Hillary's Turn

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 16, 2007 8:26 AM

For a few brief shining moments, Hillary stopped running in the general election and threw some punches at the Democrats sharing the stage with her.

She spent days in debate prep, and clearly her team decided it was time to get out of her defensive crouch. Before, I had the impression that Clinton felt she would be descending from her lofty perch if she bothered to beat up on Obama and Edwards.

At last night's CNN faceoff in Las Vegas, Hillary chided Obama for a health care plan that would leave 15 million Americans without insurance--not exactly a low blow, but not pattycake, either. (Obama fumed about Hillary's "mandates" but couldn't deny that his proposal would cover fewer people.)

Minutes later, when Edwards rattled off what he sees as Hillary's heresies (not ending the war fast enough, supporting Bush, Cheney and the neocons on Iran), Hillary accused him of "throwing mud." (Wasn't his criticism as issue-based as her swipe at Barack?) And, for good measure, she charged Edwards with flip-flopping by noting he wasn't for universal health care back in '04.

My sense is that after two weeks of bad press about waffling and planted questions, Hillary and her brain trust decided it was time to put some points on the board rather than playing for a tie. In other words, she's got a huge lead (except in Iowa), but sitting on a lead is not always the best campaign strategy.

A few other points: Hillary triangulated away from her husband in conceding that "NAFTA was a mistake to the extent it did not deliver what we hoped it would." She had no effective response, after accusing Obama of wanting to hit the middle class with a huge Social Security tax hike, when he said only 6 percent of Americans make more than the $97,000 level where the tax is now capped. And none of the Democrats asked (Hillary wasn't) would concede that the surge is making progress in Iraq, except for Obama allowing that it "is making a difference in certain neighborhoods."

Obama, by the way, seemed flat, and inexplicably seemed to bobble the driver's license question that tripped up Hillary last time.

I freely concede, though, that more people will be talking about the Barry Bonds indictment this morning.

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton stepped down from her front-runner's pedestal and hit back at her Democratic rivals Thursday night in a feisty debate that drew out differences over immigration, foreign policy and the proper tone of an increasingly harsh campaign," says the L.A. Times.

"The Democratic candidates for president had hardly stepped on stage for their debate here Thursday night when the political insults started dropping faster than Flying Elvises," says the Chicago Tribune.

"Hillary Clinton swung back at her two main rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination last night, rebuking them for changing their positions on healthcare and portraying herself as the most experienced and qualified candidate for her party's nomination," says the Boston Globe.

"Hillary Clinton took off the gloves and hit her chief Democratic rivals hard and often Thursday night, knocking them back on their heels," says the New York Daily News.

"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton shifted to a much more assertive tone in a debate Thursday night by going directly after her opponents, issuing a stern warning that Democrats should stop 'throwing mud' and adopting tactics 'right out of the Republican playbook,' " says the New York Times.

"John Edwards and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois did not shy away from the fight, criticizing Mrs. Clinton for refusing to provide detailed plans to deal with Social Security, Iraq and Iran. Mr. Obama took on Mrs. Clinton more directly than he had before over health care, while Mr. Edwards attacked her as a defender of a Washington system 'that is rigged and is corrupt.'

"Much of the debate had a confrontational edge and freewheeling tone, with the leading candidates trying to draw sharp contrasts with pointed language. Mrs. Clinton even said she was wearing an 'asbestos' pantsuit, while Senator Christopher J. Dodd worried about 'a shrillness to the debate.' "

But the best lead of the night goes to Roger Simon: "The (rhymes with rich) is back."

You can do that sort of thing on the Internet.

Some other online reactions, starting with the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder: "Clinton did not sound any obvious false notes, nor did she strike confusing or conflicting notes, and, as a bonus, she got an entire minute and a half to make her rah-rah appeal to women. Clinton had the most at stake, and she arguably gave her most commanding performance to date."

