Clinton vs. Obama, Philly style

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will face off tonight in Philadelphia at 8:00 PM EST, in their first debate since February 26.

It will be very, very interesting to see how things shake out. I think there is a serious risk of Hillary overplaying her hand if she continues to hammer Obama on his "small town" gaffe. The Obama campaign apparently agrees, judging by this ad:

I'm not sure what Hillary's debate strategy will be, but I doubt we'll be seeing any "I am honored to be here with Barack Obama" moments. And if she tries that crap, I hope to God he hits back with something like: "If you're so 'honored' to be here with me, Senator Clinton, then why have you been lying to the good people of Pennsylvania by telling them I'm an 'elitist,' which you know perfectly well isn't true, and that I'm supposedly 'not ready' to be president? These are false, Republican-style attacks that have no place in a Democratic primary. You need to make up your mind and be straight with the voters of this state." Hell, I hope he says something like that regardless of what she says. That's be awesome. And it could help continue the erosion of trust in Hillary.

P.S. On the issue of the bitter/cling controversy and the question of whether Hillary is overplaying her hand, Noam Scheiber says: "[The comment in San Francisco] was unquestionably a serious stumble on Obama's part. But the high-percentage move [for Hillary] would have been to get out of the way and let the media run with it. If this were going to do Obama in, it would have done so without her help. Instead, she's thrown Obama a lifeline. She's made herself look completely cynical, she's once again reminded superdelegates of everything they hated about the Clinton era, and she's started making claims about her own cultural authenticity that don't pass the smell test."

I agree, and I actually wonder if she's inadvertently thrown Obama a lifeline for the November election as well. I've had a lengthly blog post about this percolating in my head for several days, which I will attempt to briefly summarize thusly:

Obama's comments are naturally more damaging among the general electorate than among the Democratic primary electorate. I.e., if they're going to destroy him, it'll be in November, not now. Moreover, it will/would be much easier for John McCain to play the "how dare you insult our religion and our guns" card than it is for Hillary Clinton to do so. If this gaffe had occurred without Hillary in the picture, McCain would have immediately pounced, with the guns/religion part of the comment being his central focus. Instead, although McCain did pounce too, Hillary's pounce got the most play, because of the current state of the race -- and she focused mostly, at first, on the "bitter" part, which, as I've said, is by far the most easily defensible part of what Obama said. That resulted in the media labeling this as the "bitter" controversy, "Bittergate," Obama's "bitter" remarks, etc. -- and, once the media decides on a storyline like that, it's pretty well set in stone.

Hillary has since pivoted to talk more about the religion/guns part, but the focus of public discourse is still on "bitter." And I think there may be a growing, vague sense in the psyche of the average, barely-paying-attention swing voter, that this is much ado about nothing, that Obama's comments weren't that big of a deal (after all, we are kind of "bitter"!), that he's being unfairly attacked for an insignificant poor choice of words, and that the "typical politicians" attacking him (for daring to claim that working folks are "bitter") are the ones who are "out of touch."

So, if I'm right, what does this mean for Obama if he wins the nomination? Well, the big question is, what happens when McCain tries to bring this issue up again after Labor Day, when most people really start paying attention to the election? I think it might mean he'll get much less traction than if he'd been the one raising it in the first instance. I think it's possible that the vague "much ado about nothing" impression I just described may trickle down, through swing voters' veils of primary-season apathy, and become a sort of an unconscious sense of the inherent nature of this issue, such that when McCain brings it up again, people will be far less receptive to his argument than they otherwise would have been. I say this because, often times, people's impressions of political events are like newly laid concrete: it's really easy to change their shape initially, but once they take hold, they become very solid almost to the point of immovability. I wonder whether, in part because of the limited degree to which people are paying attention, combined with Hillary's poor tactics in initially highlighting "bitter" instead of "cling," such a "cementing" process may now be occurring, with limited damage to Obama. If so, that is very good news for Obama and very bad news for McCain, who might otherwise have been able to absolutely bury Obama with this.

Mind you, I'm not saying I think any of the above has definitely happened or is definitely happening -- indeed, I could be entirely wrong -- but I think what I've just described is at least plausible. And if I'm actually right, maybe Obama should thank Hillary for being such a cynical, power-hungry monster who cares not at all for her party's well-being. She may be accidentally saving the Democrats, despite her best efforts to destroy them!

Comments

[Marty West]

O would be smart to not bite if Clinton tries to bait him into a debate of elitism or bitterness. I think he would bode well if he went after McCain and ignored Clinton.

