Team Clinton Spins Back: "A Strong Woman"

Here's the full memo.

The Politics Of Pile-On

What happens when the “politics of pile-on” replaces the “politics of hope?”

Hillary comes out on top.

Despite the best efforts of her six fellow candidates to trip her up, Senator Clinton stood strong and made her case on critical issues like Iran, Iraq and Social Security. She kept her focus on the real target in this election: Republicans and the Bush Administration. Instead of going after the other Democrats, Hillary made the argument for why change is needed and why she has the strength and experience to lead the Democratic Party in its efforts to make that change happen.

Sadly, Senator Obama caved to the pressure of the pundits and fundraisers who demanded that he go negative and abandoned the "politics of hope" message that sparked so much interest in him early in the campaign. Meanwhile, Senator Edwards doubled down in his effort to become the guy best known for attacking other Democrats. Not to be outdone, the rest of the pack followed suit and piled on in the hope that they’d get some media attention.

But with each attack, Senators Obama and Edwards undermined the central premises of their own candidacies. The sunny speeches and rosy rhetoric that once characterized their remarks has now been replaced by the kinds of jabs one typically sees from candidates desperate to gain traction in the polls.

The American people are looking for a President who can stand strong and come out ahead under any circumstances.

Last night, once again, that person was Hillary Clinton.

One strong woman.

Comments

"Despite the best efforts of her six fellow candidates to trip her up"

Odd. Dennis Kucinich can see UFO's, but Team Clinton can't see Bill Richardson.

How hard will Richardson have to shill for Clinton before Howard Wolfson notices him?

Posted by Petey | October 31, 2007 12:43 PM

This coming from the camp that called Obama naive? And told him to refund the campaign contribution of a Clinton critic? Please. She made her own bed out there. This is just an '08 preview, I hope it is not a preview of the next 8 years. If Hillary wants to make strong policy statements great, let's hear them, but dodging on stage and crying fowl afterwards does not rise to level of leadership that even her husband provided. It's too bad Bill is not running her campaign, because every time Wolfson and Penn open their mouths I become more and more comfortable with sitting out the general if she wins the nom and I have voted democrat all my life, including for her as a N.Y. Senator. But I simply can't associate myself with this kind of childish nonsense. Wolfson should go back to shovelling his manure in NY politics, and Penn should go back to working for Blackwater, they could use his help about now. People actually want change, not a talking point about change. Sorry but these guys drive me crazy.

Posted by JC | October 31, 2007 12:52 PM

Wild guess: this time, the press will not decide to accept Clinton's framing.

Posted by DTM | October 31, 2007 1:22 PM

Obama did exactly what he said he would do. He confronted Hillary on political and campaign issues, and did not get personal or "play dirty".

The Hillary Machine's "hope" has been that Hillary never has to answer any direct questions.

Good for Tim Russert for pressing Hillary on her secretive style and the Clinton papers they won't release.

Posted by jds | October 31, 2007 1:24 PM

There's nothing wrong with a woman candidate for president. But its not presidential for her play the gender/victim card when someone draws contrasts with her and deigns to challenge her coronation. She can't be strong and the victim at the same time, just like she can't be both for and against Iraq, Iran, raising social security taxes, baby bonds, torture, NAFTA, and now drivers licenses for illegals. She is more easily branded a flip flopper than John Kerry and we know how well that worked out in '04.

Posted by RKA | October 31, 2007 1:32 PM

When did the Politics of Strength Become the Politics of Whining?

Geesh.

A graceful loser Hillary is not.

Posted by Jen Q | October 31, 2007 1:33 PM

Hilary lost last night's debate. Obama is so presidential and Edward was good. Richardson should be running to be hilary's driver, he is really a waste of time.

l cannot stand Hilary, l see right through her, a liar, a con artist, a fraud, a flip-flopper and she does not deserve to be the nominee.

Obama/Edward '08

Posted by Julie | October 31, 2007 1:49 PM

The driver’s license issue was a killer for her, and she deserves to be raked over the coals for failing to give a simple answer to such a simple question. (She seemed determined to instead convey sympathy for Governer Spitzer. Why?) And the bullshit about the archives was pathetic. You wouldn’t even have to know what the hell they were talking about to know that she was lying. Actually, you could have muted the TV at that point and seen that she wasn’t really answering Russert’s question.

And it is indeed absurd that she’s painting a picture of male candidates piling on but then concluding that all it means is that she is strong. (People are also piling on George Bush these days, and it’s not just because it’s become kosher to do so—it’s because he deserves it.) To be fair, Dennis Kucinich certainly gets kidded about seeing UFOs rather than slammed on substantive issues because he’s not a contender, whereas there’s extra oomph behind the blows against Hillary because she was dubbed the frontrunner from the get-go and she smugly implies that she deserves that title. But still, by lying and waffling and equivocating and filling the air around her with empty words, she is simply lobbing softballs to these guys, and they’ve got every right to bash them out of the park.

I’m with Dodd. At least he’s got the cojones to admit that the criminalization of cannabis is absurd, and he’s standing up for the constitution and the Geneva convention by opposing Mukasey.

Posted by tinisoli | October 31, 2007 2:41 PM

I don't think Democrats will appreciate the campaign turning into a "trash-Hillary" party. There are ways to attack her on the issues, but most Dems will not cotton to personal attacks on Hillary: they know she has been fighting the Republicans for years, they know the GOP can't stand her because she is a strong survivor, and they appreciate her for that if nothing else. They may not agree with her on some issues, but Democrats do still admire her, as evidenced by her incredible leads in all polls despite all the naysaying. By bullying her, Obama and Edwards are not going to cause people who have supported Clinton all this time, through all the withering attacks over the years, to suddenly change their minds. They're just going to make Clinton Democrats rally around her, like they did for Bill during the impeachment witch-hunt. I admire Hillary more now than ever for her strength in weathering these attacks, because they make the attackers look like desperate losers to me. True or not, that's how I felt after last night. I have my reservations about Hillary, but I was not comfortable with last night's ambush at all. I suspect those who already support her feel the same way and will fight on her behalf even more strongly moving forward.

Posted by David | October 31, 2007 3:55 PM

How did she come out on top? She couldn't/wouldn't answer a direct question. She proved their points right there, live. And how are the Republicans and the Bush administration the real targets in a primary debate? SHe voted WITH the Bush administration - she should be the target. Pile it on some more please. This press release is classic "down is up and up is down" and does nothing but confirm the criticism.

Posted by Phoebe | October 31, 2007 3:58 PM

I can't believe they are going with "no fair, you can't hit me, I'm a girl."

Please. You're the front runner, lady. You're gonna get slugged. Far from standing up to it, last night she buckled under the pressure. She talked too fast, she glared at her opponents and then, at the end, she managed to confirm their criticism and hand John Edwards a beautiful soundbite all in about 10 seconds.

It's about time someone took a swing at her. And if she now claims she can't be attacked because she's a woman, then she doesn't deserve to be on the stage.

Posted by DrFrankLives | October 31, 2007 4:12 PM

She always keeps the victim card handy.

Posted by Dawn | October 31, 2007 5:12 PM

Clinton may be strong but she also has no character and in the end how is that strong, even those that support her don't trust her. If she is elected president Liberty of the people will be further taken by the government as they enact problems like socialized medicine. In the end programs like that make people dependent on government which gives government more power, which is exactly what sen. Clinton wants. I would rather be poor without healthcare than living with no hope, or liberty under a socialized regime. And ultimatley thats what Hillary's government will lead to.

Posted by An American Patriot | October 31, 2007 7:01 PM

@David. Let's be clear, asking her to be clear on issues to take clear stands on issues is not "piling on" or "trashing" Hillary. More than their love of Hillary, Democrats would like to see some sign that there will be accountability in the White House. The way she has handled some, certainly not all, but some issues, gives one pause. I understand--she thinks she needs to do this to win. But I believe this is a sure way to lose because it confirms her weakness--the unfair reputation she has for be soulless and calculating. Here is the choice she offers: it's either the Republicans or the cagey pseudo-conversation she has been having with the American people. And now for her people to cry "pile on" is pure sophistry. Yes maybe people will rally to her side, I am just saying that I cannot rally to her side when I don't even know what side that is. I have a big problem with Kyl-Lieberman, I have big problems with all the ammunition she is giving the Republicans to turn this election into another meaningless tug of war between the parties. It does not have to be that way. It is possible to change the way these debates are had to include more voices in the political process to get the next generation engaged instead of turned off. Sitting against the ropes and putting your gloves up until the fight is over is now way to blaze a new trail, turn the page, etc. etc.

Posted by JC | October 31, 2007 7:40 PM

Did this debate change anyone's mind?

I'm a Clinton supporter and it didn't change mine. I heard every answer, and I agreed with every answer I cared about.

For example, the achives and the papers in the library? I don't care.

If I thought the Rightwing Slime Machine would be fair, fine. But here's how it goes:
A book on some of Gerald Ford's views on Presidents just came out. ford said GWB made a mistake taking us into Iraq. So, over 3000 troops have died over a Bush mistake, according to President Ford...
And the only headline was, "Ford says Clinton is a Sex Addict."
Gerald Ford was a clinical psychologist... or is this another one of those Bill Frist/Terri Schiavo diagnosis??

So, if not seeing the library papers is a deal-breaker for you, don't vote for her.

(And, for all the "democrats" who have "always" been "democrats" but this time around could not possibly bring themselves to vote for a person named Clinton... puh-leese. If true, no one cares; you're an idiot if you think any Clinton is like any Bush. And I'm a friggin' Independent.)

So, did anyone who has been supporting one of these candidates actually change your mind because of this debate? I doubt it.

Posted by Jan | October 31, 2007 8:05 PM

I knew I could not trust Hillary, she is a liar, no character; that was confirmed during the debate. I DON'T LIKE HER. The American people saw her in action last night. She fumble for two hours trying to find answers and that didnot happen. By the way I am an Obama supporter.
Obama/Edward 08!

Posted by Mitty | October 31, 2007 9:08 PM

Another example of how Obama is proving how he is superiour in his presidential skills to Hillary and quite frankly, the entire field. He's been piled on in previous debates if not for his lack of experience, his 'frankly naive' remarks about meeting with dictators, Romney's slip of the tongue 'Osama/Obama' remarks...he doesn't cry FOUL!

As icons of Black Civil Rights, endorse Hillary, he doesn't whine about it. The list goes on.

Truth is, Iowans and other early state voters are not reading any of this. This is just a psychological game.

Posted by Elisabeth | October 31, 2007 9:23 PM

Last night's debate confirmed a suspicion I've had for a while. Despite all this talk about her being Bush-Cheney-Lite, a hawk, a strong leader, I think last night's performance showed that she's the weakest of the entire field including Republicans. Yes, she's fine when she's dishing out rehearsed anti-Republican responses but throw her a curve ball like the driver licenses and she loses it. She was visibly upset and cracked.

Her refusal to take a position may not just be political calculation. It may be more dangerous than that. It may be she doesn't know which is the best decision to make which is why she runs for cover to request bipartisan committees and blame Bush. This is an even more disturbing aspect that nobody is talking about.

Posted by Elisabeth | October 31, 2007 10:20 PM

A STRONG woman tells the truth.
A STRONG woman isn't afraid to have a stance on the issues and stick to it, even if unpopular.
A STRONG woman gets to the White House using her own power, her own intellect, and her own ideas...not those of her husband, and not by stealing other candidate's ideas and slogans (Obama's "change" "turn the page"...straight from Obama.)

Hillary is not, nor ever will be a strong woman.

Women everywhere should take notice. She is not a role model.

Posted by Bethany | October 31, 2007 10:33 PM

I see the spin here, obviously, but I also watched the debate last night, and "pile on" is completely accurate.

The most ridiculous moment had to be when Tim Russert kept badgering Hillary to "pledge" that Iran would not build a nuclear bomb during her presidency. She responded to these absurd demand in the only way possible: "I will do everything I can to avoid that."

Not good enough for Russert: "So you won't pledge?"

Then Edwards and Obama go on to give essentially the same answer and Russert doesn't question their "pledges."

It was ridiculous that a moderator, of all people, would show such bias, and made it clear to me that MSNBC was actively encouraging a Clinton-bashing.

I still have no interest in a President Edwards or a President Obama. Edwards was just showing his true colors as a cut-throat lawyer, and Obama is finally figuring out that "being inspiring" doesn't cut as much cheese as swinging punches.

Posted by Dale Barr, New York, New York | October 31, 2007 10:57 PM

It's great to read sane responses. Whenever anyone asks Clinton to explain and answer or to clarify she screams foul. It doesn't matter whether it's coming from one of the other candidates, a moderator, or an individual citizen - like the gentleman from Iowa.

Clarity, honesty, and openness is a given, things we should expect. Why do the Clintons feel they do not owe us that. Sounds a lot like the Bush regime to me.

If Clinton gave succinct, honest answers, there would not be any need to demand it from her. She put herself in this position by being so secretive and dishonest.

I would love to know how the people of Iowa feel about the way she publicly humiliated one of their own by calling him a plant for asking her to clarify her vote on Iran. How is she even welcome in that state.

Posted by Theresa | October 31, 2007 11:01 PM

Elizabeth,

"Truth is, Iowans and other early state voters aren't reading any of this".

Believe it or not, but we Iowans actually have computers and internet connections to. I am reading this posting and your comments, on my laptop computer-with a very modern wifi connection, in my dining room in the middle of Iowa. Imagine that.

Posted by Bridget | November 1, 2007 1:11 AM

Hillary rocks! Its very interesting to see the degree of negativity in the above posts that lash out at the Hillster... She'll come out stronger, people! You sure as shit haven't changed my mind and the MSNBC n-hype reinforces my choice! Edwards couldn't last 10 minutes in a sit-down debate with Dick Cheney (whom I despise) - I have no faith in Edwards now and why should I? And Obama who? Obama what? Surely not Obama now... Get real people. There's a true, (realistic), stand out candidate you should be proud to back as a Democrat, and that's Hillary! Reset your compasses - we need a candidate that will kick republican ass!!!

Posted by Ray B | November 1, 2007 2:16 AM

Please people these Clinton/Bush comparisons have got to stop. Anybody who thinks that Clinton will be like Bush doesn't know what they are talking about. Is Clinton the best candidate when it comes to integrity, honesty, and personal character? No. But, is she the candidate that will win this election. Yes. Why haven't Obama and Edwards been more critical of the Democratic party in the last seven years? Why aren't they talking about revitalizing the party that has no backbone instead of going after Clinton who has voted along party lines. If they are critical of Clinton, they need to be critical of Pelosi, and the rest of the Democratic leadership. But, they won't do it because it is not convenient to do so. They need endorsements. Hillary, faults and all, deserves the party's nomination and she will get it and go on to become the next President of the United States. I know it!

Posted by G.A.C | November 1, 2007 6:25 AM