The Clinton Counter Attack

“Hillary is pumped up,” her campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, said on an internal conference call late last night. “She’s ready to fight. We’re ready to fight.”

Channeling Howard Dean, perhaps intentionally, Solis Doyle said: “We’re going to fight in New York, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, California. This is just the beginning.”

Clinton's plane(s) -- two of them -- she does not not travel with her press corps -- landed here in New Hampshire at about 4 a.m.

Here is Clinton's game plan:

1. Swarm the state with surrogates; she has a deeper network in New Hampshire than any other state.

2. Two rallies a day; lots of retail events; lots of television interviews.

3. Find some way to go negative against Obama. Some Clinton advisers and aides say that the campaign have a storehouse of opposition research -- old and new -- that they'll use against Obama. In Iowa, being directly associated with negative attacks is seen as uncouth and un-Midwestern; in New Hampshire, rude remarks as as welcome as questions and answers.

4. Claim that Clinton never had a shot in Iowa because of the state's historical bias against women (it's only one of two to never have elected a woman as governor or member of Congress); that Edwards had cornered the Democratic vote and that Obama ran against the Democratic party and cornered the Democratic leading independents; that for a New Yorker to receive 25 percent of the vote or her is impressive (although.. I distinctly remember an HRC mailing calling her a Midwesterner).

By the way: Since 1972, four of nine Democratic nominees have finished second or worse in Iowa; but those four all finished first or second in New Hampshire; the calendar was much more drawn out in those cycles.

5. Point to Clinton's strength in New York, California and Florida; point out that Obama is bad in debates and that in contests that don't rely on retail politicking, she has an edge.

6. Run against the idea of John McCain as the Republican nominee; in other words, who's better to face McCain: Clinton or Obama?

7. Women, women, women. Playing the gender card again.

8. Have really, really good debate performances.

Comments

It all sounds good, but didn't they just do that in Iowa and lose...

Come on, Clinton is had for the country...We need change...

Posted by Mec Man | January 4, 2008 9:40 AM

I don't think Iowa should end the race here and there (although I am SO for Barack). However she needs to be careful. She already has a reputation for being something of a witch (unfair ? probably but nevertheless true).
If she turns ever so slightly more negative, I can guarantee you a backlash. Maybe she will win the primaries but how does she expect to win the general if she reinforces independant's opinion that she is calculating, "owed" and meanly ambitious.

By the way, who do I want to run against McCain ? OBAMA ! Against McCain, she has NO chance to win over independants who don't like her. Period. I don't understand why. But they don't.
Against McCain, Obama may seem inexperienced, but he also fresh, new and attracts all kinds of people to the ballot box. She won't.

Posted by Benjamin | January 4, 2008 9:46 AM

This is perfect.

Clinton is underestimating Obama again and we'll make sure we gave her another thumbin. This 'all-knowing' credence will haunt her for the rest of her life. I promise you that!

Bring it on, Hill! We'll show you the wrath of the people.

Posted by Wayne | January 4, 2008 9:53 AM

It is over for Obama. The US Press and Clintons are now all set to attack and demolish him:

1. Obama is a Muslim. His middle name is Hussain.

2. Obama is not experienced. (But, I/HRC/Hillary is experienced for 35-years, but due to national security and my husband, I am unable to show my papers. Besides, the Press/My friends does not want.)

3. Obama sells drugs. (But, my husband did not inhale, and he did not do anything unethical/illegal/immoral in the White House. We are the best.)

4. Obama is not a democrat. He gets support from outsiders/bad Americans (independents, GOP). (Only I and my husband are true Democrats.)

5. In Senate, I did everything. (I just latch onto any idea that is good as a co-sponsor. Hey, that is all about being a team player).

Etc.

It is over for Obama.

US Lawyers: Please sue the US Press, as they are violating the Freedom of the Press ammendment.

Posted by eorse | January 4, 2008 10:11 AM

Well, people thought for a while they had a good strategy to stop the titanic from sinking, but it did not quite work out that way.

Going negative against Obama will backfire even in NH. People don't want to hear that about a candidate they like.

The Lt Governor of Iowa is a woman. Obama won the female vote after Hillary had been leading it for much of the campaign.

Obama does stringer in heads to heads against McCain than Hillary, who soetimes loses to Mccain. In Hillary vs McCain, dems cede all the independents. In Obama vs McCain, it will be a fight, but Obama will get more of them.

HIllary "strength" in big states is name ID, "inevitability," and in an environment that has sen no campaiging or paid media.

In debates, if Hilary goes really negative, expect the shrill factor to turn off voters. She is not good at attacking gracefully. She usually sounds either shrill or school-marm-patronizing. It won't sell.

Posted by RKA | January 4, 2008 10:15 AM

If this is the Clinton prescription for NH then she's going to be 0-2. The female vote in Iowa went to Obama. Several experts have stated that if yesterday had been a standard primary, he'd have won by 20 points.

Going on the "attack" will backfire at this point and sound like sour grapes. What Clinton needs to do is take the mask off, be herself and state her positions clearly. Put Bill back in the closet as it confuses people about just who is running.

Tuesday will be interesting and much closer than Iowa. Expect the "new and improved" Hillary in a couple of hours.

Posted by Coronation on Hold | January 4, 2008 10:18 AM

#4 seems a tad risky. I mean, has Iowa ever elected a black person to...anything? I don't think they want to start arguing whether sexism or racism is more prevalent - that's just an uncomfortable and unhealthy debate to have.

Posted by Adam, Pittsburgh | January 4, 2008 10:34 AM

Wow, she's very weak on her historical comparison of this Iowa caucus.

Of the three times someone's come in 3rd or worse and subsequently won the nomination (McGovern, Dukakis, and Clinton), none of the ones who eventually came back were frontrunners. (And the one case she cites where the eventual nominee came in second, it was Jimmy Carter and he wasn't beat by anyone--he took second behind "uncommitted")

Looking at her 3 cases above:
--In one of those cases (McGovern) "uncommitted" was the winner.
--In another case (Clinton), Tom Harkin the sitting Iowa Senator was running and everyone wrote Iowa off (no one else got more than 4% of the vote).
--That leaves Dukakis, who certainly didn't come into Iowa with the kind of public profile, funding, and name recognition that Clinton did.

There's never been a situation where a frontrunner with high name recognition, institutional support, and financing came in third in Iowa and then won the nomination.

Posted by anonymous | January 4, 2008 10:39 AM

The memo looks like they are still thinking of 90s style politics. And about what is wrong with Hillary's campaign:

Anyone who watched the after caucus speeches last night will not listen to HRC without it flashing back in their mind.
HRC was surrounded by old Clinton faithfuls. All were people in the national eye for 20 years. All were reminders of what Iowa just rejected: same old establishment politics. The Clinton machine.
And these players are all older now and it showed. Both Bill and Albright looked older than their years and it shocked. Vilsack looked like an old faithful dog on the verge of tears.
The message sent was the old entrenched democratic machine desperately trying to keep their power and amass more.
Then you saw Obama. Surrounded by the ground forces and supporters. Energy and Excitement. The everyday people and Obama succeeding in their insurgent overthrow of the establishment power machine.
While Clinton's speech was all about her, Obama's was about we and us.
And you realized the reason for Clinton running was it was her turn and the campaign is about Hillary. Her running is about Hillary.
Obama's is about the people and the country and a new direction.

Posted by vwcat | January 4, 2008 10:40 AM

"By the way: Since 1972, four of nine Democratic nominees have finished second or worse in Iowa; but those four all finished first or second in New Hampshire; the calendar was much more drawn out in those cycles."

More succinctly:

"Since 1976, three of nine Democratic nominees have finished second or worse in Iowa; but those three all (Carter, Dukakis, Clinton) won in New Hampshire".

The case of 1972 (in which Muskie flamed out following the "Canuck letter" incident) is not likely to be repeated. I think the data show that if Obama wins NH, he will win unless a significant and unreported scandal emerges, or has a major crisis very shortly after NH.

Posted by Allan | January 4, 2008 10:42 AM

Don't let her make the point about Iowa not electing women - ABC News showed a number of times where Democrats nominated a woman in the PRIMARY/CAUCUS -- it was only in the GE they lost... which means she could have won yesterday and then lost Iowa for the Dem in the GE.

Posted by cms | January 4, 2008 10:50 AM

I'm curious about the ongoing impact of Edwards' stance that both he and Obama are the candidates of change and Clinton isn't. Edwards doesn't have a lot of money I keep hearing and I'm sure that's true but whatever press he gets can't be good for Clinton. One might argue that he splits the "change" vote, but that didn't seem to hurt Obama in Iowa (though Obama got lots of independent support...). Edwards' attacks on Clinton hurt her a lot in my opinion. He's a very good speaker and his message really resonates with Democratic values. I wonder what the real wonks have to say about this...

