Clumsy Attacks
Jay Cost over at Real Clear Politics has a good analysis of just how dangerous Hillary Clinton's sudden rash of clumsy attacks on fellow Democrats is - to Hillary Clinton.
The consensus seems to be that Hillary's negativity is a bad idea.
This is what MIT's Stephen Ansolabehere - who, along with Shanto Iyengar, wrote one of the best books on negative campaigning - told Time magazine.
Clinton's harsh new rhetoric has not won much support, either from pundits or other Democrats. "I could see the desire to raise the salience of personal traits — because her strengths are experience and strength of character," said Stephen Ansolabehere, a political science professor at MIT and author of the book Going Negative. "But her choice surprised me — she might be emphasizing the wrong thing. Given how close this is in the polls, especially a month out, this might be a very risky strategy for her."
There are few people in this country who know as much about electoral politics as Stephen Ansolabehere. If he is as wary as Time has made him out to be - the Clinton campaign should take a second look at its strategy.
Cost points out the double-edged nature of going negative in a campaign. It is well worth taking the time to read it all. His closing line, though may be the sharpest observation of all:
It's one thing for her to be perceived as the battle-tested fighter who can fight off the Republicans. It is another thing altogether if she is perceived to be trying to destroy the candidate of the party's future.
I pointed out once before that I did not see Barack Obama as being willing to take the Vice President slot. It would effectively end his aspirations for the top post. He has run strongly enough that he can look forward to another attempt in four or eight years even if he loses this time around. Cost may have nailed why Hillary's attacks on Obama may really work against her with that insight.
By Anthony (Los Angeles), Wednesday, 5 December , 2007 @ 9:13 am
her strengths are experience and strength of character
If those are her strengths, I hate to think of her weaknesses.
By Maggie, Wednesday, 5 December , 2007 @ 10:03 am
Apparently Hill’s even dropped Celine:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/you-and-i-no-mo.html
By feeblemind, Wednesday, 5 December , 2007 @ 11:23 am
Maggie: Maybe she will replace the song with ‘Witchy Woman’ by the Eagles?
By Mwalimu Daudi, Wednesday, 5 December , 2007 @ 1:28 pm
Interesting - Stephen Ansolabehere thinks that negative campaigning hurts Hilly the Hun if it affects Democrats. But not if the negativity is directed at Republicans. It’s not an inaccurate observation. In fact, I know of no case where a Democrat paid a political price for a Democrat doing to a Republican what Hilly is doing to Obama.
This is a clear an indication that you will ever get of what a bunch of spineless milquetoasts the GOP has become. In the Democrat Party’s race to power they don’t even make decent speed bumps anymore.
I am not suggesting that Republicans become carbon-copies of their Democrat counterparts. But a little courage now and again will work wonders for their prospects. The last 7+ years of Bush’s roll-me-over-and-kick-me-again has not exactly turned the GOP into an unstoppable juggernaut. The current AMT debate is yet another golden opportunity - if the GOP does not wimp out again.
By McGehee, Wednesday, 5 December , 2007 @ 2:04 pm
If voters become sensitized to Her Inevitableness’ negativity, I think it’ll hurt her no matter whom the target is.
By martian, Wednesday, 5 December , 2007 @ 3:16 pm
“her strengths are experience and strength of character” - I am really sick and tired of hearing about this.
First, what experience? She was the WIFE of a President, not the President. I am a computer programmer by profession. This does not make my wife experienced in computer programming (on the contrary, she can barely turn one on). The one thing Bill actually entrusted her to accomplish, health care reform, she FAILED MISERABLY at! Presidential ability doesn’t seep in by osmosis because you sleep next to the president (and we don’t KNOW she even did that given Bill’s history). She is part way through her second term as a senator from New York. During her tenure in the senate has she sponsored one single significant piece of legislation? Has she accomplished ANYTHING in the senate other than to get re-elected? NO! What actual experience does she have in military affairs, foreign relations, counter-terrorism? NONE! Like I said, what experience!
Second, strength of character? Shouldn’t the TYPE of character count? Hugo Chavez has strength of character. Fidel Castro has strength of character. Even Osama Bin Laden has strength of character. In all of those cases it’s the WRONG KIND of character but it’s still strength. While I am not saying Hillary is a terrorist, you get my point. Her charater is one of blind ambition, vindictiveness and not a little dishonesty. This is not the type of strong character we need in a president. Wasn’t Slick Willie enough?