I swear I'm going to stop

I really am. But I just wanted to point out the daily ROFLer from Howard Wolfson:

You may not remember, but Hillary Clinton is at her best staying positive and contrasting with her opponents on issues.

As it happens, I agree with the piece. It's stupid to view Hillary strictly as Palin-bane. But that first part of that comment is almost contradicted by the first last. I guess Wolfson deserves slack because he basically was trying to get Hillary to do just that. But I thought part of the point of her candidacy was that she was fighter who relished attacking. Wasn't that what that infamous "fun part" comment was about? Anyway, from here on out, there will be self-imposed ban on snide comments by me, directed at Wolfson. The rest of ya'll can do what you feel.

Comments

David September 8, 2008 1:43 PM

"But that first part of that comment is almost contradicted by the first."

Last.

J.W. Hamner September 8, 2008 1:59 PM

I think he means that she's at her best attacking people on their positions on the issues as opposed to their qualifications or character. I think that's actually pretty much true based on the debates... she always seemed most comfortable playing the wonk's wonk... and while playing the "experience card" was arguably more effective, she didn't seem to pull it off as well or as smoothly.

Regardless, I think he's right that it serve's nobody's interests but McCain's to make this election about Sarah Palin.

DougEFresh September 8, 2008 2:30 PM

Both Clintons are fighters, when the benefits from a skirmish accrue directly to them. Bill went into fight mode when Obama mentioned that Reagan was a game changer and left Clinton on the historical sidelines. Bill also got the fire in the belly with that 9/11 mini series that hit at his admin.

It does seem like it could backfire having Hillary go hard after Palin. Her criticisms could be dismissed as petty jealousy since she was overlooked for VP

Joe Klein's conscience September 8, 2008 2:30 PM

Wolfson is no Democrat. He runs to Faux Noise at the first opportunity. He's just a mercenary.

latts September 8, 2008 2:42 PM

I took it to mean that she really was at her best-- i.e., more persuasive, engaging, and successful-- when doing the positivity/issues thing. It may be debatable in the sense that her anti-Obama attacks secured her some success in the later primaries, but I can certainly see an argument that that approach was more natural and appropriate for HRC, and therefore "best."

Jibril Jackson September 8, 2008 3:16 PM

As a journalist, I'd be interested as to what you and Andrew think of this article on Palin on the merits. Could be totally spurious but I don't have the platform to evaluate. At the same time, I'd couldn't possibly be less suprised...

http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/05/alaskans-speak-in-a-frightened-whisper-palin-is-%E2%80%9Cracist-sexist-vindictive-and-mean%E2%80%9D/

Ta-Nehisi Coates September 8, 2008 3:24 PM

I stopped reading after that very inflammatory charge up top was basically attributed to an anonymous source. It's exactly the sort of piece you'll never see me linking to.

Zach September 8, 2008 4:13 PM

Wolfson's attempt at self-reinvention is ridiculous. He was on Morning Joe two to three times a week until the bitter end of the Clinton campaign and didn't do a dammed thing to dispel the bitter/cling bullshit, call Clinton out on racist garbage ("The only racist thing said in this campaign was when Obama said Hillary was a Senator from Punjab" -- saying that in downstate Indiana to an audience that's 99.99999% white is racist, I'm sorry), etc.

Wolfson can leak all of the "Don't listen to Penn!" memos he wants to the Atlantic, but when it comes down to it, he was right there with Hillary when she took up Penn's strategy full bore at the end of the campaign. There's absolutely nothing noble about avoiding a jingoistic campaign for six months after Penn first advised it and then deciding to follow his advice only after you're facing an inevitable loss.

pillsy September 8, 2008 4:36 PM

I think Wolfson's right about Hillary being at her best when she's positive and talks about issues, and even think that she can do that while contrasting herself with her opponents. I also think that her campaign's attempts to turn her into a fighter were not conspicuously effective and actually robbed her of a lot of her appeal.

kirbyCTB September 8, 2008 6:12 PM

Isn't a Sarah-Hillary smackdown just more male fantasy of a Joan Collins-Linda Evans romp in the pool fight? Spare me.

Therese September 8, 2008 10:21 PM

you will -> ya will -> ya'll
you all -> ya all -> y'all
you all will -> ya all will -> y'all'll

("Y'all'll all be there?" Totally possible!)

Ron E. September 9, 2008 9:51 AM

Wolfson is right. Hillary was most effective when she passionately argued for policy. She fell flat when she tried to go negative like with the "change you can xerox" line.