I think the Clinton campaign has fallen right into the trap set by the Obama campaign with their “Experience” response to his “Change” message.
Experience ties Senator Clinton to the status quo. Most voters hate the status quo: home values plunging, the stock market falling, hundreds of billions and thousands of lives lost in Iraq (connect those dots, incidentally, to beat McCain), and a President with an approval rating at historic lows.
As soon as this race became “Old” versus “New” — a theme Obama underlined after South Carolina (see the flood of BMG comments here), and which the “Experienced” Clinton campaign has encouraged — I think Clinton lost. We’ll see if the results next Tuesday prove me right or wrong.
In the meantime, the “Experience” versus “Change” choice is graphically presented in the latest series of dueling ads. Obama’s response first, Clinton’s attack second:
This is not the way for the impressive Senator from New York to win. I think there is merit to Frank Rich’s Audacity of Hopelessness” criticism that her campaign has not been expertly run. Hat tip, NYT.
I’m not really sure it’s a “bad” strategy for Sen. Clinton to press this; after all, inexperience IS Sen. Obama’s percieved weak point (and he’ll get plenty more of this in the general, if he’s the nominee). So I’m not sure how the ad is an indication that her campaign has not been “expertly run”.
<
p>The thing that gives me some hope, if Obama is the nominee, is the fact that his campaign is so good at responding to ad campaigns/criticism such as this. He’ll need to respond to attacks such as Clinton’s here in the general if he wants to win, so it’s good to see he doesn’t run away scared (like the Kerry campaign) when challenged.
Where does that idea come from? Sure, it may be a weakness, but it is hardly his only one. Many others have been discussed, rightly, in great detail here by fans of other candidates.
<
p>I think the decision to focus so much of Clinton’s criticism on that one point, when all that does is remind people of how closely tied she is to the status quo, is a blunder by her campaign.
It’s the one the media and other candidates like to stick to, whether it’s true or not. That’s not gonna stop in the general. I think most of the attacks have been silly enough that they work in Obama’s favor, and his campaign has been very effective in countering them.
<
p>I like that they got a response ad up so quickly. The worst thing about the Clinton ad is that it could be a McCain ad by only changing the last scene and last line. It reminded me again how similar their foreign policy views are when contrasted with Obama’s. Clinton can’t win the primary on foreign policy by bringing the same old world view, because that’s what this year’s election is about. If it was just a domestic policy issues election, Clinton probably would’ve won as there’s very few differences in that area and institutional advantage would have held.
<
p>But this election is about two things: restoring international relations and respect for the Constitution and rule of law. Those are Obama’s two strongest points, and the Bush administration has made those the most critical. The rest of the issues, having a Democratic in the White House working with a Democratic Congress, either candidate will do a good job promoting our party’s domestic agenda. But for the first time in a while this election is about who can do the best job as President in administering the Executive, not about who can use the Presidency to best lobby Congress. And to me the choice is obvious: Barack Obama.
Clinton’s ad isn’t bad at all. It’s not preying on fears, it’s pointing out that she’ll know how to handle things when they occur. The next time a tornado hits a town at 2AM or the then next time a hurricane comes ashore on the gulf coast, i want to be DAMN sure that there is a President in power who knows how to handle those kinds of things. That’s why I’m still in love with Hillary.
Because of how poorly her campaign has been run, I actually feel less confident about Clinton’s capability to be an effective president than I was before the campaign. Don’t get me wrong, although I voted for Obama I have no doubt that Clinton would make a perfectly competent president, but I no longer feel that she would be more competent than Obama.
<
p>Obviously, other people will feel differently. The question really is what do undecided voters think about this ad; will they really come to the conclusion that Clinton is the one they want to answer the phone.
<
p>BTW, I really hope that our next president makes sure that FEMA is restored to its past competence level because there is nothing the president can do when that hurricane or tornado hits if the responsible Federal agencies are not up to snuff.
Losing one’s job, home, health etc. are legitimate and very real concerns for most Americans. Fear of a foreign attack is notoriously exploited by politicians for personal gain to the detriment of rational discourse.
