People have wondered why Hillary Clinton's campaign has been so strident and angry over the past week or so. Why remind people of what they don't like about Clinton--that she is polarizing, thrives on conflict, and is a generally negative figure.
David Corn pokes around and gets the answer: the Clinton people hate, hate, hate, hate Barack Obama.
So, this latest episode of "When Hillary Attacks" is not about strategy--it's about the emotions of fear, anger and hatred.
The ugly details, and the latest Clinton smear, below the fold.
Corn's piece is appropriately entitled Hillary on Obama: Fear and Hatred on the Campaign Trail
Up until now, Clinton's attacks have been portrayed as a strategic move to stop her slide in the polls. As it turns out, there is more than strategery and Penn polls behind it--it is genuine hatred.
Corn notes the viciousness of the Clinton attacks
The Clinton campaign sent out an email on Monday calling Obama Karl Rove's preferred Democratic (ouch!) and blasting Obama for supposedly not understanding his own health care proposal, for lying when he has said he has not harbored presidential ambitions for years, and for allegedly running a slush fund (meaning a leadership political action committee, which he manages in the same manner Clinton runs her own leadership PAC). In other words, the fellow who has inspired thousands--if not millions--is a sleazy, hypocritical, incompetent sham.
This has struck many as a bit overwrought and overreaching.
This is much tougher an attack than anything Obama has hurled at her--and he has been critical of Clinton. (The first negative ad against Clinton has gone up, and it's being pushed not by Obama but by a liberal advocacy group.) And it shows--take your pick--either the meanness or toughness of Clinton and her posse. I lean toward characterizing it as the former.
Now we know why:
When talking to Clintonites in recent days, I've noticed that they've come to despise Obama. I suppose that may be natural in the final weeks of a competitive campaign when much is at stake. But these people don't need any prompting in private conversations to decry Obama as a dishonest poser. They're not spinning for strategic purposes. They truly believe it. And other Democrats in Washington report encountering the same when speaking with Clinton campaign people. "They really, really hate Obama," one Democratic operative unaffiliated with any campaign, tells me. "They can't stand him. They talk about him as if he's worse than Bush." What do they hate about him? After all, there aren't a lot of deep policy differences between the two, and he hasn't gone for the jugular during the campaign. "It's his presumptuousness," this operative says. "That he thinks he can deny her the nomination. Who is he to try to do that?" You mean, he's, uh, uppity? "Yes." A senior House Democratic aide notes, "The Clinton people are going nuts in how much they hate him. But the problem is their narrative has gone beyond the plausible."
If you ever wanted to know why Clinton is such a polarizing, negative figure in American politics, Corn sums it up:
That is, the Clintonites--and the campaign--may be overreacting. Will Democratic voters really buy the Clinton argument that Obama is an inauthentic and a dissembling scoundrel? Until the caucus-goers of Iowa speak, there is no way to know if Clinton's DEFCON-1 assault on Obama will succeed or backfire. But the Clinton attacks do say something about Hillary Clinton. She's adopting a whatever-it-takes strategy, mixing legitimate criticisms with truth-stretching blasts. And her campaign aides have adopted a we-must-destroy-him mindset that they justify by viewing Obama as a political lowlife.
Whatever-it-takes often works in political campaigns. But we all know that hatred can be blinding. Clinton is, as has been noted, running the risk of alienating those kindhearted souls of Iowa by slamming the lovable, likable and inspiring Barack Obama. She could end up looking a bit desperate. Candidates are always responsible for their campaigns, and they can be judged accordingly. If the Clinton campaign throws anything it can against Obama--with little regard for accuracy or decency--that will reflect her own character and values. It could, to turn her words against her, be a disqualification for the job.
Clinton is playing with fire. In explaining to reporters that she will be tougher on Obama, she said, "Now the fun part starts." That was tasteless. It's a remark that certainly can--and will be--used against her. And some Democratic voters might worry that the comment reveals too much desire for (political) blood.
Are folks going to tell me with a straight face that this woman and her cadre are capable of unifying the country? Healing old wounds? Creating consensus to solve the great problems?
If you want anger, hatred, and fear to be the dominant factors in American politics, she's 'your girl.'
And, as Corn alluded, her campaign is coming up with increasingly untruthy claims. Their latest smear is that
Obama is using push-polls.
* Breaking Overnight: Nothing says the politics of hope like telling people to go to the wrong caucus locations or getting a negative push poll call during dinner. But that’s exactly what the Obama campaign is doing to Hillary supporters in IA and NH, HRC’s Patti Solis-Doyle warned in an email to supporters overnight. The Clinton campaign is setting up a dirty tricks hotline for people to phone in tips about unethical behavior from the Obama campaign.
I wanted to let you know immediately about reports our campaign has received about possible dirty campaign tactics in Iowa and New Hampshire -- and ask for your help.
In Iowa, we have heard reports that Hillary supporters are getting calls that tell them incorrect caucus locations. Supporters have also told us about push polls -- when they tell the pollster they support Hillary, they are given negative talking points about her and asked which attacks are the most effective.
In both Iowa and New Hampshire, we have heard that Obama staffers are berating Hillary supporters on the phone with negative attacks against her.
