home

If The Race Is Over, Why Is Obama Attacking Clinton?

By Big Tent Democrat

Here is an interesting development, as Jeralyn notes, Hillary Clinton reacted strongly to an Obama mailer that she claimed is filled with untruths.

I am well past mentioning the hypocrisy of Obama's decrying negative attacks, and that of the Media, as [an Obama blogger and] Rick Hertzberg demonstrates in this quote at the Obama site:

[HERTZBERG -] "Going negative" has been a bust. It could never be anything but a bust, because there is no audience for it in the Democratic Party...

[OBAMA BLOGGER] - Let's let Hillary know that the American people are sick and tired of negative attacks and want something new.

No, I am too familiar with the Obama Rules by now. My REAL question is this - if this race is over, why is Obama attacking Hillary Clinton?

NOTE - Comments are now closed.

< Hillary Slams Obama Over Deceptive Ohio Mailers | Federal Drug War Funding Takes a Hit >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Sometimes it seems to me that... (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:16:41 PM EST
    ...they don't just want to defeat Hillary, they want to destroy her.

    Yes, and Obama needs to destroy (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:29:26 PM EST
    Bill Clinton's legacy, lest there be comparisons if Obama does get into the White House . . . and then the economy does not rebound to the '90s level, there is no amending of NAFTA, there still is no universal health care, we still are at war, etc.

    There is a long-term strategy to this, I think -- and it's about those "excesses" of the '90s that we so enjoyed, the prosperity and the peace.

    Parent

    They don't want to take a chance (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by PennProgressive on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:44:20 PM EST
    They want to make sure that they can win in both Texas and Ohio. Nothing shoulld be left to chance. That is why the mailers and the attacks from the other surragates. They know that they will not be criticized for it, but if Hillary objects to it the media will be all over her--showing her angry face on TV, making fun of her gestures. The Obama rule and the Clinton rule live! And yes they want to destroy Hillary Clinton as well as Bill Clinton's legacy. What legacy you say? Lowest unemployment, more than 20 million jobs created, budget deficit turned into budget surplus, relative peace. If they all came from the Clintons---they must be bad.
    The race  is not over yet. They want to make sure it is over even before March 4.

    Parent
    The good old days (none / 0) (#82)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:00:49 PM EST
    I want them back!

    Parent
    Okay (none / 0) (#162)
    by tek on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:40:08 PM EST
    APF has a headline story out that Hillary Clinton's campaign "teeters on the edge Saturday." What?

    Parent
    It's over (none / 0) (#167)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:41:29 PM EST
    or so David Plouffe told us.

    Parent
    Bingo! (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by tek on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:18:20 PM EST
    That what is so upsetting. Why can't the party at least mediate the campaigns so they are fair and equal? Why do the Dem leaders threaten anyone who criticizes Obama and then slam Hillary themselves? It's really icky.  It's also icky to have to admit that it isn't just the neoCons who love negativity--the Obama liberals love it.

    Parent
    this is idioitic.... (none / 0) (#117)
    by jor on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:20:20 PM EST
    .. the Obama campaign isn't trying to destroy her. As soon as she concedes, there will be no further negative mailers.

    Parent
    I hope you were being sarcastic (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:24:25 PM EST
    They'll only try to destroy her (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:40:46 PM EST
    until she concedes? Heh.

    Whatever happened to the Politics of Hope?

    Parent

    Of course, it's trying to destroy her (none / 0) (#149)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:32:35 PM EST
    for 2012, too.  We really have to realize that this is a campaign unlike so many Dem campaigns -- this is long-term planning.  This is the sort of planning that the Repubs do so well, as Obama himself said in praising the skill of the conservative revolution.

    Parent
    2012... (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by jor on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:35:01 PM EST
    ... if the Dems don't win the whitehouse in '08, Clinton is the obvious front-runner for '12, no matter what happens in the next few weeks. Some of her arguments then will appear vindicated. No one is going to remember the contents of mailers from months/years ago.

    Parent
    You base that on what you now know (none / 0) (#196)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:58:11 PM EST
    from your crystal ball -- or polls four years from now?  I packed away my toys a long time ago, when I learned that we cannot foretell the future, that politics and presidencies are volatile, that we cannot envision all that could occur. . . .

    Parent
    Obama wants to destory hillary soo badly that... (none / 0) (#142)
    by jor on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:30:09 PM EST
    ... every other speech he gives is a long tirade against clinton right?

    Parent
    Obama is pulling more Democrat (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by MarkL on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:24:29 PM EST
    for a Day crap in Texas. His supporters are putting in writing a guarantee that people can change their party registration for 1 day  and then change back.

    God, Obama is going to be the ruination of the Democratic Party.


    Sounds (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by tek on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:23:27 PM EST
    similar to the stuff that MoveON is doing, which may be legal but seems rather unethical.

    Parent
    They ask you (1.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Jgarza on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:26:50 PM EST
    at the polls which party would you like to affiliate with TODAY.

    If you have a problem with the system thats one thing.  I don't see whats wrong with him using it as an advantage.

    Parent

    Huh (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:31:02 PM EST
    That sounds like the kind of win-at-any-cost mentality that Obama's supporters tend to think is beneath him.

    If you win the nomination by drafting people who will never vote for you in the general to vote for you in the primary, that should be a red flag as to whether you are the strongest candidate who should be representating the Democratic party in November. What is he going to say? Republicans can vote for him in November and the next day they can take it back?

    Parent

    Result (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Athena on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:36:13 PM EST
    He will have a secured a nomination using McCain supporters.  

    Parent
    The problem is (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by john5750 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:32:11 PM EST
    We end up with Rove's choice, not the Democrats choice.

    Parent
    Obama is getting (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by facta non verba on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:55:17 PM EST
    votes that he will not be getting in the general election. Remember the Daily Kos stupidity of urging voters in Michigan to vote for Romney? Well that sort of thing has been going in the open primaries and caucuses. How large is it? I don't know but it is more than just a few here and there. Read a few Republican blogs, they are loaded with comments of people who voted for Obama. My favorite was from a woman in Virginia Beach who voted for Obama despite the fact he was "a committed Marxist" because this might be her only chance to vote against Clinton.

    Here's one blog:
    http://robertbluey.com/blog/2008/02/12/why-i-voted-for-obama/

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:28:44 PM EST
    But it does put into question how much his campaign will help Dems in November, which is what I understood the point to be.

    Parent
    Then it is not over? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:24:46 PM EST
    Because he will need a unified Dem Party.

