2008 Destroying the Democratic Nominee in an Attempt to Save a Candidacy?
posted by on March 3 at 13:05 PM
The Clinton campaign thinks it has—finally—found a way to gain traction against Obama on the potentially election-defining issue of national security.
The strategy is: Discount Obama’s Iraq war opposition as just an old speech from before he was in the Senate (which Clinton has been doing for a while now), but pair that attack with an argument that while Obama was in the Senate he not only had a much more nuanced take on the Iraq war than he currently lets on, but also fell down on his job as chair of a subcommittee overseeing NATO operations in Afghanistan.
I have no idea why it’s taken the Clinton campaign so long to come up with this attack formula, but it’s a more potent one than they’ve trotted out in the past. It hits Obama on style (relying heavily on the power of words) and on substance (his actions, and non-actions, in the Senate). And, whether you agree with the attack or not, it does add some heft to the long-running Clinton critique: That while Obama sure sounds good, he’s just not ready or experienced enough to lead America in a dangerous world.
But coming so late, does this line of attack risk softening Obama up on national security in a way that ends up benefiting John McCain far more than Clinton? We’ll find out tomorrow whether Clinton has saved her candidacy with this, but if she hasn’t, and she stays in and keeps up this drumbeat, it seems to me that she’s going to do real harm to the Democrats’ chances in November.
It also seems to me that her campaign knows this—and perhaps doesn’t care? Here’s the latest memo to land in my in-box from Clinton strategist Mark Penn:
To: Interested PartiesFrom: Mark Penn
Date: Monday, March 03, 2008
Re: Why Hillary Clinton is Ready to be Commander-in-Chief
In the last few days, serious and significant question about Senator Barack Obama have been raised, which have made this election a test about who is ready to be Commander-in-Chief on day one. We believe that after the votes are counted tomorrow, only one candidate will have passed that test, and that will be Hillary Clinton.In fact, just by raising the issue, we have seen a defensive reaction from Sen. Obama and his campaign. The bottom line: If Sen. Obama can’t convince voters in his own party that he is the best able to protect our country, how will he convince all Americans in a general election against Sen. McCain?
Just over three years ago, Barack Obama was a state senator in Springfield, Illinois. During that time, in 2002, he delivered his Iraq speech at an anti-war rally. That’s the same speech Barack Obama is using as his major qualification to be Commander-in-Chief of the United States.
In 2004, when he was running for the United States Senate, Barack Obama struck a very different tone. He said that his position on the war was the same as George Bush’s. Then, after he arrived in the US Senate, Obama voted the same way as Hillary Clinton. In fact, it took him 17 months to deliver a speech in the Senate against the Iraq war.
When it comes to the war in Afghanistan, Senator Obama has said that we should be doing far more, and that the United States has abdicated responsibility in Afghanistan. Obama made this claim while he was in charge of the subcommittee with oversight over NATO in Afghanistan – and yet he didn’t hold a single meeting. When asked about his inaction, Obama admitted: “I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So, it is true that we haven’t had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.”
National security is the first and most solemn duty of the President. Every president makes that pledge when they take the oath of office – to protect and defend our country. Our next president has a job to do – to end the war in Iraq and win the war in Afghanistan, while keeping our nation safe.
Hillary Clinton has the strength and experience to give our country a better and safer future. She has the support of 30 generals and admirals. They believe she has met every test to be Commander-in-Chief on day one…
If Barack Obama says it’s fear mongering to talk about how Senator Clinton will protect America, he is going to have a rough time up against John McCain. This is not a debate he can duck with two wars going on. Hillary is best prepared to go toe-to-toe with John McCain. She is the best candidate to end the war in Iraq, keep us safe, and restore our credibility around the world on day one.
Hillary's right, after all. This November, I'm voting for the one with the most experience. Thanks, Mark Penn!
I agree, I'm voting for the candidate with the most legislative experience - Sen Obama!
First lady doesn't count, unless we're hiring a hostess ...
