Clinton's Economic Turn

For the Democrats, Hillary Clinton's "major economic address" Wednesday symbolizes the turn, generally, away from Iraq, generally, and the turn toward bread and -- less/guns more..butter. Voters are uncomfortable with Obama's lack of foreign policy experience; they are NOT anxious about his lack of domestic policy experience.

So Clinton's task to convince voters that Obama's lack of domestic policy experience matters. Talk about tough trails to trod: Clinton has, for eight months, successfully injected skepticism into voters' perception of Obama on foreign policy.

Voters get Clinton's argument: she was by her husband's side, she knows what the WHite House environment is like, she knows how to navigate the cross-pressures of Washington. Now that voters are beginning to care more, in relative terms, about their own bottom lines, their health care, their children's education, they're giving Obama the benefit of the doubt. They don't see how his experience differs all that much from hers.

Now -- the Clinton campaign believes that IF Obama's domestic policy credentials are called into question, his support among women drops off precipitously. The task is to convince, persuade Iowa voters that the question is worth their posing. How? By pointing out gaps in his plans, by calling his trustworthiness and honesty into question, by suggesting that he just doesn't get it -- he's too green to leave the important work of governing.

So far, Clinton has been inartful in this new phase. Some of her allies concede that her campaign press release that used an essay Obama wrote as a kindergartener to make a point about his ambitions was fairly poorly received and suspect that it will come back to haunt her. The coverage she's gotten in the national press has been process-oriented -- she's "going negative" -- rather than substantive. It's been about 50/50 in Iowa.

Comments

"Clinton has, for eight months, successfully injected skepticism into voters' perception of Obama on foreign policy."

Marc: You now just make things up to fit your own narrative.

Posted by David | December 6, 2007 1:14 PM

David--when Marc says "Voters" all he means is "Washington Insiders Who Think They Know Best and Could Care Less About Voters"

Make sense now? :)

Posted by Betty in Baltimore | December 6, 2007 1:24 PM

Obama is the new Kennedy

Hillary is the new Nixon

Posted by Perry | December 6, 2007 1:33 PM

So Clinton's task to convince voters that Obama's lack of domestic policy experience matters. Talk about tough trails to trod: Clinton has, for eight months, successfully injected skepticism into voters' perception of Obama on foreign policy.

I think that you are wrong on this issue. Particularly the portion I italized. Clearly the voters have come to a comfort threshold with Obama's foriegn policy credintals and can look at his message of change as a whole; satisfied that he is prepared enough to their minds to be president. You see this in the shift on whether core experience or change matters more to the voters.

Hillary Clinton is now, I agree, trying to call into question Obama's readiness to work on these domestic issues. They're trying to make the case that he hasn't done anything and isn't ready to be in the senate, much less the presidency. You can see this in how they've gone after him voting present and not standing with women; and then again in the refrain of how he won't fight and can't work on the voters behalf.

I truly question how well this will work because a narrative has already been established for Sen. Obama and all she's been doing is "going negative" and he's responded to her substantive arguements on health care and domestic issues.

I'd even point out that he's politically won every policy discussion to date:

(1) Talking to forigen leaders: hammered, public agreed with him, adopted as a talking point by Sen. Clinton

(2) Iran: hammered for willing to speak and not willing to rattle sabers, hammered for missing the vote on Kyle-Liberman, he's right on the issue in dem. voters minds and I think they've given him a pass on missing the vote since he was vocally against it

(3) Health Care: I think it's a draw. People like the plans, give Hillary more props, but trust him more so it's a net plus

She's losing right now because of the character issue and she's trying to turn that around on him. I don't know if that'll really work because people not only like Obama, they WANT to love him. They just really, really want him in the party. He's this vision of JFK and MLK wrapped together for some people I speak to. I love him too; but I wouldn't be upset if Edwards or Biden got the nomination.

In going negative, she's hitting people on their own personal like of the guy. A lot like Republicans were hitting the country for generally liking Bill Clinton a lot overall, even if they totally disagreed w/what he'd done. That's not a good place for her to be right now.

-Rhoda

Posted by Rhoda | December 6, 2007 1:40 PM

Hillary is a perfect chameleon, and she will become all things to all people at all times for votes. Sad, really sad. It is possible that once she was a person.

Posted by James | December 6, 2007 1:43 PM

I thought it was kind of obvious that Obama was the strongest candidate on foreign policy, and not as strong on domestic issues vs. some of the other candidates, especially Edwards. Foreign policy, I would think, is Clinton's weak spot, given the heat she's been facing for her Iraq and Iran votes and the fact that she is more hawkish generally than the average primary participant. So I don't see how framing the Clinton strategy in this way makes sense.

Oh wait, it's because its about "experience", isn't it? Which is quite a different thing than the strength of one's policies.

Posted by Erin | December 6, 2007 1:51 PM

Hillary is desperately trying to change the subject from her multiple campaign gaffes and her bad judgements in foreign policy.

I guess all thst experience is really helping her.

Posted by Chuck Miller | December 6, 2007 2:15 PM

Madame President of the United States…it's an extraordinary thought. We truly are in a momentous time, where a woman's potential has no limitations," "Hillary Clinton has already proven to a generation of women that there are no limits for success. She is driven by her passion for public service and her belief in the enormous potential of our country. Smart, capable and strong in her convictions, Hillary has transcended the dictates of what is thought to be possible for our time.
"Hillary is a powerful voice for change as we find our country at an important crossroads. Under her leadership, our country will regain its respect within the global community. She will prioritize issues of global climate change, universal healthcare and rebuilding a strong economy. After 8 long years, the public will once again have faith in their government.
"Another former first lady, Eleanor Roosevelt once wrote, 'In government, in business, and in the professions there may be a day when women will be looked upon as persons. We are, however, far from that day as yet.' More than 50 years later 'that day' is now upon us…and Hillary Clinton is ready to shatter through that glass ceiling for all women."
SHAME ON YOU OPRAH!
VOTE FOR CLINTON

Posted by Jonnie | December 6, 2007 2:27 PM

I think Marc was referring to poll numbers. Hillary consistently polls higher on the issue of ready to lead, handle foreign policy, etc.

Example:

In all three early states, Democrats trust Clinton more than her rivals on Iraq, though by smaller numbers than she gets nationally from her party. Even so, she has small double-digit leads over Obama and Edwards in Iowa and New Hampshire when Democrats are asked which candidate would make the wisest decisions about the war, and is tied with Obama in South Carolina.

Posted by Kevin Holtsberry | December 6, 2007 2:57 PM

marc i am not sure who you are talking to but hillary v. obama on foreign policy is kind of a wash--hawks may prefer her, but the diplomacy doves can't stand her. and the so what if you've lived abroad, i've travelled abroad argument also did not go over too well. if she were biden there might be a stronger argument here, but being roommates with the president does not a better president make. bill has done more f.p. work since he left office than she has done since entering office. the line of attack on domestic policy is not a new departure for her, it is simply parallel the joint--obama's a phony lightweight + his policies are silly--approach she has take on f.p. her best bet is having surrogates like clark + krugman make the point, because when she makes it she comes off as being mean, ambitious and, upon a closer look at her policies, not particularly accurate in her criticisms of obama's policy points. look, for example, how the universality of her health care just shifted the focus back to mandates. Sorry I disagree with your analysis here.

Posted by JC | December 6, 2007 4:27 PM

I'm tired of reading blogs and things from the HRC camp that doesn't involve true substantive evidence in supporting one's cause in voting for Hillary. Do you people read the news, google their names, or something? I know "the fun part has started" for Hillary, but it's not fun for me. But her supporters would then say "fun" was a figure of speech. Just like her pro-vote in Iraq and then saying her decision was based on information she received (the same information everyone else received). For once in your life, get off your emotional track and lets debate facts versus facts as oppose to questioning based on abstractions and judgements. Make your vote based on substantive evidence and history of the candidate. Not because Obama is too perfect to be true. But because the trending polls point in his favor, the facts point in his favor, his decisiveness and judgment points in his favor, and his apparent ability to leads points in his favor.

Posted by Jskillz18 | December 6, 2007 4:41 PM

Odd post.

Rather than Clinton being successful in painting Obama as inexperienced in foreign policy, I think Obama has very clearly met whatever foreign policy threshhold early state voters have.

Thus, Clinton is dropping in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and nationally. How else to explain it? If she had been successful, it would not now be a close race with Obama ahead or closing the gap in the early states.

Posted by bob | December 6, 2007 6:24 PM

I think Hillary has a point. After all, Obama's kindergarten declaration really, really lacked substance. Nothing at all about health care, nothing about fixing social security. And Hillary has been fighting for us since she was in pre-school.

Posted by Paul | December 6, 2007 10:18 PM

The sabotage has been going on longer than 8 months. Harry Reid, friend of Clinton, set Obama up to miss the Kyle-Liebermann vote. Reid told Obama there would be no vote that night, so Obama left for New Hampshire. As soon as he left, Reid scheduled the Iran Vote within the hour. Of course, during the debates, Clinton called Obama on missing the vote. It was rumored today that Reid unnecessarily intends to call another important vote over a weekend that Obama has major campaign rally’s featuring celebrity guest, Oprah Winfrey. Cancelling Clintons scheduled events wont hurt her, but cancelling long sheduled rallies with a huge celebrity guest? The Clinton campaign has no scruples.

Posted by TishiJo | December 7, 2007 2:23 AM