Negative Campaigning

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    But but but (5.00 / 10) (#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.

    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.


    Classic (5.00 / 7) (#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?

    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


    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#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?

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.


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

    they are scared that's why (5.00 / 1) (#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

    just let the voters vote (5.00 / 3) (#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

    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.

    what has she done to knee cap Obama (5.00 / 2) (#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

    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.

    Yeah (5.00 / 7) (#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.

    Uh (5.00 / 6) (#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.


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

    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.


    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!!


    Ha (5.00 / 7) (#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.

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

    You bought into the Obama (5.00 / 0) (#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?


    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.


    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.

    Neither side is (5.00 / 0) (#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).  


    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.

    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)


    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.

    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?


    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 / 7) (#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?

    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.

    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.


    KNOW? (5.00 / 3) (#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.


    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:15:36 PM EST
    WTF are you talking about again?

    I can say (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    Read the other items (5.00 / 2) (#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?

    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.


    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.


    They fear what? (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    What they fear is that (5.00 / 2) (#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.  

    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.

    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.

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


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    no point in becoming unglued, geez! (none / 0) (#178)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:45:03 PM EST
    Clinton supporters (5.00 / 2) (#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.


    Obviously (5.00 / 3) (#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.

    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?

    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?

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:09:42 PM EST
    The 2012 thing is tinfoil stuff.

    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.

    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?

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    Michigan wasn't real? (5.00 / 2) (#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.


    "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...


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

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


    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.

    Slow week at my lab (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    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.

    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).


    Well (5.00 / 3) (#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?

    That would be terrible (5.00 / 1) (#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.  


    If he feels (5.00 / 2) (#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.  

    uhhhhhhh (5.00 / 3) (#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. :)


    This is so obvious... (5.00 / 4) (#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.


    A for honesty from you (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:42:28 PM EST
    Honest question (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    Can you back any of this up (5.00 / 4) (#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?

    Sorry (5.00 / 4) (#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.

    Wow (5.00 / 3) (#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.

    Excuse me? (5.00 / 0) (#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"?

    I think that line (5.00 / 2) (#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.


    Rebuttal (5.00 / 8) (#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.

    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.

    You have been commenting (5.00 / 0) (#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.  

    Joe Wilson has a great piece on Huff po (5.00 / 4) (#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 / 5) (#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.

    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.

    I think that ship (5.00 / 2) (#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.

    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.

    I am pretty hard core (5.00 / 6) (#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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    great post on this at anglachelg.blogspot.com (5.00 / 5) (#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 Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:42:39 PM EST
    is that it's their story that keeps getting more and more exaggerated.

    They are tossing away any sting that Hillary's gaffe had for her and any credibility they have left.

    I guess they can't help it, they finally found a smoking peashooter.

    Remember how the GOP were so excited over Monica Lewinsky?  They tried sooo hard to find something on Bill that when they finally found it they just about destroyed themselves with it.

    "Serial exaggerator." Is this an (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:48:02 PM EST
    attempt to make people make the subconscious connection between HRC and the FBI's serial murder profile?  Really over the top.

    Oh, brother... (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:46:11 PM EST
    methinks Obama needs to be very careful about accusations of "inventions" - we've already seen some interviews with people from Obama's past, who remember things quite a bit differently from the way Obama wrote about them.

    I actually think Obama is the very definition of an invention, and he has to know that evidence of this will come out, and he will end up - once again - painted into a corner.

    As for the "stir" - I don't know anyone who gives two hoots about the Bosnia trip; most of the people I have talked to have only commented on how at ease she seemed with the troops - "presidential" is how it is being termed.

    I'm still trying to figure out what negative attack Clinton has launched against Obama - I guess it has come down to this: if she opens her mouth, if she dares to answer a legitimate question, she's attacking.  Got it.

    I'm thinking the "politics of hope and change" brand is right up there with all the upside-down and backwards titles the Bush administration gives to their initiatives: Healthy Forests, Clear Skies, Protect America Act...

    I don't give a rat's patooty about Bosnia, (none / 0) (#191)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:53:07 PM EST
    from craig crawford, smart guy (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:47:34 PM EST
    I put this up before but it looks like it bears repeating:

    It is possible that Hillary Rodham Clinton benefited from her "mistake," as she called her recent assertion of once landing in Bosnia under sniper fire.
    Although seemingly embarrassing for her, this episode did serve to provoke repeated airings of video showing Clinton on her trip to Bosnia 12 years ago looking more like a Commander in Chief than like a First Lady. While hardly arriving under a hail of bullets, as she has repeatedly claimed, the video clips do show Clinton in a much grittier setting than anything that might be expected for a purely ceremonial visit.
    Not saying this flap was clearly purposeful. Just saying that the visuals are not entirely bad for Clinton.