Posted by Hugh Simmons | January 4, 2008 11:05 AM

I guess I just don't understand Obama's appeal to progressives. I mean, this is a guy who not so subtly seeks popularity by preaching intolerance against people who are not "of faith," who aligns himself with virulent homophobes in order to pick up votes, and who runs to the right of the other Democratic candidates on substantive issues again and again. I'd like someone to explain to me how I, as a gay atheist, or anyone who doesn't think that gay atheists should be treated as second class citizens in this country (which I had assumed would be all progressives) can really support Obama, other than that he would be marginally less likely than a Republican to sign Christianist, homophobic legislation as President.

Posted by dk | January 4, 2008 11:08 AM

Put on your galoshes, she's going to drop a truckload of mud in New Hampshire.

It may hurt her as much as it hurts Obama, and she probably thinks that's fine, if it ends up with her against edwards.

If Obama can survive the avalanche of mud coming his way, then more power to him, but I am going to sit tight with Edwards, drafting in the number 2 car, waiting for Hillary to drive Obama into the wall.

Posted by drfranklives | January 4, 2008 11:08 AM

Can someone get Eorse some pills for his manic depresssion/extreme paranoia? Maybe start a 527 and raise some money?

Posted by Not eorse | January 4, 2008 11:12 AM

dk: Name a time when Obama "preached" against people who aren't of faith. And try to determine a way to surround oneself with black Democrats and not be surrounded by a few virulent homophobes.

Two words: GOOD LUCK. Nevermind the fact that he's had more pro-active dialogue with black political leadership on the subject of homophobia than Jackson or Sharpton or any of that crew. (He told it STRAIGHT to Harold Ford.)

I'm a gay unitarian progressive, but religious people don't freak me out, and I don't think we should ideologically "cleanse" ourselves of people who are still learning about lgbt America. I must be freaking crazy!!!

The truth is that you just don't get *young* progressives, a segment of the progressive movement that believes in gay rights and lots of other great causes but finds it silly - especially after witnessing GWB's style - to refuse any dialogue with people who disagree.

Posted by Adam, Pittsburgh | January 4, 2008 11:25 AM

dk, you should read andrewsullivan.com for the gay/conservative/not very religious viewpoint on Obama.

Posted by Michael J. | January 4, 2008 11:27 AM

dk, I'm a gay-friendly atheist and I have no problems whatsoever with his campaign. If you think the only thing that matters is the last 3 months, than line up behind John Edwards. If you look at the record over the last 20 years, then Obama's your man.

Posted by dbt | January 4, 2008 11:35 AM

I agree with dk regarding Obama's progressive bona fides. I am not as concerned about his social gaffes. The Dems aren't going to dump gays nor are they going to cater to theocrats. The party just doesn't seem to be headed in either direction to concern me that Obama will somehow change that dynamic.

My concerns on Obama are entirely on his domestic agenda. His SS-crisis talk worries me to death. His lack of a universal health care plan worries me to death. His message of compromise with the GOP scares me to death. What is the compromise position with the GOP on health care? What is the compromise position with the GOP on Social Security? Clinton scared me as the nominee because it is evident she will never betray her corporate donors. I always like Obama because of his grassroots support, but his rhetoric doesn't seem to eschew the status quo of corporations calling the shots when their position is the whole dynamic behind why our country is failing millions of its citizens.

Posted by Ricky | January 4, 2008 11:50 AM

I think the main message from this result is that America is more interested in change rather than experience and I think that is where the challenge is for Hillary.
She is a very strong candidate and can be an effective president. But I think the US is turning towards change and not really interested in whatever experience the individual has.

Posted by Leye | January 4, 2008 12:03 PM

Hillary Clinton needs to be careful not to overstep her bounderies in her attempt to smear Obama.
She is a sore loser, as recently she emphasized to Couric 'it will be me', she won't accept 'no' for an answer, because of her entitlement must.
While she may think she can smear Obama unrelentless, the african american community will not tolerate to smear one of their own, for them Obama will become their vote choice, regardless of experience, or whatever HRC claims she has.

Posted by icrutchfield | January 4, 2008 12:05 PM

I don't understand the middle clause in #4. She's going to claim it's a point in her favor that Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents didn't vote for her?

Posted by Adam Stephanides | January 4, 2008 12:15 PM

Jake Tapper of ABC absolutely DESTROYED point #4 yesterday.

#3 is also total BS. There is no way that Clinton is sitting on good Obama oppo material. She would have had surrogates using it in Iowa.

Posted by bob | January 4, 2008 12:57 PM

Adam,
I guess we were thinking of this:

"WASHINGTON -- Sen. Barack Obama chastised fellow Democrats on Wednesday for failing to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people," and said the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and other churchgoing Americans.
...
At the same time, he said, "Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square."

As a result, "I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people and join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy."

Yeah, I know, there is more, and he tries to soften it up a bit. But the fundamental problems remain: (1) this is a core Rovian talking point (2) there aren't any significant Democratic politicians/leaders who are "disrespectful" of "faith" (3) in my experience Democrats in general are far more respectful of faith than the Radical Right and the Republicans - they just don't limit their respect to evangelical Christianity (4) keeping a strict separation between church and state, and keeping direct forcing of religion out of the public square, is the single /most respectful/ thing that any Citizen can do for religion. This is something the Puritans came to understand quite well in the years leading up to the writing of the Constitution.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | January 4, 2008 1:11 PM

Ricky, as a fellow progressive I understand your concerns. But look at the speeches last night and the breakdown/turnout of independent voters. Who is best going to sell health care and social security to independents, moving the CW enough that Republicans are forced to acquiesce? Who can have long coattails and pick up senate seats in purple states so we can put our legislative agenda through?

Despite the small differences in rhetoric, there is no difference between the 3 on the critical need to preserve public social security. I really don't think there's a big difference on health care. Obama just suggested he might charge a late fee for people who fail to sign up, and Paul Krugman seemed enthusiastic about it yesterday. A mandate via tax return as Edwards seems to prefer will be very hard to do politically without alienating independents. It'll be costly, make the filing process even more arduous, and independent studies suggest it might make a difference of 6 million initial payers (factcheck.org) - most of whom are going to be very poor and pay very little. I have yet to hear Edwards make a case that it will even offset the cost of the added bureaucracy.

If you have any doubts about Obama, just look at his voting record - all 11 years of it. Obama is a staunch progressive, but he does it in a way that makes independents like him and thus makes him powerful. That's why I've been on the Obama bus for over a year.

Posted by John M. | January 4, 2008 1:22 PM

"experience vs. change"
Is Hillary really more experienced than her rivals and if so how much weight is given to being First Lady? She has four years on Obama in the U.S. Senate, eight years of firstladyship to his eight years in the Illinios senate; Richardson has been a Govenor, ambassador and energy secretary; and Edwards has nearly the same background (sans firstladyship)as she. Perhaps it's her experience obstructing justice that we've come to expect in a president, that her competition lacks.

Posted by not impressed | January 4, 2008 1:32 PM

Going negative against Obama will backfire even in NH. People don't want to hear that about a candidate they like.

I agree that personal attacks are something Clinton should avoid, unless there's some beef behind them. So far all the crap they'll tried to pull on Obama hasn't had any substance. But there are legitimate policy differences with Obama that they can -- and must -- use. They should start with Obama's views about Social Security. And they should take on the mandates issue. She can make a cogent, intellectually respectable case that mandates make sense. Use a phrase like "every benefits, everybody shares responsibility" or somesuch. She can accuse Obama of offering "pie in the sky" on healthcare. She should drop the bullshit about "change" as Obama's obviously the much fresher face. And yet, switching from George W. Bush to Hillary R. Clinton would obviously constitute a huge degree of change over the status quo. She doesn't need to keep using that word -- and should avoid it -- because Obama's cornered the market on it. Rather, she can imply the degree of change she offers simply by stressing her party affiliation (Hi, I'm Hillary Clinton, and I'm a Democrat running for president). Her key buzzword should instead be "experience." It will stress the fifteen year age gap between her and her opponent, and emphasize his rather unproven record. And yes, she should vigorously critique her opponent for "lack of experience in a dangerous world."*

*The political gods must really look with favor, though, upon Obama. I mean, the current flash point making the headlines in world affairs is Kenya. I don't know about you, but I rather suspect it's the young whippersnapper candidate who would better in a better position to make a contribution on that particular crisis were he president.

Posted by Jasper | January 4, 2008 1:37 PM

I agree this is what she has to do, but he's figured out a campaign aimed straight at independents and it's working. And for whatever reason that's not alienating him from progressives -- look at the entrance poll results over at pollster.com and you'll see that he dominated among self-described liberals.

I don't agree that NHites are especially rude. Taciturn, maybe. But NY it's not.

Looking ahead, for delegates it really comes down to California. On Super-T each gets their home state and should do well in neighboring states; numberwise that helps her. Re CA, Bill Clinton worked the state hard and has lots of goodwill. OTOH this is a state where plucky immigrant stories and quirky centrist politics work.

Posted by c | January 4, 2008 2:06 PM

I hope she does go negative. When she did it before she really started to tank. He's the teflon candidate when it comes to attacks, especially when they're coming from Shrillary. All she'll do is remind people of what they don't like about politics and they'll turn to that fresh breeze, Obama.

