After three failed attempts to put Hillary Clinton away while avoiding so-called negative campaigning, the Washington Post argues that it may be time for Barack Obama to engage in some good old-fashioned politics:
Unable once again to score a knockout, Sen. Barack Obama is likely to make his new negative tone even more negative — with a sharp eye on trying to end the Democratic presidential nomination fight after the May 6 primaries in Indiana and North Carolina.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s victory yesterday in Pennsylvania has only accentuated the quandary that Obama faces: Stay negative and he risks undermining the premise of his candidacy. Stay aloof and he underscores Clinton’s argument that he will not be able to beat a “Republican attack machine” sure to greet him this summer.
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe indicated last night which of those options they would take. “We’ve done a lot of counterpunching. We’ve been swift and effective,” he said. “For Democrats judging how we’re going to perform as the nominee, we have been relentless.”
Obama himself took up the cudgel after Clinton delivered a victory speech in Philadelphia devoid of attack lines. Without naming Clinton, he suggested in Evansville, Ind., that she is a captive to the oil, pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies, that she “says and does whatever it takes to win the next election,” and that she exploits division for political gain.
The problem for Obama, of course, is that going negative is harder for him given the type of campaign he’s been running up until now:
[T]he candidate who rocketed to stardom as the embodiment of a new kind of politics — hopeful, positive and inspiring — saw his image tarnished in the bruising fight for Pennsylvania. Provoked by Clinton’s repeated references to his remarks about the state’s voters and her charges that he is an “elitist,” Obama struck back in the closing days of the campaign.
“It’s a real danger for Obama, and if you look at these recent ads, the messages they’re delivering in all these conference calls, it’s a far cry from last fall,” when the theme of hope emerged amid calls for a more negative tone, said Democratic consultant Steve Elmendorf, a Clinton supporter.
Republican strategist John Feehery put it less charitably: “That’s the danger of running as holier-than-thou. You have a lot farther to fall.”
Here’s the problem, though.
Up until now, Obama has done a masterful job of out-campaigning the most experienced political family in America today. He’s on the verge of winning the nomination, but he hasn’t closed the deal yet, and, after last night, Clinton is bound to continue her argument that Obama isn’t the right nominee in the fall because he doesn’t have what it takes to attract the votes needed to beat John McCain in the fall.
She may or may not be right, but the longer this goes on, the harder it’s going to be to convince the superdelegates that Obama needs to win that he’s the man for the job. If he can’t close the deal against Hillary in states like New Hampshire, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, they might ask, how is going to compete against John McCain and the entire Republican Party in the fall ?
Obama’s not going to win this election simply by continuing to campaign like he has for most of this year, he’s going to have to fight Clinton on her level. If she brings up his record, he needs to bring up hers, and her husbands. If she goes after him on character issues or people he’s associated with, he needs to do the same, and god knows there’s more dirt on the Clinton’s than there is on Barack Obama.
Yes, it’s negative campaigning. But here’s a dirty little secret for all you Obamamaniacs — negative campaigning works. It always has, and it always will. It was so-called negative campaigning that won Clinton her victory last night, and there will be a lot more of it to come in November. So, if he wants to win, Obama better start playing the game.