Remember the Maine?… or remember 9/11? or how about 9/11? or 9/11, for that matter?
In Baracks response to Clintons ad yesterday at a news conference he stated this is just the old Politics of Fear play book
<
p>Like say his campaign flyer with a picture of a locked up factory implying Clintons support for NAFTA lost you your job or:
<
p>The flyer with the couple sitting at the kitchen table worrying about how Clintons HealthCare mandate will trouble them financially (Mirroring the Attack ads launched against Hillary Healthcare back in 93).
<
p>Or how about Public Financing looked good back in the beginning but now that he has a big fundraising machine he is back pedaling. (Hey Barack your supporters still get to use attacks financed by 527’s just like in Texas and Ohio. Of course they still get to do that even if you opt out)
<
p>Then there is one who wants to reach out to every one unless it is debating Hillary in Wisconsin. (Must have been because the moderator was not going to be one of the Obama groupies masquerading as journalists)
<
p>Just my opinion but it looks like the “Sound bites of Hope” façade has come off to reveal just another calculating politician with a new spin on the old shell game.
<
p>I guess he does have experience after all.
As far as I’m concerned any of the Democratic candidates including those who have long since left the race would provide plenty of change in policy, style, and attitude so we can stipulate that Democrat=change. I think in times like these experience is key and you can’t beat eight years of already having been active in the White House. Clinton is certainly not status quo compared to the current POTUS and even if she is a return to the 90s, which I don’t think she is, I’d take it. We were in much better shape then. One thing that campaigns like Obama’s do is they seem quick to whine at the slightest criticism and don’t understand why every candidate doesn’t adopt their style; Deval Patrick did it too. Part of why I believe HRC will be better as a nominee is that I know she knows how to respond to critics and low tactics, while I do not know that about Obama. In 2004 I dismissed Edwards as not having nearly enough experience having yet to serve a full Senate term. Obama is lucky that Deval Patrick happened otherwise I’d say the same about him. However in both cases I thought they would bring something to the ticket in the VP slot. I got my way last time; we’ll see about this time.
Gee, what happend to racist/sexist.
Is this just a psychological test or what? “Feel out” the general mood of people vastly removed from reality.
Obama has had a great response:
<
p>”Obama (Ill.) dismissed the ad as fear-mongering. “The question is not about picking up the phone. The question is, what kind of judgment will you make when you answer?” he said in a meeting with veterans in Houston. “We’ve had a red-phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. And Senator Clinton gave the wrong answer.” -WP 3/1
<
p>Nuff said.
… Obama got to the Senate, got to particpate in funding the Phone answering service and hung up on his previous stance.
It is an old and tired retort which doesn’t speak to the central point that Obama is making. Hilary voted for the war, he would have voted against it. He was right from the beginning and she was wrong.
<
p>From a purely political perspective, he is handling this attack brilliantly. She wants to talk about experience and he counters that it is judgment that counts. That on one of the central issues of our time she was wrong.
<
p>I know the truth of that fact drives Clinton supporters crazy, but when Hilary trots out the boogeyman ad she invites us to remember that on Iraq she was just plain wrong.
<
p>So much for experience.
.. Did Obama stand in lower manhatten on 9/12?
<
p>(FYI I marched against this stupidity before during and after the war started and have stood on many a street corner honoring the loss of the soldiers) But referencing Barack’s ill conceived comment on reinvading Iraq if Alquida reforms it is now about the present and the future and not about the past. The tired part is ignoring the way he voted when he could have made a difference.
What does standing in Lower Manhatten on 9/12 have to do with anything? Are you trying like she has to equate 9/11 with her vote on Iraq?
<
p>Please, you sound almost Bushian.
<
p>I don’t know where Obama was on 9/12, but I know he supported the war in Afghanistan. If you care, as I’m certain you do, about what happened on 9-11 then you know we’ve been looking through the wrong end of the telescope with respect to where we should be fighting.
… seeing 9/11 for real. I also learned that Chelsea Clinton was in Lower Manhattan that day and it was several hours before they (Bill and Hillary) contacted her. If you have children and ever had to experience a moment of where is your child in a crisis then that might mean something to you.
