by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright March 2, 2008
All Rights Reserved.

etting hit with everything but the kitchen sink, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Il.) has managed to survive the Clinton attack machine, every bit the match of what she affectionately calls “the vast right wing conspiracy.” Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) told voters that she's been battle-tested from years of warfare with the GOP. What she didn't expect was that her own smear campaign provided Barack with the best immunity against the fall campaign. “It's 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep,” says a narrator over ominous music and black-and-white images,” describing Hillary's “red telephone” ad, whose earlier versions in 1984 and 1988 attempted to scare up votes. “Your vote decides who will answer the call,” says the narrator. “Whether it's someone who already knows the world's leaders, knows the military—someone tested and read to lead in a dangerous world.”

      Hillary finds herself in the unenviable position of losing ground in Ohio and Texas only three days before the March 4 primaries. She's watched her double-digit leads evaporate, putting Barack up by between 3%-6% in Texas, and drawing nearly even in Ohio. Since losing South Carolina Jan. 26, Hillary has lost 11 consecutive primaries, pinning her hopes on Texas and Ohio, despite trends showing Obama making steady progress as he did when won Wisconsin Feb. 19 by a whopping 18%, when pre-election polls had the contest a dead heat. Despite close polls in Texas and Ohio, last-minute voters, especially independents and crossovers, should deliver a substantial victory to Barack on Election Day. Negative ads tends to backfire at the end of campaigns, where voters read candidates' desperation, watching campaigns unravel before voters enter the election booth.

      Obama reacted to Hillary's attack ads, painting him as a foreign and defense policy novice. “We've seen these ads before. They're the kind that play on people's fears to try to scare up votes,” said Barack. Without taking it personally, Hillary has no other choice than landing a freak knock out punch before March 4. When she's debating Barack one-on-one, she shies away from direct confrontation, preferring to tell Obama “it's an honor to be on the same stage as Barack Obama.” Since losing Winsconsin, Hillary has joined GOP presumptive nominee John McCain (R-Ariz.) attacking Barack's fitness as commander-in-chief. McCain and Hillary have the same motives, praying that cumulative attack ads derail Obama's candidacy. GOP strategists have said for some time that they'd prefer runing against Hillary in the general election. Beating up on Barack helps both Hillary and the GOP.

      Going negative turns off voters already convinced about for whom they'll vote. Hillary hopes to create enough reasonable doubt that voters change their minds and vote for the former First Lady. “There's a big difference between delivering a speech at an antiwar rally as a state senator and pick up that phone at 3 a.m. in the morning and dealing with an international crisis,” Hillary told military veterans in Waco, Texas, ironically, knowing she's never served in the armed forces. Painting Obama as a foreign and defense policy novice runs the risk of scrutinizing her own suspect record on defense and national security. Most voters don't credit her eight years as First Lady as proof of military, defense and foreign policy experience. With the clock ticking, it's doubtful that Hillary's eleventh hour attack ads are going to derail Obama's momentum heading into Texas and Ohio.

      Obama keeps pushing back, refusing to allow Hillary & Co. to swift boat him into giving in. “In fact,” said Barack in response to Hillary's “red phone ad.” “We have had a phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. And Sen. Clinton gave the wrong answer. George Bush gave the wrong answer. John McCain gave the wrong answer,” in response to voting Oct. 11, 2002 to authorize Bush o use force against Saddam Hussein. Barack points out that Hillary's claim of superior experience would have resulted in the same decision made by the White House. Bush's decision to invade Iraq was based on 40 years of collective GOP foreign policy and defense experience dating back to the Nixon administration, where many key advisors cut their teeth. You couldn't have more experience driving the Iraq policy than in Bush's White House. Yet most voters think it was a bad decision.

      Eleven consecutive primaries victories tell the story of whether voters believe experience is the key to making good decisions. Whether Bush had much foreign policy background or not, it's largely accepted there was no shortage of experience on the White House foreign and defense policy team. Hillary's right that there's a big difference between making speeches and casting votes in the U.S. Senate. When she voted Oct. 11, 2002 to authorize Bush to use force, she accepted the plan to invade Iraq. Nearly four thousand dead U.S. soldiers, 30,000 wounded and $1 trillion depleted from the U.S. treasury showed the real consequences to her vote. While hindsight's 20/20, she still made, with all her experience, the wrong decision. Obama, like the voters that support him, have showed that common sense and good judgment are more important than experience and time in Washington.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.