    Not sure if that's true or not, (none / 0) (#93)
    by dk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:10:54 PM EST
    but that thought definitely crossed my mind over the last few days too.  I mean, anyone old enough to remember the 90s knows that a lot of bad stuff (i.e. bloody civil war) was going down in Bosnia at the time.  Even if Hillary wasn't literally running for cover at the airport, the reminder that she actually flew into the area plays to her general point about having experience being in the hot spots as first lady.

    Frankly, it surprised me that the Obama campaign and bloggers in the tank with Obama made so much of this.


    because Obama doesn't have anything (none / 0) (#192)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:54:24 PM EST
    on Hillary

    Anyone (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by tek on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:00:38 PM EST
    seen Harry Reid's interview wherein he states that he and Howard are taking steps to guarantee the Democratic primary field will soon be cleared to one?  I hope he's not talking about The One at Hillary's expense.

    I saw it. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:03:29 PM EST
    posted it in fact.  it was mentioned,in the thing that I read, that Harry is a Hillary supporter.  and that he had a sly grin the whole time he was talking about it.
    it was suggested that perhaps he is counting votes and knows more than we do and more than he is letting on.
    who knows.

    Could this be, in fact, be Harry Reid (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:05:22 PM EST

    here ya go (none / 0) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:07:31 PM EST
    Perhaps they are offering (none / 0) (#162)
    by Nobody on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:34:39 PM EST
    a big enough prize to one or the other to leave the field with dignity.

    My Dad is convinced it means he's stepping down as majority leader to make way for Hillary.


    Majority leader (none / 0) (#197)
    by badger on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:59:41 PM EST
    isn't Reid's or Dean's appointment to give. They'd need to line up 51 votes for Clinton, and Reid has no demonstrated ability to accomplish that with any certainty.

    I know (none / 0) (#210)
    by Nobody on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:11:06 PM EST
    but it's also true that many times these "elections" are formalities, forgone conclusions via backroom deals.

    eewwww (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Turkana on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:03:42 PM EST
    you made me click into a diary by someone i rarely clicked into even when i spent a lot of time over there! you could have at least provided a warning!

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:12:29 PM EST
    There are reasons for this.

    you've seen the alexa ratings (none / 0) (#156)
    by Turkana on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:32:11 PM EST
    and are trying to help out?

    I'm not wild (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by kmblue on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:04:38 PM EST
    about Harry or Nancy.
    So I take that report with several large grains of salt. ;)

    I am not easily offended where it comes (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:06:19 PM EST
    to politics, but sometime within the last few weeks I officially became horrified by the stuff I've been seeing hurled around in this primary contest.

    I've been a Democrat my whole life and over the years I have become accustomed to seeing Democrats implode, but this contest has gone beyond anything I could have ever imagined.

    Nothing about this race is about lifting people up, unity, hope or inspiration - from both sides all we are getting is fodder that plays to the worst instincts of humanity and that is a damn shame.

    this primary contest is getting dangerous (none / 0) (#235)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:51:58 PM EST
    I read a comment today on an A-list left blog that included a wish to put a bullet between Hillary's teeth.



    This is a HUGE mistake by Obama... (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Exeter on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:07:07 PM EST
    Exaggerating life stories is one of Obama's biggest negatives. Now Clinton can counterpunch and bring up stuff like this:

    ...several of his oft-recited stories may not have happened in the way he has recounted them. Some seem to make Obama look better in the retelling, others appear to exaggerate his outward struggles over issues of race...

    or this:

    ...Barack Obama, former street urchin and the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review...

    or, generally, the bio stuff in his stump speech line is actually pretty intentionally misleading:

    ...But my own story tells me that in the United States of America, there has never been anything false about hope.I should not be here today. I was not born into money or status. I was born to a teenage mom in Hawaii, and my dad left us when I was two.  

    Yeh, that "street urchin" claim (none / 0) (#186)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:49:08 PM EST
    when other accounts have him at a prep school in Indonesia really ratchet up, for me, concerns about what Repubs could be finding in oppo research.  There have been so many contradictory accounts -- as Jeralyn noted last night, the constant claim of being raised by a single mother, when it was the grandmother he now dissed -- just have to make me wonder what next will come out.  And unravel.

    I heard Obama say he was born to a white mother (none / 0) (#208)
    by jawbone on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:09:29 PM EST
    and an African-American father.

    AFIK, his father did not become a US citizen--anyone know differently?

    I've heard Dem spokes people say the same thing! Is this supposed to help him by airbrushing the fact his father was Kenyan?



    Heh (none / 0) (#220)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:19:07 PM EST
    My college newspaper once referred to Nelson Mandela as an "African-American."

    While you might expect Barack Obama to be a little more savvy than that, reality is that "black" and "African-American" are often used interchangeably without much thought going into it.


    Wasn't Teresa Kerry (none / 0) (#237)
    by Exeter on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:57:37 PM EST
    for awhile calling herself something contorted like a "Continental African American."

    I don't see anything wrong or misleading about Obama referring to his father as an "African American"... its a term that is used interchangeably in our culture with "Black," and I think both of those terms are appropriate to describe his father.  

