Hillary's dilemma

The final (?) stretch of the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination begins with tonight's debate in Austin. In preparation for which, the New York Times asks: Can Hillary afford to go negative on Obama? Can she afford not to go negative?

When Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton meets Senator Barack Obama at a one-on-one debate in Austin on Thursday night, one of her final opportunities to change the course of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, she will again face the challenge that has repeatedly stymied her: how to discredit her popular opponent without hurting herself.

Even now, after a string of defeats, her advisers are divided over how to proceed as they head toward what could be her last stands, in Ohio and Texas on March 4.

Some — led by Mark Penn, her chief strategist — have been pushing Mrs. Clinton to draw sharper and deeper contrasts with Mr. Obama, arguing that she has no other option, campaign officials said.

Others, particularly Mandy Grunwald, her media adviser, have pushed for a less aggressive approach, arguing that attacks would not help Mrs. Clinton’s campaign in an environment in which she is increasingly appearing to struggle, aides said.

My default setting would be assume that Mark Penn is wrong. ;) But really, I think Hillary's in a no-win situation here. Polls show that most Democratic voters already like both candidates; they just like Obama better. So Hillary isn't going to change the course of the race simply by staying positive. Saying "look at me, I'm awesome!" isn't going to sway Obama's supporters, because most of them already think she's awesome; they just think Obama is more awesome.

So she needs to go negative (or to "draw contrasts"). But she can't, because if she does, she'll a) look desperate, b) turn voters off (voters hate negative campaigning, even when they're in the process of being swayed by it), and c) cause the media to say repeatedly that she looks desperate and is turning voters off. (There's a certain self-fulfilling quality at work there.) All of which will be exacerbated by the political "facts on the ground": John McCain has wrapped up the GOP nomination, and is already turning his fire on Obama, echoing many of Hillary's talking points. Most Democrats, whoever they support, now assume that Obama is going to be their nominee, and thus, to "go negative" on him is to attack the likely Democratic nominee. To do so using virtually the same talking points that the presumptive Republican nominee is using -- well, that's high treason! Never mind that Hillary was using those same talking points first; to ramp up their use now, and thus potentially damage the guy who's probably going to be the nominee, just looks really bad.

With each passing Obama victory, it gets harder and harder to attack him without being accused of buffenbargering. And yet, by the same token, with each passing Obama victory, it becomes more and more essential for Hillary to draw contrasts! It's a real dilemma she finds herself in -- very likely a insolvable one, IMHO. She's really stuck between Barack and a hard place.

(I'll be here all week, folks...)

Comments

[sandy underpants]

I suggest tears. Lots.

[Becky]

I think Hillary's stuck in the ultimate Catch-22. While it may be slightly premature to say this, I think that she's facing a situation wherein if she guns for the nomination, she'll end up doing substantial harm to the Democratic party and its seemingly inevitable candidate, Barack Obama, thereby proving that she's a power hungry skank unacceptable for the office of the president. If she doesn't gun for the nomination, tacitly accepting defeat, she would ironically be proving herself capable of the type of leadership we need, leadership focused on what's good for everyone rather than what's good for Hillary. I don't envy her dilemma.

[Alasdair]

Brendan - are you going to have a pool on which Senator Clinton chooses to do ?

Have the tiebreaker be the date at which she accepts that she has lost her chance at the Presidency ?

[Alasdair]

Just a thought ...

Should this not be called her Hillemma ?