Tested

In the circles where I run, one theme that keeps coming back is the idea that even if Hillary Clinton doesn't really have more governing experience than Barack Obama, she does have more experience being attacked by Republicans. In that sense, she's "tested," we know what dirt there is. With Obama, by contrast, who knows? There's obviously something to that, but there's sort of less to it than a lot of people think. Amidst the media's self-abasing desire to show they can be hard on Barack Obama, they've managed not to remark on the Clintons' refusal to release their tax reforms. Or to disclose the donors to the Clinton Foundation.

The Obama campaign and Obama supporters have tended to play this kind of thing with kid gloves since nobody wants to ape the right-wing smear machine that tormented the Clintons during the 1990s. Still, the right-wing smear machine in question certainly isn't going to be that discrete. And they evidently think these kind of disclosures would be damaging. I mean, the candidate of economic populism and national security has a husband whose running around the world raising huge sums of cash from corporate titans and foreign dictators? Similarly, I think another run-through of the Marc Rich pardon isn't going to reflect well on anyone.

Comments

it's "discreet", not "discrete". Show some pride. Otherwise, you're right.

Posted by sv | March 5, 2008 9:04 AM

Nice work, Matt. Here's hoping the Obama campaign figures out how to incorporate this into the message.

On the other hand, the results last night reveal he has some serious ground to make up with Latinos and older and blue-collar voters, the soft underbelly of his campaign. He needs to re-calibrate accordingly, and fast. Surely McCain will seek to exploit this come fall.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | March 5, 2008 9:09 AM

It ought to be obvious to Obama and Co. that negative attacks work. He needs to go after Hillary(whether through surrogates or whatever). I know he has some favorable states coming up, but he has to win PA to end it for good.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 5, 2008 9:11 AM

I mean, the candidate of economic populism and national security has a husband whose running around the world raising huge sums of cash from corporate titans and foreign dictators?

If Obama doesn't get off his pedestal and start attacking hard on this issue, he's too clueless to be a good GE candidate.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 5, 2008 9:11 AM

The Clintons are so good at fighting off the right wing machine that they lost Congress, had to swing right, were impeached, and left office under a cloud because of bought pardons and furniture shuffling.

The most you can say about them is that they managed to win a second term in a boom time and managed to avoid getting booted from office. I mean, that's not much of a record, is it?

Posted by Helter | March 5, 2008 9:12 AM

I see this morning there's speculation McCain has moved on to the stage of his campaign where VP consideration is taking place. He's meeting Bush today. Maybe Bush could suggest that McCain have Cheney help search for a suitable VP. That worked out so well the first time he was tasked with the assignment...........

Posted by steve duncan | March 5, 2008 9:12 AM

He needs to (metaphorically) break her knees with a baseball bat.

Another nice commercial would simply feature video of Rush urging his supporters to vote for Clinton.

Posted by LarryM | March 5, 2008 9:13 AM

It's good/amusing to see haters of the "right wing attack machine" urge Obama to attack.

Posted by ostap | March 5, 2008 9:16 AM

"Maybe Bush could suggest that McCain have Cheney help search for a suitable VP."

You can almost imagine Bush over lunch with McCain, explaining that Dick had done such a good job as veep, McCain could just as well keep in the job.

Posted by Helter | March 5, 2008 9:17 AM

I'm a bit baffled by this component of the Clinton message. While she is right to note that she has much more experience than Obama at being attacked, this is not the same as being - as she calls it - "vetted", because presumably her history of being attacked by the GOP is one of being attacked *unfairly*.

Well, this being the case, what is to stop the unfairness of the attacks from continuing? Nothing.

If the GOP tried-and-true formula of just making shit up is going to apply to *either* Dem candidate, then I don't see how being a longer-standing victim of unfair attacks makes Hillary any better off than Obama.

Posted by McKingford | March 5, 2008 9:17 AM

Helter: and left office under a cloud

Yep, and with only a 65% approval rating! Can you imagine? Practically run out of town on a rail, they were.

Posted by Glenn | March 5, 2008 9:21 AM

Attacking the Clintons for taking lots of dirty money is an attack from the LEFT, ostap.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 5, 2008 9:21 AM

It seems to me that experience in getting attacked by the Republicans is less important than whether or not the MSM is likely to be complicit in those smears. I worry that in a Clinton/McCain matchup the press's love for McCain and distaste for Clinton will give a dramatic structural advantage to McCain--it will be hard to cultivate the negative narrative on McCain and hard to cultivate the positive one on Clinton. The fact that Obama is also loved by the media may have a leveling effect and may mitigate McCain's biggest advantage.

Posted by Galen | March 5, 2008 9:25 AM

I am incredibly disheartened right now. By the Clinton's victory last night, yes, but more so by the Washington Post editorial pages. The Post's decision to run that "Women are Dumber than Men" piece was questionable, but Michael Gerson is even more questionable. I also thought Ruth Marcus this morning did damage to feminism, just as most Hillary supporters do by voting for her.

The idea that a woman can't inspire, can't be strong and graceful, competent and charasimatic is based on false foundations. We have that notion because Hillary isn't those things and she is the only one out there. Her candidacy (and its inevitability) is based on the destructive premise that she is Bill's wife, and would be nowhere without him. Women can achieve and succeed on their own merits, and can persevere in an obviously imbalanced world I know from experiences that I am sure others share.

Posted by Evan | March 5, 2008 9:33 AM

I am incredibly disheartened right now. By the Clinton's victory last night, yes, but more so by the Washington Post editorial pages. The Post's decision to run that "Women are Dumber than Men" piece was questionable, but Michael Gerson is even more questionable. I also thought Ruth Marcus this morning did damage to feminism, just as most Hillary supporters do by voting for her.

The idea that a woman can't inspire, can't be strong and graceful, competent and charasimatic is based on false foundations. We have that notion because Hillary isn't those things and she is the only one out there running for president right now. Her candidacy (and its inevitability) is based on the destructive premise that she is Bill's wife, and in fact wouldn't even have gotten the chance to be a Senator but for that fact. Women can achieve and succeed on their own merits, and can persevere in an obviously imbalanced and mysogynist marketplace. I know from experiences that I am sure others share.

Posted by Evan | March 5, 2008 9:35 AM

In that sense, she's "tested," we know what dirt there is.

Really? For as long as the right wing kept digging with the Clintons new dirt would come up. Why does everyone assume it would be different now? Sure, they survived it, throwing the Democratic party and the Clinton campaign platform under the bus along the way. What an encouraging thought...

Posted by J.B. | March 5, 2008 9:36 AM

did damage to feminism, just as most Hillary supporters do by voting for her.

Congratulations, Evan, I'm sure that's the stupidest thing I will read all day, and it's not even 10 am yet!

Posted by Glenn | March 5, 2008 9:36 AM

"Yep, and with only a 65% approval rating! Can you imagine? Practically run out of town on a rail, they were."

The favorability ratings during Bill's last year in office were running around 45% during a boom time, and were followed by election of a nitwit like Bush who promised to be the opposite of the Clintons. What does that tell you about his success against the right wing spin machine?

In boom times, any president sees high "job approval" ratings. It comes with the office.

Posted by Helter | March 5, 2008 9:37 AM

" I mean, the candidate of economic populism and national security has a husband whose running around the world raising huge sums of cash from corporate titans and foreign dictators? Similarly, I think another run-through of the Marc Rich pardon isn't going to reflect well on anyone"

You can't be suggesting that the Audacity of Hope attack the Clinton Foundation? Come on. Even if the money IS dirty, and corporate money for charity is not by definition dirty, then just consider it a tax on dictators.

Obama will run out the clock and be just fine. There's is no reason to stop the primary campaign; they both have plenty of money and are being reasonably civilized.

