home

Obama Goes Negative

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:51:52 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Here is an interesting development - before last night's voting, continuing in his speech last night and continuing today, Barack Obama seems to be in full bore negative campaigning mode:

Sen. Barack Obama predicted Wednesday that Republicans will have a dump truck full of dirt to unload on Hillary Rodham Clinton if the former first lady wins the Democratic presidential nomination, and said he offers the party its best hope of winning the White House this fall.

Whatever happened to the politics of hope?

Also, TPM reports:

In what may be Obama's most direct and aggressive criticism of Bill Clinton's presidency yet, the Obama campaign dropped a new mailer just before Super Tuesday that blasts "the Clintons" for wreaking massive losses on the Democratic party throughout the 1990s.

In the parlance of Kevin Drum, this is hardball politics to say the least.

Update (TL): Comments now closed here.

< The Kennedys' Bad Night | Obama And Hillary's Strengths On Super Tuesday >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Goes Negative | 188 comments (188 topical)
    Interesting (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:56:32 PM EST
    The question is whether this will hurt Obama or if it will all be swept away and rationalized.  In the past, he's been able to get folks backing him to ignore his negative attacks and claim that they are, in fact, positive or that they are Clinton's fault.

    It does seem, however, that this undermines any claims of confidence that the Obama campaign was trying to send.  If they really thought last night was a big step for him towards the nomination, I don't think we'd be seeing this today.

    Even if Obama won more delegates (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:04:16 PM EST
    and states last night, he failed to bring home CA, the biggest news of the night.  Over hyped ahead of time by Obama campaign and media.  I think that's why he gave the speech he did last night and why he's saying what he is today.

    [ Parent ]
    So when the media narrative changes (none / 0) (#36)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:17:48 PM EST
    after Saturday, and Obama is leading considering super delegates + regular delegates (thanks to his good showing on ST), will it even matter who took California?

    [ Parent ]
    I think it will matter to the super delegates. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:31:41 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Based on what? (none / 0) (#57)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:34:10 PM EST
    I mean, you're basically saying that the nominating process should just include NY and CA. Really the other states don't even matter.

    [ Parent ]
    well, for example, whatever TV (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:39:24 PM EST
    station I was watching was talking about who, exactly, are the superdelegates we hear so much about.  They showed footage including Bill Clinton,Dianne Feinstein, lots of elected national Dems., state party heads, etc.  I think these people have a finger in the wind and will be looking to the GE.  

    [ Parent ]
    The super delegates do have to consider their (none / 0) (#68)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:39:25 PM EST
    constituency when voting.  And let's not forget about Florida and Michigan.  We will need those states to win the general election.  I can't believe they would not get to seat their delegates.  That would totally destroy the general election.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes... (none / 0) (#96)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:58:10 PM EST
    So by that logic all of the superdelegates from the 15 states Obama has won should be pulling for him right?

    Also, you can bet on it that the Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina delegates will be voting against seating MI and FL.

    [ Parent ]

    and once again (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Josey on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:39:33 PM EST
    Obama uses rightwing talking points to attack a Democratic opponent. This time - to destroy Hillary once and for all!  Then there will be no one to question his BS.


    [ Parent ]
    Clinton needs to counter (none / 0) (#61)
    by IndependantThinker on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:36:47 PM EST
    this. I don't think she can just sit back and hope the media swings to her side because Obama's gone negative.

    [ Parent ]
    How though. I note BTD doesn't (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:40:54 PM EST
    give free advice to the Clinton campaign, just Obama's.

    [ Parent ]
    fwiw.... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:56:49 PM EST
    It's an accurate statement...the Republicans certainly will unload a dump-truck full of dirt on Hillary.  What he fails to mention is that it won't be too hard for the Republicans to dig up a back-hoe full on him as well.

    Old Recycled Dirt (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:18:12 PM EST
    That will sully the Repubs. DIrt sticks when it is new. Oldstuff can be easily dusted off.

    [ Parent ]
    Not all of it.... (none / 0) (#121)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:14:22 PM EST
    she's been in the Senate for a few years now.  There's gotta be some new dirt there...is it even possible to serve in the Senate and not get dirty?

    [ Parent ]
    Anything she may have done in the Senate (none / 0) (#127)
    by nolo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:17:50 PM EST
    Pales in comparison to what she was tarred with already.

    [ Parent ]
    The Main Campaign IMO (none / 0) (#163)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:59:38 PM EST
    Against HRC will be that she is not tough enough, she cries and we have a war on.

    The Republican's dirt from the last 8 years is still being mined, indictments, trials etc, and will be legendary, no comparison to whatever they throw at HRC.

