TNR BLOGS

December 01, 2008 | 2:02 PM
December 01, 2008 | 1:00 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:42 PM

December 01, 2008 | 11:22 AM
December 01, 2008 | 11:10 AM
December 01, 2008 | 9:57 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

December 01, 2008 | 1:36 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:00 PM
November 29, 2008 | 3:23 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
14.12.2007
Hillary's New Pitch: "No Surprises"

Johnston, Iowa-- Hillary just held an extraordinary press conference here after taping an interview with Iowa public television in which she introduced a provocative new theme to her candidacy: "[T]here are no surprises." I didn't catch the taping itself, only the presser, but Ben Smith has the money quote:

"I’ve been tested, I’ve been vetted," she said. "There are no surprises. There’s not going to be anybody saying, 'I didn’t think of that, my goodness, what’s that going to mean?'"

"I'm a known quantity," she added at the press conference, at which she recieved the endorsement of Iowa Democratic Congressman Leonard Boswell. "We need to nominate a candidate who can win." This threw the media into a low-grade frenzy. Hillary smiled with the patience of a grandmother stuck babysitting bratty kids as reporters barraged her with breathless questions about whether Obama's drug history is the sort of surprise she's talking about and whether she thinks general-election voters might punish him for it.

But Hillary wasn't biting. "I am only talking about myself," she insisted, looking unusually resplendent in a dark suit with a red blouse and multicolored necklace. Nor would she bite when asked by MSNBC's David Shuster whether she would flatly declare that "a candidate's indescretions as a teenager should not be an issue for voters." After what I sensed was a moment of uncertainty she concluded, "It's certainly not an issue in my campaign."

Hillary's cool mien only really wavered once, when she was asked about her own experiences with drugs and--given that we already know she avoided them--the basis for her decision-making about them. A peevish look crossed Hillary's face as her press secretary, Jay Carson, audibly chortled with disdain. Hillary said she had already answered those questions: "I refer you to everything I've said in the past."

We're into very interesting territory here. After forcing Billy Shaheen out of her campaign, Hillary has now pivoted to a "no surprises" argument which at least seems to spring directly from the Obama-cocaine talk--and is certain to keep that talk alive. This also represents an important new campaign theme for Hillary. For most of the past year her candidacy has been premised on her experience. Now she's making electability a central issue.

Intuitively, such a pivot might seem dangerous, given that Hillary's divisiveness has always troubled Democrats. But this week's New York Times-CBS poll found that 63 percent of Democratic voters consider her the most electable candidate--a fact the campaign flagged in a recent conference call. Maybe Team Hillary now sees electability as their path back towards the nomination. Unfortunately for Obama, it could be an ugly one. 

--Michael Crowley

Posted: Friday, December 14, 2007 11:04 AM with 27 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!

LDuncan said:

She can't help herself!   Do you want to talk about "surprises"? I was for Obama from the beginning, but then had to accept that Hillary was a warmer and better campaigner than I expected--until yesterday. Imagine how surprised all of us Democrats would be -- and in a bad way -- if, in a general election debate, Hillary outdid Gore's sigh the way she did yesterday when RUDELY laughing while a fellow candidate was trying to formulate his answer to a question? It would be all that would be talked about at the water cooler the next a.m., and any chance at independents would be shot. That would be a big surprise. Let's not let her loose. She had grace and charm when ahead, but has shown absolutely no grace under pressure. Obama is the personification of that virtue.

Before Obama even shot back his little dagger, I was beside myself at the idea that someone would outdo Gore for rudeness at a debate, and that this person would be our hope for 2008.    Yesterday, she was Lazio.  Democratic primary voters tend to forgive space aliens who are smart and reasonably earnest, but the independents we have to win over just hate the smarty-pants smugness our nominees have often exuded.  

December 14, 2007 12:20 PM

vanwurs said:

So it's full steam ahead with a campaign of slander, innuendo and suggestion, shameless as can be.   When this is over, and the dust settles, if Hillary is the nominee, she just made me a Republican for this election.  I don't want these people anywhere near the White House.  Do we really want Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson, and the head from which the proverbial fish is fast rotting,  Hillary herself, bringing their campaign values to government?  We might as well keep Karl.  At least he doesn't pretend to be progressive.

(What's Edward's line about not wanting to replace corrupt Republicans with corrupt Democrats?  I second that emotion!)

