Playing Nice

Via Marc Ambinder, Ron Brownstein runs down the new source of Hillary Clinton's strength -- a surge in support from college educated women, previously a block that was split about evenly between her and Obama. What's more, hot on the heels of this morning's Mark Penn-bashing it seems to me that Penn's explanation for the surge adds up:

Penn argues that Clinton's upscale support has grown mostly because the campaign debate has shifted this fall from experience to the candidates' issue agendas, such as the universal health care plan that Clinton unveiled last month.

Indeed. Generalizing from the first person case, I was very skeptical of Clinton initially, then went on to not really buy the "experience" argument that by all accounts non-college voters find persuasive, but was very pleasantly surprised by her health care proposal. And given that her plan is as good or better than her rivals' offering, now the experience argument plays as more compelling. I will say, though, that I keep being surprised that she doesn't seem to have a climate change policy and as I guess is typical of male college educated Democrats I still find myself more drawn to Obama, but I definitely think better of the prospect of a Clinton administration than I once did.

Comments

but I definitely think better of the prospect of a Clinton administration than I once did.

Possibly because it looks so much more likely than it did before? I know I though much, much better of Kerry once I knew we were stuck with him. I'm betting that's the real explanation for the surge among women, as well.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 25, 2007 8:51 PM

All right, anyone who desperately can't stand the thought of Hillary, come clean. And I'm not talking to the moderates and the right of centers. I'm talking to liberals. The moderate can take a potty break for this spiel, and the conservatives, well, just stay away from the bathroom.

Can we admit, that while we may dislike the Clintons (I have been confident in my dislike of Bill since his day after the election exclusive interview with Babwa Wawa, where it was clear that while he may have the intellect for the presidency, he was a long way from ever have the emotional maturity for the presidency) there has been a consistent and continual effort to "portray" her.

And, perhaps, she's simply not as "bad" as either the right wing or the left wing has portrayed her. And, while she may have many infuriating moments, she might actually make a halfway decent president (likely more successful than the Republicans can ever imagine, though their imaginations are often limited).

Not saying people shouldn't keep bitching and moaning about Hillary or the Dems in general (I'm not planning on stopping anytime soon), or that holding to higher expectations isn't important and desirable. But I, for one, have found it cathartic to repeat the mantra, "She's good enough, she's smart enough, and Gosh Darn It, who gives a shit if people don't like her."

And, breathe....

Posted by Rihilism | October 25, 2007 8:55 PM

I remember having the same feeling about Bill Clinton in '92 at the moment he pulled into front-runner status. Then I spent a few years hearing about some outrageous idiocy and I'd think to myself "Clinton will veto that", then it would turn out that it was his project. Then after a few more years I didn't expect anything but bad to come down the pike. Monicagate at least was foolish enough to make me feel sorry for him some at end. Oh, yeah, this is gonna be a fun eight years...

Posted by Ed Marshall | October 25, 2007 9:07 PM

I'm with Matt on the general trajectory, but I'm still just completely hung up on the whole cave-in-to-Republicans-on-national-security thing. Her utter lack of leadership on things like the current FISA mess. Her going along with the coming war on Iran. On and on.

Posted by pdp | October 25, 2007 9:17 PM

Good enough? I suppose setting a low bar is one approach to politics. Doesn't exactly refute the claim that a liberal is someone whose first loyalty is to the Democratic party, but oh well..

Posted by faux facsimile | October 25, 2007 9:22 PM

I'll chime in as someone who always thought decently well of Hillary and continues to do so. I'm liberal, I don't agree with her on everything, yada yada -- but neither have I ever felt any of the visceral dislike that seems to animate her detractors on the left and right. Frankly, I don't really get it at all.

Then again, Barbara Bush always used to creep me the hell out, so maybe I just naturally read contrarian on these sorts of personality litmus tests...

Posted by Adam | October 25, 2007 9:30 PM

"All right, anyone who desperately can't stand the thought of Hillary, come clean."

Well, me. Ed Marshall said it well.

I consider myself on the left because I would like to see a more egalitarian society, in terms of income, and cleaner government. Under the present administration, we obviously haven't gottent that. But we moved away from both these goals in the Clinton administration too. I also is not thrilled by the attacking other countries that haven't attacked us part, which both administrations did, though again the post-Clinton administration was worse.

The Clinton administration was definitely better than the Bush administration. They appointed, for the most part ,competent people, we didn't have a major city destroyed, and you didn't worry that they would start World War III. A Clinton restoration would be preferable to some of the Republican front runners. But I think we could do better with every other candidate for the Democratic nomination and with a few of the Republicans too. I'm not looking forward to this election cycle.

Posted by The other Ed | October 25, 2007 9:35 PM

I've got a contrarian thought that any republican who got into office would at least inherit moveon and the like and they would be under scrutiny. If Clinton is in, those groups will either cease to exist or become a cheerleader camp for her.

Of course, they've never stopped Bush from doing anything anyway, so what does it matter?

Posted by Ed Marshall | October 25, 2007 9:41 PM

Rihilism, in many ways I'm a typical left-liberal Clinton(s) skeptic but the whole "emotional maturity" line is MoDo-grade bullshit. There's way too much legitimate grounds for Clinton skepticism to stoop to such pyschologizing nonsense.

Posted by djw | October 25, 2007 9:53 PM

I find HRC about as annoying as John Kerry. I loathed the idea of him being the Democratic candidate in 04. Looks like I will have to keep my loathing in check once again.

Posted by blah | October 25, 2007 9:57 PM

Um, what happened to the O'Hanlon Primary?

I don't think she really means to pull us completely out of Iraq, and I don't think a Democratic Congress would force her hand. And I don't think she'd really do much to roll back Bush's unconstitutional power grab. Again, I don't think a Democratic Congress would do it for her.

As weak as Congress is now, I think it'd be even weaker with a Democratic president. So unless we can get a Democrat in the White House who really means to end the war and restore the Constitution, we'll be better off with a Republican.

Posted by BobN | October 25, 2007 10:15 PM

She still scares the hell out of me. It's that quote from the union forum -- where she told everyone that presidential candidates should watch what they say because it could have consequences. Anyone who thinks any part of our government should be outside our scrutiny is a no go for me.

Is it Bush/Cheney was a horrendously wrong turn for our country or is it Bush/Cheney didn't hide it well enough?

I really believe Hillary is more excited about the White House with the powers Bush has given her than she is about anything else. I will not vote for her --which would be my first time voting against a Democratic Presidential candidate.

Posted by James Hare | October 25, 2007 10:27 PM

Hillary is a wholly owned subsidiary of AIPAC. Does that not bother anyone. She has never criticized any action ever taken by the Israeli government and believes that what is good for Israel is good for America. This will endanger everyone of us.

Posted by Marco Ross | October 25, 2007 10:31 PM

Hillary is a wholly owned subsidiary of AIPAC

vs. who else?

Posted by Ed Marshall | October 25, 2007 10:51 PM

All of a sudden the whole HRC-is-inevitable line has begun to feel more realistic to me, too. Maybe it's just because I read the Atlantic bloggers -- at least Yglesias, Ambinder, and Sullivan -- but it does seem like even the skeptics, as noted above, are coming around. I had a conversation at lunch today with a colleague in which we, both real HRC detractors, started to come to terms with her as "our" candidate, meaning the Democratic standard-bearer. On the one hand, this is healthy, I suppose. On the other, though, it makes me feel dirty.

Why is this happening? I think SCMT is right above, in part, that this is what people do when confronted with the overwhelming liklihood that something they don't want to happen will anyway: they get used to it, rationalize it, and even come to accept it. But I also think, much more importantly, that Obama has let us down. I, at least, keep waiting for his surge, for some sign that he will lead. And it hasn't come yet. I'm very sad about this, esepcially so because I feel lousy supporting HRC. But that's life. Which, I guess, comes full circle to the first comment. Time to get used to what's likely coming down the pike.

