Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (18098)	11/24/2007 1:29:42 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Respond to of 224858

Mrs. Clinton's Real Campaign Weakness By Kimberley Strassel, wsj.com Nov 23, 2007 You might not think one lousy debate performance, or one silly planted question, would jolt a storming campaign. Then again, you might not be Hillary Clinton. If the last few weeks have shown anything, it's that Mrs. Clinton has some weak spots. What isn't yet clear is whether her Democratic opponents have the time, or the will, to exploit them. Until recently, the biggest thing going for Hillary is that she has appeared "inevitable." This is no accident. Mrs. Clinton may not be as naturally gifted as her husband, but she does have access to his playbook. One of Bill's more brilliant strategies when he ran in 1992 was to campaign as if he were already the nominee. It gave an otherwise little-known governor the legitimacy to sideline his opponents. Mrs. Clinton has made this tactic a cornerstone of her campaign, and it had been working. During debates she frequently speaks on "behalf of everyone" on the stage. She chooses moments wisely to make statements no Democrat disagrees with ("George Bush is ruining this country"), leaving the competition nodding in miserable agreement. Her insistence that she and her Democratic colleagues should keep this race focused on their arch-enemy was equally savvy. With everyone piling on Dubya, nobody was piling on her. Add to this Mrs. Clinton's stash of money, the vaunted infrastructure, the endorsements and her superstar status. The Clinton campaign has flogged all of these to leave the impression she's the only player in the game. The trick is that there's little room for error. The media hates a winner as much as it hates a preordained election, and so it has seized on her missteps to blitz the papers with stories suggesting she's not Teflon. For a campaign betting so much on perception, this new doubt is not good. Mrs. Clinton's opponents have also got wise to her "inevitability" game, and no one more so than John Edwards. His decision to unleash the big guns on her Iraq vote and "dirty" corporate money has already yielded him a victory. She's deigned to acknowledge he's actually on the stage and even answered some of his criticisms, which in turn has suggested to audiences that she views him as a threat. His strategy of going for broke in Iowa is also aimed at cracking the Clinton juggernaut. The best way to prove to voters that someone isn't inevitable is to beat her in the first race in the nation. Grateful as that nation is to Mr. Edwards for livening up the debate and unleashing some healthy Clinton criticism from other campaigns, we're also just 40 days from Iowa. The long, gentle treatment by opponents allowed Mrs. Clinton to build up such a sizable lead the attacks might now come a little too late. They also may remain a little too little. Yes, Mr. Edwards is hitting Mrs. Clinton on foreign policy. Yes, Barack Obama is taking it to her on trade. But consider this: What none of her Democratic opponents has broached--what has so far been a super-off-limits-high-security-no-fly-zone--is any direct mention of Mrs. Clinton's ethically challenged period as first lady. Interesting, given that character is Mrs. Clinton's biggest problem. For all the Clinton protestations that they were the object of a conspiracy, the polls consistently show that even Democratic voters are queasy about her honesty. The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll of likely Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa--which puts Mr. Obama ahead--shows him beating her by 2-1 as the most honest and trustworthy candidate. Every bump on the Clinton campaign road has also been linked to her reputation as insincere. Norman Hsu made donations to many Democrats, but it was Mrs. Clinton's cache that dominated the headlines, thanks to the 1990s fund-raising scandals. Catching Mrs. Clinton in the act of planting a question revived the stereotype of a calculating lawyer from Arkansas. Flubbing one policy question among hundreds (on immigrant drivers' licenses) shouldn't be a big deal. But it reminds folks of a Clinton White House that specialized in double-talk and dissembling. Mrs. Clinton has all but broadcast that her greatest fear is that her opponents will reopen this can of Clinton creepy crawlies. Her refusal, which is growing news, to expedite the release of her records from her time as first lady, is one big sign. Her campaign's aggressive reaction to the merest hint of a personal comment by an opponent is another. It isn't clear the Clinton campaign is sitting on dirt on Barack Obama; but they're happy to have him think they are. Mr. Obama has come the closest to delving into Mrs. Clinton's past, though you need an Enigma machine to decode it. His campaign slogan is "Change We Can Believe In." (Translation: If you elect her, don't be surprised what she discovers in a box under a table.) He's mused about "character and judgment." (Translation: I don't trade in cattle futures.) Freudian psychology this is, Mortal Kombat it is not. Yet while the squeaky clean Mr. Obama may be best positioned to make a moral case against Mrs. Clinton, his own "politics of hope" has made it difficult to pull out the brass knuckles. The rest of Mrs. Clinton's opponents fear an attack on her ethics would backfire, allowing her to paint herself as a female victim. You can bet they've studied the video of Rick Lazio, Mrs. Clinton's 2000 Senate opponent, invading her debate space, and Mrs. Clinton's ensuing performance as flinching, defenseless woman. (Mr. Lazio sank like a rock.) She has suggested she's not above a repeat act, dispatching Bill to warn that "the boys" were being awfully "tough" on his wife. Some Democrats seem to be relying on Republicans to raise the character question. But liberal voters aren't listening to Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney, and if they were, they'd view GOP persecution as added reason to vote for her. Mrs. Clinton thinks so, having just unveiled an ad featuring Romney and McCain attacks. The Democratic debate has grown more personal in past days, with the barbs hitting ever closer to home. Whether this carries into a tougher discussion on Mrs. Clinton's character, who knows? It may just be inevitable. Ms. Strassel is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.