    I do think, however, that his only cultural experience growing up was with his mother and her family and I'm not sure why he alots so much air to a father, by all accounts, completly abandoned him.


    If we are defining (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:11:14 PM EST
    negative attacks as anything critical of the other candidate, we should expect a non-stop rain of negativity.

    Personally the negative attacks are fine provided they aren't stupid such as praising the Republican nominee in an attempt to disparage the Dem opponent or willfully creating false impressions such as the Obama campaign's misleading statements about Hillary's support of NAFTA.  

    So you are comfortable with it? (none / 0) (#138)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:25:12 PM EST
    Comfortable? (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:43:06 PM EST
    Not sure I would use that word.  It is the way things are.  I would much prefer if candidates were only able to speak about themselves but that is clearly not the case and never has been.  

    Is this sort of comment any different than the Clinton campaign circulation an AMERICAN SPECTATOR article accusing Tony McPeak of being an anti-semite?  The frigging American Spectator?  The magazine that spent the entire 90s attacking the Clintons on baseless garbage?  Now the Clinton's are willing to distribute it as political fodder?

    Note, I'm not bothered by that per se.  I find it incredibly ironic with a twinge of hypocrisy.  But this is what campaigns do.

    So I'm not comfortable with it but I'm not terribly offended or bothered by most of it.  Seems to me that the blogs like to cherry-pick the stories for their own purposes.


    Yeah... (5.00 / 4) (#205)
    by rooge04 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:05:14 PM EST
    I mean I really wasn't comfortable when Kos decided to use Drudge as a credible source for that pic of Obama in Kenya claiming the Clinton camp was the culprit. Nor was I terribly comfortable when Obama repeated the same lie when he was campaigning in MS.  Even after it was proven utterly false and the originator was RW crazy freerepublic. Yeah, lots of things make me uncomfortable. And the idea of being so myopic in a campaign where people literally cannot see anything wrong with one candidate while painting the other as Satan. Well, that makes me extremely uncomfortable.

    OK (none / 0) (#230)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:44:24 PM EST
    Even you want to get your outrage on, go for it.  Have a great time. If you never visit DailyKos again, that's fine.

    I really don't get why so many people are so viscerally angry with DK.  It's not like the site is backing McCain.  Every partisan site is going to lean towards one site or the other.  Kos went Obama's way.  Such is life.  


    Aren't we voters responsible for this? (none / 0) (#185)
    by nellre on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:48:51 PM EST
    We of the 30 second sound bites?
    The "don't bore me with facts I just want scandal" Americans?
    Aren't we a at least a little to blame for how campaigns must be executed?

    Ok, I can't stay away. There's an obvious (5.00 / 10) (#98)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:12:13 PM EST
    point that NO ONE has made; therefore, I feel utterly compelled to make it. That will leave me 19 comments, but I think I'll stop with this one.
    If you want to see that the divisiveness of this campaign is more Obama's fault than anyone's, just look at John Edwards. He's a real pro. He had the best attacks against Clinton---by far---and even though they were hard hitting, there was no whining from Edwards if Hillary fought back.
    He had more reason than anyone to become bitter, but at the end of the day, he bowed out gracefully.

    What Edwards recognized is that HIS belief in his special abilities needed to be validated by the voters; when it wasn't, he quit.
    With Obama, if you question that he has something unique to offer, you become a hater, racist scumbag.

    Obama's just an amateur with a big ego. He can't stand the heat. Is this campaign a model of how he will govern? If you question his policies, will he play the race card, every time? Probably, IMO.
    An Obama Presidency will make me long for the Carter years.

    welcome back dood (none / 0) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:16:57 PM EST
    What? (none / 0) (#184)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:47:22 PM EST
    When did Hillary ever go after Edwards?  WHY would she ever go after Edwards when he was ALWAYS an also ran candidate?

    Edwards quit because he was getting crushed in the primaries and didn't have the cash to continue.  Rather than fight on, and damage his political street cred in an unwinnable fight, he chose to bow out.  Smart move but certainly not indicative of any higher purpose.

    Why do you keep bringing up race?  No one made a single mention of it yet you needed to point out how much of a victim you are because of it.  Let it go.  

    So you would sooner return to one of the worst economic periods in the last 100 years rather than have Obama as President? Nice.


    ALWAYS an also ran candidate (none / 0) (#188)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:49:24 PM EST
    sez you

    You obviously like (none / 0) (#232)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:46:23 PM EST
    to just pick random arguments with me.

    Fine, John Edwards was a legitimate candidate who was on equal footing with Hillary and Obama.  Well except for the lack of fund raising and lack of actual votes, that is.


    I don't understand your last sentence at all. (none / 0) (#194)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:56:15 PM EST
    I believe Obama is unqualified to be President.
    It would be a travesty to run him against McCain, because McCain will be considered experienced enough to be President, regardless of his politics.
    My thinking that he will be a disaster is not an endorsement of McCain.