December 14, 2007 12:38 PM

ralphnelle said:

Smart move. It fits the media's expectations, which is for Hillary to win after this period of suffering. Clearly, they are anxious for a reason to start talking about her recovery. This is the narrative they have already written for the campaign. Nothing illustrates this better than the long string of unwarranted Obama-damning inferences made in the wake of an empty comment about "no surprises." Let the media tear him down!

Nauseating.

December 14, 2007 12:38 PM

ralphnelle said:

Mark Penn was on Hardball last night. I'm pretty sure I've never seen a more unappealing person in politics. Ever. And the last 7 years, of course, have been pretty awful. Vanwurs nails the reason: he's an absolute snake who pretends to be progressive. Joe Trippi's visceral reaction to him was PRICELESS.

December 14, 2007 12:58 PM

drdannyu said:

What an airless, joyless stratagem.  It is this kind of crapola that has moved me from Hillary's column to Barack's.  Her subtle implications are ugly, and unbecoming.

Plus, while she may be a known quality, how confident is she that people actually like what they know about her?

December 14, 2007 1:03 PM

vanwurs said:

Yesterday on Hardball, Penn was excusing this disgusting innuendo by saying that, after all, Obama had gone on national television and claimed that Hillary was "disengenous".  Hey, he reasons, all is fair in love and politics, and after a low blow like that, what are they supposed to do?  He then proceeded make it a point to refer to Baracks "cocaine" use white saying that he wouldn't make an issue of it because (ala' Richard Nixon)" that would be wrong".  These people are disgusting, and I hope there's a serious backlash against them.

Talk about borrowing from "the Republican playbook"....I wonder if Paul Krugman has his television on today.  Or if he's so far up Hillary's ass that he can no longer make an honest and objective call on how his girl is playing this game.  (pardon the image, it's a figure of speech.)

December 14, 2007 1:05 PM

vanwurs said:

Yeah, Ralph, Trippi was great.  ("Did you hear what he just said?  He just did it again!"  He went and said COCAINE!" ).... as he was standing right next to him, and Penn was grinning his sheepish grin.  But he kept on doing it.  It was shameful, and Democrats ought to say so.

December 14, 2007 1:09 PM

JackR said:

I hope Mark Penn continues to make public appearances representing Hillary, lots of them.

December 14, 2007 1:45 PM

doubtofbuddha said:

At the beginning of this campaign I was pretty happy with all of our major candidate options. I may have had a slight preference for Obama over the others, but it was hardly anything major or deep. Clinton’s tactics, absurdities, and general awfulness combined with my general satisfaction with Obama’s performance have changed me from being a lukewarm supporter of Obama, to being pretty certain he is the right candidate for the Democrats this year. Don’t get me wrong, I will still vote for Clinton if she ends up being the Democratic nominee. But, I am not going to be particularly happy about it, like I could have been 9 months ago.

Of course since I live in Florida, my primary vote isn’t going to count. I can only hope that things are over for her before she even gets here.

December 14, 2007 2:02 PM

virginiacentrist said:

December 14, 2007 2:08 PM

jjridge said:

Wonder how this new slogan -  "no surprises" - will play out for her.  If you're looking for a candidate who can't deliver universal health care - no surprises - vote for Hillary.  If you're looking for a candidate who didn't do her homework on Iraq before voting blindly to support Bush and probably won't act as a leader on Iran - no surprises - vote for Hillary.  If you want a candidate that wants to keep playing the same game in Washington with no changes - no surprises - vote for Hillary.  I don't think the comparison between a "change" message and a "no surprises/stay the course" message will work to Hillary's advantage.

December 14, 2007 2:09 PM

ralphnelle said:

jjridge,

Hillary = "stay the course." Brilliant.

December 14, 2007 2:49 PM

ralphnelle said:

This is the Hardball segment with Penn, Trippi, and Axelrod:

www.youtube.com/watch

December 14, 2007 2:51 PM

adamvaught said:

Hillary: There are no surprises. What you see from me is what you get.

Obama: Uh, that's kinda my point?

December 14, 2007 2:54 PM

Rhubarbs said:

"... this week's New York Times-CBS poll found that 63 percent of Democratic voters consider [Hillary] the most electable candidate ..."

Well, that's one way of interpreting that poll's results. I think a better interpretation would be more like, "This week's New York Times-CBS poll found that 63 percent of Democratic voters have no freakin' clue what the broad majority of American voters think about anything related to electoral politics and government." Yeah, Hillary is the most electable candidate. In Connecticut. But, really, among the non-wonkish people I know or am related to, the number of casually Democratic-leaning people who say they would never vote for Hillary is only exceeded by the number of casually Republican-leaning people who say they're kind of excited about Obama.

