How (and how aggressively) should Barack Obama go after Hillary’s strengths?
I should put “strengths” in quotes because she has never been tested is a crisis or had to make an executive decision. I think that could be the focus of new Obama ads.
He’s already hinted at it:
I think he needs to be fairly aggressive. He needs to point out the lack of experience. He needs to point out that when she has tried to lead she has failed. Point out her failure to actually pass any significant bills in the Senate. Harping on her Iraq War vote is getting old.
At this point staying positive is looks like weakness, furthering the all-talk/cult image.
None. It’s a good line of attack. He can do it without looking ugly-negative.
He should raise her colossal failure on universal health care during Bill’s administration, and pound away on that – if she couldn’t do it then, what makes her think she can do it now?
But he’s not *like * that! That’s what *ordinary * sleazy politicians like Hillbillary do, not someone magical who can unite all of America and transcend petty partisanship!
He’s done a little of this, but I think focusing on it would be foolish. By attacking Clinton’s experience, he acknowledges that the whole experience issue is an important one, and that experience is an important quality for a president to have. First, in the more long term, by making experience an important issue in the primary, he will raise its relevance in the General, and McCain would love that.
Secondly, Clinton keeps bringing up the experience issue because its a debate she wants to have. She thinks that if voters think experience is the most important factor, and they look at her next to Obama, they’ll choose her. I tend to agree with her, we can argue if it’s a valid perception or not, but rightly or wrongly the fact is that people do count her experience as First Lady as counting towards her experience as a politician. No one thinks of her as the Senator from NY, people know her because she was the focus of a lot of political activity for almost the entirety of the 90’s. In the heads of voters, she’s been on the scene for 20 years, not just the 6+ of her senate term.
Obama knows this, that’s why instead of arguing directly against her being more experienced, he’s played the outsider card. It’s worked out remarkably well, it’ll be an excellent narrative to carry with him into the General against McCain, and he’d be a fool to change strategy now.
“I haven’t been aware that Sen. Clinton or for that matter anyone in her family has any notable experience of serving in the military, so I’m a bit bemused to find my readiness as Commander in Chief being contrasted with hers.”
No, sleazy politicians look for photos of their opponent wearing a turban, counting on the public’s fear and ignorance to associate him with the Middle East and Islam.
Non-sleazy politicians attack their opponent’s positions and political history, like pointing out that their opponent has already failed on at least one issue that their platform is based on.
Well, Commanders in Chief generally haven’t been stoned drug users throughout high school and college, as Obama has admitted. If Obama tried to join the military, there’s a very good chance he wouldn’t even be granted a security clearance.
If Obama is out Hillary’s flaws, he should criticize her in areas where her attacks on Obama have been hypocritical. He shouldn’t point out her sleaziness because that is already pretty obvious to everyone. He shouldn’t point out her divisiveness because we already know how divisive she is. He doesn’t need to point out how her 35 years of experience is a stretch because we alll realize that its a stretch. He doesn’t need to point out her failure to pass health care reform with a totally Democratic government, lack of judgment and her incredibly high negatives, we know all that. he needs to point out how much of a hypocrite she is.
We “all” know that? Apparently half of Democratic voters either don’t know that, or have already weighed it, or have a more nuanced view, or something.
Assuming that everyone else would agree with you if they were only as well-informed is a proven losing strategy.
He isn’t like that. But when one person starts to play dirty, you can either suck it up and not respond like John Kerry did or you can fight fire with fire (or mud with mud).
Attacking her “strengths” is long overdue. So she made a lot of trips as First Lady. BFD. So does Laura Bush. Is Laura’s experience less presidential-qualifying than Hillary’s? So she has a term up on him in the Senate. BFD. She only took the job to pad the resume and didn’t even read the intelligence report before casting the most important vote in her Senate career, which turned out to be a disaster.
The Presidency is a civilian position, not a military one. And being a former avid marijuana user a couple decades ago is absolutely, laughably irrelevent to how someone will do as Commander-In-Chief now.
Even if he were a current marijuana user it probably wouldn’t hurt his abilities too much either.
If Obama is responsible for his adviser calling Hillary a monster, is she responsible for the staffers in Iowa(iirc) that sent out the “Obama’s a muslim” e-mail?
How many wars have been started by guys lying back on the sofa staring at the TV and trying to decide whose turn it was to get up and get more munchies?
Sure, but the judgement question has been applied more directly with regard to the Iraq war. What do you think is better? Voting against the war and hiring an advisor who refers to your political opponent as a monster in a scottish newspaper or voting to send american troops into Iraq?