On The Attack

Karen Tumulty reports on Hillary Clinton's plan to mount a comeback:

But all that may be about to change. "We've got to start holding him to the standard people hold her to," Clinton's chief strategist Mark Penn told reporters aboard the campaign's chartered jet to New Hampshire. "I think there's a basic choice between experienced leadership for change and inexperienced leadership that talks about change."

Added another adviser: "You're going to see some very sharp media now." That suggests the next round of Clinton ads will go beyond the previous gentle references to Obama's lack of experience and begin to look at, for instance, inconsistency in his voting record. They are looking at issues like gun control, where he previously took a harder stand that may not play well with gun-loving voters in New Hampshire, and health care, where he previously expressed support for a government-run health care system. Clinton plans to exploit every whiff of inconsistency.

Those don't sound like incredibly devastating attacks to me, but we'll have to see. One thing to keep in mind is that just as Clinton had reasons to go relatively easy on Obama in Iowa, Obama had similar reasons to go relatively easy on Clinton. Both sides could easily launch much harsher attacks than they have thus far, which is one reason why I think Jon Chait's confidence in an Obama victory is a bit misplaced.

Meanwhile, earlier in the article Tumulty gets at what I thought about Clinton's speech last night: "with her husband the ex-President by her side, and an array of former Clinton Administration officials around her, Clinton was the center of a backward-looking tableau — a bridge to the 20th Century, as it were." Experience per se needn't be seen as in opposition to change, but a literal Clinton restoration does seem contrary to the idea of change. America has, meanwhile, elected plenty of presidents who were in some sense inexperienced (Obama has, lets recall, more experience as a legislator than does Clinton) and seen it work out fine; we've gotten burned by George W. Bush, of course, but that's because he's corrupt and intellectually lazy and I don't think Obama is either one of those.

Comments

No one seemed to notice him, but the other person right behind her was David Paterson:

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2008/01/paterson-in-the-shot.html

I still don't quite get why he was up there, though.

Posted by Sam | January 4, 2008 4:43 PM

A "Clinton restoration", as you misleadingly call it (seems to imply Bill running things, which is pretty insulting) certainly DOES represent a change from the status quo of the last seven years.

I certainly wouldn't mind going back the status quo of the year 2000. Things were going pretty well in the ol' USA then.

Posted by Dennis Doubleday | January 4, 2008 4:47 PM

My comment as she was giving her speech: "She's for change. She isn't the president, and she'd like to change that."

It wasn't an entirely fair shot, I admit, but her attempts at claiming the mantle of change aren't quite credible either.

Posted by Royko | January 4, 2008 4:48 PM

Re: Restoration as Change

It reminds me of the old saw of the lieutenant telling his embattled troops of the good news and bad news: "the good news is you're all getting a change of underwear - the bad news is: you change with him; you change with him..."

Posted by McKingford | January 4, 2008 4:48 PM

Mark Penn says Hillary's the most experienced.

Hillary Clinton says she's the most innocent. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4085083&page=1)

This is why William Blake went nuts.

Posted by David B. | January 4, 2008 4:48 PM

Clinton is stale, old product. A new marketing campaign is not likely to freshen her image with the under 45 demographic. She needs to concentrate on getting the brand loyal geezers out to the polls.

Posted by blah | January 4, 2008 4:51 PM

"We've got to start holding him to the standard people hold her to," Clinton's chief strategist Mark Penn told reporters aboard the campaign's chartered jet to New Hampshire.

Mark Penn is an idiot. They tried that. Remember the kindergarten essay? The news media hates anything with "Clinton" attached to it, and would love nothing more than to call her a nasty rhymes-with-witch. Giving them the opportunity is not going to save her campaign. Is there a double standard going on? Yep. But she wouldn't have the name recognition she did if her husband wasn't the former President, and she's certainly used that to her advantage.

Posted by Persia | January 4, 2008 4:52 PM

A point few have brought up about Obama's change message is that the change he seeks won't occur in a vacuum -- and that's where Clinton's experience trumps Obama.

Obama can talk all he wants about being a Washington outsider, but should he be elected, he'll have to become a Washington insider fast if he wants to get anything meaningful done. It's a sad reality, but given the way the American government works, one that's true. The only way I see Obama's message of change going anywhere is if in a general election he wins with a margin (including votes from Republicans) that's overwhelming enough to convince Congress that his is the way forward and they shouldn't throw up any roadblocks. Alternatively, Obama Democrats would have to win large majorities in both the House and the Senate to help push these "changes" through.