A final thought: it's still quite early. Even with the new primary schedule, much can change. Events always intrude on the inevitable; they will again this year. Whether HRC will ride out those unexpected twists and turns remains to be seen. Perhaps Obama or Edwards will step up. I can only hope.

Posted by anmik | October 25, 2007 11:09 PM

I think Matthew finally became a Beltway Dem today.

Posted by Petey | October 25, 2007 11:52 PM

sorry the inevitability argument was and is complete b.s. clintons called in all their chips and lined up all their endorsement and have run a brilliant campaign, but that won't make her a good president. the clinton campaign is a means in search of an ends. perhaps more meaningful in 2004 to cut the bush regime short, but the bush reign is over (for now). there are few substantive policy differences between her and the other dem candidates. so what's left--a return to the clinton years--that will get old quickly. electing a woman as president--maybe, yeah, i can see it-- anyone but another white guy, makes sense, but the same can be said for richardson and obama. competence/experience? i'll credit her for the 8 years as first lady--nothing to shake a stick at--but I am wary of the argument that the first lady is a surrogate president--Bush (laura)/Rice 12, anyone? in the end i think it is a generational thing, my genx sisters can disagree with me but i think obama is the quintessential candidate of my generation--the Pacific Rim Pan African multicultural president. i am not sure why we have to wait 4 more years for it to happen? i don't buy that we have to wait because obama is not ready, hillary ought to win on her own merits, and so far, penn's polls notwithstanding, she hasn't won me over

Posted by JC | October 26, 2007 12:09 AM

Obama still looks way better for foreign policy. How is that not a major consideration?

Posted by Neil | October 26, 2007 12:21 AM

This is kind of shaping up to be a "I don't know how she got elected, I don't know anyone who voted for her." A lot of individual self styled wonks seem to like Obama while the Democratic populist types and more vigorously self styled progressives like Edwards. But whichever of those two is the best, no one I respect has Clinton as their #1. Fair enough, but even on mass community oriented blogs like DailyKos and MyDD, Clinton is only slightly more popular than lung cancer. Yet for all the new people powered politics and preminence of blogging, her almost complete lack of online support seems to have no bearing on her success. That's pretty fucking amazing.

Posted by DRR | October 26, 2007 1:03 AM

Why doesn't Obama look better?

I worked on his senate campaign, I've met him a few times. Before he was a U.S. senator I'd met him at events where he was working for Illinois state rep campaigns. I've heard him talk off the record, and back then at least he understood the stakes and what was poisonously wrong with our foreign policy in the Middle East.

He was absolutely my guy for president. Now, I listen to him and I have no idea what he would do. Hillary Clinton only became a crazy Middle East hawk after she took a New York Senate seat. It looks like she would take that persona to the White House. The problem with Obama is that is he seems to be willing to make the same deal without the transition to some position where he really needs to pander.

This country is well and truely fucked, and my best advice to anyone with the means is to flee. I never thought that under Bush, because there was this silver lining that *maybe* we could squirm our way out but it's just not going to happen. Sorry to Edwards fans, but if you had to pick who is pandering and who is just rather dull about figuring out what went wrong and why it's the 21'st century and we've picked up some ancient ass battle with Muslim's, Edwards is part of the problem. That wasn't pandering, that's just he was a damn fool for most of his legislative career, and he's almost certainly a damn fool now.

Posted by Ed Marshall | October 26, 2007 1:03 AM

"Yet for all the new people powered politics and preminence of blogging, her almost complete lack of online support seems to have no bearing on her success. That's pretty fucking amazing."

Don't get ahead of the timeline.

Senator Clinton has vulnerabilities due to the fact that activist Dems can't stand her.

If Edwards is able to woo enough rural voters in Iowa to win the caucus, the activist support he's accumulated will be crucial in taking advantage of the opportunities that moment will present.

