Antisocial

This column is not ignoring Sen. Barack Obama's contention that Hillary Clinton refuses to say how she'd fix Social Security ... it's just the old brain has no original thoughts to add to the scrum.

Also, tomorrow night's debate is certainly going to advance this charge one way or the other.

The challenge is not whether Obama can or will say Hillary Clinton's name or whether he will find something to pick at her about. It's whether he can connect his charge to the larger argument he is making. And so far, that larger argument is largely devoid of direct references to Hillary Clinton. There is a thin backbone of a litany; there is no repitition of charges; no sustained chain of logic to persuade Democrats to reject Hillary Clinton and replace her with Barack Obama.

John Edwards makes just such an argument. Privately, it's electability. Publicly, it's that she represents corruption and compromise. So far, it doesn't seem to be working. Or maybe the press won't cover it. Or maybe the argument isn't precisely the right argument.

Polling shows that Democrats have yet to be persuaded that Clinton represents the dark side of the party. Even in the states where she polls below 30%, she is the first and second choice of a majority. (So is Obama). Electability seems to be the only question that Democrats do voice. Perhaps as the caucus and primaries draw nearer, those doubts will increase. Or, perhaps by that time, they won't exist.

Comments

"John Edwards makes just such an argument. Privately, it's electability. Publicly, it's that she represents corruption and compromise. So far, it doesn't seem to be working. Or maybe the press won't cover it. Or maybe the argument isn't precisely the right argument."

Or maybe the argument is designed to play out on the night of January 3rd, not in the afternoon of October 29th...

Posted by Petey | October 29, 2007 6:04 PM

erm ... plenty of people make points other than electability against Clinton ... namely, the "compromise" and "hawkishness" critiques. It will be interesting to see if this becomes an issue in tomorrow's debate.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | October 29, 2007 6:42 PM

The media keeps screaming for every candidate to attack Hillary. Edwards went on the attack and he has not moved in the polls. Obama keeps stating his policy and positions very clearly and the media claims its not hard enough, but he is in a statistical dead heat with Hillary in Iowa. Is it possible that the media has it wrong? How about the media start holding her accountable for not providing anything more than triangulation? If the media has time to criticize Edwards and Obama's strategies surely they have enough time to really critique Hillary's rhetoric. On another site they are criticizing Obama for admiting he is going to get tough. Isn't that what you asked for. Maybe the reality is that the media has little experience with an African American man that does not fit the Jackson/Sharpton stereotype? As a result Obama is being punished for being authentic which is exactly what he wants to be.

Posted by RealB.G. | October 29, 2007 7:40 PM

Senator Clinton is the frontrunner because she goes after the guy whose job she wants -- George W. Bush.

If Senators Obama and Edwards would keep their eye on the person with whom 70% of America is utterly disgusted, I predict their poll numbers would also rise. Whoever is for Clinton is not going to change their minds. But I'll bet every "Undecided" (both Democrat and Independent) knows they want things done differently than George W. Bush. Going after Clinton -- from both sides -- just announces her frontrunner status to every "Undecided" and causes them to take a look.
p.s. If anyone is honestly looking for where the candidates stand on issues, we have this thing called the internets. The web sites are excellent -- USE THEM!

Posted by Jan | October 30, 2007 6:53 AM