That's what happens when you don't do the right thing.

Hers another example and if I was hill I'd use this line of attack.

An examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Mr. Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way.

Mr. Obama did not vote yes or no on a bill that would allow certain victims of sexual crimes to petition judges to seal court records relating to their cases...On the sex crime bill, Mr. Obama cast the lone present vote in a 58-to-0 vote.

Clinton's campaign is using the "present" votes to attack Obama; but those votes were part of a Planned Parenthood pro-choice strategy.

"those votes were part of a Planned Parenthood pro-choice strategy." - Matt Weiner

All 36 of them? Must of been a pretty complicated strategy.

When has she ever been able to operate under her own frames? She is always trying to emerge from someone else's frame. To paraphrase Bill Richardson, the media has made sure experience becomes a leper. Just like 7 years ago.

Yes, but can't she boldly claim that at least she was consistently on the wrong side of her own rhetoric?

"An examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Mr. Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way."

That gives him a craven/cowardly ratio of 0.09%. And he didn't let any wars start on his watch in the process.

Is it troubling? Yes. Is it any more or less troubling than you will find in the record of any politician? No.

It's weak tea, my friend. And, when he's running against two opponents with not-very-liberal voting records in a change election, you're going to need something alot stronger.

On each of the relevant issues there, Hillary is on the wrong side of her own rhetoric.

Actually, all this goes to show is that Hillary Clinton really is a Republican. This kinda campaigning is "Mayor Quimby even released the notorious criminal Side Show Bob ... vote, Side Show Bob for mayor" rhetoric straight from the Karl Rove playbook.

Which, might not be a bad thing if HRC would just use it against Republicans rather than her "fellow Democrats" ...

True. At best, it would work in having people think Edwards or, more importantly, Obama are no better than her but even then she loses: most people think the other two are more electable and more likely to fend off attack from the right-wing (her two main selling points).

brewmn,

It's pretty hard to start a war unless you're CIC.

Let me clear none of the Democratic field started the war, it's sad that Obama supporters keep using this smear on Hillary. She has faults, but the war belongs to The Republicans that voted who supported and voted for Bush.

And if you haven't been listening the same said Republicans think Obama is the best of the Democratic field...

The Clinton campaign's problem is that the only message they had was their own inevitability. After Obama won Iowa, they suddenly realized they had nothing to say, which should have been a huge red flag all along, but somehow wasn't. Now she has to work within the Change narrative that Obama and Edwards have established, and she's screwed.

If one of Obama or Edwards does win, it'll be nice to finally have Dem leadership who really understand the importance of narrative and framing the long-term debate, and who are good at coming up with compelling narratives and frames as well.

The message here is simple- Barack Obama speaks for change, but he doesn't act for it. The issue isn't if Hillary was for the Patriot Act, the war, or has ties to lobbyists. The issue is if Barack Obama can actually be a candidate of change if all the same things are true of him. While he rails against the system anytime he wants to get elected to a higher office, when he has acted within the constraints of that system his actions are virtually indistinguishable from those he criticizes. Everyone is for change. His charisma has allowed him to become an icon of that near universal sentiment. No reasoned argument that demands proof as to why we should believe Obama will be an agent of change will have much of an impact. Like his predecessor, Obama's message of change is faith based, not reason based. We must have faith in the power of hope, and anyone who questions that is questioning the very essence of one's being; much in the same way that to question George W Bush was to question the very core of his supporter's being because support for him was based in large part upon one's faith in a higher being. I prefer Obama's approach to Bush's, but I fear it may lead to many of the same consequences. It could divide us because those who follow Obama feel so strongly about him that there is no room for reasoned deliberation about his actions. For proof of this you need look no further than the response when people such as Ezra and Krugman dared to criticize him.

I heard that some men were screaming "IRON MY SHIRT" at Hillary on a campaign stop today. And that Edwards, when asked about Clinton's tearing up earlier in the day, implied that it was a sign of weakness.

Change. Oh yeah. I'm feeling the change.

Sorry, S Brennan, for some reason I thought you were referring specifically to the votes on abortion (on which more here). Clearly, on those 36 votes, he was out on his own, but I don't see how that can be the basis of an effective attack unless there's something hot-button about those issues.

Ezra, considering that every Senator except Russ Feingold voted for the Patriot Act (and Feingold could have if it had been amended to his liking) it's not much of a rap on Hillary Clinton for voting for it.

Hillary Clinton's past pretty much determined what kind of campaign she's run, given the intense negative spin the Republicans and more than a few Democrats have successfully sold many voters on. For awhile her campaign strategy worked well enough to lower her negatives over the summer, no small thing that. But Obama pulled off a big surprise in Iowa by pulling in a record number of independents to the Democratic caucuses and really startled everyone. If Obama can pull that off in New Hampshire and carry that momentum into South Carolina, he's probably going to win big in early February and go on to win the nomination. I'm not sure Hillary Clinton could have done anything to counter that given where she's coming from herself.

Squeaky clean candidates are often brought low by charges of hypocrisy. This strategic criticism might stick, if Hillary can find better examples. (I'm not advocating this, I just think it might work...)

Expanding, hypocrisy charges seem to often change the terms of the debate, and focus the media on a different topic, more to the benefit of the accuser. Hill's positions don't matter, only the hypocrisy of Obama/Edwards (if it exists). Sort of like family-values Republican sex-scandals... they get a lot more coverage, no?

Ezra--I've been confused over the past couple of days, as I feel more and more as though I;m on Andrew Sullivan's site. You have still failed to identify how exactly Obama plans to force change, or how he has done so in the past.

I guess a good speech suffices for adequate coverage of a candidate's record.

You have still failed to identify how exactly Obama plans to force change, or how he has done so in the past. I guess a good speech suffices for adequate coverage of a candidate's record.

I think this is a bit of a bum rap. Obama hasn't really been any more vague about how he plans to change things than anybody else has. But then, it's not really a big mystery. George W. Bush/Karl Rove figured it out just fine with the Iraq adventure. Use the "bully pulpit" of the presidency to convince a solid majority of the electorate that your proposal is the country's top priority. Keep the drumbeat constant, so that members of Congress fear losing their jobs (the only thing they really care about) if they go against you.

How successful this is depends on how adept you are at using the mass media to communicate and persuade.

The truth of the matter is, none of the candidates have particularly impressive records. All we've really got to go on is their rhetoric, their agenda, and our judgments about their character. It's all speculation in a way, hopefully informed, but fundamentally uncertain no matter what.

"None are issues that give her any advantage."

That's not her point. She isn't trying to elevate herself above the other frontrunners, she's trying to bring them down to her level. See?

However, I don't like the rising amount of negative infighting among the Dems at all. This is only working to the advantage of the Republicans. When the Dem candidate finally is nominated, he/she will already be handicapped by all those negative. Not really a smart tactic, when the goal is get a Dem into the WH and to end 8 years of right wing presidency. But the problem seems to be that there are close to no differences between the programs of the frontrunners, so what shall they do to differentiate themselves from each other?
:-/