« Flashback: McCain Was Against Candidates Using Vietnam Experience Before He Was For It | Home | Mark Blumenthal: The Polls Can't Tell Us Who's Winning Iowa »

Report: Hillary Campaign Plans Closing Argument Centered On National Security And The 1990s

According to today's Washington Post, the Hillary campaign is planning to close out the Iowa and New Hampshire races with a "tight embrace" of her husband's legacy, an argument that only she is equipped to handle future foreign policy crises, and even an evocation of 9/11:

Clinton is preparing to make a closing argument to Iowa and New Hampshire voters that would center on the challenges of the presidency, arguing that only she can be trusted to handle the surprises and rigors of the job, according to her senior advisers. That emphasis, on her experience and her track record, makes the previous Clinton administration a vital part of her case.

Right after Christmas, these advisers said, Clinton plans to make the case on national security grounds, citing the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as evidence that unexpected crises can arise. The argument is in some ways similar to the one President Bush made in 2004, when he campaigned on what he described as his proven leadership in the aftermath of the 2001 attacks and said the terrorist threat called for keeping him in the job. But Clinton is playing on more than just national security concerns, discussing economic security, as well.

"Time to pick a president" is the new theme, which will be unveiled in Iowa next week.

Obama's counterargument has been that whatever the successes of the 1990s, it has also saddled Hillary with a kind of political baggage that will make her less effective as a President than his "new politics" will. His response that it's "time to turn the page" is an implicit argument for a generational shift in leadership as well as a bid for the support of younger voters. Finally, Obama's also sought to undercut Hillary's arguments by saying that she's only claiming credit for the successes of her husband's era, not its failures.

At any rate, this is what it's partly come down to: An argument about the 1990s. The Post says Hillary's advisers think it's an argument she can win. We'll see what happens.


50 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic
We'll see what happens.

Indeed, it would be hard to close this post with any more forceful an affirmation than this. Anyone who purports to know what will happen is simply bluffing at this point. Only time will tell.

user-pic

So she's going with fear? Well, it worked for Bush. Personally, I'm not very comfortable with a candidate that proposes half-baked plans to send Bush 41 and her husband on a world tour because she's afraid of being used for propaganda if she engages in direct diplomacy herself. Then there's that whole voting for Bush's blank check without reading the NIE. . . I guess she thought she was already "up to speed" because of all those formal dinners she hosted and attended, or something.

user-pic
That emphasis, on her experience and her track record, makes the previous Clinton administration a vital part of her case

Hilarious. The previous Clinton administration is the equivalent of political catnip to Republican voters, who might otherwise stay home for the general election. No matter how competent and able Senator Clinton might be, if she's the candidate in the general election, Democrats are going to be in trouble. I really wish she wouldn't run on her husband's record. I really really wish that, for any number of reasons.

user-pic

All this proves is that Hillary is a NEO-CON who will continue the occupation of Iraq and then invade Iran.

user-pic

even an evocation of 9/11:

what kind of democrat exploits 9/11 for political gain? isn't this what we are trying to get away from?

user-pic

"tight embrace" of her husband's legacy

part of the bill clinton's legacy includes the use of extraordinary rendition and the handing off suspects to regimes known to torture.

user-pic

My guess is the Washington Post had all its writers on Christmas vacation today, and this article was written by a computer program.

user-pic

Actually, the "Time to Pick a President" theme speaks more to the most fundamental question voters must always decide before voting: does this candidate have the gravitas to be commander-in-chief?

This always must be the first question that pundits consider when analyzing a Presidential race. Which candidates have crossed, or are plausibly expected to cross, the Commander-in-Chief threshold? For example, Dean collapsed in 2004 because he had failed to cross the threshold. The voters could not picture him with his finger on the nuclear button, figuratively and metaphorically.

