights a prism through which all Clinton attacks may soon be filtered — every new criticism and/or misleading ad starts to look like yet another attempt by Goliath to crush David. After a while, all the attacks start to blur together as one big phenomenon: Clinton the Bully. Maybe Dems will respond to this, maybe not.
But the Clinton campaign’s rejoinder is obvious: “If David can’t beat Goliath in the primaries, he doesn’t deserve to face an even more ruthless foe in the general election.”
That’s the thing about looking like a “victim”; it has a limited shelf-life. It can generate some sympathy, and make the aggressor look a thug, but as I explored yesterday, in a presidential campaign, there may be a lot of Dems who don’t trust a sling-shot to get the job done.
In this sense, Obama should pivot — arguing in effect, “Yes, Clinton’s been the aggressor, and yes, I can take it and dish it out. But in the long run, while Clinton is throwing the kitchen sink at me, I’m going to connect with voters about the issues that matter most….”
Stay tuned.