Ultimately, this is why Clinton's experience is important. Sure, she's not as inspiring as Obama, and yeah, she's got some baggage. But when it comes to the dirty work in Washington, she'll be able to do it much better than Obama.

It takes much more than a message of change to actually produce changes.

Posted by Martin | January 4, 2008 4:52 PM

Martin, I know this is going to sound like I'm attacking, but I seriously mean it: experience in what area? Obama's been a legislator longer. While I'm sure Clinton learned from the "Hillarycare" debacle, what evidence do we have that she's learned enough to bring people together and get things done-- especially in light of the hate many Rethugs still have of the Clinton 'brand'?

Posted by Persia | January 4, 2008 4:57 PM

I do think there is something to be said for the amount of time she has spent in Washington in a number of capacities. And yes, given that health care is such a large issue that needs to be dealt with, I feel like her experience in that field will be key to pushing something through.

Posted by Martin | January 4, 2008 5:04 PM

Clinton ads will go beyond the previous gentle references to Obama's lack of experience and begin to look at, for instance, inconsistency in his voting record.

Pretty pathetic, Hillary.

Give it your best shot, though. The dustbin of history awaits you. I hope you like going out like that.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 4, 2008 5:04 PM

I do think there is something to be said for the amount of time she has spent in Washington in a number of capacities.

Well, First Lady doesn't count. That's a ceremonial position that involves arranging the White House decorations and seating charts for parties and the social calendar. Further, it shouldn't count-- the First Lady is an antifeminist vestige at a time when women are climbing up the political ladder on their own rather than living in their husbands' reflected glory.

And her Senatorial experience appears to consist of doing absolutely nothing important, with one crucial exception, for 7 years. And the crucial exception was that she voted to send 3,800 brave Americans to their death in a dumb war.

The rest of her post-college life she spent in Arkansas, not Washington, with the exception of the time she spent as a gopher during the Watergate hearings. If that counts, than Monica Lewinsky can count valuable White House experience by the same standard.

Bottom line, she has little relevant experience for the job she is seeking.

Posted by Dila Esper | January 4, 2008 5:12 PM

"I do think there is something to be said for the amount of time she has spent in Washington in a number of capacities."

She was the First Lady and her husband is Bill Clinton, that is the "extra experience" she has. In all honesty if Bill Clinton was never president would we even be talking about her?

Posted by JordanT | January 4, 2008 5:13 PM

Re martin's comment " and that's where Clinton's experience trumps Obama "
--------------
No, that's where Hillary supporters drink the Kool-Aid. Because Hillary has NO experience other than being Bill Clinton's housewife for the past 20 years -- and Haim Saban's bought Senator.

Given how Hillary let herself be a doormat for Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, and Monica Lewinski, I kinda have a hard times seeing her standing up for the national interest --against either enemies foreign or domestic.

For similar reasons: she puts her personal ambition above any other moral principle or interest. So she can always be rolled. Because she's afraid to stand and fight.

Posted by Don Williams | January 4, 2008 5:28 PM

Hillary's main electoral problem is that she lacks a compelling electoral narrative.

Edwards' narrative is that wealthy Republicans (and some Democrats) have corrupted our political system and we need a fighter -- him! -- to rescue the party and the country from the Republican and corporate bullies.

Obama's narrative is that America has been beset by partisan politics and we need a uniter -- him! -- to rise above the fray and provide leadership.

Hillary's narrative is...?

Posted by space | January 4, 2008 5:38 PM

Re Don Williams

Mr. Williams likes to talk about how Ms. Clinton is Hiam Sabens' poodle dog. I think it's about time we talk about how she and Bill are really poodle dogs of the Saudi Royal family who donated 10 million dollars to the Clinton Presidential Library. Unless, of course, Mr. Williams is now going to claim that the Saudi Royal family is also in the bag for Mr. Saben. Thkat would be a little like the tail wagging the dog.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121402124_pf.html

Posted by SLC | January 4, 2008 5:38 PM

The New York Times tried to put a little lipstick on this pig, but even they threw up their hands at one point:
----------
From http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/politics/26clinton.html

"But during those two terms in the White House, Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.