Dukakis was finished the day of the tank-riding photos because he would never be accepted as having crossed the Commander-in-Chief threshold.

user-pic

Well, this is the recapitulation of a bad campaign. I was hopeful Hillary would define herself and her presidency in her own terms. Apparently she is going to sell the lie of the "Clinton Camelot" myth instead. Maybe it will sell but it's bad politics and worse leadership. I'm betting that Edwards has caught the real energy here and will emerge a winner from Iowa. He has tagged our power structure for what it is and that has earned him some enemies.

user-pic

This whole idea about going back to the 90's is disturbing to me. The clinton presidency gave us NAFTA, the WTO, PNTR w/ china and the whole rapid expansion of globalization. The economic problems in this country have to do with the clinton 90's and the republicans that sold it in the house and senate. Campaigns are about the future and what we can collectivly do to make it better for all of us. Once again Hill has chosen the republican idea of going back in time to a more blessed day in her laissez-faire ecomomic policies. Its about the future stupid.

user-pic

Holding up WJC's presidency as proof that she'll be super is a mistake and will make Obama's message of 'turning the page' that much easier to talk about. She'll be shooting herself in the foot if she keeps this up.

user-pic

Mrs. Bill Mrs. Bill Mrs. Bill Mrs. Bill


Anyone care to call me out for "sexism" now?

user-pic

Why am I supposed to trust Hillary with being experienced enough to handle a crisis? The 1990s were a boom time, so no major economic crisis there. Foreign policy was dominated by small, local ethnic conflicts like Kosovo, Somalia, and Rwanda. There were no Katrinas at home. As far as presidencies go, it was as quiet as they go. Strictly minor league.

user-pic

At bottom this has always been what her campaign was about, invoking the relative nostalgia of the 1990s, generally, and embracing the Democratic's base's love fond memories of Bill Clinton. Now she's just turning up the fear factor--she's been running on fear the entire time, invoking 9-11 puts her over the top.

She's not the only one making a closing argument, so we'll see how much this changes the game in the last week.

user-pic

"Time to Pick a President"?

OR

Comeback Kid III - Brunehilde's Revenge

*all rights reserved..that's mine Hillbashers!

user-pic

Mrs. Bill's just returning to the theme Hubby had concocted back in 2000, sealed with her four years of unwavering support for the Greatest Strategic Disaster in US History...


It has always been about Bill nostalgia and showing how tough his wife is..THat's why the two of them aided and abetted the criminal war in Iraq

That's her experience and our's in a nutshell

user-pic

Keith wrote on December 22, 2007 12:48 PM:
she's been running on fear the entire time, invoking 9-11

yes, i remember hillary on the today show conflating 9/11 with the war in iraq.

user-pic

Mama Warbucks: Hillary Clinton's Illiberal Belligerence

by Stephen Zunes, USF

http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=12051

Given Senator Clinton's militaristic foreign policy, why are so many of her supporters apparently in denial of this unfortunate reality?
Part of the problem is that most of the public criticism of the former first lady has been based on false and exaggerated charges from the far right, often infused with a fair dose of sexism. As a result, many liberals become defensive and reluctant to criticize her. Many also ironically start believing some of the lies of the far right when they claim she is some kind of left-winger. There is also an understandable nostalgia for the eight years of relative peace and prosperity under her husband's administration after the horrors of nearly seven years under President George W. Bush, which have made it easy to forget the lesser but very real failings of President Bill Clinton.
There is also the fact that after 43 male presidents, the prospect of finally having a woman as chief executive is understandably appealing. Yet, what's the advantage of a female president if her foreign policies are still centered on patriarchal notions of militarism and conquest? What would it mean to the women of Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Lebanon and other countries who would suffer as a result of her policies? Did the position of British women improve as a result of the militaristic policies of their first female prime minister, Margaret Thatcher?
These are the kinds of questions, along with a critical examination of her overall foreign policy record, that need to be considered by Democrats before making Hillary Clinton their nominee for president.

user-pic
So long as the deceit ran along quiet and monotonous, all of us let ourselves be deceived, abetting it unawares or maybe through cowardice... – William Faulkner
user-pic

I don't get it! How can she say she's experienced to handle another 9/11 when she had the follow-up wrong and Barack had it right?

user-pic

maybe this is why she never says she had it wrong in 2002. she does support the Iraq war and occupation, now as she did then...except when she doesn't. this may sound like a snark but I do not really get it. Was the invasion and occupation correct (apparently, by Clinton) and if not why was it wrong (Bush did it, by Clinton)? Or am I missing a key point?

user-pic

Boy...I never thought of it in these terms. A great article on alternet. BushCo has all of the secret service records on the Clintons. So Bill has been playing nice. Check out this excerpt. Link to full article follows. It is really information that makes you go hmmmmm.

