Ah, the advantages of front-runnerdom. For months, Hillary Clinton enjoyed the benefits of having huge leads in every poll, in every state, leading her to remain largely above the fray. She had no motivation to lash out her Democratic rivals — why bother attacking a candidate who\u2019s losing? — and could remind voters that she was doing her part to keep the race positive and issue-oriented.<\/p>\n
Of course, now the race is tightening. Clinton\u2019s lead in Iowa<\/a> has all but vanished, and her margin in New Hampshire<\/a> is shrinking quickly. Given this landscape, it\u2019s probably not too big a surprise that Clinton would go negative \u2013 but I didn\u2019t expect her to go this<\/i> negative<\/a>.<\/p>\n With a new poll showing her losing ground in the Iowa caucus race, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) mounted a new, more aggressive attack against Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Sunday, raising direct questions about his character, challenging his integrity and forecasting a sharp debate over those subjects in the days ahead.<\/p>\n Clinton has hammered Obama recently over his health-care proposal, arguing that he is misleading voters because it omits millions of people and would not lower costs. But Sunday, in a dramatic shift, she made it clear that her goal is to challenge Obama not just on policy but also on one of his strongest selling points: his reputation for honesty.<\/p>\n “There’s a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we’re willing to fight for,” Clinton told reporters here. She said voters in Iowa will have a choice “between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who’s walked the walk.”<\/p>\n Asked directly whether she intended to raise questions about Obama’s character, she replied: “It’s beginning to look a lot like that.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The strategy isn\u2019t hard to understand. Obama\u2019s recent upswing is based, at least in part, on the idea that he\u2019s an honest candidate with integrity. So, instead of targeting Obama where he\u2019s weak (say, years of experience in statewide office), the Clinton campaign is targeting him where he\u2019s strong — an approach to negative campaigning Karl Rove has advocated for years. (This isn\u2019t to compare Clinton to Rove at all; it\u2019s just to note the general trend.)<\/p>\n But attacking a Democratic rival on matters of character is not only rough, it brings with it huge risks. The new Clinton strategy, acknowledged by her senior advisers as an intentional pivot, carries significant risks and could produce a potential backlash if voters perceive her as growing too negative. The Register’s poll also found that Clinton was seen by Iowa voters as the most negative of the Democratic contenders. […]<\/p>\n Clinton, campaigning across Iowa on Sunday, appeared to be spoiling for a fight with her chief Democratic rival in national polls — even at one point describing the battle as “fun.”<\/p>\n “I have said for months that I would much rather be attacking Republicans, and attacking the problems of our country, because ultimately that’s what I want to do as president. But I have been, for months, on the receiving end of rather consistent attacks. Well, now the fun part starts.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/p>\n