And the idea that that fat reptile, Mark Penn, would sit on damaging oppo research is laughable. You saw how desperate they were with the cocaine and "secular madrassahs." They got nothin!

Posted by waka waka | January 4, 2008 2:12 PM

Compare Barack Obama in 2008 to Bill Clinton in 1992 and what substantive difference do you see in age and experience? Clinton became a pretty good president, but he learned on the job. We "rolled the dice" with him and survived; I submit it can happen again.

If we want a Senator we have/had Biden, Dodd; a governor or diplomat, Richardson. I guess we do not want experience.

There is no reason to assume that twelve years as the spouse of the Governor of Arkansas and eight years as the spouse of the President of the United States are in any way relevant to the job of being president. There is no evidence only assertion.

That leaves ambition, which both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama possess.

If we want a former president to re-enter the White House through the back door then Mrs. Clinton is the only choice.

I can think of no substantive reason to definitively prefer Clinton to Obama or Obama to Clinton. That leaves style, rhetoric, and vision.

I will take Obama.

Posted by John | January 4, 2008 2:18 PM

Bill Clinton must remind us of the fights he made in the 90's that Obama "doesn't want to fight again", like standing up for college aid so all the under 30's could enjoy their educations. Obama's "can't we all get along" rhetoric is quite the inspiration, but who do we really want in the Oval Office as Republicans try to cut Medicare again as they did in the 90's before Clinton let them shut the government down?

Posted by Keith | January 4, 2008 2:22 PM

Dan Balz has an excellent piece of analysis up over at the WaPo about why NH might not be the cakewalk that Hillary supporters are hoping for:

http://tinyurl.com/39s3wo

The tasty bits:

"In virtually every demographic category where Obama found his greatest strength in Iowa, New Hampshire's electorate has at least as many or more of those voters, based on a comparison of the entrance polls from Thursday's caucuses in Iowa and from the 2004 Democratic primary in Hampshire.

Take independents. They constituted 20 percent of the caucus electorate in Iowa on Thursday, but four years ago in New Hampshire they constituted nearly half (48 percent) of the Democratic electorate."

Hillary will continue to make an excellent public servant for NY.

Posted by Leo | January 4, 2008 2:34 PM

Clinton needs to stop using the word "fight" and use phrases like "work hard," "breaking up the fighting and anger," and "working together for the common goals of this country" in order to change the world that we're living in.

Posted by Check | January 4, 2008 3:01 PM

Take independents. They constituted 20 percent of the caucus electorate in Iowa on Thursday, but four years ago in New Hampshire they constituted nearly half (48 percent) of the Democratic electorate.

Yes, but unlike in Iowa, there's a serious, very well-liked, viable candidate competing with Obama for independent and moderate GOP voters. His name is John McCain. Also, don't be surprised if John Edwards's candidacy doesn't melt away. There's plenty of real estate bust-related economic anxiety in New Hamphire. Edwards's candidacy appeals to that sense of fear, and he did, after all, come in second to Obama, and can make a plausible case that voters ought to reconsider him. My guess is Edwards pulls more support from Obama than he does from Clinton. Obama could conceivably put away Clinton, but to do that he needs to start racking up double digit victories. If Hillary can stay close, the realization will start to enter people's minds that this is going to be more a marathon than a sprint.

Posted by Jasper | January 4, 2008 3:02 PM

As they say in Yiddish - es vet gur nisht helfen.

To paraphrase what the Wicked Witch said in the Wizard of Oz: "Surrender Hillary"

Posted by Putney | January 4, 2008 3:16 PM

Last I checked, McCain was running in Iowa last night, too. And he finished behind Fred Thompson.

I'm just at odds with the notion that McCain is the magic bullet that's going to stop Obama's momentum. Zogby today has McCain leading Romney by 4 points and Clinton leading Obama by 6 in New Hampshire.

However, that poll was taken before the Iowa results. Most likely Obama's bounce will at least match Clinton, if not overtake her. Huckabee will obviously get a boost as well, and it will be interesting to see where that leaves McCain.

And most people stop paying attention to the news over the weekend. That gives Clinton and Edwards just one day- today- to go as negative as possible against Obama. Monday will be Obama's day in the press to respond, and hype his own bounce.