"However, if Clinton thought that his collaboration in keeping the Reagan-Bush secrets from the American people would earn him some bipartisan help from the Republicans, he was mistaken.

Clinton saw his prized domestic agenda, including Hillary Clinton's health care reform, defeated; his party lose control of Congress in 1994; the House vote to impeach him in 1998 for lying about an extramarital sexual relationship; and George H.W. Bush's oldest son steal the 2000 election from Clinton's Vice President, Al Gore.

Now, as Campaign 2008 begins to unfold, a similar dynamic is in place.

George W. Bush has engaged in a variety of acts that appear to be illegal, extra-legal or unconstitutional, while the Clintons are again signaling that they have no intention of holding the Bush family accountable.

If Bill Clinton is right - that his wife's first act as President would be to ask him and George H.W. Bush to go on an around-the-world goodwill mission - Hillary Clinton is making it clear that she has no intention of holding George W. Bush accountable for any wrongdoing.

There is no way that George H.W. Bush would help the Clintons on the diplomatic front if they were taking action against his eldest son."

http://www.alternet.org/story/71266/

user-pic

Heh.

It's funny, but I think this message would have worked in 2004 but the Clinton's calculated it was too soon and now I hope they're finding out it's just too late.

And seriously, all this Bill nostalgia crap totally undercuts most of the effect their first woman president you go girl stuff is supposed to elicit, but I appreciate Hillary for having the intellectual honesty to be so open about her sole qualifications for president being her MRS degree.

user-pic

In sum, remember the 90's, remember the 90's, remember the 90's, remember the 90's, remember the 90's, over and over and over and over and over again.

Who does that sound like? Mr. 9/11 of course. She one ups him though by throwing a little 9/11 in for a dash of spice.

Is that the way they do politics in NY. Live in the past? Totally pathetic.

I bet she is struggling to come in 3rd in iowa based on internals. Way too funny. Quick, rearrange the furniture on the deck, she is going down fast.

user-pic

I think the Clinton campaign is using the wrong Celine Dion song as their theme song. They should be using the one from "Titanic", because this "inevitable" ship is going down.

user-pic

i almost wanna see a clinton vs rudy race ust for the trainwreck factor alone. it would be a "weren't the 90's and 9-11 great!!" battle royale of sorts.

that said, don't think it's gonna happen...is there anywhere one can bet money that it'll be obama vs. huckabee, with obama as the next president?

user-pic

"The Hillary campaign is planning to close out the Iowa and New Hampshire races with a "tight embrace" of her husband's legacy, an argument that only she is equipped to handle future foreign policy crises, and even an evocation of 9/11." Before you buy that, perhaps you should read this: http://theseedsof9-11.com

user-pic

I think TPM is subtly trying to ignore Edwards. They cannot criticize his policies or his commitment to social justice, but they just ignore him. It is amazing how similar that is to the MSM.

The question is why? Maybe it is the different backgrounds, with Obama more similar to Marshall than Edwards. Wealthy privileged upbringing, and then Ivy league grad school. That is my current theory. Why do you think? Why does TPM dislike Edwards?

user-pic
I think TPM is subtly trying to ignore Edwards.

Well, here's your chance to educate us; has Edwards advanced a counterargument to Clinton's pitch which should be mentioned alongside Obama's counterargument? If so, what is it? I am sure that I am not the only one who would be interested to hear.

user-pic

To Anonymous wrote on December 22, 2007 2:57 PM

I think TPM is avoiding Edwards because he's unelectable in the general election. This is a guy who couldn't even help win his own state in '04. (Actually, he and kerry didn't even win john edwards' own precinct in NC.) Being Mr. Poverty/Two Americas just ain't gonna cut in a national election. It's NOT where the country IS right now, and he just doesn't seem to understand that.

