The Hillary Effect (still)

I came by looking for your take on the Dodd-Obama-Hillary exchange over Obama's comments about Pakistan. (I could see you appreciating something in both Obama's statement and the Dodd-Hillary criticism.)

"Strongest selling point" is ambiguous because I heard two: a) She wants to unite Democrats to defeat the Republicans, which I think she can do, and b) she knows how to survive and fight back against the 'right wing machine.'

For all the complaints about her dress, her monotone delivery, her thighs, etc., she has not just survived those right-wing attacks but has obviously come out well liked.

I like Obama, and, while he likes to focus on Dodd's and Hillary's votes, he has his own negative: inexperience. We've suffered from a president who has had too little foreign policy experience. That said, Obama is no Bush. Plus, the Obama I heard speak at the Democratic Convention displayed some ability to unite liberal and moderate Democrats.

And just what strongest selling point is that, personality? You've got to be kidding. Hillary Clinton can leave you with many feelings, but the warm fuzzies isn't one of them.

Or is it experience? Just how much actual government experience does she have, anyway? Four years as a Senator, plus her years as First Lady of Arkansas and in the White House, but that's not really hands-on government experience.

I noted with interest that she jumped all over Obama for him comment about nukes in Pakistain/Afghanistan, but as AP story last night points out, she said the same thing hersefl about Iran just last year.

There's a lot of smoke and mirrors going on here.

Keir, did I read that properly? You actually dropped the term "the warm fuzzies" in what I believe was intended to be a serious political point?

For the record, it's six years (and counting) as Senator. And I'm not sure about the "smoke and mirrors" you suggest, but I am sure there's a lot of spin going on in that comment - not to mention a slight dose of misogyny. Do you really want to discredit the work Hillary did establishing the Advocates for Children and Families in Arkansas? ... or her credentials to be on the board of Legal Services Corporation?

I'm just curious if that's a road you seriously want to go down. Careful with the spin, there ... you can paint yourself into a corner with it.

The mysogonistic comment is totally unfounded. I don't disparage any of the charitable/community work she's done over the years, but why does that make her any more qualified to be president than someone like Obama, who did years of community organizing before entering politics?

The "warm fuzzies" comment was totally a propos of the video clip you showed. Clearly, her campaign understands that likeability is a huge problem for her, electability-wise. The whole "I'm your girl" schtick was calculated to disarm the bubba union guys in attendance, and yes, make her more warm and fuzzy, (read: likeable, regular person) to those watching.

And you never addressed the substance of my comment regarding nuclear weapons. How can she condescendingly lecture Obama about what presidents should and should not say, when she said basically the same damn thing herself last year?

By smoke and mirrors, I believe she is trying to cultivate an image of experience and likeability, which may or may not match with reality. Now, she would hardly be the first politician to do that, but as an uncommitted Democratic primary voter, I want her to have to answer the charges, because if she's the nominee, the Republicans will sure as hell go after on it. It goes to her other great weakness in polling data -- honesty. Fairly or unfairly, Americans think she has a casual relationship with the truth, and she damn well better figure out how to deal with that issue if she wants to be president. She hasn't helped herself with the whole nukes comment business.

"The mysogonistic comment is totally unfounded. I don't disparage any of the charitable/community work she's done over the years..."

Naturally, I disagree. What you do is disparage the very real work that she's done (and that you are very well aware of) over the course of her life and refer to the sum total of it as "charitable/community work" ... hence, the mysogonistic poke. It's still a reference that applies. I can understand why you wouldn't like it to stick, but it does. Probably a road you don't want to go down.

"And you never addressed the substance of my comment regarding nuclear weapons."

It was addressed in the article your blog post referenced by the Clinton campaign. Ironically, that was a point you neglected to blog about.

I want her to have to answer the charges ...

Perhaps the worst advice I can imagine here. Do you really think that any Democrat running for any office should respond to every charge and be put on the permanent defensive about every issue that Republicans (or, in this case, fellow Democrats) bring up? Is that advice which you would give a client? Has it ever worked?

Perhaps the point is lost here that one of the reasons Hillary is leading might very well be due to her willingness to stay on offense. For the time being, I'll leave aside the passive concern about how you think she needs to answer something because some nebulous definition of Americans think something. A little more honesty is in order for this concern to be valid. She's not denied that she has stated the position on Iran and more than she's altered/calculated/postulated/shifted/"whatever term Patrick Healy throws in next" a position on Pakistan.

I'm curious - and not because of some invented concern about what Americans think, strictly my own concern here - why do you think running the GOP playbook on Hillary in a Democratic Primary is helpful to anyone? And wouldn't a campaign be better served by spending more time on the attack than on defense?

