Welcoming Their Hate

The essential fact of the current primary season is that Hillary Clinton has this apparent trump card when her rivals try to attack her from the left: Republicans really, really, really hate her. The debate opened with an invitation for Barack Obama to slam Clinton, he attacked, and then she rebutted: "Well, I don't think the Republicans got the message that I'm voting and sounding like them. If you watched their debate last week, I seemed to be the topic of great conversation and consternation, and that's for a reason, because I have stood against George Bush and his failed policies." Later in the debate she explained "I think that, you know, the Republicans and their constant obsession with me demonstrates clearly that they obviously think that I am communicating effectively about what I will do as president."

Barack Obama countered with what I think is the first effort I've seen to seize this bull by the horns:

Part of the reason that Republicans, I think, are obsessed with you, Hillary, is because that's a fight they're very comfortable having. It is the fight that we've been through since the '90s. And part of the job of the next president is to break the gridlock and to get Democrats and independents and Republicans to start working together to solve these big problems, like health care or climate change or energy.

There's something to that argument, but there are obviously limits to its cogency. Like Sally Quinn's loathing of Bill Clinton, there's just an irreducible core of irrationality to anti-Hillary sentiment. Part of it, obviously, is misogyny and the rest is just that same core that she shares with her husband and that prevents either of them from being perceived as the savvy (in both political and policy terms) moderates that they are. Obviously, that "Clinton Rules" treatment has been a problem for her at various points and doubtless will be again, but in the present context it's a big asset for her. John Edwards, though perhaps overstating a bit, is basically right to say that a return to Clintonism wouldn't constitution a fundamental change in American political economy and Obama's right to point out that Clinton seems to disagree with Bush's foreign policy more in terms of tactics than strategy. But as long as the entire conservative movement is deeply invested in the idea that she's a hard-core Communist, it's very hard to persuade people that these things are true.

Comments

He called her "Hillary" during the debate? Weird. What happened to always addressing/referring to your opponents as "Senator," "Governor," etc.?

Posted by right | October 31, 2007 10:18 AM

They've been calling each other by their first names in the debates for a while now.

Posted by Christmas | October 31, 2007 10:22 AM

Good analysis, Matt. I think you're dead right on this one.

Posted by Chris | October 31, 2007 10:28 AM

Would it kill anyone to rebut this claim -- "I don't think the Republicans got the message that I'm voting and sounding like them" -- with something like, "They're just doing it for leverage. They want you to move further right, and they've already made great strides in that direction, with and without you."

(bonus points: throw in a reference to the way she backpedaled on healthcare from the idea of universal coverage and reform to a Romney-esque plan that requires buying coverage, but doesn't require that you get real benefits/care)

Or maybe, "That's how extreme they are: you can support their wars, enable their executive power grabs, and collude with their corporate giveaways, and it's not enough. It's never enough, for them -- so why don't you start acting like one of us, instead?"

Posted by Chris | October 31, 2007 10:35 AM

Obama's absolutely right. Unfortunately, he's shown no willingness to attack those same wingnuts for their Hussein/Osama garbage. That's a fight they're plenty comfortable having too.

What I've seen/read of last night's debate has convinced me: If Dems want to win the White House, we will nominate John Edwards.

Posted by Lynn | October 31, 2007 10:43 AM

"And part of the job of the next president is to break the gridlock and to get Democrats and independents and Republicans to start working together to solve these big problems, like health care or climate change or energy."

No. Obama is exactly wrong. Republicans are never, ever going to work together with any of these Presidential candidates to solve problems. They will treat any of them exactly like they treated Bill Clinton during his deficit reduction and health care initiatives. Republicans are the problem not part of the solution.

Posted by Ron | October 31, 2007 10:48 AM

In the sense that this election is not only about electing a Democrat but also about defeating and demoralizing Republicans, electing Hillary Clinton comes with a certain amount of appeal. It would be a message that despite 15 years of anti-clinton hatred and 8 years of Bush, America still likes Clinton Democrats more than any Republican.

If Clinton's surrogates are willing to cast her election as a way of expressing a spite vote against the right-wing Republicans, she could ride this to victory.

Posted by Tyro | October 31, 2007 11:09 AM

They hate her because they recognize something of themselves in her.

