MotherJones Blog: Dem Debate in NH Previews Clinton's Get-Obama Strategy

«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

Dem Debate in NH Previews Clinton's Get-Obama Strategy

At the Democratic debate on Saturday night in New Hampshire, John Edwards came to the rescue of Barack Obama. Not that Obama needed it. But it provided Edwards the opportunity to (a) whack Hillary Clinton and (b) grab for the change wave that propelled Obama to victory in Iowa. In a debate featuring few true policy disputes, the thrusts and parries defined the final Democratic face-off before the first primary election--and they revealed the Clinton campaign's strategy for taking Obama down.

Edwards' moment came when Clinton--in a much-anticipated move--went after Obama. She accused her Senate colleague of flip-flopping on health care. First, she said, he was for single-payer health care; then he proposed a different sort of health care reform. "I think that what we're looking for is a president we can count on," she added.

As far as punches go, this was no knockout blow. Clinton's previous attempt to pick a fight with Obama over the differences in their health care plans--a distinction too wonkish for most voters to worry about--did not succeed. But she was giving it another shot, hoping to depict the winner of Iowa as just another pol. Obama gently defended himself, explaining that he had once said that his preference would be a single-payer system but that he believed it would not be practical to scrap the existing system to make way for such a plan. And he noted, again gently, that he did disagree with Clinton and Edwards on the need for mandating health care coverage. He went on to point out, gently once more, that he and Edwards both have taken a stand on Social Security--advocating a small increase in payroll taxes--which Clinton has declined to do. The two bickered some more, with Clinton claiming Obama had waffled on the Patriot Act and Iraq war funding.

Then John Edwards swooped in. "Any time you speak out powerfully for change, the forces of status quo attack," he said. He was equating Clinton with those forces. She glowered at him. Edwards continued:

The one thing I do not argue with [Obama] about is he believes
deeply in change. And I believe deeply in change. And any time you're fighting for that -- I mean, I didn't hear these kind of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead. Now that she's not, we hear them. And any time you speak out -- any time you speak out for change, this is what happens.

Me and Obama versus the First Lady of the Status Quo--that was Edwards' message. It was a rather effective push-back against Clinton's offensive against Obama. Edwards was clearly choosing sides. And he was happy to do the dirty work--which allowed Obama to remain above the fray.

Clinton wasn't done with Obama. She moved on to another line of attack, basically saying that Obama was more talk than action. She noted that she had repeatedly delivered on change, helping to create the children's health insurance program and obtaining access to health care for National Guard members.

Clinton was signaling--not too subtly--that in the few days before the New Hampshire election she was going to try to make Obama look like just another do-nothing, back-flipping politician. But by the end of the debate, she had not done the front-runner much damage. All of the candidates--including former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson--were performing well, discussing various policy notions with specificity and passion. And the ammunition she deployed was not all that potent. (Moving from pro-choice to pro-life--now that's a flip-flop. Changing your mind about single-payer isn't quite the same.) "The Clintons really don't have anything on Obama," one reporter said to me in the middle of the debate. And he was right. For anyone trying to score the debate, it was probably a draw. And if Obama does have momentum out of Iowa, that would be bad news for Clinton.

But after the debate, in the so-called "spin room," the Clintonites demonstrated that they intended to keep pounding on Obama on these two fronts: flip-flopping and more-talk-than-action. Phil Singer, a spokesman for the campaign, told reporters that Obama couldn't cite any specific accomplishments to back up his claim to be an agent of change. (Actually, Obama had mentioned his work to pass legislation on ethics and loose nukes.) "He's taken multiple positions on health care," Singer exclaimed. I asked Singer if the same could be said of Clinton. After all, the health care plan she proposed during this campaign was quite different from the Hillarycare proposal she unveiled in 1994. Is she, too, a flip-flopper? Singer, a good spinner, didn't lose a beat. Nearly fifteen years had gone by between Hillarycare and her latest plan, he replied, and she had learned from her previous experience. But, he went on, Obama had shifted his position over the course of three years. Singer added that the Clinton campaign had a website listing Obama's policy reversals.

Why are you bringing all this up now? one journalist inquired, suggesting the campaign was acting out of desperation. (Duh!) Singer shot back, "I would ask why the media has not bought it up....Perhaps tonight will be a first step to getting people to have a better sense of [Obama's] record." So Clinton was merely goosing along this process of public education.

A few yards away, Doug Hattaway, a veteran Democratic consultant who joined the Clinton campaign five days earlier, told me that Clinton was only now getting the chance to make her case. Could her campaign, I ask, really beat back Obama, who has inspired so many Democrats, with the claim he's a disingenuous flip-flopper? "The bigger thing that breaks through," Hattaway said, "is the difference between talk and action." People like to be inspired. But they want to know they have a president that can deliver."

