GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Will Others Respond (as has Obama) to Clintons’ Mud-slinging?

by

There is little that I can add to the discussion last week on the tussle between the presidential campaigns of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. While most pundits thought Obama came out the winner, others thought Hillary emerged victorious. While I think Obama came out slightly better than Mrs. Clinton, the real exchange really brought out the strengths — and weaknesses — of her candidacy. (Jim Geraghty offers thoughtful insight here; Peggy puts in her two cents here. And Bill Kristol has also weighed in.)

It showed how sensitive she is to criticize, but how eager she is to attack.

For those who don’t recall the story, the whole thing got underway when one-time (Bill) Clinton fundraiser and current Obama supporter David Geffen told Maureen Dowd of The New York Times that while everyone in politics lies, the Clintons “do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”

And Mrs. Clinton’s team replied, basically belly-aching about “the politics of personal destruction.” She seems to repeat this mantra any time anyone dares criticize her or her husband. The danger in dealing with the Clintons is that they’re experts at what I have called the reverse-offense defense, attacking anyone who dares criticize them.

As former House Speaker Newt Gingrich put it earlier today:

If a campaign is going to degenerate into a mud slinging contest, the Clintons will always win because they are vastly more ready to jump into the pit. The recent attacks over David Geffen and Barack Obama are just a sample of how quickly and fiercely the Clintons will attack if the campaign is simply about who can ‘out negative’ whom.

Dick Morris points out that Hillary “was among the first to hire private detectives to dig up dirt on women who had been linked to Bill, on Linda Tripp, on other Clinton accusers, and on virtually anyone else who stood in the way of her ambitions for her husband.”

While the Clintons have long dug up dirt on their opponents, they haven’t been used to their opponents fighting back with the skill that Senator Obama’s team has. When Team Clinton attacked Geffen, Obama’s spokesman Robert Gibbs replied, “The Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when [he] was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom.” Nice.

Peggy thinks this episode has made Hillary (for a moment at least) seem “less inevitable” while Roger Simon thought it showed that Geffen doesn’t think Hillary could win. Whatever the case, this shows that the Clintons aren’t used to such deft replies to their attacks. It may be a sign, as James Taranto speculated today (about another matter related to her campaign) that the junior “senator from New York may find herself unprepared because she is so used to deferential treatment from the press.”

This is a different campaign for Team Clinton. In the past, they were accustomed to rivals who did not respond well to their challenges. It remains to be seen if Obama’s campaign can continue to so respond to the Clintons’ attacks. And in the case that she wins the Democratic nomination that the Republican candidate (and his team) will show the skill Obama’s team did in this recent dustup.

UPDATE: John Fund has a good column in today’s Wall Street Journal on HIllary’s problems, noting the unwillingness of her team to address the “scandals that swirled around Bill Clinton’s eight years in office.” Fund believes this strategy “carries the danger of eroding Mrs. Clinton’s carefully cultivated image of moderation and reasonableness during a campaign that still has almost a year to run before the first primaries.” Now that I’ve whet your appetite, just read the whole thing!

Comments

  2. Clinton’s criticism of Obama/Geffen betray her weakness. It was an attempt to create distraction on her part. She is losing a great deal of support amongst democrats because of her support of the war resolution. Obama does not have that albatross. So this was a great opportunity for Clinton to mudsling rather than stick to the issues, since the issues do not favor her.

    When I was in graduate school and living in New York, earning about $6000 per year, I gave money to Hilary’s campaign for senate (stupid mistake on my apart, I admit). Then, when the war resolution was up for vote, I emailed her, called her office, and attended a “town hall” meeting which she attended. I and others in NY State BEGGED her not to vote for the war resolution. We told her to pay special attention to Hans Blix and Muhamad al-Baradei’s argument that Saddam did NOT possess WMD nor the capability to make WMD. We warned her that a war with Iraq would be a huge catastrophe. And here we are.

    And she didn’t listen. Instead, she voted for what was, at the time, popular. And now she has the audacity to claim that “if I had known then what I know now, I wouldn’t have voted for the war resolution.” Well, what sort of idiot would have voted for the war given what thinking people knew? Apparently Hilary is one such idiot. And now she claims ignorance. Not presidential material in my view.

    So yeah, she’s a big liar. And now she has the prefect distraction from her real record, which is shameful.

    I wouldn’t vote for her if she were running against a pig, which is probably how things will turn out.

    –Chet

  3. The Clinton campaign displayed some real ineptness in that dustup. They first asked Obama to fire Geffen apparently not realizing he was not part of the campaign. And I especially like Obama’s retort that he didn’t know why he should apologize for something someone else said.

    But this little brou-ha-ha will look like a lovefest compared to when McCain starts going after Rudy and quickly gets under his notoriously thin skin. Now that will be nasty!

  4. #2: As a Presidential candidate, HRC IMHO ranks well down the list. She is extraordinarily smart though and I would love to see her appointed to the SCOTUS by whichever Dem gets elected in 2008. And hubby Bill could take over the Senate seat she vacated. Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the Clinton-haters!

  6. I told my circle of friends that Hillary & Obama are the ticket for the Democrats in 08 soon after after Kerry/Edwards fell flat. That will still be the case and President Rodham and VP B. Hussein Obama will win.

    I feel so bad for our nation that the electorate will let this happen because of the race & sex of the pair, not their qualifications and leadership.

    When the Islamofacists continue their attacks on us don’t expect them to defend the homeland but submit.

  8. VdaK, I’m looking forward to hearing Giuliani this weekend at CPAC. If I have the opportunity, I’ll ask him about his comments you referenced.

    His comments to the Hoover Institute this week sounded an awful lot like he and NYC are living proof that the best welfare reform effort was to get people working or help them to move toward being self-sufficient… he’s argued that he embraced welfare reform and that helped reduce NYC caseloads from 700-900k+ down to 126k when he left office. Those are his perceptions and attitudes, not mine. And they aren’t based on a mayor’s perspective of an narrow section of the law affecting his city… which is how I read his speech in 1996.

    While I can understand someone being against Clinton’s form of welfare reform because: a) it failed to address welfare outside of AFDC, b) it block granted the fed monies to the states without significant accountability beyond 2000, and c) it didn’t address strengthening marriage or d) skyrocketing unwed birthrates… which continue at about 32.2%/yr of all live births… the wild rate of increase has eased, but it’s still far too high.

    And a lot of “welfare reform” that Clinton enacted was warmed over GOP provisions and ideas. I bet if you asked Giuliani today if he thinks, by and large, did Clinton’s welfare reform proposal actually work… he’d say yes, in hindsight.

    If you can’t comprehend the world of difference between the two political parties on welfare reform, then you need to sit back a bit and learn. The Welfare2Work policy trend began in Michigan under Gov Engler and started by his ending the nation’s most liberal General Assistance feeding trough in 1991. Tommy Thompson of WI took over from there. The GOP generally supports welfare reform efforts; the Democrats want to usually expand or increase benefits and recipients (I refuse to call them “clients”).

    I see a lot of difference. But then, I’m partisan and biased.

  9. Anyone who doesn’t see obvious differences between Clinton, Obama, and Giuliani is either blind or refuses to see. Of course, if one wants a truly conservative candidate (perhaps not conservative on every issue — but hey, compromises are only made when one’s pet issues are secure, right?), then one would have to see to it that a Huckabee or Hunter gets the nomination. This means lots and lots of very hard work. But why bother? It’s much more fun to sit back in the comfort of an office chair and criticize the perceived failings of other more successful candidates, particularly ones with exemplary records.

    This is why I don’t like so many conservatives. Rather than recognize that their agenda is best served by changing policies within established channels (Republican politics), they whine that their positions aren’t honored. Rather than get involved in changing a political party’s platform, they complain that they’re taken for granted. Rather than appreciate incremental improvement in their direction as an actual improvement (however small), they bitterly chide the sponsor for ‘compromise’. Rather than voting against liberalism/socialism, they vote for it by refusing to vote for a candidate that opposes it, though not in exactly the ways they wish. They claim to uphold the entire panoply of ‘rightist’ political thought, yet they facilitate its opposition with their insistence on losing elections or, if that cannot be managed, a Pyrrhic victory at all costs.

    I suppose I have more respect for those who begin and support 3rd parties than for those who merely gnash their teeth. At least they take the process seriously.

  10. HH, my very liberal PoliSci & Econ PhD moderator at UofM once offered that democracy is all about incremental change… tweaking at the margins, protecting the core, acting as a shelter for minority (political, not race or gender) interests, and seeing American politics as a generational change agent –not one from election to election.

