Plouffe argues that change will be the critical 2008 campaign issue, and that Obama is the best candidate to meet that call from voters. More specifically, Plouffe reiterates arguments that a Clinton candidacy would do more to unite Republicans than any of their likely candidates. He also argues that Clinton's record, willingness to take money from federal lobbyists, and continued reluctance to expedite the release of her White House records will dog her candidacy.
This is the electability argument.
Plouffe also portrays the other lead Democrat, John Edwards, as Clinton-lite on many issues. "And Senator Edwards does not show an inclination toward unity, suggesting compromise is a dirty word." Like Obama, Edwards doesn't take lobbyist donations, but Plouffe says that Edwards can not run from his record as North Carolina senator where he argues that reform "was not one of his priorities" and that Edwards has changed his tune for political gain.
Ouch, this is the first real unprompted slash at Edwards from the Obama campaign that I can remember. Plouffe must be reacting to something from Edwards, since the campaign has been ignoring him until now and a gang up on Clinton would make sense if they were both still behind.
The memo continues.
"Opening up and reforming government has been a primary cause in Obama's life, not just a convenient set of issues in a political campaign," he writes. Plouffe also equates Clinton's "ducking and dodging" on driver's licenses for illegal immigrations, her plan for Social Security reform, and relations with Iran with Edwards' pivoting on many issues he supported as an elected official. Edwards' "positions are not changing as rapidly, but on many core issues the Edwards of today is different than the Edwards of 1998, or even 2004," he writes. "It's admirable to admit mistakes but John Edwards has apologized for most of his record while in the Senate, saying he got it wrong on trade with China, Right to Work, Packer Ban, No Child Left Behind, Bankruptcy reform and of course, the Iraq War."
That is vicious stuff, a kind of double-barreled shotgun attack on both Edwards and Clinton as unprincipled representatives of an older, partisan, and hypocritical environment.
Plouffe argues that Edwards is in a static third-place in Iowa and New Hampshire, and that if Clinton does not have a strong showing in Iowa it could doom her candidacy. "Iowa is make or break for them and they know it," he says. Plouffe also writes that Obama has "vibrant grassroots organizations" in 11 states with Feb. 5 primaries.
"As best we can tell, Clinton only has a meaningful presence in California and New Jersey. Edwards has no formal presence in the February 5th states." Democrats are heading to Las Vegas Thursday for a debate hosted by CNN at the University of Las Vegas.
What I find interesting about this memo is that all of the arguments that Plouffe makes are essentially generational. He attacks Edwards for being unwilling to compromise, which is a nod to Obama's theme of moving past the partisan and polarized 1990s. He attacks Clinton for being part of an older corrupt system, for ducking and dodging, and for refusing to deal with Social Security in a straightforward manner. These are all DLC assumptions premised on a centrist reform mantle - the way Obama articulates the Social Security is in crisis theme comes from, among others, the Third Way Gen-X crew, who cast it as a matter of principle from the youth.
It is sort of a mash-up of Jimmy Carter in 1976 and John Kerry in 2004, with Obama pledging to tell people what they need to hear instead of what they want to hear (versus Bush/Nixon/Clinton) while also making the electability argument.
I got a call today from a Dan Abrams producer on Hillary Clinton's problems with the media, and I basically said I didn't understand the political press and their choices. He promptly asked me for another contact, which was smart, because I really don't understand why the press does what it does at this point. Still, it'll be interesting to see if this narrative turns against Obama. Going negative on Edwards seems unwise. The media wants to keep munching on Clinton, but they will eventually need a new storyline. |
