Clearly the pushback from the liberal blogs is making some noise with the Clinton campaign, because Peter Daou (who I know in real life and think is a great guy) has written a lame defense of the campaign’s latest strategy of trashing Barack Obama and lauding John McCain’s experience in order to make a contrast.
I’ve seen a number of blog posts criticizing Hillary for drawing a contrast on national security with Sen. Obama.
Actually, most of those blog posts criticize Sen. Clinton for stressing the alleged superiority of her “experience” (you know, eight years largely consisting of White House dinners and Christmas tree decorations now qualifies as the “commander-in chief threshold”), and her insistence on trumpeting John McCain’s “experience” over Barack Obama’s youth.
Winning in November means defeating John McCain and it is not only legitimate but essential for Hillary to make the case that she is the Democrat who can stand toe-to-toe with Sen. McCain on national security.
And winning in November isn’t helped by describing the Democratic frontrunner as wet-eared know-nothing.
Now if you want an example of a false negative attack that provides fodder to the GOP, look no further than the Obama campaign’s repeated allegation that Hillary will “say anything” to get elected.
It’s not false when Clinton campaign officials have changed their message a thousand times since her declaration of candidacy. It’s not false when Clinton campaign officials push stories about Obama dealing drugs, or the current line that says John McCain is more worthy of leading the country than Obama. The truth is not a false negative attack.
If drawing a contrast on national security is so destructive to a candidate in a general election, how does it help to make the patently false claim that your Democratic opponent will “say anything” to get elected?
The Clinton campaign has decided that it will lay waste to the Democratic party if she cannot get the nomination. Mathematically she will not overtake Sen. Obama’s delegate lead. She has compared him to Ken Starr, surrogates have made racial insinuations, and those are only the shenanigans that have come to light so far. Shes gone from fair competition to destructive. It’s not “drawing a contrast”, these are patently false negative attacks that not only undercut Sen. Obama, but in the longterm they once again undercut the Democratic party on the vital national security issue.
If someone is hell-bent on taking the party down with their chances, it’s clear she really will say anything to get elected.
You have to read the comments to truly appreciate the stupidity and utterly psychotic devotion of some of Hillary’s supporters (not to say there aren’t plenty of Obama nutters out there, but the sh*t I’m reading increasingly on many of the pro-Hillary blogs…holy crap). One compares Obama’s political history to FDR and JFK…but not Hillary! Another talks about McCain’s experience in the military and his time as a P.O.W. and goes on to insist that he and Hillary know just what our troops are going through…even though she has never served or been anywhere near a battlefield. Another insists that she has more credibility on security because of her record, but fails to note that her record mirrors McCain’s almost perfectly, including the notorious Iraq vote and the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. Yet another says in absolute seriousness that Hillary can hold her head up high for not running a negative campaign.
Hillary’s strategy at this point is that no Democrat but her deserves the nomination, even if means McCain wins over Obama. Repeatedly endorsing McCain over Obama serves two purposes:
1. She gets to wag her “I told you so” finger at all the stupid Democrats when Obama loses to McCain after he echoes her attacks on him.
2. While he is despised for losing a gimme-election to the Republicans, she gets to swoop in and save the party in 2012.
Daou sets up a strawman (”Hillary is just drawing a contrast”), followed by an ad hominem (”Obama campaign’s repeated allegation that Hillary will “say anything” to get elected”, link please?), and finishes it off with some specious reasoning. Even if Obama’s campaign has done something like this, and I think he has no evidence of this, it’s merely setting the tone. Contrast with Hillary’s comments, which will almost certainly be a part of McCain’s attack ads in October.
There’s no way Daou is actually that stupid.
Yet another says in absolute seriousness that Hillary can hold her head up high for not running a negative campaign.
Well, that’s just nutty.
Keith Olberman had a great line about the “monster” thing. he said Obama should have just said, “Well, she’s not a monster….as far as I know.”
when Clinton campaign officials push stories about Obama dealing drugs
OW, that’s quite an exaggeration.
Why do you need to embellish? The truth supports your position rather nicely. Mr. Shaheen went in front of reporters and suggested that Mr. Obama’s background had not been scrutinized. He pointed out an obvious fact–if Mr. Obama is the nominee, Republicans will say bad things about him.
It was at the next step that Mr. Shaheen went off the rails. Someone asked him: “Like what?” and he went on to speculate and his speculation included some fanciful–but plausible–scenarios on what the GOP noise machine might do. He would have been smart and honorable to forego his speculations.
He was wrong. He did NOT “push stories about Obama dealing drugs.”