The Right Attitude

Via Andrew, Barack Obama talks about getting roughed up by Hillary and Bill Clinton: "This is good practice for me so, you know, when I take on these Republicans I'll be accustomed to it."

I have no idea if he genuinely means that, but it's true either way. Given Bill's status as an ex-president and party figure, I do wish that he, personally, were not so involved as an anti-Obama surrogate, but I think it's good for the rival campaigns to really go after one another. It's politics, and people who want to succeed in it need the practice.

Comments

That's certainly the right attitude for Obama to have, but your position sometimes sounds like you want to offer a "Get Out of Jail" card for any attack. Maintaining certain types of taboos is both independently important and important for the candidate in the general. It's going to be a lot easier, for example, to attack HRC on sexist grounds in the general if Dems decide it's OK to attack her on sexist grounds in the primary because, hey, primary.

Moreover, money spent building a negative image for a candidate is work the Republicans don't have to do. It's easier, for example, to take HRC's negatives to 51% if the Dems take them to 48% in the primaries.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 26, 2008 11:38 AM

I agree, but are Obama and Edwards really going after Clinton in any meaningful sense? She's basically getting a free ride on the various scandals from Arkansas and her husband's Presidential administration and is getting to run around saying she has 35 years of experience without being challenged on the fact that she has only served 7 years in elective office.

Posted by Ron | January 26, 2008 11:39 AM

Another MY post to bring out the concern trolls and drive traffic.

I agree, but are Obama and Edwards really going after Clinton in any meaningful sense? She's basically getting a free ride on the various scandals from Arkansas and her husband's Presidential administration and is getting to run around saying she has 35 years of experience without being challenged on the fact that she has only served 7 years in elective office.

Tell us, Ron, who is the Democratic savior running (or not) for president?

Posted by SavageView | January 26, 2008 11:44 AM

Well, as I've said before, if the Republicans had decided to nominate in 1944 a political newcomer named "Adolf Hissler" whose father had been an immigrant from Germany, I'll bet those nasty Democrats back then might have started spreading all sorts of vicious "rumors."

I'd consider changing my own moniker to "Reality Man" but I guess that's already been taken by a different commenter...

Posted by RKU | January 26, 2008 11:45 AM

I agree Matt. Frankly I find myself baffled by those who complain that this campaign is somehow down and dirty. I'm also baffled by people who claim to pine for halcyon days of yore when politics were civil. When were these wonderous times? Certainly not in the 90's, nor the 80's and probably not the 70's. Politics has always been a cut-throat dirty game; and it is not surprising that it is when you consider it's fundamental purpose: serving as a replacement for literally cutting throats.
When Obama says he wants to rise above partisanship there seems like an awful lot of colored smoke there. Republicans and Democrats have substantive genuine differences. They aren't disagreeing because the just don't like each other and neither side is going to abandon their positions just because Obama mumbles some sweet bipartisan nothings in a campaign. I like the man and I'll happily support him in the general if he gets the nomination. But I still fear that if we nominate him he'll walk out into the general with his sunshine and lollypops and then his bloody skull will come rolling back. The last political candidate who based his campaign heavily on rising above partisanship, bringing parties together and changing the tone in Washington was Bush II and we all know how that turned out.

Posted by Minnesota | January 26, 2008 11:47 AM

The last political candidate who based his campaign heavily on rising above partisanship, bringing parties together and changing the tone in Washington was Bush II and we all know how that turned out.

Two terms? Yeah, it would suck if that happened to the Democrats.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 26, 2008 11:50 AM

I don't follow where proving that you're a good punching bag means much. Now proving that you're good at hitting punching bags, that seems to be good "practice".

Posted by Chad | January 26, 2008 11:52 AM

If Obama consistently responds to the Clintons' attacks with "this is the kind of politics I want us to move beyond," and, more in sorrow than in anger, observes the similarities between the Clintons' tactics and Karl Rove's, he might skate through this mudslide.

The Clintons, meanwhile, should consider Jonathan Chait's LA Times piece very carefully:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chait26jan26,0,7890763.column

Posted by allbetsareoff | January 26, 2008 11:52 AM

There are two separate issues that should not be confused.

1, It is good for Clinton, Obama, and the Democratic Party that the candidates are competing vigorously.

2. It is good for anyone who forgot what liars the Clintons are to have these reminders.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 26, 2008 11:54 AM

Lawrence Lessig on the Clintons channeling Rove:

http://lessig.org/blog/

Posted by allbetsareoff | January 26, 2008 12:00 PM

Obama's right that this is good practice for him. It is, if anything, more damaging for a former Democratic president to slime him in the Democratic primary than it would be for a GOP candidate to slime him in the general.

It's not really good practice for Clinton, as running against Obama is not good practice for running against a Republican.

I'm not sure whether it's good for the party. It depends on whether you think having a social norm of honest and sincere political debate matters. If Clinton wins by pulling this stuff, fine, okay, but understand that we therefore forfeit all right to complain about it when Rove's clients do exactly the same stuff. If she loses because we hate it, that does a lot to signal to the electorate that we are more honest than the other side.

Posted by Consumatopia | January 26, 2008 12:04 PM

I don't disagree, but on a related note - it drives me wild when people suggest that the ability to attack fellow-Democrats suggests that a given candidate will be similarly strong in the general election or in office.

In our press universe, it's pretty easy to attack Democrats. It's also pretty easy for any politician to attack other's within their party. And it's easiest to attack the left, or liberals, or progressives. So it's really easy for a Democrat to attack another Democrat, and even easier if the attack comes from the right -- the press loves it.

Personally, I'd try to determine which of the candidates has done the best standing up to the right, conservatives, and Republicans. I'm not sure who that is.

Posted by MDtoMN | January 26, 2008 12:04 PM

I'm mostly amused by the way this post got filed under "Sports."

Posted by Milind | January 26, 2008 12:14 PM

"She's basically getting a free ride . . ."

I agree. The most Clinton gets in the way of attacks is vague talk about moving on from the way politics are played. Edwards had some slams on her a couple of months ago but has toned his rhetoric way down.

She won't get that from the republicans. Aside from making a mockery out of her faux 35 years of experience (she can't convince even NPR of that), you can be sure the republicans will be bringing back Marc Rich, the White House furniture blow-up, her lack of any meaningful accomplishment in the senate, her vicious temperament, and her stated desire to increase social spending that will require higher taxes- I mean, fair or not, there's a lot of stuff there that hasn't been hurled at her so far in the primary.

She could well win anyway with democrats plus high numbers of women voting for her because she has a vagina, but she hasn't been tested in the primary so far.

Posted by Helter | January 26, 2008 12:14 PM

Same thing goes for Barack supporters. They think Clinton mentioning Reagan and Obama in the same breath is bareknuckle, dirty politics. Wait till the general election/Rovian Republican politics if Barack is the nominee. You'll long for the halcyon days of Clinton campaigns.

Posted by Chris in Cal | January 26, 2008 12:25 PM

The problem, Helter, that I see is Obama basically tied his own hands based on the style of campaign he's running. That is why we historically get the cut-throat politicians in office. When you run on a "rise above it, post partican, new politician" style platform you can't attack very easily nor can you even very effectively defend yourself. It's like bringing a pillow to a knife fight. On the other hand I don't know how well Obama would have fared if he'd run on a more conventional platform; that would have been playing to Hillary's strengths.

Somecallmetim: Touche, lol, yes two terms would be nice. I was aiming more to suggest that cloaking yourself in rainbows makes you seem a bit unserious. Like it or not Bush was the poster child for that style of campaigning until barak came along and I don't think it's unfair to compare his rhetoric to how he performed.

Posted by Minnesota | January 26, 2008 12:35 PM

MY - but I think it's good for the rival campaigns to really go after one another. It's politics, and people who want to succeed in it need the practice.

Agree. And I am sick of the emphasis media gives to Iowa yahoos that say in their Special State, that they demand just feel good ads, and no "negativity" from attacking opponent's records.

That is the point of campaigns and certainly debates isn't it? To sell your future leadership and deeds and ability as better than your rivals.