    And these kind of attacks are not unifying.

    Saying that HIllary (1.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Jgarza on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:28:14 PM EST
    supported NAFTA and that she has said she would garnish wages in her health care plan hurts party unity?

    They are issue based.  This is silly complaint.

    Parent

    payroll deduction (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by english teacher on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:20:42 PM EST
    is not wage garnishment.  this lie is so outrageous i almost used profanity, but out of respect for this site i will just say please quit repeating this disgusting lie.  payroll deduction is NOT the same as wage garnishment.  i think you are a deliberate despicable liar.  

    Parent
    innocent question (none / 0) (#172)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:44:25 PM EST
    What is the difference between wage garnishment and involuntary payroll deduction?

    Parent
    There is none (none / 0) (#199)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:00:06 PM EST
    Does Obama plan to start calling the Social Security deduction "wage garnishment?"

    Parent
    How about the difference (none / 0) (#205)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:02:51 PM EST
    being that payroll deduction is like taxes collected to pay for social security and medicare.  They are not voluntary, but most people pay them without a large fight.

    Wage garnishment is when you owe a debt and a portion of your wages are withheld due to a judgement.  An example would be non-payment of child support.


    Parent

    well, that is the case here (none / 0) (#208)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:06:04 PM EST
    We are not talking about some payroll deduction applied to everyone. We are talking about penalties imposed on specific people who violate the mandate. So it seems a lot more like a child support garnishment than a tax withholding.

    Parent
    Is it? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:29:40 PM EST
    Tell that to the Obama campaign and Rick Hertzberg. Oh that's right, the Obama Rules. I forgot.

    And of course it hurts party unity when he is, we are told, about to secure the nomination.

    Parent

    Unity. (none / 0) (#90)
    by dannyinla on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:04:02 PM EST
    What hurts party unity is when, at the end of this primary season, the candidates do not unify.

    But that will NOT happen. There WILL be party unity.

    Parent

    You have two different groups here -- (none / 0) (#112)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:18:19 PM EST
    the candidates and the voters.  You are certain that the candidates will unite -- as we do know of Clinton from her repeated statements, and I gather that Obama has said so?  But from that, you can extrapolate that the voters will unite?  And not just Dem voters but all of his base, his Independent and Republican crossover voters?  How can you know?

    Parent
    I'm not talking about the voters (none / 0) (#190)
    by dannyinla on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:55:33 PM EST
    I'm talking about a unified Dem Party.

    Parent
    The voters are the party, or should be (5.00 / 0) (#207)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:04:13 PM EST
    I can tell you (none / 0) (#177)
    by facta non verba on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:45:39 PM EST
    that there won't be to the degree you believe there will be. I am not voting for Obama in the general election and I've voted Democratic all my life except in 1980 when I voted for John Anderson.

    I am simply put off by Obama on a number of levels. I am either going to vote for McCain (unlikely), write in John Edwards or vote for the Green Party. And I am sending more money to Nader and McKinney. As long as Obama is the head of the Democratic Ticket, I will oppose him where it is fair and right to do so. He presumes that he has the left of the Party locked up. I think he would be wrong to make that assumption. Both Edwards and Clinton have moved the Party to the left but Obama is dragging the Party back kicking and screaming to the center. That's a problem.

    Parent

    One of my kids is going to write in Clinton (none / 0) (#187)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:53:17 PM EST
    if Obama is the nominee.  That's the latest pronouncement from the progeny, while the other also tries to explain why he realizes now that he ought to have listened to me and not have voted for Nader in 2000.  Wonder if I'll be proved correct twice?

    Parent
    However (none / 0) (#203)
    by facta non verba on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:02:46 PM EST
    I know see Nader's point more clearly. The system is broken.

    Parent
    I care about the SCOTUS (none / 0) (#195)
    by dannyinla on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:57:51 PM EST
    In fact I care so much about the SCOTUS, that I can hold my nose and vote. Try it this November, the Constitution you save may be your own.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#211)
    by facta non verba on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:30:46 PM EST
    I don't. It just doesn't matter that much if it is between Obama and McCain. People are deluding themselves that Obama will withdraw from Iraq. He can't without getting the tacit approval from the NY and DC foreign policy establishment that a vacuum won't be left in its place. On health care, Obama leaves a 15 million person problem only sure to grow. Obama and McCain both like charter schools (Clinton is more lukewarm on them). I just don't see much difference. McCain actually gives me one thing I want: he eliminates the AMT. It is a horrible tax.
    Still I think I am going Green.

    The system is broken. Since 1976, the argument that Washington has been broken has been used in several campaigns. That's why we kept on sending Governors to the Presidency. But to think either Clinton or Obama or McCain represent that much of a change is simply not borne out by reality in terms of policy. They are all tigers of the same stripes. But at least Clinton has claws or so said Obama.

    Sorry, hate to burst your bubble but a lot of people on the left are put off by Obama. That doesn't mean he can't win. He can but it also means the GOP strategy of aiming for 270 electoral votes on some 43% of the popular vote stands a chance of succeeding. That I am indifferent to a GOP Administration should say something about how embittered I am by Obama and his supporters.

    Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney looks better and better.

    Parent

    what hurts (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jgarza on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:28:49 PM EST
    party unity is Hillary calling Obama Karl Rove.

    Parent
    IT does? (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:34:55 PM EST
    How about when Obama called Hillary Bush-Cheney lite?

    Oh that's right, I keep forgetting those pesky Obama Rules.

    Parent

    Hillary has provided support and cover (none / 0) (#188)
    by bronte17 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:55:03 PM EST
    for the bush administration's continued fiasco in Iraq.  Therefore, one could logically make the extension that she is "birds of a feather."

    Not sure how you equate Obama to Rove though.  You have to fill me in on that one.

    Parent

    So has Obama (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:59:09 PM EST
    If you have some evidence of Hillary supporting the Iraq Debacle in ways Obama has not since he became a Senator, please share it.

    I did not equate Obama to Rove. Hillary did. Her argument is that the false mailers are a Rovian tactic.

    Obama said the same thing about Hillary's mailers about him.

    Your outrage is quite selective Bronte17.

    Parent

    Or Obama saying she is (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:16:00 PM EST
    D-Punjab?  Just one of the first of his many attacks.

    Parent
    Obama is using Rove tactics...LIES (none / 0) (#139)
    by john5750 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:29:51 PM EST
    He's lying about Hillary's stance on NAFTA, and he's lying about her HealthCare plan.

