Hillary Goes Negative on Obama

by: Matt Stoller

Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 23:51


And so Clinton goes negative on Obama with both the assertions he's breaking FEC laws and taking money from lobbyists, and lying about policy.

Asked if Mr. Obama had a character problem, Mrs. Clinton first said it was up for voters to determine, but then added:

"It's beginning to look a lot like that - it really is, where we can't get a straight answer on health care, where somebody runs on ethics and not taking money from certain people is found to have at least skirted if not violated F.E.C. rules and to use lobbyists and Pac money to do so. You're going to have ask the Obama campaign, but I have said for months that I would much rather be attacking Republicans and attacking 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," Mrs. Clinton said, punctuating the word "fun." "We're into the last month, and we're going to start drawing the contrasts, because I want every Iowans to have accurate information when they make their decisions."

Her campaign also uses a kindergarden essay of his in which he wrote that he wanted to be President as evidence of early ambition.

More substantively, she's criticizing him for not covering 15 million people with his health care plan while claiming it's universal, and argues that it shows a lack of honesty.  As a general rule, I like arguments about policy when a candidate ties them to character.  That's what Gore and Kerry didn't do to Bush.

This is very good development.  There has been no negative critique of Obama from anyone, and it's useful to see what happens when tested.  And Clinton hasn't had to take anyone down, so it's useful to see what she does when tested.  As Mike Lux said, the Clintons are at their best when their backs are up against a wall.  While I wouldn't call Clinton's back up against a wall, it's not looking like she's leading anymore, at least according to OpenLeft's very own Chris Bowers.

Meanwhile, I look forward to hearing more from Mike about Iowa.  Emily's List has set up YouGoGirl.com, a fascinating experiment in internet niche politicking moving to turn out caucus voters for Hillary.  This is some interesting institutional innovation.

As I've written before, I'm (mildly) more supportive of Obama and Edwards than Clinton.  The real issue, though, is Iraq, and that's what activists need to begin focusing on.
Matt Stoller :: Hillary Goes Negative on Obama

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Hillary Goes Negative on Obama | 31 comments
yea, iraq is a political sledgehammer (4.00 / 1)
and even if the dems don't use it, the activist left can.

Iraq is the trump card. I see it being used to hack away pieces of the [already dying] Regan coalition. It can pull rural voters away from business elites. It can win over snobby suburban trophy wives.

Now, do I really want these people in my coalition? At the very least, I want them OUT of the GOP's coalition.

Iraq is a LONG TERM PROJECT. It's one hell of a sacrifice that the American people weren't prepared for. I don't know if we'll be able to get a withdrawal any time soon, but when we do, it won't be 'victory' and it will be a gaping wound to the military-industrial complex (and, sadly, the rest of America...)

undecided Iowans who are most concerned about Iraq (0.00 / 0)
could break to Richardson. He is still getting the serious consideration of a large number of Iowans. In fact, if he weren't so pro-corporate on economic issues, he would be getting a lot more of the peacenik crowd.

I know of several former Kucinich supporters who are on the fence--they like Edwards for his economic policies and his focus on poverty and social justice, but they like Richardson on Iraq and on immigration (he supported drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants in NM).

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
Kucinich (0.00 / 0)
So, if Richardson gets half of the people who are currently considering Kucinich, that would be nearly .7% of potential caucusers!

Don't get me wrong, I love the guy, but let's not pretend like the Kucinich coalition is meaningful in any way. Hell, even writing the words "Kucinich coalition" made me chuckle.

[ Parent ]
What's "meaningful" (4.00 / 1)
When you're on the frontline of a campaign you have to believe that EVERY SINGLE VOTE is meaningful. It's what motivates you through the long hard slog of it.
[ Parent ]
Scope (0.00 / 0)
You're confusing scopes. Every single vote *is* meaningful, and every single vote is equal to every single other vote.

However, every group of voters is not equal to every other group of other voters. The group of Kucinich supporters is not equal to the group of, say, single women.