I think it is also stupid to accept certain candidates claims, or their booster's claims of being immune from criticism from a biographical point of identity politics.

1. You can't criticise John Edwards elitism clashing with his smarmy populism because John is a millworkers son.

2. McCain must be loved and all things uttered from his lips treated with reverence because 40 years ago, he got caught by the enemy in wartime.

3. Janice Rogers Brown is a perfect judge because she is a black sharecroppers daughter.

4. You can't be mean to Hillary. Respect her vagina, if you cannot respect the person.

5. While no white or Asian person with Obama's record would ever be seriously put up as a Presidential candidate, even with a gift for vague, Tony Robbins like inspirational oratory - accept the Magic Negro. For he will heal the nation, absolve guilty rich Jews in Hollywood and the media of their liberal guilt.

6. Rudy is strong. Rudy is a hero who gives tough speeches. No other candidate had evildoers attack "them" and while really doing nothing except extolling others, "stand so tall."

7. Ned is pure. Ned hates war. Yes, he is a Greenwich Trust Fund baby who couldn't lead his was out of a paper bag, but Ned is pure. Vote Ned!

Posted by chris ford | January 26, 2008 12:49 PM

It boggles my mind, Matt, that you have no problem with lying as a part of a presidential campaign. Thats what the Clintons are doing. They are LYING. Their campaign is, to borrow from Andrew Sullivan, Rovian.

If politicians are lying during their campaign, why wouldn't they also be lying during their Presidency? Its not ok. It never was ok. Democrats are hypocrites for constantly bashing Bush for lying, and giving Hillary a free pass when she does the same. I don't see Obama resorting to lies in this campaign.

I'm an independent voter, trying to figure out which party I should generally support. You Democrats are driving me nuts. All I hear for 8 years is talk of principles and honesty, and when it comes right down to it, you didn't mean any of it. The lies are ok as long as they come from a Democrat, is that right?

Posted by Nick | January 26, 2008 1:09 PM

>While no white or Asian person
>with Obama's record would ever
>be seriously put up as a
>Presidential candidate

I know you're hitting all the candidates, but this reveals a rather imperfect knowledge of US political history. An astonishing number of presidential nominees served in high office only briefly, including Abraham Lincoln (2 years in the US House), Theodore Roosevelt (2 years as NY governor), Woodrow Wilson (2 years as NJ governor), FDR (4 years as NY governor), Wendell Willkie (utility administrator).

Like him or not, Obama is actually quite typical of candidates through history, who often have short records. His bio is perhaps a bit shorter than the ones above, but no less weighty than that of John Edwards (one term senator) or George W. Bush (six years as TX governor).

Posted by AWC | January 26, 2008 1:25 PM

AWC, considering how chris ford blames everything on the Jews and the gays and feels people are often too hard on some things Hitler did, it's often better just to ignore him

Posted by Reality Man | January 26, 2008 1:43 PM

I think Obama was being a little tongue in cheek, in that he was saying he's getting practice in facing off against a candidate that will use any tactic, no matter how loathsome, unfair or inaccurate, to win, a la Karl Rove. Basically, the Clintons are not behaving as Democrats, since they're using gutter politics against one of their own, the party and the progressive cause be damned.

Posted by John | January 26, 2008 1:52 PM

Many of the Clintons' attacks on Obama are the kind that could help him in the general election: specifically, that he admires Ronald Reagan too much, or isn't as progressive as he claims, etc.

As for me, I think I'll be voting for Edwards, because despite his voting record and other flaws he's been running the most progressive campaign, and the fact that he talks so much about causes that aren't going to help him a great deal at the ballot box (e.g. the plight of homeless veterans, and the poor more generally) convinces me of his sincerity.

But I'm amazed at all the Chicken Littles out there convinced that Clinton and Obama will destroy each other. They won't.

Posted by Joe Buck | January 26, 2008 2:28 PM

>

FACTS ABOUT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

1. He was accepted into Columbia and Harvard because of affirmative action (not academic merit)

2. His black nationalist church in Chicago has called for the execution of all white people

What more needs to be said? I'm not even going to go into his comments about raping white women.

