Clinton Campaign: Obama Can't Win Because He's Too Liberal

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 21:59


So says the Huffington Post:

Obama faces the prospect of severe and hostile vetting from his primary opponents, however. Upon her arrival in New Hampshire this morning, Hillary Clinton signaled that she intends to play on Obama's as yet unexploited political weaknesses: "Who will be able to stand up to the Republican attack machine?" she asked at an appearance in Nashua.

Hillary's aides point to Obama's extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with "left-wing" intellectuals in Chicago's Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants' rights as subjects for examination.

Wow, that second paragraph makes me like Obama a lot more. I guess I'm not one of those self-hating progressives that think being left-wing makes someone unelectable. In a primary campaign, in order for an attack like this to succeed, it requires liberals and progressives to believe that their ideals are in a minority nationwide, thus required a move to the center in order to win a general election. Smashing that belief among the Democratic rank and file would be an important behavioral change within the party.

Then again, since Edwards is attacking Obama from the left, the Clinton attack probably won't work anyway:

Edwards' staff also immediately began to take shots at Obama: Appearing on MSNBC this morning, Edwards' manager David Bonior described Obama as a sellout to corporate America: "Barack Obama's kind of change is where you sit down and you cut a deal with the corporate world."

If your opponents are attacking you from both sides, the end result is probably that both attacks seem manufactured.

Chris Bowers :: Clinton Campaign: Obama Can't Win Because He's Too Liberal

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Clinton Campaign: Obama Can't Win Because He's Too Liberal | 35 comments
One bad decision after another. Why keep listening to Mark Penn? (4.00 / 3)
This is getting ridiculous.  Some juggernaut this campaign was supposed to be.  Pffft.  All hot air.

Actually, Penn and Co. have it the exact opposite: 

The only way for them to beat Obama is to run hard left right now.  And fast.  Did they not see the entrance polls that showed Obama winning the self-decribed liberal vote overwhelmingly?  And the self-described consercative Dems actually went for Edwards.

This bullshit makes me even more hardened against Hillary.  I had almost felt sorry for her and Bill and how pathetic they looked on Thursday night.  But if they are THIS fat out-of-touch with reality and still think that 1990s conservatism is the way to win this nomination, then they are getting what they deserve.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

Wish to add that, IMO, Obama's chief vulnerability is on his Left. (4.00 / 1)


For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.
[ Parent ]
Oddly enough (4.00 / 1)
You are right that with Obama being hit from both sides, they will probably balance each other out, and Obama will sail through with over 40% of the vote.

Strangely Clinton is about half right this time.  Obama is a liberal, he just isn't a firebrand.  Edwards may be more progressive than Obama, but I think Obama is the most liberal candidate out there.  Since I am a liberal more than a progressive it makes sense that I prefer him.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

Obama (0.00 / 0)
I would completely disagree with you then, saying that I think Edwards is more liberal while Obama is more progressive. I am progressive, however I am by no means liberal.
[ Parent ]
okay, you need to explain the difference according to you. (0.00 / 0)
thanks.

Because I feel I am a liberal and/or a progressive

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

[ Parent ]
It's difficult, of course. (4.00 / 1)
I see "progressive" to be progress-oriented, as the name suggests. Open government, sensible drug, foreign, economic policy, but bound by common sense and what works rather than what makes people feel warm and fuzzy on the inside.

I see American liberalism to be the equivalent of European socialism.

[ Parent ]
Typical know-nothing Murikan comment about Yurp (0.00 / 0)
Do you understand the difference between socialism and social democracy?

One man's "policies that make people feel warm and fuzzy" is another man's "policies that fend off revolutionary change."

You do know that that well-known communist Bismark brought in social security in Germany, right?

You do know that spending on healthcare is going to bankrupt this country unless someone gets a handle on costs, right?

Do you know what your candidate is going to do about the latter, as opposed to the former?

[ Parent ]
This would be correct in theory, but I don't think people consider (0.00 / 0)
Edwards to be viable.

Thus, he has not (and will probably not) ever be able to emerge as the "liberal alternative" or "liberal challenge" to Obama.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

[ Parent ]
Do you know who "people" consider the most viable? Hillary. (0.00 / 0)
People are dead wrong on this. They've no doubt been heavily influenced by MSM coverage that largely ignores John Edwards's existence, but he runs very strong, beating every Pub, every time. See this, for instance:

http://www.alternet....


[ Parent ]
Perhaps Penn's micropolling (4.00 / 2)
tells him there is a self-hating bloc of liberals out there, however small, that could damn well swing this thing for Hillary.
Seems like (0.00 / 0)
maybe this strategy is designed more to hurt Obama's standing with independents, pushing them out of the Dem primary (toward McCain?) and thus undercutting one of his key demos.
[ Parent ]
Perhaps (0.00 / 0)
a good number of Independents and Democrats in New Hampshire are not as Liberal as some of you think. For a long time NH was a Red state. Now it is trending purple. It is not your typical East Coast/West Coast Liberal state. It isn't Massachusetts either.

