The reports of her death are greatly exaggerated.
Now, I’m not saying she’s a smart bet for the nomination–at all. There’s simply no way she can face John McCain in November without launching a protracted, painful, party-rending battle involving Florida, Michigan, superdelegate arm-twisting and various and sundry acts of God. But in about 30 minutes or so, Clinton is set to go on stage at the Stockyards in Fort Worth, Texas to deliver a speech that shows why we shouldn’t count her out just yet. Pivoting off yesterday’s “Children” ad–which helped her dominate the news cycle for the first time in forever–the New York senator will take Obama to task for “run[ning] away from a debate on national security.” Here’s a preview:
…My opponent and I are in an important debate about national security – and which one of us is best prepared to take charge as Commander-in-Chief. He calls that fear-mongering. Well, I don’t think Texans scare that easy. We know we have a job to do – to end the war in Iraq and win the war in Afghanistan. When my opponent says it’s fear-mongering to talk about who is ready to protect America, I say: If you can’t have that debate with me, how can you have it with John McCain? We are running for the most important job in the world, and you can’t run away from a debate on national security…
My opponent talks about a speech he gave on Iraq in 2002. Well, there’s a big difference between giving a speech at an anti-war rally and giving orders as commander-in-chief. When a crisis comes and that phone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House, you don’t have time for speeches. You don’t have time for on-the-job training. He talks about these issues, but then he goes missing in action. He gave his speech about Iraq when he was running for the Senate, but two years later he said he agreed with the way George Bush was conducting the war. He’s running an ad that touts his position on Afghanistan. He chairs a subcommittee on NATO, which is a major ally in the war in Afghanistan. But he failed to hold a single substantive hearing on Afghanistan or anything else. He even went missing on an important vote on Iran.
The speech–especially the section in bold–is smart politics, plain and simple. The ostentatious “Children” ad was the bait, shifting the conversation from Clinton’s flailing bid to Obama’s national security bona fides. Once Obama chomped down and decried the spot as fear-mongering–accurately, I think–Clinton was free to say, “My opponent and I are in an important debate about national security.” Now she’s redefining the terms of that debate–to her advantage. While Obama’s original charge of “fear-mongering” applied solely to the ad, today Clinton is claiming that “my opponent says it’s fear-mongering to talk about who is ready to protect America.” That’s patently ridiculous, of course. Obama has already responded that he’s better suited for the job because of his “judgment” on Iraq. But the bait-and-switch allows Clinton to characterize her rival as unwilling to fight, and therefore unfit to face the macho McCain in the general. Especially considering how easy it will be, she implies, for Republicans to apply the old “all talk, no action” swipe to his Senate record on national security–as Clinton is more than happy to demonstrate.
Will this closing argument work? With the polls tightening, I suspect it’s Clinton’s last best bet–Obama as an unelectable, unsafe “kumbaya” candidate. We’ll see soon enough whether the voters of Texas and Ohio can be convinced.
