The Clinton Effect

It looks like Bill Clinton's heavy-handed attacks on Barack Obama didn't serve his wife well in South Carolina, with about sixty percent of voters saying Clinton's actions were a factor in their decision in what looks to have been a landslide win for Barack Obama.

That, I think, is about as it should be. Team Clinton has consistently, and rightly, maintained that they're within their rights to be tough on Obama. And so they are -- politics is a contact sport. But that doesn't mean that maximum viciousness is actually a good idea. You want to be seen as likable, fair, judicious, etc. and over the past few weeks the Clinton campaign has been making its candidate look like something other than the mature, experienced, sober-minded choice.

Comments

Is Obama "ready" for negative attacks? Scoreboard, suckas!

As for the cynical and racist attempts to diminish Obama as "just" the black candidate -- white males apparently split evenly between Obama and Clinton.

I'm getting the feel of Barack-ory Wind.

Posted by David B. | January 26, 2008 7:37 PM

Matt, you've been watching WAY too much TV news if you think Clinton's campaign represented "maximum viciousness." Sure, they've done some attacking, but for the most part it's been the damn media who have been making Clinton "look like something other than the mature, experienced, sober-minded choice."

Posted by gustav | January 26, 2008 7:43 PM

re: pres. clinton's comments about jackson winning the sc primary twice, does anyone know what his share of the white vote was in '88? Can't seem to find it anywhere.

Posted by jmscher | January 26, 2008 7:50 PM

Clinton supporters, please spare us the outrage next time someone suggests that the Clintons want race to be a big story - there is no need for Bill to say "well Jess Jackson won SC too" if he is not trying to push the idea that Obama is "the black candidate." Remember that HRC was actually leading with black voters in SC until recently.

Posted by ikl | January 26, 2008 7:55 PM

To echo gustav, I've read about 'heavy handed' Bill Clinton for a week straight, as pretty much the lead coverage of the SC primary, in the local paper. And I lve in Boston. Whether is was or wasn't heany handed, your MSM was certainly determined to convince you it was so.

BTW, bravo to Team Obama for spinning this successfully (with the caveat, of course, that the MSM hates all things Clinton). This is was politics is about. It's not bull sessions in the quad.

Posted by Andruw | January 26, 2008 8:00 PM

Oh, indeed

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/064875.php

jackass.

Posted by David B. | January 26, 2008 8:08 PM

Matt, I bet you that the Clintons are happy to surrender South Carolina if they can tag Obama as what amounts to the "ghetto candidate." They know there are plenty of white-dominated states that will be voting on Super Tuesday, and Super Tuesday is where it's at.

Posted by Helter | January 26, 2008 8:08 PM

over the past few weeks the Clinton campaign has been making its candidate look like something other than the mature, experienced, sober-minded choice.

She wasn't that before they started acting like mini-Karl Roves.

Go Obama - holding at over 50%!

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 26, 2008 8:10 PM

ikl: Not to start a bonfire here, but the percentage of black voters in SC was in fact a key factor in Obama's win, no?

As it should be, since African-Americans are a bedrock of the Dem coaltion. African-American voters should have more, not less, of a role in picking the nominee, I'd screw Iowa and NH if I could wave a magic wand..

But is mentioning this this taboo? Obama supporters will quote every other exit poll number tonight. (Side note: I think the exit polls clearly show Edwards general election southern appeal).

Posted by Andruw | January 26, 2008 8:12 PM

The Clintons should have known that attacking Obama in S. Carolina would boomerang on them, with blacks rally to one of their own being victimized.

But frankly, they ought to go to town on him for the Feb. 5 contests, where the peculiar demographic of SC will not be reproduced.

Posted by bob h | January 26, 2008 8:13 PM

Re: Bill Clinton's remarks on Jesse Jackson.

The only possible message is that black votes don't count.

So does a Clinton administration stop at repealing the Voting Rights Act, or go for overturning the Fourteenth Amendment?

Posted by Pithlord | January 26, 2008 8:15 PM

Andruw,

As I understand it, Obama virtually tied Clinton among white men. In South Carolina.

Posted by Pithlord | January 26, 2008 8:17 PM

Andruw,

As I understand it, Obama virtually tied Clinton among white men. In South Carolina.

Posted by Pithlord | January 26, 2008 8:19 PM

Matt,

Why is the networks covering live pressor of Clinton (the male one) before the pressor of other Clinton (the female one)?

