MotherJones Blog: Clinton Camp to Press: All We Want is Willing Suspension of Disbelief

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

Clinton Camp to Press: All We Want is Willing Suspension of Disbelief

The Clinton campaign's press call with reporters this afternoon felt like a scene from a bizarro universe, where the suspension of disbelief was demanded at the door.

Reporters were primed for the call by a memo disseminated by the campaign earlier in the morning that referred to the four primaries on March 4 as "Obama Must-Wins." It cited Obama's spending advantage in Ohio and Texas and the fact that he has campaigned heavily in these states. "Should Senator Obama fail to score decisive victories with all of the resources and effort he is bringing to bear," it said, "the message will be clear: Democrats, the majority of whom have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date, have their doubts about Senator Obama and are having second thoughts about him as a prospective standard-bearer."

The memo didn't bother to answer some obvious questions, such as, Given that the Clinton campaign has lost 11 primaries in a row, how can Obama losing a few close contests on Tuesday in states where he has trailed in the polls be considered a repudiation of his campaign? And considering that streak of losses, how can this be a must-win for anyone but Clinton?

But on these questions and others, the Clinton representatives on the call, including communications director Howard Wolfson and chief strategist Mark Penn, stuck to the party line, no matter how ridiculous.

Ignoring that Clinton had a 15-point lead in Ohio and a 20-point lead in Texas just two months ago, Wolfson said that Obama has "every advantage" going into the contests. He pointed out that Obama "and his allies" are outspending Team Clinton by a minimum of 2 to 1 in Ohio and Texas. If Obama doesn't win, Wolfson said, it will be a "very clear signal that Democrats want this campaign to continue and that there is a some concern and dissatisfaction with Sen. Obama's campaign."

When asked what it would mean if Obama won Texas, Ohio, and Vermont, but lost tiny Rhode Island, the campaign representatives said they couldn't answer the question because they rejected its premise. But despite weeks of treating Ohio and Texas as their firewall, they we're looking ahead to the states that vote after Texas and Ohio, saying, "16 states and territories… want to make their voices heard." Guam, apparently, is now part of the plan.

The campaign also took questions on a new TV advertisement it is running in Ohio that depicts children sleeping in bed, with the voice over, "It's 3 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep. But there's a phone in the White House, and it's ringing — something's happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call."

In response to the claim that the ad is trying to use fear to gain votes, Mark Penn said it is a "positive ad" with "soft images." Multiple members of the campaign insisted that the ad merely raises the issue of national security, and the question of which candidate is better prepared in the event of a crisis.

When asked to point to a national security test that Senator Clinton had faced, the campaign responded that it was a "moment of test" when she stood up in China and said "women's rights are human rights." They added that Senator Clinton has worked with high-ranking members of the military through her post on the Armed Services Committee.

Barack Obama responded to the ad with this statement:

It asks a legitimate question. It says, who do you want answering the phone in the White House when it's 3:00 a.m. and something has happened in the world. It’s a legitimate question. And we’ve seen these ads before. They’re usually the kind that play upon people's fears and try to scare up votes.

I don't think these ads will work this time because the question is not about picking up the phone. The question is, what kind of judgment will you exercise when you pick up that phone. In fact, we have had a red phone moment; it was the decision to invade Iraq.

Ignoring the substance of that response, Penn repeatedly insisted that Obama had given the ad an implicit stamp of approval because he used the phrase "legitimate question." Wolfson added that it is an "insult to voters" that a conversation about national security was being considered fear-mongering by the press and the blogosphere.

The call eventually returned to the topic of expectations. Wolfson dismissed the Obama campaign's argument from earlier in the day that Clinton had no chance to catch it in the delegate count as "mathematical games and fantasies." If Obama didn't win the two states Clinton long insisted she would win, Wolfson added, the press should consider it a "profound signal about Democratic unease about his candidacy."

Comments

Why does it take Hillary six rings to answer the phone? And why is she dressed in a suit at 3 a.m.?

Posted by: TKD on 02/29/08 at 12:34 PM Respond

Seriously Jonathan, since when has the Mojo blog site turned into the "Jonathan Stein Hearts Obama" site?

Everyday, all day, its all JS loving BO and hating on HC.

why don't you just hump your BFF Obama already and move on. You could, maybe, oh I don't know, write about Something Else for christs sake, or doesn't anything else exist in Jonathan Stein land?

Posted by: tierdofjonathan on 02/29/08 at 12:46 PM Respond

I think if Hillary win's it's not going to be her that answers the phone in the White House at 3 AM but some breathless, wrung out call-girl followed immediately by Bill's drunken southern drawl. Hillary will know to steer clear of the White House past 2Am. That's when Bill swing's from the tree's and anything with a hole between it's leg's and two feet had better watch out.

