Spring Break
Primary Battles May Leave Wounds in General Election
Derek Turner
Issue date: 9/1/07 Section: Politics
As the stampede to the 2008 presidential election tramples its way toward the official primary season, conflicts among candidates in the same herd are beginning to flare. Democrats are prodding each other on experience and judgment, while Republicans are clawing at each other’s conservative credibility. Both are attempting to find the alpha dog within their packs.
But can these scrapes and cuts inflicted during the primary battles become mortal wounds to be capitalized on by the opponent in the general election?
NPR Political Editor Ken Rudin thinks it’s a possibility and points to 1988 as an example. “People forget that it was Al Gore, in a 1988 Democratic candidate debate, who first referred to the incident by which a person whom Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis released from jail went on to rape a woman. Gore mentioned only the incident, not the name. But the Republicans and Vice President George H.W. Bush took it one step further in the fall campaign, and Willie Horton became a household name -- which helped defeat Dukakis,” Rudin said.
In recent weeks, Democratic frontrunners Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been the most conspicuous pairing engaged in a subtly unsubtle verbal jousting. It began in response to the question: “Should the next president of the United States sit down, without preconditions, with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, Syria, Venezuela and North Korea during his or her first year in office?” posed at the YouTube/
CNN debate on July 23. Answering first, Obama said yes. Clinton responded no. The debate continued and concluded peacefully.
However, in an interview with the Quad-City Times the next day, Clinton lambasted Obama’s position on the issue, calling it “irresponsible and frankly naïve.” She then distributed a memo to reporters, declaring it a “mistake” to engage in talks with foreign leaders without preconditions.
Obama, in turn, brought the fight back to Clinton in his interview with the Quad-City Times. He compared her stance on the meeting with foreign leaders to the unpopular diplomatic policies of the Bush administration. He went on to say that what was “naïve and irresponsible” was her vote authorizing the Iraq War. Obama has opposed the war from the beginning but was not a U.S. senator when the authorization vote took place.
The conflict between the Democrats continued when Obama announced he would, if necessary, attack al Qaeda in Pakistan without approval from the Pakistani government. He also declared he would not use nuclear weapons in this hypothetical strike.
Again Clinton assailed Obama’s comments, saying, “I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.”
However, Clinton has not gone as far to as disagree with Obama’s stance on the issue. “The issue with Obama -- aside from the hidden issue of race -- has always been his comparatively little experience in public office. Clinton has clearly focused on that by her statements that Obama has been ‘naïve’ on foreign policy issues,” says Rudin. “For his part, Obama -- as does Edwards -- talks about the need for new leadership and less divisiveness -- a clear shot at Clinton. I’m not sure if either issue goes away once the primaries are over.”
The Republican presidential nominees have also attacked one another on issues that may become a weakness
during the general election. Both former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani have taken several hits from the other Republicans for their stances on abortion. Romney has been accused of “flip-flopping” his position on abortion solely for political gain. At the same time, Giuliani’s pro-choice belief is the topic of much needling by his opponents.“Romney will always have to deal with the fact that he has not been consistent on issues such as abortion and stem cell research. Giuliani
is pro-choice,” Rudin said.
However, Rudin suggests that because of the war and Bush’s unpopularity, the country is trending Democratic. Therefore Rudin believes “intra-party attacks on the Republicans may linger far longer than they do for the Democratic candidates.”
Some strategists also argue that intra-party criticism during the primaries is essential because it prepares the eventual nominee for attacks from the other party during the main event.
Rudin remarked, “If the nominee-to-be is able to deal with the attacks effectively -- think Bill Clinton in ‘92 -- then in some respects it could strengthen their hand for the general election. One particular advantage for this cycle: With the compressed primary and caucus schedule, it is very possible each party’s nominee could be chosen by February. If that’s the case, then the nominee theoretically has plenty of time to rebound.”