Posted by Leo | January 4, 2008 3:41 PM

Ben Smith over at politico has an astounding series of comments coming from Clinton in her first few events in NH. Even with Obama's win, I was nervous for him in NH, but if Clinton keeps making mistakes, they may just give him the boost he needs. For example, I think deriding the state she just left is a bad idea, because it makes it seem like she doesn't care about anyone but the people who vote for her. The tone deafness of the Clinton camp is so strange given that Bill has such perfect pitch. Maybe the experience has they suffer from a sense of entitlement. As to the debates, they have been her fortress--the same rule, she wins if she doesn't lose still applies, but if she loses...finally one last observation, if she walks into tues with a lead outside the MOE and then comes in 2d or 3d, she will have to fight to stem defections before Feb 5.

Posted by JC | January 4, 2008 3:43 PM

Women women women? Didn't Obama beat her in the woman vote?

Posted by mad6798j | January 4, 2008 3:50 PM

SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON IS GOING TO MAKE A GREAT PRESIDENT.

Posted by JOHN | January 4, 2008 4:06 PM

John, I appreciate what you are saying but I have a hard mistaking his rhetoric for his policies. His policies while similar to HRC and Edwards all seem to have just a bit less and seem to offer more fodder to the corporate crowd. This is the starting point, not the end point...especially if his rhetoric is to be believed. So we start with his somewhat watered down position that is negotiated down to what?

I could care less about alienating independents. While ending the Iraq war is a worthy cause (and the only real cause independents and progressive share deeply), the whole fiasco is just a symptom of the disease. Ending the war doesn't stop the next one from starting when another big business calls in for a favor.

While I find his record in the Senate disappointing, I'll admit I know little of his record in Illinois, so perhaps he did a lot of progressive policies there. His current platform is rather weak to me (so are the others, but his is always one step behind what Edwards has offered up) and if it is to only bait and switch the independents, OK, but that is a big risk.

I don't want someone who will get things done. George Bush got some things done. I want someone who will get the right things done. I just don't find a platform that most independents would buy into to be the right thing. I would rather a true progressive platform that not only increased the number of new Democrats flocking to our banner and our policies (not one catered to please independents), but one that finally drew out the millions of people who are already Democrats but just don't vote.

I hope Obama proves me wrong. I probably had too high hopes for him initially. My worry is that he is already pitching his tent in the center, where will he move it in the general?

Posted by Ricky | January 4, 2008 4:18 PM

This is largely a cross post. The main reason I prefer Obama over Hillary as the opponent of McCain is that,if the facts on the ground continue to improve in Iraq, Hillary is crippled in attacking McCain on foreign policy in a way that Obama is not.

Let me explain: Obama can say, "Sen. McCain has been consistent and principled on Iraq, but dead wrong on the critical question of judgment, which is whether we should have gone in the first place at the cost of 4000 soldiers and a trillion dollars, not to mention the cost of establishing a new spot of instability in the middle east and a new pretext for generating anti-US sentiment in the Muslim world. To be sure, John would have made better tactical decisions on how to execute the war that Bush/Rumsfeld made, but on the big picture, John got it wrong, I got it right, and the American people know this in their bones. Worse, since John does not admit it was a mistake, we can't be sure that, if a similar circumstance arises, he won't opt again for war rather than containment."

Hillary, because of her disastrous war vote, cannot make that argument nearly as effectively as Obama, so Obama is better suited to beat McCain -- especially when you add the icing that he can win some independents that otherwise would go McCain's way.

Posted by RaymondA | January 4, 2008 4:54 PM

Jasper,

There is nothing wrong with Hillary making policy contrasts.

If she thinks that health care mandates are going to be a rallying cry in the "live free or die" state, all the best of luck to her!

And punting to a social security commission, while perhaps a somewhat justifyable thing to do, is not exactly the stuff that rallies voters. Maybe HIlary could give a speech entitled, "The audacity of a bipartisan commission." Yeah, that might work.

Posted by RKA | January 4, 2008 5:03 PM

Hillary -- Though I want you to lose to Obama, I don't want to see you make a fool of yourself, so cancel the gender card arguments ... NOW. When historians look back, they will say that you began to tumble, not so much because of your Phila debate performance, but because you made excuses about it that played on the stereotype that woman are at a disadvantage against a group of male competitors. WOMEN hated that argument as much as, if not more than, men, and that's when your favorable gender gap started to disappear.

Also, to stick with "card" metaphors, if you play the gender card regarding Iowa never electing a female governor, can't Obama trump that one with the race card, which is that a whopping 48 states, including Iowa and NH and Nevada, have NEVER elected a black governor? Only Massachusetts (last year) and Virginia (late 1980's) have done so. So I'd put the estrogen defense in the waste basket.

Finally, don't you think the press and the public are wary of "historical pattern" arguments, when Obama demolished an argument through his numbers in Iowa that even many of us defenders doubted could be refuted? I refer to the argument that caucus turnout could not possibly increase by more than 20 percent, and that young people always flake out. Well, Obama proved turnout could double, and that young voters don't always flake out when they really believe in someone, so people are rightly going to dismiss BS "history" arguments.

Posted by RaymondA | January 4, 2008 5:04 PM

Jasper,

McCain's day in the sun with indies and moderate Repubs was 8 years ago when he ran against Bush and criticized the religious right.

Since then, he kissed up to Bush, supported an insane war, rolled over on torture, and sucked up to the religious right. Even his core domestic issue, spending, is ridiculous given what we've wasted in Iraq.

As a result, he's been losing indie and moderate GOP support ever since 2000. As you can see in the Iowa results.

Posted by Jon H | January 4, 2008 6:42 PM

My mind is blown clean - every single one of those ideas is a really horrible idea. She is crazy, and it comes out the most when she's on the defensive. Not to get all new-age on you all, but she is a Scorpio, and the scorpion tends to sting itself in its desire to kill its opponent. Dean's a Scorpio too, and I love that man. But yeah. And Obama and Bill Clinton are Leos. Egotistical sure, but leaders. And ruled by the sun - positive, sunny people. She is.. man she's going to corkscrew right into Alan Keyes terrain. Iowa hates women and loves black men? Oh my lard.

Also- Adam from Pittsburg is exactly right in every respect. And eorse was being sarcastic, and hilariously so.

Posted by Phoebe | January 4, 2008 7:01 PM

I think Clinton should outsource her strategy to Paul Krugman. I think Krugman has made an excellent case against Obama. He hasn't entirely convinced me but he has gotten me from pro-Obama to neutral.

Posted by Robert Waldmann | January 4, 2008 7:18 PM

Ricky -- you rock. Robert, I completely agree about the Obama concerns. The social security comments are seriously troubling, and his health care reform ideas are a big problem. On Meet the Press this week, he seemed to be pretty clearly saying that mandates are not only nanny state-ish but unnecessary, because once people see that insurance is affordable, they'll all just jump on board. To suggest that that's naive is not a Clinton slur; it's an obvious truth. It's nice that he wants to reconceptualize politics -- but he seems determined also to reinvent the wheel, learning over again lessons that progressives have fought hard to settle already.

But then I should probably stipulate that I do not require that my presidents inspire me. I only insist that they not make a mess of policy.

Posted by Lisa | January 5, 2008 12:55 AM

I think that Clinton is honest. She backs medical programs, social security, and our country. Obama is clearly deceiving many people about himself and and his destructive intentions toward our country.

Posted by david e. miller | January 5, 2008 5:52 AM

FORGET IOWA.THOSE PEOPLE WERE PRESSURED AND INTIMIDATED BECAUSE IT IS NOT A SECRET BALLOT.NEW HAMPSHIRE IS A SECRET BALLOT.THE REAL WINNER WILL COME OUT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.

Posted by JOHN | January 5, 2008 8:28 AM

The Clintons have always had an extraordinary blind spot in how they think other people view them. While Clinton and Obamas views are pretty much the same (except for Iraq which is a nightmare for Hillary) people are TIRED of her and Bill. Her campaign is ALL ABOUT HILLARY. Not true of Obama.
d

Posted by Dave | January 5, 2008 9:59 AM

Each one of these candidates can say whatever he or she wants about reforming health care, social security, immigration policy, energy policy, or whatever else they want totalk about; but they can't impose those reforms. They aren't running for leader of the legislative branch. They can only sign or veto what congress sends to them. God help us if they become able to dictate what congress sends up for signature. GWB was able to do that with a Republican controlled congress, and that was largely responsible for the mess we have today.
What is more significant is who each would appoint to cabinet posts. Consider the profound damage done by GWB's apointees. I know the current presidential candidates can't give a list of names at this point - it isn't likely each has a list at this time - but why doesn't anyone ever ask what their criteria will be when looking for a Secretary of State, a Secretary of Defense, an Attorney General, a secretary of the Treasury, etc., etc., etc. That is where a newly elected President has a most immediate and profound effect on the welfare and the future of the United States.

Posted by Lee | January 5, 2008 10:31 AM

why do the obama people keep saying get fired up? what does that meam? sounds like some kind of drug street slang.

Posted by john | January 5, 2008 1:34 PM

Those strategies are not going to work. Especially if she goes negative, because she doesn't do it well. It's fair to contrast differences, but she has to do it in a snarky way, like she did in the debate by quoting her own press release.