    An easy comeback if you ask me would be for her to ask the American people if they could stomach another 4 years of Republican lies deception and corruption. Whoever runs as Republican owns the Bush legacy.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm waiting for Wal-Mart.... (none / 0) (#170)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:13:11 PM EST
    board room meeting minutes to be leaked....sun god knows what kinda dirt would be on there.

    [ Parent ]
    Old Dirt is basically Mulch or Topsoil (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ellie on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:22:56 PM EST
    Organically speaking, it serves a more positive role (protects grassroots, new growth) than a negative one in sullying the garden.

    People have heard old dirt before so it looks worse on who slings it. They sound desperate and lacking in ideas.

    The Obama campaign miscalculates here, sounding pissy and ungenerous for all that lofty talk about a change. A change of what? Socks and skivvies while the Repug mud machine takes out his opponent for him? Where's the new kind of politics there?

    His speech last night was cobbled-together ideas from MLK and Gandhi, except those fine men LED their supporters into the fray. As time goes on, Obama seems to hide behind his support and it  makes him look like he's trying to avoid getting dirt on his image. I'm still giving him the benefit of the doubt for not being personally responsible for this miscalculation . Even if his handlers are responsible, if he doesn't believe what he's speaking about 100% it won't play right and that will leech energy from idealism of O=mentum.

    [ Parent ]

    Dump truck (none / 0) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    It will take a dump truck to hurt her, but it will take a good look at him to burst the aura.

    [ Parent ]
    They won't find anything (none / 0) (#149)
    by BernieO on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:45:31 PM EST
    on Obama, though, because he is too pure to attack. That little Rezko problem will be ignored, I'm sure.

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:56:54 PM EST
    Obama's harsh anti-Clinton rhetoric in his speech last night, and apparently continuing today, is not the tone of a man who thinks he will sweep through the February states and coast to victory.

    Great Minds (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:59:41 PM EST
    We posted almost the exact same thought at the exact same time.  Heh.

    I will further add that, while the Republicans will no doubt dump a mountain of dirt on Clinton that it will mostly be old dirt.  Sure, there may be a few new things among her contributors or whatever, but most of the Clinton stuff has been gone over a million times.

    Plus, it appears that an awful lot of folks don't actually listen to anything the media says about the Clintons.  If they did, Obama would've crushed Hillary yesterday.

    [ Parent ]

    Immune to the Media (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:00:35 PM EST
    Worht keeping an eye on.

    [ Parent ]
    Frustration (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:08:14 PM EST
    I think what we're seeing from the Obamas is the same kind of frustration we've seen from Bill Clinton from time to time.  The Clintons have been frustrated by what they see as the media's full pass to Obama and it's double standard.  So they go off on the fairy tale and other things from time to time.

    After last night, the Obama campaign must be frustrated that no matter what the media says or does, Clinton is still there.  The past two weeks didn't change Massachusetts or California or other big states.  At least one campaign person had previously expressed frustration to Marc Ambinder that the press wasn't covering enough of Bill Clinton's post-presidential sex life.  As bad as the press has been towards Hillary, they haven't really dug up much new stuff.  I suspect the dump truck reference is designed to try to get the press to look at Clinton harder or at least blow up what they do find more.  

    FWIW, I don't think there's much more out there on Hillary Clinton or even Bill Clinton.  If there was, the Obama campaign would've found it and successfully pushed it by now, like they did with Hsu.  Just like I don't think there's any killer piece of oppo on Obama, although he can't be happy that Rezko's trial starts a couple of weeks before March.  Not because Obama is corrupt, but because - if nothing else - Rezko makes Obama look an awful lot like just another politician.

    [ Parent ]

    Shorter Version (none / 0) (#23)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:09:49 PM EST
    The Clintons are frustrated by Obama's media darling status.  The Obamas are frustrated by Clinton's press immunity.  

    In the end, the press stuff might be a draw, except a draw for Obama is not good enough.

    [ Parent ]

    Not so sure there isn't something on BO. Maybe (none / 0) (#40)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:19:54 PM EST
    HRC is holding something in the bag, not wanting to use it unless she absolutely has to.  She knows she will get creamed for "going negative" but it could be worth it if the dirt is stinky enough.  You just never know.....  

    [ Parent ]
    I think he is aware (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:59:00 PM EST
    that he needs to expand his coalition.

    [ Parent ]
    So it's possible for the Kumbaya (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:10:56 PM EST
    candidate to just come out swinging in midrace and still be the candidate of profound change.........warm fuzzy feelings, hope, forgiveness, and fighting ;)?  I just don't get it! And you did dog Edwards for his negative campaigning.