In addition, there are just too many bits of Edwardian poor judgement for the GOP to attack. The 26,000 sq ft house, the haircuts, working for the NYC hedge fund, his politically motivated votes. (Yes, he voted for the iraq war in 02 because he knew he was running for president in 04 and could NOT afford to look like some flaming anti-war liberal since everyone back then except Obama thought the war was gonna go great.)

In short, John's heart is in the right place (helping poor people, going after bad corporations, etc), but that is simply not a viable pathway to be elected president at this juncture in history.

My final comment is that if Edwards were to somehow win the nomination, it practically guarantees that Bloomberg is going to jump into the race with a billion dollars and win it. So a vote for Edwards now, is essentially a vote for Bloomberg/Hagel, or Bloomberg/Nunn, or Bloomberg/some conservative democrat. that's why "Edwards progressives" need to shift to Obama quickly, who's just as liberal/progressive as edwards, but can win a ton of the Independents and will keep bloomberg out of the race.

user-pic

not a viable pathway to be elected president at this juncture in history.


There is absolutely no evidence for this. It is just your opinion. Edwards has as higher or higher favourables than any other candidates. He has repeatedly beaten the Rep. candidates by larger margins than the other candidates, excluding the most recent poll, where he still did great. And generally, his message is rising in Iowa, despite the media bias. In sum, people like Edwards. The data says this, not my opinion. Thus he can win as easily as the others. And the money will come if he wins the nomination.

So electability is not why TPM dislikes Edwards.

user-pic

And by the way, I cannot believe that you would write about triple-H at this point. No one cares!

user-pic

TPM is ignoring John Edwards mostly because they are gaga in love with Hillary. Anyone with more than a quarter of a brain knows that.

user-pic

Well, they won't be able to ignore him if he wins Iowa. Just wait for the real smearing to begin...

And, oh, by the way, Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorr... er, Yesterday.

user-pic

Obama trying to explain his "PRESENT" vote is absolutely devastating (below). The narrative of this race has really changed in the last week. I was honestly worried there for a while because Hillary couldn't seem to get her act together, but Obama's "PRESENT" votes is killing him. Watch for a 3 state win by Hillary: Iowa, New Hampshire, and SC. Obama drops out after being crushed on Super Tuesday.

http://mydd.com/story/2007/12/22/105427/48#commenttop

user-pic

BluePuppy, do you like Hillary, or do you like the fact that she is might win? All I ever hear from Clinton supporters is that she is going to win, and then something negative about the other candidates. I never hear that she would support the best policies, for example. Makes you wonder...

user-pic

Hillary has always been riding Bill's coattails. To try to salvage her campaign, she now has to send him out on the trail to generate news and interest. So I think her 'closing argument' is an overt embrace of the reality that's been there all along........without Bill, her campaign is a wash. I wonder if she hopes he will answer voters questions for her, too.

user-pic

I like the fact that she will and I think her health care plan set her apart.

user-pic

Bill's Little Brunehilde and Her Warrior Princess: Commander-in-Chief?


http://www.scaredmonkeys.com/fun-images/Vanderbilt_cmdrnchf.jpg


I've never been to New Zealand before. But one of my role models, Xena, the warrior princess, comes from there.....If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future.
Madeleine Albright, Chief Foreign Policy Adviser to HRC

user-pic

Time to pick a president - pretty similar to the line in Biden's ad that started earlier this week - time to choose a president.

http://www.youtube.com/joebiden

Nothing original from the Clinton campaign.

user-pic

BluePuppy (or anyone else who wants to participate in a more meaningful manner),

I can still be swayed.

May I invite you to a short discussion about the Clinton, Edwards and Obama plans briefly? For reference, you may read all three plans here (see the PDF links for details):

Clinton
Edwards
Obama

Broadly, the plans are all alike.

* Availability/coverage of population is the same

* Benefits offered are about the same

* Cost to the consumer is about the same

* Cost to the government is roughly the same (although not all documents described the funding to the same degree.)

