So, here’s the thing: I still don’t have as big a problem with the red phone ad, in isolation, as many other observers do. It was nasty business, to be sure. But c’est la guerre. By contrast, I still do think that Hillary’s Commander in Chief mash note to Old Man McCain was appalling, totally beyond the pale. If you look at the two together, though, now it seems that we’re talking about a special kind of stupid.
And here’s why: as TPM has noted, Hillary’s decision to make this race about experience and foreign policy chops likely isn’t going to do her much good against Obama. Because she has no foreign policy chops to speak of. And her experience argument sits on a pretty shaky foundation. In fairness, the same is true, on both counts, when it comes to Obama. But Old Man McCain, on the other hand, appears comparatively experienced and strong on foreign policy. These are his issues. Hillary, in other words, has shifted the game to the playing field on which McCain has the greatest perceived advantage over both of the potential Democratic nominees. (Though at least Obama can say that he was against the Iraq War from the get-go.)
Hillary’s strategery, then, might provide some short-term gains. But her tactics lead nowhere over the long haul. Or at least nowhere good. For either her or for Obama. You don’t believe me? Then listen to McCain aid, Randy Scheunemann, who says: “Please keep running those 3:00 a.m. ads about who you want to answer the phone, because we like those.” And why wouldn’t the McCain camp like them? Most Americans, when polled on the issue, think that Old Man McCain is the best person to answer that phone call. By a wide margin. Well played, Hillary. Well played.

30 comments
March 9, 2008 at 12:14 am
KRK
Only a tiny disagreement: I think it’s a mistake to conflate the impact on Clinton and Obama of their mutual lack of foreign policy chops and experience in a general election against McCain. Obama doesn’t concede that experience is the relevant consideration; Clinton has made it her primary argument. This has to matter in how either would challenge McCain and the believability of those challenges.
Yes, Clinton’s recent “we’ve crossed the threshold” statements are a reckless gift to the McCain campaign that it would be fair for the Obama campaign to consider unforgivable. But he has a response that requires him to concede nothing to Clinton or McCain. (Whether it would be effective is a open question, but it is consistent.) Clinton has put all her eggs in the experience basket and, when (finally) pressed for specifics about what her experience is, she grossly exaggerates every single example, to the point that she looks ridiculous. McCain would have a field day with that.
March 9, 2008 at 4:28 am
silbey
HRC’s not going to get to the general election unless she wins the nomination.
March 9, 2008 at 5:46 am
wren
Open Question. Has La Bruja ever openly criticized El Viejo Loco? Ever? Has she ever said why she’d be a better president? I don’t think she’s been asked. We know they like to trade shots of Estonian vodka. Anything else except Iraq?
March 9, 2008 at 6:52 am
jim
Sooner or later each candidate’s strategies for getting round the fact that they’re not white males would be brought to bear against them. Clinton is Tough, because Women Are Weak; Obama is Non-threatening, because Black Men Are Scary. Obama has already used against Clinton actions that she took in order to look Tough. Clinton is now using against Obama that he has taken pains to look Non-threatening. It’s not about her foreign policy chops; it’s about the obverse of his trans-racial appeal.
March 9, 2008 at 7:54 am
bdr
HRC would rather lose to McCain and run again in 2012 than risk Obama beating McCain and HRC never being president.
March 9, 2008 at 9:23 am
silbey
HRC would rather lose to McCain and run again in 2012 than risk Obama beating McCain and HRC never being president.
I’m not sure you can know this, unless you have a direct line to HRC?
And the “lose a general election and get nominated for the next one” is not exactly a frequently-winning plan. How often do losing nominees get renominated?
March 9, 2008 at 11:09 am
ART
Do you call Clinton Hillary because you want to differentiate between her and Mr. Clinton? You used last names for the other two candidates.
March 9, 2008 at 11:30 am
eyeingtenure
We call Hillary Hillary because she does. Have you seen her posters?
March 9, 2008 at 11:54 am
bitchphd
Hillary’s decision to make this race about experience and foreign policy chops likely isn’t going to do her much good against Obama.
Meh. The reasons you cite don’t matter to most voters (e.g., my dad). She’s been someone they “know” for more than a decade; in their minds, she’s got experience. In fact, she’s been a household word about as long as McCain. Though he does have the “war hero” advantage, plus of course the Republicans = defense prejudice operating for him on those grounds.
Am I allowed to berate you for calling her “Hillary” rather than “Clinton”?
March 9, 2008 at 11:56 am
bitchphd
And re. Eyeingtenure’s comment: she calls herself that because, given reality, she’s decided to embrace the sexism that uses women’s first names rather than fight it–which is a good move, politically. That doesn’t mean that we have to perpetuate the underlying problem, though.
March 9, 2008 at 12:27 pm
urbino
Really? I honestly thought it was, as ART suggests, just to distinguish her from her husband and make it clear which Clinton was under discussion; much like the 2 younger Bushes are known as W and Jeb, not Bush and Bush.
March 9, 2008 at 12:56 pm
ari
Yes, I call her Hillary because there are two Clintons running in the primary. Or at least there have been until recently. I do, also, think that she provides me some cover for my decision by calling herself Hillary. That said, if I’ve offended Art or B — or anyone else — I’ll be happy to call her Senator Clinton from now on. Unless I forget. In which case, please remind me.