    [ Parent ]
    You Forgot One (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:40:03 PM EST
    He is a new kind of politician (i.e. above the fray of slinging mud).

    [ Parent ]
    Hispanics (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:41:35 PM EST
    At the Clinton office yesterday the reaction of some of her hispanic volunteers to Obama was interesting.  They were completely unimpressed with him on drivers' licenses and other matters because they didn't believe him.  They saw him as trying to pander to get the hispanic vote now because he realized he needed it to win California.  Whereas they saw  Clinton as someone they knew who had a long history of caring about hispanic voters.  

    This mirrored something I heard Dolores Huerta say in an interview on NPR about why Obama wouldn't be able to win hispanics in California - he started too late (the same thing appears to have happened in Nevada).  She saw his use of "Si se puede" as an attempt at shorthand to create the illusion of a relationship that wasn't there.  I think you could say the same thing about his endorsements - he was trying to rely on Ted Kennedy because he didn't have time left to build his own relationship. Interestingly, at Clinton's rally here, it was the audience that yelled "Yes we can" back to her.

    Of course anecdotal evidence isn't dispositive of anything, but there is something that keeps hispanics with Clinton and I don't think race is the answer.  There seems to be genuine enthusiasm for her in the hispanic community as opposed to hostility for Obama.

    Texas should be very interesting since Clinton worked in the state for McGovern in 1972, including making a push to register hispanic voters.    

    [ Parent ]

    You nailed it! (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by mexboy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:40:59 PM EST
    Hillary has been a friend to the Latino community for many years.
    She started her career working for migrant workers and children.

    Race is not an issue, the issues are the issue.

    [ Parent ]

    The best defense is a good... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Salt on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:45:28 PM EST
    Remember the tactic, use your greatest weakness as an offensive attack, Politics as Usual Pay Go, goes on trial at the end of this month in Il and it will be obvious that Obama Changed Nothing that the rough and tumble politics in his home State was and is very much the politics as usual scenarios he supposedly will change with hugs.  Obama own Political Patron has been indicted for allegedly arranging contributions in the form of illegal kick backs and Obama has not denied his is the unnamed Pol in the indictment who was a recipient albeit unknowingly for now.  So how many years dose it take Obamas message of HOPE to have an impact and Change Politics as Usual or a culture of special intrest?  The mansion purchase I believe should be reviewed by the Senate Ethics committee I unlike many of you am not ok with just his I was boneheaded my State has been mightily hurt by these unethical political schemes and we have had several convictions once past the original denials of any wrongdoing.

    And by the way don't fall for this every time the next day after Clinton Wins and she did, Obama Campaign comes out and poops on Bill Clinton the white man is being mean to the black man puppet string yank MSNBC Tweety talking point and then folks stop discussing Hillary's strengths and victories.

    [ Parent ]

    goes negative, what are you talking about.. (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by delandjim on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:59:11 PM EST
    He's BEEN negative since NV when he started calling Clintons liars on GMA and just went on. Not to mention Michelle, it just goes unreported by the MSM. He loooves his little mailers.
       Sorry I'm usually positive but the media bias is really getting to me.

    Fair enough (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:59:53 PM EST
    More OVERTLY negative.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm going to stop feeding you (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:08:59 PM EST
    this info if you are going to laud his tactics!

    I certainly don't think Clinton's campaign has unloaded on him to any great extent.  

    [ Parent ]

    It has backfired on the Clintons (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:10:41 PM EST
    The MEdia Darling thing.

    See? One of the mkain reason I support him.

    [ Parent ]

    So true. (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:18:09 PM EST
    All my friends from last night's gathering voted for Obama and most made up their minds quite recently.  Although they don't seem to "hate" Hillary, one of the reasons they all voted for Obama is their awareness of Hillary  hate in the GE.  Also heard some of the dynasty stuff. Oh, and change and hope.  He's doing a great job and I can't figure out for the life of me just who these women voters are who are voting for Hillary Clinton.  Not in my circle of friends and acquaintances.

    [ Parent ]
    Who are the women? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by felizarte on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:33:53 PM EST
    obviously those who do not move in the same circles as you and your friends probably because they are barely making a living; busy tending to their families; earning enough to pay for their mortgage and worried if anyone in her family should get sick because they do not have sufficient insurance and the rising cost of everything while their incomes are static and probably fear the loss of their jobs.  They cannot afford family vacations, That's who.

    [ Parent ]
    You've got all that right except (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:43:45 PM EST
    Clinton is supposed to pull in "older" women without respect to their economic circumstances.  My friends and I clearly fit in that demographic but most of them voted for Obama.  

    [ Parent ]
    They bought it (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:48:04 PM EST
    They bought a number of things: Hillary has negatives and Obama can win. It has been repeated so much that people buy this opinion as fact. This is where the Obama campaign has been effective, creating a massive buzz of momentum.

    [ Parent ]
    You are so right, as in correct. (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:51:17 PM EST
    One of the Obama voters spoke with great ire about the NYT article on Obama's bill to require reporting of any nuclear plant spill/leak.  The bill that passed only required vol., not mand. reporting.  But Obama is touting that his bill passed.  But still a vote for Obama because he can win the GE.  Amazing.

    [ Parent ]
    Fear card (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:09:16 PM EST
    See, lots of people walked in thinking: the positions are similar, people like him, don't want to risk it, and I want to keep all the newbies. The only problem is they are voting based on an artificial fear that was created. I believe in voting in what you believe, not on some fabricated future blackmail theory. People get afraid and vote for Obama, this is the momentum from the base. Not based on reality.

    [ Parent ]
    fear? (none / 0) (#123)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:15:06 PM EST
    What fear is Barack Obama running on?

    [ Parent ]
    Voting (none / 0) (#143)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:36:41 PM EST
    If we don't vote for him, Dems will lose.  This is fear card.

    [ Parent ]
    If you say so... (none / 0) (#173)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:29:50 PM EST
    ... but then by your logic Hillary is running on fear also.

    One of Hillary's strongest campaign strategies is that she will be "read on day one," with the clear implication that Obama is not going to be ready.  

    That, in my opinion, is more fear mongering than saying than Obama saying that he is the better candidate to take on McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    oh geez, (none / 0) (#179)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:38:15 PM EST
    and "he isnt tough enough to win" is not appealing to fear?

    [ Parent ]
    NO, it's the truth (none / 0) (#185)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:03:48 PM EST
    We don't think he is tough enough. Fear card is, if you don't vote for us, our imaginary friends, the indies, will not vote and the Dems will lose the election. That is fear, this is based on some pundit and poll, and we know how much they know.

    [ Parent ]
    Worse than that. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:09:34 PM EST
    The bill didn't even pass.

    Either Obama was flatly lying or forgot that the bill never passed.

    I'm not sure Hillary will run ads accusing Obama of lying. The Republicans won't hesitate.

    [ Parent ]

    She can't run ads like that or she'll (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:11:57 PM EST
    be accused of saying Edwards killed that young woman whose insurer refused to pay for a transplant.

    [ Parent ]
    Who are these women (5.00 / 5) (#147)
    by Grandmother on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:41:41 PM EST
    They are women like myself - old by the standards of many Obama supporters.  I am 60 years old, started college at age 35 after raising a daughter, went to law school and started practicing at the age of 42. My closests friends are women whose career/life path is similar to mine. We are all successful and part of that "liberal, white, affluent" crowd that is supposed to go to Obama. Well we don't and we are proud of it.

    My husband who is an attorney for a major corporation (corporation I know is a dirty word to many bloggers)is also a Hillary supporter.

    Here's the difference as I see between we HRC affluents and the Obama affluents - we HRC supporters all know what it is like to be down and out.  As a single mom I didn't have time to worry about the finer points of political elections. I came from a union  home and my dad preached the FDR story to me. I knew real Democrats would stand up for me even if I didn't have the time, energy or resources to make my voice heard.

    Hillary Clinton speaks for us and to us.  If anyone says that she is short on specifics hasn't listened to hear speak.  Debates do a piss poor job of getting policy points across.  I guess it's just easier to say hope and change and I'm the best since sliced bread.  Well give me butter with my bread Mr. Obama.  I don't think you can do it.

    I cast my first vote for George McGovern in 1972. I'm one of those baby boomers that Obama has discarded as being stuck in the past. Well sorry buddy but we are still breathing and voting and this election I will make my voice heard.  This election I can give money to my candidate.  This election I can take time to write, call and blog.

    But this is no longer about me.  My husband and I will be fine no matter who or what gets in the White House.  This is about my daughter, my son-in-law and my grandchildren.  This  is for their future not mine. That is why I'm supporting Hillary Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by nolo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:47:14 PM EST
    You said it so much better than I did.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you and (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:54:39 PM EST
    you go girl!

    [ Parent ]
    Not the women I know (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by BernieO on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:50:18 PM EST
    Most of them over about 45 are for Hillary. I just had a conversation with one who is generally not political. She thought Obama was just "too green". She also said he seemed like a lot of younger men who are just a little too cocky and need to be knocked down a peg or two. She said she thought he would be fine in a few years after he got more experince and humility.

    [ Parent ]
    Who are the women (part 2) (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by nolo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:55:01 PM EST
    Older women who've been in the work force for a while, some of us with careers and professional degrees, some not, who see in Hillary a woman whose achievements are recognizable to us.  Women whose reaction to "Hillary hatred" isn't to be afraid that somehow Hillary's cooties are going to wear off on us, because we're quite aware that any woman in Hillary's position would be getting the same s*t.  Because we've all seen the same s*t, albeit on a less public level, get shoveled at ourselves and at other women.

    This is not to say that we don't think Hillary can be criticized -- of course she can.  But this business about voting for Obama because "other people" hate Hillary is horsecrap, and it's familiar horsecrap at that.

    [ Parent ]

    I second this emotion, PLUS (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:07:05 PM EST
    Women (like me) who see the non-stop beating Clinton is taking in the media and who are damn sick of it.
    Yes, Clinton is still there, and I find it remarkable.  Still there, after abuse that would take many men out of the running.

    Wasn't it little Billy Krystol who said just the other day that "white women are a problem"?
    You bet your ass we are.

    [ Parent ]

    heh (none / 0) (#129)
    by nolo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:19:32 PM EST
    as the kids would say, true dat.

    [ Parent ]
    just because the media likes him is no (none / 0) (#56)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:34:06 PM EST
    reason to support him. next year they'll probably won't like him anymore. so what do you have? the answer is nothing.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:09:48 PM EST
    It is a reason to support him if you see absolutely no other differences between the candidates the way BTD does.

    But I think you may be right that HRC's negatives with the media isn't so bad, because the media will likely side with the Republican candidate in November anyway, and of the two HRC is the one with proven media survival skills.

    Arguably Obama's success is due in large part to the media wind currently beneath his wings. If it's not there in November (and I don't think it will be) it seems that he will be hurt more by its disappearance than Clinton could be because she's made it this far without it.

    I don't know if this is true or not, but it seems likely to me. Only time will tell, however.

    [ Parent ]

    well the media has thrown just about all (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:17:41 PM EST
    they have in support of obama. they are at the point at looking like a comedy skit on comedy central. what is left? the answer not much. even a balloon loses its hot air.

    [ Parent ]
    The media makes me laugh (none / 0) (#142)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:35:29 PM EST
    Look, I worked at CNN for ten years.  Big wow.
    Let me put it this way.  Bet you've heard William Goldman, Oscar-winning screenwriter, say this:
    "Nobody knows anything."
    I'll apply that to our media pundits.  They've never had to deal with the situation they're dealing with now, but in my opinion, sexism trumps racism.
    I'm saying they can deal with a man, but not with a woman.
    They can't deal with Hillary, and they don't like her.  Did you catch Matthew's non-apology apology to Hillary?  What a joke.
    If Obama gets the nom, and we have two candidates the media loves, I don't know what will happen.

    [ Parent ]
    my belief is they won't like obama very long (none / 0) (#160)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:57:26 PM EST
    if he were to get the nod.

    [ Parent ]
    Especially if the Republican (none / 0) (#155)
    by BernieO on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:51:42 PM EST
    nominee is McCain. They drool over him. And the Swiftboat crowd will be giving them plenty of juicy things to use against Obama, true or not.

    [ Parent ]
    Very little difference (none / 0) (#35)
    by Josey on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:17:28 PM EST
    in China state TV and Obama state TV.
    Scary.


    [ Parent ]
    ummm.... (none / 0) (#112)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:09:28 PM EST
    ... what?

    Seriously... what are you talking about?

    [ Parent ]

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:04:45 PM EST
    Takes my vote for granted.

    Really... (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by magisterludi on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:29:08 PM EST
     I supported BHO when he first announced. I thought he could be a wonderful president, but... the more I read of his policies and listened to all the GOP paeans to bi-partisanship I began to lose faith.
    BTW- my very republican mother and all her friends in the retired officer community are voting for Hillary over McCain. It's all about the economy and healthcare for them. They think BHO lacks experience and depth.

    [ Parent ]
    That's what he says (none / 0) (#141)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:33:42 PM EST
    He just assumes that all Clinton supporters will support Obama in the General Election.

    I interpret that to mean that because I am a Clinton supporter, then he feels he doesn't need to do anything at all to earn my vote.

    [ Parent ]

    Indeed (none / 0) (#165)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:03:29 PM EST
    And both Obama and Michelle say his people may not vote for Hillary, but Hillary supporters, will, of course, come to Obama.

    I've always said I will support the Democratic nominee, but Obama is getting on my last nerve.
    I learned that expression here in Atlanta. ;)

    [ Parent ]

    He seems to be going (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by spit on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:07:38 PM EST
    to an "electability" argument in general these last few days, and getting more aggressive about it. IMO it's a mistake, honestly. But we'll see.

    Hillary won the PR game in WA state (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:12:05 PM EST
    Seattle Times this morning stated that

    Hillary won the big states.  Obama won more of the small states.

    It also showed Hillary ahead by 100 in delegates.  (I know this isn't true anymore, but it's evidence of winning the PR game).

    I think Obama sides with BTD about his "mo" or lack thereof.

    Survey USA has Obama up +12 in WA (1/30) (none / 0) (#41)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:19:59 PM EST
    I don't think a (one day) lead story from Seattle Times is going to shift 12% of the vote in three days.

    [ Parent ]
    andrew, just what are you thinking? (none / 0) (#60)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:35:32 PM EST
    geez, i wish my boss was as easily snookered.

    [ Parent ]
    What do you mean? (none / 0) (#69)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:39:58 PM EST
    1. Demographics favor Obama - high number of "wine-track" voters (even though I don't really like this term, but there it is)

    2. Caucus states favor Obama - pretty obviously true.

    3. Polls favor Obama - 12% by Survey USA, the group that basically nailed ST.

    I don't really like the implication that I'm easily snookered (yay ad hominem attacks), I think this is a fairly reasonable estimate here.

    [ Parent ]
    IT would be shocking if Obama (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:49:55 PM EST
    did not win Washington.

    [ Parent ]
    Talk about latte-drinking wine-trackers. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:52:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    andrew, i don't agree. (none / 0) (#122)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:14:39 PM EST
    i refer to ohio, pa, and texas. hillary is ahead. texas alone has over 200 delegates. i also would be surprised if washington did not go to obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (none / 0) (#132)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:20:14 PM EST
    I thought this entire thread was about WA.

    [ Parent ]
    this whole thread is about obama going (none / 0) (#133)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:21:51 PM EST
    negative!

    [ Parent ]
    No... (none / 0) (#176)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:32:25 PM EST
    ... he is talking about this specific comment thread, and he is right.

    Andrew was talking about Washington, and you added in TX, OH, and PA as if they were relevant to the discussion at hand.

    [ Parent ]

    snookered? (none / 0) (#110)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:09:03 PM EST
    Snookered about what?

    That Obama has a very healthy lead in Washington, and that it is doubtful that a front page story about Hillary winning big states and Obama winning small states will shift that lead?

    That is not being snookered... that is being honest with the facts.

    [ Parent ]

    This is very good with the WA caucus coming (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:21:45 PM EST
    so soon.  So is it a "real caucus" or another of those faux, limited-hours primaries?  (I like those even less, as they seem even worse with limiting access, creating long lines yesterday at some places and essentially voter suppression as so many went home, etc.)

    [ Parent ]
    It's a regular caucus (none / 0) (#51)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:28:05 PM EST
    http://www.wa-democrats.org/index.php?page=display&id=266

    WA demographics are favorable for Obama (wine-track, if you like). That, plus the caucus I think seals the deal for him there.

    [ Parent ]

    And if ever there was a "latte" state (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:22:21 PM EST
    Washington is it, at least with all those Seattle coffee-drinkers!  (Love the state, btw; my mother was from there, still a lot of relatives there.)

    [ Parent ]
    One day story (none / 0) (#138)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:25:06 PM EST
    Of Hillary not collapsing under the weight.

    Hmmm, she's even starting to look like a frontrunner again.  People love to vote for Winner! hence the reason for the late lying Zogby poll showing an Obama win in CA.

    Hop on the bandwagon, join the fun! It's a sad state of affairs, but it's true.

    [ Parent ]

    There is something lightly facist about (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by masslib on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:12:59 PM EST
    the Obama campaign.  He failed to bring home any big state but his own.  He lost MA, NJ and CA by large margins.  And, yet, the media goes and glorifies him again.  He uses crowds as a campaign tactic.  It's honestly bizarre.  I notice he loves to stop speaking and really soak up long spells of applause.  It creeps me out.

    Almost like a hypnosis technique? (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:15:12 PM EST
    Just clap more and louder.

    [ Parent ]
    Frankly (none / 0) (#44)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:22:40 PM EST
    This is the biggest fear I have. All that love and faith into the one and true one. If he wins they will have to preserve that love at any cost. The followers will be so vested spiritually and emotionally that they will be a dangerous force. My gut tells me this is not good. He took advantage of the wanting change from the Republicans feeling to making change: HIM. So, whatever he does or does not do, as we see with the spinning, will be defined by change because it's HIM. I want to see DKOS et. al ever criticize HIM.

    [ Parent ]
    Funny you should say that.. (none / 0) (#50)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:25:38 PM EST
    Please note that I'm not invoking Godwin's law here, i.e. I am not in any way saying that Obama is a fascist.

    However, having said that, the concept of an "inspirational leader" who gives big inspirational speeches creeps me out. I am European, and was always told that, with WWII fresh in our memory, that one should always be very skeptical about people idolizing any leader or "inspirational figure".

    Therefore the Obama movement creeps me out. Again, I am not comparing him to a Nazi. If he's the nominee, he deserves everyone's support, to get a Democrat in the White House. However, the whole principle of an inspirational leader goes against everything I was taught.

    I don't want an inspirational leader. I want someone who will get the job done, and in that department Obama has failed to convince me. He might be able to convince me by building a good Senate record, but until then, spare me the grandiose speeches. I am very suspicious of someone who sounds like he's declaring victory in WWII when he's simply won a primary election.


    [ Parent ]

    step back from the edge (none / 0) (#59)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:35:02 PM EST
    its called effective public speaking.

    If you find yourself starting to go down the "my opponent is a fascist" route, even if just lightly, then its time to realize that you are losing all perspective.

    We dont need this.

    [ Parent ]

    effective public snookering i think! (none / 0) (#63)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:37:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The press (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by sas on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:45:42 PM EST
    The punditocracy is beside themselves over Hillary's performance in the big states, especially California.

    The NBC coverage people in particular were absolutely deflated when California was called minutes after the polls there closed.  It was palpable.

    The rest of the pundits are so in loooooooooooovvvvvvveeeeeeeee with Barack it's insulting.  Yet, Hillary marches on.

    I love what someone wrote earlier that she is the press anti-toxin.  No matter what they say, or how many times they say it, it just bounces off.

    Delightful!!

    OIut of context and overblown (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by bob5540 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:49:45 PM EST
    I think the reporter took it out of context, and you are making a mountain over a molehill. Here is more of the quote:

    "And you know I think what is absolutely true is whoever the Democratic nominee is the Republicans will go after them. The notion that somehow Senator Clinton is going to be immune from attack or there's not a whole dump truck they can't back up in a match between her and John McCain is just not true."

    This was in response to Hillary saying she would not allow herself to be victimized by Swift Boat attacks.

    He is saying that, whoever has the nomination, the Republicans will attack full-bore. He's being realistic and adult about it. Fact is, there's nothing she can do to stop the Swift-boating.

    He then uses her as an example - since she was the one who opened the door. I don't see a big deal here. In fact, I think she IS the one who the Republicans have the most oppo-ammo stockpiled against - but it doesn't really matter. She is foolish to think she can declare herself immune.

    Well (none / 0) (#156)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:52:42 PM EST
    I approve of it. Did not think I was making a mountain out of it.

    [ Parent ]
    Do you also applaud Obama (none / 0) (#164)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:02:33 PM EST
    for this:

    OBAMA MAILER DENIGRATING BILL CLINTON

    [ Parent ]

    Link? (none / 0) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:54:00 PM EST
    To a definition of "tepid supporter"?  I'm not sure we're using the same dictionary!

    Why? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:57:41 PM EST
    When have you seen me pbject to negative campaigning?

    I am GLAD he is getting tough. Now to go after some Republicans.

    [ Parent ]

    He Can't Go After Republicans (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    They're part of his base.  ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    He'll have to (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:01:44 PM EST
    And let me be clear, I see this as GOOD in Obama.

    We need to get him out of this "above it all" bubble his adulators have placed him in.

    He has to fight for this.

    [ Parent ]

    Not just his adulators have placed (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:06:39 PM EST
    him in that bubble.  He was still in it last night.  

    [ Parent ]
    Let him finally fight Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:13:53 PM EST
    He'll lose ;)  Her night before Super Tuesday townhall meeting made that obvious.  Obama can deliver a good sermon but speak decisively about the facts....all the facts....and what needs to really happen without playing the politics of sound bites.  Good luck Obama cuz you are going to need it!

    [ Parent ]
    That seemed quite obvious to me (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:23:43 PM EST
    in listening to their respective speeches last night.  I recall Hillary Clinton talking about her commitment to universal health care coverage and Obama saying maybe affordable health care coverage is somthing my presidency may accomplish.  

    [ Parent ]
    Fair fight . . . (none / 0) (#80)
    by IndependantThinker on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:46:59 PM EST
    she has to be allowed to fight back. If he pulls the race card (again), then its over.

    [ Parent ]
    Going After Republicans (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:14:34 PM EST
    Is risky for him.  It could help him with Democrats.  OTOH, with McCain looking safe, he probably wants to try to pull as many independents and Republicans into the open primaries as possible.  His strategy has been consistent - run a campaign geared towards indys and crossover Republicans.  I think it's really hard for him to change that now.  Not impossible, but hard.  And it opens him up to charges that he's "just another D.C. politician."

