Backfires?
An article in Time Magazine wonders if the Clinton campaign has made a smart move by going negative this close to the Iowa caucuses. There is a real danger that the strategy might backfire, badly, for Hillary.
Then Clinton announced in an interview with CBS that she was sick of being a punching bag for Obama and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards and that she intended to fight back. "After you have been attacked as often as I have from several of my opponents, you cannot just absorb it. You have to respond," she said.
Since that declaration Clinton has done just that, attacking Obama's plans for health care, Social Security reform and diplomacy with Iran. She even went so far as to dig up a kindergarten essay of Obama's entitled "I Want to Be President" to accuse him of lying about not having a lifelong lust for the Oval Office. "So you decide which makes more sense: Entrust our country to someone who is ready on day one … or to put America in the hands of someone with little national or international experience, who started running for president the day he arrived in the U.S. Senate," Clinton said in Iowa Monday. 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."
Ouch. There is, of course, the absurdity of Clinton accusing Obama of starting to run for president from the day he entered the Senate. Everyone knew what Clinton was planning even before she was elected for the first time. I think that sort of ludicrous statement will have a big negative impact with voters. I have pointed out repeatedly that Clinton has a tin ear. She does not realize how utterly stupid some things sound when she blurts them out. My guess is that she took a lot of damage in Iowa with statements like that and with the revelations that she used plants to ask questions at campaign events.
Will getting beaten in Iowa be enough to damage the Clinton juggernaut? Hard to say, she has that massive machine of hers. But it could trigger a cascade of events that might be enough to stop her. It's going to be a long primary season, one way or the other.
By martian, Tuesday, 4 December , 2007 @ 10:59 am
This has been a Clinton campaign strategy since their first campaign back in Arkansas - when in doubt, attack. Hillary’s problem is that she has always been the attack dog which allowed Bill to remain above the battle in the gutter. This is what has given her one of her biggest negative factors - she’s seen as shrill and vindictive. Unfortunately for her, now that she is the candidate, she needs to appear to be the one above the fray and she doesn’t seem able to grasp that - she’s still in attack dog mode. This hurts her public image in a major way and could backfire on her with those few remaining undecided voters that might have leaned her way.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, I don’t think there are that many people who are undecided in regard to Hillary. Most people have already made up their minds about her and for those who support her she can do no wrong, so it’s not likely to turn anyone against her who isn’t there already. There may be enough undecided people in Iowa to give Obama a very narrow victory there. However, nationally I’m not sure this will have any major impact.
By feeblemind, Tuesday, 4 December , 2007 @ 1:28 pm
‘Ir’s going to be a long primary season, one way or the other.’ That is bad news for HRC, is it not?