PS have you seen this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-weiner/mccain-family-recipes-lif_b_96666.html

I LOLd hard when I saw this. And I LOVE Giada...not only does she use the same knives as me but she is kind of hottttt.

[Joe Mama]

I agree that Obama's gaffe will be less damaging with Dem primary voters (most of whom likely share his sentiment) than with the general electorate. But Hillary couldn't take the chance that the media would run with this story, given its "hagiographic treatment" of Obama. Obama can always come back and try again if he loses the nomination, but this is almost certainly Hillary's only shot at the presidency.

Also, since every single thing the Clintons do is (rightly) viewed cynically by most people, there was probably no way for her to do anything that wouldn't be interpreted as "overplaying her hand." She wasn't going to leave things to chance, and everything she does is Machiavellian. This criticism of her reaction to Obama's gaffe was unavoidable.

[Joe Mama]

(with the caveat that I also agree that Hillary should have focused on Obama's accusations of xenophobia and racism, rather than bitterness).

[JD]

Brendan, even though I've never met you, it's scary how much we can think alike.

Dueling "Philly style" = cheesesteaks at ten paces?

[Brendan Loy]

Joe Mama, I disagree that "most of" the Democratic primary votes "share his sentiment," by which I persume you mean "share the sentiment that appeared to be expressed by his poor choice of words," namely that people only love their guns and their God because they're bitter about the economy and lying politicians.

Even if you mean that "most of" the Dem electorate agrees with the "What's The Matter With Kansas" thesis (the more charitable version of Obama's "sentiment" -- namely, that people cling to the politics of guns, God, and so forth, because of their bitterness), I still doubt that's true. There is certainly a decent-sized segment of the Dem electorate that believes interpretation #2 (and a small but vocal portion that believes interpretation #1), but those are people who, for the most part, are already supporting Obama, and I don't think they're a majority of the party's electorate, at least not in a mass-turnout primary cycle like this one.

However, while the majority of Dems, including the undecided working stiff types he's aiming for in PA, don't agree with "his sentiment" (either interpretation), they also aren't generally going to be as offended by it as most Republicans (and culturally conservative independents) are. So they're less likely to get riled up about this, and more likely to think Hillary is making too much of it.

That's my theory, anyway.

JD, lol. Yes.

Perhaps if Mrs. Clinton feels the need to bring up "Bitter-gate" during the debate tonight, Obama can simply state that at the time the remark was made he was taking snipper fire and mis-spoke. HRC would surely undertand...

[Brendan]

Ha!

[Joe Mama]

Fair enough, I won't quibble about the size of the "decent-sized segment of the Dem electorate" that clings (ahem) to the more snobbish interpretation of Obama's remarks. I would only reiterate that we're talking about primary voters, who are typically more partisan than the general electorate.

[Joe Mama]

Nevermind, I see that you referred to a "decent-sized segment of the Dem electorate" that held to "the more charitable version" of Obama's remarks (which is still plenty condescending), but whatever.

[Brendan Loy]

Now now, Joe, don't be bitter. :)

[Proud to be an American]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/obamaflagpinlap.html

Looks like Obama DOES need a flag pin to show his patriotism after all.

Looks liks someone is sssssscared.

I think HRC is going to surprise us tonight. She's been waiting. Obama is floundering. I suggest his Obamaphiles get ready for continued drama through November. Sad really. Once that messianic veneer got rubbed off, he couldn't put it back one. One hit wonder folks.

[Joe Mama]

Don't worry, I'm not (which must explain why I don't go to church).

[Joe Mama]

Looks like Obama DOES need a flag pin to show his patriotism after all.

To be fair, Obama's people said the pin was given to him that day by a vet who asked him to wear it. I suppose it's possible . . .

[Sandy Underpants]

Flag pin-gate is another pathetic controversy I saw Lou Dobbs spitting about yesterday. I was saying the exact same thing 7 years ago when wearing a flag pin wasn't just for republicans. It's not what you wear, it's what you do that counts.

Unfortunately, that's just talk for most Americans.

Yes and Obama has done nothing

But Batman, Batman has done something

[Obama]

How did I become the candidate-beyond-labels to the candidate obsessed with group identity and stereotype ? Oh, yeah, by opening my mouth and speaking the words that expressed my long-entrenched unreasonable conception of the universe.

[John McCain]

Just be grateful that your group isn't the senile over 70 crowd. It's pretty lonely here.

[Condor]

Supposedly abc is not livestreaming this debate. Idiots. Now I know what the B.C. stands for. What, do we live in ancient Egypt or something?