Bad Move, Obama
Filed under: 2008 elections, Barack Obama, Feature — Jason on March 5, 2008 @ 8:34 pm CET
UPDATE BY MVDG: Obama’s already going negative / getting personal. Attacking Clinton over taxes. Bad, bad move indeed.
Posted in honor of intellectual honesty. 
The Obama campaign is floating the idea of matching Hillary Clinton’s move towards negative, attack-oriented politics:
A senior Obama adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Obama’s team will respond to Tuesday’s results by going negative on Clinton — raising questions about her tax records and the source of donations to the Clinton presidential library, among skeletons in the Clintons’ past.
For many moderates, the heart of Obama’s appeal has been his endorsement of a new political style that eschewed demonization of the opposition in favor of actually being FOR something. The real test of that commitment, however, comes when the going gets a little tough, as it is now for the Obama campaign after March 4. If the Obama campaign makes a major shift towards attacking Clinton personally, he may forfeit one of his biggest strengths.
UPDATE BY MVDG: he’s already going negative. From a memo the Obama camp sent to reporters:
Barack Obama’s campaign took fresh aim at Hillary Clinton Wednesday for refusing to release her tax returns, asking in a memo circulated to reporters, “What does Clinton have to hide?”
“In the face of her unwillingness to release her tax returns, Hillary Clinton has made the false case in this campaign that she is more electable because she has been fully vetted,” the memo stated. “When it comes to her personal finances, Senator Clinton’s refusal to release her taxes returns denies the media and the American people the opportunity to even begin that process.”
1 Barack Obama Chronicles » Archive » Bad Move, Obama
March 5, 2008 @ 8:47 pm CET[…] Jason placed an interesting blog post on Bad Move, Obama […]
2 C Stanley
March 5, 2008 @ 8:49 pm CETOn the other hand, he’s in a bit of a predicament if he doesn’t fight back. Being on perpetual defense isn’t a very viable position- esp. since Hillary will make the case that he’ll be attacked with even more vigor by the GOP, and she might be able to convince the superdelegates that he’s not ready, not electable (and more to the point, convince enough voters to go along with the superdelegates on this, so that they don’t punish her by defecting in the general election if she wins the nomination that way.)
3 C Stanley
March 5, 2008 @ 8:51 pm CETForgot to mention though: kudos on the intellectual honesty part, Jason. More of that needed from <cough, cough> everyone.
4 Anna B
March 5, 2008 @ 9:01 pm CETHillary has forced the campaign to this point. He needs to respond to her campaign in kind - unfortunately most americans seem dumb enough to believe this negative crap. Sad commentary on the US, but she beat him in TX and OH by negative campaigning. He has to step it up.
5 Claudia
March 5, 2008 @ 9:27 pm CETAnna B, I disagree. There’s a line between defending yourself forcefully from attacks, and even exposing hypocrisy (for instance, Clintons many corruption issues as a response to being attacked by her on ethics) and using fear-mongering and misleading advertising. If I’m to believe that Obama wants a "different kind of politics" he has to DO it. I agree that it’s sad to see how regular old filthy politics work, but I don’t want to see Obama doing it, even if it does work.
6 JVD
March 5, 2008 @ 10:16 pm CETObama’s support really relied on his rhetoric more than his substance. After Hillary continuously reminded voters about this, he was eventually forced to focus more on policy. Well that didn’t work, because when it comes down to it, he’s very similar to Hillary except in a few very important policy areas where her ideas are clearly better thought out. The only thing he had left to compare himself to her was the new politics stuff, but then the NAFTA thing showed he was just like everyone else. The basis for his support has been completely destroyed by Hillary and by himself. All he has left is to run a normal campaign against Hillary. So they’ll both end up looking like dirty Washington insiders and the only thing voters will be able to differentiate them on is policy. Hence Hillary wins.
7 phin
March 5, 2008 @ 10:16 pm CETFor many moderates, the heart of Obama’s appeal has been his endorsement of a new political style that eschewed demonization of the opposition in favor of actually being FOR something.