Posted by: franklin on 02/29/08 at 12:57 PM Respond

Senator Obama has introduced no legislation to stop the Iraq war. His speech was made in another setting where it was electorally advantageous. He has not even called a meeting in the committee in the senate he chairs, when we all know that NATO coordination is an element in US troop withdrawal. He evidently doesn't feel the effort is worth it unless he's president. I'd call that a bad case of entitlement.

Posted by: Kathy Giannini on 02/29/08 at 2:23 PM Respond

The desperation of the Clintonistas is sad, really. The pathos of having to invoke the doomsday image of the red phone is telling.

Add it up with the rest of the blog entry... the suspension of disbelief, the clumsy spin on Obama's succinct answer to the attack ad, the denial about falling behind in the polls after a double digit lead... it's all telling. And it's telling us that Hillary Clinton is not fit to be president. I don't want another lying politico in the White House. We just lived through 7+ years of that.

-Wexler

Posted by: William W. Wexler on 02/29/08 at 2:39 PM Respond

"His speech was made in another setting where it was electorally advantageous."

What do you mean?

He didn't have to take a position at all yet he made a speech that was politically risky at a time when most people were in favor of the war because of the lies Busheney were pushing.

"He has not even called a meeting in the committee in the senate he chairs"

He has been running for president. I guess he should just not run?

Get your facts straight before you post such silly stuff.

No entitlement - just support from millions of Americans.

Posted by: capt on 02/29/08 at 2:40 PM Respond

When we talk about Security for the United States, I am a woman and I want a Man to protect me just like my husband does. If Hillary loses the Democratic Nomination she should be nominated to the Supreme Court. She could do some good and we need a strong female to fight for our rights.

Posted by: MSO on 02/29/08 at 3:05 PM Respond

So, what I take from this is that Clinton is no longer considering Ohio and Texas to be her firewall...she's raised more money than she expected to in February (God knows why) and now intends to take this run as far as possible, regardless of Tuesday's outcomes.

Just when we thought she had no intentions of splitting the party...it's clear that the Clintons will stop at NOTHING to regain the White House.

I'm a diehard Obama supporter, who is beginning to think Clinton may have been on to something with her sense of entitlement...the media is certainly doing everything they can to keep her relevant as well - at the same time continuing their sly tactics of smearing Obama's reputation (how many times have we seen that photo of him in "Muslim garb" canvassed across our television screens in the past week?!)

In the end, I guess we'll get what we deserve...

Posted by: nic on 02/29/08 at 3:43 PM Respond

nic...

I think the media's game now is to try to make it appear to be a horse race as long as possible to keep selling.

You're right on about Clinton and her campaign's tactics... I haven't seen anything this poor since Karl Rove accused John McCain of fathering a black baby in SC. Who is the media in this case? Why, Matt Drudge, of course, who loves nothing more than to be at the center of a fight as long as it's the Democrats fighting.

-Wexler

Posted by: w on 02/29/08 at 3:55 PM Respond

Her efforts hardly even resemble a Presidential campaign anymore...it's more like she's trying to engage in a public feud with Obama, more reminiscient of Rosie O'Donnel vs. Donald Trump.

Posted by: nic on 02/29/08 at 4:04 PM Respond

Reverse everything from Iowa on, the results, the rising and falling in poll numbers, the delegate count and Supers changing sides, reverse everything.

Now tell me what every top Democrat would be screaming, what every news paper would be screaming ? Now tell my why they are not screaming that now ?

Posted by: Jerry on 02/29/08 at 4:48 PM Respond

Apparently, the Clintons have added a new wrinkle. First, it was lie before elected like that middle class tax cut that never came about in 1992. Then it was lie under oath.

Then it was lie about experience.

Now we have lie about the primary.

I'm just lying around laughing at this self-absorbed shrew. She can shove it and take her 'I'm entitled because my husband is a philanderer' victimhood right back to New York and sit on it.

Posted by: Maestroh on 02/29/08 at 7:22 PM Respond

Jerry...

If you can tell me what they would be screaming, I'd like to take a crack at answering the rest of your questions.

-Wexler

Posted by: William W. Wexler on 02/29/08 at 7:49 PM Respond

Obama says: "I pray to Jesus every night."

"I am a devout Christian," he told voters in Ohio.

"I pray to Jesus every night and try to go to church as much as I can."

All we need now is another Christian religious fanatic, like Bush. We Jews have had enough of these Christian fanatics. Vote for Senator Clinton.

Posted by: Ira C. on 03/03/08 at 7:11 AM Respond

We don't need another Clinton wh has lived in the Whitehouse. Chelsea will qualify next time around!