There's not much the Clinton crew is hiding. They have two anti-Obama memes. They will see if they can get either to stick to the Democratic dreamboat. David Axlerod, Obama's chief strategist, not surprisingly, voiced no concern. (In the spin room, no one is ever worried.) "This is the Washington playbook," he said. "A campaign gets in trouble and they go negative. The question is, is that what the American people are looking for?" No, the question is, what are New Hampshire voters looking for--and will they respond to the Clinton effort to rebrand Obama? Iowa showed that Clinton could not prevail on the strength of her own message. New Hampshire will indicate if Clinton can win by other means.

New Hampshire Democratic Debate Winner

Who won the ABC Democratic Debate in New Hampshire?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1451

-------------------------------------------------------------

New Hampshire Republican Debate Winner

Who won the ABC Republican Debate in New Hampshire?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1450

Posted by: PollM on 01/05/08 at 11:51 PM Respond

Hillary Clinton won the debate by calling Obama on half-truths, e.g., OBAMA VOTED FOR THE SURGE IN IRAQ and John Edwards on misinformation. When asked about an example of his work for change over the past 6 years, Edwards said he was proud of his Patients Bill of Rights. Hillary reminded Edwards that it was never passed.

TIME FOR A REALITY CHECK IS NEEDED HERE!

Get the facts, not verbal fiction.

Posted by: runawaybelle@aol.com on 01/05/08 at 11:51 PM Respond

HILLARY CALLED OBAMA ON VOTING TO FUND THE SURGE IN IRAQ!!

YES, OBAMA VOTED TO FUND THE SURGE IN IRAQ.

THANK HILLARY FOR SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT.

READ MORE BY USING GOGGLE TO GET TO FACEBOOK.

Posted by: runawaybelle@aol.com on 01/06/08 at 12:11 AM Respond

It's sad but I think Hillary honestly believes that changing America for the better is a "false hope." I guess for her it is. That's her "reality." Thank God we have someone like Obama who can inspire and unite us in the fight to defeat the forces of corruption in our political system that Hillary has obviously resigned herself to. In Obama's words, Hillary has had all the hope boiled out of her.

Hillary should know that "producing change" is not the same as simply doing her job as Senator and managing to help pass some legislation here and there that manages to obliquely benefit some of her constituents in addition to the special interests. She doesn't even understand the concept of change. Whatever results she has managed to produce have been by working the corrupt system as well as she can. Change is about changing that system. She just doesn't get it!

Posted by: Donna on 01/06/08 at 12:26 AM Respond

Bad credit personal loans online
There are many bad credit personal loans online. More and more companies are offering quick cash loans (like Internet Cash Advance) to people with bad credit, without the inconvenience of having to go to a bank of office and fill out paperwork.

http://www.geckoforums.net/member.php?u=6555 bad credit personal loan
http://www.gedichte.com/member.php?u=35416 guaranteed bad credit personal loan
http://pix-hoster.com/forums/member.php?u=4031 bank personal loan for bad credit
http://ldsfiles.com/newforums/members/chuviskkk.html bad credit personal loan lender

Posted by: bad credit personal loan on 01/06/08 at 3:40 AM Respond

Shillary's days are numbered honey. Its finally time for an HONEST man to lead the country.

Posted by: Juan Diego Vasquez on 01/06/08 at 5:21 AM Respond

GREAT DEBATE. HILLARY CLINTON THE CLEAR WINNER. AND REMEMBER, WE MUST NOT HAVE A REPLAY OF YEAR "2000".

Great debate last night. Hillary Clinton came across strong, in control, showing excellent leadership, and sense of direction. She spoke in specifics, presenting details of her proposed plans to help bring this nation back to at least a sense of normalcy from where we have been taken by George Bush and his disastrous gang of "hoodlums" who hijacked our government for their own political purposes of self-interest.

Barack Obama came across again as the "empty suit" candidate with those "feel good" phrases even as he referenced a hero of mine, Abraham Lincoln. That's great. Thank you. Let's bring back Abraham Lincoln. Excuse me please, but I want to really talk about "today", and I think Abraham Lincoln would agree if he were here with us.

CONTINUING, WE MUST REMEMBER NOT TO LET THIS BE YEAR "2000" ALL OVER AGAIN.