Compare and contrast to 1984, when the inevitable Mondale was derailed early by Hart. In contrast to today, there was no infrastructure in place to help validate Hart to Democratic voters suddenly faced with a choice instead of a coronation. And thus Mondale was able to regroup and discredit Hart.

If Edwards derails Clinton early, the presence of the new online and offline progressive infrastructure will prevent a similar Clinton effort.

Don't forget that for all the stasis in the race as of the moment, things don't get interesting until January 3rd. If Clinton doesn't win Iowa, things will move astonishingly quickly.

Posted by Petey | October 26, 2007 1:16 AM

While her Healthcare policy is about as decent as we're going to get, I'm a bit dismayed by your comments that you're finding her experience argument persuasive. It seems to cut against her, from where I sit-- she has little leadership experience, she botched the biggest policy role she's ever had, and she's by far the candidate most beholden to and supportive of the establishment (witness the recent Monsanto flap). It's all the negatives of experience with none of the up side.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | October 26, 2007 1:24 AM

Oh posh. This surge has nothing to do with health care policies, experience factors or anything else related to actual substantive arguments in the actual campaign. The only thing that is going on is classic bandwagoning. H. Clinton managed to build up a very large lead in the polls based almost entirely on a combination of name recognition, leftover good will from her First Lady days and brainless celebrity worship, and has also recently racked up some significant major endorsements from political players who have calculated that Clinton is going to win, and the price of a role in the administration is an early endorsement. Meanwhile, Big Bill took over the airwaves for a couple of days with his CGI media show. Part of the point of that extravaganza was to demonstrate that the Clinton machine has just about every important rich Democrat in America on the team. This has all contributed to the perception of inevitability. The machine is on a roll, and a lot of people have concluded resistance is futile, and are now giving up. That's it. That's all.

Matt, who is well on his way to prematurely comfortable, middle aged, generic cipher-pundit status now has to navigate himself gradually over to Clinton, the expected winner. Amazingly, she now looks different to him! It must have been that health care plan! Right now he is in the "still leaning Obama, but more attracted to Clinton" stage. After a decent interval, he will move to the "leaning more toward Clinton than Obama" stage. And finally he will smoothly slide into the "strongly backing Clinton" category.

As for Rihilism's question, I continue to believe a vote for Clinton is a vote for more war, more empire, more plutocratic and corporatocratic government, more beltway think tankery and DLC wankery, and more cultural vapidity - i.e. more America as usual. And aside from the fact that I am not where she is politically, I have little respect for her as a person. I think she is a bright but shallow opportunist and rootless success junkie who is dishonest to the core, and whose only real goal in life is to win at whatever she does. I dislike her profoundly. Nothing that has happened in the campaign has given me any reason to feel she is not quite as bad as previously thought. She is that bad. Really, really bad.

I hold out the hope that some really awful gaffe or scandal will do her in. But things are looking tough right now. Her opponents apparently lack the stomach to defeat her, so her defeat will only come as a gift from the gods.

Posted by Dan Kervick | October 26, 2007 2:01 AM

"her defeat will only come as a gift from the gods."

I don't think the good folks of Iowa are gods. They seem mere mortals to me.

Posted by Petey | October 26, 2007 2:13 AM

"Her opponents apparently lack the stomach to defeat her"

I think it's been pretty clear for months now that Edwards is willing and able to take on the royal family. What Edwards is lacking at the moment is not the stomach for the fight, but instead the platform to make his case.

There was a very interesting Pew poll out yesterday which asks respondents to name Presidential candidates without any prompting.

Among Democrats, 86% were able to name Clinton, 68% were able to name Obama, and only 31% were able to name Edwards.

You can't make gains against a psuedo-incumbent if you don't have the mindshare to even be on most voters' radar screens.

And that's why Iowa is so important. The morning after Iowa is going to look pretty damn interesting if Edwards can pull out a win. It would give him equal standing on the stage, and thus a clear shot against Clinton. That's a race I'd bet serious money on him winning.