<
p>I also RESENT that expressing an opinion contrary to Obama mania is now Somehow Right wing or Bushian!!!!!
<
p>Cheap shots are why I like many others have a big question mark regarding Obama and what his followers are up to.
I didn’t think he was expressing that your comment was “almost Bushian” just because it was directed against Obama, so there is no reason to feel resentment on that point. I think his point was that because you brought up 9/11 in response to his comment mentioning Clinton’s vote facilitating the Iraq war, it seems that you were trying to tie 9/11 to Iraq to justify her vote. Tying 9/11 to Iraq is usually considered to be a “Bushian” tactic.
<
p>
It was connection of 9-11 to Iraq that I was taking exception to. I apologize Freshsayer if you take offense to the Bushian tag — didn’t mean to offend.
<
p>Just for the record, I’m not caught up in Obama mania — I just like him a lot and think he has great potential to offer the kind of leadership that she cannot. I also like Hillary, but for me the war is the key issue. If it’s McCain and Clinton I’ll vote for her but given the choice in the primary I went for Obama.
<
p>On the experience argument, Time Magazine has an interesting story on whether or not experience is the most important qualification for being president. It notes that one of our “least experienced” presidents, Abe Lincoln, was one of our greatest. And he was sandwiched between two of our “most experienced” presidents (James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson)who both achieved considerably less in their presidencies.
<
p>It’s an interesting article.
…but we need to be careful how we throw words around.
<
p>My point is Hillary stood there and breathed it. So did Bush so did lots of people and that changes you and I have grown tired of the argument that Hillary’s one vote some how negates her entire life’s work and that Obama has her record since moving to the Senate on the war is glossed over.
<
p>In the Time Mag. piece they state that somehow Franklin Roosevelt made a mistake in spite of his experience. That killed the assumptions made by the author right there for me. FDR is up there with Lincoln.
<
p>In MSMBC’s little mini bios on the candidates yesterday I found out that Obama almost quit politics after he lost his race for Congress in Illinois and they felt he acted peevish after the NH loss (which I would agree).
<
p>In his short resume of experience these are telling to me on how tough he possibly is. I think you would agree that Hillary’s toughness is not in question.
<
p>
The experience issue was a loser from the beginning for one reason and one reason only – she won’t release the records from her time in the White House. How can you campaign on undocumented experience?
<
p>It’s all over and it’ll be interesting to see how and if she gets behind Obama after she drops out.
<
p>….campaigning on the lack of it seems to be working.
The records from the Clinton White House belong to the Federal government, not the Clintons. The claims the Obama campaign has made about this issue either shows a complete lack of understanding about FOIA and how it operates or they are again misrepresenting Hillary Clinton’s position on this issue. Here is what is holding up release of the Clinton White House papers. It is not Hillary Clinton. Apparently facts and experience do not matter much to Obama supporters.
please don’t paint all Obama supporters with such a broad brush.
Not exactly a bombshell, my friend.
<
p>”The Clinton library has 10 archivists, each with a host of other duties. Dealing with the FOIA requests here has claimed the equivalent of six full-time staffers.”
<
p>With campaign expenditures reaching over $100,000,000 and her insistence that those 8 years of “experience” qualify her to be POTUS on day one, you’d think maybe a bit more manpower (sorry, this is BMG)…people-power would be dedicated towards getting the documents out.
<
p>She has spent enough on unnecessary campaign expenses (no need to rehash…those records are already public) which could have covered a few more people to help her prove that being somebody’s wife gives her experience in his vocation.
that Hillary represents is personified by the head of her campaign, Mark Penn
Thomas Edsell of the Columbia School of Journalism nails it:
<
p>If you’re wondering why Clintons campaign has become eerily familiar, Edsell sheds light on some of the main reasons.
not because he has the experience to do the job, then we are all in trouble. This campaign should be about who is best able to perform the job as president. We have a president who did not have the experience, but people sure did like to listen to him, and look where it got us. The Clinton ad makes people think about what the real issue is in this campaign, leadership. Leadership is not just about being able to give a good speech that inspires people, it is about getting people to focus on what is really at stake and then getting them to work on addressing that.