    No Mark (none / 0) (#231)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:45:29 PM EST
    You were talking about an Obama PRESIDENCY not CANDIDACY and comparing it to the Carter years.  Let's not change the tune.

    Way to pursue a tangent, FH! (none / 0) (#234)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:49:51 PM EST
    I was thinking that Carter's finesse and political acumen would compare favorably with Obama's,  if you really care.

    If you like (none / 0) (#239)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:02:32 PM EST
    Seems to me that Obama has been remarkably deft politically.  But to each their own.

    I don't know if t his has been mentioned, but (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by vj on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:17:28 PM EST
    Isn't this technique of calling Hillary Clinton a "Serial Exaggerator" the exact same one used against Al Gore by the republicans in 2000?

    It's kind if disappointing to see one democrat use it against another.  

    I've been doing my best to ignore all this silliness, but I must say, this is not making me feel warm and fuzzy about the Obama campaign.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:23:41 PM EST
    but what people tend to forget is that before it was used by the Republicans, it was used extensively by Bill Bradley in the primary.

    The same people who are up in arms about every one of Hillary's comments that might hurt Democrats in the general have no comprehension that attacking the credibility of a Democrat also has repercussions down the road.


    I despise Bill Bradley, (none / 0) (#147)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:28:41 PM EST
    absolutely despise him.

    Obama reminds me of Bill Bradley. . .


    yeah right Kos (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by tarheel74 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:20:19 PM EST
    does he have any credibility left anywhere? Finally I see a lot of people bringing up "Tonya Harding", my thoughts any person who goes anonymous and uses the words "Tonya Harding strategy" to criticize an exemplary public servant is a coward especially if he is supposedly a member of the democratic part. Coward.

    So when does Kos start work on the new book? (5.00 / 0) (#213)
    by ineedalife on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:13:25 PM EST
    "Building the Gate"

    but but but (3.00 / 2) (#9)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:37:02 PM EST
    she deserves it more!

    I think Lambert at correntewire has this (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:32:45 PM EST
    Covered. I can't use the words here, though. . .

    just wondering (none / 0) (#3)
    by Harley on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:33:36 PM EST
    are you suggesting she hasn't exaggerated her role as First Lady, particularly with respect to domestic -- and foreign -- policy?

    Are you suggesting (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:35:39 PM EST
    that the negative attacks that could be made against Obama would be ok as long as they have some factual basis? Because that would be a new twist for some Obama supporters.

    By your lights, Wright is fair game for Clinton.


    No because if I understand the "logic" (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:46:13 PM EST
    correctly, everything Wright said was "true" and "pure".  Nothing wrong with what he said according to that camp, so no one has any right to complain about Wright's comments - according to the Obama camp - doesn't matter how they came across to anyone else - everyone else who was taken aback by Wright's comments are automatically deemed lesser beings and targeted with any number of the standard epithets that are being casually thrown around in this race.

    You bet He Is (none / 0) (#25)
    by Harley on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:43:34 PM EST
    And that's why he needed to address both the pastor and the church.  Which he did, in a speech he wrote himself, that proved more than any other moment in this campaign who should be our nominee.  Not another pol offering wooden platitudes.  But a leader willing to engage his audience with intelligence, insight, and heaven forbid, nuance.

    Show me one moment in this campaign where Senator Clinton showed similar abilities.  Sitting down with Richard Mellon Scaife doesn't count, btw.


    omg (5.00 / 5) (#141)
    by hitchhiker on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:26:40 PM EST
    A leader willing to engage his audience with intelligence, insight, and nuance?

    A leader would not have spent 2 decades sitting on his hands while his mentor said the kinds of things we saw him say.

    Obama talks very nicely, and he's a wonderful writer.  This doesn't equal leadership, no matter how skillful his marketing team is--and they're very skillful indeed.

    I'm starting to think that the authentic source of rage among Obama's heaviest-breathing supporters is this:  they know there's no real substance there, and they want him to hurry up and get elected before anybody discovers it.
     The longer the campaign goes on, the worse he looks . . that's not Hillary's doing, either.


    Ths speech proved that to you? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:44:26 PM EST

    But will you condemn everyone who is attacking Clinton for answering the Wright question?

    Get to work then.


    That's Where we disagree (none / 0) (#39)
    by Harley on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:50:50 PM EST
    I believe sitting down with Scaife is the act of a desperate woman who knows the kitchen sink simply was not enough.  Craven also comes to mind.

    She sat down with an Editorial Board (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:56:10 PM EST
    One assumes Obama will sit with it too.

    What a nutty comment.


    Sounds like you're upset (none / 0) (#223)
    by badger on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:29:18 PM EST
    that Scaife isn't continuing to fund attacks on the Clintons.

    That's OK - you can just donate more to Obama.


    But but... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kmblue on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:52:09 PM EST
    Obama also sat down with Scaife.

