After Barack Obama’s speech in San Antonio (after he lost Ohio but before he knew he lost the primary in Texas), his chief strategist David Axelrod spoke briefly to The Bourbon Room about the outcome of Super Tuesday Part II and the campaign ahead.

Here is the transcript:

First The Bourbon Room asked how Obama’s camp would deal with the perception that Clinton has slowed Obama’s momentum and fought herself back into the race:

“Well, that’s a perception that they’re spinning, but they set their own test. It’s not our delegate riff, they started the delegate riff. Their delegate riff was that “We are going to wipe out the delegate lead on March 4.” The fact is they haven’t changed their situation at all. They may have changed perceptions a little bit. We don’t know what’s happening here in Texas, we’ll see what happens in Texas, but we’re probably going to win the delegate fight here in Texas. Ultimately, this is a race for delegates. We’ve got a substantial lead. We’ve won 28 contests to their 13. We’ve won more popular votes. We’ve won in every part of the country. We’ve put together a coalition of independents, Democrats and Republicans. We’ve energized young people in a way they haven’t been in a generation. And we’ve shown the ability to put together a coaltion that is going to take on John McCain and beat John McCain and that’s why we’re doing so much better than she in so many polls against McCain. I don’t think this materially changes anything. It may extend the race, but I don’t think it’s going to change the outcome.”

The Bourbon Room then asked: “They hit you hard, are you going to hit hard back?”

Axelrod: “I think we’re willing to join the debate. If they want to define the debate in terms of the issues they’ve laid out in the past week, if they want to throw the kitchen sink, they’re going to engender a response. If they want to have a discussion about ethics, then we’ll have a discussion about ethics. If they want to have a discussion about who is prepared to be commander in chief, then we’re going to ask the hard questions about the decisions that’s she’s made. If she wants to say she’s going to be a steward of the economy, and talk about her accomplishments in public life, then we’re going to talk about that. It isn’t going to be a one-way debate. “

It will be very interesting to see how far Obama’s campaign goes with its response/reaction to Clinton now. If Axelrod follows through on discussing Clinton’s ethics, commander-in-chief qualifications and capability to run the economy in the context of hard, negative ads against Clinton, the campaign will cross yet another Rubicon. Hillary Clinton crossed one with the “3 a.m.” ad and the risk paid off. The Clinton camp knew there could be a backlash among Democrats who resent using terror fears to make a political point. The gamble paid off as exit polling data shows the “3 a.m.” ad helped Clinton reverse the slide and eke out a victory in Texas. Obama would run the risk, if he ran negative ads, of abandoning his “new brand of politics,” but it might also prove his grit and determination to win — something Democrats in and out of the trenches now question.

We’ll see if Axelrod was venting or plotting. And we’ll see soon enough.

Share

NASHUA, N. H. — “That’s not change.”

Thus arrives Hillary Clinton’s new slogan, aimed no longer at underscoring her strengths but her opponents’ failings.

At Nashua North High School, Clinton said Obama can’t preach change for the following reasons: he said he would vote against the Patriot Act but voted for its renewal, he said he’s ended lobbyist-financed meals sitting down but the ethic law he touts allows lobbyist-financed meals “standing up,” and because he gave “a very good speech in 2002″ against the Iraq war but “in 2004 said he wasn’t sure how he would have voted.”

With each of these sharply pointed critiques, Clinton said: “That’s not change.”

By the end, her massive crowd began to chant the phrase back – thus giving voice to what the Clinton camp hopes will become a galvanizing cry against Obama. Clinton’s camp now portrays Obama as a false leader and empty prophet who mouths platitudes about change but has zero track record of delivering it.

In response, Obama’s team says the following:

Unlike Hillary, Obama never voted for the original Patriot Act that raised so many concerns among civil liberties but did vote for a revamped version that made improvements in limiting certain broad government powers. On the ethics bill Hillary now dismisses as meaningless, Obama aides say Hillary is now at war with her own party leadership and good government groups who have called the bill a significant, though imperfect, reform.

On the Iraq war, Obama aides say the record is clear that, in the words of Communications Director Robert Gibbs, “Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 and if Hillary wants to debate who was right about that first, we welcome that debate.”

Overall, Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said Clinton’s negative tone will be seen as “defensive, incorrect and 11th-hour.”

They arise, he said, out of Clinton’s desire to regain ground in New Hampshire in light of Obama’s post-Iowa surge.

Axelrod says voters have seen Hillary’s argument that she’s an agent of change and rejected it in favor of Obama’s consistent appeal for a broader and less partisan coalition of Democrats, Independents and Republicans — a coalition Obama built in the largest numbers in Iowa caucus history and, Axelrod predicted, would replicate Tuesday in New Hampshire.

Share