Has anyone noticed the interesting shift in Clinton's strategy?

[PresidentObama]

It seems like she's making this race about Hillary Clinton vs. George W. Bush.

I went to her YouTube, and saw an advertisement where he blasts George W. Bush for the nightmare he's put us through in the last seven years. It was like he was her opponent, and she was running a blistering attack advertisement on his record and presenting her solutions and the change she'd bring as President.

Then I'm watching CNN today, and they show a clip of Senator Clinton talking about the State of The Union tonight. She proclaims that Bush tonight will say what he's said every year that the state of our union is strong, and she said something along the lines of Mr. President come on the road with me and met the people I've met.

It's interesting.

In 2006, the Republicans when losing saw an opportunity when John Kerry made that botched joke. They then tried to frame it as George W. Bush and the Republicans vs. John Kerry and those evil liberals. They made the mid-term fight about the 04' election again, instead of focusing it as Democrats vs. Bush Republicans. It was now Kerry vs. Bush again. It didn't work, but it was an interesting shift in strategy.

Can this work in 2008? Turning it from Obama vs. Clinton to Clinton vs. Bush?

Can her team successfully carry her to the nomination talking about change and running against a President who isn't up for re-election or on the ballot?

Remains to be seen. But I think it's definitely a strategy shift for the Clinton campaign fresh off a loss in South Carolina. I think they know they can't beat Barack Obama by merely attacking him and slinging mud, so now they have to position the debate elsewhere and make this Hillary Clinton vs. Bush and the Bush Republicans.

We'll see how this shapes up...

[Nailzberg]

1. She is a better candidate than George W.

That can't be denied.

[PresidentObama]

3. Absolutely not. And I think strategy wise, this shift is smart.

If she can successfully make this her vs. the Bush legacy and Bush Republicans...

Wow, she'll do just fine.

[Nailzberg]

14. It is smart. It reframes the past v. future argument.

Place the frame of the past around Bush, and not Bush/Clinton/Bush.

[PresidentObama]

15. I think if she can successfully pull the reframing off, she'll be the candidate to beat.

[grantcart]

2. Its also going to be about raising as many meaningless sound bites in

the media that is as humanly possible. For example the bogus trip to Florida to try and bring that back as a contested primary.

[tekisui]

4. She should have ran they way the entire time.

[AX10]

22. Agreed.

In reality, the Democrat will be facing the continuation of GW Bush in the fall campaign.

[_Wayne_]

5. Her strategy is more infinitely more complex than you suggest

But I agree a general strategy of identifying the Repub nominee as a Bush clone will be a good one. But Hillary will make different appeals to different states, and try to win the electoral college.

[babylonsister]

6. I wish Clinton would turn her efforts to fighting * instead of other Dems.

Then they could all concentrate on beating the rethugs and not each other. And I hope she reins in her 'better half'.

[PresidentObama]

9. Well, obviously the attacks on Obama didn't work. So I think that's why the shift in strategy.

And it's smart to make this about her vs. the Bush Republicans.

It's obvious she won't win the nomination by coming after Obama.

[Skidmore]

7. A review of every time she chose to rubberstamp a * policy

before she was against it should be interesting.

[rox63]

8. She's trying to bring back the "inevitability" thing

Acting as if she's already the nominee. That said, it's better that she's tearing down the repukes instead of tearing down her fellow Dems.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. This is what Obama was doing a few days ago.

Just sayin.

[tularetom]

11. It's what she should've been doin all along

Unfortunately Bill is kind if a butt buddy with daddy boosh so he can't really be a very effective attack dog like he tried to be with Obama. You won't hear any criticism of this administration from him. He only talks tough about Democrats. He's scared of republicons.

And she has some splainin to do as well like the Iraq war resolution and her dumshit flag burning amendment.

But I think she finally realizes who she's really running against.

Now if she can put a sock in Clinton she might be able to salvage this.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

12. Bush and the Republican Party are the opponents and should

be attacked at every opportunity. Thats how we win!

[BenDavid]

13. This all changed Saturday as HRC was campagining in Tn.

and Bill did the honors for HRC in S.C.. Posted this Saturday night to watch for it, and it has happened. After this mornings polling the win in S.C. did not move any numbers for obama in the 2/5 states. This is still HRC's to win and she will....

