Obama has upper hand in his skirmish with Hillary, says The American Prospect

[jefferson_dem]

CLINTON WON THE BATTLE, OBAMA IS WINNING THE WAR.

Improbably, the Clinton-Obama fight is still going strong and, also improbably, Obama now seems to have the upper hand. How do I know? In the first 24 hours after the debate it was Obama who was arguing Clinton was distorting his position, now it's Clinton's surrogates who are arguing Obama is distorting her statement. As Marc Ambinder pointed out, It's never a good thing in politics to say "what I meant to say was." That's the position Obama was in shortly after the debate:

<SNIP>

Yet, in a deeply impressive bit of street-fighting the Obama campaign has managed to turn what originally was a Clinton attack on him into a counterattack on Clinton. On Thursday and Friday both campaigns were going at it. Obama called Clinton "Bush-Cheney lite" and Cliton's campaign called Obama "Naive." There were a bunch of "both sides think they can win this" articles and blog posts written. Today however, I'm ready to call this for Obama. Polling shows more people agree with him than Clinton (though this is probably a pretty hard question to poll fairly since it depends so much on wording) and Clinton's campaign is now on the defensive. Clinton supporter and first-tier surrogate Tom Vilsack is now saying that Clinton actually agrees with Obama:

"Rather than just simply acknowledging the mistake that was made during the course of the debate, the Senator has attempted to distort Senator Clinton's record in an effort to mask this confusing statement of his," said Vilsack. "It's not the Iowa way." Vilsack also scolded Obama for comparing Clinton's foreign policy philosophy to that of the Bush administration; "These comments are so wrong, one could say that they are certainly audacious, but honestly they are not particularly hopeful," said Vilsack.

You know you're losing when you start complaining that the other side is being unfair in not "admitting the mistake." The Obama campaign is packed with incredibly sharp people (as of course is Clinton's) and any candidate who thinks Obama's rhetoric means he won't be willing to give as good as he gets is going to be quite rudely surprised.

As the ever-prescient E. J. Dionne noted last Friday, this debate helps Obama in two ways. First, he gets to go one-on-one with the frontrunner which is a good for him and bad for her. Second, it allows him to make the debate aobut her vote for the Iraq war. Clinton's strength, experience, has gone head to head against Obama's, his better record of judgement and his commitment to change, and, based on the evidence above, I think Dionne's analysis is right and Obama will come out this fight strengthened.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=07&year=2007&base_name=post_4408

[beastieboy]

1. I disagree.

I think he looks like a brat.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaJones]

3. And he's gonna need it. nt.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Dionne also said HRC violated the cardinal rule of frontrunners

Never throw the first punch at a challenger.

I think he's right. She was already getting a lot of good press for her debate answer from the MSM. There was absolutely no talk about IWR in that context. By calling Obama "naive and irresponsible," she opened the door to a critique about her war vote, and Obama's quotes along those lines were picked up everywhere. Obama also gets points from many for showing an ability to attack when necessary. Plus her previous criticisms on Bush not being willing to meet with "bad" people made her look opportunistic. Team Clinton should have left well enough alone in this case.

[Tellurian]

15. Punch? You call that a punch...

more like flicking a pesky fly off your coffee cup..

[Skip Intro]

5. Vilsack is right. The Obama camp did distort Hillary's answer. I've seen it all over DU.

This forum, anyway.

It doesn't say good things about a candidate, espeically one promising a change from politics as usual, that he/she and the campaign would use distortions to win a conflict.

[Cha]

7. Oh balderdash...hillary's

infamous for distortion. That doesn't seem to bother hillary's groupies.

[jefferson_dem]

9. No shit. This whole dust up was started when Hillary and her henchmen concocted

a controversy by distorting and demeaning Obama's position...

[Cha]

10. And now they're

whining. Isn't that what bullies do when they're called on their own shite?

[SaveElmer]

16. Which position would that be...

The one he took before the debate, the one he took at the debate, or the one he has taken since the debate...?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. Which one? He has changed positions since the debate too

The one after the debate was his position the day before the debate. Then he switched back to his debate position for a couple days and as of yesterday is back to his pre-debate position (HRC's). What is his position today? I haven't read much news yet.

