Avis Rental Cars came up with a great advertising slogan back in the '60s after it became apparent they could never catch the industry leader, Hertz. "We try harder" has been the company's trademark ever since. It's always been the watch-word for political candidate in second place, though. In order to close the gap with the frontrunner, #2 has to highlight the differences between them and how his positions or qualifications are to be preferred. In modern times, this strategy has been derided as "negative campaigning," but without it, we would never elect anyone but early frontrunners unless they self-destructed (see, for reference, Ed Muskie and Gary Hart).
So it shouldn't surprise anyone when Senator Barack Obama begins using thinly-veiled references to Hillary Clinton and her husband's Administration in his campaign - and not in a favorable light, as Sam Youngman reports for The Hill:
Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, were in New Hampshire Sunday trying to spread the new message, and Obama targeted it in his speeches time and again Monday."There are those that tout their experience working the system in Washington," Obama told a crowd gathered here at Veterans Park. "The problem is, the system isn't working for us, and it hasn't in a long time."
Obama even took swipes at Clinton while bashing President Bush. He said the administration's "divisive" politics was not new to the city -- "They didn't invent it. It was there before they got to Washington," Obama said.
Problems such as those surrounding healthcare have been around before Bush "through Republican and Democratic administrations," he added, apparently referring to Clinton's healthcare battles of the 1990s as first lady.
Read the entire article at the link provided above. For Obama, "going negative" entails somewhat more risk than for the average second-place candidate, since he has predicated his campaign on ethereal "values" like hope, change, optimism, and progress - without defining any of them beyond being what you will get with Obama. However, running a smiley-faced "positive" campaign from the trailing position in which he finds himself would only guarantee a pleasant but poor second place.
The Hillary slogan of "Change and Experience" just begs to be dissected, since it promises the "best of all possible worlds" but - like Obama's own sloganeering - carefully avoids any specifics which might explicate the dichotomy. Her lead has grown substantial enough, though, that no matter how desperate Obama and Edwards become, they must temper their criticisms lest they be later accused of damaging the nominee.
As if she weren't already damaged goods . . .
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race, Democrats, Obama, Primaries
Tags: Democrat, Hillary Clinton, Obama, presidential campaign, primaries
Comments (5)
As an American living abroa... (Below threshold)1. Posted by michael hale | September 4, 2007 5:59 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
As an American living abroad and having just been to the States last month, I am amazed at how vocal the anti-Hillary folks are.
But I do notice one major shift, as she moves into full fledged presumptive nominee status - the naysaying is beginning to sound less like political opposition and more like sour grapes.
And no matter who you are, sour grapes amount to a very unattractive quality in a candidate (or a pundit).
For the record, I don't think Hillary should be president, but that's only because I don't think the presidency should be passed around between families like it's an inherited title. I would hate to see something like George 1, Bill Clinton, George 2, Hillary, Jeb Bush, Chelsea Clinton, etc. (And I think we can all agree on that.)
1. Posted by michael hale | September 4, 2007 5:59 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 4, 2007 17:59
2. Posted by -S- | September 5, 2007 8:59 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
As an American trying to live in the West, what I think it is as to the non-supportive about Hillary (AND Obama and Democrats, all) is that Liberals have reached such a fever-pitch of mania that it's a waste of time and energy (and damaging to the soul) to try to counter their fomenting.
But make no mistake, the Democrats are as disparate and fractured as the Right is so often denigrated today as being -- the Left just escapes any media critical examination and thus, the Left as to voters (both Hillary's and Obama's) are over-confident. Egged on by the vacancy of media scrutiny, they're assuming that means the rest of the nation's voters have folded or gone underground -- the two options the Left relies on when they're under scrutiny.
You just can't reason with them, to summarize. So encourage them to cross one another. Most voters who won't vote for either Hillary or Obama already know their intents, so there's nothing going to be said and done from here forward that's going to change that -- what it means is that both those Democrats already have their voters lined-up, but little appeal to anyone remaining "undecided" (which is a nice way of saying neither candidate is appealing even if someone's Liberal).
But from among the Right, there's just no possible way those Democrats would or can ever win a vote. The only possible explanation today that I encounter from anyone among Conservatives who would even consider voting for a Democrat is one of spite or resentment or unforgiveness as to the dreaded erring ways by many politicians among the Republicans, and most of that due to Amnesty for illegal aliens, NAFTA, CAFTA and no alleviation from taxes and higher prices for the middle class to average individual.
I'm as disappointed in the Right as anyone, as to politicians today. But it doesn't mean, not for a second, that I could ever live with myself for voting for either Hillary or Obama (or Richardson, or Biden -- Kucinich looks like the most sane and reliable of them all at this point, certainly the most credible even if I disagree with his politics).
Obama won't win. At this point, the only one approaching "formidable" as to candidacy is Hillary and she's got Bill to contend with (meaning, the two of them together in the White House again is a very, very bad image for many Americans). So, that leaves the Left to fracture itself and not have the Right to kick around anymore. And I say, let them fracture, they deserve to fail.
2. Posted by -S- | September 5, 2007 8:59 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 5, 2007 08:59
3. Posted by kim | September 5, 2007 9:38 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Pay attention, boys. Watch how dirty girls fight.
===================================
3. Posted by kim | September 5, 2007 9:38 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 5, 2007 09:38
4. Posted by moseby | September 5, 2007 11:54 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
hillary panders beyond anyone else--that makes her integrity tank into the shitpile. The dirtier the fight the more her blind ambition will be exposed and she will never be president. BTW...is Liz Taylor still alive?
4. Posted by moseby | September 5, 2007 11:54 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 5, 2007 11:54
5. Posted by michael hale | September 5, 2007 5:27 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I guess at the end of the day I just wonder about the efficacy of railing against Hillary. The vitriolic attacks have the effect of making seem like some sort of underdog, fighting against the forces that would keep her from gaining power (eg. the Right, generally, and interests groups like HMOs, etc.)
I know this isn't true. I know people just loathe her politics and approach. But she uses these attacks as some sort of illustration that she remains in some respects an underdog. And she uses that status at every turn.
Hating Hillary is easy. Beating her won't be and the vitriolic attacks don't help. They're useless white noise that she uses to prop up her own electioneering.
5. Posted by michael hale | September 5, 2007 5:27 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 5, 2007 17:27