A headline on HuffPo called Mark Penn "Hillary's Tumor."
So true, so very true.
Mark Penn's new book "15 Ways to Destroy the Democratic Party and establish one party rule" coming out in January 2009.
I love how voting the same as Clinton is listed as a negative.
Mark Penn is the one Hillary will have to blame for dragging her campaign down.
She wants to talk of change and who did Mark Penn's PR firm represent? Blackwater!
When Hillary wanted to appear tough, what did she do. Voted against the landmine ban treaty that was proposed (Obama voted for it.)
That's change (some of) you can believe in.
Could you provide a list of points HRC is allowed to make.
Also provide exact wording she is allowed to use for every question.
Oh and you have covered an email from Penn and an interview with ABC where she doesn't answer just right and another 3 am youtube ad but not the trial that started today with links here, here, here and here to Sun Times stories.
Sweet -- it'll be awesome when they both all they have fighting eachother, ending up in a nailbiting superdelegate vote in august, all thier donors tapped, with McCain laughing all the way to the bank. No matter who wins the nomination, it's looking increasingly likely they'll be bloodied and spent at the end, and McCain will saunter into the White House.
Remember how much anger and hate was poured on us independant/3rd party voters in 00 and 04? It'll be really ugly to see this in November, with all the supporters of the nominee screaming at all the supporters of the one who lost about how they threw the election away.
So where's the silver lining in all of this? A split of the democratic party into two minor parties? A change of voting methods to ranked voting
(please god, please)? A national, 1-day primary? Abolition of the elecoral college?
Sweet -- it'll be awesome when they both give all they have fighting eachother, ending up in a nailbiting superdelegate vote in august, all thier donors tapped, with McCain laughing all the way to the bank. No matter who wins the nomination, it's looking increasingly likely they'll be bloodied and spent at the end, and McCain will saunter into the White House.
Remember how much anger and hate was poured on us independant/3rd party voters in 00 and 04? It'll be really ugly to see this in November, with all the supporters of the nominee screaming at all the supporters of the one who lost about how they threw the election away.
So where's the silver lining in all of this? A split of the democratic party into two minor parties? A change of voting methods to ranked voting
(please god, please)? A national, 1-day primary? Abolition of the elecoral college?
Mark Penn is the democrat version of Karl Rove. If you like Mark Penn, I suggest vote Hillary because it will be him, not her, that sets the tone in the white house.
And for those "undecided" voters, I suggest you take a peak at excerpts from his book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0446580961/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-8125726-2209758#reader-link
You want that in the white house? He is like the network executives in the Simpsons. She is the poochie the dog of the presidential race; calculated to win exactly 50% + 1 of the vote and never piss anybody off.
Ick.
Oh come on, as if this issue wouldn't have come up in the general election. Address it and move on, crybabies.
ps- I love the idea that addressing someone's Senate record (or lack thereof) is hitting below the belt. Nice revolution you've got going there.
What a crybaby post this was.
Obama admitted in the debate he didn't do much as chair of that subcommittee on NATO because he was too busy campaigning.
Cry, cry whine whine, look mommy, the other candidate is being critical! MAke them stop it!!!!!
Meanwhile it's still verboten to cover the Rezko/land gift/"he's been my buddy for 17 years so I'm not giving up my house even though the crook helped me get it by going in with me on a land deal and gee whiz everyone else in Chicago kenw he was crooked but not me" story.
s
I would like to know exactly and specifically how Hillary Clinton's vaunted "experience" qualifies her more than Barack Obama to be commander-in-chief.
And I don't think that John "Keating 5" McCain will be spending a lot of time in the general discussing who did what for whose contributors.
Oh, and unPC: It's not "verboten" to cover Rezko, it's actually the most-emailed article on the Washington Post web site today. Sorry to spoil your little conspiracy theory.
Mark Penn shifted his campaign to helping McCain starting about three weeks ago.