    [ Parent ]
    obama has nothing to fight with as he has (none / 0) (#66)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:39:10 PM EST
    no real policies that make sense. he doesn't have the stomach for a good fight. he likes to sting like a bee and then fly. soon after, i didn't mean exactly that is his mantra.

    [ Parent ]
    Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee (none / 0) (#125)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:17:14 PM EST
    That was the strategy of a champion, I might remind you!

    Obama as Ali? Hillary as George Foreman?
    hehe

    [ Parent ]

    Mama said knock you OUT (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Ellie on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:47:50 PM EST
    Hillary is more like Rocky Marciano, a fighter than a boxer. Doesn't stay down, just keeps getting the hell up again. Obama's mostly rope a dope so far and while he's landed a few good punches, will need something way more potent to knock HRC down (never mind knock her out.)

    Posted with assistance from Ferdie "The Fight Doctor" Pacheco. Additional dialogue by William Shakespeare.

    [ Parent ]

    no, the champ is the champ and (none / 0) (#130)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:20:07 PM EST
    obama in my opinion is a wanna be champ. won't happen. one was a real fighter, and the other isn't.

    [ Parent ]
    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#13)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:02:16 PM EST
    I took your statement "Whatever happened to the politics of hope?" to indicate that you thought he was a bit of a phony.

    It isn't clear, by the way, from the post that you actually support his new, tougher persona.  Comments about negative campaigning are almost always critical, after all.

    And you have to admit, for a supporter, you spend an awful lot of time on his flaws and inconsistencies.  I understand where you're coming from (believe me!) but I definitely think, reading you, that most people would be inclined to say "With tepid supporters like this. . ."

    [ Parent ]

    I was HOPING it was phony (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:03:54 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    At this point (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:07:17 PM EST
    I stopped worrying what people think of who they think I support.

    I have been writing about Obama for years now and with the same basic problems.

    It is not that I am enthused about Obama, I am not, it is that he represents our best chance to win in November.

    But I do not support pols per se. I support issues and argue for ways to forward our issues. OR at least mine.

    Obama is almost exactly where I am on virtually every issue (I do not have a view in health care, do not know enough about it.)

    Obama is the Media darling. He has the best chance to win.

    OF course I support him but I do not have to love him or not criticize him to support him.

    Heck, you think there is not enough Obama adulation out there? Do I need to join THAT chorus? I think not.  

     

    [ Parent ]

    Strange world (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:15:53 PM EST
    When did it become unfashionable or questionable to ask questions about politicians even the ones you support? I know I am partisan. I admire someone who can support someone and also find criticism. This is why the other Blogs have lost credibility. How can we trust their analysis or judgement on other issues?

    [ Parent ]
    BTD move on over (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by g8grl on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:28:22 PM EST
    to the Hillary side.  She wins TN, OK, and AR in the GE and takes the White House.  She also wins the expectation game as once she's in the WH she puts together policy that positively impacts peoples lives.  Once people realize she's no demon, we win!  

    [ Parent ]
    To split hairs. . . (none / 0) (#27)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:11:54 PM EST
    I'd say that you prefer Obama rather than support him -- since support implies certain positive actions (such as not pointing out his weak points in public).

    I have no problem whatsoever with your position.  I have preferences among political candidates, but even at the relative height of my infatuation (Oh, Howard) I preferred to have a clear-eyed view of his strengths and weaknesses, and of the realities of the political process.

    I voted yesterday, but I'd have to say that I support both Clinton and Obama to the same degree, notwithstanding that I think one or the other might make a better candidate or a better President (not necessarily the same person in both instances).

    [ Parent ]

    You can support someone (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:13:43 PM EST
    without wearning jackboots.  He doesn't have to agree with the guy all the time.

    [ Parent ]
    No but (none / 0) (#106)
    by dwightkschrute on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:06:56 PM EST
    Many people know where LarryinNYC is coming from. At times BTD's "tepid support" of Obama seems more like Bill O'Reilly's insistence that he's an independent. When you continually flay one candidate while by and large ignoring similar behavior by the other it's no longer "support". As BTD points out, for the most part rightfully so, Clinton gets a rougher ride from the media than Obama. But it appears BTD goes out of his way to repudiate Obama in some odd attempt to balance the scales. It may just be holding Obama to a much higher standard, but BTD posts are repeatedly jaundiced, pessimistic, or downright dismissive towards Obama. They stand in stark contrast with the much softer approach he often takes with Hillary. It's very similar to how Fox New