    He's starting to look more and more like Bush.

    An inexperienced novice who is good at lying.

    Look what he did to America!!!

    Parent

    Unified party? (none / 0) (#134)
    by Foxx on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:27:51 PM EST
    He has already divided the party, too late to unify it now.

    For example, Dems for a Day, using Republicans who are going to vote for McCain in order to get the nomination.

    If I can't vote for Hillary, I'm writing her in.

    Parent

    Technically no (none / 0) (#151)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:33:34 PM EST
    Because the race is not over (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by AF on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:36:25 PM EST
    Do I get a prize?

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by facta non verba on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:32:20 PM EST
    You at least get kudos from me. After all it only took a half dozen responses for the obvious to be noted.

    Parent
    Only if you get the MEdia (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:38:00 PM EST
    to agree.

    Parent
    Sure, no problem (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by AF on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:44:28 PM EST
    I'll make a few calls.  Consider it done.

    Parent
    When you get it done (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:47:18 PM EST
    You'll get your prize.

    A subscription to the The New Republic.

    Parent

    Hillary leads in TX, OH, RI, NC, PA (none / 0) (#104)
    by john5750 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:13:11 PM EST
    That's why.

    Parent
    So long (none / 0) (#133)
    by tek on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:27:43 PM EST
    as it's a sign he's worried, or behind in the polls, I'm good.

    Parent
    More questions. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Mike Pridmore on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:38:54 PM EST
    Why is Ed Schultz so angry that Hillary has not dropped out?  And why the recent similar anger from DHinMI on the front page of dKos?  I don't get the anger of these Obama supporters.  Hillary still has a chance to win and would be stupid to drop out before Ohio and TX vote.  Is the anger really fear in disguise?

    Psst (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:39:45 PM EST
    Maybe because it is not really over.

    Parent
    Not until he wins the Texas delegate battle (none / 0) (#52)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:45:23 PM EST
    obviously the polls are fluid, but one has him up double digits in TX

    Maybe he is trying to proactively counter the oodles of 527 funds that are about to come in against him in TX?

    Parent

    That lead is in an online poll (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:46:27 PM EST
    Respectable polls have Hillary with a 1 to 5 point lead.

    But the point stands, is the race
    NOT over?

    Parent

    It's not over because (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by john5750 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:39:24 PM EST
    Hillary will win TX, OH, NC, RI, PA.

    She will get FL and MI, just as Obama got SC.  It's in the rules.

    The superdelegates will agree she is the only one with the experience, the knowledge, and the character to be president.  She has run a clean campaign, unlike Obama.

    Parent

    Not if she can win TX and OH 2-1 (none / 0) (#61)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:48:45 PM EST
    Any takers?

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:02:19 PM EST
    Why not 100-0?

    Finally the Obama supporters have learned to play the expectations game.

    Kudos.

    Parent

    How does she win enough delegates (none / 0) (#175)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:45:08 PM EST
    without big wins in TX and OH?  I don't see how close wins get her there, particularly since some of the delegates in TX will be selected by your favorite method, the caucus system, the Clinton team has yet to figure out.  The campaign may be about change, the basic rules of arithmetic stay the same.  

    Parent
    And . . . can he? Seen the math? (nt) (none / 0) (#180)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:49:40 PM EST
    Will she get enough delegates with that kind (none / 0) (#165)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:41:05 PM EST
    of poll lead? Texas has some system for rewarding precincts which turned out more in the previous election. In this case the AA precincts  have been rewarded with more delegates because of their heavy turnout in the previous election. Does that help Obama or HRC?

    i do hope Obama can hold onto his luck with the media.  

    Parent

    I think the answer to your question is YES (none / 0) (#54)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:45:39 PM EST
    Obama is the same old-same old (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:52:45 PM EST
    Vote for him or not, but don't pretend he's something new and different.

    He's got the support of a bunch of "establishment" Democrats and has collected money from corporations and special interests.

    He even recycles old speeches of other politicians.  Now he's running "old school" negative ads.

    BTW - He wouldn't be going negative if he wasn't worried about Hillary making a comeback.

    Wow (none / 0) (#70)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:55:41 PM EST
    This place is becoming a clearing house of Obama supporters.  Frankly0 and now myiq2xu.  If we could get Larry Johnson and Taylor Marsh over here, I think we would have the Internet Obama-hating All-Stars.

    Parent
    D'oh! (none / 0) (#71)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:56:11 PM EST
    That should read clearing house of Obama HATERS! :)

    Parent
    I ask again (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:57:52 PM EST
    While disagreeing with the comment, did you see an attack on Obama's character?

    Parent
    What did you object to? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:57:05 PM EST
    I disagree with the comment largely but your comment is pretty bad as well.

    Parent
    I'm not objective to anything (none / 0) (#81)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:00:44 PM EST
    myiq said.  Merely making the observation that first we had Kevin Drum's resident Obama hater start posting here and now we have John Cole's.  I guess we still need to wait for Ken or or Jay Jerome from ObWi to show up before we have the whole gang.

    FTR, I am not even making a criticism.  I am simply pointing something out.

    Parent

    With a pejorative (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:08:13 PM EST
    No one gets to call you an Obama Cultist.

    you do not get to call anyone a hater.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#101)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:10:48 PM EST
    I wasn't trying to use a pejorative towards them.  I suspect they would accept that title as a badge of honor.  

    But you're right. I'll retract the term hater.  Is anti-Obama acceptable?  

    Parent

    I just looked at today's (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by dk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:30:46 PM EST
    Rasmussen and Gallup national polls, and Hillary and Barack are in a statistical tie.  And it actually seems as if the numbers moved in Hillary's favor AFTER Wisconsin.

    I know that national polls are not entirely relevant at this point since most states have already voted, but it is obviously clear that at least half of democrats out there still prefer Hillary to Barack, no matter what the media and the A-list blogs say.

    One theory is that the Obama camp understands this and understands they need to do something about it or they lose the GE.  The funny thing is that the Obama supporters on the blogs are in complete denial over it.

    Yes, interesting that Gallup did no report (none / 0) (#154)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:35:49 PM EST
    yesterday, after the previous day -- the first day testing post-Wisconsin primary -- showed no "bounce" for Obama.  So Gallup's announcement that it would not report yesterday and delay it to today intrigued me . . . and then today's tracking, as the report says, still shows no "bounce."

    The people may be wiser than the media and may realize what really was going on in Wisconsin?  Or any "bounce" was a wash with the stories that did not break in time to have impact in Wisconsin, the plagiarism story and the Michelle Obama pride-in-country story?  

