Thursday, December 13, 2007

BILL HURTS, NOT HELPS, HILLARY'S CAMPAIGN

BILL HURTS, NOT HELPS, HILLARY'S CAMPAIGN

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on FoxNews.com on December 7, 2007.

Bill Clinton’s poll ratings are very high so Hillary figures he can be of great help to her on the campaign trail. So far, so good — but then they extrapolate that view and conclude that he would be a good person to make her negative attacks on opponents, to answer charges against her and to take the media to task for their coverage. And that’s where they are wrong.

Bill’s high ratings are largely due to his nonpolitical activities in recent years. His book Giving, although largely a payoff to those who have given to him or to his wife’s campaign, portrays him as a philanthropist par excellence. Combined with the kudos for his role in helping tsunami and Katrina victims, and his annual September conference to organize and help to third world countries, he is acquiring the statesmanlike reputation that eluded him when he was a working politician.

But when he gets down and dirty, defending his own record, rebutting attacks on Hillary or excoriating the media or his wife’s opponents, he acts very political and brings down the very ratings that made his intervention seem useful in the first place.

He and I spoke right before the 1994 Congressional elections about where he could campaign to help to re-elect Democrats. He had just returned from the signing of the peace accord between Jordan and Israel and his approval ratings, for once, were pretty high. “You should go back to the Middle East,” I told him.

“But you don’t understand, my ratings are high now because of the trip to the Middle East and I can do candidates a lot of good,” he answered.

“No, you’ll lower your ratings because you won’t appear presidential as you campaign and you’ll end up doing the candidates for whom you campaign more harm than good,” I replied.

Bill couldn’t help himself. He ran out and campaigned all over the U.S. for the congressmen and senators who had backed his economic package and anti-crime bill, and most of them ended up losing in the GOP sweep of 1994. In the meantime, he lowered his rating by 10 points by campaigning and seeming political.

When Bill takes the stump for Hillary and speaks in bland generalities, he does her some good and no harm. But when he emerges as a cut and burn politician, flipping and flopping over his past position on Iraq and attacking media coverage of Hillary, he lowers his ratings and ends his usefulness to Hillary’s campaign.

The best thing for Bill to do is to stay home. Or better yet, leave the country on some charitable or philanthropic mission while his wife runs for president. His job is to keep his own ratings high. Her job is to exploit those ratings for her own advantage, no matter how little she deserves them.

Hillary’s entire campaign, like her whole legal and political career, is entirely derivative of Bill’s. By using her lynchpin as a bludgeon to hammer her opponents, he destroys his effectiveness and hurts her own campaign.

That is not to say that left to her own devices, Hillary will do herself any good. She seems incapable of waging an effective negative campaign. She hits Obama with stupid charges like her campaign’s comment about his kindergarten remarks or throws pitty-pat punches that do no real damage like her attack on his health care proposal. Absent real dirt, Hillary is facing an almost impossible task in trying to besmirch Mr. Clean, and as she tries, she undermines both the perception that she is a winner and the idea that she is an effective fighter.

THE OPRAH FACTOR: A BIG BOOST FOR OBAMA

THE OPRAH FACTOR: A BIG BOOST FOR OBAMA

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on TheHill.com on December 12, 2007.

The era of celebrity endorsements ended some time ago. We no longer buy the shaving cream that Derek Jeter tells us to use; nor do we vote as some Hollywood actor suggests. We have come to assume that political endorsements are often the product of partisan loyalty rather than any particular standard of merit and that commercial testimonials come only in exchange for cash.

But Oprah’s endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is truly unique and will have a profound impact on the presidential race. She transforms a candidacy into a movement and will increase his momentum from a growth curve to a surging wave.

It is not just that people trust what Oprah says. Her endorsement is important because of who she is and what message her support sends to those like her. As the most famous black woman in the world, she is a cultural icon. And as a figure who effortlessly crosses the racial divide, she has a special role in a presidential primary that pits the first woman against the first black to contest for president with a serious chance of victory. In this environment, Oprah’s demographic is her message.

Oprah sends a message to all American women that it is OK not to vote for Hillary and one to African-Americans that they need to vote for Obama. Were Oprah seen primarily as a black leader, her endorsement of a candidate of her own race running against one of her own gender wouldn’t mean that much. If her reputation were one for putting her race constantly ahead of her gender, her endorsement of Obama would seem automatic. But that is not who Oprah is.

She is iconic to women of all races; to them she’s a woman who is black, not a black who is female. So her refusal to endorse a fellow female seeking the presidency is tremendously significant to women voters. She sends a message by her unusual intervention in a political contest in which a woman is running. It reads: A woman, yes. This woman, no.

Oprah’s embrace of Obama’s message of change stamps his campaign mantra as legitimate and turns experience into a disqualification rather than an attribute for Hillary. That this much-admired woman would turn against Hillary in order to seek change in Washington lifts Obama to JFK proportions even as it pins on Hillary — to her detriment — the Nixon slogan of 1960: “Experience counts.”

But to black voters, Oprah’s endorsement, precisely because it flies in the face of her gender, is especially significant. The message it sends to African-Americans is: It’s time. Her foray into politics to endorse Obama makes it clear that his candidacy has special relevance to all black men and women everywhere. It is not so much that she has reached into politics to back Obama as that the senator’s candidacy has such meaning for any citizen who is black that it reaches into Oprah’s life and demands that she come forth to support it. Her endorsement seems to suggest that just as anti-Catholic bigotry went away when John Kennedy was elected, so racism may fade in the aftermath of an Obama presidency.

Oprah’s backing also helps tilt the balance of power to Obama and away from John Edwards. Two challengers would have much less chance of beating Hillary than one would in a straight-on battle. But Obama and Edwards sound so much alike that it is hard to distinguish for which one to vote. Oprah’s endorsement almost anoints Obama as the challenger.

Finally, we must recognize that this is truly the first Christmas campaign, conducted not only against the harsh backdrop of news coverage but on a stage also festooned with holiday cheer. Now, in addition to the flag as a prop for campaigning, we have reindeer and Santa. Oprah is from the world of Christmas — mystical, cheerful, appealing, even beguiling. She is no policy wonk but is cast well as a black, female St. Nick bringing joy to the world. Her endorsement softens Obama, wraps him up, and makes of him a Christmas present to America.