« Snowed In | Main | Romney Explains Decision To Air Contrast Ad » Clinton's Health Care Lit Drop Criticizes Obama11 Dec 2007 12:47 pm Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire campaign is distributing the flier below at campaign events... it's the first time the campaign has mentioned an opponent in an official communication. The target is Obama's health care plan and three of the four pull quotes are from the New York Times's resident economist/columnist, Paul Krugman.
Comments (20)
Good. It's about time my girl Hill took off the gloves. Petey, because Mrs. Clinton just IM'ed me with an answer to your three questions, I'll provide it: Because I'd prefer to address those specifics until it's time to talk turkey with the legislative branch. (-: You're fighting the good fight for Edwards. I admire you for that. But I can't help but strongly believe it comes down to Obama vs. Clinton. I think she's a safer bet to win the G.E. than Obama, despite the constant droning on about her negatives I keep hearing from the Obamites. I also think she gives us a better chance of bringing home the bacon. Maybe even a better chance that Edwards. I will say this, if he's still viable on Super Tuesday, Edwards will probably get my vote, and I lay that at your door, and your ceaseless advocacy. I've bet you've singlehandedly won dozens, maybe hundreds of votes for Edwards. 
Going negative in Iowa backfired for the Clinton campaign. It will be interesting to see if it works any better in NH. But it is already interesting to me that they actually think it is necessary to take this risk.
"Because I'd prefer to address those specifics until it's time to talk turkey with the legislative branch" I'm a big fan of walking into 2009 with the most difficult aspects of the healthcare plan already vetted by the electorate. By throwing the most difficult aspects out there before the campaign, Edwards will be attacked for them during the general election campaign. And that means that when he wins, he'll also be winning a mandate for a complete plan to wield as a cudgel over Congress. George Bush campaigned in 2000 for his tax cut plan and his prescription drug corporate giveaway plan with a fair amount of specificity of detail. That helped him actually enact those plans into law after he "won" the election. If you want to enact big legislation, let it get vetted in a general election. Not doing so was one of the biggest errors of the Clinton healthcare plan in '92. And to a lesser degree, I think Senator Clinton is repeating that same error in '08.
despite the constant droning on about her negatives I keep hearing from the Obamites We prefer "Obamaniacs".
Talk about desperate. 3 out of 4 quotes are from the same person in the SAME ARTICLE. btw, Paul Krugman is a douchebag.
Uh oh! Obama up 6 points in IA, 15 points in NH on Intrade....is a devastating poll coming out that will bury Hillary???
...is a devastating poll coming out that will bury Hillary??? Polls don't bury candidates. Voters do. Fortunately for Hillary, New Hampshire's nearly a month away. There's nothing that sucks as much as peaking early. Just ask Dean.
Jasper, Yes, but who is Dean and who is Kerry in this scenario? Better yet, who is Gephardt and who is Edwards?
Some Presidential candidates look great in odd-numbered years and not so great in ever-numbered years. Ain't that the truth. btw, Paul Krugman is a douchebag. Huh. The quickness and ferocity with which online Obamanians have pounced on Krugman for daring to criticize "The One" has been truly astonishing.
If things work the way they should (and Lord knows they don't always do so) then Edwards is Dean (on being a strong progressive voice), Edwards is Kerry (on being the guy people in the end will perceive as the closer who has the best shot at the strongest general election victory for democrats across the country--but winning this time), Edwards is Gephardt (for being out there representing working people and speaking up for unions), and, most of all, Edwards is Edwards, a closer who can raise his game during the last few weeks leading up to the caucuses. Sure hope I'm right, for the sake of the democratic party and the United States of America
Yes, but who is Dean and who is Kerry in this scenario? Better yet, who is Gephardt and who is Edwards? Clinton and Obama are Geppy and Dean, of course, the frontrunners slashing one another to pieces in the closing weeks. Anyone doubt Clinton and Obama are going to be at one another's throats at the DMR debate? Of course, I've been very, very happy to see Clinton and Obama rolling around in the mud together of late when Edwards has the best favorable ratings in Iowa of any of the candidates.
As an economist, i know that Paul Krugman owed his reputation in economics circles to his work on trade and monetary economics. On Health Economics, i wouldn't based my judgment on what he says.
Clinton and Obama are not Dean and Gephart. It takes two to tangle and Obama is soaring above it all.
The real interesting thing about this is not the content -- its the overt decision to go negative against a specific candidate in a mutli-candidate race. Ordinary campaign logic says that only helps one of the other candidates, which in this case would most likely be Edwards (esp since his health care plan is distinct from Obama's on the matters discussed in the flyer). Does this means Clinton is discounting Edwards as a factor in NH -- which could pay off or could come back to haunt them. I've long felt that the Clintons' basic approach to campaigning -- attack the opposition on your own weakest point -- will be difficult to translate into a mutli-candidate race. From the standpoint of an Edwards supporter, nothing would harm my heart more to see Clinton spend a lot of money to attack Obama hard (but on substance) from his left.
Paul Krugman's character aside, Tyler is right: using quotes from a single source three-out-of-four times as an opening salvo vs. Obama in NH is an insult to the intelligence of the general electorate. If I'm a New Hampshire voter, my first reaction to this flyer has nothing to do with Obama's stance on healthcare reform, but rather: "How dumb do folks over at Clinton headquarters think I am?"
Clinton's campaign, and for that matter anyone criticizing another Democrat's health care plan should know better. From the New England Journal of Medicine: "It would be a mistake, however, to read the candidates' plans too literally. A plan offered during the primaries usually looks different in key respects from the plan that a newly elected president takes to Congress, to say nothing of any legislation that Congress actually passes." --Oberlander J. Presidential politics and the resurgence of health care reform. N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 22;357(21):2101-4. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/21/2101
Yes, but what does Obama's kindergarten teacher think of his health care proposal? We'll have to wait for tomorrow's mailer on that one.
I know it's a reproduction, and maybe the original looks a little different, but... Is it just me, or is the design of that flier made to emphasize Obama's blackness to the (mostly) white voters of New Hampshire? If they're dropping this flier in SC, forget that thought. But political operatives are devious creatures...
Dean v. Clark? Not in Iowa for sure. And you ahve to remember that at this point in 2003, the caucuses and primaries were further away and a bit more spread out. This year the holidays are going to probably cut down on the amount of attention people pay to the race right before they go caucus in Iowa. The 2004 Dem campaign is more like the 2008 GOP Campaign.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Well, now we understand why Team Obama went negative on Krugman.
Posted by Petey | December 11, 2007 1:08 PM