Who is running?

Is it to prevent the pressor of Obama get a good coverage?

++++

Will McCain be able to run against the two Clintons?

Posted by eorse | January 26, 2008 8:21 PM

Matt evidently did not read the exit poll closely.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#SCDEM

It shows that Hillary Clinton did MUCH BETTER (37%) among the 58% of respondents who thought that Bill Clinton's campaigning was important and WORSE among those who didn't (13%). She lost in both categories, but there is no basis to conclude from these numbers that Bill Clinton was a liability.

Posted by Vito Marzullo | January 26, 2008 8:24 PM

"Is it to prevent the pressor of Obama get a good coverage?

++++

Will McCain be able to run against the two Clintons?"

Jesus eorse, celebrate tonight, give up the Clinton/Goodfellas meme for a night.

Posted by Andruw | January 26, 2008 8:25 PM

Andrew, don't be silly. We know very much what is going on with Bill Clinton's remarks. He is not an impartial analyst and even if he were the comparison with Jesse Jackson would be silly (Jackson never had a serious chance to be the nominee, did't come close to winning in Iowa or NH, etc.) Of course the Clintons are trying to paint Obama as the black candidate as opposed to the candidate who appeals to young people or the candidate who appeals to independents. Then they whine that Obama's camp is "injecting race into the conversation." It is high time to call BS on that.

Posted by ikl | January 26, 2008 8:25 PM

Not sure what to takeaway from this.

It's one thing for Dem primary voters to care about the tone of the campaign. General Election voters, at least those who make up the margin of victory, are another matter.

Posted by Chris | January 26, 2008 8:29 PM

Matt, I bet you that the Clintons are happy to surrender South Carolina if they can tag Obama as what amounts to the "ghetto candidate." They know there are plenty of white-dominated states that will be voting on Super Tuesday, and Super Tuesday is where it's at.

See, the thing is, white northerners are just not going to take their queues from white southerners on who to vote for. In IA, NH, and NV Obama got a decent share of the white vote, It's not whites in NY, California, etc are going to look at SC and get scared of a bunch of black people voting for a black candidate, any more then they'll be afraid of Mitt Romney getting 94% of the Mormon vote.

Posted by example | January 26, 2008 8:31 PM

I think the exit polls clearly show Edwards general election southern appeal.

Except that he only got 1% of black voters, which is a little troubling, no? The Dems are going nowhere in the south in Nov without big time support from black voters. I like Edwards, and I think his poor showing among black voters (relative to his overall performance) is the biggest surprise of the night.

Posted by Led | January 26, 2008 8:35 PM

Team Clinton has consistently, and rightly, maintained that they're within their rights to be tough on Obama. And so they are -- politics is a contact sport. But that doesn't mean that maximum viciousness is actually a good idea.

This doesn't seem to actually say anything. You don't think anyone was arguing that it was physically impossible for the Clintons to get rough, or that it was somehow illegal, do you? People thought it was distasteful, and hoped others would react similarly. Which is what you seem to be saying, too. Maybe.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 26, 2008 8:36 PM

ikl: "Then they whine that Obama's camp is "injecting race into the conversation."

Um, not to be rude, but I would suggest that 'quote' you mention comes days (weeks?) after Obama supporters linking the Clinton's to race-injection.

At the end of the day, we have a great, tough, rumble going on here. I hope now that Team Obama successfully spinned the MSM against fire-breathing Bill Clinton, Obama supporters will no longer wake up each morning pretending the HRC campaign is brutalizing their candidate.

But I doubt it. Frankly, there is no criticism of Obama that is acceptable to Obama supporters. None. Everything is not only bogus, but beyond the pale.

Posted by Andruw | January 26, 2008 8:38 PM

Andruw,

Yes, I celebrate. I sleep well tonight. I wake up with great joy tomorrow. And, then, I have coffee and watch This Week (ABC).

Read Colbert I. King's 1/26 essay on the two Clintons' machine in Washingtonpost.com

GO USA! GO OBAMA! GO USA!

Posted by eorse | January 26, 2008 8:44 PM

The Clintons are now officially running the most overtly racist campaign by a major presidential contender since George Wallace.

