Obama's Contrast Mailing In New Hampshire

Hillary Clinton _and_ John Edwards are included in the un-love from Barack Obama today.

Something new: the Des Moines Register reports that Obama said that he, not John Edwards, was the champion challenger to special interests.

"Nobody in this race has worked harder and been more successful at reducing the special interests' influence in Washington," than himself, Obama told more than 200 people, including a number of high school students, at Spencer High School.

"Senator Edwards, who is a good guy, he's been talking a lot about 'I'm going to fight the lobbyists and the special interests in Washington,' " Obama said about Edwards, a former North Carolina senator. "Well, the question you have to ask is: Were you fighting for (citizens) when you were in the Senate?"

Words have meaning; Edwards may be encroaching on some turf held by Obama. Let's watch this over the next few days to see if Obama continues to incorporate a contrast with Edwards. (Remember: Clinton: change means the ability to get stuff done. Edwards: throw the bums out; the corporate interests have corrupted politics; Obama: transformational change.)

Back to familiar territory. Obama's new New Hampshire mailing responds to charges that his health care plan does not cover everyone. Horse pellets, Obama says, in not so many words.

Why, even Hillary has said that every Democrat "is for universal health care." (Clinton meant that every Democrat wants universal health care -- Obama just doesn't have a plan to achieve it.) And he cites experts agreeing with his view, but he does not provide the names of said experts.

The first page of the mailing quotes Obama as saying: "We can end division and petty attacks and finally provide health care to every American."

On the last page, it says: "On January 8, let's remind Hillary Clinton that New Hampshire's primary won't be won by launching misleading, negative attacks."

That Obama's campaign would respond to Clinton's charges in this way suggests that a needle in some focus group or another moved a little to far to the left... or that a few too many people were called into the campaign's New Hampshire headquarters asking for clarification. The frame around the contrast is interesting: Clinton's "attacks" are just part of the same "petty" divisiveness that is poisoning our politics.

Comments

Given the polls in Iowa, isn't everyone already "encroaching" on everyone else's "turf"? In other words, what does that phrase even mean in this context?

In general, I know that the Clinton-Obama dynamic has seized the lion's share of the national press attention. But Edwards remains in contention for the nomination if he can win in Iowa, and the polls in Iowa show that Edwards winning is perfectly possible (particularly given the inherent uncertainty of the likely voter models and second choice dynamics).

So of course Obama can't forget about Edwards. And Clinton would be doing the same, if she hadn't calculated that she would rather lose to Edwards than Obama.

Posted by DTM | December 18, 2007 5:37 AM

Her attack on his plan is an example of petty divisiveness. His plan doesn't LEAVE anyone out as she suggests. It just doesn't FORCE everyone to participate. Her framing is disingenuous. The fact that he hasn't turned this on her is a little perplexing, but maybe he's waiting for the right moment to pivot.

Seven million of the uncovered would also be uncovered in Clinton's and Edwards' plans. They are called undocumented workers.

Posted by Keith | December 18, 2007 5:58 AM

Contrast is useful here because so many of these candidates policies are similar... The heart of why Senator Obama is the better candidate is the fact that in the Bush-Clinton Era of DC politics, the polarizing and partisan approaches of Senators Clinton and Edwards will lead to just more squabbling in ineffectiveness, rather than to productive change. Senator Obama represents a new kind of experience - the experience of winning NEW results by shedding OLD baggage. His legislative record shows his experience in and success as a reformer capable of bridging divides and formulating new solutions to vexing problems. This is the "Hope" he speaks of in his campaign - hope that our country will rebuild trust between republicans and democrats, rather than re-hashing the battles of the 1990's; Hope that our government can limit the influence of lobbyists, special interests, and corrupt campaign financiers (as was the purpose of the first legislation to bear his name in the US Senate); Hope that our country will re-unite itself with the global community on the international scene and usher in a new age of American leadership and global stability and prosperity. "Hope" isn't a trite campaign slogan for Senator Obama - it is the path by which our country and our people will move beyond the self-defeating politics of the Bush-Clinton era and solve our Nation's problems.
12/18/2007 7:15:33 AM

Posted by Mo | December 18, 2007 7:32 AM

Do we need to get you a better scanner? Or are you being faxed these mail pieces? The quality is horrendous...

Posted by Ryan | December 18, 2007 7:36 AM

Obama is mentioning Edwards more because this week he is campaigning more in rural areas, which has traditionally been Edwards stronghold. So not very surprising.

However, from a campaigning POV, I do think he should avoid directly mentioning Edwards by name when talking about issues. Produces a confrontational tone, which is against his style, and may put voters off.

