Accentuate The Negative….
Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post's The Fix site wonders if Hillary Clinton is going to go negative in the days leading up to her last chance, firewall votes in Texas and Ohio. In a way, he seems to be saying it has already started.
Amid all of the armchair quarterbacking that has gone on over the past eight days about what Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) should do to turn around her campaign, one solution that doesn't seem to come up much is perhaps the simplest — and most dangerous: going negative.
"Going negative is a not a bad option for Clinton," said one Democratic strategist based in Washington who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the less-than-savory topic. "Her positive message seems to have a ceiling and her contrasting message that [Sen. Barack Obama] just might not be ready enough is her strongest argument."
For the majority of this — now extended — campaign, neither Clinton nor Obama has aired a true contrast ad that mentions the other candidate by name and in a less than favorable light. A genuinely negative ad? Forget it.
The closest we've come is in the last two days as Clinton's campaign launched this spot in Wisconsin in advance of that state's Feb. 19 primary.
The ad has none of the ominous music or unflattering pictures that are standard fare in traditional negative advertising, but it does seek to make a contrast between Clinton and Obama. That contrast? That Clinton is a substantive doer while Obama is a gifted speaker light on details. The ad's narrator suggests that Obama has not agreed to a debate in Wisconsin because he'd "prefer to give speeches than have to answer questions." The ad then goes on to detail Clinton's plan to fix the economy and the health care system.
And, that, ladies and gentlemen, is what passes for a rough-and-tumble campaign ad on the Democratic side.
But he closes with an interesting quote from a Democratic campaign operative who mentions that going negative could work for Clinton - if she goes at it in a Mac versus PC ad sort of way. Massive negative attacks that make a person laugh or feel good about them. That may, in fact, be what the campaign ad Cillizza mentions was an attempt at.
Although I have cheerfully been reporting the self-inflicted damage the Clinton campaign has sustained, I have also pointed out, repeatedly, that it is not wise to count the Clintons out. The red-faced, angry, attack Bubba did not work out at all, so why wouldn't they try sugar coating their venomous ambition?
Republican strategists take note and be ready. Because the other thing the Clintons are known for is that if a tactic worked once, they'll keep using it. So if Clinton can get Baron Samedi to reanimate her campaign by this sort of method, she will most certainly use it in the general election.
By lex, Thursday, 14 February , 2008 @ 5:17 pm
re: "Going negative is a not a bad option for Clinton…"
"Going negative"? You mean we’re not there yet?
By Anthony (Los Angeles), Thursday, 14 February , 2008 @ 5:27 pm
You mean we’re not there yet?Nah. You ain’t seen nothing yet.
By Gaius, Thursday, 14 February , 2008 @ 6:15 pm
Nope. It is going to get worse.
By NortonPete, Thursday, 14 February , 2008 @ 7:03 pm
The problem is that it will fall to Hillary to go negative and she cannot pull it off. Bill can go negative, he can make those twisted faces and get away with it because that is something fuzzy men can do.
Hillary cannot make twisted faces to emphasize a negative, it doesn’t play. It looks like Bill castrated himself a bit early on in the fight.