For more than a year, I've just been mystified that so many people I share a party with seem to think that Hillary Clinton is the second coming of FDR, in terms of "electability." It's an opinion that can only be sustained by never speaking about politics to anyone who isn't an active member of your district Democratic committee. It's like watching Republicans' 1999 swoon for Dubya, only more galling, because I used to expect better of Democrats.

And while we're at it, can someone please go ask Minnesota's DFL Party how the whole nominate-relatives-of-past-candidates thing worked out over the last 20 years? Assuming anyone can find any Democrats left in Minnesota to ask. It's a generally liberal state that hasn't elected a Democratic governor since 1986.

December 14, 2007 3:25 PM

psantillana said:

No suprises = status quo! She found out that nobody was swallowing her "I can be change-y too!" line, so she goes in exactly the opposite direction, on a DIME. She was peddling change LAST NIGHT. And no segue, no ease of transition or dot connecting, just -- flip!

She has no taste and no finesse. She has the grace of Mussolini, and she attracts similar types to her campaign. Hamhanded baldfaced liars.

December 14, 2007 4:48 PM

psantillana said:

By "last night" I meant the debate of yesterday @noonish, but of course I didn't see the thing until last night.

But while I'm here - that whole electability thing is the most fragile bubble ever before the primaries. Don't worry. She is SO ugly under pressure - think back to when David Geffen said something catty [and dead on] about the Clintons, months ago, when she was way ahead, and her immediate reflex was to publicly demand that Obama give Geffen's contribution back. Which was completely demented. And this is what we will see more of when things don't go her way.

December 14, 2007 4:55 PM

sullydog said:

Is Hillary playing hardball? Yes. Is it kinda revolting? Yep. But what many of you don't seem to get is that this is a very vivid demonstration that she's got the chops to wrangle with Republicans. She's not my first choice for the nominee (actually, I'm a Biden man), but come on, people, do you REALLY think she's more cheap and nasty than, say, Huckabee or Giulliani? If she does get the nom (which I still think somewhat likely) at least we know our candidate has enough edge to stand up in a knifefight and give as good as she gets. And if she's elected, she can mudwrestle with the GOP scumbags who are going to try to block her at every turn. Hillary didn't make this game dirty. But dirty it is, and she's in it now, and she's shown that she has exactly the kind of ruthlessness it takes to get elected and be President. Pretty? No. True. Yeah.

So when somebody says that because Hillary's gotten nasty in a nasty fight, they're going to vote for the GOP (as if THEY are so warm and fuzzy) I have to wonder what that person is smoking.

And I remind everybody here that while you're wringing your hands over what a bitch Hillary is, she's still strong in national polls. The proof will be in the pudding.

I like Obama, I really, really do. I think he's decent, visionary, competent and compassionate, and that he transcends the ugliness of our politics--which may be the problem. In the best of all possible worlds, he could win the nomination, win the White House, bring the country together, enact a truly hopeful, progressive, constructive agenda, and not get creamed in a bid for re-election. But this is not the best of all possible worlds, and I think his odds are long. He's never drawn blood, and he's never been cut in the truly brutal ways that Hillary has endured. Not having the scars and the edge is part of his appeal, but it's also at the heart of his vulnerability. I fear the GOP would go straight for his big arteries, and Obama wouldn't have the experience and toughness to check and counter.

I'm not interested in seeing the nicest, fuzziest person get the nomination. I'm interested in WINNING THE WHITE HOUSE AND UNDOING 8 OF THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE YEARS OUR REPUBLIC HAS EVER SEEN. I'm interested in cutting the GOPs balls off. I wish Obama could do that, but I'm not sure he can. I AM sure, now more than ever, that Hillary has the instincts of a wolf...and I'm okay with that, just as I was okay with her husband. He was a slimy, lawyerly, glad-handing, philandering political operator. But he was OUR slimy, lawyerly, glad-handing, philandering political operator. When you go to find a lawyer, you don't look for warm and fuzzy. You look for a man-eater. We're not electing a buddy. You don't have to want to snuggle Hillary to vote for her.  

I'll don my asbestos suit now and wait for the outrage. But all the flaming in the world doesn't change the fact that in the early 21st century, you've got to be a bit of a killer to be elected President and discharge the office. Sorry.