And during one of President Bill Clinton’s major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Mrs. Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal sizzled.

In seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, Mrs. Clinton lays claim to two traits nearly every day: strength and experience. But as the junior senator from New York, she has few significant legislative accomplishments to her name. She has cast herself, instead, as a first lady like no other: a full partner to her husband in his administration, and, she says, all the stronger and more experienced for her “eight years with a front-row seat on history.”

Her rivals scoff at the idea that her background gives her any special qualifications for the presidency. Senator Barack Obama has especially questioned “what experiences she’s claiming” as first lady, noting that the job is not the same as being a cabinet member, much less president."

Posted by Don Williams | January 4, 2008 5:46 PM

Re Hillary's claim that "She has cast herself, instead, as a first lady like no other: a full partner to her husband in his administration, and, she says, all the stronger and more experienced for her “eight years with a front-row seat on history.”
------------
I myself have sat in on professional football games -- so I feel I am qualified to be a NFL quarterback.

Come to think of it, I saw "War and Peace" at the New York Metropolitan Opera a few weeks ago. So I'm ready to hope up on the stage myself and take Pavarotti's place --now that he's gone to that Great Deli in the sky.

Posted by Don Williams | January 4, 2008 5:55 PM

I'd just like to pile on and put my 2 cents in with the "what experience?" crowd. Hillary's claimed experience is a joke. The one substantive issue she was really involved with during Clinton's terms, health care, she utterly botched. And that's supposed to make me vote for her?

Posted by Doug T | January 4, 2008 5:59 PM

PS Conversely, Bill has been by Hillary's side all these years.

So when is he going to have a baby? Does he have any makeup tips for the women voters?

Posted by Don Williams | January 4, 2008 6:00 PM

I haven't figured out how some people can say that Hillary is more experienced with a straight face. Because she was a President's wife?????? Or maybe because she has consistently enabled every major policy fuck-up of the Bush administration for the past 6 years??? Yeah, must be that.

Posted by jim | January 4, 2008 6:06 PM

Does Clinton really think accusing Obama of supporting gun control will help her? The Clintons are sworn enemies of gun lovers. How would that possibly work to her benefit?

Posted by mad6798j | January 4, 2008 6:32 PM

Y'all --

Hillary has never been my top pick for the nomination -- hell, she's never been my second or even third choice -- but I did vote for her twice as my Senator and would happily vote for her in that role again. I'm still annoyed about a couple of her hawkish votes, but her work ethic and policies and her voting record generally reflect the views of her constituents, which is why they're mostly pleased with her performance. So please be careful when you start dissing her experience (or alleged lack thereof) -- you're dissing the good people of New York whom she has served for seven years and who have elected her twice by robust margins.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | January 4, 2008 6:35 PM

I hope Obama is ready for the Slickwillie Boating he is about to get.

He should come back with a devastating counterpunch which does indeed draw out the "differences": the Clinton’s bad faith, their dishonesty and arrogance-- the cash for pardons—Marc Rich.

Compared to Little George, Clinton’s Presidency was stellar. But compared to a non deviant, Clinton was uninspired and mediocre at best. At worse, he set the tone for dishonesty and cynicism that in some respects enabled this current crowd to say and do whatever they want.... “because they can”. As Slick Willie said regarding why he had his intern give him a blow job… “because he could” .

The impeachment was bullshit, but the Clinton’s raced to the bottom… “I did not have sex with that women”… “depends to the definition of what the word “is” is, the right wing conspiracy… lying to a grand jury, having sex with a young intern under his employ… a cum stained dress as evidence, DNA tests. . Whitewater was a right wing witch hunt, but it also showed that she destroy documents and used her and his influence for corrupt purposes.

And did I mention MARC RICH and cash for Pardons? I can’t understand why so many are still so enamored.

Don’t we deserve a chance at something better?

Posted by larry | January 4, 2008 6:45 PM

Re "So please be careful when you start dissing her [Hillary's] experience (or alleged lack thereof) -- you're dissing the good people of New York whom she has served for seven years and who have elected her twice by robust margins."
------------
Speaking as a Philadelphian, the fact that Hillary represents New York probably shouldn't be held against her-- in spite of the obvious strong arguments to the contrary.

Any politican can make a mistake. She just got off on the wrong foot.

Posted by Don Williams | January 4, 2008 6:47 PM

Please let them start swinging at each other.

John Edwards is not out of this yet, and he just needs to hand them both a hand grenade and step back.

Posted by drfranklives | January 4, 2008 6:51 PM

Calling George W. "corrupt and intellectually lazy" doesn't get anywhere near the truth. That man is genuine human evil, someone who sacrificed many thousands of human lives to the Moloch of his own ego. Descriptions like Matt's make it sound like he's just a garden variety bad president who we'd be well rid of, but who is basically a member in good standing of the human race.

Posted by David J. Balan | January 4, 2008 6:54 PM

I find it amusing the pro-Obama commenters here are all in a lather about Clinton going on the attack...and then follow up by attacking her as stale, an enabler to Bush, a tool of the Saudi's, dishonest, corrupt....

But Clinton would be out of line going after inconsisties in Obama's voting record, that is byond the pale...all righty then!

Posted by Andruw | January 4, 2008 6:57 PM

Looks like Hillary is already at it, pulling out the 9/11 card with her pal Rudy:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Struggling_candidates_reach_for_911_cards_0104.html

Posted by Mike | January 4, 2008 6:59 PM

"No one seemed to notice him, but the other person right behind her was David Paterson:
I still don't quite get why he was up there, though."

Paterson is New York's lieutenant governor, and thus a prominent Democratic pol--a class that HRC rounded up long ago. He is also the highest-ranking African-American in the state's government. Need I say more?

Posted by Henderstock | January 4, 2008 7:02 PM

At what point will HRC pull out the race card? I'm terribly curious; it might be never.

Posted by Klug | January 4, 2008 7:05 PM

I thought Chuck Norris by himself was a pretty backward looking tableau as he stood behind Huckster.

Posted by ssda | January 4, 2008 7:14 PM

Barack Obama is seriously vulnerable to questions of his degree of First Lady experience.

His advisers, who are largely drawn from the Presidency of Bill Clinton, have not helped yet to answer this charge of inexperience.

Posted by El Cid | January 4, 2008 7:14 PM

Hey, how about if we look at the Clinton Administration archives to see what Hillary's role was?

No, wait...
http://www.newsweek.com/id/57351

Posted by Don Williams | January 4, 2008 7:23 PM

“I find it amusing the pro-Obama commenters here are all in a lather about Clinton going on the attack...and then follow up by attacking her as stale, an enabler to Bush, a tool of the Saudi's, dishonest, corrupt....”

Gosh golly, oh shucks….

Please. Take note that they are taking a page out of the Rove playbook and exploiting 9/11:

“Be afraid, be very afraid. You can’t trust an inexperienced, negro, Muslim crack head to keep you safe from Terrorists….” They have orchestrated these messages directly (e.g., Bill on Rose, Hillary last night) and through their attack dogs (Clark, Wilson, Wapo, Sheehan).

Posted by larry | January 4, 2008 7:27 PM

At what point will HRC pull out the race card? I'm terribly curious; it might be never.
Posted by Klug | January 4, 2008 7:05 PM

It's too late for never.

State Sen. Robert Ford ... told The Associated Press ... Clinton is the only Democrat who can win the presidency.... Ford said Obama winning the primary would drag down the rest of the party.
"Every Democratic candidate running on that ticket would lose because he's black and he's at the top of the ticket _ we'd lose the House, the Senate and the governors and everything."
Ford said he was swayed by calls from former President Clinton and Hillary Clinton.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021300703.html

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 4, 2008 7:45 PM

Larry says: Please. Take note that they are taking a page out of the Rove playbook and exploiting 9/11:

“Be afraid, be very afraid. You can’t trust an inexperienced, negro, Muslim crack head to keep you safe from Terrorists….” They have orchestrated these messages directly (e.g., Bill on Rose, Hillary last night) and through their attack dogs (Clark, Wilson, Wapo, Sheehan).

Gee, ahem, shucks Larry, thanks for that insightful citing of the record, quote marks and all! You do realize this is a political campaign, and not a bull session in the quad?

Barack Obama has been treated with kid gloves by his opponents and the media unlike any Dem top-tier candidate in my memory.

BTW, I am voting for Edwards on 2/5, and have absolutely no problem with Obama (can't wait to vote for him if he is the nominee), but the frehsman-in-college-level/ us good guys v. the House of Clinton Corrupt War Machine discussion some of his supporters engage in is embarrasssing.

Posted by Andruw | January 4, 2008 8:51 PM

Nashua say hello to Obama's good friend, longtime donor and neighbor Antoin “Tony” Rezko.
Did we mention he was indicted on corruption charges and goes to trial in February?

Posted by whisper | January 4, 2008 8:55 PM

Google on 'obama advisor' plus any topic whatsoever particularly 'economics' and all you find is recycled Cintonistas and people to their right. I am not being snarky here, I want to line up with Team Obama if anyone can give me some names of prominent influential advisors that have a track record of progressivism. Hint that person is not named Goolsbee. If Obama is a true progressive it shouldn't be that hard to supply names.

I am not a HRC or JE backer, their positions on single payer don't exactly thrill me, 'too slow, too timid' kind of sums up both. Yet all I see from change agent Obama is 'more slow, more timid'. Tens of millions of boomer age, Reagan/Bush rejecting liberals are dying to rally around a return to the activist path that propelled the working and middle classes to the best relative living standard this country ever experienced. Instead we get language that suggests that the problem is not a resurgent, reactionary plutocracy but Boomers as a class. We gave you
Medicare, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the EPA, in return Obama insists that all we need is 'generational change'. Well the fundamental problem is not Boomers, it is in Gen X and Gen Y buying into the con game.

Posted by Bruce Webb | January 4, 2008 8:55 PM

Bruce Webb, be careful you're about to be flamed for daring to suggest Obama really isn't much different from evil HRC and Edwards.

Unlike you, that makes me like them all. God forbid.

Posted by Andruw | January 4, 2008 9:20 PM

Gary, let's all hope it's just that.

Posted by Klug | January 4, 2008 9:26 PM

"Barack Obama has been treated with kid gloves by his opponents and the media unlike any Dem top-tier candidate in my memory."

Anrduw, you are kidding right? This right out of Mark Penn’s conference this morning. Nice try. And you are right, this is not friendly debate in the quad. So go fuck yourself, you smug asshole.

Posted by larry | January 4, 2008 9:45 PM

larry, you do realize 99 percent of the U.S. has no idea who Mark Penn is, and didn't hear his press conference? When there is an ad on TV running twice an hour calling him those fake names you did, I will agree. Do you not remember the attacks Dean, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton faced, in the primary? This is kids stuff.

But more importantly, I am not saying the Clinton camp hasn't said negative stuff about Obama, what I am saying is that it is very tame, all things considered. And are you saying Obama hasn't gone after her on occasion? He should, this isn't a race for head of the debating team.

In fact, my candidate, Edwards, has probably been the most negative candidate in the race, implying Obama is a nerdy ineffectual college professor who will get rolled by DC, and HRC a captive of special interest...while he takes millions from trial lawyers.

At the end of the day, play devil's advocate--what should she and Edwards do, not say anything that could be perceived as negative? And lose?

Posted by Andruw | January 4, 2008 10:17 PM

I'm also a "Brooklyn Liberal," and I don't think an attack on Hillary is an attack on New York. I thought it was pretty tacky the way she pushed out other contenders for the seat (shades of what she failed to do for Obama). Her margins reflect that she's a lot better than Moynihan was (most overrated senator of all time), and she ran against Rick Lazio, and John Spencer (not the Leo McGarry version).

And, man, Schumer. Can you think of a bigger indictment of the Democratic party than the fact that one of its rising stars wrote a book about his anxiety over whether his imaginary friends would vote for him? Mike Huckabee's imaginary friend is behind him 100%! If he took his DSCC job seriously, he's support the candidate with the biggest coattails -- Obama!

Posted by David B. | January 4, 2008 10:19 PM

".....he's corrupt and intellectually lazy...."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How incredibly charitable you can be Matt.

Posted by steve duncan | January 4, 2008 11:25 PM

Clintonistas, you are setting up a straw man. None of us Obama people are saying it's a foul for Hillary to attack Obama for inconsistencies are positions she believes are faulty. What Matt is saying is that the particular attacks that Team Hillary put out today -- after a fair amount of hype -- are really thin gruel.

First, Obama has been an advocate of pretty strict handgun control. Oooooh, that will derail him, costing him the millions of "NRA members for Hillary!" members in the general election. Nice Try.

Second, she says Obama has "flip flopped" on health care, because he told a union group that he supports a "single payer" health plan. Guess what, when Obama put out his current plan, he said openly and honestly that, if we were writing on a clean slate, he would support single payer. But since a lot of people are still attached to their current health insurance arrangement and are happy with it, he concluded it was a nonstarter politically. As far as flip flop charges go, this one is, on scale of 1 to 10, about a 2. Yaaaaawwwwwn.

Also, Hillary's got to be real real careful about trodding out the flip flopper wheelbarrow, because she's likely to get flipped right into it herself in an Obama counterpunch. Recall -- she flipped on illegal alien drivers license in real time before our very eyes just a few weeks ago. More importantly, she supported all of DOMA in 1996, now she'd repeal most of it. Same with don't ask, dont't tell. Same with NAFTA, which she defended until well into 2006.

She's checkmated on attacks. I hate to give her advice, because I want her to lose, but I think she has to choose one of two options and stick with it and sell it hard.

Option 1: "Yes, the change I want involves returning to power a group of people whom I think were outstanding and accomplished a lot in the 1990s, but never got to complete that bridge to the 20th Century b/c of a Republican Congress we are no longer stuck with. Vote for me, and I'll bring back some of these very smart folks, and we'll a lot of good stuff done. Obama is just making an assertion when he says that putting us back in power won't produce good results. I welcome a debate on whether a restoration would be a bad form of change, as he seems to claim, or a good form of change."

Option 2: Banish Bill from the trail, and say "I resent the repeated implications that I am a clone of my husband. I've always been independent of him in forming my views, but I advised him and he accepted some and rejected some of my my advice. If you vote for me, you'll be voting for someone who would be different."

EIther way, try to get your own supporters out there, and don't waver from the message. It may be too late for 2, so she should maybe try option 1. That would be much better than taking crummy little potshots at Obama.

Posted by RaymondA | January 5, 2008 12:05 AM

Wow, that makes her really, really vulnerable to charges of being a desperate old has-been, lashing out at those young whippersnappers who dared-- DARED -- to stand in the way of her God-given nomination.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | January 5, 2008 1:15 AM

I'm still annoyed about a couple of her hawkish votes, but her work ethic and policies and her voting record generally reflect the views of her constituents, which is why they're mostly pleased with her performance.

Ah, fuck that.

I listen to wbai out of New York every day and what I hear is for sure a mangled bunch of stuff out of Clinton's adopted hometown, but there is a multitude of folks with shivs ready to stick them in her back. If you stand to get a job out of the next gen Clinton dynasty, you are gonna stick with her. The rest of New York seems to be very willing to throw her under the bus.

Posted by Ed Marshall | January 5, 2008 1:23 AM

If you want to sum up the foreign policy legacy of the Clinton team, look up a video of Albright from the time that Clinton backed the Iraq Liberation Act or whatever it was called. She was talking about basically overthrowing Hussein and sounded a bit like Wolfowitz. Then some college kid asked her why should we overthrow someone who wasn't attacking us (and said it rather intelligently) and she got this angry look on her face like "how dare you snot-nosed kids question me? I am the Albright, the master of all I see!" It took her a while to start to answer because she was so annoyed. The Clintons' fear of looking weak just advanced a conservative foreign policy framework.

Posted by Reality Man | January 5, 2008 1:46 AM

Clinton has made a mistake presenting herself as the "change" candidate. Her distinguishing feature is a close personal and political relationship with the most successful president of our times. As a Senator she's been good at Senatorial inside baseball and constituent service but she hasn't tried to do anything groundbreaking at all. Neither her image nor her accomplishments indicate a commitment to change.

She could be convincing if she said she wanted to bring back the policies of the previous Clinton administration, with some specified modernizations and alterations to make it clear she was her own woman (e.g., no more NAFTA). The Clinton years were pretty good, and especially in terms of competent administration - done by people she will put into her administration. Bill was hawkish, but a competent one, and she could grab the prowar vote easily by saying we should be in Afghanistan rather than Iraq. A Clinton restoration could sell, very much like the Stuart Restoration did back in the 1660s. But she hasn't done this and I think it's too late now.

Posted by FairEconomist | January 5, 2008 9:31 AM