So if Clinton knows who her market is - not so Liberal Independents and Democrats - it would tactically make sense for her to paint Obama too Liberal.

After all Obama really isn't running as a Liberal as we all know because he does not want to be seen that way and he himself does not see himself that way. So it is a good strategy to make him out to be something he has been running a way from.

And as much as it pain most of you - it is still the Independent and moderate swing voters who will cast the deciding votes.

[ Parent ]
Except... (4.00 / 1)
The criticism is coming from Hillary Clinton. She has virtually no chance of winning independents in New Hampshire.


Further Reading
[ Parent ]
but if they stay at home (0.00 / 0)
it blunts Obama's momentum.
At this point she may not be playing to win, just not lose badly.

What has John McCain done for veterans?
[ Parent ]
Remember (0.00 / 0)
NH is a purple state so a good number of those independents are probably more conservative than Liberal. thus she does have a chance of winning some.

And I bet if I looked she even won at least some independents in Iowa.

[ Parent ]
Wait and see? (4.00 / 1)
Isn't it prudent to wait to see how Clinton actually challenges Obama before you pass judgement on her, rather than judging her on the basis of what Edsall, an Obama supporter, says she's gonna do?
She's already started... (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
thats probably a good idea (0.00 / 0)
This news was odd looking to me so it seems reasonable to disbelieve it.
[ Parent ]
turnout (4.00 / 1)
They probably planned this before knowing that Obama would bring out record turnout.

Because "hes too liberal to be elected" doesn't work when he brings in new people.

The Huffington Post... (4.00 / 2)
... hasn't exactly been a neutral source of news during this primary campaign. The editorial bias against Hillary Clinton has been obvious. (Is Arianna an Obama girl?) Just take this report with a little grain of salt.
Two Words Quoted (4.00 / 1)
If the Clinton campaign really is going to try to convince voters Obama is too liberal then I'd jump on the bandwagon railing that Clinton has started to run against the base.

However, all I've seen actually quoted so far is two words out of context. "Left-wing".

Where's the rest of the quote and who said it? Until I see more I'll consider the source and reserve judgement.

[ Parent ]
Does this mean that we're finally going to talk about (4.00 / 2)
the skeletons in Obama's closet? They're straightforward enough that even political neophytes should understand them. For instance, Matt Taibbi wrote, in the Rolling Stone:

Worse still, Obama's financial backing is reflected in some of his Senate votes and campaign positions, including most notably his support for expanding NAFTA to Peru, limiting the ability of injured workers and consumers to sue for damages, and pouring federal funds into E85 corn-based ethanol, an alternative fuel for which the market is dominated by the Illinois-based Archer Daniels Midland Company. More than once I heard Obama give stirring speeches, only to mar them with plugs for ethanol.blockquote>.

And by the way, now that the caucuses are over, maybe we can connect the dots (some of them, anyway)  between the love and the corn-ethanol.

Then there's the real estate deal involving former client Tony Rezko. Rezko, a multi millionaire slumlord (and presumably one of the people Obama represented as a "civil rights lawyer"), who is now under indictment for influence purchasing, so to speak.

He's held himself out as being posessed of saintly virtue so there should be zero tolerance for this kind of sleaze. The GOP's holding their fire until the general election, but this stuff has electability implications and it needs to be aired now.

this dog has two opposable thumbs. Matt Taibbi wrote: (4.00 / 1)
"Worse still, Obama's financial backing is reflected in some of his Senate votes and campaign positions, including most notably his support for expanding NAFTA to Peru, limiting the ability of injured workers and consumers to sue for damages, and pouring federal funds into E85 corn-based ethanol, an alternative fuel for which the market is dominated by the Illinois-based Archer Daniels Midland Company. More than once I heard Obama give stirring speeches, only to mar them with plugs for ethanol." End quote

[ Parent ]
ethanol = skeletons ? wtf?? (0.00 / 0)
com'on. isn't ethanol a viable alternative to fossil fuel? doesn't fossil fuel cause global warming?
[ Parent ]
Biofuel: the cure that is almost worse than the ill (4.00 / 1)
It requires land diverted from food production or forestry to biofuel production.

It leads to a steep decline in biodiversity.

Ethanol in this country has always been about Iowa caucuses.

I guess now it's also about continuing to believe in rivers in Egypt.

[ Parent ]
Skeletons (4.00 / 2)
Obama does seem to have some irritating connections to special interests (cough, coal, cough) - though they always seem to be Illinois-based. Not surprising considering the notorious workings of Democratic politics in Chicago.
Somehow, this doesn't disturb me as much as a more Washington-centric panderer who is likely to be influenced by national special-interest groups. I doubt Obama would feel much need to please Illinois interests as president. Why would he have to? But Hillary would be hard-pressed to ignore the interests that have funded and supported her and Bill over the last two decades.
Nonetheless, these connections are surely the greatest chink in Obama's armor. Though not a weakness Hillary is well-poised to expose, given her own corporate financing.