[ Parent ]
Agree but... (0.00 / 0)
The commenter was clearly speaking within the context of a frontline campaign situation when she said that "I know of several former Kucinich supporters" who could make a meaningful difference in what's going on in Iowa. I think this falls into the "every single vote" scope of an election. Maybe her observation is an exaggeration, but it is still meaningful within the scope of Iowa. Of course, this can't be projected out into a meaningful national scope at all. So I agree with you there.
[ Parent ]
Focusing on Iraq (4.00 / 1)
I'd like to see a candidate make the explicit case that Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war because she thought that was what would be best for future presidential hopes.  We already had Bob Shrum admitting that he and other advisors were pushing Edwards in that direction (whether or not that argument convinced Edwards is up for debate).  It's a fairly easy and obvious attack to make and fits a narrative of her as someone who places personal gain over principle and brings into question whether or not she will pander on Iran in the future.

Obama or Edwards or whoever might not want to make this attack directly and might want to employ surrogates to do the dirty work, but it's a front of attack that a smart campaigner should explore.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

I forgot (0.00 / 0)
that it might be good if you could prove this assertion.  Otherwise, be prepared to eat it.
[ Parent ]
What are you contending? (0.00 / 0)
That 'Loser' Schrum didn't advise Edwards to vote to authorize?

Or that 'Loser' Schrum didn't advise The Hill to do the same thing?

The second might be arguable. The first is not.


Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
The Vote Supporting AUMF was a political calculation (0.00 / 0)
No doubt about it.  True for every congress member that had any kind of ambition to run for President in 2008. One issue, as you suggest, is whether any individual candidate made their decision on how to vote based primarily on political, or principle grounds.  But, for me, that issue is somewhat superficial.

I see it as an issue of consitutional duty.  That resolution - regardless of how one voted on it - provided a means for the US Congress to abicate their duties with respect to war-making by the US.  The fact that this particular "war" offered a relatively rare opportunity for the US Congress to revive its war-making powers (or war-stopping powers, as the case may be) because the debate and vote could have been conducted BEFORE the invasion began, only serves to underscore the sad fact that the congress put political expedience before leadership, or the US constitution. 

If these folks can play so fast and loose with the duties of their particular office - what can they say to convince anyone that they won't do it again?

Why do I keep harping on this issue?  Because its bed-rock.  The Executive branch has been tearing away at this balance of power for decades - it allowed every President to initiate and fight many "wars" without any effective opposition from the congress.  It enabled the fiasco in Iraq - and, if allowed to continue unchecked, it will result in more wars based on unsubstantiated and cherry-picked "intelligence". 

Now - if one of the Democratic candidates wants to start calling it like it is - that is, questioning why those who were in the US Congress in 2003 abicated their consitutional duties, it would be a rare glimpse of truth.  The excuses and apologies offered thus far are beside the point and dodge the real issue.  Making war is not about trusting the President, or depending on the executive to select which intelligence reports are pertinent.  The entire point of giving the war declaration powers to the Congress is to make certain that such claims and reports be scrutinized, challenged and debated.  Who knows, maybe if Edwards had supported a Declaration of War proposal, he might have figured out how badly Bush was snowing him BEFORE he voted to give the Neo-Con junta a blank check.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Focusing on Iraq (4.00 / 1)
That attack about Sen Clinton's Iraq vote has been made over and over again already.  So far as I can tell it didn't work out but maybe the spinning of the Kyl-Liebermann vote hurt her some.
IRAQ (0.00 / 0)
Bill's spinning about Iraq didn't help Hillary the other day. Frankly, I think this will hurt her in Iowa.

Her internal poll's must be bad, otherwise she wouldn't go to personnel attacks. This will drive her negatives up even higher.

[ Parent ]
It's a tie in the end run (4.00 / 1)
He's been attacking her.  They brought up his childhood presidential ambitions because he smeared her with a lie about hers.

What he said about her "long held plans"  was said in NY last week...it's based on a story from the Gerth/Natta biography that was immeidately denied by it supposed source, the historian Taylor Branch as soon as he saw itin the book.

So only a fool would not attack back.  It's fascinating how when Obama drops garbage charges about her, they still don't think he stinks.

 

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Who's the fool now? (0.00 / 0)
I think that the Clinton camp made a major mistake with their lines of attack.  They lack credibility and reek of desperation.  They also further reenforce more negative narratives about Hilary than they create or strengthen about Barack.

On long term plans.  It is a commonly held assumption, true or not, that Hilary has been planning her presidential run since 1992, rumors have been actively circulating about her presidential ambitions since 2000.  She chooses not to deny that she has been planning her campaign for that long.

There is a difference between planning and daydreaming.  There is concrete evidence that Barack daydreamed about being president when he was in Kindergarden.  He did not have a plan to get there at that time, nor did he start hiring political consultants or lining up favors from politicians around the country.  Even in law school his ambitions were vague dreams, he wanted to be a politician maybe president some day.  Again no evidence that he had a plan to get there.

In this Hilary is calling in political favors that she and her husband have been doing for at least 20 years.  Even if they have not actively been planning Hilary's presidential campaign this entire time, they have been building a network of political capital and quid pro quo and they are ready to cash that in.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

[ Parent ]
What is her point (4.00 / 2)
about the HopeFund donations?  Is she saying he is bribing candidates for their support?  I look for him to come out and challenge her to say who he has bribed? Does she think Tom Harkin would take their money if that was the deal or even the implication?  Is that what she is saying?


Party buildng (4.00 / 1)
I think that what Hilary is trying to say is that party building is unethical and that candidates for higher office should not attempt to raise and distribute funds to people whom they may wish to ask for support later.

Certainly she was very reluctant to help her fellow Democrats in 2006.  Perhaps she thought that the only ethical behavior was for her to amass a large war chest for her Senatorial race in which she faced no viable opposition.  Then to keep that money for her Presidential race, rather that make sure that as many Democrats as possible won in 2006.

Obama spent that year traveling the country as one of our most popular fundraisers in hotly contested seats.  Seats we won to win us a majority in the House and Senate.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

[ Parent ]
Amen, Luam. I prefer team players (4.00 / 1)
to candidates who are only in politics for themselves, the Party be damned.  I also think these attacks on Obama by Hillary are pathetic, not good at all.  Another post where I disagree with Matt Stoller.
[ Parent ]
The funny thing (4.00 / 1)
in a sick, twisted, ironic, not funny at all kind of way, is that Obama's HopeFund PAC contributed $5,000 to Clinton in 2006.  We all know she just stockpiled an obscene amount of money and then transferred $10,000,000 to her Presidential campaign.  So you could look at it as HopeFund contributing money to fund her Presidential bid.  The question now is when will she come through with the endorsement?
[ Parent ]
Obama hasn't been through a tough campaign (0.00 / 0)
We are about to see what he is made of.

Of course, this would work better for Hillary if her surrogates hadn't spent all of November whining about the mean boys attacking the girl every time someone tried to point out policy differences.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

His 2004 primary was tough. NT (4.00 / 1)
.
[ Parent ]
HIllary goes negative on Obama = Edwards smiling (4.00 / 1)
The more those two start attacking each other, the more Edwards is going to climb in the polls.  Iowans, moreso than even the rest of the country, don't like negative campaigning.  This will hurt them both.  It's probably the best strategy for Clinton, as Obama's more dangerous nationally, but it's still risky.
Sorry but it ain't gonna work.... (0.00 / 0)
at least with this line of attack. It's not that I think going negative on Obama cannot work, if I were advising here I might even advise her to do this. This just seems to be a very week line of attack. Both the way she worded her attack and the subject matter in general. I don't think this is going to swing many Iowa voters back over to her side of the aisle.

*** "But I have been for months on the receiving end of rather consistent attacks - well now the fun part starts," Mrs. Clinton said, punctuating the word "fun." "We're into the last month, and we're going to start drawing the contrasts, because I want every Iowans to have accurate information when they make their decisions." - Hillary from Matt's post, I still haven't figured out how to make a quote box :(  ***


Why does she think it is good to tell voters that she thinks attacking people is 'fun,' with a George W. style smirk I'm picturing...  More important, what contrasts is she drawing here? She is accusing him of taking money from lobbyist and 'skirting the F.E.C.' The former she openly admits she participates in and the latter has been widely reported to have also been a tactic she herself employed! (directing PAC money to early primary states, where the hell else do they expect him to send it?)

