Looking at things the morning after, it seems like the fake narrative coming out of yesterday's debate is that Hillary Clinton is now "coming back" after her fake "stumbling" in the previous debate. As best I can tell, she didn't actually stumble then and she's not actually coming back now and nothing has actually changed. I thought John Edwards' thing about how the last time we had unified Democratic control, we passed NAFTA but killed health care was a nice (if slightly unfair) dramatization of the point that pure partisan thinking doesn't bring about big progressive change, but it seems to me that there's little evidence in the public opinion data that attacks -- even very warranted attacks -- on Bill Clinton's record can sway a Democratic primary electorate.
« Questions | Main | Between Friends »
Comeback
16 Nov 2007 08:03 am
Comments (20)
Also:
"it seems to me that there's little evidence in the public opinion data that attacks -- even very warranted attacks -- on Bill Clinton's record can sway a Democratic primary electorate."
Best I can tell, we have precisely one data point:
Bill Bradley ran a primary campaign against Al Gore in 2000 by emphasizing his opposition to Clinton-ism. While he didn't win, he got over 40% of the Dems of Iowa and New Hampshire to support him, despite managing to be an even less charismatic candidate than the charismatically challenged Al Gore.
Bill Clinton is a popular figure amongst the Democratic electorate. Clinton-ism, on the other hand, has always been subject to much more mixed feelings amongst the Democratic electorate.
Managing to create at least the hint of daylight between people's perception of Bill Clinton and people's perception of Clinton-ism is a prerequisite for any successful primary challenger to Hillary Clinton.
Looking at things the morning after, it seems like the fake narrative coming out of yesterday's debate is that Hillary Clinton is now "coming back" after her fake "stumbling" in the previous debate.
I disagree. My guess is that the narrative will instead revolve around the issue you first seized upon: the relentlessly pro-Hillary atmosphere of the debate.
From Blitzer's conduct to the crowd reactions to the questioners to the early hecklers, everything about that room gave the impression of being bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign. Drudge, at least, is starting to work this angle.
I agree that this debate was frustrating and had a very stage-managed feel. What's with the coordinated booing of Obama and Edwards? This week one of the stories involved how the Clinton campaign has been 'planting' questions at her meetings with Iowans. Is this loud and somewhat unspontaneous booing perhaps related in some way? One might imagine so. And why, after Obama gave a thoughful discussion of how we might consider a permanent and effective fix for social security, was Hillary Clinton's rejoinder that it would mean a trillion dollar tax cut on the middle class. Obama was right when he said that incomes earned by only six percent of the American people cannot be considered middle class. And when he called her on it by saying (rightly) that her response was the type of thing he'd expect to hear from Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani, he was booed. Whether spontaneous booing from the zealous pro-Hillary, or deliberately planned efforts to cow and embarrass her major rivals, the boos, along with her demonstrated commitment to Washington business as usual. make me all the more determined to keep Ms. Clinton from being my presidential candidate. My personal preference would be Edwards. Although he wasn't given as much time as either Clinton or Obama at last night's debate (after several early incisive answers that produced cheers from the audience), he always demonstrates in his clear talk and through his conviction why h'ed be the most effective general election candidate the party could field. I am convinced that if Hillary Clinton is our nominee we will be seeing another John Kerry moment. But I think it may be worse. John Kerry utterly lacked charisma but no one was opposed to him strongly. Because of that he was able to rally many who did not support him as their first choice to work on the general campaign. I strongly fear that a Hillary Clinton candidacy will be different--and not in a positive way. The booing will be remembered.
"What's with the coordinated booing of Obama and Edwards?"
Harry Reid.
"As best I can tell, she didn't actually stumble then and she's not actually coming back now and nothing has actually changed."
I don't get it. Regardless of whether the original question on illegal immigrant driver's licenses was legitimate*, do you really believe her answer wasn't incoherent? It was a fitting heir to "I would have voted with the majority, but I agree with the arguments the minority made" and "I voted for the $87 billion dollars before I voted against it."
* The only coherent argument I have heard against the question was the one you make below, that driver's licenses are not a federal issue. That is very true, but since movements for a national ID card (which I believe you support) raise their head now and then, it certainly is an issue that could become potentially federalized.
"Hillary Clinton is now "coming back" after her fake "stumbling" in the previous debate."
So by paying no attention to either story, I have just as correct an impression of Hillary Clinton's current standing as I would have if I had been scrupulously paying attention to every little detail of the campaign.
This seems to be the case with a depressing number of campaign-related stories.
"What's with the coordinated booing of Obama and Edwards?"
Honestly, I don't think their is much of a conspiracy here.
1) She leads in the polls, thus by definition there will likely be more of her partisans in the audience than anyone else
2) She is the one being attacked (due to her front-running status), and the only thing you would likely 'boo' is an attack, so there will only be 'boos' when something is directed at her
3) I know partisans of the other candidates don't want to hear it, but a large part of the Dem base simply recoils from anything that sounds like a GOP talking point. And frequently the criticisms of her sound just like those talking points.
Is it simply verboten to even suggest that maybe Democrats can do better than the politics which lost the House and mostly the Senate for a dozen years, 1994 - 2006?
"Honestly, I don't think their is much of a conspiracy here."
That's because you're not too swift.
In previous debates, tickets were divided by candidate. In this debate, CNN decided to let the Nevada state party give out the tickets.
The fact that the audience for this debate was very different than the audience for previous debates, that they were in the bag for Clinton, was apparent in the first 10 minutes of the debate, well before the booing commenced.
Harry Reid has been making it clear all year who his candidate is and that his support is more than just pro forma. Last night, he provided a big short-term boost to the Clinton campaign. (Though the chance for blowback is quite present.)
So now free trade isn't "progressive change"?
So now free trade isn't "progressive change"? Posted by too many steves
No, fast track agreements specifically sculpted to lock out citizens' ability to regulate trade and to appeal to their own governments solution, to cede power to unelected boards of corporate representatives, to vastly overimpower international investors over citizens -- no, this is not "progressive change".
Not in the least.
So democrats will automatically recoil from anything that sounds like a Republican talking point, eh? I don't remember hearing the immediate booing squad when Hillary referred to Obama's discussion about the possibility of extending social security payroll tax above the present cap as "a trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class." That happened to be the biggest Republican talking point of the entire evening.
How was John Edwards' suggestion unfair? Face it, Democrats have a miserable record of enacting progressive legislation, whether in power or out of it. About the best that could be said was that they blocked some of the more outrageous GOP proposals. At least until Sept. '01, that is.
how the last time we had unified Democratic control, we passed NAFTA but killed health care was a nice (if slightly unfair) dramatization of the point
Unfair how? That is literally, precisely what happened.
Bill Clinton is a popular figure amongst the Democratic electorate. Clinton-ism, on the other hand, has always been subject to much more mixed feelings amongst the Democratic electorate.
I'll back up Petey here and suggest that the gut feeling about Bill Clinton is a perplexing one: that he was better than his politics, that he could have been
And again, it's bound up with the structural undermining of the Democratic Party's legislative progressivism: particular state interests or targetted corporate lobbying peel off just enough of the Dem caucus (esp. in the Senate) to dilute or kill bills.
I will give Hillary credit for one thing. Her entire campaign relies on a party-wide cognitive dissonance that is as breath-taking in its scope as it is remarkable for its durability.
The Democratic Congress has an approval rating of 10-15%. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are routinely lambasted on blogs. There are movements to censure Feinstein and attack the "Bush Dogs in primary challenges. The entire country is sick of the war and disgusted by repeated Democratic capitulation on everything from war-funding to FISA and Bush's AG and judicial nominees.
Given all this, one would assume that the ONLY way a Democratic Senator could win the nomination would be to break significantly with the party on a variety of controversial issues. But Clinton doesn't (and to some extent neither does Obama). She's pretty much a run-of-the-mill Party insider. Which would be perfectly fine if you are happy with the party leadership, but nobody is.
If Harry Reid were to run for President, the sh!t-storm that he would face from the grassroots would be incredible. But, inexplicably, his backing of Clinton isn't toxic.
The fake stumble/comeback spin is obviously a ratings grab to increase advertising revenues, but amongst the debate's chaff there were a few grains of wheat. For instance, Biden emphasized that the infamous Iran resolution included an aim to keep our forces in Iraq to blunt Iranian influence. No wonder AIPAC was behind this resolution, as pointed out Oct 1 on the PBS Jim Lehrer News Hour by Mike Gravel. The Israel Lobby is pushing for war with Iran as they pushed us into war with Iraq. Also, no wonder Gravel has ever since been excluded from debates.
Hillary Clinton's rejoinder that it would mean a trillion dollar tax cut on the middle class.
HEY, let's not mindlessly extend Obama's slip of the tongue here, eh? Tax INCREASE, not tax cut.
Overstatement which tells a larger truth: "...Edwards' thing about how the last time we had unified Democratic control, we passed NAFTA but killed health care was a nice (if slightly unfair) dramatization of the point that pure partisan thinking doesn't bring about big progressive change'
Lie: Raising the cap on income taxed for FICA is a trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class.
Thanks a lot Hillary. Just what we need - taxation flim flam from a Democrat. Nice going.
Correction: It was Obama who pointed out that the Iran resolution constituted an excuse for keeping our troops in Iraq.
Comments closed November 30, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
"it seems to me that there's little evidence in the public opinion data that attacks -- even very warranted attacks -- on Bill Clinton's record can sway a Democratic primary electorate."
That's not quite the thought process.
Or put another way, I'm sure you'd have written in Spring 2004 that "there's little evidence that attacks on John Kerry's patriotism and war record can sway the American public."
A smart campaign goes at its opponent's strengths.
If you're not willing to at least bring your opponent's strengths into play, you're giving up the game.
Posted by Petey | November 16, 2007 8:26 AM