What are the politics of hope?
Posted: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 1:09 PM by Domenico Montanaro
From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro
Yet ANOTHER memo… this one from Mark Penn, Clinton’s chief strategist. We noted this morning that the Clinton campaign posted video of Obama talking about the politics of hope and Edwards talking about not attacking Democrats back in his 2004 run. And now the Clinton campaign is trying to grab the “politics of hope” mantle, saying in the memo, “One candidate is defining the ‘politics of hope’ while the others are abandoning them.”
One thought though: are Obama and Edwards really not allowed to point out differences with Clinton? That would certainly be a plus for Clinton if everything is off-limits. Is it going to be off-limits for her to criticize another campaign or “point out differences”?
Here’s the full memo:
To: Interested Parties
From: Mark Penn, Chief Strategist
RE: What Are The Politics of Hope?
There’s been a lot of chatter lately about the “politics of hope.” But what does the term mean? What are the “politics of hope?”
Does the “politics of hope” mean launching attacks on one candidate? Or does it mean laying out a vision for the American people? Does it mean questioning a rival’s integrity? Or does it mean talking about the change we need?
The Clinton campaign believes the “politics of hope” should be about outlining how our candidate will reverse the policies of the Bush Administration and give America a new beginning for the 21st Century. That’s why Senator Clinton has spent the last few months detailing:
- Her plan for ending the war in Iraq.
- A health care plan that provides coverage for all Americans and that builds on the present system.
- A middle class economic plan that rebuilds the road to the middle class by making our economy work for all of us, not just some of us.
- A plan to make college more affordable by expanding the Hope Tax Credit and Pell grants.
- The American Retirement Security Accounts to enable people to save for retirement and take those savings from job to job.
- A plan to expand the Family and Medical Leave Act and provide a better work-family balance.
- How she would use aggressive diplomacy to avert war and deal with Iran.
Contrast that with the campaigns of our two leading rivals, both of whom made their names by promising a “politics of hope” and have now abandoned that promise.
Losing ground in the polls, Senator Obama announced over the weekend that he will abandon the politics of hope and attack Hillary in tonight’s debate. Senator Edwards, who rose to prominence in 2004 by eschewing attacks on other Democrats, formally announced last night that he is going to attack Senator Clinton’s character.
Considering that both Senators Obama and Edwards made their names by pledging to be positive, the last thing one would have expected was for either of them to go out and announce with pride that they were now going to go negative on a fellow Democrat. It’s unprecedented in my experience.
Of course, Hillary will not hesitate to set the record straight on the issues that opponents raise about her. But as we move deeper into the Fall we are seeing the clear contours emerge:
One candidate is defining the “politics of hope” while the others are abandoning them.
Want to guess which one?