    But Obama isn't desparate and/or (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:55:44 PM EST
    a craven woman.

    OLD craven woman (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:57:21 PM EST
    please check out anglachelg

    Bill called her a girl today! (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:59:48 PM EST
    "In a speech he wrote himself" (none / 0) (#190)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:52:44 PM EST
    Gotta love that line, Harley.  Really, can't you see how embarrassing it is to have to say that for Obama?  Surprising for a former "street urchin," sure.  But now you have to aver that the so-called "professor" who can write whole speeches by himself.

    Sad.  Wonder what's ahead, what the Repubs know that we don't yet.  But we will, we will. . . .


    Jeremiah Wright's wicked and stupid statements (none / 0) (#28)
    by criticalthinker on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:44:33 PM EST
    I don't agree with Christopher Hitchens on most issues. But I do agree with him on Wright. This is good read.

    "Blind Faith: The statements of clergymen like Jeremiah Wright aren't controversial and incendiary; they're wicked and stupid."



    He hates "Religion" most of all. (none / 0) (#102)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:12:32 PM EST
    I doubt he cares about McCain per se.

    I cant abide Hitchens (none / 0) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:21:00 PM EST
    unless he is talking about religion.
    then he totally cracks me up.

    Obama Rules again (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:36:36 PM EST
    Negative attacks on Hillary by the Obama campaign don't count as negative attacks, because they're all true.

    Remember "President Billary"??? (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Exeter on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:40:36 PM EST
    It's amazing that many of the same people that criticized her for having too much power in the Clinton administration, now act as if she did nothing but serve as White House hostess. I know that's not what you're saying, but the reality is that unlike most first ladies, she was his top advisor and her opinion was paramount to anyone elses in the administration, after Bill, according to numerous former aides.

    oh and about that question you can't answer (none / 0) (#15)
    by Harley on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:40:05 PM EST
    I'm assuming we can assume your thesis is, uhm, less neutral in its provenance than you would like some to believe.  But I'm happy to give you a second chance.  Can you find a single remark made by Obama that is equivalent to Senator Clinton's Commander in Chief threshold remark?  A remark that makes an invidious comparison between the potential Dem nominee and John McCain.

    Have at it.  And bear in mind, just becuz you operate within the confines of an echo chamber doesn't mean you're right.  (Tho' I'm assuming it's fun to have folks tell you how insightful you are.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.)


    To me (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:43:36 PM EST
    "Say anything to win" is much worse.

    But you do not answer my question.


    already answered it (none / 0) (#41)
    by Harley on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:51:44 PM EST
    and you were a more rigorous thinker when you posted at tacitus.

    Whatever Harley (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:55:21 PM EST
    I get the feeling your view of my thinking is directly proportional to whether I am bashing Clinton of Obama.

    not hard to shine as a rigorous thinker (none / 0) (#166)
    by Klio on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:36:45 PM EST
    when compared to tr/evino :-)

    ... couldn't resist, such low-hanging fruit ...


    We have met the enemy (none / 0) (#21)
    by nellre on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:42:11 PM EST
    And he is us.
    from Pogo (Walt Kelly)

    The McCain camp commented about Obama's (none / 0) (#7)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:36:38 PM EST
    campaign tactics today.

    Craig Crawford thinks (none / 0) (#13)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:39:09 PM EST
    that showing her video over and over again makes her look presidential.  Maybe she wasn't exposed to sniper fire, but she also didn't fly into pristine conditions, either.


    The "Progressive" bloggers can attack all they want.  All they do for me is pound one more nail into my assurance that I'll vote for Donald Duck.

    As Big Bill says: saddle up. (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:43:06 PM EST
    The video they link is wrong (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:51:48 PM EST
    I hope they get it right soon. Bill Clinton is the smoothest talker in America, easily.

    That's what (none / 0) (#105)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:13:55 PM EST
    America's all about....

    Going negative makes for great TV (none / 0) (#29)
    by countme on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:45:01 PM EST
    I tend to agree with BTD on this,  the Clintons got Obama where they want him - playing nasty politics - as long as he is attacking Hillary his campaign is too distracted from focusing on his message of hope and change. He looks like a typical politician.  Every since Texas and Ohio he has been off his game and desperately struggling to get back on course. After the Write issue the Obama campa and the media have been in over drive to prop him bak up. Their internal pools must tell them they are in deeper trouble in the up coming primary then they thought.

    BTD do you think the media coverage on Chelsea Clinton is a bit absurd? They are even going after for her response to the reporters question on Bill infidelity.

    He IS a typical politician. (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by hitchhiker on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:29:09 PM EST
    Obama should consider trying to build (none / 0) (#34)
    by tigercourse on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:47:19 PM EST
    himself up a little, and take a break from tearing Clinton down. Unless he wants to win the nomination only to go down in a major defeat in the general election, he needs to make a better argument for himself.

    it's funny isn't is that HRC (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by nycvoter on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:51:46 PM EST
    is always the one the media is saying spends her time tearing down obama

    yeah, like Obama isn't doing himself (none / 0) (#129)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:21:41 PM EST
    any harm when passport gate has one of his advisors behind the recent breakin.

