home

Negative Campaigning

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:24:37 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Via Daily Kos, the latest negative attack from the Obama campaign:

Senator Clinton’s claims about her visit to Tuzla, Bosnia—and the footage disproving her account—have created quite a stir. And with good reason. . . . Unfortunately, Clinton’s fantastic invention of a sniper-raked landing is only one in a growing list of instances in which she has exaggerated her role as First Lady, particularly with respect to domestic policy.

Any words of reproach for these negative attacks from Obama supporting blogs? Of course not. I hope that we can at least hear no more about how negative Clinton has become from these same sources. If you are pleased with negative attacks by Obama, you can hardly condemn them from Clinton. Me, I condemn them from both sides.

Hilarious postscript on the flip.

Just above the post where Obama calls Clinton a serial liar, Kos writes:

One side is looking to build a consensus and win on the strength of voters, the other side is looking to divide and harm the party. It's easy to see which is which.

Obama Campaign Depicts Clinton as Serial Exaggerator

Hilarious stuff.

NOTE - Comments closed.

< Why We Need A Unity Ticket | Race-Free Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Negative Campaigning | 219 comments (219 topical)
    But but but (5.00 / 12) (#1)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:28:53 PM EST
    ...Obama has this thing locked up!  There's no plausible scenario under which Clinton gets enough delegates!

    So why continue the scorched-earth attack on her record and character, again?  I haven't quite figured this out.  Once you have the nomination sewed up, isn't that a good time to bring out the Unity Schtick and start trying to win over her supporters?

    It is truly surreal. (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:37:53 PM EST
    She is considered more of an enemy than John McCain and anyone who tries to point out the additional dammage he could do to this country is accused of using "scare tactics".  The world is upside down again.

    [ Parent ]
    No, actually (none / 0) (#159)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:33:00 PM EST
    according to Clinton -- Obama is more the enemy than McCain.  After all, according to her, only Clinton and McCain have passed the "threshold" of what it takes to be Commander in Chief.

    Presumably her supporters believe her, and that, no doubt, contributes to such things as the following:

    The new Gallup poll says that 19% of Obama supporters would vote for McCain over Hillary and a whopping 28% of Hillary supporters would abandon Obama for McCain.

    Great.  Thanks.  We need more Roberts' and Alito's on the Supreme Court.

    [ Parent ]

    Classic (5.00 / 9) (#168)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:38:13 PM EST
    When Clinton supporters refuse to vote for Obama, it's because Hillary has tricked them into it.  When Obama supporters refuse to vote for Clinton, I suppose it's because they genuinely realize how evil she is, huh?

    [ Parent ]
    not on point (none / 0) (#177)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:44:38 PM EST
    The point is that Obama and Hillary supporters ought to realize that McCain is the real enemy and 10 times worse than either Obama or Hillary.

    A few weeks ago, about 20% of each supporters wouldn't support the other.

    Now, after Clinton slamming Obama on, specifically, the issue that he's not ready to be Prez, we see that about 30% of Clinton's supporters won't support him.

    This self destruction is a travesty

    [ Parent ]

    Really? (5.00 / 4) (#214)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:13:31 PM EST
    It couldn't have anything to do with, say, the Wright issue, which has made Obama more unattractive to a lot of people?  You have some way of knowing that Clinton's attacks on his readiness are the culprit?

    [ Parent ]
    Seems to me she was asking Obama (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:10:46 PM EST
    to step up with his Credentials for CIC. She never said McCain was better, she issued a challenge.

    [ Parent ]
    Woah (none / 0) (#196)
    by Claw on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:58:21 PM EST
    I condemn this!  I don't like negative campaigning on either side.  I guess I don't support "Obama blogs," but I think Obama supporters get lumped in.  I don't think that's fair.  And Wonk does have a point...the McCain endorsement was burning the village to save it.  I really didn't care for it.  I will condemn Obama if/when he decides to announce that he and McCain are fit to be CIC but Clinton is not.

    [ Parent ]
    What will you do if Obama says both (none / 0) (#201)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:02:37 PM EST
    he and McCain are fit to be Commander in Chief?

    [ Parent ]
    If (none / 0) (#216)
    by Claw on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:16:06 PM EST
    he makes a comment like Hillary's I'll condemn it in no uncertain terms.  I'm guessing you have some Obama quote to throw at me that could be construed as similar to Clinton's.  Let's be clear: Clinton said that she and McCain had passed the commander in chief test but the jury was still out on Obama.  It's a ridiculous thing to say in a primary because it's a clear insinuation that she and McCain are ready, whereas Obama is not.  I don't like ultimatums, particularly when the ultimatum is "vote for me or my republican challenger, but certainly not for the front running democrat."
    That said, we're O/T and I brought us here...I don't like the negative campaigning and casting your REPUBLICAN challenger in a more favorable light than the possible dem nominee is, to me, very negative.

    [ Parent ]
    Here's the quote, per (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:31:18 PM EST
    Chicago Tribune:

    "I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold, . . ."

    "I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.