Oh and on other thing. We're gonna get the votes we need and we're gonna win this thing. And you know what I'm gonna do after that, I mean that very night, I'm gonna go to Sam & Harry's, I'm gonna order a big steak, and I'm gonna make a list of everybody who tried to fuck us.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

17. lol. Great post, deserves its own thread.

:toast:

[AX10]

18. Do you have links to those polls

Thank Ben!
:hi:

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. Great. Enemies lists.

Where have I heard of those before?

[kennetha]

16. Absolutely Sound Strategy!

John Edwards made the absurd claim in one of the debate that Hilary Clinton is part of the "status quo" and that he and Obama were the only one's talking about change. What status quo would Hilary be a part of? The Republican status quo? How could that possibly be?

Anyway, the way to combat that silly charge is simply for her to point out over and over again what she wants to make happen in Washington and how different things will be from the way they are now under a Clinton administration. And really what she wants to make happen differs only at the margins from what either Edwards of Obama want to make happen. Then the argument between Obama, Edwards, and Clinton isn't change versus status quo (which is really a silly argument), but who will be most effective. If this is the argument, then Clinton is on really solid ground, depending on how you believe politics really works. If you think it's mostly one hard won "three yards and a cloud of dust" after another (as football was at Ohio State under Woody Hayes) then Hillary is your woman. If you think its about making "revolutionary change" from the bottom up, with a movement led by a would-be messiah, then Obama is your man. Don't really know what the case for Edwards is anymore.

Anyway, focusing on what she will make happen and how it will change people's lives in concrete ways, is absolutely a wise strategy for Clinton. It gets the debate off the cult of personality angle and on to real things. It focuses the issue on what will we try to make happen, what stands in the way of it happening, etc. This is Clinton's strong suit. And it's a real strength.

Obama promises some sort of magical sweeping transformation, brought about mainly by the force of personality and his unique and compelling narrative. Personally, I like the unique and compelling narrative a lot. But I tend to see politics, in my advancing age, as about running three yards at a time over and over again, until you finally get to the goal post.

[AX10]

20. As you said:

"Anyway, focusing on what she will make happen and how it will change people's lives in concrete ways, is absolutely a wise strategy for Clinton. It gets the debate off the cult of personality angle and on to real things. It focuses the issue on what will we try to make happen, what stands in the way of it happening, etc. This is Clinton's strong suit. And it's a real strength"

When tough times are coming, this is what we need.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. The only problem with Hillary is

you never know which way she's going to move the ball.

[kennetha]

25. not sure what you mean by that remark

What do you mean by the remark? Hilary has been a pretty consistent center of left progressive her entire adult political career as far as I can tell. Sure she's made a few mistakes and few misjudgments. If having made no misteps were the measure of a good potential president, then nobody need ever apply for the job. Maybe it's a belief that only somebody who is absolutely pure explains why "outsiders" who have never had to get their hands dirty in the rough and tumble of Washington politics always looks so promising to so many. We can't just can bring ourselves to accept that politics is a three-steps forward, one-step back, but keep trucking kind of thing. We want to just sweep away all the obstacles, we want everybody to "just get a long." In our heart of hearts, we don't really and truly believe that people are deeply divided --it's just the mean, manipulative politicians that make it seem that way. We don't believe that any compromises ever have to be made, that any half-measures ever have to be taken.

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. She's left center on a very few key issues like womens rights

and abortion and way past right center in national security, military, trade issues. If it wasn't for abortion anchoring her to the left she'd be over in Lieberman territory. She voted for the Patriot Act, twice; the IWR - which she now says * abused, but she didn't get around to condemning such abuse until she started her run for President; she still stands by NAFTA, that billiant bit of republican economics that her hubby signed and supported, though she now says 'parts' of it need to be 'fixed' - when the whole of it needs to be scrapped. She voted for NCLB, which she says now needs to be changed.

There is a pattern here of supporting BAD legislation, then favoring incremental changes in it when it turns out to be as bad as progressives originally said it would be.

What's wrong with getting it right the first time?

[Armstead]

19. Actually it's just an encore of her original strategy

Earlier on, when she was the assumed nominee, she used the "above it all" strategy and behaved as if she were already in the General against Bush.

She called for a civilized campaign and urged otehr nominees to focus on beating the Republicans, rather than actually have a primary contest.

It got dropped when it turned out that she actually did have competitors.

So this is a return to the "above it all" strategy.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. And that strategy got her butt kicked in Iowa.

Now, she's returning to it just in time to get her butt kicked on Supertuesday.