    Why arent we hearing more about this?If it was only Obama's passport info that was breeched you'd hear the Obots blame Hillary.

    We also didn't hear much about Hillary's olive branch to Obama about his neg. attacks. The bosnia thing is trivial. I dont recall what I had for breakfast 12 years ago. She couldn't remember, big deal. But the Obots when into high gear, OMG she LIED! OMG OMG!!!

    please. get over it.

    Maybe all the people over at DK are all closet Republicans like Kos is/was probly still is. DINO!


    He's already a legend in his own mind, (none / 0) (#86)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:08:27 PM EST
    and the media treat him in ways that keep him firmly convinced that he has already won the argument that he is The One, as Oprah refers to him.

    If you needed any more proof of it, think about how often you hear people say, "who the hell does he think he is?"

    That's pretty much the thought he is "inspiring" in me these days.


    Negative Attacks (none / 0) (#57)
    by kaleidescope on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:57:49 PM EST
    I'm not sure I'd call what the block quote and the Time article refer to is what people normally think of as "negative attacks".  They are negative in the sense they say, "She says she did this and she didn't"; they say, basically, that she padded her resume.

    But this is simply disputing one of HRC's main claims about why she should be elected -- her experience.  She says she did X, and says that because she did X you should vote for her.  But she didn't actually, you know, do X.  So why vote for her?

    This also hurts Clinton because one consequence of pointing out that her claims aren't true is that it helps feed a general public notion that the Clintons are shady and not to be trusted -- a problem -- at least until the past week -- that was more due to HRC's association with her husband than to anything she herself had said or done.  And for the Obama campaign the shadow cast on Ms. Clinton's character probably IS a secondary benefit of pointing out that Clinton did not do what she says she did.

    But this is a far cry from what is traditionally thought to be a negative attack -- "Oscar Zilch doesn't wash his hands after going to the bathroom and Zilch has been caught having sex with Aunt Susie in bathroom stalls (and Zilch didn't wash his hands after that either)."  Or:  "Candidate Zilch is a dirty skunk who, along with his wife, traveled back to state Y (where Zilch's wife was governor) so the Zilch political dynasty could reap political benefit by presiding over the execution of a retarded man."

    So in a strict sense, it is negative for the Obama campaign to point out that Clinton's vaunted experience isn't exactly what she claims it is.  But it isn't "dirty politics" in the way people traditionally think "negative attacks" to be.

    Besides, DNC rules allow negative campaigning and even negative attacks on fellow Democrats.  And we all know that if the DNC rules allow it; it must be not only OK, but advisable.

    Hilarious (5.00 / 7) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:00:59 PM EST
    Yep. Calling her a SERIAL LIAR is not a negative attack in the minds of some Obama supporters.

    I tell you some of you are truly a scream.


    OMG OMG OMeffingG ! (none / 0) (#135)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:23:54 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#206)
    by kaleidescope on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:06:09 PM EST
    The memo posted at Time's website doesn't call Ms. Clinton a SERIAL LIAR, though it does list a series of instances where what she said turned out not to be true.  These claims are different in kind from simple BS-ing about catching a big fish, having played guitar with Jimi Hendrix or hitting a  home run in a softball game.  The exaggerations Ms. Clinton made concern central arguments she makes about her qualifications for being elected president.  When asked what "experience" she has that makes her a better candidate than Obama or Edwards, these were many of the things that Ms. Clinton herself listed.

    So it would be one thing for the Obama campaign to say, "When Hillary Clinton was eight years old she said she went to church but really walked along the railroad tracks throwing rocks at passing trains"  Or: "In 2004 Hillary Clinton told a campaign supporter that she was too busy to meet with him, when really she just wanted to get some sleep."  Or:  "When she was running for Senate the first time, Hillary Clinton said she'd help increase employment in New York but that did not, in fact, happen."  

    These would be irrelevant and harmless fibs or exaggerations -- akin to what Tom Waits sang about in "Jitterbug Boy" -- and pointing them out in a memo to the press would be an irrelevant attempt to trash or tarnish Ms. Clinton's credibility.

    But it's quite another matter when it turns out that a candidate has made untrue or exaggerated claims that are central to her argument as to why she is better qualified to be president.  

    Do you really think it is dirty campaigning to list those kinds of claims, and then show that the claims are in fact not true?


    Not so much... (none / 0) (#222)
    by AlladinsLamp on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:23:22 PM EST
    Bill Bennet calling Al Gore an "habitual liar" was negative campaigning. Obama supporters calling Hillary a "serial liar," eh, not so much.

    Summary of your opinion (none / 0) (#128)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:21:21 PM EST
    she padded her resume...her claims aren't true ...
    Clintons are shady and not to be trusted...
    her husband than to anything she herself had said or done....Clinton's vaunted experience isn't exactly what she claims it is.