We all remember year "2000"......with candidate George Bush and his great "feel good" down home rhetoric of "we need a change in Washington", as he was campaigning against the better qualified candidate Al Gore. We all know the disastrous results, and what has happened the last seven years. Well, the American people won't be that gullible this time. Barack Obama is a gifted orator, outstanding script, brilliant feel good rhetoric, great baritone voice for his delivery, but the rhetoric is all "feel good". Paul Krugman writes in the New York Times with his article on December 17th in his piece titled "Big Table Fantasies", that Mr. Obama is "naive". I agree. Hillary Clinton has a plan, with as many specifics as possible at this time, that will work to make the changes we need in our Executive Branch, with her as President from day #1, and we have to start then, immediately, if not sooner. From Iowa, there are 49 more states, and Hillary Clinton will be campaigning aggressively in each. I hope and believe all Americans will see that she is the best person to lead our Executive Department forward as President, and not someone who is just well meaning, and who only gives us "feel good rhetoric", and who quite frankly would be better suited as a Talk Show Host or Game Show Host on Network T.V. Thank you.

From: Common Sense - Bruce

Posted by: Common Sense - Bruce on 01/06/08 at 6:34 AM Respond

The Democratic debate on Saturday was marred by the exclusion of Dennis Kucinich. Dennis was interviewed on Bill Moyer's show Friday night, and he said that his attempts to contact ABC and find out why he was not included were inconclusive. Nobody at ABC who would talk to him could tell him anything about why he had been excluded.

To me, this shows a terrible flaw in our political process when a media conglomerate can arbitrarily decide who gets to be included in what is billed as a nationally televised political party's debate. Shame on ABC and shame on the Democrats who went along with this BS. How is Dennis Kucinch any less deserving of a seat on that stage than Bill Richardson?

The very use of the word "debate" to describe these sound-bite generating spectacles is a disservice to the English language. If the parties wanted to shed some light on issues rather than just allowing each campaign an opportunity to cleverly manipulate the discussion around to their talking points, they would adapt the collegiate debate format to some form usable with that number of candidates. That would mean limiting the discussion to one topic or proposal. It would mean keeping personal attacks off of the stage. It would mean holding each candidate responsible for their assertions by forcing them to be prepared to defend each one in cross-examination. If this were done over a series of issues in a series of real debates, it would raise the level of the political discourse between candidates to heights it has never been and improve the political process.

Now on to the event itself...

If this was supposed to be Hillary's big chance to stop Obama, she failed. If anything, her attacks on Obama made her look small as the other 3 candidates each took a whack at criticizing what she was attempting to do, either directly or indirectly. Her reaction to John Edwards' defense of Obama was outright spooky. She showed us a side of her personality that is hardly presidential, namely that her reaction to being contradicted pisses her off to the point where she verges on losing it. Definitely not a trait you would want in someone with their finger on the button.

Hillary's biggest gaffes in the debate were her attack on the notions of hope and change on the one hand, and her attempt to portray herself as an agent of change for 35 years. Those concepts are mutually exclusive. Anyone who looks at what has happened to America in the last 35 years, and particularly in the last few years during Hillary's term as US Senator, would have to conclude that if she's truly an agent of change as she claims, she needs to be stopped immediately because we are changing into something unrecognizable to our Founders. Notice that her debate-speak is heavy on what everybody else has been doing but not so much on her own record. That's because in many ways she's almost Bush Lite, representing the status quo, the well-moneyed interests, and shamelessly denying she's doing it.

Obama looked tired and gave a flat yet adequate performance. He successfully fended off the "flip flop" personal attacks by politely presenting the facts, which is his style and also what I think Americans love about him the most.

John Edwards won the debate for Vice President last night. His candidacy for president is done-fer. He has now lost Iowa twice and despite his fiery passion at portraying himself as firely passionate, his actions still speak louder than his words. Hillary busted him on the Patient's Bill of Rights slight-of hand trick. His 28,000 foot mansion still awaits him when he goes home. If he paid $400 for the do he was sporting last night, he ought to reconsider his choice of stylists. People on the stage last night were too polite to note that Edwards' day job is lawyering up for hedge funds who are either going to get rich from seizure of unfortunate people's property or a big taxpayer bailout. However, I'm not too polite to say it... he doesn't walk the walk.

I have to wonder what Bill Richardson is doing in this race. I don't "get" his candidacy at all nor do I understand why Dennis Kucinich wasn't sitting in that chair instead of Bill Richardson. Each time he got the opportunity to elaborate, it was like watching a slightly different version of his television ad with somebody paying the bass drum loudly in the next room. (Note to Bill: if you want to bang the podium to emphasize a point, do it once for the point itself, not once for every syllable in the statement). Richardson portrays himself as the victim; he's the guy with the resume who can't get a break, he's the governor who has to clean up after the messes that come from Washington, he's the only one who knows how to run a government from an executive position and yet nobody takes him seriously. Well, I don't know why they don't, and I'm not going to speculate except that maybe people are more attracted to somebody who portrays themselves as a winner more than a victim.

