Can Obama keep up with Hillary's mutations?

I just had to pass on this link to a new NYT story about the Clinton campaign's plans to use the Rodham family's working-class background in Scranton to solidify her status there in favorable parts of Pennsylvania.

http://www.nytimes.com/...

The comment I'd like to make on this:  In 2000, Hillary ran for Senator, where it was thought (and rightly so) that Upstate New York would tough ground for her to take.  It didn't turn out to be, so much; she was pretty successful at playing First Lady and keeping Bill highly visible on a leash.  That worked... eight years ago.

However, if she'd ever used the "Scranton strategy" with Upstate voters, it probably would have worked very well for her.  Although there are no coal mines here, a lot of Upstate New York is in the so-called "Dunder Mifflin Triangle" - same working-class history, hit by the same globalization forces, same determination to survive.

But she never used the strategy here in 2000.  I honestly didn't really think she ever THOUGHT of her own biography as an electoral strategy, which is why this story is pretty interesting:  She seems to be mutating and calling on resources she hadn't called on before.  

Don't know what that means, but one hopes Obama can keep up with that sort of thing, as I think Clinton intends to keep moving the goal posts.  

•  Hillary's a Terminator.

  She won't stop. EVER! But She's the Robert Patrick version, not the Arnold or Locken Version.

  by Hesiod on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:33:48 AM PDT

  •  so

    Obama = Arnold Schwarzenegger?

    Hope the Clinton campaign doesn't get hold of THAT one and twist it around...  :-)

    by NYCO on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:39:45 AM PDT

    •  Obama is John Connor.

      by Hesiod on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:52:30 AM PDT

•  Obama

  may have to give an address or begin to reference her and her campaign's behaviour in speeches as clear examples of what Americans are tired of. Unfortunately it takes him off message but it also best demonstrates the change he is talking about. It's like that kid in class that keeps misbehaving and the teacher asks them to come up in front of class and perform a show for the class. If Obama can speak to the differences between the campaigns his case will be vigorously made.

  by Sansouci on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:38:07 AM PDT

  •  not too sure

    Unfortunately it takes him off message but it also best demonstrates the change he is talking about.

    I think the operative phrase in your sentence is "takes him off message."  That's never good, particularly when your opponent is finding hers.

    What's even more interesting is that this is a side of Hillary's biography that few Americans know (heck, she's my senator and even I didn't really know about it until now).  Obama has already revealed his entire biography - it's out there and can't be used for effect again.  Advantage Hillary.

    Very interesting, apparently in the beginning of her campaign, she miscalculated and thought she could win the country with the tricks that worked 8 years ago in New York.  Doesn't seem to be her impulse right now.

    by NYCO on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:42:59 AM PDT

    •  Such an address

      could be cast as part of his message, change from Clinton style politics, hope for a new way of conducting the people's business.  He can't let her lies go unanswered by not responding. To many voters silence is acquiescence. HRC's antagonism only makes her look embittered angry and desperate. Like the Samantha Power's comments , Obama needs to help give a name to what hesitations the voting public has about her sincerity.

      by Sansouci on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:06:11 AM PDT

      •  speeches

        Speeches can't solve everything, though.

        And hate to say it, but when you've spent the first act of your campaign gaining renown as an inspiring speaker, and giving many many speeches, after a while the media starts to stop listening to speeches.

        Hillary is not giving speeches - she's using old GOP tactics like twisting things around, bait and switch, and now she's prepared to whip out a new weapon, her personal biography.

        All that can be suggested is "Give another speech"?

        Novelty is everything in a protracted political campaign.  For Obama, speechmaking is not novel.

        by NYCO on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:11:34 AM PDT

        •  Hillary

          is using the media as her personal message vehicle. Notice how much media attention was given to Obama's VP response today in MS. No words matter. It's the only thing the media can track.

          by Sansouci on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:41:28 PM PDT

•  Not only can he keep up

  with Hilarious Clinton's shenanigans...

  He's going to beat them!

  Yes we can!!

  by Slatersan on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:38:52 AM PDT

•  Obama shouldn't try to keep up with sybil

  It's a losing strategy.  He can point out the many sides of Hillary, but not try to play her game.

  Instead he should just focus on convincing PA that he, too, sings America.

  He needs to get big turn out in the big cities and then go door to door like Iowa.
  He'll win.

  by Lib Noodle on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:41:01 AM PDT

•  Maybe it's the mood altering

  pharmaceuticals in the water.

  by Pangloss on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:46:35 AM PDT

•  Interesting story but seems localized

  I already was vaguely aware that Hillary came from a middle-class background. I read the NYT article three times and don't see anything remarkable about her ties to Scranton or her background.  At least, nothing that would extend outside PA and perhaps not even have statewide implications.

  I wonder a bit whether she doesn't emphasize her background since she actually came from a conservative family and volunteered for Barry Goldwater herself. We all go through transformations of course (as Reagan was a Democrat and pro-union in his early adulthood) but my hunch is that Hillary's background will remain relatively moot--except in the Scranton area.

  by sawgrass727 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:19:55 AM PDT

  •  true

    Although Hillary's background is translatable throughout the Rust Belt, and there are delegates and superdelegates in play.

    As for her conservatism, most Democrats in those areas are more moderate or conservative anyway (but, as the story points out, perfectly willing to vote for Democrats).

    It's the novelty of this ploy that interests me.  Does Obama have any new rabbits to pull out of his biographical hat?

    by NYCO on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:24:24 AM PDT

•  This is a Good Question

  More and more, Ms. Clinton reminds me of the Thing from John Carpenter's 1982 film.  The thing was a terrible creature and you could never figure out what crew member it had taken over, who would suddenly turn into a human gulping Thing.  What HRC is doing to the Democratic Party is similar to what the Thing did to the Antarctic base.

  by kaleidescope on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:17:09 AM PDT