The Nuke Attack on Hillary That won't Damage the Dem Brand

It is time for Barack Obama to nuke Hillary. Using the term "nuke," in the context of a political attack, however, invokes imagery of a devestated landscape that hurts not only the target of the attack, but the person who launched it.

There is, though, a nuclear attack that Barack Obama can launch against Hillary Clinton that is more like a Neutron Bomb. I'll explain it below the jump...

Here's what the Obama campaign, from top to bottom must do to nuke Hillary.

And wen I say from "top to bottom," I mean from Barack Obama himself down to the lowest volunteer on the organizational chart. I also mean TV and radio ads as well.

It should all be based on the following theme: Barack Obama wants the Democratic party to win in 2008 and Hillary doesn't.

Simple. Elegant, and yet devestatingly effective.

Just point out over and over again how Hillary attacks Barack Obama more harshly and in more divisive tones than she attacks John McCain.

That apparently, Hillary wants to make it impossible for Democrats to win in November so she can run again in 2012.

Hillary's ambitions count more, for her, than the good of the Democratic party and teh good of the country.

Obama could run TV ads with average Democratic voters (women especially) who express their frustration with Hillary's praise of McCain and their skepticsim of her motives.

For example:

"I don't want some Bush Republican like McCain picking Supreme Court justices for 4 years. What is Hillary Thinking?"

"How is electing a Bush Republican like John Mccain going to fix our national health care system?

"Hillary claims she can beat McCain. Really? All I ever hear from her about McCain is how great he is. We need a Democrat in the White House. Not a another Bush Republican."

(The ambiguousness of that last line should be left to linger)

Then pivot to:

"I'm voting foor Barack Obama because he's the only one taking on John McCain and the Bush Republicans."

Or...

"I'm voting for Barack Obama because he wants to be President for the right reasons. He wants to provide health care for all Americans, and end the disasterous war in Iraq. He's not running just to be President. He actually wants to help the country."

This line of attack will go right at the heads of Superdelegates, and it will remind Democratic voters what's at stake.

It also doesn't damage the Democratic brand. It's a simultaneous attack on both HIllary AND John McCain.

And Hillary's only response is to argue that she's the only one who can beat McCain. That's a solid argument. The Problem is that Obama's people can respond: "Then how come you always go out of yoru way to praise McCain and spend all of your time attacking me instead of him? Put your money where your mouth is. Oh...that's right. Your campaign's in debt."

The attack also plays into Hillary's weakness. The perception that she's so ambitious that she will do or say anything to gain power. Even if it costs the Democrats the White House in 2008.

This is a way to go "negative," without sounding negative. It's a way to hit Hillary where it hurts, without it also driving down Obama's favorability rating and helping out John McCain.

What do you all think?

•  I Like It

  Needs refining, but it works.  And it's not "going negative".  It's the simple truth.

  by arvo on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:08:23 AM PDT

•  i think you've got some good ideas here.

  I also think it's underplayed how well Obama's doing even though he's basically playing 1 vs 2.

  by mos1133 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:08:59 AM PDT

•  You should send this to Obama's campaign

  Quite a good tactic.

  http://my.barackobama.com/...

  by Shuruq on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:11:34 AM PDT

•  Good stuff but...

  Could it backfire? All depends on how the media potrays it.

  We know we have Olbermann and Matthews already thinking this way, so maybe the soil is fertile...

  for a nuke.

  by interdependence on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:18:26 AM PDT

•  Good idea!

  Barak Obama wants to lead our country towards a brighter future.

  Hillary Clinton wants to win the primary, and ensure that Barak won't have that opportunity.

  by britta on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:19:46 AM PDT

•  I like it

  The only way for her to counter is to step up her attacks on McCain - which would be a good thing. I'd also like to see the ads replay her quotes about McCain being more qualified. Some might say that would be self-destructive, but the GOP will use it anyway later. May as well take it away from them early.

  by smartheart on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:21:34 AM PDT

•  sounds like whining to me

  it's negative and sounds negative. Obama should have none of this.

  The "good news" is that this is the way the story is being told in the media now anyway.

  by Shahryar on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:21:42 AM PDT

•  great idea

  and very deft sidestepping of the appearance of negativity.

  i'm sure obama's aides will be talking about it by this evening, maybe it will even be implemented

  meanwhile, i'll certainly be using it against my hillary-supporting friends and contacts

  thanks for the ammo!

  by jedley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:23:13 AM PDT

•  I don't think so

  This is not Obama's campaign. He needs to inspire, keep appearing dignified and presidential, but being quick to defuse falsehoods with stern reality or humor, depending on the latest Clinton attack du jour.

  by bethcf4p on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:33:10 AM PDT

•  Speak truth to the people and they will listen.

  That should be Obama's demand.

  OBAMA should be saying publicly and loudly to his supporters and to Hillary and her supporters:

  Stop these divisive tactics and focus on issues and electability.

  He can make an airtight case for his superiority to Hillary as far as electability.

  1- He has greater positive support.
  2- He cannot be attacked on the Iraq war.
  3- He will win traditional Democratic states as well as many borderline states.
  4- Obama has very strong coattails and will bring a bunch of Democratic senators and congresspeople along.

  Hillary has none of this.

  Speak truth to the people and they will listen.

  by carolinacal on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:39:24 AM PDT

  •  AND HE SHOULD MAKE A SPEECH EBOU

    by carolinacal on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:41:45 AM PDT

  •  And he should make a speech about it

    Bringing these points.

