Clinton’s Campaign Sees Value in Keeping Former President in Attack Mode

There's an article in todays Guardian Comment entitled, "The Madness of King Clinton" which argues that Bill Clinton, far from losing it with his increasingly frequent temper tantrums, is actually playing to the cameras; well aware that, if he appears to lose his temper, that whatever point he wants to make will be instantly propelled to the front of the news agenda.

In a political culture that seems ever more spin-dried and desiccated, the media lust for unguarded moments - or, at least, moments that look that way. And when those moments centre upon a former president whose psychodramas have long fascinated millions of his compatriots, they are prized all the more highly. An outbreak of Clintonian ire can cut through the usual hubbub of campaign noise like a klaxon.

The image of an out-of-control Clinton is so compelling that it also serves as an amplifier for whatever point he is making. Many pundits have suggested, wrongly, that Clinton's most heated remarks are aberrational. In fact, every tantrum so far has occurred whilst sounding a vital campaign talking point - the notion that supporting Obama is a huge gamble, that the young senator's appeal is fundamentally fake, that a Clinton loss in the Nevada caucuses - widely, though incorrectly, predicted at the time the former president reared up in Oakland - should be seen as insignificant.

The sheer spectacle of Clinton's explosions is so over-powering that the media reports that inevitably follow are dominated by what he said and how he said it. Questions about whether his statements are true can get pushed to the sidelines.

When I first read this I was unsure whether or not I agreed with this theory. I agree that outbursts guarantee that his points lead the next news cycle, but was unsure whether Clinton would damage his own brand simply to pull of such a feat.

And then I read this over at the New York Times:

The benefits of having Mr. Clinton challenge Mr. Obama so forcefully, over Iraq and Mr. Obama’s record and statements, they say, are worth the trade-offs of potentially overshadowing Mrs. Clinton at times, undermining his reputation as a statesman and raising the question among voters about whether they are putting him in the White House as much as her.

Mr. Clinton is deliberately trying to play bad cop against Mr. Obama, campaign officials say, and is keenly aware that a flash of anger or annoyance will draw even more media and public attention to his arguments.

Perhaps the Clinton camp are simply trying to put a positive spin on Bill's more erratic outburts, but there's a part of me that thinks this theory might actually hold water.

One of the initial reasons Liberals like myself love Bill is because he won. He could take on the Republican attack dog machine and beat it at it's own game.

Since Hillary finished third in the Iowa caucuses Bill has openly started setting the news agenda in any way that he can. And as long as he is in attack mode then Obama is forced to respond rather than having any chance to set the agenda himself.

The other day I thought that Bill might - in an election being fought on the notion of change - be playing the game in a way that made Obama the underdog and gave him the advantage, but now I'm not so sure.

As long as Bill plays the role of attack dog, Hillary can safely ignore Obama and concentrate on attacking Bush. She rises above the fray and acts Presidential.

Such a tactic is simply not open to Obama as neither his wife nor his chief strategist, David Axelrod, are capable of generating anywhere near the kind of heat and light that a former President can generate.

It's ugly. But, with this two-for-the-price-of-one partnership that the Clintons now represent, one has to concede that - rather than simply losing it in his old age - there's a very good chance that Bill Clinton knows exactly what he is doing.

And Obama is on the money when he says he's unsure who he's running against because, like it or not, he's running against both of them.

Click title for article.

Tags: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 US Election