Memo to Obama: win Iowa or lose the race

[Fash]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dee0a6e8-a109 ... ck_check=1

TO: Senator Barack Obama

FROM: Karl Rove

SUBJECT: How to Beat Hillary

Not that you have asked for advice, but here it is anyway: Iowa is your chance to best her. If you do not do it there, odds are you never will anywhere. You are way behind her in most national polls. The only way to change that is to beat her in Iowa so people around America take another look at you. You did a smart thing organising effectively in the early primary states. But you can take advantage of that only if you win Iowa and keep her from building an overwhelming sense of invincibility and inevitability.

The good news is you have again got “the buzz”. Polls are looking better for you in Iowa and the other early states. Your press is improving, with your performance at the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson dinner a big help. Hillary Clinton has made unforced errors. But she is still the frontrunner and there are several things you need to do quickly to win.

First, stop acting like a vitamin-deficient Adlai Stevenson. Striking a pose of being high-minded and too pure will not work. Americans want to see you scrapping and fighting for the job, not in a mean or ugly way but in a forceful and straightforward way.

Hillary may come over as calculating and shifty but she looks in control. You, on the other hand, often come over as weak and ineffectual. In some debates, you do not even look at her when disagreeing with her, making it look as if you are afraid of her. She offers you openings time and again but you do not take advantage of them. Sharpen your attacks and make them more precise.

Take the exchange in the Philadelphia debate about Bill and Hillary keeping documents hidden about her role as first lady in his White House. She was evasive. You spoke next. You would have won a big victory if you had turned to her and said: “Senator, with all due respect, you and your husband could release those documents right now if you wanted to. Your failure to do so raises questions among a lot of Americans about what you’re hiding and those questions would hurt our party if you were our nominee.” But your response was weak as dirty dishwater. Do not let other great opportunities pass by.

Second, focus on the fact that many Democrats have real doubts about Hillary. They worry she cannot win, will be a drag on the ticket and that if she got to the White House it would be a disaster. You know better than most what they are worried about; they have told you their fears. It is why you have done so well raising money from Bill’s backers and gaining support from Clinton administration officials. Talk about those doubts. Put them in a bigger context than just the two of you. Remind primary voters that these shortcomings will hurt Democratic chances.

Third, when you create controversies do not pick issues where you are playing the weaker hand. For example, you attacked her for lacking foreign policy experience. It is true she was first lady, not secretary of state, and nobody will ever mistake her for James Baker III. But your qualifications are even thinner; you were a state senator and lived in Indonesia when you were six. Big deal. Americans think she has more foreign policy experience than you – and she does.

Fourth, when you disagree with her be clear about what you believe. You cannot afford more garbled responses like the one you gave in Las Vegas on drivers’ licences for illegal aliens. Answer yes or no. Do not give voters evidence you are as calculating as her.

Fifth, you need to do a better job explaining what kind of change you represent. The change theme is a good one and Democratic voters know you were against the war and represent the idea of something fresh. But they do not know who you really are, what you want to do and where you want to take the country. Taking her down a few notches is step one; telling people who you are is the next. Both are necessary.

Sixth, find a way to gently belittle her whenever she tries to use disagreements among Democrats as an excuse to complain about being picked on. The toughest candidate in the field should not be able to complain when others disagree with her. This is not a coronation. Democrats do not like her sense of entitlement. She is not owed the nomination. It does not belong to her simply because her name is Clinton. So blow the whistle on her when she tries to become a victim. Do it with humour and a smile and it will sting even more.

Hillary comes across as cold, distant and conspiracy-minded, more like Richard Nixon than her sunny, charming husband. During the Clinton presidency she oversaw a disaster (the effort to sell Hillarycare) and argued hard against welfare reform, one of the promises on which he had campaigned. She is a hard-nosed competitor with a tough and seasoned staff.

But her record is weak, her personality off-putting and her support thin. If she wins the nomination it will be because her rivals – namely you – were weak when you confronted her and could not look her in the eye when you did. She is beatable but you have to raise your game. Iowa is your great chance for a breakthrough. Win it convincingly and you can build on it in the contests that follow. Lose it and victory becomes much more difficult.

I'm sure Obama would've appreciated this more if it came privately in the mail. I hope he kicks her ass.

[Xyun]

GOT HOPE?

http://www.barackobama.com

[Ashur]

All you Dems - vote for Obama in your Primary. Don't make me vote for one of these fools the Republicans have running in the general election (Although if Ron Paul gets the nod I'll do so regardless), because I'm voting against Hillary if she's running regardless.

[Leonaerd]

I hope Obama reads this.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Me too. I want him to get the nomination. I'm leaning toward voting for him.

[Ashur]

The more I think about this, the more I think he did it so people would think he wanted Obama to win and vote for Clinton instead because it's a documented fact among the Democratic party that Karl Rove is the Antichrist. This sets up Clinton as an easier target than Obama to beat in the general election.

Either that or he's just amazed that Obama's folks aren't doing these things and couldn't restrain himself any longer.

[Markulas]

Anyone got any theories of why Rove wrote this in the first place? Keep in mind that this is a guy who wants a permanent GOP majority.

Obama's lack of experience could be a good thing in this election. His message of getting rid of the good ole boys (including Hillary) and partisanship really speaks to voters.

[Ashur]

Anyone got any theories of why Rove wrote this in the first place? Keep in mind that this is a guy who wants a permanent GOP majority.

Yeah, read the post above yours.

[Winnow]

Not the best source, but an update on happenings in Iowa:

Losing Ground In Iowa, Clinton Assails Obama

By Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 3, 2007; A01

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa, Dec. 2 -- With a new poll showing her losing ground in the Iowa caucus race, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) mounted a new, more aggressive attack against Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Sunday, raising direct questions about his character, challenging his integrity and forecasting a sharp debate over those subjects in the days ahead.

Clinton has hammered Obama recently over his health-care proposal, arguing that he is misleading voters because it omits millions of people and would not lower costs. But Sunday, in a dramatic shift, she made it clear that her goal is to challenge Obama not just on policy but also on one of his strongest selling points: his reputation for honesty.

"There's a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we're willing to fight for," Clinton told reporters here. She said voters in Iowa will have a choice "between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who's walked the walk."

Asked directly whether she intended to raise questions about Obama's character, she replied: "It's beginning to look a lot like that."

The Obama campaign quickly fought back, and the candidate himself called the new effort a sign of desperation. A new Des Moines Register poll released Sunday finds Clinton three points behind Obama, within the poll's margin of error, among likely Democratic caucusgoers.

"I think that folks from some of the other campaigns are reading the polls and starting to get stressed and issuing a whole range of outlandish accusations," Obama said. His advisers -- and some of hers -- believe that if Clinton loses the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3, her status as the front-runner nationally will evaporate.

On the Republican side, the Register's poll showed a continuing surge for former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who described his campaign as "on fire." Huckabee garnered the support of 29 percent of respondents, 17 points better than in the previous poll. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney pulled in 24 percent, a drop of five points.

The survey marked the first time Romney has slipped from the lead in the state since early summer. The result is a dramatic shift in the Republican contest, which had been shaping up as a nasty, two-man race between Romney and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.

As a consequence, Romney has begun to turn his attacks toward Huckabee as he faces the prospect of losing a state that he spent millions to win. That would be a devastating blow to Romney's strategy of minimizing his lackluster performance in national polls by pointing to his enduring strength in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Huckabee said on ABC's "This Week," "That's why there's an excitement about my campaign. It's just not about Mike Huckabee. It's about all those Americans out there who were told what they couldn't do, what they couldn't become."

The new Clinton strategy, acknowledged by her senior advisers as an intentional pivot, carries significant risks and could produce a potential backlash if voters perceive her as growing too negative. The Register's poll also found that Clinton was seen by Iowa voters as the most negative of the Democratic contenders.

Obama had the support of 28 percent of respondents, up six points from the last Register poll, in early October. Former senator John Edwards (N.C.) drew 23 percent. Clinton was in the middle at 25 percent, down four points from early October. The margin of error is 4.4 percentage points.

Clinton, campaigning across Iowa on Sunday, appeared to be spoiling for a fight with her chief Democratic rival in national polls -- even at one point describing the battle as "fun."

"I have said for months that I would much rather be attacking Republicans, and attacking the problems of our country, because ultimately that's what I want to do as president. But I have been, for months, on the receiving end of rather consistent attacks. Well, now the fun part starts. We're into the last month, and we're going to start drawing the contrasts," she said.

That drew a swift rebuke from Obama. "This presidential campaign isn't about attacking people for fun, it's about solving people's problems, like ending this war and creating a universal health care system," he said in a statement. "Washington insiders might think throwing mud is fun, but the American people are looking for leadership that can unite this country around a common purpose."

Obama advisers described the strategy as foolhardy, and reminiscent of the approach perfected by former Bush White House adviser Karl Rove: going after a front-runner on his strengths and challenging his sincerity.

The intensified back-and-forth between Clinton and Obama appeared certain to aggravate the Edwards campaign, which is combating the perception of a two-person race in Iowa when polls show that he is still very much in contention.

Clinton advisers had telegraphed her new, hard-knuckled approach before she brought it to the campaign trail herself.

On a Sunday talk show, communications director Howard Wolfson criticized the Illinois senator for using a political action committee to distribute money to candidates in local contests, some in early presidential primary states. "There's a lot that voters don't know about Barack Obama," Wolfson said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

The Clinton campaign has been steadily building what it describes as a character case against Obama for several weeks, particularly over his health-care plan. Clinton has argued that he is being disingenuous when he claims his plan would achieve universal coverage.

Obama's plan would not mandate that all people buy health insurance; instead it focuses on lowering costs. Strategists said Clinton chose health care as a target area because she believes she has a large advantage on the issue among many voters.

Sunday, however, marked the first time that Clinton raised the character question so bluntly on the campaign trail. In a question-and-answer session with reporters after her first stop, she said that "you can't get a straight answer" from Obama on health care.

Clinton advisers said they make no apology for going on the offensive after months of criticism by both Obama and Edwards. "Senator Obama is a fabulous orator, but we need more than words," Wolfson said in an interview. "We don't need someone who says one thing and does another, somebody who talks a good game but doesn't have the courage of their convictions. And on issue after issue, Senator Obama says one thing and does another."

Staff writer Michael D. Shear in Washington contributed to this report.

[Leonaerd]

I didn't read all of that book, but

"I think that folks from some of the other campaigns are reading the polls and starting to get stressed and issuing a whole range of outlandish accusations," Obama said. His advisers -- and some of hers -- believe that if Clinton loses the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3, her status as the front-runner nationally will evaporate.

is pretty exciting to read. I hope Obama gets on the ballot just so I can see states like Kansas and Wyoming vote 99% Republican due to his name.

[Asheran Mojomaster]

Thank God, both Hillary and Guiliani are going down! I hope for Ron Paul VS Kucinich but Obama is an acceptable substitute. I don't agree with a lot of his politics, but I get a good vibe about his character. That isn't a very common thing.

[Nick]

I really don't understand how Ron Paul, the anti-abortion gold standard advocate has somehow managed to be the best possible candidate the Republican Party is able to field. And he really is, since every other one of the Rep. candidates is a fucking lunatic and/or asshole retard.

I hope Obama wins for the Dems, but I doubt he will.