It boggles the mind that people have actually bought into this nonsense. The reason he has not gone negative up until now was because he has not had reason to. And why should he. The media has been kissing his ass left and right and he has been virtually left unchallenged on his record, his claims, his experience, his past, etc. He’s been riding the hopeitude and changiness bullshit. At the end of the day, he’s a politician like everybody else, he wants to win and he wants power and he will do whatever it takes to get him to the top. Period. He will be just as nasty, ruthless and cunning as any Republican and/or Democrat when it comes right down to it, provided he really wants to be POTUS.
8 redfish
March 5, 2008 @ 10:23 pm CETPersonally, if I were running a campaign against Hillary Clinton, I would want to be able to point out that she’s corrupt without being accused of running a negative campaign. Because she is.
9 Michael van der Galien
March 5, 2008 @ 11:00 pm CETThis sound like a trial balloon to me. Let an ‘anonymous staffer’ float the idea around. If people object strongly: plausible deniability. If people, on the other hand, don’t respond too strongly to it: do it.
Phin: I agree with you. I think that he would go negative if he thinks doing so would help him. We’ll see. The Left doesn’t respond too negative to this, so we’ll see what happens in the coming days and weeks. If Obama goes negative on Hillary, we know what he’s made of. If he doesn’t, well, that’s hope giving.
10 Jason
March 5, 2008 @ 11:03 pm CETI disagree. He had "reason to" last year, when Hillary had double-digit leads in all the polls. He had "reason to" when he lost New Hampshire. He declined to "go negative" both times.
There is a weird shiftiness to Obama haters. Whenever he does something wrong, they jump all over it (over and over and over) as an expression of the Real Obama and disavow ANY possibility that it may be circumstantial or distorted (i.e. the "plagiarism" non-scandal). But whenever he does something right, they claim he is just doing it for political convenience.
Actually, a content analysis revealed that Clinton and Obama have roughly equal proportions of fluff to substance in their stump speeches. The "Obama is all rhetoric" is an often-repeated (i.e. tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth) Clinton campaign talking point, not an objective fact.
11 Jason
March 5, 2008 @ 11:05 pm CETRight, I keep forgetting about all those devastating and detailed policy differences spelled out by the Clinton campaign and/or its supporters.
Oh wait. I haven’t seen any of those yet. Just personal attacks. And vague references to some “experience” she obtained while dramatically screwing up her only policy initiative as First Lady, while picking the decor for White House functions as First Lady, and while successfully pushing…let’s see…ZERO major pieces of legislation through in the Senate.
Never mind.
Obama haters really need to learn a fundamental lesson: Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
12 Jason
March 5, 2008 @ 11:12 pm CETMichael, your standard for judging this test seems skewed:
If he goes negative, then you will KNOW he is fake.
If he does not go negative, then you will merely accept that there is HOPE that he is not fake.
This does not seem like a fair set of standards.
13 Michael van der Galien
March 5, 2008 @ 11:14 pm CETJason: no. If he does not go negative it means that he’s truly honest about not going negative and, additionally, it may mean that he’s forthright about other issues as well.
Being honest about one thing doesn’t automatically mean one’s honest about every other issue as well (NAFTA anyone?).
You see my point?
14 redfish
March 5, 2008 @ 11:16 pm CETI don’t think Obama has more fluff than other candidates. My main concern about him is whether he can reconcile his talk about working across aisles with the reality of whether Republicans will accept his positions.
15 Maeve
March 5, 2008 @ 11:24 pm CETsorry …..Obama has played Mr. nice guy while Clinton uses Rovian scaremongering tactics on an Media dumbed electorate. Time to roll up the sleeves and ask her for a reality check. She would get pulled over the coals anyway by the Republicans…Obama would be a fool to take her tactics lying down.