    Parent

    He sends those mailers out (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jgarza on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:11:43 PM EST
    everywhere.  Has anyone suggested he isn't campaigning any more?

    Yeah I guess there is one way she could pull it off,  that would be if stopped campaigning.

    Negative attacks? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:14:23 PM EST
    LEt me repeat the question for you, because frankly, this mailer surprised me - see if you can follow the question this time -

    IF THIS RACE IS OVER, THEN WHY IS OBAMA ATTACKING CLINTON?

    Want to try and answer that one again?

    I am genuinely interested in an honest answer.

    Parent

    And I make no comment (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:15:06 PM EST
    on the accuracy of the attack.

    A strongly positioned frontrunner rarely attacks his opponent.

    Parent

    First off (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jgarza on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:17:52 PM EST
    he is behind in Ohio.  Has anyone disputed that.  Of course she could win Ohio, that doesn't mean she isn't loosing the race for the nomination.

    Parent
    So the race is NOT over then? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:19:58 PM EST
    I want to make sure I have the Obama talking points down on this.

    Because David Plouffe said it is over.

    Parent

    The Rules (none / 0) (#36)
    by Athena on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:34:15 PM EST
    The rules are asymmetric - any questioning of Obama is an "attack" while the questioning of Clinton is "legitimate."

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:36:26 PM EST
    I know about the Obama Rules. But I thought the race was over. That is what the Obama camp has told me.

    Why attack when the race is over?

    Parent

    Why, indeed? (none / 0) (#126)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:23:12 PM EST
    If the race is over, then this would just be vindictiveness.  Why not do mailers against McCain?

    Parent
    My sense is that they (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jgarza on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:22:48 PM EST
    probably have poll data saying that her trends are bad and a big part of that is that Barack is pointing out that the Clinton's gave us NAFTA.  She had to do this, but the problem is that she going to have a hard time distancing her self from NAFTA.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:26:09 PM EST
    if the polling indicates her trends are bad that is a reason to NOT go negative.

    Your logic seems weak to me.

    Parent

    "the Clinton's gave us NAFTA". (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:44:39 PM EST
    Huff Post has a piece up now entitled "How Apostrophes Make Life More Difficult"

    Parent
    Jeez, nothing but talking points. (none / 0) (#94)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:06:29 PM EST
    Then he doesn't have those voters yet? (none / 0) (#121)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:21:36 PM EST
    Then how could Plouffe say the race is over, Obama has won?  That is a crucial bloc in Ohio.

    Parent
    NAFTA is an issue in Ohio (none / 0) (#115)
    by jor on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:19:10 PM EST
    ... Either Hillary runs on 35 years of experience and all it entails with her husband or she doesn't.

    Obama is trying to erode her last remaining support with blue collar workers. Reminding them of her husband and NAFTA is a good way. This isn't rocket science here.

    Parent

    HILLARY & NAFTA (5.00 / 0) (#209)
    by john5750 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:11:38 PM EST
    Obama Campaign Wrong On Hillary And NAFTA
    By Eric Kleefeld - February 14, 2008
    The Obama camp has repeatedly charged that Hillary was pro-NAFTA during her husband's presidency, an allegation the Obama campaign has used to try to weaken her support among a critical constituency, working-class voters.

    A new report says that the Hillary camp is right on this one. The Huffington Post talked to biographers of the First Lady and former advisers to Bill Clinton, and they all said Hillary was against the trade deal the whole time, even if she was constrained from saying so publicly.

    Parent

    These (none / 0) (#118)
    by tek on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:20:34 PM EST
    mailers seem stupid to me anyway. Why send that junk out to voters? People know the sender is at the least stretching the truth to make him/herself look good. I suppose they must work on a lot of voters or candidates wouldn't spend the money on them. Sad, it's just sad.

    Parent
    ummm.... because it's not over (none / 0) (#22)
    by dannyinla on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:28:26 PM EST
    and, despite your reference to Plouffe, I don't think anyone plans on acting like it's over.

    Parent
    So it is NOT over? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:30:21 PM EST
    Plouffe was puffing then?

    Parent
    Yes, Plouffe was puffing (none / 0) (#38)
    by AF on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:35:17 PM EST
    As Bill Clinton was when he said Hillary "will be the nominee" if she wins Texas and Ohio.  Campaign gives rosy forecast.  Dog bites man.

    Parent
    Okie doke (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:37:18 PM EST
    Funny how the Media bought one bit of puffing but not the other.

    Think the Media might now say the race is NOT over?

    Parent

    Don't know what the media will say (none / 0) (#48)
    by AF on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:41:38 PM EST
    I have no interest in defending the media.

    (In this case, though, Plouffe's analysis is much closer to the truth when you do the math.)      

    Parent

    Wait up (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:48:17 PM EST
    Now you are saying it is over again. Flip flopping?

    Parent
    You have an idiosyncratic definition (none / 0) (#64)
    by AF on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:53:33 PM EST
    of saying the race is over.  It will be hard for Hillary to come back but not impossible.  Winning Texas and Ohio is not enough.

    Parent
    No that is Plouffe's definition (none / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:04:40 PM EST
    not mine.

    He said she CAN'T come back. That means it is over by any definition.

    Parent

    In his opinion. (none / 0) (#140)
    by dannyinla on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:30:00 PM EST
    And in his opinion only.

    Parent
    He speaks for the Obama campaign (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:44:38 PM EST
    and the Media prints the Obama campaign opinions as fact.

    Parent
    Nope. (none / 0) (#210)
    by dannyinla on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:19:41 PM EST
    I have NEVER accepted that theory. The candidate's words are gospel, not so for their campaign managers or staff.

    Parent
    Media is a plural (none / 0) (#159)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:39:03 PM EST
    Some media say the race is over, others say it is not. People say all sorts of things. Everybody likes to think they have their finger on the true pulse. Lots of people actually get it right, once or twice - and hence they keep trying.

    I am wondering if you have a deeper point here...

    Parent

    Go team. (none / 0) (#83)
    by dannyinla on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:01:20 PM EST
    I repeat.

    Race. Not. Over.

    Plouffe is playing a game.
    BTD is playing a game.

    Obama is still campaigning in OH because... the race is not over.

    Parent

    What is my game? (none / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:03:53 PM EST
    I genuinely believe this is a mistake by Obama, but it is true that I disliked the Media and the blogs insisting Hillary drop out because it is "over."

    Parent
    the game is the game (none / 0) (#136)
    by dannyinla on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:28:44 PM EST
    Hey, I agree that the race is not over. The door, however, is closing. I'm pretty sure the sky is blue in your world, just as it is in mine.

    Plouffe is playing a campaign game to steer the media into a "nuisance candidate" meme for HRC. That's stoopid. If HRC wins big enough in TX and OH the game is still on.

    Your game is in pretending that you don't understand Plouffe's ploy. You're too smart for that.

    And it's not "a mistake by Obama." a) It's not a mistake - it might be a failed attempt, but a "mistake"? No, and b) it's not "by Obama", it's by Plouffe.

    Parent

    I understood the ploy (none / 0) (#170)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:43:47 PM EST
    I am pointing out that too many did not, including the Media.

    It seems you do not understand my game after all.

    Parent

    re-read (none / 0) (#179)
    by dannyinla on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:48:55 PM EST
    you were "pretending" to not understand.

    No one here accepts Plouffe's assesment that it's over. No one here believes that Plouffe believes it is over.

    He is trying to shape the naarative.

    I hate repeating myself.

    Parent

    I think my readers (none / 0) (#204)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:02:47 PM EST
    here at this site understand me better than that.

    Parent
    why is it a mistake? (none / 0) (#166)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:41:11 PM EST
    Wouldn't winning Ohio, especially if he can do it in a somewhat convincing way, be a help to him?

    Even if he will win anyway, wouldn't work to calm the fears of those who run around saying that he can't win any big states, and so we are doomed in Nov?

    Parent

    Untiy baby, unity (none / 0) (#169)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:42:39 PM EST
    I think it is a mistake because at this point, it does not help his campaign.

    HE now has countered his "it's over"
     meme.

    Parent

    all right already BTD (none / 0) (#181)
    by Tano on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:50:15 PM EST
    Plouffe was giving a little campaign-manager spin, ok. We all understand that it is not officially over. Get over it already.

    Parent
    Hey (none / 0) (#202)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:01:21 PM EST
    It sounds like you are a little sensitive. What's wrong?

    Parent
    You do understand that HRC is responding (none / 0) (#6)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:16:03 PM EST
    to Obama's attack mailers?

    Parent
    Did you read my comment? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jgarza on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:19:47 PM EST
    Did i mention Hillary's attack?

    Parent
    No nor did you respond to my post (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:20:25 PM EST
    NO i did read (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jgarza on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:24:34 PM EST
    it.  I just pointed out that he has sent those mailers out everywhere including Wisconsin which he won by 17 points, and where he had been ahead in polling.

    Parent
    That is a nonsequitor (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:25:30 PM EST
    It was not declared Over by the bama campaign before Wisconsin.It was declared over by David Plouffe the other day.

    Parent
    BTD (none / 0) (#122)
    by tek on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:21:56 PM EST
    you win the prize for knowing what a nonsequitor is.

    Parent
    Link? I never saw Obama mailers (none / 0) (#31)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:31:43 PM EST
    in Wisconsin, nor did anyone I know mention them -- and we talked about politics a lot here. . . .

    Parent
    "Cause he's got money to burn? (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:11:52 PM EST


    Still makes no sense (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:15:31 PM EST
    Cause he's got money to burn (none / 0) (#68)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:54:15 PM EST
    and is about to be barraged by 527 money

    Parent
    Seems to me that Obama (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:28:25 PM EST
    that they're facing the prospect of another New Hampshire.

    I am genuinely surprised by this (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:34:00 PM EST
    No joke.

    Parent
    Hmm, I'm looking at demographics (none / 0) (#69)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:54:48 PM EST
    of Ohio and New Hampshire now.  (Most of us analyzing these -- see pollster.com discussion -- have been comparing Ohio and Wisconsin.)

    Parent
    I think he's responding... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Siguy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:28:34 PM EST
    I'll quote myself from the other post and then comment a little more:
    "These are the first two negative Obama mailers I've heard of. Out here in California she damn near inundated my house with negative Obama mailers.

    I think I got like four negative Obama mailers and one positive mailer about hillary. Now I wish I'd kept them so I could compare.

    I'm not even commenting on the specifics of Obama's mailers. I'm just saying that I think Hillary's outrage here, her "shame on you!", rings pretty false to my ears because I didn't hear Barack talking about her mailers that have already been out in all these states for months."

    Anyway, I think he's putting the mailers out because he doesn't want people to just get her mailers that say his healthcare plan leaves out 15 million or whatever number it said. In every debate so far, Hillary has hammered this mandate issue for all it's worth.  I completely agree with him on healthcare but when someone in a democratic primary keeps saying "He's leaving you out!" then I could understand why his group is responding. Again, I see it as a response, not a new line of attack.

    On NAFTA I think they're both crazy, but that's my personal opinion about how trade policy should be handled, not a comment on their arguments against each other.

    jgarza, an Obama supporter, says (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:32:26 PM EST
    He has used negative mailers in every state.

    And if you did not hear Obama on Hillary's mailers then you were not listening. OR reading the Left blogs which stated this was proof positive of Hillary's evilness.

    But you ignore my question, if the race is over, why is Obama attacking Hillary?

    Parent

    Well if what you just said is right... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Siguy on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:39:41 PM EST
    and I assume you are right that he's had more negative mailers than this and he's condemned hers before, then I think you're reading too much into it.

    Then I think it's actually just a continuation. They've both been doing these mailers the whole election apparently. Why would they stop now?

    The only difference is that this time Hillary became very indignant about it and said it was an outrage. I personally think this is a very false outrage she's cooked up to help her campaign (good strategy, I think, actually).

    Parent

    A time to unify (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:41:04 PM EST
    As I recall, a lot of Left blogs and prog radio talkers are REALLLLLLY worried about HILLARY going negative.

    I guess those worries do not apply to Obama. Yes, the Obama Rules again.

    Parent

    The difference is exactly, as BTD says (none / 0) (#65)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:53:43 PM EST
    that it's a continuation of Obama's attacks.  Why, when his campaign manager said it's all over now?

    Parent
    Pundits are (none / 0) (#28)
    by mg7505 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:30:10 PM EST
    definitely saying the race is over. NYT's Bob Herbert, whom I used to trust on a lot of issues, takes the cake:

    The candidate who tried to present herself as inevitable has been out-maneuvered nearly every step of the way by a prodigy with a warm and brilliant smile who still seems as energetic as an athlete doing calisthenics before a big game.

    I won't go into how loaded and sickening paragraphs like these are. He goes on to launch the usual arsenal of meaningless, unfounded attacks against Clinton: Obama has momentum, Bill was bad, Hillary's old, she conceded in the debate, etc. What amazes me even more than Obama's continuing attacks is how the media still hasn't woken up to the fact that Hillary is as strong a candidate as ever, that she clearly won Thursday's debate, and that victory actually means something. The pundits seem to have a new narrative to the tune of:

    Hillary Clinton is exhausted, and her supporters are becoming increasingly demoralized. [Bob Herbert again]

    Obviously they don't feel obligated to provide any evidence for that story; but it sounds so nice, right?

    hmmmmmm (none / 0) (#32)
    by myed2x on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:31:49 PM EST
    Has it been verified that it was the Obama campaign that sent it out?  Seems suspicious.

    They defended it (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:33:29 PM EST
    Seems like proof to me.

    Parent
    You can google for the mailers and see (none / 0) (#62)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:52:02 PM EST
    his name on them, his campaign website, etc. -- same as the Harry and Louise mailer in earlier states.

    Parent
    Obama has been doing this all along (none / 0) (#153)
    by john5750 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:35:17 PM EST
    YES, it was Obama.

    Parent
    What .... (none / 0) (#49)
    by chemoelectric on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:43:20 PM EST
    ... makes you think the race is over?

    Obama needs to try to make this as firm a victory as possible, in the first case so he doesn't lose, and in the second case so there is a minimum of griping from Clinton supporters and minimum attention paid to the closeness. Third, Obama is considerably more subtle in what he does than tends to be characterized here, and may be leaving traps for John McCain, who seems eminently trappable, and shares with Hillary Clinton the quality of being firmly Established, and who seems to copy his campaign tactics from Hillary Clinton.

    Obama told me so (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:45:27 PM EST
    Was he lying to me?

    Parent
    Please provide a quote (none / 0) (#57)
    by AF on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:47:26 PM EST
    When you accuse a Democratic presidential candidate of lying.  If you're referring to David Plouffe's remarks on the state of the race, your comment is not remotely justified.

    Parent
    Ah (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:01:27 PM EST
    As Alien Abductee says, if the Guardian misquoted Plouffe, why did they not demand a retraction?

    Besides even given your charitable interpretation IN THIS COMMENT (I note you take the view it is over and Plouffe was right elsewhere IN THIS THREAD), that means it is over.

    Parent

    I never said it's over (none / 0) (#105)
    by AF on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:13:24 PM EST
    Plouffe said Obama has a "wide, wide lead" that he is unlikely to lose even if Hillary wins TX, OH, and PA.  Whether that can be characterized as sying the race is over is debatable, but it certainly cannot be characterized as calling on Clinton to concede, as the Guardian reported without a quote.  (Note the parallel to the "boon" quote used by Obama.)

    Personally, I think Plouffe exaggerates Obama's lead a bit.  But I do think the lead is big enough that Obama remains the frontrunner if he loses TX and OH without losing large numbers of net pledged delegates on March 4.

    Parent

    Not "unlikely" (none / 0) (#131)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:25:53 PM EST
    CAN'T.

    Parent
    Here's (none / 0) (#138)
    by AF on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:29:30 PM EST
    where he said "unlikely" -- and it's an actual quote!  

    But I'll accept your characterization of Plouffe's remarks as meaning it's over.  It is still not remotely justified to suggest that Obama is "lying" because he is vigorously contesting Ohio even while his campaign mananager is saying Hillary can't catch up.

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#144)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:31:16 PM EST
    Dalton Hoffine shared an e-mail with us that confirmed he said CAN'T.

    Parent
    Did you ever see the actual (none / 0) (#193)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:57:01 PM EST
    email from Obama campaign?  I distrust paraphrasing.

    Parent
    Now you're misquoting me! (none / 0) (#110)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:17:04 PM EST
    That's not what I said at all. Grrr!

    Parent
    If you think putting out false attacks (none / 0) (#85)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:01:45 PM EST
    will help him secure the Clinton vote, good flapping luck with that.  Seems to me his internal polls must be pretty poor.  

    He is also spending a boat load of money on TV in TX.  It's bad enough that it's really hard for me to find anything to watch without Obama showing up.  Yuck.


    Parent

    So, did TX dems. really march (none / 0) (#116)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:19:32 PM EST
    7 miles to vote?  Just saw that on Huff Post.

    Parent
    no clue (none / 0) (#146)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:31:52 PM EST
    but if they did, it was probably uphill all the way to the polling place and back  :-)

    Parent
    In knee deep snow. (none / 0) (#194)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:57:31 PM EST
    Well, (none / 0) (#58)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:47:58 PM EST
    I hope it's not over. The longer both of them stay in the more they're fighting each other to go to the left. Much as I hate this infighting and want to see the party coalescing around the nominee, I dread the drift to the center that the main campaign will most likely mean. Unless the blogs can start doing some progressive pressuring again then, though it may be too late.

    Last I checked (none / 0) (#59)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:48:12 PM EST
    Hillary hasn't conceded so I'm pretty sure the race isn't over yet.  

    Perhaps I missed that news item.  

    From what little I have read about this it would indeed appear that Obama used negative attacks on Hillary with regards to NAFTA.  He shouldn't have done that and I hope that he does not continue with that.  

    The health care attack is entirely legitimate.  She has been more than willing to make that her centerpiece issue.  She doesn't Obama pointing out the very real downsides to her plan.  Oh well.  Deal with it.

    Oh and that Harry and Louise stuff is silly.  Gee a middle aged couple mulling over their health care choices in a still equates to Harry and Louise?  Why?  Because it is about health care?  If the same picture was about taxes or Social Security, would it still be a Harry and Louise ad?

    Come on (none / 0) (#66)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:54:03 PM EST
    If that Harry and Louise rdux ad was anything but inadvertent (which I can't believe), it was despicable. Drawing on those right-wing attacks? Not silly and not good.

    Parent
    But the NAFTA one (none / 0) (#73)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:57:31 PM EST
    seems entirely fair to me. She didn't complain about the Newsday characterization of it that way at the time. So she's stuck with it, even if she says NAFTA needs a little fixin' now.

    Parent
    She did complain (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:59:46 PM EST
    And Newsday had to retract it.

    What say you now?

    Parent

    Not at the time she didn't (none / 0) (#107)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:14:04 PM EST
    Re the original 2006 article/chart.

    Tasini called for scrapping NAFTA in 2006. She did not.

    We do not have a direct quote indicating her campaign told us she thought it was good for the economy at that time. Also, for that matter, Clinton's campaign did not contact us to question the item after it appeared in print.

    I say you do not read carefully.

    Parent

    Touche (none / 0) (#130)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:25:10 PM EST
    One of the pitfalls perhaps (none / 0) (#156)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:37:31 PM EST
    of being the world's faster commenter...

    Parent
    Why can't you believe it? (none / 0) (#75)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:58:09 PM EST
    The Harry and Louise ads were 15 years ago!!  

    Who exactly is Obama trying to woo by appealing to those universally hated by Democrats advertisements?

    Parent

    Do you think his media (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:05:20 PM EST
    strategists are utterly incompetent fools? That they wouldn't have known about one of the most notorious ads of that era, on exactly the same issue, involving the same principal advocate, now his oppponent? I think it was deliberately designed to stir up animus against Hillary by recalling that RW opposition and media frenzy of those years. To tell you the truth, I was shocked by that mailer like nothing else so far in this campaign.

    Parent
    15 years ago (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by spit on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:08:39 PM EST
    the last time anybody in the Democratic party made a really serious, well-backed attempt at universal health care. It's very relevant.

    Very little in expensive ads is ever inadvertent. People are paid incredible sums of money to decide on the set, the props, the clothing, and the positions of the models. They plan every tiny detail. It's not likely just a coincidence that this mailer draws on exactly the same message imagery as the ad that quite effectively destroyed our last good chance for major health care changes, because very little in expensive advertising is left to coincidence.

    He's using it because it was effective. And he's not just talking to Democrats, remember?

    If Obama wants to go after Clinton's health care, fine -- I actually don't have a problem with negative mailers in campaigns, generally. but doing it this way is absolutely vile to me. Yes, it does reinforce the old conservative and insurance industry frame that winds up damaging the cause itself IMO.  

    Parent

    Hmm (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:59:20 PM EST
    Obama has never been known to appeal outside of the Dem base now has he?

    Parent
    So his intention (none / 0) (#93)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:05:47 PM EST
    was to target 40+ year old Republicans and Independents that may or may not remember some old TV commercial by creating a still photo of a middle aged couple sitting over paperwork?

    I'm not a believer in subliminal politicking.  Usually the people that spot it are the ones with an agenda.

    Parent

    Um yes? (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:09:33 PM EST
    Yes, that was exactly (none / 0) (#102)
    by dk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:10:54 PM EST
    his intention.  Actually, only part of his intention.  The other part was to target young voters who don't remember the Harry & Louise ads and will therefore fall for the fear mongering for the first time.

    Parent
    Truly his evil (none / 0) (#108)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:15:12 PM EST
    knows no bounds.  

    Maybe he should set up a nice game of canasta with Hillary and the winner will be the nominee?

    Parent

    Uh... (none / 0) (#80)
    by dk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:59:56 PM EST
    perhaps Independents and Republicans who were suckered by the ads the first time.  You know, Obama's base.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:58:50 PM EST
    You are very forgiving of Obama's negativity here.

    BTW, Obama says it is over. I did not make that up.

    Parent

    No he doesn't (none / 0) (#88)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:03:52 PM EST
    Daivd Plouffe made that comment in a conference call.  That's called spin, BTD, and I am certain you know that.

    This entire thread is nothing more than an attempt to poke a stick at Obama supporters.  You know full well that Obama isn't about to stop campaigning against Hillary.  Certainly not a week before Texas and Ohio.  But you want to point to a hypocrisy that really isn't a hypocrisy.  And then when Obama supporters come to the defense of their guy, you start poking the stick at them.

    Parent

    What is your point? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:09:03 PM EST
    That press conference over the phone do not count?

    I am not following your meaning.

    Parent

    My point is (none / 0) (#106)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:14:01 PM EST
    that PART of campaigning is trying to create a narrative that Hillary has already lost and that there is really no point in voting for her.  

    I am sure you know that, BTD.  And to suggest that a campaign strategist is speaking with candor to a reporters borders on the surreal.

    Parent

    Funny (none / 0) (#129)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:24:36 PM EST
    The Media bought it hook, line and sinker.

    So you think the Media is doing a good job?

    Parent

    Of course the media bought it (none / 0) (#155)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:35:59 PM EST
    The media are suckers.  They don't care about truth or accuracy, at least accuracy behind the facts they are reporting.

    They care about stories.  A big story is more important to them than an accurate story.  Plouffe, like any other political strategist, knows this full well.

    What we seem to forget is that the big name politicians and their strategists are generally a lot smarter than most journalists.   They have a Pavlovian view of most of the journalists.  This is especially true of TV journalists who get to their position of prominence due to reasons OTHER than being good journalists.  

    Just about all day to day journalism is incompetent.  If you want to get decent commentary you need to go to the periodicals such as the Atlantic, Economist, Harpers, etc.

    What is even more depressing is that today's media is better than it has ever been in the past.

    Parent

    Now you are making some good points (none / 0) (#168)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:42:39 PM EST
    but watch out if the media figures out that they've been played for suckers.  They can get darn mean about that.

    Btw, I do disagree that this is the best the media ever has been.  I actually have read decades and decades' worth of newspapers from the past, even from centuries ago, and many were far better.  They were writing, of course, to a far better-informed public -- the elite.  It's a downside of the belief in the classic libertarian theory of democracy.

    Parent

    The writing was better (none / 0) (#200)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:00:32 PM EST
    perhaps but the information provided was EXTREMELY filtered.  The concept of an unbiased media simply didn't exist for most history.  They spoke for the moneyed classes, and usually a specific subset of them.

    Consider the newspapers of 18th century America.  They were openly biased and would simply not print information that violated their political biases.  

    Even the more high minded newspapers that focused on populist issues or civil rights issues were generally intolerant of opposing views.

    Parent

    The media did nothing it hasn't done before (none / 0) (#192)
    by bronte17 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:56:56 PM EST
    It had an interesting angle of simplification and ran with it.

    Parent
    So now it's WPfffSWORM? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:11:47 PM EST
    What Plouffe Said What Obama Really Meant?

    If Plouffe is wrong, with his high-level position, we can presume we will read of his resignation today.

    Parent

    It must be a lot of fun (none / 0) (#111)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:17:19 PM EST
    to use the same contrived aphorisms over and over again.

    Luckily I have you and the others to tell me what Obama really meant.  

    Parent

    It's a dirty job, but (none / 0) (#132)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:27:17 PM EST
    somebody's got to do it.

