One aspect of the media's failure to distinguish between primary and general elections is the way that they fail to differentiate between the types of criticisms candidates face in each stage of the campaign.
On Monday night, Jon Stewart asked Barack Obama this semi-facetious question that captures one aspect of this misunderstanding:
Senator Clinton's response to you is that you have not been vetted in the way that she has and that ultimately, in a general election, the Republican attack machine -- the big question was they would just go crazy on you. Now that you've been attacked so much, is the fear that, in the general election, the Republican attack machine wouldn't have anything left to pick over?
However, Obama hasn't really come under criticism from the right yet. Hillary has hammered him on the aspects of his background that are vulnerable in a Democratic primary, but his extremely liberal early policy record (which reflects the district he represented) has barely been touched. That will change in the general.
Similarly, Hendrik Hertzberg points out that Hillary Clinton's claims to have been fully vetted are also misleading (as Matthew Yglesias notes today):
[Obama] cannot mention many of her biggest general-election vulnerabilities, most of which involve her husband’s Administration, the awkward role that he might play in her own, and the potential conflicts of interest posed by the funding of his charitable and commercial activities. Bill Clinton remains popular among Democrats, if not as popular as he used to be.
The fact that the Clinton scandals have not been a major issue of debate in the primary does not mean they have gone away -- they'll be back with a vengeance if Hillary is the nominee.
Comments