    But it isn't "dirty politics"
    negative attacks not only OK, but advisable


    wow, this is propaganda (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:26:57 PM EST
    I think I'm reading the 3rd reich manifesto.

    you people have gone MAD MAD MAD!

    This is bad because they used to have a half decent site and an idea on the 50 state strategy.

    This won't help their cause next election cycle.


    Isn't this true though? (none / 0) (#59)
    by proseandpromise on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:59:09 PM EST
    We also just discovered that her "I was against NAFTA" line was at least not entirely true.  THere have been a few developments in recent weeks where she has been less than forthcoming.  That is a fact.

    Just like Rev. Wright was not negative (until people stepped into "Obama is a hate--monger territory."  There is a difference between saying negative things and negative campaigning I think.  

    This isn't a case of saying anything underhanded.  

    In fact (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:05:33 PM EST
    David Gergen has vouched for Hillary on NAFTA.  I can imagine no reason whatsoever why he would be motivated to lie for her.

    But this is the way it worked with Al Gore, and the way it works with Hillary too - establish a narrative that they lie about everything, and then no matter what claim they make, it's easy to convince people that it must be exaggerated in some respect.


    So if it iis true it is Ok? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:01:51 PM EST
    So let's see if we apply that to all of Hillary's attacks if you feel the same.

    Amazing from some of you.


    Not all Hillary's attacks have been honest... (none / 0) (#91)
    by proseandpromise on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:10:32 PM EST
    For instance the "Change you can Xerox line" was low and not based in reality.  Obama used a line of argument from a friend and she knew it but tried the line anyway.

    Obama's "you're likable enough" line was also low.  The tone and so forth was harsh and the criticism was without substance.  That made me cringe.

    But pointing to flaws in your opponents candidacy is not "negative campaigning" I don't think - or at least its not the kind Obama speaks out against.


    Not based in reality? (none / 0) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:13:51 PM EST
    Um, how so? do you have any actual negative attacks to talk about?

    Lost me there. (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:04:12 PM EST
    Hard to see how some of The Rev. Wright's statements being characterized as anything but negative.

    Hard to see how either HRC or Obama benefits from saying the other candidate has some inconsistent statements re NAFTA.


    Hillary didn't support NAFTA (none / 0) (#92)
    by nellre on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:10:33 PM EST
    An entry in her schedule had her attending a NAFTA meeting and everybody assumed that meant she supported it.

    And why don't you check things out first?


    I did... (none / 0) (#99)
    by proseandpromise on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:12:15 PM EST
    I'll have to get back to you on articles and links.  I'm out for a while.

    just like when she had that inferview (none / 0) (#152)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:29:45 PM EST
    Richard Mellon Scaife they said stuff like,
    how could she meet with this man? I defended her for 16 years! Those people are nuts!

    Obama met with Scaife also. Big deal, what that says is that hillary will meet with the devil himself to serve her country!


    Sorry, it's not comparable (none / 0) (#75)
    by washingtoncritic on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:05:07 PM EST
    Big Tent - Unfortunately, you're comparing apples and oranges. Obama's attacks on Hillary for the most part are in response to her negative attacks. Obama has even been critisized for NOT responding to her attacks.

    So to compare the response to negative attacks (that worked) in Ohio and Texas, to the original negative attacks, is silly. For example, going after Geraldine Ferraro came AFTER Hillary made Samantha Power resign.

    Secondly, to conflate an attack like this, which is totally in bounds, with Hillarys, where she puts McCain above Obama, is silly too.

    In short, there's no complexitly or nuance in your view of "negative" attacks.

    Hillary made Power resign? (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by Trickster on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:26:51 PM EST
    Voo-doo doll?

    I have never condemned Hillary... (none / 0) (#87)
    by sweetthings on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:09:26 PM EST
    for negative campaigning, and nor do I condemn Obama for doing it now.

    Hillary did what she had to do. If she had not gone negative on Obama before Texas, she might well have lost it all on March 4th. Now, Obama must go negative, in order to make sure Clinton looks just as unelectable as he does, or the Supers might give it to her.

    Such is the nature of politics. Unfortunate that it had to happen to Democrats now, though.

    Then this post is not about you (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:11:39 PM EST
    Is that highlighted quote from (none / 0) (#88)
    by dannyinla on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:09:32 PM EST
    "the Obama campaign"?  It's not clear in the DKos diary who said it (and you've cut out the AP reference).

    Or are we again conflating the words of surrogates with the actual words of the campaign?

    Are you calling DHinMi a liar? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:11:15 PM EST
    Read the title.

    No. I'm asking a question. (none / 0) (#169)
    by dannyinla on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:38:41 PM EST
    And, I'm not sure where you've been, but the titles of DKos diaries often don't correspond to the truth. Knowing that as I do (and as you do too), why would I rely on the title of a diary?