Posted by JC | October 31, 2007 11:16 AM

"And part of the job of the next president is to break the gridlock and to get Democrats and independents and Republicans to start working together to solve these big problems, like health care or climate change or energy."

As Ron noted above, Obama is wrong here.

If we've learned nothing else from the past 7 years (past 15), it is that there are large irreconcilable differences between liberals and conservatives.

We are traitors in their eyes.
And they are the fools who swallowed the obvious Iraq propaganda (useful idiots).

Posted by Nick | October 31, 2007 11:21 AM

If Clinton's surrogates are willing to cast her election as a way of expressing a spite vote against the right-wing Republicans, she could ride this to victory.

Pollster:Why are you voting for Hillary?
Voter:(Don't say spite. Don't say spite.) Spite!
Pollster checks "Spite" box.

Posted by Njorl | October 31, 2007 11:27 AM

In the sense that this election is not only about electing a Democrat but also about defeating and demoralizing Republicans, electing Hillary Clinton comes with a certain amount of appeal.

Posted by Tyro | October 31, 2007 11:09 AM
---------------

Yes.

Of course adults have to move beyond what amounts to a desire for revenge.

I had supported Obama until he hired this anti-gay preacher. I won't support Republicans in part because of their appeals to bigotry for political gain, and I damn sure won't support a Democrat who does the same.

Posted by Nick | October 31, 2007 11:28 AM

n the sense that this election is not only about electing a Democrat but also about defeating and demoralizing Republicans, electing Hillary Clinton comes with a certain amount of appeal.

This was always my favorite thing about Clinton as a candidate. Republican foaming-at-the-mouth hatred for her is, as the saying goes, a feature not a bug. I say this not merely as someone aching to stick it to those bastards, but also because forcing them to wallow in insignificance is the only way they'll be pushed out of the national political dialog. If, after years of labor and sacrifices, the fundy base sees themselves as forced to choose between a pro-abortion cross-dressing serial adulterer and Hitlery, they may go crawl back under a rock for a generation.

Posted by jimBOB | October 31, 2007 11:29 AM

jimBOB, I don't think that'll happen. If Hillary wins, the fundies will be stronger than ever. They'll have bigger fundraising numbers, and will rub the GOP's nose in it. If Rudy wins, the "bomb 'em all" coalition will be front and center and the fundies will go back to screwing up local school boards. That's assuming the fundies stay home in the general.

Posted by Lynn | October 31, 2007 11:57 AM

this to me speaks to the fanatical but logical republican desire to hold on to the center at any costs - not a moderate or centrist voting bloc, but the general media and public perception that on the political spectrum, they somehow represent what is fundamentally the default mainstream american position. i think this is what a lot of progressive bloggers have been getting at with the derision of "seriousness:" republicans have managed to convince americans, or at least the gatekeepers, that the fundamental tenets of gop policy are somehow the "natural," almost default positions, and that the democrats exist as a whole to the left of this center, instead of the truth which is almost precisely the inverse. and a result of that is that someone like bill clinton, who for a great number of reasons was the democratic party's strongest threat in a generation not to move the country to the left immediately but to reclaim the "mythical center" as their, not republican turf, and seeing as how fragile their hold on that turf really is, the republicans naturally fought tooth and nail both to discredit clinton personally and enforce the perception that they were well outside the mainstream. a highly intelligent, competent, and charasmatic white southern governor who effectively reached out to white-collar concerns like crime and welfare while retaining a firm hold on the various special interests in the dem coalition represents a massive threat to long term republican dominance in a way that a very liberal but otherwise similar candidate does not.

Posted by Max B. | October 31, 2007 12:16 PM

Obama fails to realize, or seemingly so, that he'll be attacked by deranged lunatics JUST AS MUCH as Hillary will, from both the Right and the Press. It makes no difference who the Dem candidate is, that person will unquestionably be hammered on day and night, non stop, unfairly, using bigoted framing and laden with hate until the day after the election, regardless of who wins. It's not who will cause the Repugs to be more or less nasty, it's who has the wit and strength to fight back, not on the same disgusting level, but fight back. I see none of that in Obama, I see lots of it in Edwards and lots of potential for it in Hillary.

Posted by Fred | October 31, 2007 12:23 PM

It is somewhat depressing that we Democrats are still going with the electability agrument after how it went with Kerry, though this time it is dressed up as who will be the best in the campaign. But people have forgotten that despite Kerry's weaknesses as a campaigner and the unrelenting smears thrown at him, he lost the race to an incumbent in a time of war by just the state of Ohio. Now, the Democrats are much better positioned. As Fred says, it will make no difference who the Dems nominate as they will all be hammered (we've seen glimpses of the tack to be taken with each of them - the cackle, the hair, Hussein). It will be a terrific fight, but Democrats are best positioned to win. In the end, shouldn't we nominate who we most want to lead the country after the election?

Posted by 62across | October 31, 2007 12:49 PM

If Hillary wins, the fundies will be stronger than ever.

Why? Why would they bother? All these years of work and sacrifice, to elect a pro-choice president Rudy?

There's already signs of religious right crackup. Falwell is dead, Weyrich is in a wheelchair and even the fervent flocks are starting to suspect they've been played. Dobson's not getting any younger, either.

And what's your alternative? Assuming you're correct, and the fundy masses would be slavering at Hillary, why would they be any less vicious about a President Obmama or President Edwards?

This is all playing out on a primitive level, unfortunately. It's a basic pecking order dominance game. Force the fundies to submit. It's what they're good at, anyway.

Posted by jimBOB | October 31, 2007 12:51 PM

Obama, God bless him, is toast. His response to Clinton, as Matt mentioned, is premised upon some core Republican desire to reach agreement on core issues. Almost no Democratic voters, including Obama supporters, believe such a desire exists; almost no non-party-affiliated voters believe it; and increasing numbers of Republican voters are coming to the same understanding. There's Clinton's majority, and despite all of the discussion about her "ceiling" (45? 48? 51%), I'm convinced she will smash any Republican nominee like a bug-- 57%.

Posted by Rich | October 31, 2007 12:56 PM

It's one thing to take the position: "It is somewhat depressing that we Democrats are still going with the electability argument...shouldn't we nominate who we most want to lead the country after the election?"

And it's another to vote for someone who you think will simply be eviscerated in the general election. Even Grant regretted Cold Harbor.

Posted by jch | October 31, 2007 1:29 PM

o get Democrats and independents and Republicans to start working together to solve these big problems, like health care or climate change or energy.

While I'm all for working together with independents and Republicans who are serious about these issues; many are not.

Those should be dealt with - not worked with.

Posted by Frasmer | October 31, 2007 1:52 PM

Hillary uses the Republicans. The Republicans use Hillary.

Get used to this, because if she wins the nomination and then the White House, you can count on eight more years of this tiresome crap.

I'm a Republican who's as disgusted with the GOP's performance for the last seven years as any embittered Democrat. But please, PLEASE, give me an alternative I can get behind. Hillary just doesn't cut it.

Posted by BHLnyc | October 31, 2007 1:56 PM

Clinton seems to disagree with Bush's foreign policy more in terms of tactics than strategy. But as long as the entire conservative movement is deeply invested in the idea that she's a hard-core Communist, it's very hard to persuade people that these things are true.

I think you're leaving out the fact that the Bush foreign policy (forcefully spreading ideology to people who may not want it) is very Soviet in nature. That Clinton shares it does not assuage the idea that she's a closet Commie (though I personally think that's a bridge too far).

Posted by Shinyk | October 31, 2007 1:56 PM

jch - There is a long way between a lack of vitriol in attacking fellow Democrats in a primary and evisceration in the general. I don't think any of the Dem candidates are going to roll over and play dead. But sticking it to the Republicans can't end with Election Day 2008. Democrats will stay in power (and keep the Republicans out of power) by governing effectively and that will be hard enough anyway without taking a parched earth approach to the campaign.

Posted by 62across | October 31, 2007 2:09 PM

What does it say that Repubs are not funding their candidates even while Hillary is the presumptive nominee? But they rose up in a tidal wave to shoot down their own President on immigration amnesty.

I don't think it was smart for Edwards to turn driver's licenses into a hot button in the Dem primary. But he was in blind anti-Hillary mode. Edwards strongly supports illegal immigrants, he can't seriously claim anymore that he can carry any southern states.

There's that fear that the radical right pulls these rabbits out of their hat (gay marriage, illegal immigrants) and outsmarts everyone--except for the Clintons.

Posted by Canaan | October 31, 2007 2:28 PM

Sure, any Democratic nominee will face the Republican attack machine. The issue is what the Republican base will do. They might not be excited for Giuliani, but they will be against Clinton because people are politically motivated more by what they hate than by what they love.

Sticking it in the eye of the Republicans, in the hope that the backlash won't be sufficient to defeat us, is a poor reason to support someone.

Reaching out in a spirit of compromise may or may not be realistic, but it is still a politically potent appeal to independents and moderates.

Posted by Paul | October 31, 2007 2:56 PM

>>...there's just an irreducible core of irrationality to anti-Hillary sentiment. Part of it, obviously, is misogyny...

Please Matt...as a human being who happens to be a woman, I completely resent the idea that someone who's running for the most powerful position in the world based on being an equal or better leader can then on the other hand rely on being a woman to protect themselves from being questioned on tactics and/or motives.

Any support/objections to HRC should be based on what she says/doesn't say does/doesn't do rather than she's a woman.

>>I had supported Obama until he hired this anti-gay preacher. I won't support Republicans in part because of their appeals to bigotry for political gain, and I damn sure won't support a Democrat who does the same.

Good grief...having a leader that would actually engage all sides of any dispute is a bad thing? You'd be willing to risk more of the same non-action to gay/lesbian issues for some misguided attempt at taking a stand against one supposed anti-gay voice among so many pro-gay voices? Rather cutting off your nose to spite your face isn't it?

Which brings me back to this nonsense of voting for a polarizing figure to get revenge on a batch of other polarizing figures...good grief, how vacuous an approach is that?

If we don't like what the far right has done to our political process with their polarizing hate mongering why in the world would we vote to rub their noses (stoop to their level) in it? Why in the world would we do what we could to perpetuate more of the same stonewalling, secretive, polarizing mess?

Why in the world would we not look to a higher level of discourse and do what we could to elevate our politics above the fray?

Talk about cutting off your nose....

Posted by G Davis | October 31, 2007 2:58 PM

Look, Obama is not a pushover, he's just playing smart politics.

CW (Conventional Wisdom) says: She's got an almost insurmountable lead. He's got to attack now!!!

The Truth Is: Iowa will decide all. She has a 2 point lead on him there (a statistical tie), and Edwards, Richardson, Biden, etc. are all slipping there as Obama rises. Edwards has NO CHOICE but to rip HRC a New One daily for the next 8 weeks until Caucus day. In the process, he brings both her and himself down a few points in the polls, while almost FORCING the undecideds towards the positive, likable Obama. Minor candidates always lose support in Iowa at the end, and that will fall to Obama as well with HRC and Edwards ripping each other up. As a reward, Edwards gets the Veep nod again.

CW says: She can run a 50-state primary even if she loses Iowa.

The Truth Is: Independants in NH and African Americans in SC will put the final nails in her coffin if Obama beats her in Iowa by more than 3 points.

CW says: If Obama can't stand up to HRC, how can he stand up to a Republican?

The Truth Is: Obama doesn't NEED to go after her in the Primaries- he has surrogates like Edwards, Biden, and Dodd for that. Primary voters mostly LIKE Obama, HRC, Edwards, and most of the rest of the field. Attacking HER is bad politics for a Dem. Rudy is not competing for the same voters. Obama will simply call him a racist and belittle him for being a two-bit Mayor who's not ready for Prime Time.

I think this has been the Obama strategy ever since he rolled out this "Politics of Hope" meme. Wait for the last two month in Iowa. Let her collapse under the weight of her frontrunner status. Let the rest of the Dem field bring her down. Then pick up the pieces from above the fray.

Might or might not work, but it's a sound strategy.

Posted by Greggie | October 31, 2007 3:31 PM

Look, Obama is not a pushover, he's just playing smart politics.

CW (Conventional Wisdom) says: She's got an almost insurmountable lead. He's got to attack now!!!

The Truth Is: Iowa will decide all. She has a 2 point lead on him there (a statistical tie), and Edwards, Richardson, Biden, etc. are all slipping there as Obama rises. Edwards has NO CHOICE but to rip HRC a New One daily for the next 8 weeks until Caucus day. In the process, he brings both her and himself down a few points in the polls, while almost FORCING the undecideds towards the positive, likable Obama. Minor candidates always lose support in Iowa at the end, and that will fall to Obama as well with HRC and Edwards ripping each other up. As a reward, Edwards gets the Veep nod again.

