Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
RECENT POSTS
- Surgeon General Nominee Was World News Tonight’s Person of the Week in 1995
- The Doctor Is (Finally) In: Obama To Nominate Regina Benjamin as Surgeon General
- President Obama Refocuses on Health Care/Stimulus
- Bob Woodruff Returns to Iraq
- President Obama Orders National Security Team to Review 2001 Afghanistan Massacre
- Will It Get Ugly? Both Sides Prepared for Start of Sotomayor Hearings Monday
- Obama in Africa
- Out of Africa
- Kenyan President should be “squirming”, says country’s political analyst
- An Emotional President Obama Tours Former Slave Port with Family
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Shrum On Clinton Memos: An "Ugly" "Appeal to Stereotypes"
August 11, 2008 8:45 AM
Bob Shrum, the chief adviser to both Al Gore and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass, in their 2000 and 2004 presidential runs, had some harsh words for the internal Clinton campaign memos that discuss attacking Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, as something less than American, as reported by Josh Green in The Atlantic.
'The notion that somehow or another that you could appeal to stereotypes like that -- suggest Obama was un-American -- would backfire in a general election and be absolutely lethal in a Democratic primary," Shrum told ABC News. "I think it was one of those memos that was written, looked at by the candidate and wisely discarded."
The memo, written by Sen. Hillary Clinton's top strategist, Mark Penn, is "an appeal to stereotypes, it's an appeal to prejudice," Shrum said. "I think it's ugly and I think if Hillary Clinton had done that, she would have permanently besmirched her reputation, her legacy, and her place in American politics."
Of Penn's March 2007 memo that correctly identified the coalition that brought her primary victories in states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio, Shrum says, "it's interesting if somebody produces a memo that says we need to go after these invisibles: lower-income voters, women, blue collar voters; and then produces a strategy that all through the summer, and into the Fall and almost up to Iowa is cautious, calculating, triangulating, and is basically a replica of President Clinton's 1996 reelection strategy when he had no competitive primaries. I mean, it's undeniable that she ran on inevitability, she ran as the candidate of the establishment, she ran as a quasi-incumbent in a year of change. It was a terrible mistake. So if Mark Penn understood what the targets were in March, maybe they should have come up with a strategy that would have reached those targets."
About the tremendous amount of infighting displayed in these memos -- and indeed, in the very existence of the Green story itself -- Shrum said, the Clinton "campaign it seems, from these memos, to have been at least as focused on the staff going after each other as they were on going after the nomination and getting past Barack Obama."
"By the way, one thing we shouldn’t ignore in all of this: they can all stand around pointing fingers at each other, they're not pointing fingers at the one person who deserves the most blame for their defeat, and that is Barack Obama," Shrum added. "He was an extraordinary candidate who resonated with what America feels and felt, and what Democrats felt as he went through those primaries."
Is there anything Obama can learn from this story and these memos?
"There's a certain strength in the sense of centeredness and almost the serenity that the Obama campaign has displayed," Shrum said. "They have a strategy, they've executed it consistently, they don’t get thrown off by day to day polls. I remember last September, there were all these people who were saying Obama is behind Clinton. He's got to go out and he's got to attack her, he's got to run negative ads. And some of his own people and fundraising people said that, and he held a conference call and he said, 'I'm not doing that. I know what the strategy is, I know what I want to say. I know how to reach people.' Now I'll tell you something: you're a lot better off in a campaign with a strategy consistently adhered to, than with 20 people debating ten competing strategies moving day to day."
-- Jake Tapper and Andy Miller
August 11, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (211)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
McCain has a plan for creating new jobs.... its called the draft.
Posted by: ALYKATMA | Aug 23, 2008 10:28:37 AM
Sylvia Johnsen.......sweety, you don't win by loosing. This the problem to with HRC and here supporters, no grasp of reality.
Posted by: Ken from Atlanta | Aug 12, 2008 6:09:44 PM
why can't we all see that Hillary is a brilliant woman who deserved the nomination? she was cheated. Scorned. Lied to.