Posted by Petey | October 26, 2007 2:20 AM

It's not that I have any particularly intense dislike of Clinton. If she gets the nomination, I'll become a fairly strong supporter. I expect to be disappointed a lot when Mark Penn gets her to make pointless moves to the center, but I'll try to get into all the first-woman-president excitement.

It's just that our current moment in history allows for a whole lot more. With the favorable Senate schedule and John Edwards' likely coattails in the South, we could end up in position to pass universal health care. (I'm quite happy that Hillary copied the Edwards plan, but I expect Mark Penn to sell us out like it's Bill on China MFN.) And there's a whole host of other issues -- Iraq, poverty here and abroad, war with Iran, Constitutional stuff -- on which Edwards is stellar while Hillary is somewhere between mediocre and bad.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | October 26, 2007 2:28 AM

brainless celebrity worship

This is 80% of the explanation. In fact, she is more famous than Bill.

"Hillary" is even a cultural term.

Posted by David | October 26, 2007 4:23 AM

Penn argues that Clinton's upscale support has grown mostly because the campaign debate has shifted this fall from experience to the candidates' issue agendas, such as the universal health care plan that Clinton unveiled last month.

Nonsense. HRC's "surge" is the result of the catastrophically bad campaign of Obama.

Never have so many "upscale" voters been so let down by a "promising" candidate who just can't wrap his mind around the fact that this not all about him. Or to paraphrase his loudmouth wife, not all all about what a "special person" he is.

HRC is, once again, the beneficiary of the collapse of a man from Hopesville.

Posted by Econobuzz | October 26, 2007 6:34 AM

You have the Republican manly men hysterically ganging up on and belitting Hillary. I wonder if this does not solidify her support among women.

Posted by bob h | October 26, 2007 8:23 AM

bob, hillary has never needed to solidify her support among women. Most women are willing to outright lie about her political positions to justify voting for her. Lets be honest here, most women are just completely and utterly unwilling to hear that Hillary Clinton might not end the war, or that she will favor spying. Instead, they pretend that she has no choice but to take these positions because she's a woman, and she would NEVER (because women are morally superior or something) actually do these things in office.

There isn't on this planet that could get me to vote for her. I really hope Democrats liked being in the minority, because comes 2010 and Hillary hasn't removed the troops from Iraq, that's right where the Democratic party will be again. This time, for a whole lot longer than 1 decade.

Posted by Soullite | October 26, 2007 8:28 AM

Like Matt, I'm an Obama supporter who has warmed up to Hillary quite a bit recently. What did it for me was finally watching one of the debates. Along with Dodd, I thought she was both the sharpest and most likable candidate.

Ultimately, I want the nominee who has the best chance of winning in November, and I think she's probably the one.

Posted by Jim W | October 26, 2007 9:33 AM

Am I the only one who's bothered that one candidate has already been declared "inevitable" before a single primary or caucus election has been held?

What happened to democracy? When did we start letting pollsters rather than voters choose our candidates?

Posted by Josh G. | October 26, 2007 9:35 AM

"All right, anyone who desperately can't stand the thought of Hillary, come clean."

Um.. Raises hand.

"Nixon in a pant-suit" is, of course an exaggeration -- she's from the Chicago suburbs, not California, and her background is not Red-baiting. But it's plausible enough that she's dangerously power-hungry. And the nation cannot afford another major constitutional crisis.

Dynasties. If we wanted a dynasty, and if we wanted 'experience,' we'd be much better off restoring the Windsors.

The last thing the Democratic party needs is A) more ossification within its establishment and B) a substantive scandal.

Power corrupts. Hillary is eminently corruptible.

Posted by Carrington Ward | October 26, 2007 9:38 AM

"What did it for me was finally watching one of the debates. Along with Dodd, I thought she was both the sharpest and most likable candidate."