CW says: She can run a 50-state primary even if she loses Iowa.

The Truth Is: Independants in NH and African Americans in SC will put the final nails in her coffin if Obama beats her in Iowa by more than 3 points.

CW says: If Obama can't stand up to HRC, how can he stand up to a Republican?

The Truth Is: Obama doesn't NEED to go after her in the Primaries- he has surrogates like Edwards, Biden, and Dodd for that. Primary voters mostly LIKE Obama, HRC, Edwards, and most of the rest of the field. Attacking HER is bad politics for a Dem. Rudy is not competing for the same voters. Obama will simply call him a racist and belittle him for being a two-bit Mayor who's not ready for Prime Time.

I think this has been the Obama strategy ever since he rolled out this "Politics of Hope" meme. Wait for the last two month in Iowa. Let her collapse under the weight of her frontrunner status. Let the rest of the Dem field bring her down. Then pick up the pieces from above the fray.

Might or might not work, but it's a sound strategy.

Posted by Greggie | October 31, 2007 3:32 PM

"What I've seen/read of last night's debate has convinced me: If Dems want to win the White House, we will nominate John Edwards. "

After watching these debates i can see myself switching from Obama to Edwards...the only thing now that might keep me from doing it is he opted for the public funding. That was a desperate move and leaves him open for attack for a few months before he is allowed to defend himself. This, we can't allow.

Posted by dave | October 31, 2007 4:00 PM

Why in the world would we not look to a higher level of discourse and do what we could to elevate our politics above the fray?

Because running for office and being a politician who gets things done necessitates wading through "the fray." What's your problem? You think you're to good for the rest of us here in the fray?

Reaching out in a spirit of compromise may or may not be realistic, but it is still a politically potent appeal to independents and moderates

I'm sure for both of them it is a compelling message. Actual voters, on the other hand, want someone who stands for something.

And Greggie, your scenario presupposes that Obama doesn't really believe the stuff he's preaching about remaining above it all while Edwards and Clinton duke it out-- because if he takes advantage of this infighting in order to score a victory, he's going to have to stop remaining "above it all" and come out guns-blazing against the Republican nominee. Why worry is that Obama drinks his own kool-aid and is going to try to win against the Republican campaign machine by dint of indirect references and "the politics of hope" alone. Which means that if he does luck out and score the nomination, he's screwed in the general.

Posted by Tyro | October 31, 2007 4:24 PM

She can't have it both ways. She can't wear Republican loathing for her like it's a merit badge, then say she voted with them on Iran because we all need to work together. Actually she can't have it either way, because each is ridiculous. She can't work with others AND she has no integrity. And I'm supposed to like her because Republicans hate her? Grow up.

Posted by Phoebe | October 31, 2007 4:26 PM

The Hillary-hating is a double-edged sword since,at the same time that their vitriol is increasing, RepCons are also insisting that Hillary will be the easiest Democrat to defeat because of her high negatives. However, as should be obvious to them, if their attacks on her succeed in giving the Dem. nomination to Edwards or Obama, they will be faced with a stronger (so they imply) Democratic rival.

Somebody really needs to study this Hillary hating. About a year or so ago, even idiotic pundits like Carlson were, on-air, begrudgingly offering praise for her performance as a Senator. When the campaign started in earnest, they immediately anointed her the forerunner. Then, slowly at first, and now at avalanche speed, they are attacking her.

Andrew Sullivan's blog is a case history of this movement from grudging admiration to foaming-at-the-mouth vitriol. To read him now is to learn that the Clintons have NEVER (in 60 years of living) not told a lie. One can't help but wonder how such a diabolical twosome was able to conceive and raise Chelsea.

As a Democrat, I am most concerned by the punditocracy's insistence that the other Democrats must attack Hillary and the fact that they are doing just that. Any attack by a Dem on a Dem will turn up in a Republican ad during the general election. I want the Dems to argue policies, what they will do when President, in specifics not generalities. I realize this is hard to do since all the media questioners want to do is talk about the race and attack tactics. (Yesterday, Blitzer wasted a perfectly good chance to talk about policies with a candidate by asking questions solely about tactics and the horse race.)

I like Obama, but to the same degree that he reminds me of JFK, he also reminds me of Jimmy Carter. The other commentators here who have pointed out that his plan to "bring us all together" is absurd are right. If Bill Clinton, a masterful politician, could barely pass anything with a Democratic Congress, let alone a Republican one, it is unlikely that Obama will be able to. Repcons take no prisoners. All one needs to do is recall just how they ruled the Congress (or look at their continuing obstruction of such innocuous things as SCHIP) to understand the degree to which they are unwilling to compromise on anything.

I also find it offensive to have RepCons tell the rest of us that electing Hillary will mean 8 more years (look, they already have her re-elected) of 90's-style swift-boating when, of course, if we are subjected to that kind of invective, they will be the ones providing it.

Posted by LC | October 31, 2007 4:27 PM

What are RepCons? Republican Conservatives - I'm guessing? In which case they are emphatically not the only ones telling us that HRC means 8 more years of swift-boating. I see it and I campaigned for Dean, for crying out loud.

Posted by Phoebe | October 31, 2007 5:16 PM

I am very much inclined to support Edwards and will vote for him even if the nomination us sewed up by HRC by the time the NY primary rolls around. Having said that, I will not be all that unhappy if she is nominated. Thinking about her aggressive posturing on Iran, even if she privately believes that bombing its infrastrucure is idiotic, does she gain anything in terms of having to deal with Iran after she is elected by ruling out military action against it now? Doesn't she gain a stronger position for herself in any diplomatic initiatives in 2009 if she plays being the liberal hawk now?

Posted by Jack | October 31, 2007 6:28 PM

If Hillary is elected, we almost double our talent pool for future elections. The Democratic Party has lots of very qualified female office holders and breaking this particular glass ceiling would be really hard on the Republicans.

As for the next president "working to break the gridlock", Obama seems to have forgotten how hard Democrats worked to reach gridlock, and how much better off we'd be if they'd gotten there sooner.

Posted by serial catowner | October 31, 2007 7:10 PM

If Hillary is elected, we almost double our talent pool for future elections.

Vote Hillary so more female staffers can have better resumes?

In the face of Islamic terror, two messy wars, a possible third war of dubious necessity (like the second), the collapses of both federalism and separation of powers, the re-emergence in the US of invisible government, $100/barrel oil (which directly affects the cost of food, shelter and heating bills), Putin's aggressive authoritarianism and growing negative influence on world affairs, the continued fraying of our old alliances, global mistrust of American government and (now) its citizens, and a possible ecological catastrophy, voting due to the gender of a candidate's staffers is one of the most irresponsible suggestions I've ever heard.

Is this the punchline to a joke I don't get?

The Democratic Party has lots of very qualified female office holders and breaking this particular glass ceiling would be really hard on the Republicans.

And how would an increase in the number of qualified female office-holders be "hard" on the Republican party? That just strikes me as either paranoid or totally ignorant of Republican politics. The Republican party would happily accept a man, a woman, a child, a horse, a rat or a cockroach as an office-holder--so long as each voted for tax cuts, pretended to be pro-life, and sounded good on Hannity & Colmes.

I still can't tell if this was meant to be serious or not. I hope not.

Posted by Shinyk | November 1, 2007 4:28 AM

Edwards needs to quickly counter the myth that electing public financing has irreversibly hamstrung his campaign. Right now he is definitely being hurt by that perception.

The Edwards campaign should be sending the message that:
(1) it is better to have $X dollars being spent on the right message than $10X dollars being spent on the wrong message;
(2) TV advertising (which is the most costly campaign expense) is becoming less important in an age of diverse media;
(3) guerilla marketing tactics like YouTube are effectively free;
(4) the blogosphere acts as the ultimate War Room. Kerry's mistake in '04 was failing to respond to the Swiftboaters. Had he chosen to do so, the blogosphere would have amplified his message.

Bottom line: The GOP has virtually no chance of unseating a Democrat in the general election, barring a major meltdown by the candidate. I don't care if the GOP candidate outspends Edwards 10-1 between March and September, because there is NO MESSAGE that will be effective against the Democrats. If Democrats prefer John Edwards, they should vote for him, comfortable that he will win easily in November.

Posted by space | November 1, 2007 11:44 AM