December 15, 2007 12:03 PM

virginiacentrist said:

Sullydog -

no democrat who is active enough in politics to post on this blog is actually going to vote for the GOP over Hillary Clinton. Forget that.

December 15, 2007 2:01 PM

phillyq said:

Hillaryland is a sad and cynical place.  There is nothing clever about this, and it is no more sophisticated than schoolyard back-stabbing.  

December 15, 2007 3:03 PM

allante said:

Good post, Sullydog.

Throughout the campaign, I've found Hillary warm, smart, and engaging - not to mention more 'presidential' than the rest of the pack. And I think she'd be a more effective change agent than the others, in that she'd effect change quickly, efficiently, and wisely. I think all the Democratic candidates have a good vision of where to takes us, but I think Hillary knows the shortest route. This is not to say that I'd be dissappointed to see Obama in the Oval Office - he said the other day that as president he'd seek Hillary's advice, and he's an intelligent and driven man. But my feeling is there are some down-and-dirty details that must be handled very quickly once the next president in inaugurated. Things that require workman-like political savvy more than a fresh face. The biggest problem with the Bush administration has been a lack of competence, and I see Hillary as the most immediately competent.  Once Hillary gets the country turned around and voters have an actual  taste of what now is only the Democratic promise, then they'll be more willing to place the country in the hands of next-generation authentic Democratic leaders like Mr. Obama.

December 15, 2007 3:42 PM

jm_rice said:

It's amazing, how often I see here and elsewhere:  "I'm for Biden, but..."  Well, I am too.  He's clearly the best in the field, and lots of folks recognize it.  But I guess Joe's a victim of self-fulfilling prophecy.  We don't think he has a chance, so he doesn't.  That's maddening!

Anyway, I'm with Sullydog.  I don't want a Dem who will make me feel good about myself.  Damnit, I want a Dem that will win!  I think with Obama and Hillary we got trouble.  People might like Obama, but pitted against Giuliani, Romney or McCain, a guy named Barrack Hussein Obama, who wants to talk with the bad guys in the age of al Qaeda, is dead meat.  Hillary's negatives are Nixonian, not qualitatively but by degree:  she's overexposed, she's butch, she's a Clinton, she's a she....  I think Biden could make mincemeat of any Repug, except McCain, because they're colleagues.  In any case, Biden's prospects are academic at this point.  With only Hillary and Obama to choose from, I'm worried.  Pray for Huckabee, I guess.  But then, in 2000 I was praying for Bush.

December 16, 2007 1:59 AM

teplukhin2you said:

It's going to be a very tough election. We need the toughest/savviest SOB (or just B) we can find. Obama just doesn't  have the needed steel in the spine. Maybe he'll develop it by 2012 or 2016, but my gut tells me he ain't there yet.

December 16, 2007 2:43 AM

sullydog said:

@jm_rice: yeah, you really gotta wonder. With the Iron Maiden on the one hand, and an untested Obama on the other, you just HAVE to think Dems are crazy not to take a long, hard look at Biden. Maybe he'll pull out an upset in the caucuses. And maybe, as Ash said, "I"m a Chinese jet pilot." In a Democratic administration, I think he's a shoe-in for a cabinet post, though.

December 16, 2007 6:37 AM

sullydog said:

One more thought on all this....

In the run up to 2000, Dubya laid some toxic fecal slime on John McCain that made what the Hillary camp is doing to Obama look like an affectionate wedgie between friends. One of the most shameful episodes in modern political history, Karl's Black Baby Telethon won Bush the nomination, imbued Rove with an implacable Darth Vader aura that struck fear into friend and foe alike, and apparently didn't cost Bush a single vote in the general.

And then there's the Swift-Boating of John Kerry. The entire country KNEW it was a cowardly knife-thrust to the kidney of an honorable man by a craven and cynical political machine. And when Kerry, taking the high road, failed to parry and counterthrust to Bush's balls (which were exposed at the time), the country watched him bleed and gave Bush a second term.

There's a lesson in all that, folks, and it's not pretty. This ain't Sunday School.

December 16, 2007 7:14 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Sully - I think about your posts for hours after I read them, gems that they are.  

December 16, 2007 7:47 AM

The Stump said:

Ambinder says the McCain comeback plan hinges in large part on attacking Obama's "associations"

October 6, 2008 1:32 PM