by Damozel | You could argue that perhaps that people's spouses shouldn't be allowed to speak for their campaigns
under any circumstances on the same principle on which doctors refrain
from operating on family members or lawyers refrain from defending
them. I don't think it's possible to be objective when someone
attacks your spouse, even when what they say is true. If it isn't, or
if you believe it isn't, it's doubly hard. Most people have said that it's about time Bill Clinton shuts up. Indeed, I've thought so myself, much as I am fond of Bill Clinton.
But as Ben Smith (The Politico) points out, the Bill Clinton-as-campaign-pit-bull doesn't seem to be doing Hillary any harm.
After two weeks of reports on the former president's temper, the former first lady's supposed inability to keep him on script, and the ostensibly dire impact on his legacy, Hillary Rodham Clinton has won two straight primaries.
If there are Democratic voters who share the assessment that he's a "liability" to the campaign — a term floated by outlets from The New York Times to the London Telegraph — this reporter and many others seem not to have found many of them. And though Clinton's original, improvised attacks on Sen. Barack Obama discomfited some inside his wife's campaign, they also seemed to hit their mark. (The Politico)
According to Smith, "Turn Bill loose" is a deliberate campaign strategy on the part of the Clinton campaign. Could it be that the media (including political bloggers) are more sensitive to the back and forth sniping between these campaigns than the general public?
Maybe Democratic voters---remembering the muted, gentlemanly campaign of John Kerry---want to see good, vigorous scrapping between the campaigns. Could this be true?
Bill Clinton's approval rating stood at 79 percent among Democrats in one CBS poll this summer, and interviews with voters in the early states often find Democrats saying that her access to her husband's advice is a key reason for supporting Hillary Clinton.
"While some observes have warned the campaign not to allow the former president to 'steal the limelight,' [Bill] Clinton has the ability to validate the candidate and launch aggressive push backs on [Hillary's] opponents, including those of us in the media," said Donna Brazile, a former Clinton aide and CNN commentator who was recently one of his critics.
He's "a beloved figure in the Democratic party," she added. (The Politico).
Hell, maybe it IS a good strategy, at least as regards the primaries. It's true that a lot of the current tut-tutting is coming from people who dislike one or both of the Clintons and who don't especially (or at all) want to see Hillary take the nomination.
I don't know jack about political campaigns, but my colleague D
Cupples does, and she's skeptical of the current criticisms of Bill's
role as pit bull for Hill, recently pointing out that anytime Hillary
fights back she's accused of being "shrill" and "ruthless" and
"aggressive" and the rest. And, as she also points out, the strategy
doesn't seem to be losing Hillary support among ordinary voters (i.e.,
those who don't spend enough time on the internet to know the "conventional wisdom" (opinions of media watchers).
I'd argue that there is certainly a case for Bill backing off if Hillary wins, though it now occurs to me that my theory that moderates and independents won't go for a "Billary" twofer ticket. Even that may not be true. Is it possible that some independents and moderates, forced to choose between another Republican and the dread "Billary" will at some unconscious level cast a vote for a return to the (comparative) peace and prosperity of the Clinton years?
Ben Smith again:
The press and the Beltway establishment have famously misjudged America's view of Bill Clinton in the past, writing him off during the sex scandals of the late 1990s that left his job approval ratings higher than ever. The latest variation on this theme came at Dartmouth College on Jan. 7, when in response to a student’s question Clinton laced into Obama’s record and the press coverage of it.
News media accounts suggested Clinton was becoming unhinged at the prospect of his wife’s defeat. Inside her campaign, there were some who feared the media was right....
But the former president’s comment — that the media had created a "fairy tale" version of Obama's record on Iraq — got wide coverage in New Hampshire and around the country, in ways that previous efforts to challenge Obama’s preferred storyline had not. (The Politico)
It occurs to me to read this to wonder why I had the impression that I understood better than Clinton's handlers what her strategy for the primaries. Yep, shutting up now. We'll just have to see how it goes.
Memeorandum here. Read here
OTHER BN-POLITICS POSTINGS
Candidate Debate: Campaign Finance, NAFTA and Obama's Reagan Remarks
Obama Praised Reagan, but for What? [Updated]
Fraught Moments from Along the Campaign Trail
Rove's Bold & Innovative Plan for Beating Top Dems
Comments