Posted by evanel | December 18, 2007 7:55 AM

He's been pointing to the contrast between himself and Hillary/Edwards for weeks now at his stump speeches, etc., so a cute little mailing doesn't mean much.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | December 18, 2007 8:23 AM

This is what is known as "attacking from a defensive position." It is a great place to be attacking from because voters generally give you a pass to be a little negative if you are defending yourself against unfair accusations. The jujisu trick involved is to broden the counter-attack to encompass some of your opponents broader weaknesses - in Hillary's care "politics as usual" - and then turn the argument decisevly to your advantage. Look for more of this from Obama as the Clinton campaign continues to hand him passess to go negative with little or any blowback potential.

Posted by RKA | December 18, 2007 8:31 AM

I think Yepsen gets it right this morning:

It may also suggest Obama's internal polls are showing the Illinois senator has peaked.

Obama peaked too soon. I don't think attacking Edwards - who has the best favorability ratings of all the Democrats (save Bill Clinton) in Iowa - is gonna help.

Posted by Will | December 18, 2007 9:44 AM

One issue that I would love to be raised is that of Edwards' senate record. He seems to get a free pass on experience because he served a full term, but if one looks at Edwards record, he consistently ranked among the very bottom among all 100 senators in number of bills sponsored. During the 107th congress (2001-2002) Edwards ranked 90th. I know these rankings are not completely accurate predictors of a legislator's performance, but I do think a 6 year trend of relatively low activity in comparison to one's peers is quite telling. To their credit, Hilary and Obama both rank in the top 15 or so during all their years in the Senate. If Edwards is going to claim that he has "fought for the American people his whole life" than I think he should explain why he deserves to be president when he did not fight as hard as his opponents in this election. Will someone PLEASE raise this issue in these last few weeks before the primaries???

Posted by Joe F - Chicago | December 18, 2007 9:55 AM

Although John Edwards' heart is in the right place, the most important thing that Obama cannot say about him is that he really will not appeal to enough people as a leader and as presidential. He inspires--but not enough.

Obama inspires--greatly. and I think that, perhaps ironically, his health care plan will cover more Americans in need of it if he can present a lower-cost but high-quality health care package.

There will always be some people who will gamble and not purchase health care at all--but forcing them via fine or other penalty means the penalty would have to be more costly that the insurance itself and it means that a certain degree of self-government is lost.

Overall, Obama is the best candidate.

Posted by Stephen S. | December 18, 2007 10:15 AM

Obama peaked too soon.

Yup.

Posted by Red Bowl | December 18, 2007 10:43 AM

Obama is a person of real substance (abuse).

Posted by MeThinks | December 18, 2007 12:19 PM

Obama has framed the primary right. It's hope versus fear. It's change versus more of the same. Clinton's decision to run as the de facto incumbent is really baffling. I think the nomination may be decided between Obama and Edwards. I think Obama is in a better position. I'm not sure, but I'm starting to think he's going to get the nomination.

Posted by The Bag of Health and Politics | December 18, 2007 1:20 PM

I think this was a mistake, as I would have stayed on the mandate/no mandate difference - especially in New Hampshire.

But its probably a small mistake, in the sense that the campaigns are practically locked down now for the holidays, for the most part anyway. I'm guessing we won't see numbers move much through the Iowa caucus, and then the results there will drive the next dynamic.

Which brings us to the question of where we stand. Could be, as some as suggested here, that Obama folks are seeing things that concern them. That's not a bad guess at all.

The flip side is how well anyone can poll, including the campaigns. I know I don't have a landline. And even if I did, no one is home at my house often enough to answer a pollster. Remember that polls only reflect the opinions of those with who are available to answer the phone (not to mention those who have a traditional phone).

I previously had estimated that 25 percent don't have phones, based on my circles of people. Saw something in the Washington Post on this a couple weeks back. Its more like 15 percent, according to that paper. Still, that's enough to skew results quite a bit. Surprisingly to me, the group of people most likely not to have a phone is young Latinos.

I do think we're coming up on a Dewey wins moment sometime. Don't know if its this year or not. But I'm less and less confident that anyone really understands what is going on before the actual ballots are counted.

Posted by Paul | December 18, 2007 1:25 PM

Bag of - that brings up a good point. She probably does fill the dynamic of the incumbent, at least a little. This is good for Obama, because in close races undecideds usually break for the challenger at the end, by something like a 2:1 ratio.

Clinton has her own conventional wisdom points working for her, too, like the fact that in past elections older voters have been the more reliable voters.