NBC's Chuck Todd: Clinton really benefitted from the audience responses; I'd love to know who got tickets for this debate, whether one campaign was allowed to get more tix than another. Because the booing by the Clinton supporters when Edwards or Obama confronted Clinton were distracting to the candidates and did throw them off every now and then."

Andrew Sullivan: "Her more aggressive rebuttals led to a few moments of bossy screechiness, and her careful parsing of everything continued, diamonds and pearls included . . . And that whole passive-aggressive crap about 'throwing mud' and 'Republican talking points' drove me once again up the wall."

Ramesh Ponnuru: "Clinton won. And not just in the if-she-doesn't-lose-she-wins sense. She just flat-out won. Much of the press wants her to stumble to have a better race, but it didn't happen."

An interesting bit of media criticism from Obama, who got rock-star press when he first jumped into the race. The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza reports:

"I asked Obama whether he thought that journalists 'respect' Clinton for being so good at politics. 'Absolutely. I don't THINK that--' he began, at which point Robert Gibbs, his communications director, interrupted to say that the correct word was 'revere.' Obama smiled and added, 'I think a classic example was when Adam Nagourney writes on the front page of the New York Times an admiring piece about how Hillary has finessed the fact that she voted for the war and gotten people to forget about it.'

"The article, which was co-written by Patrick Healy and published early last August with the headline 'SLOWLY, CLINTON SHIFTS ON WAR, QUIETING FOES,' was hardly admiring. When I asked Nagourney about Obama's contention, he replied in an e-mail, 'This was a very straightforward and simple story: reporting the fact that Mrs. Clinton had repositioned herself on the war in a significant way, and had done so apparently unnoticed by the press and--dare I say?--her opponents.' "

My story on Newsweek hiring Karl Rove as a contributor drew plenty of comment, which is hardly a shock. "Readers will have to decide if he's simply an apologist," Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham tells me.

Jane Hamsher at FiredogLake:

"Newsweek is hiring Karl Rove to be a spokesperson for the 'right' to balance Markos of Daily Kos. As the man who took Bush's approval rating from 88% to 25%, I think he's a perfect."

Lots of headlines about the McCain incident with the woman who called Hillary that word. The women at Slate's XX Factor blog are not pleased.

Melinda Henneberger: "Thank you, Madam; the potty-mouth McCain supporter (or was she another plant?) who called Hillary the B word just handed Clinton five points minimum -- and the kind of gender-based martyrdom she so benefited from when Rick Lazio looked like he was zooming in to throttle her during their 2000 senatorial race. Brava!"

Meghan O'Rourke: "I agree with Dahlia and Emily that gender is a big part of it for many of the Hillary hatas out there. A while back I mentioned a study that suggests we see 'manly women' as 'pretenders,' which does seem to suggest that lots of us murkily associate not toeing-the-gender script with phoniness. Meanwhile, I don't think the media's new focus on 'gender' is working out that well for Hillary; it seems like she polled better when we weren't contantly being reminded that she is a . . . woman and her competitors are . . . men."

How did that get out?

Melinda: "Despite my irrational and - until now, at least -- enduring soft spot for John McCain , laughing one's senatorial socks off when a colleague is called the B word is no less objectionable than if he had indulged a (theoretical) Obama hater."

And this scooplet from "Inside Edition": "The McCain supporter is former New York advertising executive Linda Burke. Burke, who once lived on the city's exclusive Upper East Side, just off Fifth Avenue, now resides in the ritzy retirement community of Hilton Head."

Still, good news for McCain (remember when the media buried him last summer?) in this Fox poll:

"While John McCain trails front-runner Rudy Giuliani in the race for the Republican nomination, slightly more Americans see McCain as a straight-talker and as honest and trustworthy than Giuliani; furthermore, for the second month in row McCain performs better against leading Democrat Hillary Clinton in hypothetical matchups than any other top-tier Republican."

Rudy leads McCain 33 to 17, with Fred Thompson at 12.