The "truth" Clinton stated reminds me of Jacques Parizeau's decision to blame the loss of Quebec's 1995 secession referendum on "money and the ethnic vote." Of course, it was true that ethnic voters in Quebec didn't like separation. But for a politician to complain about this amouts to denying the legitimacy of those votes.

Similarly, Clinton is saying that 54% doesn't matter because the electorate is mostly black.

African American loyalty to the Clinton family is a one-way street.

Posted by Pithlord | January 26, 2008 8:44 PM

HRC needs to send Bill on some goodwill tour to southeast asia or something. Seriously. Get him the hell out of there. He's disgracing himself, and to some degree the Democrats as a whole since he's still a de facto party leader.

But I won't let him distract from an otherwise very satisfying night.

Posted by sweaty guy | January 26, 2008 8:50 PM

HRC needs to send Bill on some goodwill tour to southeast asia or something. Seriously. Get him the hell out of there. He's disgracing himself, and to some degree the Democrats as a whole since he's still a de facto party leader.

But I won't let him distract from an otherwise very satisfying night.

Posted by sweaty guy | January 26, 2008 8:52 PM

Andrew, most of the people initially quoted complaining about the racial undertones of the Clinton campaign were not Obama supporters (Clyburn, Brazile, etc.) The Clinton team then tried to pin this on the Obama folks. Lots of Obama supporters on the internet complain, but I haven't heard much from the campaign especiallly since Obama publicly told his people to be quiet (the only exception that I can think of off-hand was one white politician in SC who made a rather tasteless comparison to Lee Atwater). Qui bono (who does it benefit) is usually a good question to ask in these situations.

Posted by ikl | January 26, 2008 8:53 PM

"Team Clinton has consistently, and rightly, maintained that they're within their rights to be tough on Obama. And so they are -- politics is a contact sport. But that doesn't mean that maximum viciousness is actually a good idea. You want to be seen as likable, fair, judicious, etc..."

Watching Matt trying to squirm out of his "situational ethics" approach to campaigning, ducking and covering from his initial statements that we all should all ignore the Clinton's lying and race baiting, is a hoot.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 26, 2008 8:59 PM

Wow. Matt, are you finally starting to acknowledge that Billary's strategy may be a bad one?! Amazing. Way to stay ahead of the curve. /end sarcasm.

Posted by Nick | January 26, 2008 9:04 PM

I should add that the Clintons having to resort to these sort of negative tactics when they are quasi-incumbents (most Democratic primary voters voted for Bill at least twice), does not speak well of their ability to run a good campaign in the general election. It is hard to win without some sort of positive message and throwing dirt only gets you so far when your own unfavorables are over 40%. HRC might be able to run on the economy effectively (Bill certainly did in 1992), but that is speculation more than anything else - so far the main tactic since Iowa has been to try to throw dirt on Obama or otherwise demean him.

Posted by ikl | January 26, 2008 9:37 PM

Tubby Tim Russert had three semi-neutral pundit/wonks on this afternoon and they all sort of shillied-shallied like Matt did until now about the effect the Billiard-ball-subtle attacks on Obama by the lyin' ex-POTUS would have.

Maybe one of those fabled tipping points has just occurred and the US public has at last had its fill of Bill? Sadly, probably not. It's a chronic serial train wreck we can't take our eyes off of.

Posted by daveinboca | January 26, 2008 9:43 PM

The Clintons are now officially running the most overtly racist campaign by a major presidential contender since George Wallace. (Pithlord)

Actually, they're way worse than Wallace who at least wasn't claiming the mantle of *Civil Rights Legends. Wallace voters appreciated his lowbrow racism. But, Bill & Hill fans are so locked into their triumphal greatness that they could snatch black babies from hospitals to later impale and it would be explained away as enlightened Clintonian outreach.

Posted by Trevor | January 26, 2008 9:48 PM

Seconding Vito's correction. I don't know if Matt didn't read or didn't understand the article, but there's no way you can read it (or the polls) as showing Bill had a negative impact:

"Roughly 6 in 10 South Carolina Democratic primary voters said Bill Clinton's campaigning was important in how they ultimately decided to vote, and of those voters, 48 percent went for Barack Obama while only 37 percent went for Hillary Clinton. Fourteen percent of those voters voted for John Edwards"

So nearly as many people voted for Hillary *because* of Bill Clinton as voted for Obama.

Couple that with the fact that Obama's now the "black" candidate (thanks solely to the reaction of the usual players), and it was a valuable day's work for Bill.