16 Rudi666
March 5, 2008 @ 11:33 pm CETSometimes, as POTUS there is a need to play dirty or throw a fastball on the inside of the plate. Nixon and Kissinger used this to play the USSR and the PRC against each other to further negotiations and detente. This duo also did the same with North Vietnam in their negotiations. Obama needs to play "hardball" without getting to dirty. If he can’t handle Billary’s "surge" and slightly dirty politics, how will he deal with the "Axis of Evil" on the world stage?
17 Pug
March 6, 2008 @ 12:37 am CETOf course no one is addressing the question that was put on the table. Why doesn’t she release her tax returns? What is she hiding?
Is she afraid the American people will find out that she and Bill have been raking in millions upon millions from their "public service"? And is she also afraid that the public might learn that much of that money has been made in the Middle East?
Hillary decided on the "kitchen sink" strategy, not Obama. Well, kitchen sinks can be thrown by more than one person. It’s time for Obama to hurl as big a sink as he can lay his hands on. Hillary wants to play the game this way, fine. She may regret it.
18 John
March 6, 2008 @ 1:36 am CETNegative nancy.
19 phin
March 6, 2008 @ 6:04 am CETI disagree. He had "reason to" last year, when Hillary had double-digit leads in all the polls. He had "reason to" when he lost New Hampshire. He declined to "go negative" both times.
I’ll ask you again: why the heck should Obama go negative when the press has been doing the dirty work for him and polishing his halo at the same time? From the latest Center for Media and Public Affairs from December 16, 2007 through February 19, 2008,
Since mid-December, five out of six on-air evaluations of Senator Obama (84%) have been positive, while Senator Clinton’s coverage has been about evenly balanced (53% positive). Since Super Tuesday, however, Obama’s proportion of good press has dropped to 67%, his worst performance during any phase of the campaign, while Clinton’s coverage remained balanced (50% positive). For example, from the South Carolina primary (Jan 26) to Super Tuesday, a remarkable 96% of comments about Obama were positive.
It’s only really this past week when the press ya know, started to actually do their job rather than cheerlead for the Messiah of Hope and Changiness. He’s many things, but he ain’t dumb. Why get your hands dirty when others have been doing the job for you.
There is a weird shiftiness to Obama haters. Whenever he does something wrong, they jump all over it (over and over and over) as an expression of the Real Obama and disavow ANY possibility that it may be circumstantial or distorted (i.e. the "plagiarism" non-scandal). But whenever he does something right, they claim he is just doing it for political convenience.
Wrong. I don’t hate him. He’s probably the most likeable candidate and really quite a remarkable man. I just do not buy what he’s trying to sell. I’ll think he’ll be just as partisan as Bush (who ran as a centrist –"compassionate conservative"– who was gonna "change" Washington), especially if the Dems retain control of both the Senate and the House. And if people thought GOP dominance was bad, wait until the people that have so effed up their primaries and who actually believe that big government and statist policies are good, are in charge. And even if he is sincere, it’s not he who will change Washington, but Washington who will change him. So, that leaves his policies. I think the substance (what little there actually is) of his policies will be disastrous for your country, especially as the US is heading towards recession, the boomers are about to retire and the geopolitical arena is so frought with risk and danger (an area where a POTUS really has the most influence and power), among other things.
Furthermore, like Michael, I live in a country that has already tried many of the leftist policies that the Democrats are so eager to foist on America. They don’t work, not for the price that you’re gonna have to pay, and most of us here in Quebec and Europe are trying to figure out how to undo them or at the very least, dilute them.
20 phin
March 6, 2008 @ 6:06 am CETSorry, this part:
Since mid-December, five out of six on-air evaluations of Senator Obama (84%) have been positive, while Senator Clinton’s coverage has been about evenly balanced (53% positive). Since Super Tuesday, however, Obama’s proportion of good press has dropped to 67%, his worst performance during any phase of the campaign, while Clinton’s coverage remained balanced (50% positive). For example, from the South Carolina primary (Jan 26) to Super Tuesday, a remarkable 96% of comments about Obama were positive.
was quoted from the report.