BETWEEN THE LINES
Jonathan Alter
The Clintons’ Patronizing Strategy
The latest attacks on Obama insult voters' intelligence.
The last major presidential candidate from Illinois, Adlai Stevenson, was approached by a voter in the 1950s. "Governor, you have the vote of every thinking American," she said. "That's nice," Stevenson replied. "But I need a majority."
Politics, as Bill Clinton said Tuesday in South Carolina, is "a contact sport." And while Barack Obama is trying hard to shed his professorial and all-too-Stevensonian air, he's just not a good enough eye-gouger at the line of scrimmage, especially with two people teaming up against him.
Obama's best hope is that Democratic voters aren't as dumb as Hillary and Bill Clinton think they are. The outcome of the primaries depends on whether, amid their busy lives, voters can get a general fix on who is more often telling the truth about the barrage of charges and countercharges.
This is ironic, because the way Bill Clinton survived impeachment was by betting on the intelligence of the American public. Now he's betting against it.
In South Carolina, Hillary is airing a radio ad that goes back to a theme she pushed in the debate there Monday night: that Obama liked Republican ideas. As Obama pointed out in his response ad, this is "demonstrably false," as referees from ABC News to the Washington Post to factcheck.org have established. (The Obama response ad ends with a new tag line that Hillary will "say anything and change nothing.")
The Republican story goes back to an interview Obama did with a Nevada newspaper in which he praised the way Ronald Reagan communicated with the public and changed "the trajectory of American politics." He added that, unfortunately, the Republicans had some fresher ideas than the Democrats in recent decades.
These are completely ordinary comments. In fact, as Obama pointed out in the Myrtle Beach debate, Hillary is considerably more effusive about Reagan in Tom Brokaw's new book, "Boom." Bill has also made many statements over the years that were much more complimentary toward Reagan. Nobody paying attention thinks either Obama or the Clintons likes Reagan's right-wing politics.
But instead of moving on to another line of attack with more grounding in what Bill Clinton called "indisputable facts," the Clinton campaign decided to bet that this Reagan horse could be flogged for more votes among less educated voters in South Carolina who might be inclined to believe Hillary's preposterous version.
Less educated? Yes, downscale voters are their target group. Obama is stronger among well-educated Democrats, according to polls. So the Clintons figure that maybe their base among less educated white Democrats might be receptive to an argument that assumes they're dumb. Less well-educated equals gullible in the face of bogus attack ads. That's the logic, and the Clintons are testing it in South Carolina before trying it in Super Tuesday states. They are also road-testing major distortions of Obama's positions on abortion, Social Security and the minimum wage.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: AngMait @ 02/12/2008 12:34:46 AM
Comment: Sorry - I made a small typo below. Obama's statement specifically referred to the Republican Party being the Party of ideas for the past 10-15 years - not as I initially state, the last '15-20 years'.
Regarding eddiewhere's rationale (below) for not voting for Clinton 'too many scandals' - there's a famous story of Richard Nixon meeting in the Oval Office with Kissinger. Nixon's dog. King Timahoe, was chewing the carpet. To get him to stop Nixon gave the dog a biscuit. To which Kissinger said the following "Mr President if you give him a biscuit he'll just continue chewing the carpet." Eddie - you are just giving the Republicans a biscuit. It's actually the last thing you want to do.
Are you Democrats suffering from Stockholm Syndrome?
Posted By: AngMait @ 02/12/2008 12:16:05 AM
Comment: Jonathan:
If you want to find an eye-gouger just review Obama's victory speech in South Carolina. Or, just look at his ad which you quote from "Hilary will say anything and change nothing". By the way, in your judgement is that 'demonstrably false" or does the statement just apply to you?
While he was pandering to the Reno Gazette, Obama said that the "Republicans were the Party of ideas for the past 15 to 20 years". This is a time frame that specifically excludes Ronald Reagan. If you check you'll see that Hillary's question at the debate had nothing to do with Ronald Reagan. Neither did her radio ad. So, I don't know why you keep going on about him. In the last 10-15 years there have been only two Presidents - George Bush Jr and Bill Clinton. Please let us all know whether you agree with him that the Presidency of George Bush Jr has been more the Party of Ideas than the eight years of the last President from Obama's own party? Why would he say that - unless he was willing to say anything to get elected?
Can you please let us all know exactly why you think these were 'completely ordinary comments' on his part - from a 'Democrat'? What do you think he meant because you kinda left that part out. Could he have been seeking a tiny little endorsement from a Republican newspaper? Which he got?
You criticize Clinton for going at him on this quite incredible statement on his part. Her radio ad in South Carolina merely asked questions - which ideas was Obama referring to - it asked? This is typical in all politics (Obama included) as can be demonstrated by the Obama campaign's willfully misleading claims that Bill Clinton was referring to his entire campaign a 'fairy tale'. Now that is something that WAS truly 'demonstrably false'.
Posted By: eddiewhere @ 01/30/2008 3:10:46 AM
Comment: IT is OBVIOUS that the DEMCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT KNOWs THAT OBAMA is the CANDIDATE with the BEST CHANCE to win in NOVEMBER. EVERY statistic and poll supports this fact The DEMOCRATIC party cannot risk losing the WHITE HOUSE. The only obstacle standing in OBAMA's way is the LATINO VOTE.
THE CLINTON"S ARE JUST TO polarizing. Too many scandals, to many investigations. I do not believe they are guilty in all those scandals I just believe AMERICA needs a change from the establishment. We do not need a years worth of divisive campaigning. IT would be amazing to see McCain vs OBAMA. A GOOD CLEAN HEAVY WEIGHT FIGHT. NO ONE GETS THEIR EAR BIT OFF. A ROMNEY CAMpaign would be just like BUSH'S very divisive and full of lies. IF AMERICA CHOOSES THESE TWO CANDIDATES to represent their respective parties then I think the AMERICAN political process can begin to heal and set an example to the rest of the world. WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE ARE WE SENDING IRAQIS and AFGHANS. IF we promote racial divide why shoud they give us the benefit of the doubt concerning ABU GRADE and BLACK WATER. ARE WE REALLY RACIST CAN IT BE THAT THE CLINTON"S ARE A REFLECTION OF OUR SOCIETY. DIVIDE people so we the CLINTON'S can attain the power we are entitled too and so rightfully deserve after my conduct in the OVAL OFFICE. No one else is capable of being president. I will become nasty and play the race card because the "MEDIA" is trying to take away the presidency from me and my wife.
OBAMA HAS TO GAIN GROUND WITH THE LATINO VOTE. HE NEEDS TO BLITZ THE LATINO"S WITH COMMERCIALS OF ECONOMIC prosperity.