    And frankly, anyone who thinks Congress will ever get the message that they need to clean-up the corruption, end the ego-manical turf building games, do the Peoples’ Business and act more like Sen Jefferson Smith in “Mr Smith Goes to Washington” rather than Harry Carey’s or Claude Reins’ characters… doesn’t have a clue to the realities of Potomac Fever.

    All they do is go under radar for a bit and in a 10 minute mile are back to the true nature of DC… wheeling, dealing, and making little kingdoms with other people’s money.

  11. So, HH has no respect for those who have the audacity to criticize those whom the party bosses anoint as front runners, no respect for skepticism, no respect for those who dare question partisan propaganda or dare question why a candidate’s current image-building clashes with his previous record.

    Fine, being a sheep is his right.

    And if you all who favor “incremental change” think insulting potential voters is a better strategy than answering their concerns… good luck with that. I don’t happen to think Hillary is the anti-Christ, so making her out to be a boogeyman isn’t going to scare me to the polls.

    You guys are putting out candidates who are maybe 20-30% conservative on issues, and then you’re like “How dare you demand purity?” Especially seven years into the presidency of a faux-conservative who has screwed us repeatedly on issues like spending and immigration. And the two most likely successors are even further left than he is.

    No, learning from experience is not stupid. It is the anti-thesis of stupidity.

  12. So, I’m a sheep because I recognize the idiocy of the statement implying there is virtually no difference between Hillary/Obama and Giuliani. That about says it all.

    For the record, I’m not a conservative. Sure, I’d love to see the Education Department defunded and the real estate sold. I’d love a flat tax with no loopholes, tax credits, or exemptions. I would be the first to embrace comprehensive trade policies that treat American industry fairly rather than this ‘free-but-not-fair’ trade that is the current coin of the realm. I’m all in favor of securing our borders and prosecuting those who employ illegals. The list goes on and on.

    Where I differ with the VtheK’s of the world is in the area of method. Unlike her/him, I recognize that the only way to move politics in my direction is within a viable political entity. I also think if one doesn’t like something as important as the direction of the country, then one is obligated to do something about it. To that effort, I’ve been elected precinct committee officer many times. I worked for the McCain campaign in 2000. I’ve doorbelled. I’ve worked the phones. I’ve been a full-time employee of the Washington State Republican Party. And I’ve done this in an area where Republicans are consistently in the minority — very frustrating. But, I keep at it. I don’t agree that abortion should be made illegal. I think two people of the same sex ought to have the benefits of marriage, even if it isn’t considered ‘marriage’. I don’t want prayer forced upon children in schools. So, I disagree with some of those I’ve worked with within Republican circles, but rather than argue and wring our hands, we somehow managed to focus on those issues where we agree(d) and accomplished whatever we could. If I can do my part to make the Republican Party more libertarian and less religious, then I’m satisfied.

    I suppose I could just log onto the Web and bitch — it would certainly be easier. However, my complaints just wouldn’t really mean much, would they? That really wouldn’t take much audacity, would it? Demanding that a candidate do everything you wish and then, in inevitable disappointment, taking one’s marbles (such as they are) and going home isn’t ‘learning from experience’ because the initial demand isn’t rational. It’s neurotic and moronic.

    I choose to balance issues, to make compromises, to see the good in a candidate despite misgivings I may have about certain of her/his positions, to understand that politics is far greater than a single election or a single candidate.

  14. Now, setting aside HH’s straw man, the conservative dilemma is different than the Republican dilemma. The Bush Administration has been largely a disaster for those who hold up basic conservative principles of smaller government, free markets, and secure borders. Aside from some modest tax cuts and a handful of judicial appointees, most Bush policies have been setbacks for the conservative movement.

    The two Republican front-runners are both well to the left of Bush philosophically. Both favor unlimited illegal immigration. McCain opposed even Bush’s modest tax cuts, buys into global warming hysteria, undermined Bush’s attempts to appoint conservative judges, and champions the federal regulation of free speech. Giuliani defends partial birth abortion, supports the disarming of law abiding citizens, and showed his love of free markets by maliciously prosecuting Wall Street managers and traders, most of whom had done nothing wrong.

    So, what does a principled conservative do? Vote for the relatively less liberal candidate and hope that conservatism is not too much more eroded in the next administration? Or, choose to sit out even if it means an unreconstructed socialist like Hillary or Barack is elected. Sure, a Hillary or an Obama would be disastrous, but then Jimmy Carter was a disaster, and Carter paved the way for Reagan. Would history have been better served if Ford had been elected in 1976 and followed by Ted Kennedy in 1980?

  15. #2 – “I wouldn’t vote for her if she were running against a pig, which is probably how things will turn out.”

    Hey Chet, I didn’t know Rosie O’Donnell was in the race….

    Seriously – I am glad there is at least one of you guys who is able to think for themselves. Kudos.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  16. VdaK, I’m happy to concede that there is a difference in the challenges for conservatives and the challenges for GOPers. You term it a dilemma –but I don’t think the end choices are mutually exclusive for either group and there is a large area of potential agreement… the key is whether or not litmus test issues will make it an all-or-nothing proposition.

    For me, the battle right now is like the ones in primaries in 76, 80, 88 and 92. It’s a battle for moderation and a return to core GOP values… which doesn’t necessarily translate into modern conservative values… it can, it just doesn’t HAVE to. You know I’m not a big fan of repressive immigration policies or building a wall or annexing Mexico onto Texas (yikes)… if that’s a modern conservative value… well, thanks, I think the GOP can do much better. I don’t view the UN as an evil empire… functionally, it’s a failure and sweeping reform is needed far more than a new headquarters…. even with the top ten floors intact. But do I worry about US troops serving under a UN flag? Hell no. Do I think the militia movement ought to determine our natl gun policies? Hell no.

    I think this time around the big question for social conservatives who fancy themselves outside the Party (and how could they not since they gave us the last batch of leaders in Congress, sat out the 06 Election and gave power to the Dems in Congress) is what role do they want to play in natl policy formation. And for social conservatives, there aren’t a lot of dance cards around anymore.

    For me, it’s the notion of “all-or-nothing” issue tests by some social conservatives of GOP candidates long before it’s relevant. Like the candidates are saying… we’ll agree on some things, we’ll disagree on others… at the end of the day, do we still share core values like limited govt, tax cuts, fiscal restraint, strong natl defense, free markets, creating a society of equal opportunity not equal outcomes… etc? That’s what’s important. Can we build a base for winning on Election Day? That’s what’s critical… frankly, if we don’t win the gambit was for nothing. Unlike little league sports, in politics winning is everything.

    Should the candidates talk with social conservative groups… sure. In fact, they should try to find common ground. Should they also talk with inner city parents, hispanics, gays, war Democrats and others to find common ground? Sure. Should they be concerned about turning off potential independent voters in the General by saying something to appease social conservatives in the Primary in a red, red state? Yes.

    Does that open GOP candidates up for the “true enuff, pure enuff” testing by social conservative groups? Sure. You can bet that the FarReligiousRight is eager to take on Rudy about same sex unions and try to injure his standing in order to raise the standing of whomever is their preferred candidate… is it prudent? Probably not if Rudy wins the nomination. In some ways, the social conservatives voters in 06 remind me of the Log Cabineers in ’04… choices in strategy sometimes come back to haunt the haughty.

    Should the GOP open the doors of the RNC and 08 platform committee to social conservative groups? No. I think until the social conservatives drop this nonsense about “the GOP let us down” and continue to fail the reality test that Congressional leadership was awash with social conservatives and admit that was the big lesson of 06… we can’t win with social conservatives driving us farther and farther to the Right… and I see the immigration debate as part of that effort to drive us to Right and exclusion by voters.

    I think the GOP ought to be foucsed on keeping the WH in 08, taking back the Senate and finding credible, moderate, informed candidates to take on 1st term Democrats in every Congressional race. If that means the GOP becomes moderate… well, ok; progress it is then. If by the DemCongress having an impact on legislation means compromise –like HH notes above– with the Dems, well, GOP members will have to weigh that opportunity against losing a purity test somewhere down the line.

    McCain and Giuliani and Romney and Brownback and Newt may be to the left or right of W… but does it matter at this point? What matters now is for primary candidates to listen, learn, explore and explain… and raise tons of cash. We will all have lots of time for litmus tests later.

    And frankly, for social conservatives to keep bitching about liberal legislation in Congress without accepting that they GAVE the keys of power to those folks is like killing your parents and asking the court for mercy ’cause you’re an orphan… funny, but not effective.

    I don’t think questioning GOP candidates about positions is political sedition. It’s part of our political order. I don’t think advancing issues for consideration is inappropriate either. What is wrong for the GOP is to allow social conservatives to steer the debate… destroy offending candidates… when the goal of the GOP should be to win in 08.