Posted by Paul | December 18, 2007 1:28 PM

Barack Obama for President of the United States of America.

Say no to nepotism.
Say no to triangulated Iraq vote disasters.
Say no to mud-sling machine politics.

It's time for America to Rise and Shine again.

Posted by PulSamsara | December 18, 2007 1:55 PM

Hillary's "electability" argument has been sorely tested over the last month. The more dirt she flings at Obama, the worse she looks. He has emerged - so far - unscathed.

I'd rather have the nimble guy that no one can lay a glove on go up against the GOP next year than an ineffective, tired strategy that sort-of worked in the 90s.

Posted by Joohn Y. | December 18, 2007 1:57 PM

Just like TPM, you should not be using these awful scans of the original mailer.

Also, I disagree with your assertion that:
(Clinton meant that every Democrat wants universal health care -- Obama just doesn't have a plan to achieve it.)

The quote the mailer cites is Clinton's discussion of health care at Yearly Kos. Which you can see here beginning at the 5-minute mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThCknSNK96Q&feature=related

She does not draw a specific contrast with Obama, and to my ear does not even imply that everybody else's plan will fall short. She simply makes the case for her experience and lessons learned on the subject.

Posted by along | December 18, 2007 2:03 PM

There are politician who put their best makeup at election time to court voters. Which is really what HRC is doing. During all her years at the white house, she has been divisive but once the polls goes against her and people express a need of change, their we go again let's reinforce the makeup, let's call friends...

If you put a crocodile in the water, under the water or above the water, it doesn't make it a fish. I hope that voters reads through those people souls.

Barack Obama is the genuine guy who came up with the new adeas.

I find it amuzing how Bill Clinton come up to rescue her wife, her campaign would be certainly over without him. And people want her lead america?

Please any other choice would do. Obama specially.

Posted by demos | December 18, 2007 2:04 PM

Obama hasn't peaked yet. He has set up a huge base, alot of it under the radar, that is now settling in and working on bringing in the undecideds and the Edwards supporters who are thinking of moving toward Obama in order to ensure Clinton's defeat. Watch this space. Obama has the most defined, professional and clean campaign I have ever seen. I am excited that this type of politics can take America by storm.

Posted by katharine | December 18, 2007 2:18 PM

Do we actually need recourse to "internal polls"?

The RCP average of "external" polls shows Edwards only 6.8 points behind Obama, well within the limits of uncertainty generated by the time remaining until the caucuses and the difficulty of coming up with a reliable likely voter model for Iowa. Most importantly, due to the structure of the caucuses, second choices could be crucial, and Edwards is running very strong in that category (along with Obama).

So maybe the "internal polls" are in fact painting a different picture, but even from what I can see, Obama has every reason to keep campaigning hard with respect to Edwards.

Posted by DTM | December 18, 2007 2:23 PM

Katharine is exactly right. Those who write off Obama as having "peaked too soon" will be in for a big surprise. His campaign has everything going for it - money, organization, passion, dedication, the right message - and most importantly, the right messenger.

Obama is a winner. You'll see...

Posted by Michael Kniat | December 18, 2007 2:56 PM

Hillary is not right for America. I am confident about the future with Obama as President. He has energy, hope and faith which amazingly empowers people to get involved and get things done. Hillary can keep on taking credit for things her husband did, and keep going on and on about the 90's - Lord knows she should have stayed there! She doesn't represent change or progress. She's not for the future.

Posted by k | December 18, 2007 3:13 PM

The Edwards camp sent out letters by snail mail in Iowa attacking Obama. I received one on 12-7-07 and another several days later. At the same time, Edwards was acting like a friend to Obama. Like the Clinton e-mails, this was underhanded. Then in the Des Moines debate, Edwards talked differences for the first time. Edwards was the beneficiary of media spin that called Clinton's attacks on Obama fighting, when Obama was only defending himself. Now Obama is defending himself again by providing differences between himself and Edwards. If the media wants to call this a fight too, then look at who started it.

Wake up people! Edwards voted for the Patriot Act, NAFTA, and the Iraq war. Why doesnt the Atlantic report on that?

Posted by PJL | December 18, 2007 4:53 PM

Why should we believe anything David Yepsen says? He's another Clinton lackey. Senator Obama has not peaked. New poll out today shows that he is more electable than Hillary. Does much better against the republicans. Hillary can just keep on flying around in her hill-a-copter, but it's not going to win her Iowa. She is definitely not the "change agent". All her campaign has done is steal from Obama's campaign. His speech phases, his fund raising ideas, his "turn the page" and "change". She's the one from the 90's where her and Bill both still live. Obama will be living in the White House come January 20, 2009.