I don't think the debate changed much. Obama is still on a roll, Hillary, if anything, made herself less likable, Edwards' sucking up to Obama made me question if he's now running for VP, and who knows what Richardson thinks is going to happen.

The Republican food fight was a lot more entertaining from the standpoint of anyone who likes to watch train wrecks. Hillary and Obama got off the best lines of the night at the end of the debate when they both pointed out that the GOP debate consisted of topics and positions that are irrelevant and unpalatable to Democrats, Independents, and even some Republicans.

-Wexler

Posted by: William W. Wexler on 01/06/08 at 7:13 AM Respond

To Wexler, I am a big Kucinich fan, but now am pleasantly surprised by Obama and ask myself if a candidate that makes us realize our shared values and seeks to dissolve partisanship is possible before a figure like Kucinich could win an election himself? Also, Kucinich endorsed Obama sort of (he told supporters Iowa to vote for the senator from Illinois second after himself), which to me is huge. Although Kucinich did not have much support in the general election his supporters are quite vocal. His endorsement of Obama is very reassuring...perhaps my instincts ring true. (Certainly he knows that Hillary's neoliberal sympathies are enough to make her a, as one blogger put it, a Diet Neo-con) Although I would think you have more support for Bill Richardson, the same obfuscating mythology that thanks to lazy journalism and corporate media that festers behind every election has doomed his campaign as well.

Posted by: Andy on 01/06/08 at 8:14 AM Respond

Just another feel good moment from Oprah!
I have watched/listened/read carefully about this guy....
first of all, anyone MSM is falling all over about is subject to my distrust!
Obama loves corporate America, Wall Street is his favorite funder! He spent more money in Iowa than any of his opponents...
Americans are just wanting someone to make them feel good, and unwilling to face up to having supported crimes against peace, war crimes, destruction of their own constitution and the total failure of this country to enforce laws or take responsibility for imperial decadence... so along comes Harpo productions to put a black face on a mainstream corporate democrat who is conciliatory, reflective, and compromising (ie another effete intellectual unwilling/unable to truly take a principled stance)
Where was Obama on Iraq before he was presidential candidate? Did he join Sen Dodd in the clear outrage of corporate clemacy for spying on American citizens (before 9/11)?
What has he ever taken a truly tough stand on?
I am fond of the saying... if you aren't enraged about the current state of affairs, you aren't paying any attention...
and Obama is just another corporate collaborator leading America to its own demise!

Posted by: Bob W on 01/06/08 at 8:48 AM Respond

To Andy...

I am a big Obama supporter as well, being a precinct captain for him in Eastern Iowa where our precinct came 2 people short of 50%, thanks to the volunteers who braved really crummy weather to get face time with everyone door to door.

I was the guy who went to the Kucinich table and asked them to please follow me into the auditorium to join the Obama group. I could truthfully tell them that I was with them on Kucinich's views but had to support Obama due to the practicality of who can be elected. I honestly believe that Dennis is the best candidate for people who are paying attention, but the problem is most of us aren't, which makes Obama a very acceptable second choice for me. Acceptable enough to work for his campaign.

I have tried to maintain an open mind about Richardson, but as I posted above I just don't "get" him. It's true that his campaign has been largely ignored by the MSM so his appearance last night was huge for Richardson supporters. I'm not trying to be harsh, but frankly that was his biggest chance with the MSM so far and he didn't show me anything that makes me think he's even remotely electable. (Sorry to all you Richardson fans). Some of my friends and neighbors at the caucus were Richardson voters (19 of them), and 9 of them left rather than switch to another candidate. (At our caucus, you had to have 53 people to be viable).

So in agreeing with your point about Richardson, it re-emphasizes the importance of alternative media such as MJ to help the candidates get their word out. Some have used it very effectively, such as Ron Paul.

To those of you who keep insisting that Obama is a tool of the captains of industry...

You don't know what you're talking about. You need to understand how change happens in this country. It is going to be a PROCESS, not an EVENT. Change will be incremental, and it will require consensus of the majority of citizens or it will not happen. Obama shows me that he can work with people of differing views and build consensus, which will translate into change. I don't agree with all of his views, but I don't have to because I know his government will consider my point of view along with all others. That's not selling out to corporate interests, that's pragmatic reality that will accomplish something and that, friends, is why the word HOPE is so appropriately employed in the Obama campaign.

