Obama/Clinton Bracket War

A bracketing war of sorts erupted today between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Maybe the war was a little one sided -- the Obama campaign refused to bite.

The scene was set by Obama's big endorsee: Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, a hero of liberal New Hampshire Democrats. His campaign scheduled a conference call for 2:00 pm ET.

About 1:30 pm ET, the Clinton campaign announced a conference call of its own, featuring Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee and (theoretically) Sen. Evan Bayh. The topic was the new CBS/New York Times poll, which showed that Democrats believe that Sen. Clinton is by far the more electable of the two candidates. Jackson Lee called Obama "inconsistent." The attorney general of Arkansas said that no Democrat had won the presidency in modern years without winning Arkansas.

The campaign also pointed to a story in the Politico, which obtained a 1996 questionnaire under Obama's name wherein he supported a single payer health insurance system, supports hand gun registration, and otherwise liberals it up. The Obama campaign had no comment, aside from saying that the questionnaire was filled out by someone who worked for Obama at the time and not Obama itself.

Comments

Does Obama always have his underlings do his work for him? First the MySpace incident, then the Hillary/Mac video, now this? Boy, does this guy know how to shift blame or what?

Posted by Barack's Staffer | December 11, 2007 3:25 PM

Ezra Klein retorts:

According to The Politico, these "liberal views could haunt Obama." Yes, particularly if major media outlets bring them up as documents worth taking seriously, rather than dismissing them as a pandering document published in the year of the Macarena. Say what you will about Obama, but with two books to his name and a speaking style that trends towards the endless, the guy hasn't given us an insufficient quantity of contemporary guidance as to his opinions, judgments, and qualms about public policy issues. It's true that, if the media wants to haunt him with old documents simplifying policy positions from a decade ago, they can. But don't use the passive voice. Let's not pretend someone wearing a sheet is a real live ghost.

Posted by Colin Hicks | December 11, 2007 3:35 PM

Let's see all of Hillary's papers released from when she was in the white house running everything. How about now, instead of in January after the first 4 states. What ever happened to those Rose Law Firm records? Ever find them?

Yea, let's bring out Senator Obama's old policy papers from 10 years ago. He has shown he has nothing to hide not like the Clintons whose skeletons fall out of the closet every time they open the door. And now they're spreading rumors to remind people of his drug use in high school and early college years. HE WROTE IT IN HIS BOOK!! Is this all you have Billary or are you going to send more e-mails implying that he is a muslim plant?

Posted by Carolyn Grace | December 11, 2007 4:01 PM

As The USAToday stated, this questionaire was sent to them by a rival campaign. It's pretty logical that the Clinton campaign lined this up with the conference call and then pointed to the article in The Politico.

Clinton really has shifted words more during this campaign to counter Obama. They keep trying to counter Obama by covering his postions :) I don't know, maybe this is known Poli/Sci technique.

They use language like "experience to bring change" or what Evan Bayh said on the conference call, " "Her experience, her seasoning are important for not just bringing hope, but delivering on hope."

Anyone else notice that Clinon's team moved the "I endorse this message" to the front on her new ad similar to what Obama has been doing from the start. I think her campaign may need to be more subtle about these things.

I think Obama is running a ridiculously good first national campaign. There can't be too many people that disagree with that.

Posted by Keith | December 11, 2007 4:53 PM

I cannot believe the terrible attempts Hillary and her camp and her/hubbies maintreme media buddies try to discredit a good person like Obama. We the people have asked for honest integrity, someone with intelligence to get us out of the craziness that Washington insiders have placed us in. Checkout how many past Clinton supports have moved and sacrifaced their careers to back Obama, because they believe and they have seen Hillary behind closed doors.

Posted by TJ | December 11, 2007 4:54 PM

Let's see all of Hillary's papers released from when she was in the white house running everything.

Senator Clinton is quite literally the most thoroughly vetted national candidate in American history. Say what you want about her, but there's much less chance Democrats will be in for nasty surprises with her than with any other candidate. We have Ken Star to thanks for that.

Posted by Jasper | December 11, 2007 5:04 PM

Jasper, by that measure, the Democrats should run Satan, since we know all the bad there is to know about him.

I'd say Hillary has been vetted and found wanting. Why some Democrats want her to be president - even when they know she would energize the other side more than Satan and thus risk losing the general election in what should be an easy year for the party - is truly baffling.

Is it just because Clinton supporters know nothing would bother Republicans more?

Posted by Paul | December 11, 2007 5:57 PM

When is the press going to expose Bill Clinton's post presidency affairs -like Lisa Belzberg of PENCIL? Do we have to wait to see if Hillary gets the nomination first? The Republicans will just dance into the White House?

Obama '08

Posted by jmpw | December 11, 2007 6:01 PM

Keith,

You are right - and it is actually a poli/sci thing. Hillary has adopted the frontrunner's strategy of imitating her challenger. This comes from sailing. When a boat gains a lead, in order to preserve the lead, it does whatever its pursuer does.

However, there are two problems.

