TNR BLOGS

May 15, 2008 | 11:39 PM
May 15, 2008 | 8:03 PM
May 15, 2008 | 6:26 PM

May 15, 2008 | 8:41 PM
May 15, 2008 | 7:06 PM
May 15, 2008 | 6:35 PM

May 05, 2008 | 1:35 PM
May 02, 2008 | 5:26 PM
May 02, 2008 | 2:40 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
03.12.2007
The Other Problem with Hillary's Character Attacks

Like Jason, I thought the Clintonites were really reaching by throwing Barack Obama's kindergarten oeuvre back in his face. In general, the last 24-hours of Clinton statements have made the campaign sound unusually panicked. My own feeling is that Clinton would be much better off banging away on differences in health-care plans than launching a round of what, by her own admission, will be character attacks.

Besides potentially turning off Iowa voters, there's another reason for Hillary to hold her fire: It's only going to fuel the Obama fundraising juggernaut. To wit, this e-mail came in over the transom a couple hours ago:

Noam -- 

The latest Iowa poll, from the Des Moines Register, shows Barack Obama has pulled ahead of Hillary Clinton and is now leading there. We even lead among women by five points.

While that's all good news, there was even more telling news this weekend.

The poll also showed that -- by a wide margin -- Iowans have found that Senator Clinton is running the most negative campaign of any candidate.

And sure enough, less than 12 hours after the poll results were released, the Clinton campaign launched multiple frantic, baseless attacks against Barack Obama. The emerging pattern is disturbing: as Senator Clinton's poll numbers slide, the campaign of "inevitability" becomes more desperate and negative by the day.

It's exactly one month until the Iowa caucuses, and Senator Clinton has promised that this is just the beginning of her negativity. She even quipped yesterday that attacking other Democrats is "the fun part" of campaigning for the presidency.

Barack will always respond swiftly and forcefully with the truth when attacked, but we have to do more to stop this kind of politics once and for all.

These attacks take attention away from solving people's problems and exact a real cost on our political process.

We need to respond by increasing the cost of these tactics for her campaign.

If 10,000 people donate in the next 48 hours in response, it will show our opponents that when they attack Barack Obama, it literally makes our campaign stronger.

You can make them think twice about continuing these attacks. Respond now with your donation of $25:

...

Here's a quick rundown of her campaign's attacks from yesterday alone:

- They falsely claimed that Barack Obama doesn't support universal health care, even though he's had a detailed plan for it since May that would provide affordable health insurance for every single American and do more to cut the cost of health care than any other plan in this race.

- They attacked our youth organizing efforts and tried to intimidate Iowa college students who plan to participate in the caucus (the latest Iowa poll shows Obama with a commanding lead among young people).

- They even published an article on their website attacking Barack for telling his kindergarten teacher he wanted to be president when he grew up. (I'm not kidding.)

Senator Clinton and her campaign may find it fun, but this kind of disingenuous attack politics is exactly what turns people off about our political process.

You can set the tone for the next 30 days. Will you respond to these attacks with a donation of $25 right now?

...

While Barack continues to talk about real problems like the war in Iraq, the tens of millions of uninsured, and the need for fundamental change in Washington, Senator Clinton's personal attacks come from the same, tired textbook of establishment politics.

These attacks are borne out of cynical political calculation, plain and simple.

But if 10,000 people respond to these attacks on Barack in the next 48 hours, we can change the math for them.

Thank you,

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

I suspect this is going to be very effective.

Update: I deleted the links to Obama's donation page. I'm happy to pass along what I think is an effective pitch, but I probably don't need to be helping readers dial right into their fundraising system...

--Noam Scheiber 

Posted: Monday, December 03, 2007 3:15 PM with 13 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

virginiacentrist said:

Noam:

Good call. Before you put up this post, I donated $25. I sent it to my brother, who quickly donated $25...

December 3, 2007 3:33 PM

newdex said:

Frankly, I'm getting disgusted with both of them at this point.  I hate that HIllary's going negative, but its a load of crap for Obama to pretend like he hasn't been going negative for a while now.  

December 3, 2007 3:45 PM

ralphnelle said:

Time will tell, but it already seems like this is going to backfire in a major way for the confused Clinton Machine. She lost the Novak squabble; she'll lose this one too.

The media had an "inevitability" narrative ready to go from the start, but they also have a "she's a real bitch" narrative that remained swept under the rug until now. And, as Crowley pointed out a few weeks ago, many reporters, conscious or not, could be waiting for a reason to slap her with it (because of her campaign's ruthless manipulation of them all summer and fall).