Also, B, my dad feels the same way. He won’t vote for Obama because Obama’s too young, too close to my age. And the Power flap did nothing to allay my dad’s fears about the Obama camp’s inexperience. But my dad, as opposed to yours, believes that McCain has much more experience than Senator Clinton. Dad still won’t vote for Old Man McCain, mind you. But he views Senator Clinton’s claims of experience, as compared to McCain’s, to be ridiculous. And the poll I’ve linked to in the post above suggests that dad isn’t alone. By any means.
March 9, 2008 at 1:07 pm
ari
Also also, Silbey, if I’m reading you right, I agree: these ads are Senator Clinton’s last-ditch effort at prolonging the race. But I’m just saying that if she manages to win the nomination, elevating McCain will damage her chances as much as the ads will damage Obama’s. Actually, more so. Because Obama has counter-arguments that will work (perhaps) against McCain in the general: “Experience? No, judgement. I recognized that this war was a bad idea from the get-go.” Which means, like I said in the original post, Senator Clinton’s strategy is pretty myopic.
And KRK, I think we agree, too. My point was that it has been Senator Clinton who has tried to make the Democratic primary contest about experience. And that’s going to hurt not just Obama (if it does) but also her (if she wins).
March 9, 2008 at 2:34 pm
eric
Hey, Ari, I thought you were dropping out.
March 9, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Colin
There’s also something precious about using the first name, a false familiarity, as though one knows the candidate personally. OTOH I’ve noticed in my conversations with HRC supporters that they routinely call her “Hillary.” My guess is that the HRC campaign discovered that in their focus groups and went with it.
I still think “experience” is a weird portmanteau term for a lot of different things voters either haven’t worked out fully or won’t discuss. BitchPhD is surely right that it loops back into the question of whether voters think they know someone (and hence back into the first-name question), but what is the basis on which people decide they “know” a celebrity? The part of the HRC equation that merits respect is that women who have faced bullshit in the workplace figure that they share that experience with her, that understanding.
If I can quote a nice example from from http://tamasha.typepad.com/tamasha/2008/02/and-well-rememb.html (also an example of the familiar use of “Hillary”):
Aatya: Sweetie, can I make one last plea for you to vote for Hillary?
Tamasha: Um, it’s not really going to work, but tell me why you’re voting for her.
Aatya: Women have to vote for her.
T: Yeah, see, that’s not enough for me. Her being a woman, I mean.
Aatya: Women my age have to vote for her.
T: Huh?
Aatya: You haven’t had to face the glass ceilings that I have, working with men who have meetings in the men’s room and come back out zipping up their pants making proclamations.
T: Fair enough. But Obama has more things going for him that appeal to me, and he has specific ideas and beliefs that more precisely match up with mine.
Aatya: Just wait. Just wait until you have to go into the bathroom with these men while they pee and make decisions.
March 9, 2008 at 3:19 pm
urbino
I still think “experience” is a weird portmanteau term…
President is a weird portmanteau office, resulting in weird portmanteau votes.
March 9, 2008 at 3:57 pm
silbey
But I’m just saying that if she manages to win the nomination, elevating McCain will damage her chances as much as the ads will damage Obama’s. Actually, more so.
Maybe (though we could argue about that). But if the calculation is “lose nomination” vs. “win nomination, but weakened in the general”, the latter may well seem preferable to the former. Nor does it seem an unreasonable choice to me.
March 9, 2008 at 4:02 pm
ari
Not unreasonable, no. Particularly not if she really believes that either she or McCain are better choices to answer the phone at 3 am. And it’s entirely possible that she believes that.
March 9, 2008 at 4:08 pm
urbino
But, of course, if she believes the latter, she shouldn’t be the Democratic Party’s nominee for president.
March 9, 2008 at 4:13 pm
ari
Correct.
March 9, 2008 at 4:23 pm
ari
But not out our call. (Get it? Call. That’s comedy gold.)
March 9, 2008 at 4:25 pm
urbino
Oy!
But it sort of is.
March 10, 2008 at 11:44 am
urbino
This is a good start on the week Obama needs.
March 10, 2008 at 11:46 am
ari
Yes, I saw that (of course, since we’re the same person). And yes, I think this may be the beginning of the end of the bad news cycles.
March 10, 2008 at 12:01 pm
urbino
Meanwhile, Hillary seems to be engaging in some classic Clintonian sharp pleading.
March 10, 2008 at 12:06 pm
ari
Yeah, I saw that as well. I don’t know what to think. It strikes me as so stupid, so likely to alienate voters, that it’s gotta be a ploy to stay in Obama’s head. I really can’t imagine any other rationale.
All of that said, now Spitzer’s the only news that matters. So it won’t really matter what Obama or Clinton do for the next few days, including, I imagine, winning MS. Which wasn’t going to count anyway, right?
March 10, 2008 at 12:22 pm
urbino
Right. There are automatic delegates, elected delegates, caucus delegates, and black delegates.
March 10, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Vance Maverick
What, they let them vote too?
March 10, 2008 at 12:44 pm
ari
Every five African-American delegates are given three votes. Everyone knows this.
March 11, 2008 at 8:26 am
A R T
Oh hell, I’m not offended. Was just pointing it out :) Amused me, I guess. The race isn’t that amusing, but I’ve been spared the posters and have just gotten the third-hand news stories about who insulted whom, or McCain laughing, such things.