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 "i Know You Are, But What Am I?"

THE PLANK FEBRUARY 6, 2008

"i Know You Are, But What Am I?"

BY AUTHOR INFO NEEDED

Sometimes, imitation is just the sincerest form of lameness, and Clinton adviser Mark Penn's effort to brand Barack Obama the "establishment" candidate is one of those occasions. As Mike reported, in a conference call this morning, Penn referred to Obama's "establishment campaign of big endorsements, money, and Super Bowl ads." But, of course, Obama's endorsements have appeared to be born more of love than of tribute (in contrast to Clinton's earlier-in-the-process hoard) and his money has come from smaller donors than Clinton's. The Super Bowl ad? Whatever you think of it (I wasn't terribly impressed), it was hardly an establishment move. (Any of you remember Bob Dole's big half-time promo? Me neither.)

Moreover, it's all just so fourth grade. Obama makes headway by framing himself (accurately) as a change agent? Clinton abruptly starts pitching herself as a change agent, too. Obama describes Clinton (again, accurately, at least in relative terms) as the status-quo candidate in last night's speech? This morning we have Penn's I'm-rubber-you're-glue routine. Next thing you know, Clinton will start attending rallies in a men's suit and skinny tie and talking about how much she loves "The Wire," too.

Silly, obvious fibs like this are one reason that so many in the media are skeptical of anything that comes out of the Clinton camp. It's an insult to the intelligence of the people being spun. (Massachusetts was an upset win for Clinton? Obama's the establishment candidate?)

But the worst part of it all is that the GOP has won the last two presidential elections largely by framing the Democratic nominee as book-smart but inauthentic, someone who really doesn't know who they are. Hillary's attempted reinventions over the last few weeks--from establishment juggernaut to counter-establishment rebel; from Strong Woman to Sensitive Soul; from "leader" to "change agent"--are just doing the GOP's general-election work for them.

Hillary Clinton is who she is, and she has plenty of substantive advantages in this race. But shamelessly trying to appropriate any message that seems to be working for Obama and constantly re-calibrating in light of every poll (last night, voters said they want "change" more than "leadership": which do you think we'll hear more of from Clinton in the coming week?) seem more likely than not to prove counterproductive. Such moves sour the media on her campaign and fill the GOP quiver with general election arrows. With Mitt Romney possibly getting out of the race (and probably relegated to non-factor regardless), there's an opening in the current political narrative for a transparent phony who will say anything to be elected. Clinton should be careful what she auditions for.

Update: I'm not the first to notice this habit. 

--Christopher Orr

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 18 comments

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

18 comments

Someone had to say it.  

Clinton would likely be a productive president, but she's a TERRIBLE candidate, and I can't imagine what voters who enthusiastically pull the lever for her are thinking.  

- kerouac9

February 6, 2008 at 4:06pm

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

"Obama describes Clinton (again, accurately, at least in relative terms) as the status-quo candidate in last night's speech?"

I guess that Obama is (at least in relative terms) the status-quo candidate as compared to Paul. So what? You seems are ready to explain away any spin from Obama camp.

My question is  why you  are  never   skeptical of anything that comes out of the Obama camp?.

- jacobt1

February 6, 2008 at 4:17pm

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

kerouac9,

I did enthusiastically pull the lever for her , because I 'm  thinking that .  "Clinton would likely be a productive president". If you understand this, why do you think that nobody else can understand this?

- jacobt1

February 6, 2008 at 4:20pm

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

"My question is  why you  are  never   skeptical of anything that comes out of the Obama camp?"

That's the beauty of Barack Obama. He's so darn likable (minus the occasional arrogance streak) that you actually believe him. And he's so "meta" in his interview answers and discussions (at least the television ones) with reporters that the reporters like him.

The Clintons treat the reporters like dirt (somtimes). Or the reporters treat the Clintons like dirt. Who knows whether the chicken or the egg came first,...but that's why we shouldn't nominate her! I don't care to find out.

- virginiacentrist

February 6, 2008 at 4:25pm

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

They are sometimes skeptical, but at least the Obama people don't pi$$ on you and tell you it's raining. You have to admit- Penn and Wolfson are particularly egregious with this stuff.

- miceelf

February 6, 2008 at 4:30pm

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

Jacobt1: Maybe it is because Obama has not yet given us any reason to be skeptical?  

For instance, as he says, his message has been the same when he's up and when he's down.  Clinton was firing off so many ridiculous press releases last night that they must believe that shear weight of the paper printouts would force their point of view to be accepted (oops, sorry about MO) Comeback in MA?  They seem to believe that 'framing' wins elections, and it probably used to (W was a master at it) but that politics is being rejected.  Even the McCain win points this out.  But Obama embodies the refreshing candor that we have all been hungering for.  

- dbhuff

February 6, 2008 at 4:32pm

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

jacobtl-

On the first point, I suppose it's true that in an Obama-Ron Paul race, Obama would be, relatively speaking, the establishment candidate. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, however. Penn was trying to claim that, relative to *Clinton*, Obama is the establishment candidate, a suggestion I think is laughable for the reasons I noted.

As for your "skepticism" question, one of the reasons I prefer Obama as a candidate is that, as a general rule, I don't see his campaign saying things that are transparently false or sleazy. (I did hate his infamous health-care flyer, and would have written about it if others here hadn't, but it was an exception to the rule.) Conversely, one of the factors that has soured me on Hillary Clinton's candidacy is what I see as its near-constant dissembling. And I don't mean merely the questions of candidate framing that came up in this item. I mean the after-the-fact claim that Florida and Michigan's delegates should be seated, after she won them essentially unopposed, and despite the fact that, prior to the contests, she had explicitly agreed, in writing, that they should not be seated. I mean the last-minute effort to close the special caucus sites in Nevada after Obama was endorsed by the casino workers, breaking another deal she had explicitly agreed to in the hopes of gaining a few extra votes (or, in this case, suppressing Obama's). I mean Bill Clinton's disreputable (and ultimately self-destructive effort) to brand Obama as just-another-Jesse-Jackson in South Carolina. And on and on.

You evidently think I'm not calling more attention to Obama sleaze because I'm biased. (And you're entitled to that opinion.) I think I'm not calling attention to Obama sleaze because, so far, there's been very little to call attention to.

- Chris Orr

February 6, 2008 at 4:38pm

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

BTW, this is a great comparison on ethics and transparency.

thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/.../barack-obama-vs-hillary-clinton-records-on-transparency-lobbyists-and-ethics

- dbhuff

February 6, 2008 at 4:38pm

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

" Maybe it is because Obama has not yet given us any reason to be skeptical? "

Obama will never give YOU any reason to be  skeptical.  This is so frightening.

This alone is good enough reason why Obama must me stopped.

- jacobt1

February 6, 2008 at 4:49pm

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

Yes.  I agree.  Obama must be stopped because he's overall a good guy who people like and who hasn't given enough reasons for people not to like him, without saying REZKO fifty million times.   What exactly is it about Obama you don't trust?  Orr and others have given you reasons for not liking Hillary.  I'm more than willing to listen.

- boneill

February 6, 2008 at 5:04pm

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

jacobtl - How you frame your anti-Obama case is, of course, up to you. But rather than vaguely (and repeatedly) demand that everyone else be more skeptical, you might explain what you consider concrete grounds for skepticism.

- Chris Orr

February 6, 2008 at 5:06pm

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

Of course, you are biased. Demography is the destiny. You might think that you are independent thinker, but you are following group thinking and voting pattern of your reference group.

Of course, Obama is the candidate of the establishment elite, however my point was that caims  that Clinton the status-quo candidate is a pure Obama spin and  dissembling. There is nothing wrong with spin or dissembling. This is a part of campaign, but it doesn’t mean that you need to repeat Obama spin.

BTW, can you provide the pointers  to confirm that “she had explicitly agreed, in writing, that they should not be seated.” ?

“I mean Bill Clinton's disreputable (and ultimately self-destructive effort) to brand Obama as just-another-Jesse-Jackson in South Carolina.”

Whatever Clinton said was  truthful. The facts can’t be disreputable.

Obama won South Carolina for the same reason Jesse-Jackson won there, for the same reason Romney won Nevada, ethnic solidarity. There is nothing wrong with that. However, I can’t understand how to admit obvious is disreputable?

- jacobt1

February 6, 2008 at 5:24pm

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

I'm not saing that I see a problem with people who like him. He is likable enough. However, there are reasons to be at least to be skeptical about him.

Health care is one subject where a skepticism is warranted.

Driving license for illegal immigrants is a pure transparent demagogy. As president, Obama would not be able  to give illegal immigrants a federal driving license. So, what he is talking about?

His and her plans about Iraq are artful dissembling.

BTW, Hillary ‘s overall a good girl  who people like and who hasn't given enough reasons for people not to like her, without saying Whitewater fifty million times.

- jacobt1

February 6, 2008 at 5:37pm

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

"You might think that you are independent thinker, but you are following group thinking and voting pattern of your reference group."

Thanks for clearing that up Jake!

- jhildner

February 6, 2008 at 5:48pm

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

Hi Chris Orr,

You were mistaken:

"and despite the fact that, prior to the contests, she had explicitly agreed, in writing, that they should not be seated"

She didn't do that but only:

www.nytimes.com/.../02dems.html

"Three of the major Democratic presidential candidates on Saturday pledged not to campaign in Florida, Michigan and other states trying to leapfrog the 2008 primary"

Hopefully, now you are going to support Hillary.

- jacobt1

February 6, 2008 at 6:04pm

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

No, I was not: www.cbsnews.com/.../main3768696.shtml

""There are more voters in Florida alone than there are in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina combined," Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle argued in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. This was the same Solis Doyle who last summer committed Clinton to signing the Florida boycott pledge, saying, "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process, and we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role."

Now, those "rules," "calendar," and "structure" specifically forbade Florida and Michigan from having their delegates seated if they went ahead with their early primary plans. You can parse all you want. But the fact of the matter, covered extensively throughout the media, is that the Clinton campaign blatantly violated the agreed boycott when, faced with an unanticipatedly strong challenge, they reversed themselves and began arguing the Florida and Michigan should have their delegates seated despite the fact (though, in fact, because of it) that neither race had been contested by the other candidates.

- Michelle Cottle

February 6, 2008 at 11:56pm

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

Whoops. That last response to jacobt1 was not by Michelle Cottle but rather by Chris Orr (i.e., me). We're married, and I was on her computer, and though I typed my name into the space in question, it evidently didn't take. Sorry for any confusion.

- Chris Orr

February 7, 2008 at 12:47am

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

I think Noam will have more to say on the Stump about Mark Penn's characteristically unpersuasive

- Anonymous

February 11, 2008 at 6:06pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close