[Skip Intro]

11. zidzi - I don't want to argue with you - but Obama's camp and many of his defenders here

have distorted what she said - they claimed she said she wouldn't meet with our adversaries, in her answer at the debate, and that is just not true. Yesterday I read that they are trying to use a clip of her saying we should talk to our enemies as proof that she has flip/flopped with her debate answer, while it is just not true - there are no conflicts with that clip (from an msnbc interview) and her debate answer. The Obama camp has made a false charge, and then tried to pile on as if their false charge were actually true. I saw a you-tube video evidently from his campaign that was put out a day or two after the debate where they showed clips from the debate - showed Hillary's answer and his answer, but completely cut out the part where he answered, without hesitation, that "I would" meet with those leaders in his first year.


I am not a groupie for any of the candidates (tho I could quickly become one for Gore) and hadn't really held a strong opinion of Obama either way. But if he's going to use misleading statements and misrepresentations to reach his goals then I really have to wonder if I would even vote for him in the general, should he win the nom.


Eight years of misleading statements from the WH is enough.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

22. the contradiction isn't between the MSNBC clip and the debate

it's between what she said afterwards and the MSNBC clip. Clinton and her staff attacked Obama for meeting rogue world leaders without condition, but that's what she says in the MSNBC clip.

Obama said "I would" (be willing to meet) those leaders. Hillary has spun that to "I WILL" meet those world leaders. That seems more disingenuous to me.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

24. Hillary is not claiming she is going to change 200+ years of American politics nt

[Cha]

35. So?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

25. I agree. It is pretty clear. As of yesterday, Obama had the same position as HRC on the issue

So does that mean Obama is Bush-Cheney-lite? ;)

[bvar22]

30. You mean former Chair of the DLC Vilsac?

The same former Governor Vilsack who is having his $400,000 campaign debt PAID by Hillary Clinton?
Gee, former DLC Chairman carrying water for the current DLC Chair of the DLC American Dream Initiative, neoliberal Hillary Clinton.

Shocked I tell you.

[Skip Intro]

32. Which makes criticism of Obama's distortion of Hillary's position er...still valid.

[bvar22]

39. Not really...

It makes Vilsack spinning for Hillary er....understandable, but unreliable.

[Cha]

6. Anytime someone gets hillary's

IWR vote and subsequent refusal to discuss it on record IS A GOOD THANG!

The hill campaign blew it. Are they thinking.."we won't make that mistake again."?

[flpoljunkie]

12. Perhaps this was not her campaign who made this mistake, but a freelancing Hillary on Iowa radio.

Which would show a certain impetuousness--perhaps anger that Obama is challenging her envitability as the Dem nominee. I am not ruling out John Edwards, either. They are both a threat to her "coronation."

[Alizaryn]

23. I think you hit the nail on the head.

" Perhaps this was not her campaign who made this mistake, but a freelancing Hillary on Iowa radio." That's what I'm thinking too, a big part of Hillary is being kept under wrap and occasionally it slips. I would rather see the whole Hillary to tell you the truth, I liked that person better then the actress that I see now. IMO

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. Everyone knows HRC voted for the IWR--just as we all knew Kerry did and Dean didn't

;)

[Cha]

36. Good...now she can

apologize for it.

[Ethelk2044]

8. They were saying the same thing on MTP Obama has Upper hand

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Alexander]

19. Front-runners only attack lesser rivals if they are scared.

Scared of their rivals beating them, of course.

[Grandrose]

14. K&R

Naive...not so much!:think: :kick:

[Bullet1987]

17. Great article...right 100%

Maybe the Clinton supporters should just wait for another Republican support piece from the right-wing.

[jberryhill]

18. Ooohh...

Do NOT read that headline far away from the monitor through lenses that need cleaning.

[Forkboy]

20. Hillary overplayed her hand,plain and simple.

Watching the debate I thought she was the one who landed the blow,but she blew it by opening her yap the next day and Obama came back with a cross of his own that landed squarely.She needs a boxer's patience.She rushed to land a blow that left her open for a counter.