* None of them is a single-payer system.

My questions to you:

1. Can you tell me which specific parts of Clinton's plan make it the best of the three? If you disagree with my characterisations above, please feel free to educate me.

2. An often-cited reason is that her plan is mandatory to participate in. However, unlike Edwards' plan, Clinton does not detail how she plans to enforce the mandate. Is an unenforced mandate equivalent to optional coverage? Or do you consider that Edwards' plan is better in this respect. If so, why is Clinton's better overall than Edwards'?

3. General election-wise, do you believe that (as a first step) requiring people to have insurance is a more popular position among the "swing" voter demographic that will again likely decide the outcome or would they prefer to simply have the option to participate in the same low-coverage programs? If so, can you explain why you believe so?

4. What do you consider to be the weakness of an optional coverage program, considering that the pricing and eligibility are regulated and would therefore not suffer because "only sick people would opt in"?

Thank you! Your answers will help me understand your preferences.

user-pic

BluePuppy,

Regarding the "present" votes, I am confused. Do you consider that the votes are actually a serious matter or are you simply advancing it as an argument that helps Clinton?

If you do consider the votes important, would you be surprised to know that Planned Parenthood and gun control groups often specifically backed the "present" votes on the bills important to them (because otherwise some less-safe Democrats may have voted the "wrong way" to protect their seats)?

Here are some more or less objective treatises:

Erich Zorn's column
Carpetbagger

Obama has also provided specific explanations of the votes. If you have an open mind as we all hope to,

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/


If you do in fact understand the rationale for the votes but want to continue to "slam" Obama with it, I suppose there is not much I can say to sway you.

user-pic

BluePuppy,

You must be living in a fantasy world, none knows who is going to win IA, NH, or SC so stop your wishful thinking so that when OBAMA or Edwards wins you won't have a heart attack. Please, know that a bunch of democrats will never vote for Hillary even if she wins the nomination. Not every body is as delusional as you seem to be, start thinking with your head rather than your heart.

user-pic
I was honestly worried there for a while because Hillary couldn't seem to get her act together...

That is interesting, because you have never expressed that point of view. That is to say, you evidently mean us to understand that your "rah, rah, go Hillary" posts in the past were just empty bluster, which makes me to wonder why I ought to suppose that the present ones are any different.

Watch for a 3 state win by Hillary: Iowa, New Hampshire, and SC.

Interesting. I doubt that the Clinton campaign will thank you for getting so off-message.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7518.html

user-pic

Hi, roo_p in your post about the health care plans you said, None of them is a single-payer system. If you look at the more detailed plan from John Edwards there is a component of single payer in it. He allows private and public insurance programs to compete, the thought here is that the public plan will be more successful do to cost and availablity. Its on page 4 http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/health-care-overview.pdf

user-pic

I'm not going to read all of the other posts, so no one has to read this one.

re: "Obama's counterargument has been that whatever the successes of the 1990s, it has also saddled Hillary with a kind of political baggage that will make her less effective as a President than his "new politics" will."

Hillary is not saddled with the baggage. The Clinton Haters would LOVE to saddle the Clintons with baggage they TRIED to saddle them with in the 1990's.

psst! It didn't work, Democrats!!
70% of the nation thought Clinton took America in the right direction.

The Clinton Haters are only about 20% of the entire nation (and are about 85% Republican, who aren't ever going to be voting for BHO or ANY Democrat).
Hillary Clinton is NOT saddled with that "baggage" unless her own DEMOCRATS saddle her with it.

If it's worth wiping out eight years of the only Democratic President the Democrats have had re-elected in the last half a century, in order to tell the nation that President Clinton was a failure so Barack Obama will win the primary, go for it.

But when Democrats start disparaging their most popular President so that another Democrat can win their primary, you will see what the rest of us mean when we say that Democrats eat their own.

Yes, I'm a Hillary supporter.
No, I never voted for Bill because I was a REPUBLICAN. I've moved over to Hillary's camp.
Do you want others to respect the accomplishments of your Party? Then allow them to support DEMOCRAT Hillary Clinton, and don't label the scandals that Republicans TRIED to create as "Clinton baggage."
It is actually "Republican Party baggage." The Republicans LOST seats over the impeachment, and Clinton's numbers soared.