One last thing: Obama's campaign is in a perfect position to profit from this. He has been nice to her all along--many of us thought he was nice to a fault. This is a fight she is initiating, which justifies retaliation. And, because he is the nice guy and she's "the bitch," the story is HOW HE RESPONDS, not how she attacks. The whole story, whatever the particulars, is framed in his favor.

December 3, 2007 4:03 PM

ahopkins said:

I'm curious that the Hopefund (Obama's leadership PAC, which has been donating to early state elected officials during the campaign) stuff hasn't featured more prominently so far.  Obama's response website doesn't mention Hopefund, and it hasn't been a significant part of coverage of this squabble so far.  But for me, it's the most ethically shady part of what Obama's been up to.

December 3, 2007 4:15 PM

virginiacentrist said:

Yeah, I'm not sure anybody outside of Hillary supporters will actually say that Obama has been "negative" in the traditional sense. He's been pretty meek in his attacks...if anything, he has gotten grief from the media, his supporters, Edwards supporters, and other Democrats for being TOO MEEK in his criticisms of Hillary.

RE: "How he responds"

Well...if he raises $100k based on a Hillary attack alone , then that's a pretty good response.

December 3, 2007 4:17 PM

virginiacentrist said:

Ahopkins:

Are you kidding? Have you ever followed a presidential campaign? Every candidate has a PAC that gives money to candidates and incumbents in early primary states....they often send staff to work on state leg. races in early states...you'll also note that every candidate for Governor has a PAC that gives money to local candidates....this is a big way that Democrats raise money. In fact - many criticized Hillary Clinton in 2006 for NOT giving enough of her large campaign treasury to Democrats who were trying to take congress!!!

What is corrupt about giving money to Democrats??? Take Rep. Paul Hodes (D-NH), for example. He knocked off an incumbent in 2006 in New Hampshire thanks to a strong campaign AND tons of financial and grassroots support from potential Democratic presidential candidates. Is that something that Democrats should frown upon?

I think the press is yawning because contributions from political PACs to other Democrats is not exactly a scandal....

December 3, 2007 4:24 PM

doubtofbuddha said:

Seems like a reasonably effective response. I admit that I donated, and I've never donated money to a political candidate in my life. Granted, I am in my late twenties, so I've not had a long period of time to donate, but still, I thought it was well-written.

December 3, 2007 4:54 PM

newdex said:

Obama started the character attacks, accusing her of "dodging issues" and refusing to give straight answers.  Nows he's started playing into the too-ambitious, 20-year-plan-to-be-president storyline.  And the above is totally playing into the Hillary's-a-bitch storyline.

You might not have a problem with all that if you think its all true.  But the stuff Hillary has said is just as true.  Obama's character attacks, however "meek," are not a good way to change politics and, frankly, its a little dishonest to go around saying you're practicing a new kind of politics while engaging in the same old.

I agree with everyone that Hillary will lose this battle.  I don't really care about that because I like Obama, too.  I just think it sucks because I really was hoping for a new kind of politics that didn't revolve around manipulations and distorted "gotcha" character attacks.  If the Democrats don't band together to fight those things they will keep losing.  

December 3, 2007 6:07 PM

vanwurs said:

I don;t know, newdex, as it plays into the "Hillary is Bitch" storyline so much as it plays into the "Hillary is a double talkin', half steppin', insincere, convictionless, unelectable, arrogant and ruthless wife of a former president who seems to think that entitles her to the Presidency and is willing to engage in the most egregious and transparent attempts at character assassination in order to shut down any attempt to thwart her power mad schemes" storyline.  

You can shorthand that any way you like.

December 3, 2007 6:37 PM

newdex said:

Agreed, vanwurs.

December 3, 2007 6:50 PM

psantillana said:

December 3, 2007 8:02 PM

virginiacentrist said:

We're up to 5,281 people in about 8 hours (40 hours to go to reach 10,000)

At any rate, newdex, let's be honest. Obama has been using character attacks. The problem is that they've been so meekly executed that they really haven't cost him anything...

Also, in all honesty, I never really heard the "Hillary has wanted to be president for 20 years" thing until the Clinton campaign made fun of Obama's elementary school essay...just saying...

December 3, 2007 9:08 PM

newdex said:

VA:  I'm surprised you haven't heard about the 20-year plan. Its part of the "she'll do anything to gain power" theme . . . or maybe its more a part of the "everything she does is calculated" theme.  

May I point out that Hillary's character attack so far has been at least equally meek  - but it will definitely cost her because the press HATES her.  Also, Obama doesn't have to do more than imply anything because everybody knows what he's hinting at.  

That might be a good reason not to nominate Hillary, of course, but my main point is that once she's out, he'll get the same treatment.  

December 3, 2007 10:08 PM

Double click this space to insert your ad.