SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Does Obama Need To Attack More?

THE PLANK JANUARY 24, 2008

Does Obama Need To Attack More?

BY JOSH PATASHNIK

In today's Politico, John Harris and Jim VandeHei pose the following hypothetical:

Imagine if at the next presidential debate Barack Obama--who is agitated about what he calls Bill Clinton’s misleading criticisms--cocked his head, smiled ruefully and, in Reaganesque “there you go again” tones, said something like this to Hillary Clinton: “You know, I admired some aspects of Bill Clinton’s presidency. But let’s recall that it was precisely these sort of too-cute-by-half statements that caused him to be reprimanded by a federal judge and stripped of his law license. Senator, you may want to go back to those days and that style of politics, but I think most Americans are ready to move on.” 

But obviously Obama can't do this. He has to win over partisan Democrats, particularly since most of the upcoming primaries are closed to independents (pdf). It's true there are quite a few Democrats who thought Clinton was sleazy, but it's nowhere near a majority of the party faithful, and most of them are probably already backing Obama anyway.

It's not uncommon to hear Democrats worry that Obama's reluctance to attack Hillary's record proves that he'll be too timid to take on the Republican candidate in the general election. There may be something to this. But consider: there are very, very few actual policy differences between Clinton and Obama large enough to be used as campaign issues (other than her war vote, which he's done his best to emphasize). This leaves him two options. One, he can try to attack Hillary's involvement in the sundry intrigues of the nineties. He's attempted to do this, but if he goes much further than he already has (as Harris and VandeHei suggest he do), he runs the real risk of alienating the very voters he needs.

His second option is to do what she's doing: cherry-pick votes and soundbites and distort them into essentially misleading attacks. So far he's been reluctant to do this. Is this principled or is it weak? That's in the eye of the beholder. But it certainly doesn't prove that he'd be unwilling to attack the Republican candidate in the general election, when there are going to be plenty of legitimate, substantive differences for him to hammer at.

--Josh Patashnik 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 14 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

14 comments

The problem is that he's letting her FRAME the debate - and by extension, him and his character.  Whenever she does that he needs to re-frame the question, re-frame the issue and re-frame his opponent.  When she says "You're incompetent.  I can manage government bureaucracies"  he needs to counter two-pronged: answer and re-frame.  The first part Obama did quite well in explaining the Hilary's assessment was flawed, but the second part he did almost not at all.  That would have meant saying not just "First of all, you're wrong and here's why" but also "and second of all, even if you can manage government bureaucracies, who cares?  You cannot unify the American people, you are partisan politics as usual and even if your the best darn bureaucracy manager this side of the Mississippi you can't give the American People what they really need which is AN AGENT OF CHANGE!  Her very "strength" as government bureaucrat par excellence then becomes turned against her as evidence that she's part of this same broken obsolete Washington system.  What good is it if you're good at managing something that's broken?  What good is it if you're a really great at computer programming in FORTRAN?    

- Gavriel Meir-Levi

January 24, 2008 at 1:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And if he'd been more honest, Al Gore would have won in 2000"

This is purely nonsense, and suicidal nonsense at that. If Barack Obama suggested for one cold second that Al Gore lost the election because of Bill Clinton rather than the Florida recount, he'd be apologizing for it for the rest of the primaries--which he'd lose.

(It's not even true, by the way. Gore ran a very solid campaign, won the popular vote, and had the voting disaster not happened, he'd have won Florida and the electoral count.)

I find it very unlikely that Hillary hasn't considered the possibility of Obama attacking her husband. Assuming he's stupid enough to take on the most popular ex-president, it's a safe bet she's got a response.

- jmkerr

January 24, 2008 at 1:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obviously, Obama has to come out and state clearly that the Clintons are being deceitful when they manipulate his positions. Even the Washington Post has stated that. And I like what ecolumbu has written. But it is a fine line- he is defending himself aggresively, and in his latest radio commercial in South Carolina clearly states that the Clintons have been lying. However, if he gets too negative, he runs a risk of turning potential voters off. Tricky. But better to hit back than to look weak. Sooner or later, though , (I hope sooner) the sleazy Clinton campaign will backfire.

- irunkle

January 24, 2008 at 2:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The strength of Hillary's campaign is that Dems fondly remember the 90s. As long as most voters go to the polls with that same fondness in mind, Obama won't win. I don't think it's about attacking Bill or Hillary directly, but rather their term as president. Obama's starting making some points about the weakness of their 50+1 strategy and its limitations in really getting anything done, but he needs to find a message that resonates more. He could remind people that the Clintons lost Congress in 1994 and Dems didn't get it back until 2006. Given the Clintons unpopularity and their inability to reach beyond the base, will that happen again?

- aschindler

January 24, 2008 at 2:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

With the yet to be heralded emergence of "Freedom's Watch" the general election is going to boil down to an unmitigated propaganda war.  If Senator Obama is worthy, surely the next few following weeks versus  the Clinton machine will bear this out.  Or not.

- Bukharin

January 24, 2008 at 2:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

he can also do what he's been doing since October, hammering at Clinton's character by mischaracterizing her positions or stressing things she said about complex issues and making them seem that she flip-flops or doesn't believe in anything (and which he decried in "The Audacity of Hope.")   It's amazing that he has been able to go so negative against Hillary and yet have the media, pundits, bloggers and Dems keep talking about him as this innocent positive campaigner who hasn't gone negative enough.  I don't know if that's more Obama's skill (making a negative attack seem not a negative attack) or the media's general affinity for Obama--hopefully he can keep that up against John McCain and Mitt Romney?

- sprechs

January 24, 2008 at 2:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

He should attack like this:

www.youtube.com/watch

- ralphnelle

January 24, 2008 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama's new radio add: "She will say anything, but change nothing" reframes the issue from him on defense to her willingness to play fast an loose to win.  While some would say this takes away from the 'new politics', again he's talking about the character issue.  And it doesn't even come close to the sleeze, slime and hyperbolic explosions of the Clintonistas...

- dbhuff

January 24, 2008 at 3:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama need initiate the mantra "After 16 years, it is now time to restore personal AND political integrity to the White House."   It is a positive statement to which a Clinton cannot give a credible rejoinder or co-opt as their own.

- gbittner

January 24, 2008 at 3:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama can't say this -- not exactly.  Not even I -- who back Obama 100 % -- would like to hear this and would consider it a low blow.  He should respond in "there you go again" tones, though.  He can't appear *bothered* by bullshit, even as he has to respond to it.  I actually thoguht he did well in the debate, and the extent to which it was a "cage match" is getting overplayed a bit.  But still, he should tame the lawyerly agitation when getting into it.  I know how he feels and am sympathetic, but you risk coming off looking petty and childish, and the voters say screw you both.  He should compare unfair attacks against him to those made against Democrats, including *Clinton*.  He should frame the issue as, she's playing the same GOP-style games that she and Bill were victim to, that Hillary's failed health care proposal was victim to, that Gore and Kerry were victim to, and we're all tired of it.  She knows first hand the sort of destruction caused by gutter politics, distortions to score cheap points, so it's disappointing to see her engaging in it herself.  I personally think he can only be helped by saying repeatedly that he has the utmost respect for Hillary and Bill while saying strongly that he has the right prescription for here and now.

- jhildner

January 24, 2008 at 3:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And it doesn't even come close to the sleeze, slime and hyperbolic explosions of the Clintonistas... - dbhuff

Nor does it begin to approach the smear awaiting either of them in the general election.

Either will be portrayed as the anti-Christ and lover of bin Laden - for starters.

- Bukharin

January 24, 2008 at 3:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

sprechs:  Not sure what distortions you're talking about.  Do you have a link?  Warning:  You're on dangerous ground with me if it's about the war.  Her defense of her vote (which isn't to say that there are no good defenses) is laughable and very disappointing.

- jhildner

January 24, 2008 at 3:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama's best weapon? Mockery.

Right after a recent debate he belittled Hillary's non-answer about her greatest weakness by suggesting that he should have taken the easy route, too, and said that he often liked to help little old ladies across the street who didn't want it. It was a great line, it made Hillary look ridiculous and he managed to deliver it while flashing that trademark smile.

- BHLnyc

January 24, 2008 at 3:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"She knows first hand the sort of destruction caused by gutter politics, distortions to score cheap points, so it's disappointing to see her engaging in it herself."

This is a great line. I think it'd be effective.

- ralphnelle

January 24, 2008 at 3:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close