    People will inevitably make their own comparistons.

    by carolinacal on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:43:22 AM PDT

•  I don' think he has to go there

  her campaign is doing plenty to derail itself, as it has been all along. At this point I believe he is strong enough in his electoral position, and will be strong enough after Puerto Rico, to withstand the Clinton challenge. I am sure the supers have heard and are thinking a lot about these issues already. Rather, I think Obama should keep focusing on what he has been successful at doing: expanding the party base, creating a coattails effect for downticket dems, and focusing on progressive values, especially openness and transparency in government. This is where HRC is weakest.

  by TuvanDrone on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:49:22 AM PDT

  •  The idea is to create a critical mass against her

    ...to force the superdelegates off the sidelines. It also may have the side-effect of forcing Hillary to start going after McCain more often in oorder to disprove the attacks. And also possibly to sofetn her attacks on Obama a bit.

    That's not a bad thing -- even if she stays in the race.

    by Hesiod on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:53:35 AM PDT

•  not a good strategy

  hillary and co. will turn it around and argue they are most electable, which anyone can do if you look at cherry-picked data.

  by Zacapoet on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:53:48 AM PDT

  •  I anticipated that.

    But Obama can say that Hillary can't get elected if she never criticizes John McCain.

    She will look like a dishonest hack if she suddenly starts attacking Mccain on the general election after praising him for months in the primary.

    He's wipe tehe floor with her.

    by Hesiod on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:55:56 AM PDT

    •  No she won't, sadly

      She pulled the same thing with Michigan. Act to block revotes for six weeks, then abruptly about-face and charge in on her white worse charging that Obama was blocking revotes and disenfranchising the people of Michigan.

      And at least parts of the media bought it, though it never got her the traction she needed.

      But no one in the MSM is portraying it as the hypocritical, dishonest two-faced behavior that it really is.

      by Texas Gray Wolf on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:58:42 AM PDT

      •  Nobody in Michigan bought it.

        Trust me on that. I live here and am pretty plugged in. The consensus is that she totally bungled things and probably screwed herself.

        But, in my opinion, that was actually a good thing for her in the long run because Obama would have beaten her in a Micchigan revote.

        The reasos for that are complicated, but that's what would have happened.

        Also, you just saw the whole Mayor of Detroit mess blow up. Imagine if we had a primary taking place in Michigan -- and that diasco wa still playing out.

        Obama could dis Kwame Kilpatrick with no problem. Hillary would have to court him via back channel negotiations and it would eventually leak out.

        [Kwame runs a powerful machine in Detroit. Only Obama could afford to dis Kwame and still gin up black turnout in the city]

        by Hesiod on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:03:39 AM PDT

•  This is a 527 attack

  This is probably best structured as a 527 attack, not an Obama-campaign attack. A bunch of pull-quotes of Clinton praising McCain and other sleazy tactics, followed by the closing line "call Senator Clinton and tell her to stop attacking the Democratic Party and supporting John McCain".

  No advocacy for or mention of Obama.

  Some group like "People For The Democratic Way" or something.

  This is the way to structure an attack like this. It puts the focus solely on Clinton vs. Democrats without advocating for Obama, which is really the right thing to do -- this isn't a pro-Obama ad, this is an anti-Clinton ad.

  by Texas Gray Wolf on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:56:17 AM PDT

  •  That's fine. But Obama needs to make this point

    ...directly.

    He's got to say: "One of us is running against John McCain in the fall. The other of us is running against the Democratic party."

    by Hesiod on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:59:58 AM PDT

    •  He can make it in debates

      This is reasonable debate fodder. It's not a great strategy for widespread TV ads with his name and fact on them, in my opinion.

      The problem is that people will see it as "just" Obama vs. Clinton, if it's associated with him. That automatically makes it noise to most people who aren't passionate about this.

      But Clinton vs. Democrats, that's a different thing. It's harder to ignore.

      Associating it with Obama only works for people who are already predisposed to like Obama. People predisposed to like Clinton will just say, oh that Obama, he's attacking that nice Hillary Clinton again.

      But frame it as an attack by Democrats against Clinton, and it's much more likely to appeal, because it's not candidate advocacy.

      by Texas Gray Wolf on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:05:26 AM PDT

      •  Thus the TV ads from Democrats...

        ...questioning HIllary.

        by Hesiod on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:10:39 AM PDT

•  This coming from

  a campaign that is willing to compare a fellow Democrat to Joe McCarthy, and bring up the blue dress, thus saving the GOP the trouble. Maybe Bill Clinton should do a commercial for Hillary saying that Barack Obama is going out of his way to look for insults where none exists, all the while pretending to be above the fray while his surrogates get in the gutter. The perception being that he is so ambitious that he is willing to do or say anything to gain power, even if it means splitting the party right down the middle.

  by cackyp on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:06:39 AM PDT

  •  LOL!

    You think comparing Bill to Joe McCarthy undercuts Hillary for the fall campaign?

    And the blue dress thing only generates sympathy for Hillary.

    It was a loudmouthed remark from an Obama operative that was quickly deleted, and apologized for.

    by Hesiod on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:09:53 AM PDT

•  Obama hasn't praised McCain

  and said he is more qualified than Hillary to be Commander in Chief. There's a big difference between attacking your primary opponent and saying that the Republican is more qualified than your fellow Democrat!

  by smartheart on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:29:11 AM PDT