  17. I can’t believe I agree with Vince, Stop it!
    We JUST had an election; the new congress has been in office for less than 60 days now we are talking about 2008…
    Uhg.
    But Matt, it seems apparent that social cons have become the base for the republicans. That is why the Dems are making gains in the NE and West. If the dems follow through on their fiscal promises, they might charm more and more moderate repubs to their fold….

  18. Matt, it sounds like you want the social conservatives to either go pound sand, or just shut up and vote Republican even though the party has no intention of supporting you on issues that matter to you? If a party gave *you* that choice as a voter, would you still support them?

    You’ll probably tell me I’m wrong on this, too, but I don’t see the GOP’s problem in 2006 as being that social-conservatives walked out because the GOP was insufficiently faithful to the SocCon agenda. The problem with the GOP in 2006 was it became the party that had no principles, no philosophy, and no vision. The party collapsed under the cumulative weight of all those earmarks, all those bridges to nowhere, and all those cozy relationships with sleazy lobbyists. The party thought it could buy back SocCons with a few feints to a conservative agenda like the FMA (which they knew wouldn’t pass) and the Border Fence (which they had no intention of funding). But SocCons weren’t fooled. And the party’s Fall 2006 theme of “Don’t worry about about our corruption or our spending, GOTV will save our majority,” was further proof of their arrogance.

    Instead of blaming social conservatives for their loss, maybe the GOP should take a look at itself. Sure, the Democrats are even more corrupt, but as Ian and the other shills amply demonstrate, Democrats don’t give a damb about corruption in their own party. Instead of telling SocCons to go to hell, maybe the GOP should articulate a vision of limited government and free markets, and then actually develop policies that advance that vision. And reach out to social conservatives by extending policies that empower them instead of empowering government to rule on their behalf; like expanded school choice, expanded voter and legislative control over abortion and same-sex marriage, and commitments to defend Constitutional rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, and to bear arms. (Securing the borders would be nice, too, but it is way too much to hope for.)

    Unfortunately, I think there’s only one potential GOP candidate who has that vision, and can articulate it effectively. Unfortunately, he has way too much baggage to survive in our Lowest Common Denominator political system.

  19. Well stated, Matt. I would only add that it is in the social conservative’s best interest to see to it that the only party willing to listen to him/her is the one elected. A GOP moderate may not be their ideal, but those with a brain will understand that a larger number of folks with an ‘R’ behind their names means control of committees and much of the debate and media attention. To this end, voting for the Republican (moderate or conservative) is the best conservative strategy. But of course, this requires recognizing obvious differences between front runners of the opposing parties and if that means someone who is awfully fond of complaining reconsidering a foolish statement he/she posted and back-pedaling, great.

    I refuse to buy the argument that if we just lose an election and let the socialist win, we can be assured of a subsequent and sweeping victory because then the American people will see it for what it is and reject it. The same argument was made by conservatives about G.H.W. Bush and we got 8 years of Clinton. There are many, many voters who don’t think in terms of principles, of capitalism vs. socialism, liberty vs. slavery and all the variants in-between. They’re happy if POTUS brings a tear to their eyes and if next pay period’s check is in the mail — and it doesn’t matter to them if it came right out of their neighbor’s taxpaying pocket.

    I do disagree with you that it doesn’t matter at this point where the various candidates stand on the various issues. Unfortunately, we are approaching the point where the race for President is a full-time, 4-year cycle (and I suppose in theory it’s always been that way for incumbents). A candidate that hasn’t formed an exploratory committee by now probably isn’t going to make it and building support and momentum for the declared candidates is crucial. As you know, this means staking out one’s positions which means differentiating oneself and building constituents and excitement. At this point, it’s important that all factions of the parties discuss issues, learn, figure out where they’ll compromise, etc. And raising cash is predicated on just this kind of activity — although I wound up voting for Bush, I worked for and gave money to the McCain campaign. (Heck, I even sent $100 to Rick Lazio, but that must mean I think Hillary is the Antichrist, right?)

    Where I agree with you most is an area of simple responsibility. A part of me holds onto this quaint idea that if you don’t vote, don’t bitch. The level of your participation in campaigning should be commensurate with the frequency of your complaining. And all that junk.

  20. A part of me holds onto this quaint idea that if you don’t vote, don’t bitch. The level of your participation in campaigning should be commensurate with the frequency of your complaining.

    Ridiculous. The party apparatchiks may not like it when their side is criticized, but criticism is participation in the political process.