Posted by Carolyn Grace | December 18, 2007 5:32 PM

I do not think Obama has peaked. The race is still in its infacy. I agree with others who say the Clintons' time has come, and gone, however. I do not regard Hillary as a change agent at all. I see her as a return to a troubled past.

Posted by Time Traveller | December 18, 2007 6:41 PM

Today's Washington Post again gives Hillary Clinton little ink. It seems Hillary is bringing her friends along on the campaign trail to soften up her image with Iowa caucus-goers. Evidence, that the former First Lady is really one of them. According to the Post, these confidants are being dispatched around Iowa by the busload (who knew Hillary had so many friends), to knock on the doors of undecided Democrats. Her campaign has also launched a website: TheHillaryIKnow.com, "with testimonials from 'constituents,' friends and leaders whose lives Hillary has touched." (Yeah, my thoughts exactly.) Monday, was apparently spent in a barn on the outskirts of Des Moines, for Hillary's 60th birthday roast. One recent Hillary convert reports, "I didn't know who she was ... She sat with me, and she was just phenomenal. That day it was just two moms sitting in a car." They probably both inhaled. Anyway, my Hillary experience is another story: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | December 18, 2007 7:19 PM

Barack Obama remains consistent. When he is attacked or misrepresented he responds and clarifies his position. Unlike Kerry who let the swift boater thing fester. That mistake sunk him.

Posted by Mr. Unite Us | December 18, 2007 8:04 PM

This is actually known as lying like a dog. His plan does not cover everyone or close to it. The quotes in the mailer are lifted partials from the WaPo and others with the negative parts left out.

This is politics as usual on the part of Saint Obama and does make him probably the biggest hypocrite running on the Democratic side.

Posted by RalphB | December 18, 2007 8:46 PM

Ralph B - So you would rather have us fall under a mandated system that forces it citizens to purchase healthcare... whether they can afford it or not, and then punishes those citizens who can't? Obama's plan is predicated on one simple, telling, insightful premise - People don't have healthcare because they don't want it... People don't have healthcare because they can't afford it. Make healthcare affordable to everyone and everyone will get healthcare. You say it sounds too simple? Simpler than enforcing a mandate for 10-20 million people?

Posted by Eyzwidopn | December 18, 2007 11:24 PM

I think the 'Obama peaked' argument isn't a totally crazy one to make. He's been getting a lot of press as a viable contender. He's exciting and youthful and it sets up the narrative for Hillary to be the comeback kid. And she could be-- had she not played the "I'm the Washington Insider" card.

I think we'll look back at Hil's campaign and wonder what she was doing. In her quest to prove that she is most qualified for the job, she wound up branding herself as a Washington politician. It's a confusing strategic choice seeing as both her husband and G.W. both won on being "outsiders". Of course, for Hillary to run as an outsider would be ridiculous, but she's saddled herself with the most unpopular albatross in American politics-- the label of "politician" and no matter how many flyers she prints with "change agent" printed on them, that's what the voters think of her now.

Obama on the other hand, reflects the electorates frustration with Washington politics in general (as opposed to hatred for one party or another) and like Reagan, promises a version of "morning in America": namely, the politics of hope. In spite of, or because of his prickliness, Obama's pitch, more than any other candidate on the field has been-- "If you want to feel good about America again, vote for me."

Posted by Japhy Grant | December 18, 2007 11:40 PM

Hillary voted for the war in Iraq. That's HER EXPERIENCE working for us. She stood by her adulerous sex-addicted husband. That's HER EXPERIENCE working for women. Her health care plan failed spectacularly. That's HER EXPERIENCE for our future.

Vote for Obama; he's brilliant and has a heart as well.

Posted by shirl | December 19, 2007 12:16 PM

I want everyone out there to close there eyes and imagine Hillary Clinton without Bill. What, if anything, has she ever accomplished in public life? After 30 years in politics can she point to one single programatic accomplishment?

She has had a broad political platform available to her for over 30 years but I can not think of any specific program or achievement she has accomplished on behalf of women, children or families. What has she actully DONE. Where is the evidence of her "hard work" and "experience" Pleassse!. Barack understands women better. His mother was a single mom. He "gets it" because he's lived it.

Posted by Siddhi | December 23, 2007 8:14 PM

You look too white to be called black. How far back in the African family, do you go to call yourself African?

Why can’t you call yourself an American African if you were born in America?

Posted by When is black, black | January 7, 2008 6:53 PM