Everything, Including the Kitchen Sink

Steve Benen has a very astute post about what happened when Clinton decided to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at Obama:

Hillary Clinton clearly won some impressive victories in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island yesterday, but how did she pull it off?

I’ve been thinking the last few days about this piece that ran in the New York Times last Tuesday.

After struggling for months to dent Senator Barack Obama’s candidacy, the campaign of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is now unleashing what one Clinton aide called a “kitchen sink” fusillade against Mr. Obama, pursuing five lines of attack since Saturday in hopes of stopping his political momentum.

The effort underscores not only Mrs. Clinton’s recognition that the next round of primaries — in Ohio and Texas on March 4 — are must-win contests for her. It also reflects her advisers’ belief that they can persuade many undecided voters to embrace her at the last minute by finally drawing sharply worded, attention-grabbing contrasts with Mr. Obama.

I was a little skeptical about this strategy. First, Dems at least claim to be turned off by negative campaigning — especially within the party — and Clinton ran the risk of a backlash by launching relentless attacks. Second, I thought the kitchen-sink strategy might be too unfocused. Sometimes, it’s best to focus on a couple key points and hammer away. When one goes on the offensive with 10 areas of attack, the message becomes garbled — the criticism starts to resemble one giant mass of negativity, and people lose track of what it is they’re supposed to be upset about.

But my skepticism proved to be unfounded. The Clinton campaign threw everything they could think of at Obama, and as it turns out, some of it stuck.

The point, Steve goes on to say, is not that Clinton’s wins yesterday were not legitimate (bolds mine):

… Rather, Clinton’s kitchen-sink strategy is a clear explanation of what worked and changed the campaign dynamic over the last week. It’s not even a mystery — one can look at the Ohio polls before the attacks began and after. And in Texas, before and after. Obama had narrowed the gap, and Clinton had seen her double-digit leads disappear. Then she launched the no-holds-barred attacks, and for the first time in the entire campaign, Obama’s numbers slipped. It’s hard to call this a coincidence.

This isn’t a value judgment. If you’re an Obama fan, the argument is, “Clinton couldn’t make an affirmative case for her nomination, so she had to tear Obama down. She’ll do anything to win, even if it hurts the party and helps Republicans.” If you’re a Clinton, the argument is, “We played rough, and it worked. This proves that Clinton is a fighter. Besides, if Obama can’t withstand relentless attacks now, he won’t be able to withstand relentless attacks later.”
[...]
Going forward, there are two angles to keep an eye on. The first is whether Obama, who has been very reluctant to attack Clinton aggressively, sees the results as evidence that negative campaigning works. If trying to focus criticism on the other party is going to lead to primary defeats, Obama may not have a choice but to go after Clinton the way she’s gone after him.

The second is whether Clinton’s kitchen-sink style ends up undermining the party over the long haul.
[...]
My hunch is that yesterday’s results will take the campaign in an increasingly ugly direction. Voters sent a message — people respond well to negative attacks. The consequences for the party will likely be discouraging.

So buckle your seat belts, everyone. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Explore posts in the same categories: Politics

Tags: Kathy

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.