-Wexler

Posted by: William W. Wexler on 01/06/08 at 9:11 AM Respond

Hillary won!

Posted by: sally on 01/06/08 at 9:40 AM Respond

"White woman bitches Black man." On the plantation the Master's wife was a bitch with the help according to my grandpa. Clinton's angry tantrum against Obama is a turn off to many in the Black community. Black men hate it when a woman treats them that way. Clinton is losing votes with her anger attacks. She should chill out if she expects to get the Black men's vote.

Posted by: Pastor Bob on 01/06/08 at 11:18 AM Respond

Interesting how Edwards speaks up for Obama. It's like good cop bad cop aligned against Hillary. Notice how they never talk against each other. I wonder if they have made some kind of alliance against her? Hmmm. It would be a smart move especially if they were to run together after a nomination. I would love to see that. They seem to be in agreement on most issues.

Posted by: Harmony on 01/06/08 at 11:43 AM Respond

Nepotism doesn't equal experience. But neither does likeability.

Obama's record is, well, he doesn't really have one. You can't even find a record of his legislative successes on his web site!! (but you can learn about his family -- gee, how sweet).

Clinton has helped create important legislation, including through biparisan support. And she won her second bid as NY senator with nearly 70% of the vote, despite a lot of skeptism from New Yorkers the first time she ran (I know, I was one of them).

Anyone who has watched the debates knows that only Clinton has the intellectual depth and command of the issues to be an effective President.

As for her getting angry -- well, she's angry for the same reason I am -- because two guys who are basically pretenders to the throne beat her in Iowa.

PS -- For those of you who are convinced Obama is a man of great integrity, check out FactCheck.org ... they talk about how he exaggerates the merits of his health plan.

Posted by: zadie17 on 01/06/08 at 11:46 AM Respond

It is the American Way to have a healthy debate about the differences of one another's policies, as modeled by the Lincoln-Douglas debates and it would be NEGLIGENT not Negative of the political campaigns to do otherwise. However, it is not ok to lie, defame and smear another's character -- to Swift Boat.

As an agent of Change, Obama has already had a positive effect and change on our political landscape as evidenced by the "nicer tones" of the current campaign commercials and political discourse prevalent today, which heretofore has been down right dirty and ugly. This is due to Obama's position not too take the low road, walking the high road in spite of earlier low poll numbers --, continuing to stay positive and above the fray, focusing on the important issues facing us today, and speaking about his message of hope and change. -- And then they followed.

And, we all know that experience matters -- but what matters more is Judgment, Wisdom, Honesty and Integrity, the ability to lead in a positive way. We have to remember and weigh its serious implications, that in the most important policy decision and debauchale of our times, the Iraq War, which has helped to escalate the present situation, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards got it Wrong. Barack Obama got it Right. (See Obama's October 26, 2002 Iraq speech at an anti-war rally in Chicago.)

Posted by: bacaangel on 01/06/08 at 12:47 PM Respond

Hillary is finished. Obama and Edwards clearly took center stage in this debate. They both looked sincere and well prepared, while Hillary was just playing the negative card once again. I predict an Obama/Edwards ticket in November.

Posted by: Irv on 01/06/08 at 12:56 PM Respond

John Edwards was the clear winner of the Democratic Debate last night. He convinced me last night he deserves my vote. He was vibrant, strong in statements and understands the plight of the middle class. Obama and Hillary are going to battle giving a clear road for Edwards to swoop in.

Posted by: Melissa on 01/06/08 at 1:49 PM Respond

obamas new strategy. Present himself at an Arsenio Hall show , lash out a guitar , jazz it out clinton style..
clearly the next president.

Mr. Hall ... maker of presidents.

Posted by: Dr.Q on 01/06/08 at 6:41 PM Respond

What is Barack going to do for the future?

I don't care about personality. I don't care about hype. Barack has made quite a number of troubling votes in his 3 years on the national scene. That's why he couldn't get the key endorsements from national organizations. Elections are about the future. From what I have seen, Barack is going to do a lot and solve nothing- just to make the folks in the middle feel good.

And
If Barack truly believes in single-payer healthcare, then his current plan let's me know that he is a coward.

Posted by: Liberal Larry on 01/06/08 at 7:20 PM Respond

"obamas new strategy. Present himself at an Arsenio Hall show , lash out a guitar , jazz it out clinton style..
clearly the next president.

Mr. Hall ... maker of presidents."

Really?

What is that supposed to mean?

Is Arsenio Hall going to have Obama on his show?

Posted by: William W. Wexler on 01/06/08 at 8:02 PM Respond