The Clinton Rapid Response

When Barack Obama confronted Hillary Clinton's vote on Lieberman-Kyl, the Clinton campaign quickly mailed a detailed explanation of her vote to Iowans.

When Barack Obama told the New York Times that he would start to challenge Clinton more aggressively and picked her refusal to detail her Social Security fix as his first target, within 10 hours the Clinton campaign was on the air in New Hampshire with an ad attempting to inoculate any perceived vulnerabilities on Social Security.

Depending on the size of the buy, more New Hampshire residents probably saw the Clinton ad before they heard too much about Obama's charge on Social Security. And notice how Clinton frames her opposition: by using George W. Bush as a foil.

The tag line is an encapsulation of Clinton's appeal to Democrats:

"These days, it seems like every candidate on earth is coming here for You.
But which candidate has been there for you all along?"

It's also the first time a Clinton ad has even acknowledged the presence of other candidates.

Comments

Hillary does love to use Bush as a foil, but ultimately Bush is just a straw man - easy to knock down. Partisan dems may eat up red meat against a lame duck who won't be on the ballot next year, but they need to know that just because she can kick Bush when he is down in the polls doesn't mean she can take on a popular conservative. Who have the Clintons had to fight against? George Bush the father, Bob Dole, New Gingrich, Rick Lazio...not exactly stiff competition. When Bush Jr. was popular, she caved to him on Iraq, even mimicing his talking points wihtout reading the intelligence herself. She may be good at beating dead horses, but she won't be particuarly effective against a Giulliani who is far more articulate and politically skilled than anybody either clinton has had to face. We should not underestimate a Republican who has won in New York City. He will be able to compete on blue turf, wheras no matter how pro-war HIllary becomes, she won't be able to compete on Red turf. He'll get the independents and Dems will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Posted by RKA | October 30, 2007 8:25 AM

She is fast, but note she answered the charge that she was providing nothing but vague platitudes on Social Security with an ad that provided nothing but vague platitudes on Social Security. So the deeper question is whether her "Just Trust Me" approach to the primaries (one apparently designed to provide as much wiggle room as possible for her general election campaign) is going to satisy Democrats.

And I don't know the answer to that question, but I do know that it has not been answered yet.

Posted by DTM | October 30, 2007 8:46 AM

I can say, unequivocally, that Hillary Clinton sticks up for the unknowns. How do I know? I'm neither rich nor a big donor (a donor but far from rich). She stood up for me.

Posted by Candymarl | October 30, 2007 11:02 AM

Care to explain how Hill has stuck up for you?

As far as I can see, she's done nothing of value in the Senate and before that she sat around in the WH.

Obama on the other hand, taught Constitutional Law in Chicago, worked as a community activist, pushed legislation through the Illinois State Senate that resulted in, among other things, 150,000 individuals being provided with health insurance, ethics reforms for the senate, and legislation requiring police to videotape their interogations. Since being elected to the National Sentate, he's sponsored over 200 bills and co-sponsored over 400.

If you're going to defend Hill, be my guest, but have some concrete reasons.

Posted by Bethany | October 30, 2007 11:23 AM

RKA: The Clinton's haven't faced stiff competition? First, they beat off the Republican impeachment brigade. Then, Hillary scared Giuliani out of the New York Senate race (if you believe any of Rudy's lame excuses for why he exited, I've got a bridge I want you to buy). Now, she's cleaning Obama and Edwards' clocks.

What about Edwards and Obama? Edwards--who would not run for re-election because he knew he would lose, and who didn't help Kerry's candidacy one whit. Obama--whose only statewide race was against the hillariously ludicrous candidacy of Alan Keyes. These guys are proven lightweights who would get eaten alive by the Republicans, and the Democratic electorate knows it. That, in a nutshell, is why Sen. Clinton is way ahead.

Posted by Joe B | October 30, 2007 11:28 AM

How many bills has ms.hill sponsored? Guiliani had cancer....She is not cleaning anyone when she has answered no questions/taken no positions except to rail against a conspirancy and the women her husband was doing. Stopped press reports by blackmail and employed bundlers who extorted $$ from asian subculture...

If she were elected we would be right back where we are now...with 50%plus of the electorate hating the President.....

Posted by jtl | October 30, 2007 12:09 PM

Obama had a very contested 2004 senate primary in which he was behind until the end, he was running against an Illinois machine politician (Dan Hynes), and he pulled it out when few thought he would. Beating impeachment isn't exactly an accomplishment when you only need 34 senators to stick with you. And she would not have had to fight all those battles in 9Os if she had not screwed up health care and lost congress in 1994. Hillary had no real primary opposition in 2000 and lazio was a joke. I grant you that she might have beaten Giulliani in blue New York, but the electoral landscape of the US is very different that of New York State. Hillary has ridden her husbands name quite far without any exceptional political talent. She is very vulnerable in a general when for the first time she will have a real fight.

Posted by RKA | October 30, 2007 2:02 PM

Obama, as likable as he is, has no foreign policy experience period. A big no no in today's environment. Even if you don't believe that Hil was just as much in charge in the '90s, she was right there taking notes from the master himself.
Hil has been the only dem who has reached across the aile succesfully and pushed through legislation. By the way, every one in NYC knows Guiliani's fake to drop out of the senate race because he was falling behind. He would have no chance at the Presidency, if he had lost to Hil back then.

Posted by Yesss | October 30, 2007 2:07 PM

I'll defend/talk about Hillary.

She was the senator who worked with the Human Rights Campaign and held meetings to stop the FMA.

She was the first lady who stood in front of the Chinese and declared Women Rights are Human Rights.

She authored the Heroes at Home ACT of 2007.

She has traveled to more than 80 countries and speaks candidly and intelligently about U.S. foreighn relations with those countries.

She is working to provide healthcare to all Americans and is also working to establish a national will among citizens to support passage of a comprehensive health plan.

She has a 35 year history of public service. To argue that she does not have political talent is ridiculous and argumentatively unsound.

Posted by D | October 30, 2007 4:49 PM

Hey,
have we forgoten what made america perfect (or almost?). It was the fortitude of women, we as women pioneered to conquer the wheat and the west ---and taught english and sewing and science and made headlines and got the vote before all other countries...did we forget why this happened? a bunch of women sitting around a dining table about 100 year agos in boston , so we made change and we - the american women will make change again - if we get behind our only possible candidate - hillary - to make a possible change. Do not get lost in the debate - do not forget who hillary is for us while she has to get entangled in this political race - she is the only woman for women the wotld over -the only power in america is its women -- who can now and only npw show our strength as women behind a real woman....
angela-

Posted by angela in brasil | October 31, 2007 1:42 AM

Whew!

I didn't know that Obama & John were so desperate.

Although, John shouldn't try so hard, or he won't be asked to VP.

Obama will never win because he cares more about being right than he does about being President.

Obama started off with that whole "I was right about the war" crap. And, he was. So was I.

However, he forgot that most people are idiots. They made a mistake and re-elected Bush. So, they don't want to hear "I told you so" from Obama, while he's asking them for their vote. Now, that's an idiot.

Hillary, she admitted how she voted on the war "based on intel at that time", and wished she knew differently. Don't we all?

That's why Hillary's going to win. The majority will relate to her.

They won't relate to someone who's too busy saying how right he was, while everyone else was so wrong.

I knew Obama wasn't mature enough to run, yet. Now, it's beginning to show.

Jose

Posted by Jose | October 31, 2007 2:47 AM

Jose,
After having a president who is so WRONG, I would love to have President Obama who is RIGHT!

Posted by SidMore | November 1, 2007 6:05 PM

SidMore,

Sometimes, being "right" can be every bit as damaging as being wrong.

In Obama's case, diplomacy should be the priority. Sometimes, winning doesn't mean being right.

Being right doesn't matter if the majority is "wrong".

And, Obama highlighting that he's "right" all the time is only telling everyone else how "wrong" they were.

Time will teach Obama that sometimes it's better to give a little. Maybe then, he'll make a worthy President. But, not this time.

Between you and me, Bush should have never been President. I can't believe the herd re-elected him. "You don't change ships in midstream"? You do when that ship is sinking.

Posted by Jose | November 10, 2007 1:49 AM