<
p>BTW, do people really think we need to be “united” by someone? What does that even mean? George Bush used to say that all the time and, again, look where it got us. Disagreeing over issues is called politics, and resolving those disgreements is called compromise or finding common ground. If we all believed the same thing about the issues, I think it would be a pretty scary and boring place. I bet for some Obama supporters, however, Obama’s claims that he will unite people means he will convince everyone that he and his supporters are right on the issues. As much as I would like that to happen, it is not going to happen. I also bet the change the Obama supporters think of when they hear him talk about change, is that everyone will agree with them on the issues. That to is not going to happen either.
grasping at thin air.
Hillary’s ‘leadership’ and ‘experience’ are exactly her problem, because they are mixed at best.
<
p>Her Iraq War Resolution leadership, which you um, mistakenly misrepresented yesterday, is just one example.
<
p>Plenty of people have experience, much more than Hillary even, but I don’t necessarily want them to be POTUS.
<
p>Whether or not we agree on the issues is secondary. This revisionist history that you’ve been providing doesn’t address any of the problems, and IMHO is a disservice to your candidate.
If you like Obama, you don’t like the ad. You find it fearmongering, and firmly believe Americans will see through that.
<
p>If you like Clinton, you like the ad…what you don’t like is the chorus of whining that arises from Obama anytime someone mentions that bad things exist in this world. You wish Americans would grow up and elect a president, not the cool Dad they never had.
It’s about the message of experience, which is a loser, in my judgment, because it ties Clinton to the status quo. The ad is just an interesting illustration of one aspect of the basic argument.
<
p>….it shouldn’t be.
Decades ago, Republicans realized that anti-government people lose when experience becomes important. Rather than refocus on getting good results in government to neutralize that disadvantage, they changed the argument.
<
p>Republicans began propagating the lie that government experience is bad, because if you have any problems that the government hasn’t solved, it is because people in government are bad. Thus, the sorry parade of unqualified Republican incompetents that run for office is a good thing because they aren’t corrupted by the personal and systemic failures some blame on their government. Until recently, Democrats insisted that a record of results was a good — even vital — thing.
<
p>David Axelrod realized that by surrendering to the Republican frame on experience — as well as those on “optimism”/naivete, health care and Social Security — his candidates do better at elections. So now we now have Democrats embracing Republican spin with a slightly different vocabulary.
but I think it’s wrong. It’s more like the 1960 campaign where Nixon and Kennedy debated. Nixon claimed to have much more experience than Kennedy (VP, member of congress for umpteen years, and so forth), but Kennedy talked in broad terms about where we needed to go as a nation to fight the Soviets. This is far before the right wing conservatives took over the Republican Party. (You could argue that years later, Nixon was the last conservative to be afraid of liberals.)
<
p>The Obama campaign hasn’t surrendered to Republican frames about experience. Instead he’s resurrected Kennedy’s frames about optimism.
And for many people in this world, the cruel and clumsy United States has been one of those bad things.
I won’t belabor the point about Hillary’s actual experience, but this exchange (via Jennifer Skalka) covers it pretty well.
You can listen here.
<
p>It was, in this reporter’s opinion, the most interesting moment in today’s Clinton campaign phoner with reporters. Responding to the release of HRC’s new TX TV ad, which asserts in no subtle terms that only she has the experience to deal with a major world crisis, and, relatedly, to keep your children safe, Slate’s John Dickerson asked the obvious question:
<
p>“What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary’s career where she’s been tested by crisis?” he said.
<
p>Silence on the call. You could’ve knit a sweater in the time it took the usually verbose team of Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Lee Feinstein, Clinton’s national security director, to find a cogent answer. And what they came up with was weak — that she’s been endorsed by many high ranking members of the uniformed military.
<
p>Plus Hillary gave a human rights speech at a conference in China in 1995. I’m not kidding.
It’s always the simple questions that can reveal spin for what it is. Thanks for sharing that.