Classic Penn. The memo is titled "Why Hillary Clinton is Ready to be Commander-in-Chief" and there is exactly nothing in the memo that actually specifies why she is. Nor does the commercial, I might add. I am intrigued though: does anyone have any idea why Hillary Clinton IS ready to be Commander-in-Chief?
Heaven forbid someone "do real harm to the Democrats’ chances in November"!
Where was that ethic when Obama was running his "Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected" ads?
Where was that during his "race-baiting" shenanigans?
Hillary took the high road too long. If Obama's scorched-earth campaign takes the nomination, he'll have to to his best with what's left of the party (or what's left of what's left of the party after they find out where he really stands).
If Obama is the nominee, I will gladly consider embracing the New Post-Partisanship.
@10,
There's one fundamental difference. Karl Rove wins elections.
If we want experience ... well, isn't Sen Clinton arguing we should hire Sen McCain?
Yeah. Real experience.
But even worse judgment.
the educated voters, clinton, have already known this fact from the very beginning and they didn't have to read it from her website either :)
What experience does Clinton have to make her the better person to answer the phone at 3am? Experience sleeping in the White House next to Bill and nudging him awake so he could answer the phone when it rang?
Get a grip,
Most emailed story is not mentioned on the Slog. That's the point.
of all the hypocritical things i've heard yet...this is the most laughable. to hint that Hillary is evil for making Obama look bad and therefore damage his chances against McCain? Are you truly suggesting that we criticize her for this?
What have all you Hillary-haters been doing all along? It wasn't until recently that Obama broke clearly into the lead - a month ago you were all vehemently trashing someone who clearly had chances of winning the candidacy (Hillary) and the whole world was watching. INCLUDING and ESPECIALLY the Republicans.
Barf.
This election is supposed to be all about hope and change but I feel like I'm seeing the worst of my fellow citizens, not the best.
I agree - all this divisiveness and back-stabbing is only hurting the Democratic Party. Obama should do the honorable thing and get out now.
Hey unPC, when is your girl going to release her tax returns? Also if we're bringing up Tony Rezko (lovely picture of him with Bill and Hillary by the way) can we also bring up Marc and Denise Rich, The New Square pardons, Norman Hsu, her hiring of Mark "Union Buster" Penn, the failure of the Clintons to release the donor list for the Clinton library?
I can't wait for all this to be over. I wish I was an uninformed teenager again when the nominee just magically appeared at the democratic national convention. Primary? What's a primary? Ahhh, the good old days. Still, part of me hopes Obama loses, because I think he has nowhere to go but up. If Hillary wins, great, a democrat for president, and Obama can run in 2016, all nice and prepared. If Hillary loses, even better. Then we can nail the coffin on the Clintons for good, and her supporters can turn their attention to Janet Napolitano, or Gregoire.
Today is March 3rd, and, as predicted, Hillary is destroying the democratic party with her attacks, smears, and negative campaigning. I'm a life-long democrat, but I swear that if Hillary wins the nomination, I'm going to vote for McCain, who, because of his age will likely only have 1 term in office. And that way, Obama can come back in 2012 and have a legitimate argument against Hillary (i.e. she couldn't win) if she chooses to run again. Look, I'm not a misogynist, and I don't dislike Hillary because she is a woman or a "democrat" (even though I doubt this at times). I dislike her because she is inauthentic. Why can't more people see this!? How many different personas has she tried to convey during the last month? It's depressing. I actually DID have hope, and I even donated money to a campaign for the first time ever this year because I was so excited...thanks Hillary, thanks for destroying my hope and calling it a fairy tale...that's precisely the type of inspiration we need in this trying time!!!
Curious that he repeats the common Bushco lie:
"National security is the first and most solemn duty of the President. Every president makes that pledge when they take the oath of office – to protect and defend our country."
But that's wrong: it's the Constitution that the president takes an oath to protect and defend:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
This goes hand-in-hand with Hillary's adoption of Bush's exceedingly disgusting insinuation of the phrase "in America" after any and all statements about domestic situations in a cheap attempt to seem patriotic.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).