I'm not even trying to argue here that she is wrong, I'm assuming she is right about what she accuses Obama of. The only problem is those are all things that she either admits to doing or has been reported as doing so in pointing these out she fails to draw any actual CONTRASTS.

Not the kind of thing I think will swing her much voters I doubt many are basing their decision on PAC money or basing their support for Obama on some weird assumption that every dollar of his multi-million $ political warchest was built with perfectly clean money straight out of the working man Joe Sixpack's paycheck.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

Obama's response (0.00 / 0)
if he's smart, will be to brand every attack as Clinton playing politics, reinforcing the storyline that Clinton is too divisive and unlikable to win the general. He'll have to careful though - if he gets caught up in the back and forth, it gives Edwards a window to move ahead and race to a win, the second best option for Clinton.
Old news, the American people know who's really bought and paid for (4.00 / 2)
This broke like a week ago, and is largely a nonissue. 

The people know who's been bought and is pandering and taking money from every special interest group out there, big oil, the pharmaceutical lobby, the insurance lobby etc. they're all filling the coffers of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign.

Her health-care plan which places the onus and burden on individual Americans and not the insurance companies, where it rightly belongs, is just one example. When the insurance lobbyists and CEOs heard that Hillary's health care plan was going to require every American to begin paying them, otherwise their wages will be garnished, their tax refunds confiscated, and we will be turned over to collection agencies and bill collectors if we can't pay,  they immediately fell in love with Hillary Clinton, because she wants to make all their dreams come true.  It may have been just a political ploy, but one that the health-care industrial complex will hold her to should she become president.

Stop Resisting It, HRC Is Your Candidate (0.00 / 0)
You live for the fight!  When she says "now the fun part starts", I bet you get physically excited!  You need a brawler!  Who better than a 5'6" walking piece of scar tissue!  Pray on your knees for a steelcage death match between Clinton and Guiliani!  And then when she gets elected, you can fight her for not being progressive enough!  Perfect!
Hillary and bribery (4.00 / 1)
All the candidates know the rules and generally play by them, and that's fine, so long as everything is within the bounds of the law. I wonder what happened to Tom Vilsack's campaign debt after he dropped out and endorsed Hillary.  I'm not saying what's right and what's wrong, and it's all legal, but I can't tolerate a candidate who points out the splinter in the eye of another but ignores the plank in their own.
Speak No Evil. (0.00 / 0)
There has been no negative critique of Obama from anyone, and it's useful to see what happens when tested.

Thank god somebody had the balls to make this statement!

Obama's response (0.00 / 0)
Aside from their press-released responses, the Obama campaign also started a website.  Check it out:

http://hillaryattack...

Mainly it seems like they're trying to keep the high road in their responses, so as to make Hillary look petty and not get dragged down in Iowa.

Here are some of the press release stuff:

"  [b]This presidential campaign isn't about attacking people for fun[/b], it's about solving people's problems, like ending this war and creating a universal health care system. Washington insiders might think throwing mud is fun, but the American people are looking for leadership that can unite this country around a common purpose, and that's what I'll continue to offer in this campaign."

I think Hillary calling this the "fun" part was a stupid mistake, and the Obama campaign would be wise to reference that in every response to her from here on out.
------------

...Clinton case here, concluding with this deadpan note: "In kindergarten, Sen. Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President.'"

Obama spokesman Bill Burton responds: "I'm sure tomorrow they'll attack him for being a flip-flopper because he told his second grade teacher he wanted to be an astronaut."
------------

Both effective and smart responses IMO

took a chicago paper to call a spade a spade (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Go Hill! (0.00 / 0)
And when it gets too hot, GO BARACK!!! Negative attacks at this stage are good. Mostly because ...

Say hello to President Edwards.

Agree that the battle is good (0.00 / 0)
to a degree. But I am very worried about the effect on the general.
Hillary Goes Negative on Obama | 31 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox