by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright November 17, 2007
All Rights Reserved.

ebounding from a sub-par showing in the Oct. 30 Democratic debate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) proved why she's the front-runner and the odds-on favorite to with the nomination. In Philadelphia, Clinton got tripped up on a yes-or-no question of whether she supported drivers' licenses for illegal aliens. In response to lawyer-like questioning form NBC's “Meet the Press” anchor Tim Russert,” Hillary hem-hawed, prompting Sen. Barack Obama (D-Il.) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) to question her authenticity. When Hillary equivocated, saying she supported New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to issue drivers licenses, she opened herself to criticism. Edwards and Obama went for the jugular, stereotyping Hillary as a disingenuous flip-flopper, exposing her vulnerability. In the Nov. 15 debate, Hillary answered her critics, neutralizing Obama and Edwards.

      Hillary answered the bell, firing back at Obama and Edwards. She called her rival's attacks “right out of the Republican playbook” but, instead of taking it personally, admitted the attacks were intended to make up lost ground. “People are not attacking me because I'm a woman, they're attacking me because I'm ahead,” said Clinton, to cheers from a most supportive University of Nevada, Las Vegas audience. Instead of complaining and blaming her rivals' attacks on “the boys' club” piling it on, she took the heat and responded in kind, demonstrating “grace under pressure,” the hallmark of acting presidential. When mild-mannered CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer asked again whether candidates' supported drivers' licenses for undocumented workers, Clinton answered with a decisive “no.” It was Obama's turn at equivocation, catching the first-term Illinois senator flatfooted.

      Obama couldn't answer Wolf's simple yes-or-no on the question of drivers' licenses, waffling like Hillary in the previous debate. “What the American people are looking for right now is straight answers to tough questions,” said Obama, before Wolf put the drivers' license questions to him. Because Obama attacked Hillary for equivocating, his reluctance to answer Blitzer's question invited a harsh backlash from the UNLV audience. Apart from calling out Obama and Edwards for “mudslinging,” Hillary, made them both pay. “There's nothing personal about this,” said Edwards, justifying his criticism but collecting boos from the Hillary-leaning audience. Edwards and Obama couldn't persuade too many voters to abandon Hillary, especially after making a big deal about her equivocations on key issues. After the Las Vegas debate, she looked more inevitable.

      Hillary found out that it doesn't take much to push back against her critics. Giving them enough rope, Obama and Edwards helped Hillary by appearing too aggressive. Proving the importance of words, Hillary admonished Obama and Edwards for “throwing mud,” a more colloquial expression for negative campaigning. Establishing himself as peacemaker and possible VP pick, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson also admonished Hillary's critics to stop “mudslinging.” Unable to capitalize on Hillary's slip in the last debate, Obama and Edwards faded quickly, leaving the audience impatient and intolerant of more criticism. When Edwards and Obama criticized Hillary for failing to commit to a fix on Social Security, she gave the most presidential answer, namely, she'd urge, as the late President Ronald Reagan in 1987, a bipartisan commission to find the answer.

      Presidential candidates don't have to answer every campaign question, only respond appropriately to legitimate issues. When pressured on the campaign trail or in the Oval Office, Reagan would rarely give specific answers to controversial questions. Smart candidates or presidents know it's not the answers per se but rather how they answer. There's nothing wrong with saying you're studying the matter and will answer the question in due time. Answering too glibly can boomerang by forcing candidates to eventually changes positions, risking the flip-flopper label. Hillary was criticized for telling an audience her alma mater, Wellesley College, that she sought to compete with the “boys' club.” When asked whether she was playing the “gender card,” she responded cleverly. “I'm not playing the gender card here in Las Vegas,” said Hillary. “I'm playing the winning card,” winning applause.

      Hillary's “winning card” involves pushing back, letting opponents know she won't be pushed around. Accusing opponents of “mudslinging” rang true with prospective voters, busy figuring out why campaigns go negative. Obama and Edwards had the perfect chance to score points after Hillary's weak showing on Oct. 30. When Obama equivocated and Edwards lashed out Nov.15, Hillary benefited, watching while they made their own mistakes. Obama made a rookie error overreacting and interrupting Hillary after she questioned his healthcare plan, leaving 15 million citizens uninsured. Hillary got nowhere pulling the “gender card” or blaming “the boys' club” of “piling on.” She scored big in Las Vegas when she showed grace-under-pressure and returned fire. In the remaining weeks before Iowa, she needs to refine her positions on key issues and continue acting presidential.

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.