Tuesday, October 30, 2007

"Bill — ’91 — ’92 — hut! — hut!"

Howard Fineman (MSNBC):
As Sen. Barack Obama prepared for Tuesday night’s crucial NBC debate in Philadelphia, his high command back in Chicago was watching a lot of old Clinton videotape — not of Hillary Clinton, but of Bill, and not of Bill as president, but of Bill as a fresh-faced candidate of 46 (which happens to be Obama’s age) in 1991 and 1992.
“You know, I look at Clinton back then, and I find a lot I agree with,” said David Axelrod, Obama’s media adviser. “He said things Barack is saying now.”

As the senator from Illinois searches for a way to derail Hillary without ruining his own good-guy image, perhaps the video offers a shrewd approach: arguing that he, not she, is the true disciple of Clinton’s brand of fresh, bring-us-together politics.

In any case, Obama better figure out something — fast.

Talking to a friend the other day, Obama stated the obvious about Tuesday night’s debate (9-11 p.m. ET, airing on MSNBC and streaming live on msnbc.com). “I’ve got to do something in Philly,” he said. Of course he does. Otherwise it’s Red Sox versus Rockies. But more important, how exactly does he “do something?”

He faces a dilemma. How does he “do something in Philly” without making her the hero-victim?

For one, he has to get the tone just right. Democrats tend to like the Clintons and prefer to keep liking them. Bill is beloved, for the most part. Hillary methodically has smoothed her concertina-wire public persona. Voters who meet her in small groups are pleasantly surprised, even astonished, at how gracious she can be — “captivating” was the word I heard from a recent dinner-party companion. On TV and in ads, her handlers slap a smiley face over her shrill, valedictorian manner.

After chatting with staffers and supporters in various Democratic camps, I have compiled a list of suggestions from the wise persons about what Obama should say tonight:

*
Attack more in sorrow than in anger, with respect for the Clintons’ service — even while saying that this gracefully aging husband-and-wife, baby-boomers team is past its prime.
*
At the start of the debate, Obama should say that his comments about Hillary are made out of honest disagreement, not any personal animus. “A distinction is not an attack, and he has to make that clear,” said Alan Solomont of Boston, a chief financial backer.
*
He needs to make specific, sharp distinctions on the issues, to the extent that they exist. The fact is, Clinton and Obama are not very far apart on most issues, but Obama needs to highlight the differences in clear language. Iran is a key one.
*
Argue that Clinton is too polarizing, that she cannot win a general election and that, even if she could, she could not govern effectively in the White House because she simply — perhaps through no fault of her own — is too divisive. In one recent poll, fully 50 percent of voters said that they would never vote for her. “It’s hard to win an election if half the country is against you to start with,” said Axelrod. “And even if you win, it would be difficult to govern.”
*
Paint Hillary as someone who became a creature of the Washington moneyed establishment that the Clintons, when they were starting out, railed against. In other words, she became what she beheld. Obama is no babe in the woods, but “she has a special-interest obsession,” Axelrod claimed.
*
Offer himself as the real Clintonian outsider and bridge-builder. “Barack has to find a way to define Hillary as business-as-usual and himself as the guy Clinton was 15 years ago,” said one supporter, who asked to remain anonymous to protect his access to the campaign. “It’s less a matter of specific proposals than overall approach. She keeps the country divided, 50-50 in red and blue. Our guy can bring us together. It’s subtle and has to remain subtle.”

There are many Obama supporters who think he has been entirely too subtle and that he needs to go straight for the jugular Tuesday night. Axelrod isn’t one of them, and he presumably has some influence. “The Washington people want a steel-cage death match,” he said. “It’s blood lust. But we have our own theory and our own pace. And, by the way, it’s a dead heat in Iowa.”
Howie P.S.: Andrew Sullivan has a few words of advice, too.

No comments: