« $4300 | Main | Department of unpalatable results »
How to respond to Hillary Clinton
Read this, the headline is "Obama: I'm no V.P.". That's not just the biased framing of the journalist, it captures Obama's words. My unsolicited advice is this: if you are a political candidate, proclaiming "I am not X" is not much better than admitting "I am X." Either way it frames the debate. And avoid phrases like "If I'm not ready [for the Presidency]..." Why not punch back with: "A President needs to do at least two things. First, read the will of the voters. Second, figure out which country in a region is winning the race for influence and which country is coming in second. This kind of talk is a sign that Hillary Clinton can do neither. I'm running for President, while she is busy failing arithmetic."
I know I promised, way back when, no candidate blogging, but alas every now and then some things just bug me.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on March 11, 2008 at 06:35 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
I disagree. Clinton is just portraying Obama as a natural number 2 while she is naturally top-dog -- she's been around longer, he's a new face, so there. That's the frame she wants.
Obama is trying to restore the frame in which they are going head-to-head for the nomination and he is solidly defeating her (your response tries to do the same thing). I personally think "I don't understand" is a brilliant reply. Of course it's perfectly clear what's going on -- Clinton wants to win, Obama has too much support for her to win, so she sticks him on the bottom of her ticket while claiming he's too inexperienced. "I don't understand" gets right at that. Moreover, his more subtle response gets his supporters a little more outraged -- why is Clinton putting down their candidate? The schemer! She's trying to bamboozle them! Meanwhile you're talking about her math skills.
Posted by: Barbar at Mar 11, 2008 8:04:53 AM
You're not trying to fill the void of good economic sense that Austan Goolsbee's "demotion" created in the Obama campaign, are you? Just ask yourself WWTD! ("What would Tyrone do?")
Posted by: Ironman at Mar 11, 2008 8:53:54 AM
Assuming that he would in fact accept the VP slot, the only danger in Obama's argument is that he might have to eat his words if he does in fact lose the nomination. With the strong position he's in at this point, he probably figures it's worth the risk to settle this matter. Media narrative be damned, the reality of the situation is that Obama has nearly closed the deal, and that he just needs to take control of the narrative long enough to accomplish something that will push her over the edge into irrelevance. Since there are no contests after today for several weeks, he's not going to accomplish this goal electorally in the near future, so his best option is to appear to rise above Clinton's level of politics by loudly declaring that he won't play the game, then throwing in just a few key forceful punches when it's most opportune.
I think that he's right to frame the argument as he is doing, simply because the Clintons have been so wily. They throw everything they possibly have at him and see what sticks, but he has shown that he can be equally effective without having to defend himself on every point, and without having to attack her constantly. The more that he makes it look like she's dancing around just looking for an opening and that he is being forthright and honest, the more that people are going to realize that Hillary's team looks absolutely silly parrying in every direction and hoping they can draw some blood.
Posted by: Lee at Mar 11, 2008 8:59:02 AM
In the short term Hillary probably has the upper hand for the reasons you mentioned. But if she does get the nomination and asks Obama to be her vice president (though it's not clear that throwing that idea out there isn't just a machiavellian tactic) then the GOP (and everybody else) can ask, why is Obama qualified for that? If he'd be such a bad president, wouldn't he be a risky vp?
Posted by: massrepublican at Mar 11, 2008 9:46:43 AM
Somehow I don't think your retorical advice to Obama is going to be picked up.
Posted by: Kent Guida at Mar 11, 2008 10:46:13 AM
He got a big boost from pointing out (taking some other commentators talking points) that Hillary was offering him the #2 slot, but he is #1 in polls and she is #2.
"Who ever heard of the #2 candidate offering the #1 candidate the #2 spot?"
It went down pretty.
Posted by: liberty at Mar 11, 2008 1:53:09 PM
I think he missed the point of the offer. It wasn't aimed at him. It was aimed as superdelegates. It said to them that Clinton was interested in uniting the party, sinking her differences with her rival. His curt refusal didn't counter that message. He would have been better off saying that he intended to be the Presidential nominee but that later, when she recognized that, he'd want to talk to her about her being his vice-president.
Posted by: jim at Mar 11, 2008 2:42:07 PM
I think he missed the point of the offer.
I think you missed the point of his response. It wasn't a genuine request for explanation aimed at her, it was a smooth counterattack aimed at voters, superdelegates, and media figures defining the election narrative. Clinton can of course easily unite the party by dropping out of the race and supporting him.
Posted by: Barbar at Mar 11, 2008 3:01:58 PM
Um, I was on board until the proposed alternative...
Posted by: Paul N at Mar 12, 2008 12:10:24 AM
Hillary's kitchen sink should be renamed to kitchen stink
Posted by: David at Mar 12, 2008 4:52:01 AM
Not to rain on the parade, but let me point out that people are discussing politician's blah blah blah on an economics blog. Is there any greater reason for being for economics than to discard and cut through all the politician blah blah blah? Okay, I feel better, go about your business.
Posted by: Andrew at Mar 12, 2008 5:55:24 AM
Dick Morris writes, “Hillary Clinton was deeply involved in the White House's inner workings only from the time of Bill's election through the Democratic defeat in the congressional elections of 1994 … But Bill Clinton saw his loss of Congress as owing to Hillary's policies and ideas. He felt that his presidency had been captured by a liberal phalanx that included the first lady and such staffers as George Stephanopoulos and Harold Ickes. He … exiled Hillary from the White House, asking her to mix the largely ceremonial duties of her “job” with writing, speaking and policy advocacy. Her key role in the White House was a thing of the past - and remained so through all of 1995, 1996 and 1997 … So Hillary's experience, real enough in 1993-94, led to a total disaster, the first loss of the House for the Democrats in 40 years:” http://theseedsof9-11.com
Posted by: Peggy McGilligan at Mar 22, 2008 10:22:44 AM
I voted for you in Colorado, now I wished I hadn't. Quit attacking Obama. He was referring to 45 minutes of stupid questions that were meant to be of tabloid quality to mess with him and you. They had no relevance to what is really important. You are coming across as a mean, little person. You are better than that.
Posted by: Meri Zenisky at Apr 18, 2008 11:14:08 PM
Hillary Clinton, like her husband, is a crude and relentless politician; ready to say anything to get a vote. She should never even be thought of as a viable presidential candidate. She'll twist in the wind and go any way the way the polls think she should. She is not entitled to the the candidacy and I wish she would could get off her high horse thinking that it is hers. Obama is a man of integrity, but of contradictions, a real human being; unlike McCain who refuses to explain his ambiguities. We can't elect another cardboard cut-out president who doesn't have a clue. Forget Hillary, forget McCain, go Obama.
Posted by: kEVIN jOHNSON at Apr 20, 2008 9:42:47 PM