Posted by: Tom Edgar on 03/03/08 at 7:23 AM Respond

I stand corrected. I'm willing to concede that Obama's single speech against the war was not politically profitable will ALL of his electorate, just part of it. That he has not called one meeting of the committee he chairs, however,
clearly announces that he doesn't have what we need now.
He began chairing the committee BEFORE the campaign.
Your use of "silly" defines you better than anything I might answer back. We are in a war because we swallowed campaign drivel instead of looking at the person's record; some voters are evidently preparing to do exactly the same thing. That way we can add Iran and Pakistan to the list and China can finish buying up the rest of our country.
I'd rather vote for someone measured and knowledgable who doesn't appeal to some subliminal emotional state but to my intelllect and my sense of reason.

Posted by: Kathy Giannini on 03/03/08 at 7:29 AM Respond

I think, anyway as I see it, Hillary seems to be the politics of the status quo and everyone is looking for a change. Obama seems to be the one that shows any hope of a big change. Whether he can do it that is something to be seen. With the smear campaigns that Hillary has been doing only hurts her more, because this is the kind of politics that the Bush, Rove and Cheney do and people are really tired of this. If Georgia did not sink it home for Hillary I don't know what will. I understand desperation, but Hillary's reaction to desperation , is the kind of judgment that I would not like in a leader of a country.

Posted by: Nick on 03/03/08 at 9:31 AM Respond

Ira:

Do you not understand what is going on? The Clinton campaign has been doing what it can to imply that Obama is Islamic, so he HAS to inform people that he is a Christian. Hillary is not being linked to Islam, so she doesn't have to speak about her religion.

Posted by: Erik H. on 03/03/08 at 11:51 AM Respond

You know Stein your Obama bias is getting a little to syrupy for me. I could probably stomach a little of your Obamaitis if you knew what you were talking about and really understood the man but, for some strange reason, you are so infatuated with this guy that you totally ignore, misconstrue or deliberately hide the facts about this guy.
People like you try to make others believe Obama is a nice, honest, straight talking guy and that Hillary is always throwing mud at this sensitive and wonderful soul but the truth is quite contrary to your existential beliefs about Obama.
Obama has been throwing mud from day one at Hillary, saying over and over that Hillary will say anything to win when it is he who has and still does say anything to win!
First, before Iowa he insulted her achievements and down played her importance in the White House and the Senate by saying, "what about your tenure as first lady makes you an expert on anything Presidential?" " And that Clinton has no more experience in public life than I".
What an insult to this very intelligent and true public servant and strong lady and her career of 35 years working for children and families in the public sector and then in politics .
As first lady she was there and she did get involved and meet with leaders from all over the globe and was invited to visit and engage with these foreign dignitaries and leaders. And lets be honest, for once and admit she had to be privy to all the goings on and decisions made by her husband.
Of course now Obama is blaming her for her husband's bad "policies?", on one hand and then saying she has no right to claim any experience in the White House!
He says, "what makes you think specifically that you are qualified to answer that phone ringing in the White House at 3 AM?"
Well she was involved with all the goings on in the White House during Bosnia, she is very intelligent and, unlike some people, (Obama and Obamaites) is not likely to distort her experience or the truth by saying things like, "I didn't vote for the Iraq war, she did!" This is typical of the deceitful character of Obama because he could not vote for or against Iraq; he was in the Illinois State Senate at that time! However, ever since he has been in the Federal Senate he has voted for funding the Iraq war, supported the nuclear energy industry and has done nothing more than talk, just as he is doing now.
He said that, "Hillary will have a truck load of dirt dumped on her by the right wing", (smear and fear tactics of Obama), when he knows that all the garbage pumped out by the right wing has never been true about her and that her record is spotless. She doesn't even have a Rezko in her career's portfolio!
And all the people who are voting for Obama are getting a lot of help from the right wing at the polls. The strategy of the right wing is to push the candidate they know they have a chance of beating in November. And so they vote in the democratic primaries for Obama in an attempt to deny Clinton, the best chance for America's recovery and change in direction, the nomination.
Obamaites have convinced many people that Obama has no money from special interests when in fact a lot of his money comes from some of the biggest special interests of all "Venture Capitalist." And if you think he is only for the little guy, think again; he just received the endorsement of a "Rockefeller" one of the richest families in the world!
The only change Obama will make for America is to put less change in our pockets and as far as foreign policy goes the Obamaites will finally realize that he doesn't understand when he nukes Pakistan. I didn't say that Obama did!
This country cannot afford OJT in the Presidency and most people will realize that once the right wing begins to hammer away at Obama's inexperience and costs the Democrats the election and I will be stuck with 4 more years of the maniacs in the White House!
Bush will be calling terror alerts from September to November and people will say, "gees maybe we need McCain!"
Remember Stein, Obama is not the second coming, he is a man who wants the White House so bad he will and does say anything even if it means distorting the life and record of a wonderful lady.