Posted by Carl | March 5, 2008 9:39 AM

So asking voters who you want as CINC is gutter politics, while implying without evidence that the Clintons are dirty cheaters because we haven't seen their tax returns is legitimate? Hmm, interesting values you have, Matt. Why not just attack her on Iraq, Iran, and being the lobbyists' friend (hell, she got up at YearlyKos and defended them!). That would have the advantage of, you know, the merits and the truth. Just saying. But if you like, let your inner Karl Rove play on this morning!

Posted by scottreads | March 5, 2008 9:39 AM

I bet nothing would make the Clinton camp happier than if Obama tried a right-wing style smear attack. They know how that game works and it would diminish Obama.

It wasnt any smears that did Obama in. It was his own mistep with the Canadian NAFTA meeting and then lying about it.

I do think the line "I have a lifetime of experience, he has a speech in 2002" is effective.

Posted by Undecided | March 5, 2008 9:40 AM

Thank you! All the people -- JMM, Krugman, etc. -- who keep on saying that Hilary's attacks on Obama are nothing compared to what he would face in a general are missing the basic asymetry. Obama can't go hard against the Clintons because, during the 90s, the democratic electorate became conditioned to rush to their defense whenever they are attacked. If he starts bringing up Marc Rich or Travelgate, Hilary will instantly say: "Shame on you Barack Obama, for perpetuating the smears of the vast right wing conspiracy," at the same time that she make insinuations about Resko and his religion. Obama needs to reframe his candidancy in light the success of her recent attacks, but he can't go directly at her on her immense ethical vulnerabilities.

Posted by pjs | March 5, 2008 9:45 AM

This was once a website offering sane judgment. It's sunk to almost Sullivanesque levels of spin recently. More than anything else, this is just incredibly boring.

Posted by gr | March 5, 2008 9:50 AM

"Yep, and with only a 65% approval rating! Can you imagine? Practically run out of town on a rail, they were."

Don't forget who became the next President. The only coattails the Clintons have is their own.

I look forward to a Hillary Clinton Presidency where the Democrats have lost control of Congress. Fun times.

Posted by swarty | March 5, 2008 9:50 AM

they've managed not to remark on the Clintons' refusal to release their tax reforms. Or to disclose the donors to the Clinton Foundation.

Yup. Obama needs to push the idea that until Clinton releases those records and the records from the Clinton library, she is not vetted. We can't take a chance on what we might find after she's the nominee. The problem is that Obama can't go negative. His campaign rhetoric is about hope and change and a new kind of politics. If he were to sink into negative campaigning, the press would eat him alive.

Posted by Just Karl | March 5, 2008 9:50 AM

Dear Swarty, and Helter:

I was specifically responding to Helter's claim that the Clintons "left office under a cloud." I think the fact that Bill Clinton left office with the highest end-of-term approval rating of any President since they've been taking these numbers, suggests Helter was incorrect.

Helter made no claim about "coattails" and neither did I. I'm not sure, Swarty, that you even know what the word means, since Clinton wasn't running in 2000 (and Gore largely disassociated himself from Clinton anyway). But, you know, it does remain that Gore got a half million more votes than Bush, so that "cloud" mustn't have been too bad.

Frankly, I think Obama would make a much better President, and that's why I voted for him. But the vitriol against HRC really has reached Sullivanesque proportions on this blog, and it's silly.

Posted by Glenn | March 5, 2008 9:56 AM

but he can't go directly at her on her immense ethical vulnerabilities.
Obama should not attack based on Star/Jones/TravelGate crap, but he can attack on the points Matt brings up - failure to disclose tax returns, donors to the Clinton Foundation, Norman Hsu, etc.

Posted by bjd | March 5, 2008 10:02 AM

Considering Obama has run such a clean campaign compared to Clinton, it is actually surprising that after last night he is still beating her in delegates and states won.

The last couple of days have definitively proven that most journalists are complete sheep. SNL tells them to "toughen" up on Obama and they start making hay about things which pale in comparison to the corruption and mendaciousness of the Clintons.