But she is the one who comes out on top. Every time. This is Hillary's world. That is if she wants it.
god bless america.
Posted by: Nija | Aug 12, 2008 12:24:03 PM
of course there should be a floor vote at the convention!!there always has regardless of the number of delegates the candiate had. At this time, neither bho or hillary have the number of delegates needed to cinch the nomination. the clincher will be the super-delegates and they do not come into play until the states delegates are at an impasse.
bho is afraid for a floor vote, as he may loose.......or, realize hillary's supporters have not "just gotten over it..."
Posted by: pp | Aug 12, 2008 11:26:34 AM
Rationale For Super-Delegates:
Super-delegates are designed to act as a check on ideologically extreme or inexperienced candidates. The super-delegate system has been called a safety-value.
It has been 30 years since the Democratic Party has had a cliffhanger going into the Convention. If there is no clear winner after state primaries and caucuses, then the super-delegates -- who are bound only by their consciences -- will decide the nominee.
Based on the rules of the DNC and history of previous conventions, Hillary's name should and must be on the ballot in order that super delegates can vote their conscience.
Hillary for President
Posted by: Phyllis/ PA | Aug 12, 2008 9:58:17 AM
The Obama supporters keep bringing up the age issue with McCain, then I quess the race issue with Obama is fair game?
You can't keep using that lame label without casting your own candidate in the same light. You have called all of McCains supporters or Clintons, racist, while being aghast if the word even comes up for your candidate.
Age, sexism and race have no bearing in this election, so keep it on point.
Posted by: Independent minded | Aug 12, 2008 8:03:58 AM
To mummblemouth | Aug 12, 2008 3:46:13 AM: Obama painted Clinton as untrustworthy. He did it by publishing his taxes - one year at the time - and suggesting Clinton's taxes for the final years were mared with scandales. She continued to run on issues, only publishing her taxes at a later date, as she had stated the whole time. When we got them all they showed was they made a lot of money and gave a lot to charity. Media didn't write much about that.
Then it was the shameful exploitation of Clinton's RFK-remark which didn't go well and he back away from that.
Posted by: Sylvia Johnsen | Aug 12, 2008 5:09:35 AM
The Clinton memo's shows she was advised to go negative, painting Obama foreign. She didn't.
If anything they show why Clinton won (if not for 352 superdelegates). She should win, because when you have essentially a tie with Obama (even if she won the popular vote) the price should go to the most experienced with the most character.
Clinton beats Obama on issues, merits and character.
Posted by: Sylvia Johnsen | Aug 12, 2008 5:04:35 AM
Can anyone cite a single Obama smear against any of his opponents? Or can anyone explain how Clinton and McCain's attempts to divide the country to create constituencies is Obama's fault. PUMA and Co. make a lot of claims, but having followed this campaign from the beginning (originally supporting Clinton - though switching as soon as I realized there was another choice - sorry guys), I fail to see how any of these claims are valid and in fact they seem to better represent the tactics used against Obama than used by him. Is this sour grapes, racism, sexism, RNC shills; what's going on? Obama isn't perfect, but he seems to stand head and shoulders above the competition. Please don't abuse me, but I hear a lot of noise, but see little substance in these claims and claimed corollaries.
Posted by: mummblemouth | Aug 12, 2008 3:46:13 AM
Shrum said. "I think it's ugly and I think if Hillary Clinton had done that, she would have permanently besmirched her reputation, her legacy, and her place in American politics."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hillary did EVERYTHING mentioned above and more. And continues to. I'm SERIOUSLY hoping for a 3rd party in the future. And I'm hoping to see Obama in that party. Since the DNC continues to let Hillary and Bill get away with all types of ugliness, and continue to pull the party apart, it's obvious the DNC is pretty useless. Hillary ran a terrible campaign DEEPLY in debt. That's exactly how she'd run the country. The Clintons are SO OVER for most of us. But since the DNC continues to coddle them, many of us are looking for something BETTER.