Posted by: AL Comstock on 03/03/08 at 12:33 PM Respond

Nice comment Al, glad your copy paste skills are up to snuff. Now why don't you go back to your "source" and pull some actual facts to back up your highly dubious statements.

Remember AL, Clinton is not the second coming, she is a woman who wants the White House so bad she will and does say anything even if it means distorting the life and record of ANYONE WHO GETS IN HER WAY.

Posted by: CraftyB on 03/03/08 at 4:57 PM Respond

You know Crafty if you had said I pasted in my last comment you would have been right, but this comment is all me based on what I've read in the Hillary biog and the Chicago Sun and the Associated Press, on the internet and about Obama's record. I did my own research to find the truth as it is presented by these sources. Now if you doubt what I have said then go ahead and do some of your own research. Don't rely just on your feelings, do the ground work as I have. You won't like what you see about Obama because there really is not much to see. On the other hand Hillary Clinton has been a public servant for 35 years and she does have the answers and the know how to steer America away from the neo-con induced nightmare that has placed America on a very dangerous precipice.
Too many Obamaites just get the feel good feeling from Obama's speeches and spout a right wing line that was propagated by the neo-con Christian right to sully Hillary Clinton's record but it is evident to me by the things they say and respond to in their comments about my writing that they have done no research at all, not about Obama and nothing at all about Hillary. So to try and be a person of integrity and honesty do as I have done and check the records!! Check Hillary's record over the past 35 years and you will see the same thing I have. She has indeed been involved in founding and co-founding children's organizations for all her public life. She has been on the board of hospitals and children's organizations because she does indeed care about people. Don't ask me to tell you because I already have presented some of this info in a previous comment on the Mojo blog so check it out or do your own research

Following are comments by Obama regarding Hillary Clinton that I did not make up but that he spoke.;
From the associated Press: "Sen. Barack Obama predicted Wednesday that Republicans will have a dump truck full of dirt to unload on Hillary Rodham Clinton if the former first lady wins the Democratic presidential nomination, and said he offers the party its best hope of winning the White House". Oh yeah, this I pasted, just the facts as they are presented by the AP.
Why would a man of integrity speak so about a person he knows has a cleaner record than him? Because he will say anything to win and to distract the truth about Rezko. He has been asked since November to discuss Rezko but he refuses. Well he will answer if he wins the nomination!
Before the Iowa caucuses;
Obama said repeatedly; "Just what about being the first lady qualifies you to be President" How insulting and rude is Obama to belittle all the work Hillary did as first lady including "Chip" (Children's Health Insurance Plan) which is still utilized today, breast cancer research funding and many other programs besides serving on the board of the Arkansas Children's Hospital (yeah she didn't get health care by the GOP Congress).
People like you should be ashamed of your selves for not doing your home work and then, even worse, believing the right wing crap propagated by the so-called Christian right's wing of the GOP.
Whether Hillary Clinton wins or not will make probably the biggest difference in the quality of your life and mine in the next 4 to 8 years.
When Bush was screwing up the world and Americans were gung ho about his Presidency I was like a voice in the wilderness crying about how evil and rotten he and the corporate entity were. Now I'm telling you and any one who has a brain to put the only person qualified in the White House right now!!
If you don't I will suffer along with you just as I've suffered with the people who put the Bush morons in the White House for 8 years!!
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH, AND OPEN YOUR EYES, PLEASE DON'T GIVE ME FOUR MORE YEARS OF THE RIGHT WING!! I CAN'T TAKE IT AND NEITHER CAN THE REST OF THE WORLD!!
If Obama wins the nomination he will be put through the ringer by the right wing and all those republicans that crossed over in the primaries to make sure they got their man will go back and vote for McCain. And by the time Bush has called a bunch of terror alerts and bombed one of America's embassies over seas Obama's inexperience in every thing except oratory will be evident and he will not win. The only chance McCain and the GOP have is if Obama runs as the Democratic nominee. And if he is the nominee I will vote for him because I can not stand the thought of a GOP anything.
If he wins the Presidency we will still be in trouble. The economy will tank even further as he mulls what the right thing to do is, and maybe we will go to war in Venezuela to secure that oil.
Well maybe you know better and maybe its a good thing if Obama wins, at least historically, but I think an extremely qualified women making history would really be better for all of us.

Posted by: Al Comtsock on 03/03/08 at 7:43 PM Respond