Regarding the putative efficacy of attacking Hillary hard and often as the key to a Republican victory in November 2008, I offer the following counter opinion that was posted on Elephant Biz on October 10:
The Fix poses a question:What is the effect on Clinton's campaign -- if any -- of being the focus of repeated Republican attacks in these debates? Is there a short-term (nomination fight) versus a long-term (general election) effect? If so, are they different?
The Biz thinks that repeated attacks by the Republican candidates on Clinton only serves to strengthen her position overall, both long term and short term.
In the short term, it helps her because it reinforces her aura of inevitability. Afterall, if the Republicans are going after her this early, they all think she is going to be the nominee. It plays well with the Democratic base who have never had a favorable impression of Republicans personal attacks anyway, and it will move them to identify more closely with the victim, in this case Clinton.
In the long term, we all know that the Republican race will eventually go negative. Once Clinton the Inevitable has the nomination sewed up, she can repeatedly harangue the Republican Party while the Republicans are still quarreling amongst themselves. Additionally, the Republicans bringing up some of her positions, such as her stance on Iraq, may actually help her in the general election because her stance is what the majority of the country actually believes anyway.
Moreover, on our side, it is exactly what our primary voters want to hear: "how will you beat Hillary?" (and, to a lesser extent, "How will you beat all the Dems?") Now, if by some stroke, Hillary is NOT the candidate, our guys will quickly adjust. But if she is, the only chance we have is to guarantee that those 45% negatives get over 50% by election day.