In fact, who in either nomination race could call the kettle black? Maybe they can snipe here and there, but a full-scale assault to paint Obama as a panderer would be hard to imagine, given his relative innocence on that front.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
It's politics as usual? Everybody does it so it all evens out? (4.00 / 1)
Isn't the whole point that Obama is different, not politics as usual? BTW, nice minimizing. Maybe I've misjudged Obama supporters, attributing their unwavering support to naivete and excessive credulity. Maybe the truth is that they're all total cynics who realize just how disingenuous he is, and that his saintly image is nothing more than a carefully cultivated branding strategy.

It's wise to consider what Hillary could do with this, but if Obama gets the nomination, the GOP is going to tear him limb from limb. In fact, with incipient scandals like these so ripe for the picking, they might not even have to make up stuff.

[ Parent ]
So then who do you vote for? (0.00 / 0)
Kuccinich? Nader? Either you accept some imperfections or the options become very limited. Obama's skeletons really are minor (and localized) compared to the standard Washington politician.
It may seem like I'm an apologist for Obama, and I am to a degree, but only because a) I truly do sympathize with the difficulties of being a Party Democrat in Illinois and b) his transgressions are fairly easy to apologize for.

And as for the Republicans, we could run the dirtiest Dem in the country or we could run someone that is squeaky clean. The attacks will be the same, regardless. They attack because it is What They Do, not because we give them easy targets. In other words - the 'attack' problem is with their political ethos, not our politicians.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
You should bone up on your Cleveland history. St. Dennis has (0.00 / 0)
plenty of problems of his own. This thread is about electability. The polling makes clear that it's gotta be Edwards. The question is whether Dems in the early states will allow themselves once again to be fooled into rejecting their strongest candidate. It's not for nothing that George Will, Krauthammer, Peggy Noonan, David Brooks, etc., have heaped so much praise on Obama.

BTW, the fact that Edwards beats all Republicans kind of puts to rest that "too angry for independents" meme, doesn't it?

[ Parent ]
I offer for this thead's consideration.... (0.00 / 0)
.....this webpage:

http://opensecrets.o...

...and for the inevitable low-info individual who is ready to insist that, 'Oh, they all do it!' I would first point out that progressives aren't' supposed to support those who do. That's exactly how the scumbags get away with it. 'Sides did that excuse ever work with yer mama? And you want to use it in a Presidential campaign?

In point of fact, this link shows that, 'No, pal, they actually do not all do it!'

http://opensecrets.o...

You get extra bonus points if you know what. 'National Amusements Inc.' really is.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Nice disinformation (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure what your point is here, but this is totally misleading. Your first link listed "affiliated" contributions for Obama. Here is the same one for Edwards:

Edwards "corporate" contributions

And your second link shows the summary for Edwards, which shows that he doesn't take any PAC money (though of course, as the above demonstrates, like every candidate, he takes a lot of money from investment bankers -- after all, that's where the money is). Here's the comparable link for Obama:

Obama also doesn't take PAC money

Look, I support Edwards. My dad caucused for him last night in Cedar Rapids. No candidate is squeaky clean, but both Edwards and Obama are better choices than Clinton. So unless you're actually a pro-Clinton concern troll, you're not helping your cause with this crap.

And if your extremely biased post was truly some sort of innocent mistake, I apologize for implying otherwise. But I nevertheless feel the need to balance it out.

[ Parent ]
THe amount of money that Edwards receives (4.00 / 1)
from bankers is negligible. He's one of the leading fundraisers from either party, yet he's received one of the lowest totals from banks, and drug, insurance, securities, and oil & gas companies.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!
[ Parent ]
Yeah...... (0.00 / 0)
the usual....

Look my point was that Obama is not what he makes himself out to be. Do you know what Goldman Sachs does? Who National Amusements Inc.are?

Doesn't sound like it....

This is Republican frame by way:

No candidate is squeaky clean...

Do you know why? And do you know how dumb it sounds coming from someone who frequents this site?

Given that you had no real rebuttal, as clarkent comments, this statement:

So unless you're actually a pro-Clinton concern troll, you're not helping your cause with this crap.

Is a classic example of the rude, stupid verbiage low-info folks feel perfectly at home spewing all over the progressive 'sphere landscape. Uncalled for, did you see me call you or anyone out in out my comment, and without any foundation in fact. If you did more than 'drive-bys' here you'd know who I support but I guess, pal, that would take too much effort on your part.

Truly pathetic.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
You're getting a little over the top here. (0.00 / 0)
It seems so fashionable these days to accuse everyone of spewing 'right wing talking points'. Yes, we should be wary of this, but when it starts to be used to stifle debate - and used INSTEAD of debate - you might be taking it too far.

I am FINE with an imperfect candidate. As we should all be. No candidate will be perfect in the eyes of every voter, every Democrat, or every progressive. Obama pleases me in more ways than he worries me. This is a judgment I have made and stick by, pending any new information. What is so terribly wrong with that?


"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
who are the main advisors to Obama? (0.00 / 0)
and what are their backgrounds?

That should tell us a lot about any administration that he would run.

Not that the media would ever think to focus there.

Clinton Campaign: Obama Can't Win Because He's Too Liberal | 35 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox