Ganging Up

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:41 AM

Barack Obama was getting all kinds of advice from pundits and bloggers heading into last night's Brian Williams/Tim Russert debate, and the gist of it is:

Attack Hillary. Slam her. Beat her. Whack her with a frying pan. Kick her. Whip her. You do want to be president, don't you?

Commentators are geniuses, as we all know, and much smarter than campaign managers. So they must be right about this. Of course, if it backfires, and Obama is seen as abandoning his high-road appeal and becoming just another attack-dog pol, they will be the first to criticize him for that, too.

Not coincidentally, the media benefit if Clinton-Obama turns into a slugfest, because reporters would much rather write about punches thrown and blows landed than polite exchanges on Social Security.

I'll come back to all the advice-giving in a moment, but first, some thoughts on the MSNBC debate:

Brian Williams asked Obama to attack Hillary with the very first question, citing his comments to the NYT that he intended to step up the rhetoric.

"Some of this stuff gets overhyped," Obama replied, although he had done the hyping in that interview.

Obama proceeded to accuse Clinton of changing her position on NAFTA, torture and the war, but in polite language.

Clinton's response? Touting her record of opposing President Bush's "failed policies" and ignoring Obama's criticism.

Tim Russert then handed the club to John Edwards, citing a release in which he accused Clinton of "doubletalk." Edwards accused her of defending a corrupt system and wanting to keep combat troops in Iraq.

Her response? Defending her 35-year record of fighting special interests on behalf of women and children, and ignoring Edwards's criticism.

Later, Williams asked Hillary about Rudy's criticism that she's never run anything. She again recited her record and noted the "perverse" nature of "the Republicans and their continuing obsession with me."

That, in a nutshell, was the Philadelphia debate (except for the part about Dennis Kucinich saying we should impeach Bush and Vice President Cheney and acknowledging that he saw a UFO). Her two main opponents were more aggressive--Obama warning against "another eight years of bickering" and Edwards ticking off her financial haul from lobbyists-- Hillary calmly defended herself but basically refused to engage. At times, it seemed like 4 against 1, with Brian and Tim repeatedly pressing Hillary as well.

Her worst moment: Kinda sorta defending Eliot Spitzer's plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants in New York but refusing to take a position. But if her goal was to appear unruffled, she pulled it off.

Hmm . . . Was Williams running out of material when he closed the debate by asking Barack how he'd dress up for Halloween?

Boston Globe: "Hillary Clinton came under relentless fire last night from fellow Democrats, who slammed her on issues ranging from Iran to Social Security, and all but called their rival a liar as they sought to slow down the New York senator's campaign momentum."

L.A. Times: "Clinton basically ignored the slings and arrows, coolly and calmly touting her record and promoting various plans she laid out. She also studiously avoided attacking Obama or Edwards -- which would have given them greater stature than she wished to bestow.

"Still, for perhaps the first time during this year's plethora of debates, Clinton hit some rough spots. When the discussion turned to two topics -- the release of records of her activities as first lady and driver licenses for illegal immigrants -- she gave answers that, at the least, allowed her rivals to effectively challenge her candor and consistency."

N.Y. Times: "Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York came under withering attack from the rest of the Democratic presidential field last night in a pitched two-hour debate that her opponents used to challenge her candor and electability and to portray her as enabling President Bush to prepare for an invasion of Iran . . .

"For all the attention Mr. Obama drew to himself coming into the debate, he was frequently overshadowed by former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who -- speaking more intensely -- repeatedly challenged Mrs. Clinton's credentials and credibility, and frequently seemed to make the case against Mrs. Clinton that Mr. Obama had promised to make."

Roger Simon: "We now know something that we did not know before: When Hillary Clinton has a bad night, she really has a bad night.

"In a debate against six Democratic opponents at Drexel University here Tuesday, Clinton gave the worst performance of her entire campaign. It was not just that her answer about whether illegal immigrants should be issued drivers' licenses was at best incomprehensible and at worst misleading. It was that for two hours she dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled."

All right, as promised, let's dig through the avalanche of here's-what-Obama-should-do, starting with the New Republic's Noam Scheiber:

"I think Obama's changing politics theme is too ambitious, since there's nothing in his resume that obviously suggests he'd be able to pull it off. (That's not to say he couldn't; just that it's not obvious that he could.) The more I think about it, the more I think the way to run would have been to spend a lot of time taking on Bush and the Republican Party--i.e., just worrying about 'changing political parties in the White House.'

"Imagine if Obama had directed his soaring rhetoric and youthful energy at the GOP. It would have a.) played to the partisan mood among Democrats, b.) actually been pretty hopeful and forward-looking, because once he got done indicting the other guys he could easily have pivoted to what he would do differently, and c.) actually showcased the contrasts between him and Hillary pretty effectively, since her critique of Bush is more pedestrian and small-bore than his."

The New Republic has still more advice, from Michael Crowley:

"I think the problem here may be that Obama remains reluctant to really go after Hillary's character--to portray her as unethical and dishonest on some fundamental level. So he is taking what could be an attack on sneaky Clintonian phoniness and trying to weave it into his larger critique of 'conventional thinking' in Washington. But in this case I just don't think it fits."

Newsweek's Howard Fineman practically put his pre-debate advice in memo form:

"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 . . .

"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."

The prescription from Arianna Huffington is reminiscent of what a producer said in Michael Kinsley's ear the first time he co-hosted "Crossfire": " Get mad!"

"If Obama's not willing to fight for the nomination, what chance will he have in the general election, when things really get tough?

"Be careful asking him that, though. According to the New York Times, 'he glared and responded no when asked if he lacked the stomach for confrontational politics.'

"It would be nice if he showed that same anger at the current political conditions -- and those responsible for them -- that presumably led him to run for president in the first place.

"While Obama's newly professed assertiveness is welcome, it remains to be seen if he really intends to follow through. Just last week, Obama sent out a mailing that was more passive than aggressive. After noting that he was the only candidate to oppose the war from the beginning, it adds, 'while others went along, Obama opposed Bush's war plans.'

"Others? Gee, who could that be? We know who your opponent is, Senator Obama. You're running against Hillary Clinton. It's okay to say her name. The Republican candidates certainly seem to have no problem saying it. Again and again and again. And the reason is because they think she's going to be the nominee. And the reason they think that is because even as late as October 23rd, the Obama campaign seemed reluctant to take Clinton on directly."

Or maybe, as Rich Lowry, this is some sort of literary exercise?

"So far, what Obama seems set to get out of his presidential campaign is yet another memoir -- this one an agonized, deeply personal account of how his campaign went nowhere despite all the media hoopla, crowds, and fundraising. It turns out that voters aren't as interested in Barack Obama as Barack Obama is.

"Like Jacob grappling with the angel, Obama, Obama has been wrestling with his own conscience the entire campaign and has come up lame. He has engaged in a running commentary on whether the tactics of his own campaign -- down to specific press releases -- live up to his standard of audacious hopefulness. Left unclear is why anyone else besides Barack Obama should care. The insular, self-obsessed campaign of her chief rival is one of the reasons Hillary Clinton has had as good a 90-day run as anyone in presidential politics in recent memory . . .

"All year, Obama has offered voters airy clich¿s about hope, change and bipartisanship, and assurances that he personally embodies all of the above . . .

"Obama likely will go the way of that other earnest liberal, Bill Bradley, who high-mindedly let himself be run over by Al Gore in 2000. Oh, well. It'll be a great book."

Obama has also been bashed for appearing with a previously gay singer who aims to cure people of homosexuality. Americablog's John Aravosis is particularly appalled:

"Obama keeps making clear that he hasn't learned his lesson, he doesn't understand what he did wrong, and he will continue to coddle those who attack our community so long as it wins him votes and money. His own staff admitted as much to the Washington Post:

" Aid es to Barack Obama's who are concerned about his fortunes nationally cast his decision not to kick Donnie McClurkin off the program of a gospel concert the campaign was hosting as a principled decision, part of the Illinois senator's constant rhetoric of bringing people together even if they disagree. Aides in South Carolina cited a more obvious consideration: despite the singer's controversial comments in the past about homosexuality, which he has likened to a 'curse' and said is a choice, he would be a big draw.

"So how many votes and how much money is a bashed gay worth to Senator Obama?"

Kos sounds fed up as well:

"Obama and his campaign have had a bad week. The worst I have seen from any candidate this presidential cycle. A candidate whose entire rationale for running was to elevate the discourse, unite our country, and end the politics of division has just been exposed as cynical and clueless, embracing some of the worst hatred and divisiveness in our society today.

"And at a time when he's trying to make an issue of Hillary's 'judgment' on Iraq and now Iran, he's shown little judgment in pretending that a rabidly anti-gay gospel singer wouldn't use his microphone on the big stage (with the national media paying attention) to, well, spread his rabidly anti-gay gospel."

The backdrop for all these Obama pieces, of course, is the CW that the Hillary bandwagon can't be stopped. At the Weekly Standard, Dean Barnett questions the received wisdom:

"Thomas B. Edsall writes that Clinton is 'going for the kill' in Iowa:

The decision of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign to send 100 or more new staffers into Iowa demonstrates that she and her aides have determined to their own satisfaction that she can cripple Barack Obama in the first-in-the-nation caucus. . . Clinton's burst of hiring is a declaration that she intends to go for a knockout punch.

"Couldn't you also say this move by Clinton suggests that her campaign is seriously worried about Obama winning Iowa? That the campaign recognizes it is more vulnerable than it appears? Such an interpretation does not comport with the current Hillary-is-unstoppable media storyline, of course. But that doesn't mean it's wrong."

Former GOP spokesman Patrick Ruffini sees another troubling sign for Hillary, citing a post by Jim Geraghty:

"Pollster Scott Rasmussen just shared this fascinating observation in an interview: When you average the head-to-head matchups with Hillary Clinton vs. any of the Republicans, she's always getting 46 to 49 percent against any of them. 'When we polled her against Ron Paul, she got 48 percent of the vote. When we polled on Ron Paul among people who knew who Ron Paul is, she got 48 percent of the vote. When we polled among people who didn't know who Ron Paul is, she got 48 percent of the vote.'

"Basically, Republicans can run a stuffed animal against Hillary and still get 48% of the vote. Only worse. Ron Paul is widely despised by elements of the Republican base. A number of conservatives I know would bolt or sit on their hands if General Zod came down and made sure Ron Paul were the nominee. So what does it say he trails by 10 points? . . .

"Hillary not breaking 50% against a guy who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve is a leading indicator of her fundamental weakness in the general election."

Maybe the Ron Paul factor is stronger than we thought.