    (I cannot attribute that, sorry; if anyone has the source, please provide. Perhaps it was said by the same source that first said "we will be fine.")

    Parent

    You just lost your own argument (none / 0) (#124)
    by themomcat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:22:32 PM EST
    There is no defense for Ploufle's statement since it clearly is not true. Spin, hypocrisy or lie, label it however you want. This race is not over yet.  

    Parent
    Those three Ohio blue collar guys (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:54:09 PM EST
    in the article definitely deemed NAFTA and HRC evil incarnate.  That's why.  

    Changed the Rules? (none / 0) (#77)
    by themomcat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 02:59:08 PM EST
    This is "Calvin Ball". You remember "Calvin and Hobbes"? Change the rules but don't tell your opponent. They say it's over because that is the message they want to get out in Texas and Ohio and they know that the MSM will play that message until everyone believes it. There are those who know this won't be a done deal for Obama possibly until the convention. The Obama camp would just like the rest of us to believe otherwise.

    On the merits (none / 0) (#87)
    by AF on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:03:02 PM EST
    I have no problem with Obama running contrast issue ads in Ohio.  

    I have no problem with him using NAFTA against Hillary.  If she's going to run on the Clinton administration's accomplishments she needs to take the good with the bad, especially when she didn't speak out against it at the time.  

    I have a bit of a problem with the "boon" quote, which is sloppy research.  Hillary has every right to hit back on that.

    I have no problem with Obama defending his position on mandates.  I'm agnostic about them --I see Hillary's point about the symbolic importance of universality and think they have merit, but think are overrated as a matter of policy and political strategy.

    I do think the Harry and Louise resemblance is unfortunate and don't blame Hillary for fighting back on that.

    All in all, this good, healthy, issue-based debate.  Perfectly normal for a primary campaign which, like this one, is not over.

    But you do object to hillary doing it? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:07:14 PM EST
    I assume not. But Obama, the Media, his supporters and the progressive blogs DO object to Hillary doing it.

    Hence, the Obama Rules. I know you do not deny their existence now.

    Parent

    The Obama rules exist (none / 0) (#120)
    by AF on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:20:54 PM EST
    My main objection has been lumping the Obama campaign together with the media and "A-List bloggers," who seem to be the worst offenders.  

    Parent
    The Obama campaign (none / 0) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:23:03 PM EST
    is doing what it is supposed to do - everything it can get away with.

    Parent
    It's past time these two took off (none / 0) (#100)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:10:38 PM EST
    the gloves and landed some punches.  So far, only Obama has been jabbing for the most part and I'm glad to see her hit back.

    Parent
    The "boon" (none / 0) (#135)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:28:11 PM EST
    in quotes is entirely fair. The mailer doesn't actually attribute the words to Hillary, does it? The ethical standards in these things are pretty low to non-existent, and while iffy I don't think this one is out of bounds, because they didn't lie and directly attribute it to her. Misleading, yes, but campaign literature is hardly expected to be a paragon of rigorous objectivity.

    Parent
    Your comment is contradictory (none / 0) (#141)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:30:02 PM EST
    Fair and misleading at the same time?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#161)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:39:36 PM EST
    Within the ethical standards of the genre, imo.

    Parent
    But I thought that Obama was (none / 0) (#150)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:33:14 PM EST
    a new Kind of politician.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#163)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:40:36 PM EST
    You fell for it.

    Parent
    No his followers are still falling for it (none / 0) (#174)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:44:41 PM EST
    That part will not be a problem for them (none / 0) (#191)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:55:37 PM EST
    What he's able to actually deliver will be the problem, with their expectations so vague and sky high.

    However, I think he'll be able to deliver more than Hillary would have been able to do. I mean, when even Dan Gerstein has deserted you when you're such an honored member of the DLC, it's over...

    Parent

    Obama is politics as usual (none / 0) (#183)
    by john5750 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:51:30 PM EST
    with a Chicago slant.  Look at Rezko, and that nuclear guy that paid him to water down the bill against his company.

    Parent
    They reprinted a lie by media (none / 0) (#157)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:37:53 PM EST
    that Newsday attributed to her and retracted, but you think that's "fair" because she herself didn't say the lie about herself?  (My head hurts from trying to construct that sentence.)

    Parent
    A few thoughts (none / 0) (#145)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:31:30 PM EST
    For a candidate who's message is to do away with the old style of the Washington insiders politics his campaign is sure practicing a lot of that old style Washington insiders politics.

    The Obama campaign claim the Flyers are accurate but I they don't seem to be any more accurate than other claims they've made before.

    Finally, if your defense is that they did it too you don't have a good defense.

    It's called "faking a handoff" (none / 0) (#184)
    by bronte17 on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:51:48 PM EST
    and the Obama campaign had no illusions that Hillary was walking away or that "the race was over."

    As for the mailing... there was nothing new in there that would merit the outrage from Hillary.  It's theatre.

    The interesting question should be... Castro has come out in support of Hillary.  What does that do to the calculus?

    So Castro is for Hillary (none / 0) (#198)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 03:59:30 PM EST
    and Osama is for Obama (according to Fox poll).

    lol

    Parent

    Castro has come out for HRC? (none / 0) (#201)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:00:49 PM EST
    McCain apparently says he hopes Fidel Castro gets to meet Karl Marx soon.  What next?

    Parent
    Comments are now closed (none / 0) (#206)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:03:41 PM EST


    Hillary needs surrogates (none / 0) (#212)
    by catfish on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:32:09 PM EST
    to do her dirty work. She keeps doing it herself and anything bad he does sticks to her.

    Hell, let's be honest - even if her surrogates did it, it would still stick to her.

    If Obama screws up as president, will it still be Hillary's fault? I fear the answer is yes.

    gonna be interesting since Obama (none / 0) (#213)
    by athyrio on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 04:32:25 PM EST
    is having a dickens of a time beating up on Hillary in traditional democratic territory even with total favorible press and republicans "crossing the aisle" to help him knock out Hillary and he is barely winning against her, so when the unfavorible press and the constant negativity plus the anger of half the democratic party later on I predict that he will sink like a stone in my opinion....

    Is there really a "quote"? (none / 0) (#214)
    by Rigelian on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 06:10:25 PM EST
    There's a quote by someone in the Obama camp that it's over?  I haven't seen it and if you're talking about the Guardian Story the comment wasn't even in the body of the article but in the headline of the article.  But if there is a quote I'd like to see it.