It's like everytime someone says they aren't being balanced, the media has to throw all perspective out the window. This "there's always two sides to every story" garbage is exactly what has made competing with the lies eminating from the presidential bully pulpit so difficult over the past 8 years.

Example:
1. Repubs say X
2. X, by any reasonable interpretation of the universe is clearly false
3. Media reports "Repubs say X, some Dems disagree" instead of "Repubs say X, by any reasonable interpretation of the universe, this is clearly false"

Sometimes X is just false! (Replace X with "waterboarding isn't torture", "Iraq (circa 2004) is going swimmingly", "We do not torture", "lowering taxes raises revenue" etc)

In this case, most of the media came to an informed decision that Obama was more honest, authentic and electable than Hillary. But apparently saying this violates some unwritten weakneed journalist code, so if the Clinton's whine enough, they capitulate and get tough on Obama.

To sum up, in the last couple of days Hillary has compared Obama unfavorably to a Republican candidate, made his skin darker in a commercial, pushed the Obama is a muslim meme, pushed the NAFTAgate/Rezco etc to no end, and moved the goalposts about a million times depending on her polling.

Meanwhile we still don't have the tax returns or the donor list. . .

What's more important, whether an Obama aide told the Canadians that Obama sometimes panders when campaigning, or that Clinton may have kept her campaign afloat with money from shady characters??? The media's real duty is to find out who the Clinton's are in hock to, not to take their marching orders from Tina Fey.

If, at this point, Obama demands to see the tax returns and the donar list, more power to him. The lack of perspective amongst the so called elites at this point is simply mind-boggling. Maybe it needs to be force fed.

Posted by alex | March 5, 2008 10:10 AM

Even if the money IS dirty, and corporate money for charity is not by definition dirty, then just consider it a tax on dictators.

In much the same way that McCain imposed a tax on Charles Keating in the late 80s?

Everybody knows that American presidents are supposed to GIVE money TO unsavory dictators. It's just unseemly for a former president to TAKE money FROM unsavory dictators. As was often the case in the '90s, Bill Clinton's problem here isn't so much that he's corrupt as that he's tacky.

Without checking, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that other former presidents have done exactly the same thing. But for some reason (and I think it's his personality, not a vendetta on the part of the press) Clinton just can't keep his low-rent habits out of the spotlight. He's like an unruly third-grader who wants attention even if he can only get it by misbehaving.

Man, I miss the 90s.

Posted by JB | March 5, 2008 10:16 AM

this nomination has been over since super-tuesday. There just isn't anything, short of nuking the party and dooming us to another 30 years in the wildnerness, that would give Clinton this nomination.

Don't be depressed by the media, they are just trying to damage Obama and install McCain to the Presidency. Don't listen to Clinton supporters asshole taunts about stealing this election, the grown ups aren't going to let them.

Posted by soullite | March 5, 2008 10:19 AM

Tax Returns

Posted by eh? | March 5, 2008 10:20 AM

"we know what dirt there is."
We don't have an f'ing clue what dirt there is. What are in her tax returns that she's so afraid of?

Posted by Bloix | March 5, 2008 10:22 AM

There are several legitimate attacks that Obama can make without going negative in an unfair way. I am hoping that he chose not to do so because he figured that even losing OH and TX would probably not matter much in terms of delegates.

Unfortunately, I think that the Obama campaign is too tied up in the delegate count and forgets that the perception that accrues to be the vote winner in a state is very important.

PA (particularly western PA) is similar to Ohio in that economics matter and the NAFTA issue can linger there. What Obama needs to do is ask what Clinton people told Canada when they were asked about NAFTA. We know that discussions took place. The question can be asked as to why they haven't disclosed this information.

Also, Obama needs to come out stronger with specifics on the economy and what he will do dirrently.

On the healthcare issue, Obama really needs to challenge Clinton on the issue of mandated coverage. She still hasn't indicated how she will enforce it, and saying that it will be automatic upon employment with someone doesn't take into account the self-employed.

