1) Rezko: First, Howard Wolfson is already strongly hinting that Clinton's campaign will push strong on the Rezko connections. I've briefly made this argument before, but here is a fuller version of an Obama response that is actually a counterattack:
[First, give a brief substantive answer--this presumes that there is no real issue here. then follow with this:]
"But more importantly and fundamentally, Hillary, you know better than this. As a loyal Democrat, I was proud of you and Bill when you stood up to the vicious attacks that were made on you. Along with others, I cheered for you when you fought back. You were the victims of charges that were meant to make you appear unethical. Innocent investments made to look unscrupulous. The wrongful activities of donors linked to you as though you were responsible for all your supporters. Millions of dollars wasted on special prosecutors and lawyers. The politics of personal destruction. But it doesn't have to be like this. You of all people should know better."
This approach gently reminds us of the Clinton-era scandals while simultaneously taking the high road, and highlighting the hypocrisy of her current focus on Rezko.
2) Negativity: There is a clear pattern in the Clinton campaign. They understand that they cannot come to be perceived as too negative. So it's all goodness and light until a day or a week before the election, and then whammo. Last minute deciders have generally broken for Clinton, having had doubts raised about Obama, and then after the dust settles we're on to another state. If she attacks too early, there's time to respond, there's time to set the record straight, there's time for voters to perceive who's doing the attacking. But last minute attacks can kill. So let's put the focus on this dynamic. At the next opportune moment--maybe two weeks before Pennsylvania, or earlier if it looks like there is going to be a pitched battle over, say, North Carolina, Barack says this:
"Hillary, I'm wondering if you can let me know what the next attack is going to be. Two days before Iowa, you said X with no time to respond, 3 days before South Carolina you said X with no time to respond, 3 days before Texas and Ohio you ran ads suggesting that as President, I would be a danger to America's sleeping children. [I'm too lazy to fill in the details--maybe someone can put this list together with links.] Every time these attacks come at the last minute leaving me no time to respond. Can you explain to me how, as President, I would endanger America's sleeping children? Now I'm just wondering what's coming next so that perhaps we can flesh out the details for Democratic primary voters in advance."
This sets a context for any attacks that come, allowing voters to see them for what they are. It also sets a dangerous trap for Clinton, because of she takes the bait and says too explicitly how dangerous she thinks Obama will be, she can easily step over the line and lose Democratic voters.
3) Manipulation/betrayal: Others have written about the "insult 40 states" strategy from a political narrative point of view, but I want to focus more personally on how manipulative the Clinton campaign has been. I'd like to encourage someone in the press or a polling agency to go back to Iowa and new Hampshire and ask Democrats how they feel about Clinton's insistence that Florida and Michigan delegates be seated, when they were courted on the premise that Clinton was following their wishes. I'd like to know how Clinton voters in California and New Jersey are feeling watching all the sharp elbows Clinton is now throwing. People in New Hampshire who voted before the South Carolina dirt. I have heard anecdotally about people in early states who are feeling buyer's remorse. One of the most effective videos I saw was from the Illinois NOW President who was so disgusted with Clinton's attacks on Obama's pro-choice record that she decided to support Obama. I'd like this sentiment to become viral. I'd like to see a website set up for individual testimonials from people who voted for Clinton and feel betrayed. My own parents in California have told me they feel like they made the wrong choice. This dovetails with all the stories of people who the Clintons have turned on; it would be interesting to see a compilation of quotes and individuals of people who have felt the brunt of Clintonian vengeance (e.g. George Stephanopoulos). The Clintons have practiced a kind of "You're either for us or you're against us" politics that should dissonate (is that the opposite of "resonate"?) with Democrats.
I think these attacks work not based on particular factual details or scandals, but because of the strong, accurate, emotional narrative they represent. I don't think Clinton's tax returns or Bill's foundation donors matter to very many people.
This is all secondary to the campaign's proper focus on the positive--but they don't need any advice on that front.
Comments are closed on this story.