Posted by Cal | January 27, 2008 12:47 AM

I worked for Jesse Jackson's primary campaigns in the '80's, in NYC, not SC. Beats the hell out me how Bill Clinton's comparison of Jesse and Barack is ipso facto "racist".

I'd go a lot farther, myself. One thing Jesse never said, or thought, was that RONALD f-ing REAGAN had the big ideas.

And as for speeches, Jesse stood up at a fundraising potluck for the homeless in the Cathedral of Saint John the Divine, reading an invitation he gotten to a White House event around Christmas (after his first run).

He talked about the Three Wise Men who refused King Herod's hospitality to search for the homeless Baby Jesus.

"The wise don't eat at Herod's table! They seek out the homeless, sit down with the homeless, share with the homeless..."

Or something like that. He had us in the palm of his hand. Even the bums looked up from their plates of free food and roared their approval.

Ronald Reagan as King Herod! Ha, Jesse nailed him bigtime.

IF Barack were MORE like Jesse, I'd probably vote for him, but, sadly, he is not.

Posted by wobbly | January 27, 2008 5:04 AM

Re the Jackson benchmark - per an old Times article seconded by the Christian Science Monitor (which has long open archives), Jackson got 5-10% of the white vote in 1988, and none in 1984. Those were estimates from party brass, apparently.

Now, before the initial CNN report settles in as CW, do we have a consensus that Vito and Cal are right - since Hillary did *better* among those who considered Bill's role important, it is hard to say he was a net negative. OK, maybe he was not as positive as someone might have expected, but net negative is not supportable. That was my view after a reader revolt in my comments as well (I passed along the CNN story before the exit poll details were available.

Pf course, the media wants to pile on the Clintons right now, so maybe the CW is locked in.

Posted by Tom Maguire | January 27, 2008 8:40 AM

Its confirmed in SC, Obama is the black special-interest only candidate. SC only showed that Obama proved true to his racist church. Its was black voters ONLY that gave him the un-impressive win in SC. Michelle Obama has been stumping throwing our racial comments last few months but media refuses to report or print. That worked in a mostly black voter state (SC), wont work anywhere else, obamas have spent months chasing black voters from the Clintons and distanced himself from ALL white and Hispanics voters, again, showing he isn’t too smart at making decisions and proven he doesn’t have the ability to look ahead, but in his favor, no one said he was smart, just able to give a black inspirational speech that’s written for him.. He is def not the uniter he and the media claimed. It was no surprise he won SC... Now let’s move on to the not so racist primaries...Obama is an embarrassment to the U.S. His idea of change is going back to racial divisions of the 60's...He is a fairy tale in politics...Not experienced, no substance, now all he and Michele offer is skin color to the 1/3 of the American voters...BIG MISTAKE. More and more proof this guy couldn’t lead his way of a paper bag...
Obama supporters wake up. Obama is running a racist campaign.

Obama's camp compared their victory over Clinton in Iowa to OJ's murder of his wife.

That was waaaaaay back in January. And the media covered it up!

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Posted by obama loses white support | January 27, 2008 9:54 AM

Obamas has been crying since he lost every primary since Iowa, where 17yr olds (who can’t vote in general election) and Bill Richardson supporters put him over the top, otherwise he would have lost there too. The media has told the country that SC is a racist black only vote. So why would anyone other than the only 1/2 black candidate stay there. John Edwards is wasting his time in SC per the media. It took voters and an ex-president to bring his terrible senate record, bush/Chaney backing, republican loving, lack of good judgment and inexperience out in the open when the media tried to hide it. Frankly we are tired of obama crying! If he crashes so quickly because he’s getting caught with corrupt campaigning funds with Rezko etc… what would he do when foreign leaders come at him? Run crying too, or call Oprah for help? …Just what we cannot afford to take a chance on. Giving pre-written church speeches does not make a President. And having his wife, Michelle Obama stumping throwing out racial comments is disgusting! No one sees her as first lady material; we don’t even see her as a lady! No one was crying when obama camp was attacking Hillary? And ALL the media treating her unfairly. She has proven that she is a strong leader after all the attacks she has endured and over come. Thank God the voters are smarter than the media and obama give them credit for. DONT WASTE VOTES ON OBAMAS, WE DONT NEED A RACIST IN THE WHITE HOUSE
Obama's spiritual adviser, J Wright gave Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness. Louis Farrakhan. maybe for Wright and some others, Farrakhan "epitomized greatness." For Americans, Farrakhan epitomizes racism, particularly in the form of anti-Semitism. Over the years, he has compiled an awesome record of offensive statements, even denigrating the Holocaust by falsely attributing it to Jewish cooperation with Hitler "They helped him get the Third Reich on the road." His history is a rancid stew of lies. Any praise of Farrakhan heightens the prestige of the leader of the Nation of Islam. His anti-Semitism and particularly his false insistence that Jews have played an inordinate role in victimizing African Americans.
Farrakhan's dream has vilified whites and singled out Jews to blame for crimes large and small, either committed by others as well or not at all. (A dominant role in the slave trade, for instance.) He has talked of Jewish conspiracies to set a media line for the whole nation. He has reviled Jews in a manner that brings Hitler to mind. And yet Wright heaped praise on Farrakhan. According to Trumpet, he applauded his "depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation." He praised "his integrity and honesty." He called him "an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose." These are the words of a man who prayed with Obama just before the Illinois senator announced his run for the presidency. Will he pray with him just before his inaugural?
The New York Times recently reported on Obama's penchant while serving in the Illinois legislature for merely voting "present" when faced with some tough issues. Farrakhan, in a strictly political sense, may be a tough issue for him. This time, though, "present" will not do.

Posted by Obama looser | January 27, 2008 9:56 AM

This thread just gets classier and classier.

Posted by southpaw | January 27, 2008 10:03 AM

obama-bill, should be obama-hillary. Who can support a candidate that can't even stand on their own feet? Has to have her husband in there - making slurs about the fact that there is a large black populace, and that is why Jesse and Obama won. What about Sharpton? He didn't carry the state. The Clintons really are manipulative and sleazy.

Posted by angry weasel | January 27, 2008 11:16 AM

What is very interesting here is that the Clinton's both President and Hillary Clinton have championed the causes of Black americans for Years (when nobody else cared frankly,) and now of course there is no such thing as a neutral person when it comes to race in this country. I thought as was originally cramed down our throats by CNN, FOX, and MSNBC that the Clinton's were playing the race thing. But it took less than 5 minutes of research to see that it was ALL hype. It makes sense now that Clyburn has come out this morning as well as a whole slew of other black leaders (that were formerly neutral)?? saying that they are so GLAD THEIR CANDIDATE has won in SC. It would appear that this was a VERY good strategy for BO camp...if white neutral voters believe poor BO is being targeted racially by Big Powerful Former Pres Bill then they are pissed, they will vote for BO on a moral stand, Blacks on the other hand due to their black pride will go with BO no matter what and those few who were in doubt, well this gives them the excuse they were looking for in the first place. For myself, let's face it, it takes MORE than a vision to become PResident of the US..atleast it SHOULD. Why on earth the Clinton's WANTED to stay in politics there entire lives, its not understood, but I will say this, Bill Clinton is smart and no one can dispute that Hillary Clinton had already been a lawyer, seated on boards all over the country in various decision making positions, she worked on grass roots policy for years as wife to the Govenor, then traveled around the world for 8 years doing foreign policy work for 8 years as First Lady, now 8 years in the Senate. All before BO had even started in public service. Do the math. I cannot understand why anyone would WANT to take over the mess that this country is dealing with right now..but if I were going to trust my safety, the safety of my family, and my money to anyone right now it would NOT be to someone who has been ONLY a senator for TWO years, period. I get the black pride thing, and I am sure that US is ready now for a black president and maybe in 10-15 years after BO has had some real experience it will be his time. For now, he needs to go back to the Senate and ACTUALLY vote when called upon.

Posted by J. Page | January 27, 2008 12:57 PM

hate much?

Posted by marcus | January 27, 2008 1:09 PM

Why is it that weirdos can never write with paragraph breaks and not capitalizing random words? It's like people who write things like MexicanGovernment.

Posted by Reality Man | January 27, 2008 1:21 PM

"Viciousness" hasn't been the distinguishing characteristic of the Clintons' campaign. Rather, the distinguishing characteristic has been deliberate serial deceit and race baiting. For some of us, integrity is a minimum threshold value.

Posted by Anonymous | January 27, 2008 2:51 PM