Posted by: ByTheSea | Aug 12, 2008 2:48:20 AM
It's extremely unlikely that Shrum who is very closely aligned with Obama supporter's team would be privy to his opponent's campaign materials. Unless, of course, Obama staff were all along were spying and hacking into her campaign, and if his campaign did so, that would be an even bigger story. This story and Shrum do not appear credible.
Posted by: Chuck | Aug 12, 2008 2:12:39 AM
Looks like more mud-slinging, courtesy of the poopular Obama campaign, is being drug up to muddy the campaign waters. Does anyone notice that whatever he has accused his opponents of doing - THAT is exactly what he IS and has been doing!?! Bob Shrum needs to reveal his sources for where he got information on the alleged Mark Penn's memos, because Shrum was a supporter of Kerry, Edwards, and Ted Kennedy campaigns who all support her opponent. Why didn't Obama stand up against the false accusations his campaign made against Hillary and her supporters, and why no apology from him during his speech in Philadelphia? This event would have been the perfect opportunity for him to rewind the false attacks his campaign made on his key DNC opponent and her family members.
Posted by: Jilly | Aug 12, 2008 1:49:05 AM
I realize that we all have our own opinions on who's more qualified for the job as President. In the end we will have a new President come Nov. I just wish who ever it is God Speed. What we all should do is stop all the hate blogging in the end it doesn't Accomplish anything Vote for who ever you want to be in the white House just don't let Color or Age cloud your judgment
Posted by: C.J | Aug 12, 2008 1:24:14 AM
she played the game she lost, but i dont think she will walk away gracefully not when she has convinced so many people that she would have won had this happened or that happened and just like anytime she doesnt get what she wants she claims some one cheated her out of it or is out to get her..
if Edwards had been shown to be a cheater she would have won - well if clinton was shown to be a cheater he would have lost... she had no problem hiding that for himso she cant cry foul now!
Posted by: melissa | Aug 12, 2008 12:22:30 AM
Senator Obama needs to worry less about McCain and his moronathon and a lot more about Senator Clinton and her Machiavellian husband who are fully prepared to do whathever they have too to take the nomination away from him in Denver. One need only read the current accounts of the overt and invariably covert manipulations of the nominating process by her minions and surrogates demanding their "right" to vote for her at the convention. Ther is no doubt in my mind that the Clintonistas will do whatever it takes to put themselves back in the Whitehouse even if it means sacrificing the best presidential candidate this country has seen in three decades. Her "suspending" her campaign and tepidly endorsing the true nominee was simply a means by which to regroup her forces and conserve her funds until the real showdown in Denver. I am far more afraid of the CLintons than I will ever be of John McCain. If they are willing to sacrifice our party and our nation to satify their insatiable lust for power, howm any of the rest of us and our sons and daughters will they be willing to sacrifice to retain it?
Posted by: NebraskanforObama | Aug 12, 2008 12:02:26 AM
Hillary is a DOG
Posted by: spoon2456 | Aug 11, 2008 11:52:50 PM
Yawwwnnnn....is it November yet?
Posted by: JJ | Aug 11, 2008 11:20:50 PM
Just love how the democrats and their publicity apparatus (the alphabets) listen with baited breath to the musings of the sainted Bob Shrum. He has been zero for the last century on presidential campaigns. Keep it up. If the GOP hadn't "stolen" all those elections Bob would have won 'em all.
Posted by: ShermansSam | Aug 11, 2008 11:04:56 PM
Obama is a career corrupt Chi-town politican...they typically do "community service" as a way to round up voters for themselves. Why any insist on trying to make this into something admirable is beyond me.
Posted by: chattyway | Aug 11, 2008 10:58:24 PM
Fortunately people are tired of being lied to - they are tired of hearing the name calling and bogus issues like a jewelry based system of patriotism. I accessorise therefore I am. Obama has spent his life walking the walk - working as a community organizer to make life better for those most in need - doing the hard tedious work of state government - and reaching across the aisle in the senate. Name calling and invented issues won't win the day this time around.
Posted by: nh bob | Aug 11, 2008 10:23:39 PM
Post a comment

