Horserace
October 30, 2007 12:22 PM

Clinton's Preemptive Strike

By
Vaughn Ververs
Topics
Hillary Clinton
With expectations running high for fireworks at tonight's Democratic debate, the Clinton campaign launched a bit of a preemptive strike today. Both Barack Obama and John Edwards have signaled that they are set to launch an aggressive new phase in the campaign aimed at the front-runner.

In a memo e-mailed out this afternoon, Clinton's chief strategist Mark Penn asks if the senator's primary opponents are abandoning the "politics of hope." Penn writes, "Does the "politics of hope" mean launching attacks on one candidate? Or does it mean laying out a vision for the American people? Does it mean questioning a rival's integrity? Or does it mean talking about the change we need? The Clinton campaign believes the "politics of hope" should be about outlining how our candidate will reverse the policies of the Bush Administration and give America a new beginning for the 21st Century."

"Considering that both Senators Obama and Edwards made their names by pledging to be positive, the last thing one would have expected was for either of them to go out and announce with pride that they were now going to go negative on a fellow Democrat," Penn pens. "It's unprecedented in my experience."

Add a Comment
by jack3213 October 31, 2007 10:49 AM EDT
I agree with those who feel Guiliani is the best candidate, and I disagree that Clinton is the better choice on the Democratic side. There really isn''t any good choice there, and she of all, is least favored. A debate is suppose to show how condidates differ, and those who attacked her had a right to, for if it were you and she had a substantial lead, you would as well show that she is a flip-flopper, and thus deserves to be put on the spot. Not only that, she is a decepetive human being, a liar, and a manipulator with no self respect. To be with a someone just to boost your political agenda, regardless of how loyal they are cannot deserve respect. It is something they all must earn. To say we must leave Iraq immediately.. it is too late for that, the war is on, the war will continue, and there will be even greater challenges ahead. The USA cannot hide or run any longer. Blaming anyone for that is immature and irresponsible. Clinton has no experiance with the level of seriousness this entails nor does she have credible answers. As well, none of them do, which is why a Republican will win. It is not a popularity contest, it is a choice for the greater person that has the best chance of getting priorities completed successfully. This takes previous experiance with business and a level of success unsurpased by others.
PS. She won the debate at 40%? Are people blind or just nuts?!
Reply to this comment
by lucyinbuford October 30, 2007 6:53 PM EDT
Regardless of what you may think of Hillary, she DOES have a point and it''s a good one. I''ve always thought it would be time better spent to talk about the changes and choices the political candidate would make rather than tear down the other opponent. Give them the time to do that to themselves! Tell me who you ARE and your beliefs, not who the other guy IS/ISN''T. I can figure that out for myself.
Reply to this comment
by ejbutler1 October 30, 2007 5:54 PM EDT
The Clinton campaign has repeatedly employed this rhetoric to deflect criticism of their candidate -- as if they say it often enough it will "stick". Their rhetoric takes advantage of the fact that most Americans are sick to death of nasty politics. By suggesting that her opponents are beginning to engage in more of the same, Clinton seeks to stifle all criticism. And in effect, Clinton''s spokespeople would have us deny those opponents the right to challenge her positions / or lack of positions. They call this "going negative", when in reality it is fundamental to a democracy that candidates be able to challenge each other. If an opponent delves into her personal life, resorts to name-calling and inuendo...that would be "going negative".

I find the Clinton campaign''s use of this manipulative rhetoric deeply disturbing. The objective is to make the listener close their mind. The use of this tactic displays a lack of respect for the listener...and the need to control the dialogue.

Barack Obama''s politics of hope embraces an open discussion ... respects those with differing opinions ... believes in the fair-mindedness of the American people. Senator Obama''s style of politics presents us with a clear choice. Do we want more of the same...or do we want to start having an honest and civil conversation with each other...begin working with each other again?






Reply to this comment
by fred7231 October 30, 2007 5:17 PM EDT
Obama should say this: "I''ve noticed that when I express a policy difference with a Republican, Hillary never accuses me of departing from the politics of hope. It''s only when I criticize her policy positions. So she thinks that the politics of hope means criticizing anyone but her. That''s never what I meant. The politics of hope is about encouraging voters to decide based on policy differences, it is not about hiding policy differences; and I intend to make sure the voters know where we all stand on the issues.
Reply to this comment
by hopefor2008 October 30, 2007 5:03 PM EDT
Sometimes if you hope for something better, you have to point out the negatives too.

With Hillary there are plenty of negatives, so it''s easy to see why Mark Penn (Hillary''s Karl Rove) is so scared right now.

http://unitedagainsthillary.wordpress.com
Reply to this comment
by bobl987 October 30, 2007 4:59 PM EDT
She must not have much experience because there are plenty of precedents where candidates say tough things about each other.
Reply to this comment
.

Follow Horserace

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...