Here is one report we got from someone who received a push poll in Iowa:
I do want to let you know, Saturday afternoon, I had a phony pollster call from "an independently owned polling service" ... With my first choice as Hillary and undecided 2nd choice. I was asked if I approved of the direction the country was taking. The question then shifted. "Which of these three options best defines your candidate? 1) Inconsistent on major issues. 2) A weak contender in the general election. 3) Not able to bring change to Washington." I told them I would not answer because it was not a polling question ... I asked where they were calling from. Repeatedly the response was that they were calling from the United States and it was paid for by an independently owned polling firm.
Here is another report from a letter to the editor in an Iowa paper:
The bullying coming from some of the other Democratic candidates is childlike and not what the Democrats stand for. I even had some guy call me from the Obama camp and start bullying me over the phone when I said I supported Hillary. He started arguing and got aggressive on the phone. I did tell him his behavior was not appropriate.
And here is a report from New Hampshire:
When my father informed them that he was supporting Hillary they proceeded to talk to him about her failure to reform health care when she was First Lady. He said it sounded like they were reading something that was already prepared.
These reports are invaluable to our campaign! It is vitally important that we know about any unethical tactics our opponents may use. And as one of our best supporters in Iowa, you are in the best position to keep us informed. If you or any of your family, friends, or neighbors receive negative push poll calls or any misleading information about the election, please contact our Iowa headquarters immediately to let them know. Here is contact information:
Note that the actual allegation is that one person--ONE--got a call from a rude Obama phone caller. From this, Clinton concocts a VOWC (Vast Obama Wing Conspiracy). Push-polls in Iowa? It's the VOWC!!! In New Hampshire? It's the VOWC!!! Senator Clinton has gone from the Politics of Parsing to the Politics of Paranoia.
It was funny when the Clinton folks seriously thought that Obama's childhood scribblings were appropriate fodder for mudslinging. Now, it's just sad.
Fortunately, the Clinton tactics are not smart politics. First of all, she's reminding everyone why she's easily the most
negatively viewed candidate on either side of the race. Is her only hope really to make people hate Barack Obama more? Good luck with that:
Hillary Clinton: 3% Favorable/Unfavorable (47/50)
Barack Obama: +20 Favorable/Unfavorable (53/33)
Of particular note is the fact that no candidate on either side besides Clinton even breaks 40% negative ratings--Giuliani is the next highest at 37%.
Analysts are also scratching their heads. Time's Jay Newton-Hall observes:
But at a time when two new Iowa polls show Obama actually pulling into the lead and Clinton losing support among women, some political observers are wondering if Clinton will come to regret her newly assertive strategy. She already has the highest negative ratings in the race, and the shift in tactics comes only a month before the Iowa caucus — where voters are famous for their distaste of negative campaigning. Launching the attacks herself, rather than with via surrogates, only makes the move even riskier.
"The attack will backfire in two ways: it will reinforce the negative stereotype of Mrs. Clinton as a cold and calculating person who will do whatever it takes to win," said Stephen J. Wayne, a government professor at Georgetown University and author of The Road to the White House. "And two, it will make Mr. Obama seem to be the less shrill and more emotionally mature candidate."
John Norris, who ran Senator John Kerry's Iowa campaign in 2004 and now serves as an adviser to Obama's campaign, said that's what they were banking on. "Barack positioned himself as drawing distinctions with Hillary," Norris said in an interview. "You don't want to get too negative — he's come close to the line but I don't think he's gone over it with Iowa voters." Clinton is "the one who made it personal by calling him na�ve — that was the first personal attack in the campaign," Norris said. "It's not a good position to be in — being forced to go negative in the last month."
Old Clinton friend (and former Clinton administration Cabinet member) Robert Reich wonders Why is HRC stooping so low?
Newsweek's Andrew Romano thinks that Clinton's joyful embrace of attack politics is a huge blunder:
Over the weekend, Hillary Clinton made what could be the biggest mistake of her campaign to date.
At a news conference Sunday in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, a reporter asked Clinton if Barack Obama has a "character problem." Her response, as reported by Pat Healy of the New York Times? "It’s beginning to look a lot like that," she said. "I have said for months that I would much rather be attacking Republicans and attacking problems of our country because ultimately that’s what I want to do as president. But I have been for months on the receiving end of rather consistent attacks – well now the fun part starts." According to Healy, she "punctuat[ed] the word 'fun.'"
Say what? Politicos recognize that "attacking" opponents is a necessary part of the nomination process (even if voters, who typically inveigh against negativity while allowing it to color their perceptions of the candidates, don't always agree). But "fun"? Not so much. Whether a slip of the tongue or a revealing glimpse at Hillary's true colors, expressing joy, rather than resignation, at dissing a fellow Dem gave Obama a priceless opportunity to reinforce the caricature of Clinton as a conniving, calculating pol. "This presidential campaign isn't about attacking people for fun, it's about solving people's problems," Obama said in a statement. "Washington insiders might think throwing mud is fun, but the American people are looking for leadership that can unite this country." Somewhere, Obama staffers are scouring the Web for a clip of Clinton's comment. YouTube awaits.
Ask yourself: Is this the way forward? The change Americans want? Is this what we want our future to be?
UPDATE: The Obama campaign responds to the 'push-polling' smear:
This flat-out falsehood is the latest attack in a silly season where our opponents have promised to stop at nothing in an effort to tarnish Barack Obama's character. Push polling or tactics of confusion have no place in this campaign and we don't or won't engage in them. Unlike some other campaigns, we want every potential Iowa caucus-goer to participate in the process, no matter who they support.