First, Hillary's adopting Obama's slogan of change (sort of like Bush did against McCain when he became a "Reformer with Results") isn't working for her as she isn't taken seriously by the voters. This is why Obama's "Change we Can Believe in" has a bite to it.

Second of all, Obama's catching up to her, not by an particular line of attack or position he uses on her, but because he's filling the informational gap he suffers as a neophyte and people like what they see.

With Hillary losing her lead and having done a pretty good job for 8 months of bluring the differences between them, it's becoming very difficult for her to draw sharp lines between them on the issues.

This of course leaves the issue of experience (which is a loser) and incessant personal attacks - perhaps with a good amount of mud thrown down the road.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | December 11, 2007 6:05 PM

The Obama campaign had no comment, aside from saying that the questionnaire was filled out by someone who worked for Obama at the time and not Obama itself.

Posted by Yiannis | December 11, 2007 6:20 PM

I'd say Hillary has been vetted and found wanting. Why some Democrats want her to be president - even when they know she would energize the other side more than Satan and thus risk losing the general election in what should be an easy year for the party - is truly baffling.

Is it just because Clinton supporters know nothing would bother Republicans more?

"Wanting" to you, maybe, but she's the first choice of most Democrats nationwide, including this one. I don't "know" that she would energize Republicans to the extent you seem to think. Still, if you're concerned about electability, on what do you base your confidence in Obama? Seems to me like he's an unknown quality, nationally.

Lots of her detractors will make the point that Hillary Clinton doesn't have a much lengthier resume than Obama. She was merely married to Bill Clinton, after all -- she didn't serve in his cabinet. Fair enough. But I don't think any reasonable person doubts her central role as a key partner in the Clintons' political success. Team Clinton has beaten the Republicans by my count in something like 13 of 14 elections. I support Hillary because I desperately want the Republicans out of power; because I think she'd make a fine president who is a vast improvement over George W. Bush; because I think she's the most capable and experienced person running; and because I think she's the strongest candidate with the greatest chance of beating the Republican nominee.

Sure, the Republicans loathe her. There's a reason for that.

Posted by Jasper | December 11, 2007 6:44 PM

Hello people...Hillary has Bill now, but whoever wins the nomination gets Bill later. Good Democrats, including all the candidates who are running, will back whoever WE nominate. Question is who will be able to actually make some progress in Washington? NOT HILLARY CLINTON, there are few Republicans who will even speak to her, let alone have a sit down...she has way to many enemies and way to much baggage to be effective, the experience she continues to talk about is salted with divisiveness. Obama has the proven ability to bring ALL sides together and reach amenable solutions...he can get the job done AND Bill Clinton will be right there, along with Richardson, Biden, Edwards, and every other Democrat to help...It is time for change and Obama is the one who will make it happen. A whole lot more Republicans will vote for Obama than will vote for Hillary...the GOP will have a field day if she won the nomination...way to much divisive history there. GOPs can't win against Obama, there is no fodder for them...he has many of them on his side already...too bad the poles are predisposed to equate name recognition as possible votes...American voters are smarter than that...they know we need change and it's time...time to search your soul and time to choose honesty...time to choose Obama.

Posted by Cinda | December 11, 2007 7:20 PM

Jasper,
You make a decent point but "Team Clinton" had Bill in the lead during national runs.

Yes, she's smart and has decent judgement as well and would do fine for Democrats. I know back in 2004 I was pretty excited about the prospect of "Team Clinton" taking the White House because I liked a lot of the principles Bill advanced.

I didn't like the part of his presidency where he compromised on policies. Some of the success was also due to Bill picking good people to run government. I think we all liked him for his charisma and fiscal responsibility.

I think Obama clearly has the charisma, but I want to hear more about his fiscal policies. His Health Care plan/Immigration plan actually is really good because it is not idealistic.

Idealistic plans on anything is not possible in any facet of life. People get lazy and 1 person inevitable has to push harder. Kinda feels like Hillary falls in to this category.

Nick Kaufman,
Interesting stuff... bridging the gap in name recognition and background is going to continue helping Obama.

Posted by Keith | December 11, 2007 7:32 PM

Clinton campaign is now fighting a guerilla war. It is strategy used by the warring faction with less power and it is a sign of defeat.

Posted by TheDonald | December 11, 2007 8:14 PM

Clinton fatigue redux -- is spreading like a virus.

Posted by Anonymous | December 11, 2007 8:24 PM

Why do I have a problem with Senator Clinton? Why do I think she is the wrong choice for the Democratic nomination? While many here talk about Bill's success I say he was a failure for the Democratic party and those who believe in the state party platforms across the country.

"Remember that over the course of Bill Clinton's presidency, the Democrats lost six Senate seats, 46 House seats and nine governorships. This political bleeding began when Monica Lewinsky was still an Oregon college senior.

Given Hillary's protracted support of the war, her embrace of neocon-servative rhetoric on Iran and her coziness with powerful corporate interests, she could create a similar backlash once in office, dividing and depressing the Democratic base and reversing the party's newfound momentum.

Think about 1994. Pundits credited major Republican victories to angry white men, Hillary Clinton's failed health-care plan, and Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America." But the defeat was equally rooted in a massive withdrawal of volunteer support among Democratic activists who felt politically betrayed. Nothing fostered this sense more than Bill Clinton's going to the mat for the North American Free Trade Agreement." By Paul Rogat Loeb Special to The Seattle Times

DLC supported candidates like Bill and Hillary abandoned populist issues and embraced concessions to the Republicans like welfare reform, don't ask; don't tell, the salvage log rider which removed many environmental restrictions on timber harvesting and as mentioned above supported NAFTA. At WTO 11/30 in Seattle I saw 50,000 people stand against NAFTA and global treaties that hurt labor and the environment and I saw Teamsters marching side by side with Green Peace. Clinton spurred on that alliance and the party has suffered for it. Recall a squeecker in 2000? Concessions to percieved electability do not build a strong party!!!

GO OBAMA!

Posted by Chris | December 11, 2007 8:28 PM

Jasper - her negatives consistently have polled at 48, and I recently saw a 50. Its not mathematically impossible for her to win the general election, but its darn near politically impossible.

Presidential elections are won are two objectives. First is energizing your base. Second is winning independents.

Right now the Democrats have the energy. Republicans are starting to regain their energy, primarily via party leadership focusing on immigration and thus not focusing on foreign policy. But Democrats clearly have the edge going into next year. That changes in a second if Clinton is nominated.

In Virginia's 1st congressional district (special election just held today), Republicans used her in a damaging mailer against the Democrat. The mailer had Clinton's picture front and back and stressed the point this congressional candidate shared her values. That's a knock-out punch.

Republicans who are so disappointed with Bush may or may not come out to vote next year. Most will. But nominate Clinton and those Republicans who wouldn't otherwise vote will, and those who would just vote will start opening their wallets, putting up yard signs, etc. There isn't a single Democrat who would energize the GOP more - and I'm even willing to include Lyndon Larouche in that statement.

On the second point, independents value trust more so than dedicated members of either party. Trust also happens to be a Clinton negative, whether fairly perceived or not.

I couldn't imagine a profile for a worse notional candidate.

Posted by Paul | December 11, 2007 11:22 PM

Besides, I'd say Obama has been vetted pretty well. Clinton looked all the way back to kindergarten. What could Republicans do? Dig up something from pre-school?

Posted by Paul | December 11, 2007 11:25 PM

I'm a moderate Republican who grew up in northwest Iowa, one of the most conservative areas of the country. Let me weigh in on the question of Hillary energizing the Republican base.

I've never voted Democrat before, but I'm planning to not only vote for Obama (if we wins), I'm planning to caucus for him in Iowa in January.

I would, however, not for Clinton no matter who she runs against in the general election.

Furthermore, I know a lot of conservative Republican folk from back home. And believe me, this is a tough time to be a conservative Republican. But nothing would get these folks fired up like running again Hillary Clinton. They would vote for Gulliani if need be--something they otherwise would not do--just to keep the Clintons out of the white house.

From a moderate Republican perspective, the idea hat Hillary has a better chance to woo moderates and Republicans than Obama is absurd.

Posted by Daniel Berntson | December 12, 2007 12:00 AM

Blaming a staffer is pretty standard with Obama. But it is time to seriously consider how closely the Republicans would tie him to his Hyde Park state senate district. Whether he wants to or not, Obama would be making all those arguments of the '90's, and he'd either be on the losing side or he'd be flopping around way more than John Kerry with his notorious "for it before I was against it".

Posted by Keith | December 12, 2007 10:50 AM

"Obama itself?" Now, there's an interesting Freudian slip. Are you suggessting that he's a truly illegal alien--the kind from outer space?

Posted by Max Gee | December 12, 2007 1:25 PM

Sleeping in the White House does not count for experience. We are a representative democracy - not a monarchy. Are you Looking to 'reap' eight more years of nepotism like the seven we've just had ? Not me.

Although her sputtering machine would have us believe that she is the 'electable' choice - this argument falls unquestionably flat - she will drive more republicans to the polls and does not inspire confidence in her own party... go look at the polling yourself.

I voted for this lady in her NY senate race.
I voted for her husband twice (would have again).... but ignoring all conviction and tri-angulating her response to Bush's rush to 'war' in Iraq was and is unforgivable. Afghanistan,as any a monkey knew, was and is a noble cause. If a person in her position could not figure out what was happening with our rush to a false war- in Iraq - then whatever limited experience she does have - counts for very little.
Worse yet, and far more likely, she knew exactly what was happening... she crunched the numbers and made what turned out to be a bad bet - IRAQ. Ooops! And now we're stuck with what is partly the mess of her making. I will NOT ever vote for anyone who supported the Iraq ruse.

Fool me once...

So NO Thanks Mama - I'm for Obama !

Barak Obama for President of the United States of America .

-Go Barry !

Posted by PulSamsara | December 12, 2007 1:55 PM