They said Hillary Clinton was inevitable. They were wrong. We can do better, and with Barack Obama and John Edwards as alternatives, we will do better.
(Cross-posted at hillaryattacks.com.)
When they told us she was the only game in town, they were wrong. It's our party. It's our choice.
It's amazing what a difference two weeks makes. Two weeks ago this was the emerging media storyline, pimped by CNN and it's Clinton adviser-employees:
Of course, they overlooked the substance of Hillary's false attacks. All they cared about was getting you back on the inevitability express.
Fortunately, we don't like being told who we are going to vote for -- especially the people of Iowa.
In two major Iowa polls, one by ABC/Washington Post and the other by the Des Moines Register released this weekend, Hillary Clinton has fallen behind Obama. In New Hampshire, the same trend is emerging.
A core flaw in the Clinton campaign stategy was revealed: as more Democrats find out that Hillary is not inevitable, they are turning to the alternatives: Barack Obama and John Edwards.
Now, because her campaign message was her inevitability (remember "They aren't attacking me because I'm a woman, they're attacking me because I'm ahead"?), they are turning to desperate attacks.
Attacking Obama's completely, one hundred percent legal political committee is a sign of desperation. For starters, their entire attack is based on a flawed Washington Post article printed the same week as the infamous Perry Bacon article.
The hypocrisy of this attack is obviously breathtaking. Nothing sums it up better than this fact: Hillary agreed to repay former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack's $400,000 campaign debt the day after he endorsed her. It came just days after the Center for Responsive Politics released data showing that despite her claim to the contrary, lobbyists contributing to Clinton's campaign mostly represent big industries.
In contrast, Obama has a strong record on reform issues:
Obama also built a strong reputation for reform during his years as an Illinois state senator, where the first major piece of legislation that he sponsored and passed was a bill banning legislators and state officers from soliciting or accepting gifts from special interest groups. The 1998 bill required public disclosure of campaign donations over certain amounts, ended the practice of allowing politicians to use campaign money for personal use, and required campaign literature to disclose who paid for it. Later laws that Obama helped pass prohibited using state funds for politics, required closed meetings to be recorded, and created a new inspector general position to investigate government corruption.
And then the kicker of all kickers of course is Kindergate, a foolish attempt by Hillary to attack Barack Obama's character.
To say that Kindergate is right out of the Republican playbook would be too kind; the Republican playbook is more effective. Rather, Kindergate is a caricature of the Republican playbook. It is certainly beneath a presidential candidate.
Kindergate is the strongest evidence yet that the Clinton campaign could be over before it ever really begins. Now, I'm not going to get ahead of myself and say that this campaign is over, or anything like silly like that.
But the level of bad political judgment Kindergate demonstrates is a warning sign that must be headed by all Democratic primary voters and caucus participants.
Hillary is still the front-runner in most polls outside of Iowa, including New Hampshire. But we all know that trends matter more than snapshots, and the texture of these trends is certainly pleasant.
On balance, this new and vigorous debate is quite positive, even if Hillary's attacks are negative.
It is a sign of a strong and robust Democratic Party, and it couldn't make me happier.
(Cross-posted at hillaryattacks.com.)