The Republican candidates are not exactly models of consistency, as National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru points out:

"Mitt Romney is the most notorious flip-flopper in the field, and his most notorious flip-flop concerned abortion. He claims that a conversation with scientists about human cloning made him see how abortion had devalued human life. Nobody can prove that Romney isn't telling the truth, but nobody quites believe him, either . . .

"Rudy Giuliani presents himself as a man who respects conservatives too much to pander to them. Social conservatives, he argues, should trust him more since he doesn't alter his positions to suck up to them. But Giuliani has switched his positions on guns, partial-birth abortion, immigration, and civil unions, in each case moving rightward. He has been pretty consistent in his flip-flop methodology: He finds some detail that justifies the switch. The detail is usually bogus . . .

"When Al Gore flipped from pro-life to pro-choice during his first run for president, one of his aides told a reporter that his strategy for dealing with his past was to 'deny, deny, deny.' Fred Thompson seems to have copied his abortion strategy from the man whose Senate seat he took. The difference is that it's a pro-choice past that he denies having . . .

"John McCain's main flip-flop has been on taxes. He voted against Bush's tax cuts, but now he wants to keep them . . .

"I'd say that Thompson and Giuliani go about their flip-flopping with a bit more dishonesty than Romney and McCain. But if you want edification, look away from the whole field."

Every four years, without fail, some campaign engages in push-polling. You know, Do you support Candidate X? Would you feel differently if you knew he had a history of spousal abuse? A contributor to MyDD got such a call from a purported pollster:

"Which of the following is the most important reason not to support Hillary Clinton? 1) (can't remember, I think it was about her taking lobbyist money) 2) she would be a weak general election candidate, or 3) she won't bring the change we need. I answered number 2.

"Next question: which is the most important reason not to support John Edwards? 1) he is too liberal to win a general election, or 2) he chose to continue the presidential campaign instead of staying home with his wife who has cancer. I said I rejected the premise of this question and refused to answer.

"End of survey. I pressed her on who paid for the call, but all she would say was that Central Research was an independent firm."

Politico finds an Iowa resident with a similar experience: "There were 'lots of negatives on Romney,' said the recepient of the call in an e-mail, including mentions of his 'flip-flops,' hiring illegal immigrants as landscapers and extensive discussion of Mormonism. 'Statements were on baptizing the dead, the Book of Mormon being on the level of the Bible, and one about equating it to a cult,' said the Iowan, deeming them 'common criticisms of Mormonism.' "

CBS responds to Dan Rather's lawsuit, dismissing his charges as "bizarre allegations," "self-serving allegations" and "far-fetched allegations."

Salon announces that Sid Blumenthal is leaving"to join the Hillary Clinton campaign as a senior advisor. His incisive thinking and incomparable writing will be missed. Sidney was our Washington bureau chief during the 2004 election, presided over one of the best accounts of George W. Bush's missing year in the Texas Air National Guard, and has been a weekly Salon columnist since 2003."

Jack Shafer says the coverage of the Hollywood strike has been remarkably tilted toward the writers:

"Why the journalistic fixation on the strike? The national impact of the strike (even a lengthy one) won't be great. But dailies such as the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, whose bottom lines depend on movie advertising acreage, will feel the pain if Hollywood closes shop.

"Newspaper reporters tend to identify with their cinematic brethren because writers tend to look out for other writers no matter what genre they work in."

Speaking of the strike, it's not quite "The Daily Show," but Jon Stewart's writers have put together a very Daily-like video.

Get this: Rupert Murdoch thought about buying the New York Times?

"Why Murdoch would disclose his recent infatuation with the Times is unclear, especially if he's now ruled out a takeover attempt," Newsweek says. "One motivation might have been simply psy-ops--military argot for psychological warfare. In short, the wily mogul may be trying to rattle New York Times Co. chairman and newspaper publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. According to a pivotally situated Times employee , the mogul wrote a personal note to Sulzberger on or around the day that he won the battle for Dow Jones. 'Let the war begin,' the note read, according to this source, who requested anonymity in discussing a sensitive topic."

By the way, e-mail is now dead. Or terminally unhip. Or something.