Despite their outwardly flippant and dismissive attitude toward the painful results of the Iowa caucuses (HRC coming out with quotes today abut how the caucuses “don’t matter” in the overall race…), the Hillary campaign is in the midst of a frantic retooling effort in preparation for tomorrow’s New Hampshire debate and the primary itself on Tuesday.
Hillary Rodham Clinton opened a five-day campaign to target what her aides call Barack Obama’s inexperience, delivering sharper attacks against the Iowa winner that are likely to become more personal and negative, according to Democrats familiar with the evolving strategy.
“Of all the people running for president, I’ve been the most vetted, the most investigated and — my goodness — the most innocent, it turns out,” she told a cheering crowd in an airport hangar. During the new stump speech, Clinton took a series of easy policy questions from a friendly audience and answered them with jabs that were absent from her more sedate Iowa talks.
In both its format and content, the punchy speech was intended to prevent the Illinois senator from coasting on his Iowa victory, and to pull him into what her advisers hope will be a stumble amid the new scrutiny he faces as the candidates approach Tuesday’s primary here.
In some ways it’s a copy of the unsuccessful arguments paraded around Iowa over the last month: Hillary’s the most “experienced”, “electable,” “presidential-ready,” etc. That’s being touted in the Granite State. But her campaign is also cranking up an even harsher anti-Obama effort with the clear intent of pulverizing him out of the race by February. They’re not pulling any punches, labeling Obama a “liberal” extremist who wants “socialized health care” and higher taxes - among other horrid things. Is it just us, or does this seem to be GOP-style talking points? The campaign has even “directed” ABC News to some unflattering clips from a couple of years ago showing Obama railing against mandatory minimum sentences for criminals and promising to support a single-payer health care system - something he is against doing these days. The piece comes across as a free ad for Hillary. The piece airs like a free ad for HRC…
This massive push rings a bit hollow when really pressed, however. It’s not all that different from the Iowa message and plays into Obama’s stump speech that “change” is needed and only he can provide it. These hardball tricks can only get you so far - and maybe not very in an election year when majorities in both parties wanted a major infusion of fresh faces and ideas into the political landscape.
One other tidbit learned from Iowa for the Hillary camp is to work toward a tighter last-minute organization. A conference call this afternoon featuring Terry McAuliffe and Hillary’s New Hampshire campaign director was filled with glowing references to how “solid” their NH election day organization is set up to be. Underlying feeling is that the effort on the ground was one of the many failings on Thursday.
UPDATE: Hillary campaign event in New Hampshire where she tells NH voters to “wait a minute” before declaring Obama the eventual winner.
Sphere: Related Content
2 Responses for "New Hampshire: Hillary’s new strategy hits Obama…hard"
I agree with Hillary Clinton that Obama is inexperienced and there is a concern there.
My obversations of Obama: I had started supporting Obama in 2004! in Texas, and did alot to talk him up here and at the University of Texas. I had photographed him 3 times in close quarters, and talked to him directly for a few minutes at one. I had made contributions to him the first 2 quarters of 2007. I was not the only one who put in ALOT of work to help him. Has his campaign found ways to get us involved or showed appreciation for our efforts? NO! His support in Austin has eroded in large areas, and his last rally here was MUCH smaller than the large Feb. 07 rally, that drew 20,000 people. His only contact with those of us, like myself who wanted to support him - has been “give me money” email and “hey come out to my rally!” email.
When I tried to give my concerns to the Obama people repeatedly!! by email and by phone, it was largely disregarded. When my concerns to a phone solicitor hit home at the time, and she gave me the national phone number, that national person’s attitude was “hey there are too many people for us to follow up with” and we are focusing on the first 3 states. There was a strong arrogance with the person, as if Obama knows all and doesn’t need any input on things from anyone. Is this giving a voice to those who are not lobbyists? Granted, the top person can’t hear from everyone (despite Obama’s rhetoric), but most campaigns understand that you need levels of leadership in a campaign to fully engage people nationally. This same mechanism is also required as President - since you need more than a podium and TV to truly engage people. While Obama gives lip service to this notion, his action and follow through are horribly lacking afterwards. Obama’s is so restricted at the national level, they don’t even engage voluntary groups like “Texans for Obama” - despite their efforts to help him.
There is a local young candidate here for city council who was like that, great initial candidate with charm and apparent charisma - but after winning he was largely dismissive of those that supported him. That city councilman has turned out to be one of the worst office holders in Austin. He tried to be friend to everyone, and he has come out to be friend to no one. Why? Inexperience! While Obama wants to have everyone have a voice equal to lobbyists and insiders, he is achieving this by excluding most everyone from input. While he has courted Iowa, NH, and SC closely, do not be mistaken - after you vote you won’t hear or have any way to contact or be involved in his campaign, in my opinion - other than repeated “give me money” emails.
Having met all the top D candidates and also McCain on the R side, the two candidates that I think are the most personable when they are not wanting something from you are - Hillary and McCain. I was within the Secret Service bubble with Hillary for 3 hours and she was incredibly gracious and willing to listen to anyone. Obama was a rock star (in a negative way) in a similar position, and pretty much gives a smile, great giving speeches, but far LESS effective one-on-one than Hillary.
McCain also was willing to talk to people honestly, and I think also is someone that has incredible experience - and is not a gamble. I saw McCain get hit with a tough, emotional question from an audience member about health care, and he intently listened, and then gave his answer starting with, “you probably won’t like my answer, but here it is …” While I don’t agree with McCain on all issues, he is genuine and capable. For those independents who do not like Hillary, I might suggest strongly giving a second look to McCain.
As an independent moderate, I hope my insight from Texas can help you all in NH better judge these candidates from a different perspective - the back side of their campaigns (the side you all don’t see!).
Take care.
James, in Austin, Texas,
Why do I smell sour grapes. What did experience buy us -
1, A vote to go to war(Like Cheney)?
2. A vote to call a government entity of a country we diagree with a terrorist group?
We definately don’t need that experience. So if you hear arrogance its because you ideas was tested and resulted in a disaster.
Good luck redefining your ’sour grapes’
Leave a reply