>

Posted by Liz Matheson | January 26, 2008 4:18 PM

Yeah, but part of the routine that you practice is to respond forcefully with the truth and tar your opponent as a liar and distorter of facts.

But when Obama does that, he's accused of whining. So it seems like people want him to practice being abused, but not practice exposing the abuser. Or else they want him to practice responding with equal amounts of dishonesty, which doesn't strike me as an obviously compelling political strategy, particularly for someone like Obama - to say nothing of the inherent sliminess of such an approach.

Posted by RS | January 26, 2008 4:32 PM

An amazing thing has happened. I'm listening to Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer opine on the Clintons and find myself merrily going along with them. Formerly people I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire now seem like not so bad fellows after all. This feeling was reinforced after reading Richard Ben Kramer's "Joe Dimaggio: The Hero's Life". At a big Time Magazine dinner sometime in Clinton's 2nd term celebrating the 20th century's luminous figures at the Waldorf-Astoria - Joe D. went out of his way to avoid them so he wouldn't have to shake their hands. And, although he had become a Republican after blaming the Kennedys (and Frank Sinatra) for Marilyn Monroe's death, his distaste for Bill and Hill was personal, not ideological. They'd even requested his presence at their table and he had someone deftly get him out of that. Now, the man (Joe D.) was no saint, but he really did have an Old World sense of decorum and rectitude, and I think his revulsion was telling.

Posted by Trevor | January 26, 2008 4:38 PM

They think Clinton mentioning Reagan and Obama in the same breath is bareknuckle, dirty politics.

No, they (and by "they" I mean "me") think that Clinton lying about what Obama actually said about Reagan is dirty. And wrong.

P.S. What Nick said. Putting this together with Hillary's disingenuous position on her Iraq vote(s), and I am beginning to have very serious doubts about her integrity.

Posted by Brautigan | January 26, 2008 5:27 PM

Matt's still trying to cover for his situational ethics in previous posts. So now he wants Obama to cover for him by agreeing that it's "good training".

Matt, you did notice that Obama didn't say it was a good idea to lie, right? That he presumably would say - if not actually thinks - that it's a bad idea for Hillary and Bill to lie and smear, right? Just as he presumably would say - if not thinks - that it's a bad idea for the Republicans to lie and smear, right?

Personally, I don't really understand this whole business. Who ever established that Obama can't "take punishment"? If somebody smears you, you need to be able to respond. HOW you respond depends on what you think is RIGHT, and THEN what you think is EFFECTIVE. It seems that Obama thinks what's right is more important than what is effective.

In other words, he thinks it's better to make a simple response rather than empowering the smear by making it a major issue, or dealing with every little variant of the smear, or micro-analyzing the smear, or whatever.

Now if you want to bitch that this means he can't win the election, you have to establish that doing it his way necessarily means that all the Republican smears are going to be effective and cost him the election.

Obama appears to not believe this.

You have proof that he's wrong?

And just saying, "Well, in election in year X, so-and-so accused so-and-so of something, and the accused didn't respond well enough, and that cost him the election" really isn't enough. You have to prove that was the case and other factors weren't equally or more important.

In fact, can you provide the details of ANY election where some smear that was untrue and inadequately responded to cost the person smeared the election? And can you demonstrate that this is consistently the case?

If not, I suspect this whole "Obama can't handle being smeared" meme is mostly a construct and not a reality. Just because Matt Yglesias doesn't like the way Obama is responding to Clinton attacks doesn't necessarily mean anything in the real world.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 26, 2008 8:22 PM

One last point: William Burroughs used to quote bull fighters who have a concept of "never let the bull teach you the cloth."

Which means never respond to critics - ever. Dismiss them instead. The more you respond to critics, the more power you give them under the "where there's smoke, there's fire" concept.

Obama may be operating on a similar basis. He might be right, he might be wrong. Until he loses the nomination, or having been nominated, loses the election, it's premature to say that he's wrong. And even then you need to establish that it was this attitude that actually cost him the nomination or election.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 26, 2008 8:28 PM