Those are Rightwing Slime Machine Talking Points.
They FAILED to do their damage to Bill Clinton.
Now, are the Democrats going to HELP the GOP Slime Machine succeed at damaging the 1992-2000 Democratic Presidency, just because they support another Democrat in the 2008 primaries???
I really hope not, but I honestly don't have a lot of hope anymore that Democrats are capable of working as a team.

user-pic

jan, your posts are really silly. Let me see if I can sum them up. You were allegedly a republican until clinton II started to run and you were a republican and voted against clinton I in the 90's. Soooooo, you want to vote for clinton II to bring back the 90's, but you were against clinton I's "policies." And any challenge of clinton II, which would be challenging clinton I, are part of the republican slime machine talking points, which you were supporting in the 90's. And now, you don't want democrats to disparage clinton I, which you were allegedly doing in the 90's. But that's all ok now, because the 90's were just so wonderful, even though in the 90's you obviously didn't think so.

Man, my head is spinning all over the place.

Sooooo, obviously you are supporting clinton II, not for her policies, not for being a dem, which arguably she is not, but for being clinton II and that's about it. That's a republican trait, which you were, before you weren't. Pathetic.

user-pic

re (to me, Jan, from Michael A):
"You were allegedly a republican until clinton II started to run and you were a republican and voted against clinton I in the 90's. Soooooo, you want to vote for clinton II to bring back the 90's, but you were against clinton I's "policies." "

No, Michael A.
Why don't you let ME sum it up for YOU.

I voted for Richard Nixon - 1972. I still believe he was a MUCH better President than George W. Bush.
Then I voted for John Anderson - 1976.
Then I voted for Jimmy Carter - 1980.
Then I didn't vote - 1984.
Then I voted for GHWB - 1988, because the Democrats were completely corrupt.
Then I voted for Ross Perot, because both parties were completely corrupt - 1992.
Then I planned on voting for Bob Dole until Bob Dole from NC told America that cigarettes didn't cause cancer - 1996.
Then I worked on my very first political campaign -- Al Gore's -- and therefore I was obviously FOR Clinton I's policies - 2000.
Oh, and as a person newly voting for Democrats, I watched in horror as Democrats ate Democrat Al Gore alive in 2000.

Then I worked for (1) Bob Graham, then (2) Howard Dean, and (3) then John Kerry - 2004.
And then I REALLY watched in horror as Democrats ate John Kerry alive.

And now I'm watching Democrats say that the Clinton's have bad baggage from the 1990's Clinton Presidency.
Welcome to "Restaurant Democrats."

In 1998, I took a second look at Bill Clinton while he was being impeached, and realized that, under the circumstances, Bill Clinton was probably the greatest President of my lifetime (58 years.)

I hope that clears it up for you, Michael A.

I NEVER ONCE disparaged Democrat Bill Clinton while voting for Ross Perot. Like Ross Perot, I only disparaged my fellow Republicans, Bush and Reagan.
I volunteered to work for Al Gore. And THAT is a vote for Bill Clinton's policies.

I did not appreciate Bill Clinton for what he was either accomplishing or trying to accomplish until after I could no longer vote for him.

imo, a more disciplined Bill Clinton would be as good as it gets.
Just my opinion. You're welcomed to your own.

user-pic

Jan,

FYI, I also think Hillary has the advantage of being much more disciplined than Bill, and have a sense that she had a lot to do with his success all during his career. (Of course until they release all of her White House correspondence since 1968, I'm morally obligated to waffle and hedge).

user-pic

Jan,
That was a compelling testimony of 35 years of political education. One of the most interesting posts I’ve read around here in a long time.

My gut feeling is that Hillary Clinton, if elected, will be one of our truly great Presidents. She is so gifted and so full of talent she could’ve succeeded with almost anything anywhere in the world. Hillary chose politics to help people and she will be a success if we ever are to see one.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address