Clinton does have more substance in her speeches, but she tends to ignore the important shortcomings of her plans, and Obama has to make her explain more. And if she refuses, he can come up with the "what is she hiding" format.

Posted by John | March 5, 2008 10:23 AM

Three Phrases: The WJC Foundation.The WJC Foundation. The WJC Foundation.

The mother-lode, the ground zero, the nuclear reactor, the gift that could keep on giving to the GOP during a first term Clinton Presidency is multi-million dollar charitable Trust that may be stuffed with markers, or claims, on future Clinton Presidency policies

It's not simply "the donor list." No, it's the promises that may already have been made, to those donors, from a Clinton Resurrection.

I've said it a million times since the Charlie Rose interview late last year: if you are looking for the source of Bill Clinton's anger and discomfort, it's the likelihood that he's been pre-selling seats and memberships to his wife's Presidency. Telling the ticket holders that there may be no Hillary Presidency was not what he had bargained for.

Posted by Gregor | March 5, 2008 10:52 AM

Maybe the media, if there are any actual reporters left out there, will take the next few weeks to stop apologizing to the Clintons and find out what they have been doing for the last seven years. It doesn't look good this morning, as the media are busy parroting specious arguments about "big states" and "experience" with dim-witted glee. But their attention spans are extremely short. And since they have weeks of time and newsprint to fill, maybe they'll go looking for something new.

BTW, BryklynLibrul, nice post, but if I were Obama I wouldn't worry overly about Latinos anymore. Looking at the states left to vote, that would probably be a waste of time.

Posted by phillygirl | March 5, 2008 11:10 AM

The thing I see is that people's opinions are still gelling on Obama. The media did us no favors by uncritically accepting this WONDERFUL, FRESH BLACK candidate while avoiding analysis of his background and his "SUPERIOR JUDGMENT".

Now the spotlight is finally on the guy and by the time Pennsylvania is done voting, we may have a fair picture of Obama with both his strengths and WEAKNESSES - which is to be fair to both Hillary whose baggage and credits are well-known, and the Democratic Party which faces a known, tested McCain and doesn't need another imploding Kerry disaster.

One thing that should be revisited is Obama's now-famous speech to a small rally in Chicago - which has now become his centerpiece claim to the Presidency. A speech he distanced himself from by 2004, saying if he was a standing Senator, told like them what evidence existed even if the evidence was later found to be faulty despite assurances from the UK, Russia, France, Israel, Jordan, Egypt, the head of the CIA, even Iran -he wasn't sure how he would have voted. Maybe he would have voted just like half the Democrats like Clinton, Kerry, Schumer, Feinstein. He said in Senate procedings he didn't know. Then when Iraq looked to be going bad by mid- 2005, he dusted his "Great Speech" off, and put it back up on his Senate, then Presidential campaign websites.

His speech was the basis of a request by a former SDS member (Marilyn Katz) that he join her, two former terrorists (Ayers & Dohrn), Jesse, some rich Hard Left Donors (Saltzman, Pitzker, Crown Family) and have a good old Vietnam-style Protest where he could join the old Lefties revisting their Halycon days of the "March on Washington". Obama delivered because he wanted those rich people to go with the hardest Left candidate interested in being the next Senator. He talked to 300 people after Jesse's harangue, mostly post-communist old hippie-Left folks, not Youth looking for a Black Messiah...

Now, despite the circumstances of his Maginificent Speech if you take Obama's claim that anyone who gave a anti-Iraq War speech in late 2002 showed superior judgment - then you have to credit others making the same case as Obama with the same superior judgment and worthiness to be President or the proper leaders of their countries on that alone, for "being right when others were wrong".

The general trait of all of them is that they mostly gave their Obama-like speeches and opposition not on facts as to why they opposed the War, but from pure ideology.
Hard Lefties, "All War is Immoral!!!" pacifists safe behind warrior-citizens that do not share their views in stable, prosperous countries, and those with "you cannot attack our fellow Muslims!!," solidarity.