    [ Parent ]
    Here's a quote from (none / 0) (#238)
    by Claw on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:59:08 PM EST
    Wolfson.  Per the LA Times:
     "We do not believe," he said, "that Sen. Obama has passed that key commander in chief test."

    He also spoke about how McCain and Clinton had passed that test.

    Now, I'm assuming that the "we" includes Sen. Clinton.  You have yet to provide me with anything remotely close to this kind of praise for the repub nominee from the Obama campaign.


    [ Parent ]

    Link for the McCain endorsement? n/t (none / 0) (#211)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:11:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The fact that you already blame us for everything. (none / 0) (#219)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:18:24 PM EST
    ...kind of takes the sting out of that rebuke.

    [ Parent ]
    they are scared that's why (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by nycvoter on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:39:52 PM EST
    they don't have it locked up, they know she can still win and that's why they are running the scorched earth campaign

    [ Parent ]
    just let the voters vote (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by nycvoter on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:57:26 PM EST
    the vote could very well leave us about even in popular vote and within 1% in delegate difference, the super delegates have a specific purpose, as do primaries and caucuses in determining our nominee, there is no moral superiority among the three.  There is no less weight given to caucuses that represent the will of tens of thousands of voters versus primaries which often represent hundreds of thousands of voters, so why should those combined methods of electing the nominee be given greater weight than the super delegates.  This is the system we have and super delegates need to vote their conscience.  There's a long way between now and June and if Obama thought he didn't have a problem he would not be calling to wrap it up before everyone had voted.  We never know what the SDs will do


    [ Parent ]
    Wait (none / 0) (#46)
    by tek on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:52:20 PM EST
    I thought I just read that she can only win by "destroying" Obama utterly.  And we all know she's supposed to be helping him win.

    [ Parent ]
    That's correct (none / 0) (#60)
    by ObamaMaMa on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:59:34 PM EST
    I believe, as ABC News called it in their lead story last evening, "The Tonya Harding Strategy."

    She can't win the Gold on her own merits, so she'll knee-cap her competitor.  

    ...I'm clearly no fan of Hillary, but I honestly never expected her to stoop to a level that results in her being compared on the ABC Evening News to Tonya Harding.

    [ Parent ]

    what has she done to knee cap Obama (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by nycvoter on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:02:07 PM EST
    that deserves this statement?  She does not think he is qualified to be President.  The media chooses to make it a "tonya harding" comparison and more people need to be disgusted with the media not HRC

    [ Parent ]
    weird (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Harley on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:06:08 PM EST
    i remember when whining that it was all the media's fault was the GOP argument.  my how times change.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah (5.00 / 8) (#84)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:07:31 PM EST
    And I also remember when pointing out media bias was the blogosphere argument.  Now they revel in every episode.

    [ Parent ]
    There is no bias! (none / 0) (#107)
    by ObamaMaMa on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:15:32 PM EST
    Last week Obama got hell from EVERY SIDE, in EVERY PUBLICATION, regarding Wright.

    This week, Hillary is getting it regarding her lies about Bosnia.

    How is there a bias here?

    [ Parent ]

    Uh (5.00 / 8) (#124)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:20:11 PM EST
    The issue here is the "Tonya Harding" smear that the media views as fair game, and that you seem to love as well.  Tell me, do you think the media would revel in reporting some anonymous comment suggesting that Obama is using an "OJ Simpson strategy"?

    Claiming that the media has not had a pro-Obama bias throughout this process is quite laughable.  The fact that they reported on Wright doesn't mean you get to ignore all the other evidence.

    [ Parent ]

    Please, go review Bob Somerby's (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by jawbone on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:55:57 PM EST
    DailyHowler.com

    If you believe the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) has not favored the GOPers, you could use some remedial reality reading.

    If you were being sarcastic, my apologies.

    [ Parent ]

    not qualified? (none / 0) (#164)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:35:37 PM EST
    She does not think he is qualified to be President.

    Terrific.  So all her supporters should vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination.

    Good bye Roe v Wade!  Hello 100-years of war, and torture, and continued evisceration of the Bill of Rights!  Justice Alito-clone, step right up!!

    [ Parent ]

    Ha (5.00 / 9) (#68)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:03:23 PM EST
    Amazing.  Someone smears Hillary by comparing her to Tonya Harding... and it's her fault for allowing the comparison to be made!  This is how the country has worked since 1992, there is literally nothing you're not allowed to say as long as you say it about someone named Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    Ok... you're joking, (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by suisser on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:43:06 PM EST
    right?  

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, really? (5.00 / 5) (#200)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:01:07 PM EST
    Who recently brought up Monica Lewinsky's blue dress? Whose campaign surrogate labeled Sen. Clinton "the senator from Punjab"? Who is impugning whose integrity and character on a regular basis? Who is regularly accusing whom of racism? Which candidate is the one channeling Sgt. Schultz when questioned about past and present associations with controversial individuals previously escribed as personal mentors?

    Obama's candidacy is at its core foundation a self-absorbed vanity project remarkably devoid of a moral center, rife with unbridled personal ambition and marked by the prodigious use of unctious, supercilious sanctimony. This has become, for me at least, an issue of the man's character, or lack thereof. I'm going to be extraordinarily careful with my vote in November, because I don't intend to replace George W. Bush with a Democratic version of the same.

    [ Parent ]

    You bought into the Obama (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:16:27 PM EST
    campaigns latest "she'll do anything" line? I believe they first floated Tonya in Dec. BEFORE anything had gone down. So, what has she done in the past couple weeks that earns her the Tonya?

    Now, which campaign went negative?

    [ Parent ]

    Ummm (none / 0) (#71)
    by Trickster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:03:42 PM EST
    Everybody starts at that level.  ABC News can call you "Tonya Harding-like" if they feel like it.

    In theory, they're bound by this thing called ethics and probably shouldn't call one of the candidates in a political race something like that unless there's some reason to do so, but obviously that ain't stopping 'em.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama and his campaign (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by kmblue on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:51:29 PM EST
    aren't acting like winners.

    [ Parent ]
    Neither side is (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:29:25 PM EST
    As best I can tell, Wright is Obama's albatross and Tuzla is HRC's.

    Tuzla will be used mercilessly. It feeds into the meme that the Clintons are liars and will say anything.

    Wright- the problems that Wright present have been discussed ad nauseam.

    If this election is about this nonsense, McCain wins. If it is about the economy and Iraq, then either Democrat can win (preferably with a unity ticket).  

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    I agree with Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#67)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:03:08 PM EST
    when he said if Hillary wins NC, she will be the nominee.  That's probably correct.

    [ Parent ]
    What is this I am hearing (none / 0) (#119)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:17:55 PM EST
    about Hillary participating in an unconstitutional primary in Michigan?

    (Tongue in cheek)

    [ Parent ]

    kos loses cred on this anymore (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:35:44 PM EST
    his comments are too biased for me. Too bad.

    He's just another shameless partisan for sale.

    And the diarist linked (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:19:55 PM EST
    did one of the most dishonest front-page diaries in the site's history.  That one turned it for me.

    [ Parent ]
    Financial Times: Obama started the dirty tricks (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by criticalthinker on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:36:43 PM EST
    Financial Times said on Mar 13: "For a start, when Mr. Obama and his team complain about negative campaigning, they protest too much. Throughout, they have argued that Mrs. Clinton, in harking back to the 1990s, stands for division and strife - to be contrasted with his more consensual approach - and that this militates against getting thins done. If that is not a "negative" attack, What is? When the Clintons say that Mr. Obama started this fight, they have a point."

    Well said.

    It's not her fault so many people prefer her (none / 0) (#242)
    by echinopsia on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:45:25 PM EST
    to Obama.

    why isn't this his fault?

    [ Parent ]

    While I agree in theory (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by magster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:38:09 PM EST
    I've become so enraged at Hillary (and her supporters) that I love the negative attacks against Hillary, and sop up every fact that reflects negatively on Hillary because I want her campaign to spectacularly implode.  I yearn for the days when I would have happily campaigned for Hillary if she beat Obama, despite my Obama preference (now I'd consider it debatable whether I'd even vote for her).  I know from reading comments here (especially last night in the Rev. Wright threads) that the feeling is mutual.  

    I suppose this fits in the unity ticket post you had earlier.

    But (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:40:30 PM EST
    if the Obama people truly believe the primary is all but over, don't you think it would be in their best interests to be reaching out to Clinton's supporters and trying to mend fences, rather than supplying red meat to folks in the base such as yourself?

    [ Parent ]
    Logic, what logic?? (none / 0) (#33)
    by CST on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:47:07 PM EST
    Best interest, sure, if anything about this was based on logic.  The truth is, people LOVE bashing the other side this election.  My mom admitted it to me the other day, that's why she loves Olberman, to hear him take out the other side.  I was kinda embarrassed, but I can't help but smile when I hear some of it too.  Although, I wouldn't put this up there with the more personal attacks, those always make me cringe.

    [ Parent ]
    Briefly, Steve (none / 0) (#37)
    by Harley on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:48:14 PM EST
    Obama supporters, like everyone else, know that the primary is over.  What angers them, or what concerns them at the least, is the Clinton campaign's determination to pretend otherwise, much like they pretend the primaries they lost didn't happen, much like they pretend they won a primary in Michigan -- and that this delusion is a gift that keeps on giving...to John McCain.

    My guess, btw, is that the Dem leadership, who can count as well as anyone else, will step in after the North Carolina primary and end this so we can get to the more important task at hand.

    [ Parent ]

    KNOW? (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:54:20 PM EST
    Then if they know it it is time to be conciliatory.

    I do not believe you frankly.

    [ Parent ]

    you're intentionally ignoring the point (none / 0) (#72)
    by Harley on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:04:07 PM EST
    they fear Clinton will stay in this thing long enough to help McCain to a large and larger degree.  it's not all that hard to figure out.  but sure, i suppose, given her amorality, that they also fear some kind of back room deal will come into play.  heck, the clinton bagmen made their play today with their blackmail letter to pelosi.

    but being studiously neutral, i'm assuming you see it differently.  heh.


    [ Parent ]

    They fear what? (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:16:24 PM EST
    There is one way they can end it. Win Pennsylvania.

    Not very rigorous of you there Harley.

    [ Parent ]

    What they fear is that (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:00:53 PM EST
    HRC actually has states that favor her coming up. What they fear is that she will beat him in the coming states and he'll be behind in votes. What they fear is that they didn't succeed in tearing her down and forcing her to end the race because they say so.  That's the fear. That she'll win.  

    [ Parent ]
    Harley (none / 0) (#103)
    by Trickster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:13:33 PM EST
    This ain't theforvm.org.  You guys may not have noticed it, but you've become one of the most rabidly anti-Clinton sites on the net.  Just a prediction and I sure don't speak for anyone, but you won't last long around here if you don't tone it down a bit.

    [ Parent ]
    Harley (none / 0) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:17:15 PM EST
    is an old friend and will get more leeway than most.

    [ Parent ]
    deservedly so n/t (none / 0) (#132)
    by rilkefan on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:23:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, of me too (none / 0) (#154)
    by Trickster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:30:44 PM EST
    Which is why I said what I said.  I don't know if you have checked out theforvm.org lately, but it's DK-ish, except kind of worse, because people have time and space to chew over the hideous insults they're throwing on Clinton.

    Yeah, I know it's stupid and never works to tell people who you think have gone off the deep end that you think they've gone off the deep end, but it's just hard not to do.

    [ Parent ]

    McSame don't need no help from.... (none / 0) (#110)
    by ACitizen on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:16:03 PM EST
    ............Sistah Beezlebub.

    The Magic Man has already cut his own throat as far as the GE is concerned.

    Le Affair de 'Got Damn America' is destroying him in the South....

    Check the polls over on MyDD....yeah, yeah...Jerome forgot more about this than you Oborg ever will know.

    Reszko Gate is on deck.

    And looky, looky what's that I see?

    Hell, brother that be:

    Nadhmi Auchi

    at the steps of the dugout. If you don't know who he is...well, your're in for a real treat.

    Any reasonable person with a knowledge of the last forty years knows it's over. All over....

    For the 'Magic Man' Obama.

    The McSame Slime Machine will have him crying on camera.

    That's why the Superdelagates and kaishakunin
    such as Schumer, Reid and Pelosi and yeah, Dean are gonna deliver the killing stroke:

    Gore/Edwards Unity 08!

    [ Parent ]

    I looked up Auchi... (none / 0) (#158)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:32:48 PM EST
    ...and this is just another right-wing slime. Give it a break - attacks on Obama from right-wing sources are no more welcome than attacks on Clinton from similar sources.

    [ Parent ]
    You're late to the Auchi party (none / 0) (#203)
    by dannyinla on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:02:59 PM EST
    Larry Johnson was peddling this a month ago and it didn't stick.

    [ Parent ]
    The effective strategy for a confident Obama (none / 0) (#130)
    by rilkefan on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:22:08 PM EST
    would be to stop going negative on Clinton and turn to McCain.  Putting down the RW, tested-on-Gore rhetoric and acting like the Democratic nominee would be the smart strategy for winning in August and November.  But that's not consistent with disenfranchising the MI and FL voters.

    Every day I'm more inclined to throwing the nomination to the guy in the ad to the right on who's working to solve the climate crisis.

    [ Parent ]

    But, see, the problem with going negative (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:47:13 PM EST
    on McCain is that, McCain's numbers will come down, but it isn't clear that it will only be Obama's numbers that come up - and the last thing Obama wants to do is inadvertently help Hillary.

    No, he has to stay on her without let-up, but the problem is that it does not seem like it is hurting her as much as it is really hurting him.

    I have a real question in my mind about which candidate is really hurting the party and it's chance to win in November.

    If it weren't for the fact that hurrying up April 22nd would also mean that I have less time to get all my tax work done, I would wish it were here already.

    [ Parent ]

    Of course you are. (none / 0) (#137)
    by sweetthings on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:24:28 PM EST
    He's made it perfectly obvious that he doesn't want the presidency. That makes him uniquely qualified.

    [ Parent ]
    Nonsense (none / 0) (#81)
    by ObamaMaMa on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:07:00 PM EST
    So the challenger beats the champ, the bell rings, the ref throws the challengers hands in the air, declares him the winner.

    Yet, the champ is still throwing hooks and jabs.

    Your contention is that the challenger, savoring his victory, should just smile and take it while the champ--unwilling to admit defeat--keeps throwing punch after punch.

    The winner--the challenger--doesn't WANT to keep fighting this fight. But he has only two choices: Defend himself and fight back, going on the offense to just knock out the champ that's already lost the fight, OR, stand there and get beat up by a guy who didn't know when to quit.

    BTD, this IS over. Hillary's only option, as ABC Evening News eloquently put it, is a "Tonya Harding Strategy." She's talking about poaching pledged delegates. She's talking about using party insiders to overturn the will of the people.

    This IS over. It's true. She cannot be President. There is still a path to her nomination--via the complete destruction of the Democratic Party--but there is NO viable path for a Hillary Clinton Administration.

    None.

    [ Parent ]

    Indeed (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:15:36 PM EST
    WTF are you talking about again?

    [ Parent ]
    I can say (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:17:51 PM EST
    Exactly the same of Obama. He may yet get the nomination, but he has almost zero chance in GE (imho). Between his own self inflicted wounds and the total alienation of a big portion of the democratic base.

    [ Parent ]
    Read the other items (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:30:32 PM EST
    posted this morning. There are links to Obama's postcard he is sending out to the delegates in Texas.  Obama already switched out delegates in Alabama for one's he felt would be more loyal.  The Obama camp is very aware of the roolz and using them.  If he is so secure in his win, why is he still targeting delegates.  If this is done, heck, why didn't he just stay on vacation?

    [ Parent ]
    You really like the Harding analogy (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:37:57 PM EST
    An anonymous Democratic Party official says something to ABC news that trashes Clinton and it's all over the blogosphere the next day. In my opinion, this is just another Obama campaign attack strategy.

    It's a good meme and fits nicely into Obama's "take no prisoner's" strategy. It's going to be Obama or McCain in the office next January, and it doesn't matter what he or his people have to do in order to achieve that.

    [ Parent ]

    hey, they're dreamers (none / 0) (#90)
    by Harley on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:09:51 PM EST
    not unlike the dreamers who thought they could bring democracy to Iraq -- which, if you think about it, fits rather neatly with Senator Clinton's record re same.

    [ Parent ]
    no point in becoming unglued, geez! (none / 0) (#178)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:45:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Clinton supporters (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by rilkefan on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:54:50 PM EST
    favor a rerun of the MI primary.  And the one you respond to asks why "pretend" is appropriate if the Obama side feels the need to keep going negative - they sure don't seem to "know that the primary is over".

    I'd certainly find an Obama campaign that finally decided to take the high road more confident, more competent, and more attractive.

    [ Parent ]

    Obviously (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by Trickster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:16:50 PM EST
    If it were really over, there would be no need to say so, at least nor more than once or twice, because those who aren't stupid would see that it's over.  This message as a constant drumbeat has veered into the comical.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:56:04 PM EST
    "Like everyone else."  You guys are cute.  Anyway, my point was not directed at online ranters, but at the behavior of the Obama campaign itself.  If it's over, what explains their passion for continuing to tear down Hillary?

    [ Parent ]
    This Is Just A Thought (none / 0) (#76)
    by flashman on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:05:11 PM EST
    There is some talk about Hillary running in 2012.  Could the continued attacks be a pre-emptive effort to stop it before it starts?

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:09:42 PM EST
    The 2012 thing is tinfoil stuff.

    [ Parent ]
    sounds like the promise GWB made to (none / 0) (#182)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:47:04 PM EST
    McCain back in 2000. He's done he's too ill.

    [ Parent ]
    Some talk (none / 0) (#117)
    by Trickster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:17:34 PM EST
    Among the very same persons conducting the continued attacks.  So are they trying to preempt themselves?

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by flashman on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:19:33 PM EST
    My orginal thought was that they don't want to just win, but to bury the Clintons forever.

    [ Parent ]
    Michigan wasn't real? (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:18:47 PM EST
    All of those people who voted for Clinton didn't exist? Those ads by Obama supporters telling people to vote uncommitted in order to silently voice their support didn't happen?

    It's amazing how different things are in Obamaland. In my world, not counting delegates doesn't change the fact that people pulled levers and chose a candidate. As far as I'm concerned, you can dismiss Michigan and Florida from the delegate count, but you can't make them disappear. And millions of people in Michigan and Florida agree with me.

    [ Parent ]

    "The more important task at hand" (none / 0) (#85)
    by Trickster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:08:27 PM EST
    Sailor #2: Look. I tell you what. Those who want to can eat Hillary's leg. And you, sir, can have her arm. And we make some stock from her head, and then we'll have the intestines cold for supper.

    Sailor #1: Good thinking, Hodges.

    Sailor #4: And we'll finish off with the peaches. (picks up a tin of . peaches)

    Sailor #3: And we can start off with the avocados. (picks up two avocados) Sailor #1: Waitress! (a waitress walks in) We've decided now, we're going to have leg of Hillary...


    [ Parent ]

    huh, MontyPy (none / 0) (#146)
    by rilkefan on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:27:56 PM EST
    here.  

    Nice to see you blogging, Trickster, if you're the commenter from the old Tacitus blog.

    [ Parent ]

    It's me (none / 0) (#157)
    by Trickster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:32:17 PM EST
    And likewise, Rilkefan.  (Except I'm supposed to be working and Really Should Be.

    [ Parent ]
    Slow week at my lab (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by rilkefan on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:49:19 PM EST
    But the whole blogging thing has been kinda poisoned for me by seeing people I respected - the crew at ObWi, for example - get so bizarrely anti-Clinton; to see Yglesias supporting Andrewsullivanesque conspiracy thinking; to see Josh Marshall writing that he doesn't care what counting the votes shows.

    Maybe politics turns even the best people into hermit crabs - maybe I should turn back to poetry until at least after the election.  Unacknowledged legislators after all.

    [ Parent ]

    Me too (none / 0) (#236)
    by Trickster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:55:29 PM EST
    I tried to engage in a dialog about the campaigns' relative honesty with Hilzoy, whom I deeply respect (or used to).  It started at ObWi and got fleshed out in this MyDD diary.  I was pretty disappointed when she totally failed to engage any of my descriptions of Obama's deceptions and only lightly engaged my descriptions of Clinton's deceptions.

    [ Parent ]
    I would have (none / 0) (#38)
    by magster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:48:37 PM EST
    before Clinton's endorsement of McCain as a better commander-in-chief.  I was theoretically OK with Clinton continuing her campaign given the registration numbers and participation in the process that a contested primary provided, but not in order for her to paint Obama as unelectable in the general election by adopting right-wing talking points against him.

    The Obama is not patriotic (and I do not give Bill benefit of the doubt on that), and now Hillary's use of Wright as a campaign issue when even McCain and Huckabee wouldn't go there, only reinforces that.  

    I genuinely believe that Clinton has no desire for Obama to win in November (even today her contributors are blackmailing Pelosi even if it means smaller Congressional majorities).

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:57:31 PM EST
    I understand why you feel the way you do, but I'm more interested in the behavior of the Obama campaign itself.  If the thing is over, how is their self-interest served by continuing to attack Hillary?  Is there any reason the task of winning over her supporters shouldn't have started already - again, if they genuinely believe it's over?

    [ Parent ]
    That would be terrible (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:12:28 PM EST
    If she had actually done it. Clinton never endorsed McCain. That's just another lie by the Obama campaign (among a long list). You and other Obama supporters have been played by a pro - he and his supporters have beaten the crap out of Clinton while claiming that it was merely self-defense because "she hit me first". But she didn't hit first - he hit first, hardest, and longest. From a simple strategic point of view, I have to admire his campaign. They have attacked Clinton repeatedly while claiming the high ground, and they have gotten away with it.

    Part of me is glad that Obama is winning the primary. If the primary is any indication, his people just might be able to out-Rove Rove. If they can pull it off, I'll almost be glad. But the larger part of me is aware that we didn't need to divide the Democratic Party in order to win the Presidency, we could have done it with real unity, if Obama had been willing to really take the high road, and at best Obama's strategy is going to win this election while dividing the Democratic Party for another generation.  

    [ Parent ]

    Well.. (none / 0) (#121)
    by ObamaMaMa on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:19:08 PM EST
    She did say that there is a "Commander in chief threshold"

    and she went on to say: "I've crossed that threshold."

    and "Certainly Senator McCain has crossed that threshold"

    And then she questioned Obama's readiness to be CiC.

    So, she didn't say "I support McCain" but she DID say "I believe McCain is CERTAINLY ready"

    Tell me: How is that appropriate?

    And THIS is why ABC Evening News called this Clinton's "Tonya Harding Strategy."

    [ Parent ]

    If he feels (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:34:02 PM EST
    he has passed the CinC threshold, let him prove it.  I don't see Obama supporters saying he is more qualified to be commander and chief than Clinton and McCain because of XYZ.  Just complaints about what she said.  

    [ Parent ]
    Uhh (none / 0) (#225)
    by ObamaMaMa on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:32:52 PM EST
    XYZ = "the fact that I've shown far better judgment. Specifically when it comes to Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and other issues of our times."

    There ya go :)

    [ Parent ]

    uhhhhhhh (5.00 / 4) (#233)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:46:56 PM EST
    Some (me) don't buy his superior judgment statements on Iraq.  He was in a very anti-war community, any other position would not have been welcome.  As he said... I am against dumb wars (I am not against war.)  McCain acting like a moron singing a stupid song about Iran does not make Obama qualified for anything (unless Obama goes and wins American Idol.)  Obama's statements about bombing Pakistan bombed. :)

    Also, there was a meeting amongst the surrogates at an Israel policy forum.  Let's just say his foreign policy statements didn't go over there too well either. :)

    Also, it would have been nice if he found the time to convene meetings for the panel he chairs. :)

    [ Parent ]

    This is so obvious... (5.00 / 5) (#176)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:44:05 PM EST
    ...but I'll lay it out clearly just in case you are serious.

    Clinton was comparing herself favorably to McCain and saying that Obama did not compare as well. He point was, is, and always will be that SHE should be the Democratic candidate because SHE stands a better chance of beating McCain. A candidate who is running for the chance of beating another candidate does not endorse the opposition. Obama, however, had to spin her comparison as an endorsement of McCain in order to deflect attention from the fact that she was right - he doesn't have nearly enough experience to be President.

    [ Parent ]

    A for honesty from you (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:42:28 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Honest question (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:16:01 PM EST
    What have "Hillary and her supporters" done that in any way compares to the Obama campaign tactics? I know I am partisan, and I am asking this question honestly, wanting to see the other side. I know I may be missing it. And I am in NO WAY saying that Clinton campaign is purity and light.

    [ Parent ]
    Can you back any of this up (5.00 / 6) (#145)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:27:34 PM EST
    I don't mean by blogger implications or parsing, but hard analysis. A few comments:

    • She did not endorse McCain, that is a blatant distortrion.
    • BC was trying to downplay a loss (shocking), but anything past that is debatable.
    • Can you show the race bating that was done in SC that was not from the Obama campaign playing the race card? Remember the memo from the Obama campaign outlining this?

    And the whole "win at any cost" meme: They are trying to win. But if they really were trying to win at any cost as people keep saying wouldn't it have been brilliant to pull up Rev Wright right before Super Tuesday? That would have pretty much ended the race, right?

    [ Parent ]
    I think that line (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by badger on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:46:20 PM EST
    that "I would have gladly voted for Hillary before these attacks" is largely bull-sophistry (can't speak for you personally).

    It's the same as the people who say "I'd vote for a black man for President, but  ..." - just people looking for cover to justify their hatred. "See, now I have an excuse!"

    I wouldn't vote for Obama because I don't like his position on significant issues and I think he lacks both experience and accomplishments. That's irrespective of how he's run his campaign, whether he's black or white, or whether I personally like him or not.

    I don't think it's necessary to offer pretend reasons when there are real reasons for someone's choice.


    [ Parent ]

    Ok... (1.00 / 3) (#144)
    by ObamaMaMa on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:26:58 PM EST
    1. Made overt attempts to poach pledged delegates.
    2. Said that she and McCain have proven their service to the country and Obama has "made a speech"
    3. Said that she and McCain have "crossed the threshold" and that Obama hasn't.
    4. Suggested that Obama is just the "Black Candidate" ("Jesse Jackson won S. Carolina...")
    5. Admits that they will not have more pledged delegates than Obama, but will be willing to fight anyway using backroom deals w/ SDs.
    6. Said in Iowa that Michigan "won't count" and then fought for months trying to reverse that.
    7. Cried before, essentially, every major make-or-break moment.
    8. Sent surrogates out to bring up Obama's admitted drug use, to question if he was, perhaps, a drug dealer.
    9. Sent out mailings suggesting Obama would not protect a Right to Choose.
    10. Sent out mailings deriding Obama's "PRESENT" votes, despite the Speaker of the House in Illinois pointing out that "Present" is a VERY common parlimentary strategy in IL.
    11. Used said present votes to claim that Obama is soft on Right-to-Choose despite the fact that, for the votes in question, NOW and EMILYs List advised Obama to vote "Present"
    12. Lie and exaggerate her own personal experience.
    13. Glorify McCain in an attempt to raise questions about Obama.
    14. Pretend like she DIDN'T support NAFTA.
    15. Pretend like she DIDN'T vote for the Bankruptcy Bill in 2001.
    16. Pretend like she DIDN'T know that the 2002 Iraq vote was a vote for war.

    And i'm tired of typing. But I can post more later.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry (5.00 / 6) (#148)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:29:02 PM EST
    A lot of this is distortion and opinion, I was asking Magster for unbiased and honest discussion. This stuff is just campaign lines. No offense, but not interested.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow (5.00 / 5) (#151)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:29:42 PM EST
    As if I didn't already know where you were coming from with your gleeful repetition of the "Tonya Harding" smear at every opportunity, the crying thing really cinches it.

    [ Parent ]
    Excuse me? (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:16:11 PM EST
    Are you contending, as well, that Hillary has "cried before, essentially, every major make-or-break moment"?

    [ Parent ]
    Rebuttal (5.00 / 9) (#207)
    by dianem on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:07:34 PM EST
    1. Obama's campaign manager threatened black superdelegates with losing their seats if they didn't switch to Obama. Obama has made every effort to "poach" superdelegates.
    2,3, and 12 (same). She has repeatedly said that Obama doesn't have enough experience to be president and compared herself favorably to McCain, arguing that she has a chance of beating him. Instead of arguing that he has enough experience, Obama chooses to insult Clinton for comparing herself favorably to McCain.
    1. The fact that SC has a penchant for voting for black candidates had been discussed heavily in the media for a week before the election. Nobody suggested that this was a racist idea until Bill Clinton mentioned it, at which point Obama's campaign used his words to tar Clinton as a racist. This reflects more poorly on Obama than on Clinton, imo.
    2. Nobody said anything about "backroom deals". Clinton is planning on trying to convince superdelegates to vote for her. That's not cheating, it's campaigning. Obama is doing the same thing.
    3. Michigan didn't count, so what she said was true. Clinton tried to get it to count, which was a good idea. There is no conflict here.
    4. a) she didn't cry, she merely showed a bit of emotional intensity b) Obama shows emotional intensity all the time, and people praise him for it c) the suggestion that women only show emotions in order to manipulate people is astonishingly sexist. Please stop putting out this sick idea. Women politicians can show emotion just like men can - it doesn't make them weak or manipulative.
    5. Obama brought up his drug use in a book. One Clinton person mentioned it in reponse to repeated questioning by a reporter. He did not say that Obama might be a drug dealer, he said that it was the kind of thing the right wing might use to attack Obama, which it is. The right wing does things like that.
    9, 10, 11 (same). There are activist groups in Illinois who say that Obama was wrong to use the "Present" strategy and feel he doesn't support reproductive rights. Clinton listened to them instead of his supporters.
    1. Every candidate promotes his or herself. That's just part of the game. Clinton screwed up one, with the Bosnia story, every other "lie" was backed up by parties involved in the stories. That said, Obama has done more than a bit of false-self-promotion himself. Most of his senate accomplishments (both state and federal)were based on exaggerations, according to some reports.
    2. Suggesting that McCain has extensive foreign policity experience is not "glorifying" him. He does have extensive experience.
    14, 15, 16 Those are spin. Clinton has explained them and some people disagree with her explanations. She isn't pretending anything.

    [ Parent ]
    Please (none / 0) (#47)
    by tek on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:53:40 PM EST
    post links to all of Hillary's negative attacks.  We don't allow smearing here.

    [ Parent ]
    You have been commenting (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by standingup on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:40:31 PM EST
    on this site one day?  Try spending some time before passing judgement.  Also, another suggestion is to take a look at Jeralyn's  post from yesterday, This Site's Comment Policy and New Rules.  

    [ Parent ]
    You're an admin now? (none / 0) (#122)
    by Moopsy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:19:20 PM EST
    Please tell us what you do and don't allow here.

    [ Parent ]
    Joe Wilson has a great piece on Huff po (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by nycvoter on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:38:39 PM EST

    I think we have to see it as it is, the Obama campaign gets up every day and goes on a personal character attack against Clinton, saying she's a liar, polarizing and can never lead the country.  How does that make our party stronger.

    It doesn't make our party stronger, but (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:51:45 PM EST
    it might make Obama stronger which is all that matters to that camp.  Anyone who ever thought that a "post partisan" was in this race to help the Democratic Party was fooling themselves IMO.  The "third-way-ers", "post partisans" and others who've crafted these "outsider" personas are being quite honest about the fact that they don't intend to be beholden to a particular party and yet many people still go along thinking they will.

    [ Parent ]
    If you read through the comments (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by digdugboy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:40:12 PM EST
    you'll see that a few people over there are starting to speak up about the attacks on the Clinton campaign. I don't know if you read RenaRF's diary about Clinton today, but frankly I find the pleasure so many people are deriving from kicking Hillary to be absurdly sick. The same is almost true for those who are deriving pleasure from kicking Obama, but I can understand their point of view a little better because the candidate they've become so emotionally invested in is losing.

    It needs to stop but it won't until the nomination is decided. However, I think it's incumbent upon Obama supporters to be the first ones willing to turn the other cheek, both because their candidate is so likely to win, and because it's better for him in the GE if they do.


    [tagline censored]

    I think that ship (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:20:20 PM EST
    Has sailed. No offense but its way too late for that one. If he does get the nomination (likely but not sure) he will suffer from some of his decisions and his supporters vitriol.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, he might (none / 0) (#140)
    by digdugboy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:26:36 PM EST
    but those of us who watch U.S. Supreme Court politics will certainly try to persuade those who are bitter about the campaign to consider the damage done to women and labor that will inure from additional republican appointments to the Court.


    [tagline censored]
    [ Parent ]
    I am pretty hard core (5.00 / 7) (#155)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:30:47 PM EST
    About the SC appointments, also because of serious privacy issues in general. But that card won't play as well as some Obama supporters think it will. You can't offend a lot of woman and then scream "Roe v Wade" and assume they'll just fall in line. Actually that is pretty offensive come to think of it.

    [ Parent ]
    Extortion, using the SC (none / 0) (#204)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:03:04 PM EST
    won't get them many votes this time around.  Cheap and stupid attempt imho.

    [ Parent ]
    Kos? Uh uh. His comments about women (5.00 / 4) (#181)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:46:28 PM EST
    and his dissing of our concerns about Roe v. Wade, long before this campaign, cannot be taken back.

    The sexism there in this campaign is no surprise.  Sad, but no surprise.  It has been there for a long time.

    [ Parent ]

    Please point me to the location (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:59:48 PM EST
    on Obama's website where women's issues and choice are discussed. I truly don't know what his positions are.

    [ Parent ]
    great post on this at anglachelg.blogspot.com (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:41:05 PM EST
    There is throughout this campaign season a disturbing comfort with violence (verbal and physical) to force opponents to acquiesce to a candidate who does not hold a commanding lead in anything, only a marginal one obtained under questionable circumstances. It is domestic violence in a political realm.

    How can legitimacy and authority be found under such circumstances?

    The funniest part (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by myiq2xu on We