I think Jim has shown what politics has become. Media charisma is now the number 1 factor in being a candidate. It doesn't necessarily trump other factors, but it has become the most important. Looking back over the TV era the only presidential candidate with low charisma that has won was Nixon. I wasn't around then, but perhaps even Nixon was more charismatic than Humphrey or McGovern?

It bothers me when even liberals start to play this game (maybe Jim is a centrist, so I am not speaking about him). Now its OK that Hillary is looking like PNAC hawk because she seems so strong and unflappable. Even Ed Schultz was playing sound bites on the radio of Hillary and Obama basically propping up the idea that we should ignore what they are saying and focus on their charisma.

When the media and the blogosphere started pumping the mantra that "this is the best slate of candidates the Democrats have had in, like, forever," I got excited. But we are now just months from the first primaries and none of these candidates excite me in the least. I couldn't quite figure it out, but Jim just clarified for me what the hubbub was all about, charisma. The top tier are all pretty charismatic and look like movie stars compared to the GOP candidates (Thompson may have killed his acting career with what might go down as his worst performance ever!). So as a Democrat I get a charismatic candidate, but as a progressive I pretty much get jack squat. Edwards has come up with some good positions, but even he is short of what I would consider a minimum.

Posted by Ricky | October 26, 2007 10:10 AM

For all the Obama supporters above...I'd like to mention, his rise...and demise was awfully convenient for Hill & Bill.

If you don't know who Bill Daly is to both Obama and Hill & Bill you really ought to spend the time to find out.

Posted by S Brennan | October 26, 2007 1:09 PM

"Then again, Barbara Bush always used to creep me the hell out, so maybe I just naturally read contrarian on these sorts of personality litmus tests..."

No, Babs Bush is the creepiest. I thought Nancy Reagan was the anti-Christ, then I watched Babs head spin around when she claimed that Gore was gonna smack her boy in their debate. FREAKY!

"Rihilism, in many ways I'm a typical left-liberal Clinton(s) skeptic but the whole "emotional maturity" line is MoDo-grade bullshit."

I'm sorry, but I think Bill was emotionally immature (I think he's actually grown up a bit since). Not saying that it was pathological or that it was any reason for him not to be president. Just saying it's what initially made me dislike him.

You know, I'm sharing a personal moment here and then you go compare with the Bush family's favorite shih tzu. THAT'S NOT FAIR! I'm telling Matthew on you, you, you meanie...waaaaahhhhh....

I really don't know. Maybe Hill will start WWIV (I assume WWIII will be in progress by next November) or maybe she'll FUBAR on everything she touches. Maybe she's ruthlessly ambitious (I'm hard pressed to think of anyone who ran or became president who wasn't). I'm certainly not her biggest fan but I don't think I'm rationalizing her inevitability either (let me check with my subconscious,..., nope just some unresolved childhood traumas, but other than that, a picture of "health")

I just think the caricature that's been drawn is mostly incorrect and that she's probably more capable and likely more reasonable than we are led to believe. Obviously, it wouldn't be the first or last time I was wrong (I voted for Reagan in 1984 for cryin' out loud) and again I'm not trying to imply that we shouldn't keep "shootin' for the stars" with our expectations of our presidential candidates.

Posted by Rihilism | October 26, 2007 1:54 PM

"If you don't know who Bill Daly is to both Obama and Hill & Bill you really ought to spend the time to find out."

Nope, don't know Bill Daly is and when I Google him I get some guy in the NHL.

Must be one of those stereotypical "Politicos takes on Big Hockey" tales...

Posted by Rihilism | October 26, 2007 2:02 PM

I think it's Bill Daley, the mayor's brother who worked for Clinton and now works for a telecom company or lobby. Not sure what his Obama connection is.

I don't understand why the experience argument doesn't cut against Hillary in the healthcare realm, given that she, you know, screwed up massively last time around. It's not like the insurance company and AMA opposition was something that no one could have predicted (reminds me of the Bush Admin's stock line: No one could have predicted that the X would Y, i.e. levees would break, when lots of people had predicted just that).

Posted by bob | October 26, 2007 2:27 PM