When she goes negative like that, it reminds people of Bush. Bush hid information (Hillary hides her White House papers), Bush lies (Hillary lied about her husbands letter to withhold her White House Papers), Bush changes data in intelligence and scientific reports (Hillary manufactures information, like she did in the debate, quoting her own press release.) Hillary has been quote as saying "leave no finger prints", published in the NYTimes.

I'm ready for a change. Obama wins by building us up, uniting us, and making us stronger.

Obama '08

Posted by Kiku | January 6, 2008 1:08 AM

I watched both debates tonight, the GOP is a mess! I think, even though I haven't completely made up my mind, when and if something were to happen in the oval office, based on the debates, I would rather have her at the helm.

She gave a scary, smart answer regarding Pakistan situation. She called out Edwards half truths and Obama hypocrisy. He claims that he won't have a lobbyist working for him but his NH chair is a registered, PAID lobbyish. His response...dead air. Gibson should have followed up. Just like in the lead up to the Irag war, the MSM is failing to do their job and vet Obama. Edwards was not able to list a significant thing that he did in the senate. His reference to passing the PBORA was a lie, it never passed.

This is the Hillary that I want to see, a fierce fighter! It was obvious to me that Hillary won this debate. Obama looked like he still wanted to be watching that football game and Edwards seemed to be tone deaf. Why gang up on Hillary, her voters won't peel off, go after Obama...strange indeed.

Posted by shark | January 6, 2008 1:59 AM

There is a difference between contrasting your records against your opponents and going negative. The MSM is not doing its job in vetting anyone other than Hillary. She is being attacked by right wing talk shows, Obama, MSM, Edwards, what is she suppose to do, lay over and die. I swear
Americans are weak stomached when it comes to politics. Go to England and Japan and see how their politicians debate.

Obama has a record and many of his supporters hear don't have 1/2 a clue about it. It bothers me that he skipped votes and voted present rather than take a stand with a 'yes' or 'no' vote in the Illinois senate. It does bother me that he goes after Clinton regarding the Kyle-Leiberman act but he didn't bother to show up to vote. It bothers me that the legislation that he co-sponsered or supporter regarding the Iranian National Guard is pretty much similar to KL act. it bothers me that he let the poor black tenants of those apartments in Illinois go without heat for 2 weeks. it bothers me that Edwards only spin is about how his parents worked in a mill. I don't doubt his sincerity but he is also foreign policy lite.

It seems that Bhutto's family and Party and now even Musharraf agreed with Hillary's advice to call for an independent investigatin regarding her death NOt being lead by the US.

When I vote, I want to know the most I can about a candidate's record and I'm not naive to rely on the MSM to do it.

To the poster above, the hit piece by Tapper of ABC. com was garbage and exposed him as a sexist pig

Posted by shark | January 6, 2008 2:06 AM

I am sick to death with this mystical Krugman worship business. The problem with conjuring Krugman every time you want to bolster Hillary is that you're preaching to your own choir - establishment partisan Democrats, somewhat misleadingly known as "progressives". Paul Krugman strikes me as two things in his NY Times political writings (1) not terribly interested in the way the larger world outside America works and (2) only concerned with the political realities of within the Democratic party in this country. It's fairly shocking hypocrisy of the worst kind for someone who lurks on the political scene in the guise of the applied economist to be so wilfully ignorant of reality as Krugman is, but then again it's equally surprising that people think Hillary Clinton is "strong" on foreign policy. To me, strength in foreign policy - or any policy for that matter - is mostly about being able to see reality and make common sense judgments about it that benefit the United States and its people. On that note - the only important one in my book - I trust an independent mind like Obama to establishment hacks like Krugman and Clinton any day of the week.

Posted by Tim | January 7, 2008 6:13 AM

Sen. Clinton's appeal has depended on two things: her deep competence as a technocratic policy wonk; and her symbolic value as a first woman president. I think she gets greatest traction as a technocrat ("experience") but it's a hard sell when Obama is so much more exciting and is also capable of appearing smart, thoughtful, and deliberative.

What strikes me as most interesting, though, is how limited is Sen. Clinton's appeal as feminist icon. If the polling from Iowa and New Hampshire are generally applicable, few women under the age of fifty -- and virtually no women under the age of twenty-five -- seem to want to vote for her because they think it's important to elect a woman president. Her failure in this regard, and Obama's success in running as a "post-racial" black man, could be an important indication that we are seeing the beginning of the end of identity politics in America. If that's true -- and I think it is -- Sen. Clinton's strategy is likely to fail.

Posted by Peter | January 7, 2008 9:19 PM