Clinton getting kid glove

At last month's Iowa debate, Democratic presidential contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton immediately faced fastballs from moderator George Stephanopoulos.

Sen. Obama then found himself fending off attacks from several opponents about a series of perceived foreign policy gaffes.

Sen. Clinton, meanwhile, saw nary a foe attempt a verbal blow on the bottom-line question of her electability.

If the Democratic presidential primary was always going to boil down to a who-can-beat-Hillary contest, it seemed somewhat odd that opponents were letting her glide along largely unscathed.

That changed a bit late last week, when Elizabeth Edwards told Time Magazine her husband John was more electable because Republican "hatred" of Clinton would "energize" Republicans next year.

Until Elizabeth Edwards' plain language, however, Obama and former Sen. Edwards had stuck to veiled, non-harsh references to contrast themselves with Clinton. And the other Democrats largely avoided criticizing Clinton.

"It has been kid gloves. It's been very tepid in many ways," said Chicago-based Democratic consultant Eric Adelstein, who is not working for any of the candidates.

While the front-running Clinton campaign doesn't expect to avoid front-on attacks during the next five months, political scientists and consultants say several factors could limit them: Voters in the key early state of Iowa don't like them. Then there's the gender factor. Attacking Clinton amounts to an attack on her still-popular husband. And some candidates might be auditioning for the vice presidential slot or a Cabinet role.

Factors at play

Democrats learned two lessons about negative campaigning the last time out and both came in Iowa, that key early state in the presidential marathon.

One lesson, says Democratic consultant and Elmhurst native Kitty Kurth, is "nobody wants to anger Iowa voters because they don't like negative campaigning."

That was illustrated when the campaigns of front-running former Vermont governor Howard Dean and former House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt got into it. The negativity played about as well as bad weather come harvest time.

The other lesson, Adelstein points out, is this: in a Democratic primary, be careful in a multicandidate field when you go on the attack. While you may hit your target, there's no guarantee you'll help your own fortunes.

"You fire the bullet and it bounces around and you hit yourself," said Adelstein, noting that Dean and Gephardt faded and Sens. John Kerry and Edwards surged in Iowa in 2004.

At this point in the race, Clinton, Obama and Edwards are bunched up tightly in Iowa, so there's little upside in attacking each other, since one mistake could allow a foe to open up a lead.

The gender difference -- this is the first time in U.S. history a woman candidate is a front-runner for a major-party presidential nomination -- also could be a factor in the lack of direct attacks on Clinton.

"It's always tougher for a male candidate to criticize a female candidate without looking like a bully," Adelstein said.

In Clinton's case, though, it's not just because she's a woman. It's also due to a certain member of her family.

"If you're going negative on Hillary, you also know that Democrats still love Bill," Kurth said. "By osmosis, you're saying something bad about Bill Clinton's presidency."

James W. Davis, professor emeritus of political science at Washington University in St. Louis, suggested Democrats not in the top tier in polls might be reluctant to go after Clinton for fear of missing a chance to serve in her Cabinet should she win. That also might explain why those same Democrats aren't shy about going after Obama, who's running second to her in many national polls.

Ask the Obama campaign why he hasn't directly gone after Clinton by name and it's difficult to get an answer to that specific question, although the answer provided indicates that it's too early for Obama to do so.

"Voters across the country are just now getting to know Sen. Obama," said Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt.

Davis, the political science professor, noted Obama is running on the theme that he represents a new kind of politics and risks criticism that he's a hypocrite if he employs the old standby style of negative campaigning.

The Edwards campaign didn't respond to a request for comment, but Elizabeth Edwards' recent remarks about Republican "hatred" of Clinton making her less electable in the fall shows the Edwards strategy.

Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee acknowledged a step-up in opponents' rhetoric about the New York senator. Echoing his boss, he pointed to sharp criticism from Republican President Bush's ex-political adviser Karl Rove.

"People want someone with the experience to bring real change. And I think that's why you see Karl Rove out there attacking aggressively," Elleithee said. "He sees her getting traction and it makes him nervous. I think some of our Democratic opponents feel the same way."

Stop Hillary race?

Looking ahead to the fall, Edwards and Obama both would seem to need to do something to change the dynamic of the race, at the very least in early states where they're trailing. While Clinton holds a substantial lead in many national polls, presidential primaries are decided on a state-by-state basis, with early states like Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire looming largest due to the momentum swings their primaries and caucuses provide.

Democratic U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, an Obama backer, discounted the notion Obama needs to get more aggressive.

"I think he's handled it well. He has drawn the differences and tried to get away from some of the political talk that went on early on," said Springfield's Durbin. "He's tried to draw the differences on issues."

Edwards, then, might be more likely to emerge as the aggressor, but he needs to walk a fine line, Davis said.

"Edwards really wants it. He's been around a while," Davis said. "If he gets too harsh, he could do what Democrats don't want to happen: not win, but weaken Hillary. That would make Democrats unhappy. The worst thing for either party is to have such a disastrous primary that no candidate is left standing."

In the end, then, despite all the national chatter about Clinton's prospects in a general election, some Democrats argue their party's presidential primary won't play out the same as 2004. That race evolved into a Stop Dean contest. Unless the situation shifts, it might only be the Republicans who say it's a Stop Hillary race next year.

"If you're asking me if she's the nominee, can she win?" Durbin said. "I think she can."