So we learned yesterday that going negative works in certain states.
Over the past 2 weeks, the Clinton campaign went extremely negative on Barack Obama, almost completely abandoning reasons why people should vote for Hillary Clinton, but rather going after the "Anti-Obama" vote.
Well, I think it's time for the Obama Campaign to return that kitchen sink to Hillary Clinton.
Follow me below.
I believe something that has been overlooked in this campaign season, and overlooked in what's lead to Barack Obama's success thus far, is the role John Edwards played.
John Edwards relentlessly attacked Hillary Clinton and her positions. Ranging from being a Corporate Democrat, being funded by lobbyists, or representing the status quo.
John Edwards:
"We don't want to replace a bunch of Corporate Republicans with Corporate Democrats"
From the debate, prior to the New Hampshire Primary.
Let me just say a quick word about this. You know, Senator Obama and I have differences. We do. We have a difference about health care, which he and I have talked about before. We have a fundamental difference about the way you bring about change. But both of us are powerful voices for change.
And I might add, we finished first and second in the Iowa caucus, I think in part as a result of that.
Now, what I would say is this: Any time you speak out powerfully for change, the forces of status quo attack. That's exactly what happens. It's fine to have a disagreement about health care. To say that Senator Obama is having a debate with himself from some Associated Press story, I think is just not -- that's not the kind of discussion we should be having. I think that every time this happens -- what will occur every time he speaks out for change, every time I fight for change, the forces of status quo are going to attack. Every single time. And what we have to remember -- and this is the overarching issue here -- because what we really need in New Hampshire and in future state primaries is we need an unfiltered debate between the agents of change, about how we bring about that change, because we have differences about that. But the -- the one thing I do not argue with him about is he believes deeply in change and I believe deeply in change. And anytime you're fighting for that, I mean, I didn't hear these kinds of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead. Now that she's not, we hear them. And anytime you speak out -- anytime you speak out for change, this is what happens.
John Edwards damaged Hillary Clinton.
Now, I don't take anything away from Barack Obama. He has excited and activated so many new people into the process. He has run a stellar campaign, and it has worked for him thus far.
But I strongly suspect that, had it not been for John Edwards attacking Hillary Clinton as he did, that Barack would not have done as well in the early states and on Super Duper Tuesday, which led to the 11 contest momentum he enjoyed until yesterday.
It's one thing to stay above the fray. And I've respected Obama's stance on it. But when you've got Hillary on the ropes, you've got to finish the job. And that's what he failed to do.
Barack Obama's campaign needs to come out, guns blazing. Let it start with the surrogates for a week or two, until we get past the next couple of caucuses and primaries coming up in Wyoming and Mississippi. But after that, it's Pennsylvania, which is comparable to Ohio in many ways.
As Pennsylvania Governor, Ed Rendell said on MSNBC last night, Pennsylvania is looking for a John Wayne. Someone they think can take the fight to the Republicans.
There have been a couple of really good diaries here and here. And I was happy to see this story today;
Obama to sharpen criticism of Clinton
The presidential candidate said he planned to do more in the days ahead to raise doubts about his opponent's claims to foreign policy and other Washington experience. In a television ad that her campaign credits with helping her win, she portrayed herself as most prepared to handle an international crisis.
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama asked mockingly. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."
Here are a few lines of attack I'd pursue.
- Hillary Clinton only cares about Hillary Clinton. The saying is true, that the most dangerous place in the world to be, is between a Clinton and elected office.
- Continuously remind Democrats of the Bill Clinton years, in specific reference to triangulation and cutting Democrats out of the process, to pass legislation with Republicans. Remind Democrats what happened in 1994, after 2 years of Clinton stabbing his own party in the back, and enabling the loss of the House of Representatives, for the first time in almost 50 years.
- On Health Care, bring up that since Hillary Clinton pushed for National Health Care in 1993, Big Pharma and Insurance company's lobbyists have sure managed to forgive her, by contributing more to her campaign, than any other candidate this election cycle, Democrat or Republican.
- On Lobbyist money. This resonated with many people, and why it was such a natural migration for many Edwards supporters, like myself, to Barack Obama. She is the Corporate Democrat John Edwards warned us about.
- Continue the judgment argument against her. Link her repeatedly to her Iraq War vote. But tie that judgment to her economically as well. Talk about the costs of this war, in blood and in wealth. Explain how that money could have been better used, had it not been for Hillary Clinton's support of George W. Bush's war.
- Hillary Clinton wants to couple herself with John McCain on experience, while Obama just gave a speech. From here on out, clump Hillary Clinton with John McCain and George W. Bush, at every turn. She, along with McCain and Bush pushed through the earlier version of the Bankruptcy Bill. She, along with Bush and McCain authorized the war in Iraq.
- Talk about the damage to the Democratic Party that Hillary is causing by steering this Democratic Contest into negative attacks. In a year where the country is ready to hand the keys of the castle over to the Democrats, Hillary Clinton, and her unyielding desire for power, poses a grave risk to the Democratic candidate's chances this November. Explain that the longer Hillary Clinton denies the inevitable, (Obama as the nominee,) the harder it will be for Democrats to win in November, because of Hillary Clinton and her negative campaigning.
- Repeat over and over again that Obama is the candidate that CAN beat John McCain. The candidate that can open up states to Democrats, that Hillary Clinton cannot. Talk about his 50 state strategy, and his desire to bring more and new people to the Democratic Party, where as Hillary Clinton depends on the 50%+1 strategy of the past.
- Talk about the strong anti-Hillary sentiment in the country that will unify the Republican base in November, to turn out and vote against her. And talk about how that will end up costing Democrats seats in the House and Senate. This will resonate with undecided Super Delegates as well. Explain that, it'll take strong Democratic majorities in each body, to get many of the changes that this country needs, and that a Hillary Clinton candidacy will thwart those efforts.
I'm sure there are many more arguments that can be made and I'd love to read your suggestions and ideas below.
Side note: This constant theme out there, justifying Clinton's attacks on Obama, by saying that "if you think this is bad, wait until the Republicans start," is flawed. Rush Limbaugh made a good point the other day about the Republican Party not willing to attack Obama, and that's why Republicans should vote for Clinton, so this campaign becomes more gruesome and damaging.
I actually believe him on this one. I think, as Karl Rove believes, that Republicans would find themselves in a tough spot trying to attack Obama to a certain point, for fear of coming of as bigoted or racist. Don't get me wrong, they'll do what they can get away with, but what Hillary Clinton is doing is opening up all of these new lines of attack on Obama, which when the Republicans recite them later on, anyone who tries to make the case that Republicans have sinister motives for these attacks are thwarted by a simple response of, "well, Hillary said it first, and she's a Democrat." I wish this thought virus would be addressed as well.
And for those that think this strategy is a bad idea, I'm willing to listen to your logic and reasoning. I just view it as, Clinton has already opened up this door and has dragged Obama through it as well. I believe people will like seeing this kind of fight in him and he'll be able to get away with it, without driving up his own negatives too much, because he was forced into a corner by the highly negative Clinton Campaign, and he needs to defend himself. And the best defense, is a good offense.