Opinions have been fairly split on this,but that's my take.

[MGKrebs]

21. I'll respond to that.

Clinton doesn't mind responding to a challenger on this issue because it is an opportunity to look stronger on foreign policy as well as security, clearly a major goal of the campaign. Not only that, they get to contrast the difference in experience levels (you can argue with that, but I'm sure they think she has more experience and they think most voters will think she has more experience).

As a bonus, Team Obama chooses to abandon their (now obviously naive) politics of hope for a minute while they get dirty with the politics of attack and counterattack.

In addition, as far as "frontrunner status" is concerned, if I recall Obama out raised Clinton last quarter, and given that this whole drama is being played out primarily for Iowa voters- where neither of them are the frontrunner, and Obama lives next door- that description doesn't hold much water.

<sarcasm alert>The one thing about all of this that is surprising is that Team Clinton has opened themselves up to criticism about the IWR vote. Even worse, they seem totally unprepared to deal with it, as if they expected that the other campaigns would just sort of ignore it. </sarcasm>

[zulchzulu]

29. The politics of hope also includes defending yourself against cheap shot attacks

If you think Obama is going to take shit from Clinton and not shoot back, you have another thing coming. And there's more where that came from.

[MGKrebs]

31. From a campaign strategy point of view, if Team Clinton

can knock him off of his message (and call it naive and make him defend that) and portray him as not that much different from other candidates, I think they would see that as an advantage. He is trying to position himself as an outsider with a positive way of doing things, but I suspect Team Clinton is loving this because most people probably don't feel that way about a lot of the world right now, especially with reference to the dictators at the heart of this skirmish.

I think he's doing a really good job on this by the way. I expected this to be a slam-dunk for Clinton after the first couple of days, but Team Obama has been able to at least fight to a draw .

[zulchzulu]

33. If Obama is in the headlines taking on Clinton, it can only help him

I feel a lot of "support" of Senator Clinton is due to name recognition. This event puts Obama in the spotlight and he can use it to skewer Clinton on her war vote, which is woefully unpopular.

People are certainly looking for other choices that what they are being spoonfed by the MSM. Add Clinton's high negatives in national polls and it's all good for Obama in my view.

[MGKrebs]

34. How does "support of Clinton is name recognition" square with "unelectable

and divisive"? I mean, the conventional wisdom seems to have been that she is a special case in that name recognition was supposed to be a negative for her.

[zulchzulu]

38. Well, it goes something like this...

Hillary Clinton certainly has name recognition from the Clinton years in the '90s. The negative ratings come from various factors, whether they are right or wrong. Polls show her negative ratings very high in her own party.

The "unelectable and divisive" judgement is in the most part due to the factors regarding her husband and his legacy. The fact that Republicans would love to have her as the nominee to wake up their base gets into the "unelectable" territory.

Most people outside the politically interested know her and haven't yet started looking at the other candidates, except perhaps Edwards, Biden and Kucinich, who have either been on TV a lot or ran at earlier times.

When Clinton starts attacking Obama and then he defends himself and it makes news, it puts Obama in the "eyeballs" of viewers who haven't really seen him yet. I think he's done well in the recent scuffle (that Clinton started) and it can only help his candidacy that he's now more of a household name.

Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt had "name recognition" in 2004 and were up in the polls in the earlier stages. I think that was mostly due to the fact that people didn't really know the others who were running. And the way polls work in such early stages where the first votes are a political infinity away (five months), the name recognition factor means almost nothing until mid-Fall, after the World Series and perhaps after Labor Day.

We'll see how all this pans out. If Clinton keeps trying to hammer at Obama, she is only going to lose more voters.

[zulchzulu]

28. For Clinton to have to have surrogates to rescue her, it's Obama's gain

It proves once again that Senator Clinton can't stand on her own without calling for her husband or some of his buddies.

Pathetic...

[illinoisprogressive]

37. Clinton attacked and Obama shows her chicago politics!!!!!