With more than four months to go before a single caucus or primary vote is cast, the contentious clash for political survival has only just begun.
Derek Turner is a 2L Evening Student and Politics Editor for The Commentator. He may be reached at dturner@swlaw.edu.
But can these scrapes and cuts inflicted during the primary battles become mortal wounds to be capitalized on by the opponent in the general election?
NPR Political Editor Ken Rudin thinks it’s a possibility and points to 1988 as an example. “People forget that it was Al Gore, in a 1988 Democratic candidate debate, who first referred to the incident by which a person whom Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis released from jail went on to rape a woman. Gore mentioned only the incident, not the name. But the Republicans and Vice President George H.W. Bush took it one step further in the fall campaign, and Willie Horton became a household name -- which helped defeat Dukakis,” Rudin said.
In recent weeks, Democratic frontrunners Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been the most conspicuous pairing engaged in a subtly unsubtle verbal jousting. It began in response to the question: “Should the next president of the United States sit down, without preconditions, with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, Syria, Venezuela and North Korea during his or her first year in office?” posed at the YouTube/
CNN debate on July 23. Answering first, Obama said yes. Clinton responded no. The debate continued and concluded peacefully.
However, in an interview with the Quad-City Times the next day, Clinton lambasted Obama’s position on the issue, calling it “irresponsible and frankly naïve.” She then distributed a memo to reporters, declaring it a “mistake” to engage in talks with foreign leaders without preconditions.
Obama, in turn, brought the fight back to Clinton in his interview with the Quad-City Times. He compared her stance on the meeting with foreign leaders to the unpopular diplomatic policies of the Bush administration. He went on to say that what was “naïve and irresponsible” was her vote authorizing the Iraq War. Obama has opposed the war from the beginning but was not a U.S. senator when the authorization vote took place.
The conflict between the Democrats continued when Obama announced he would, if necessary, attack al Qaeda in Pakistan without approval from the Pakistani government. He also declared he would not use nuclear weapons in this hypothetical strike.
Again Clinton assailed Obama’s comments, saying, “I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.”
However, Clinton has not gone as far to as disagree with Obama’s stance on the issue. “The issue with Obama -- aside from the hidden issue of race -- has always been his comparatively little experience in public office. Clinton has clearly focused on that by her statements that Obama has been ‘naïve’ on foreign policy issues,” says Rudin. “For his part, Obama -- as does Edwards -- talks about the need for new leadership and less divisiveness -- a clear shot at Clinton. I’m not sure if either issue goes away once the primaries are over.”
The Republican presidential nominees have also attacked one another on issues that may become a weakness
during the general election. Both former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani have taken several hits from the other Republicans for their stances on abortion. Romney has been accused of “flip-flopping” his position on abortion solely for political gain. At the same time, Giuliani’s pro-choice belief is the topic of much needling by his opponents.“Romney will always have to deal with the fact that he has not been consistent on issues such as abortion and stem cell research. Giuliani
is pro-choice,” Rudin said.
However, Rudin suggests that because of the war and Bush’s unpopularity, the country is trending Democratic. Therefore Rudin believes “intra-party attacks on the Republicans may linger far longer than they do for the Democratic candidates.”
Some strategists also argue that intra-party criticism during the primaries is essential because it prepares the eventual nominee for attacks from the other party during the main event.
Rudin remarked, “If the nominee-to-be is able to deal with the attacks effectively -- think Bill Clinton in ‘92 -- then in some respects it could strengthen their hand for the general election. One particular advantage for this cycle: With the compressed primary and caucus schedule, it is very possible each party’s nominee could be chosen by February. If that’s the case, then the nominee theoretically has plenty of time to rebound.”
With more than four months to go before a single caucus or primary vote is cast, the contentious clash for political survival has only just begun.
Derek Turner is a 2L Evening Student and Politics Editor for The Commentator. He may be reached at dturner@swlaw.edu.
Be the first to comment on this story