ready to take on al Qaeda from day one

That’s an interesting gambit from Hillary, no? It leaves her wide open to attack from her Democratic opponents.

Or, rather, it should have, as Keith Olbermann kept arguing (incoherently, as usual) last night:

OLBERMANN: But to that point, Howard, at the end of this debate, with about 10 minutes to go, Brian Williams gave Barack Obama, opened the door for him to go after [interesting point you make about that assist, Mr. Olbermann  ---ed.], to go after Hillary Clinton on an issue that has been hugely important and hugely felt personally by most Democrats, and most people who have been critical of the administration, this whole question of reading her quote back to her before the vote in New Hampshire about the so-called Gordon Brown question. The implication, several lengths removed, but the implication nonetheless kind of milder Democratic version of the same language that was used by, has been used by so many Republicans since 9/11, and particularly in the campaigns of 2004 and 2006, why when this issue of, you know, this hint, maybe Obama would not be as ready as Clinton would be to handle a sudden terrorist attack after the inaugural next January, why was Senator Obama’s response, I understand why his responses were controlled and statesmanlike on these, you know, personal issues, but why was he somewhat controlled? Why didn’t he, you know, take, go run right through that door that was opened for him?

HOWARD FINEMAN: He was sort of tiptoeing halfway through the door. I think he … had in his mind, you know, Axelrod and all the other [advisers] saying, you know, don’t go after her too hard, be careful, you’re at close range, you’ve had all those other problems. I think that’s a big vulnerability that Clinton has. She can be accused of trying to play the fear card, and I think Obama was afraid to do it too frontally. It’s hard to do it in those circumstances. I’m sure you’re going to hear it on the campaign trail over the next few days.

OLBERMANN: Yeah, but Jonathan, why, if a candidate says, sitting next to you or a million miles away, Jonathan, if somebody says to you, you know, my implication here, that was in this statement that you would not be ready to deal with this, but I would, on such a vital issue, you have two options. One is to refute that, and refute it strongly. And the other one is just to say, “Listen, never mind what you’re saying, this is not the way we should be doing business as Democrats.” Why didn’t Barack Obama take that opportunity when it was presented to him?

Good question, K.O. But why keep asking it after Fineman clearly said that Obama was afraid to take her on?

This is a very smart—though obviously very risky (because it further alienates her from her party’s base, which downplays external threats to America as “Republican talking points”)—maneuver from Hillary. It changes the conversation and clearly distinguishes her from Obama; and, from an impression-management point of view (which is most important of all, as JFK wrote in 1959*** and demonstrated in his subsequent campaign) shows that she is willing and able to confront her opponents (be they Republican or, say, Iranian) head-on.

This kind of impression management couldn’t be more important in the national election. As Arianna Huffington wrote yesterday, Iraq and the “war on terrorism” are still major concerns for the electorate. Today, she’s declaring Hillary the winner in the debate last night and encouraging Hillary to stay on this theme. (I don’t know why Arianna is taking this pro-Hillary stance. I thought she was a Hillary hater. Goes to show you how much I know. I haven’t been following along to see who in the media is on whose side in the campaign.)

Anyhow, bottom line: Rhetoric is marvelous. It is not sufficient. Talk is cheap.

—————-

*** It’s a marvelous and prescient piece, and it was originally published before Daniel Boorstin’s landmark book The Image. And Kennedy’s piece appeared in TV Guide.

I hope to have time to write more about this …eventually. Meanwhile, here are some excerpts:

The wonders of science and technology have revolutionized the modern American political campaign. Giant electronic brains project results on the basis of carefully conducted polls…. Jet planes make possible a coast-to-coast speaking schedule no observation-car back platform could ever meet. …Even wash-and-wear fabrics permit the wilted nonstop candidate to travel lighter, farther and faster.

But nothing compares with the revolutionary impact of television. …

The searching eye of the television camera scrutinizes the candidates-and the way they are picked. Party leaders are less willing to run roughshod over the voters’ wishes and hand-pick an unknown, unappealing or unpopular in the traditional “smoke-filled room” when millions of voters are watching, comparing and remembering.  …

Honesty, vigor, compassion, intelligence-the presence or lack of these and other qualities make up what is called the candidate’s “image.” While some intellectuals and politicians may scoff at these “images”-and while they may in fact be based only on a candidate’s TV impression, ignoring his record, views and other appearances-my own conviction is that these images or impressions are likely to be uncannily correct. I think, no matter what their defenders or detractors may say, that the television public has a fairly good idea of what Dwight D. Eisenhower is really like-or Jimmy Hoffa-or John McClellan- or Vice President Nixon-or countless others.

This is why a new breed of candidates has sprung up on both the state and national levels. Republican Governors Rockefeller (New York) and Hatfield (Oregon) successfully countered the Democratic trend in 1958 with particular reliance on TV appeal.