Hillary Clinton on beating the Republican Noise Machine:
Well, I don't think Karl Rove's going to endorse me. That becomes more and more obvious. But I find it interesting he's so obsessed with me. And I think the reason is because... (LAUGHTER) ...we know how to win. I mean, you know, I have been fighting against these people for longer than anybody else up here. I've taken them on and we've beaten them.
So, Hillary Clinton can beat the Republican attack machine in the media. However, if Hillary Clinton can beat back Republican attacks in the media and win, then why is her campaign complaining that the press has been so favorable to Barack Obama? Greg Sargent:
The sight of Hillary advisers attacking the press is suddenly everywhere -- and there's been a shift in the tone of the attacks that is striking. The suggestion is no longer merely that the coverage of Hillary is unfair and that the treatment of Obama is glowing, something that Hillaryland insiders have complained of for a long time.
Rather, the new suggestion is that the press is reveling in Hillary's downfall, and that this lust to see Hillary lose is driving coverage.
Yesterday, for instance, top Hillary adviser Howard Wolfson opined that "every time" the Obama campaign has leveled personal attacks against HIllary, "the press has largely applauded him." Another key Hillary surrogate, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, echoed this line, saying that the media has "relished" Hillary's "fall" with "glee."
Tensions between the Hillary campaign and the media boiled over yesterday. After news outlets began asking questions about Matt Drudge's "scoop" that unnamed Hillary staffers "circulated" a photo of Obama in Somali garb, Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer hit back at the media during a breakfast with reporters, suggesting they were happily allowing themselves to be led around on a leash by Drudge when he offered the chance to write negative stories about her.
"I find it interesting that in a room of such esteemed journalists that Mr. Drudge has become your respected assignment editor," Singer said.
Wasn't Clinton's ability to beat back these attacks supposed to be a big selling point for her on the electability front? In fact, wasn't it also supposed to be a big problem for Barack Obama, who the media supposedly favors? Clinton campaign memo from mid-February:
The GOP Attack Machine Will Redefine the Democratic Candidate; Hillary Has Withstood That Process. As soon as the Democratic nominee is selected, the entire force of the GOP attack machine will bear down on that nominee. This attack machine has been built and honed over decades; it is formidable, and employs all forms of media, from talk radio to major newspaper columns to television, email, blogs, websites, direct mail, and extensive ground networks. It was able to skew public perceptions of two well-respected Democrats, Al Gore and John Kerry, creating impressions about them that were wildly out of step with reality. Hillary Clinton has withstood the full brunt of that machine and actually emerged stronger.(...)
So far, the Republicans have been laying low. Sen. Obama has never faced a credible Republican opponent or the Republican attack machine, so voters are taking a chance that his current poll numbers will hold up after the Republicans get going. With Hillary, the GOP has already tried just about every attack and has failed. Those attacks are already factored in her ratings, where she remains competitive against Sen. McCain. But when it comes to Sen. Obama this is a big unknown, and the likelihood is that his negatives will rise.
Now, pardon me for asking, but if Clinton is so well prepared to handle media attacks, and Obama is so poor at it, then why is Clinton's campaign complaining about unfavorable media coverage titling the election to Obama? Am I the only one who thinks those lines of thought are contradictory? More from John Aravosis:
Hillary's campaign had made the topic of the day "what will the Republicans throw at Barack Obama in the fall?" They're talking about Rezko today, they've race-baited Obama repeatedly in the past, and we've had reports that they've recently been sending reporters information branding Obama a Muslim.(...)
Hillary's campaign has already said that they are throwing the kitchen sink at Obama. They will discuss, are discussing, all the bad things that the GOP will throw at Obama in the fall.
So, what will the Republicans throw at Hillary in the fall?
Lots... But I'm not going to be discussing the details of those stories today because I don't want to make our candidate damaged goods in the fall. You will notice that neither Obama's campaign nor Obama's official, or unofficial, surrogates are talking about the Clintons' past or present scandals, the Clintons' negatives, what a Clinton run for the presidency will to Democratic congressional races and governor races across the country.
It does not make any sense to argue, on the one hand, that you are more electable because you are better at handling media attacks, but then, on the other hand, to argue that you are losing the campaign because of media attacks. It also does not make sense to argue on the one hand, that Obama is winning the campaign because of favorable media coverage, but then, on the other hand, to argue that Obama is not electable because he can't handle media attacks. Further, it does not make sense to argue that Obama is untested against Republican attacks, even though during the primary he has faced attacks on his experience, on Rezko, on his past drug use, on the possibility that he is a Muslim, and general race-baiting either directly from the Clinton campaign or from pro-Clinton surrogates. Not only are those exactly the same attacks he will face in the general election, but when both Democrats and Republicans are attacking along those lines, shouldn't the attacks be more effective? So far, being attacked on these fronts by both Clinton and McCain has barely damaged Obama at all.
This doesn't add up. Either Obama is not as strong as Clinton in handling media attacks, or he is not. You can't start complaining about media coverage and still expect people to believe that you are more electable because you are better than handling media attacks. However, right now that seems to be exactly what the Clinton campaign is doing. Unless the Clinton campaign is arguing that some sort of media conspiracy to build Obama up during the primary, only to later knock him down in the general, this doesn't add up. The irony of holding the latter position is that it is exactly the sort of crazy conspiracy that wingnuts and pundits alike have accused the Clintons of engaging in for the past twenty years.
|
