Here's the full memo.
The Politics Of Pile-On
What happens when the “politics of pile-on” replaces the “politics of hope?”
Hillary comes out on top.
Despite the best efforts of her six fellow candidates to trip her up, Senator Clinton stood strong and made her case on critical issues like Iran, Iraq and Social Security. She kept her focus on the real target in this election: Republicans and the Bush Administration. Instead of going after the other Democrats, Hillary made the argument for why change is needed and why she has the strength and experience to lead the Democratic Party in its efforts to make that change happen.
Sadly, Senator Obama caved to the pressure of the pundits and fundraisers who demanded that he go negative and abandoned the "politics of hope" message that sparked so much interest in him early in the campaign. Meanwhile, Senator Edwards doubled down in his effort to become the guy best known for attacking other Democrats. Not to be outdone, the rest of the pack followed suit and piled on in the hope that they’d get some media attention.
But with each attack, Senators Obama and Edwards undermined the central premises of their own candidacies. The sunny speeches and rosy rhetoric that once characterized their remarks has now been replaced by the kinds of jabs one typically sees from candidates desperate to gain traction in the polls.
The American people are looking for a President who can stand strong and come out ahead under any circumstances.
Last night, once again, that person was Hillary Clinton.
One strong woman.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Marc Ambinder is a contributing editor at The Atlantic. He is also a senior contributor at Defense One, a contributing editor at GQ, and a regular contributor at The Week.