That would be, for example:

1. The brilliantly astute judgement of such anti-war speechmakers of 6 years ago as Vladimir Putin, the vehemently anti-Iraq war speeches of leaders of Muslim political parties from Morocco to Indonesia. "Red" Ken Livingston of London. The oratorical brilliance of "Baghdad Bob" & Tariq Aziz.

2. The Euroweenie Greenies, Jacques De Villepin, the Saddam-Bribed UN officials of Kofi's, the anti-war wisdom of Saddam himself in his speeches. The warnings of Ayatollah Khamenei of Iran that it was a dumb war, despite the Ayatollah confirming Iran had WMD by his intelligence sources. The NYTImes editorial staff and it's Sulzberger family.

3. The strong pre-war speeches (2) of Ayman al-Zawahiri of Al Qaeda. Warning that if the Iraq War proceeded, Al-Qaeda would either send the Ameicans running in fear
or slaughter the Crusader-Jews down to the last soldier.

4. Inside the US, the 2002 anti-War oratorical brilliance of others who Obama seems to be arguing, match his main claim to be President. Barbara Boxer, Susan Sarandon, Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakan, Noam Chomsky and other fellow-travellers of the Hard Left Jewish Intelligensia. The 9/11 Truther Crowd who argued that Bush did 9/11 so he could "seize all the oil". The stupendous speeches of Teddy Kennedy and Jane Fonda saying the war was awful and would kill 2 million innocent Iraqi children by starvation. (The NYTimes folks don't count as Americans, they are transnationalists).

Obamites all.

Once you revisit the "Great Speech of Superior Judgment" and understand the details and who Obama joined in his speechifying, the details the "mental brilliance and better judgment" of Obama, Putin, Saddam, Sarandon, Boxer?
The case for Obama on the basis of his speech becomes far less mighty club to wield to the White House.

Posted by chris ford | March 5, 2008 11:23 AM

Helter: left office under a cloud because of bought pardons and furniture shuffling.

Bill Clinton wanted the transcript of the entire Marc Rich conversation released, but W classified it and released an edited version. Of course, W would never do anything underhanded, so Clinton's conversation with Ariel Sharon must have truly contained classified information.

The Republicans in congress demanded an investigation of the Clinton admin for "trashing" the White House following reports of damage from the Bushies. The GAO found "normal wear and tear". Surprisingly, yet another lie.

With the exception of the brief affair with Lewinsky which he admitted to, all of the other "scandals" were Republican generated L.I.E.S. "What", you say, "Republicans lie? Why that can't be true?" No, in fact, if Obama is the nominee, they'll lie about him too. So thanks for buying into Republican lies, you moron.

Posted by J Bean | March 5, 2008 11:48 AM

This whole thread is really depressing. I want Obama to win, but I want him to do it by portraying Hillary (fairly) as a typical Washington Demo fence-straddler who thinks what Bush did in Iraq and on Iran is just peachy and who likes to defend the lobbying culture of Washington. Let's not rehash tired GOP smears of the Clintons and go all gumshoe on what Bill's been up to for the last 7 years. Jesus. We're better than that, aren't we?

Posted by scottreads | March 5, 2008 12:04 PM

Instead of attacking each other, the candidates should compete based on their effectiveness at challenging McCain ! This period is each candidate's six-month audition as the nominee. Rather than speculating/spinning about "electability", each candidate can demonstrate their viability as the nominee !

It's doubtful that the primaries will result in a decisive mandate for either candidate, regardless of how badly each candidate mauls the other.

If the superdelegates took their role seriously, they would let the candidates know that pot-shots at each other won't count and that the superdelegates' choice will be based on the "auditions" versus McCain.

Posted by H-Bob | March 5, 2008 12:15 PM

I don't want Obama to get into the slime with Clinton, but I do want her tax returns released. It's insane that she's refusing to show them until the choice of nominee has already been made. What possible justification is there for saying "I'll release the returns, but only when it's too late"?

Posted by KCinDC | March 5, 2008 12:22 PM