If you think there's any other candidate who's been able to withstand GOP broadsides, feel free to name one. No other candidate out there has been under as much fire for as long as Hillary. Not one. That she still leads in most national polls regardless of who the GOP nominee ought to suggest something positive about what Americans see in her moreso than particular qualities that may or may not leave people with "the warm fuzzies."

As I suspected, you still didn't address the substance of her nuke comments -- her campaign spokesperson's contention that somehow what she said was "different" doesn't pass the laugh test. Tell me why her judgment in this regard is somehow better than Obama's?

Speaking of judgment, let's look at the most important policy responsibility she was given prior to being elected Senator -- health care reform in 1993. It is widely documented that her unwillingness to face the realities of the challenge and instead charge ahead, resulted in the entire reform blowing up, dealing a huge blow to Bill's presidency and her own credibility. It is also documented that it was she, rather than Bill, who insisted on digging in and fighting on the Whitewater mess. Bill wanted to cut his political losses on it and move on, but she insisted on sticking it out -- another situation that caused deep political damage to the administration. I still haven't heard that what about her "experience" makes her more qualified to be president than others in the field, particularly Biden, Dodd & Richardson, who have far more substantive government experience than she does, or even Obama.

If you think I'm making up stuff on the honesty question, go look at the Iowa poll from last week, where even Democratic caucus-goers rated her extremely low for honesty and trustworthiness. You can bury your head in the sand if you want, but this is huge electability problem for her.

The fact that you don't see why she should have to prove her mettle with some of these charges shows your extreme naivite about the process. The bottom line is yes, every client should be advised to take on perceived weaknesses or attacks squarely, and dispatch them early on, or not do so at their peril. You might ask the Kerry folks about the wisdom of ignoring the Swift Boat charges for 6 weeks -- really helped his campaign. If she can't convince Democrats on these questions, how on earth is she going to win the presidency?

Finally, I suspect Hillary's early lead in the polls is mostly due to the fact that she is much better known and defined than any of the other candidates. The fact that 60+% of Democrats are still looking for someone else (Pollster.com gave her an aggregate support number of 38.8% earlier this week) should tell you something. She may end up the nominee, but clearly most Democrats have their doubts.

As you should have expected, the question wasn't mine to answer. I did note your convenient exclusion of the answer that was provided by the campaign. If I have to explain the difference between a nation that already has nuclear weapons and one that doesn't, feel free to ask that question and I'll gladly give you an answer.

The question of honesty over the "Hillary's a liar" meme you're now pushing wasn't over any concern on the part of Americans. Indeed, they had similar qualms about a guy named Bill. Mine was a question of your sincerity on the issue. Either be man enough to state your opinion and stand behind it or don't bother. You took what I view as a weak approach to suggest that you care about something other people care about something. Don't stand behind fiction ... stand up for your own views instead. All I ask.

The fact is, I see that she has proven her mettle. You don't. Your prerogative. As for me, I'm not ashamed of any of the top-tier candidates and I don't view it as worth my while to stab my own party in the back. Apparently, there's enough bloggers interested in doing that.

I'll be sure to ask follow up questions when it comes time for you to make the case of how any down-ballot Democrats you'll be working on behalf of can be expected to win given the concerns you've now stated. Stabbing your own party in the back is one thing ... but shooting your own clients in the foot while you're at it?

Oh, and lest I let this gem go overlooked:

I suspect Hillary's early lead in the polls is mostly due to the fact that she is much better known and defined than any of the other candidates. The fact that 60+% of Democrats are still looking for someone else (Pollster.com gave her an aggregate support number of 38.8% earlier this week) should tell you something. She may end up the nominee, but clearly most Democrats have their doubts.

I have to applaud your ability to take two sides of the same issue here. Which is it? Does she merely maintain an artificial lead due to name recognition ... or will she end up being the nominee despite 60+% of Democrats still looking for someone else? And you think Hillary has a casual relationship with the truth? (or, I should say: "you think Americans think and therefore merely state the view without judgement ... sorta")

With that, I'll clarify a point I made above: stand behind ONE side of your ideas.

Greg,

Your logic here is as meandering and weak as your tone is hysterically defensive. I'll also pass on the ad hominem attacks, thanks. I merely sought to have a reasoned exchange on the subject, but it's clear that's not possible for you.

Had I seen a reasoned argument, I'd have a reasoned exchange. Instead, you offered a simplistic attack that selectively ignored certain information and assumed that I was a campaign spokesperson of some sort.

I don't think you'd make a similar point regarding your own clients that you make above. Clearly, there's some level of disdain that you're unwilling to admit to and instead choose to hide behind a too-thin veil. Don't blame me for pointing out the obvious flaws in your logic instead of doing as you do ... call them named and leave them as such. At least I'm substantiating my claims.