    It's sort of like why I didn't rely on the title of Jeralyn's diary about the Obama tax returns that referred to his donations as a "pittance" when the Paul Caron story did not use that word.


    The answer is yes (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:11:46 PM EST
    thanks (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by dannyinla on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:35:13 PM EST
    the fact that anyone from either campaign is quoting the AP's Ron fournier is pathetic. He's a piece of crap who is the enemy of the Dems.

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:39:43 PM EST
    Fournier has a long track record of Clinton-hating from the 1990s.  If the blogosphere did its job, more people would know his name.

    He's also no friend of Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by dannyinla on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:45:36 PM EST
    He's the one who last week gave us "Obama walks arrogance line" .  

    Craig Crawford (none / 0) (#133)
    by dem08 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:23:33 PM EST
    I think "up" is the new "down".

    I watched the You Tube Hillary quotes followed by her Visit to Bosnia.

    When you see how vividly she tells the story, how she ran and how it was not exactly a Tea Party, and then see the video.... I don't see how that helps Hillary.

    I suppose if ONLY the Bosnia Trip were shown, Hillary does look like a Commander-in-Chief, but even then, one has to ask how?

    There are two problems here:

    First, what role will Bill Clinton play when Hillary is president? If she was his co- C-in-C, will Bill be hers?

    And second: do most Commanders travel to War Zones with their teenage daughters?

    The Onion had a story this week about "Take Our Daughters To War Day", but The Onion used to be a parody in the old, pre-Blog America.

    I am more and more hoping that some benevolent wizard puts America under a spell for a month or so and when we wake up everyone will be smart.

    I'm not one of the Obama supporters who will not (none / 0) (#215)
    by lokisdad on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:15:00 PM EST
    vote for HRC. I'll hold my nose and vote for her if she wins the nomination. I just see her as a better choice than McCain, not THE choice candidate. I'm just tired of the same people, with the same old ideas running this country. When someone explains to me exactly what HRC has done for me, in a positive sense, I may be convinced she is the better candidate. Until then, I'll take the rhetoric for change. So come on, convince me that she made a difference for the little guy, not corporate interests. Show me where she took a stand for me and not welfare for the rich. At this point I see what I'll get from another Clinton  presidency, and I'm willing to gamble on something different.

    Given that McCain was shot down (twice) (none / 0) (#226)
    by tigercourse on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:37:37 PM EST
    I bet he'd beat the gang banger.

    If Clinton (none / 0) (#227)
    by shaharazade on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:38:18 PM EST
    makes her forgein policy creds, based on her experience, and tells whoppers, equal to wag the dog to back up her ability to be Commander and Chief, why is it negative for Obama to point this out.

    This bothers me for two reasons 1. Ive had it with a president who thinks his be all is his ability to invade and kill people and exaggerates situations for justification. I've had it with security defined as belligerence and aggression I will not be frightened into voting for some one because they are as insane as Bomb, Bomb McCain

    2 Bill Clinton's sleazy finger waving talk on the 21st of how patriotic both Hillary and McCain are. Saying also they were such buddies that it would be a civilized campaign. If this is the case why doesn't she run with him? Why is she touting herself as a progressive Democrat, and basing her campaign on Republican reality.  

    Once again there is a difference between pointing out issues and negative or personal attacks. Lying about the very reason you consider yourself ready to be commander and chief is not something that should be overlooked. Everything is Hillary hatred to you guys. The rest of us should all just fight this the way Hillary wants it, Gimme a break.

    The NAFTA thing is the same. She stood and got really pissed about this attack on her which it turns out is true. I always knew it was I have a brain and was paying attention when the whole NAFTA thing was going down. The bs her campaign put out about the Canadian envoy was also quite dicey. Not negative campaigning it's at the heart of why she should be our nominee. When Bill stares wagging his fingers in my face I know it's trouble.

    When Carville starts calling good Democrats Judas and you people still think this originates with Obama and any push back is dirty or negative, no wonder shes losing.    


    I think y'all misunderstood the thread title. (none / 0) (#240)
    by Lysis on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:27:42 PM EST
    You're supposed to talk about the negative campaigning going on, not actually engage in it yourselves!

    Nonstory? (none / 0) (#241)
    by Raheem on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:41:57 PM EST
    She said the same thing in December, February, and now last week... and its a nonstory?

    All Obama is doing is pointing out her "inconsistent" talk...

    she got exposed, its that simple... just like she helped bring peace to N. Ireland... lol

    HALPERIN'S TAKE: If Obama Has The Nomination (none / 0) (#243)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:31:56 AM EST
    HALPERIN'S TAKE: If Obama Has The Nomination Wrapped Up, Why is His Campaign Going After Clinton So Hard?

    1. They want to drive up Clinton's negatives as high as they can, to keep her from improving her standing in head-to-head matchups with McCain, because they know the Clinton campaign would use such polls as an important electability talking point with superdelegates.

    1. They want to get the media focus off of Rev. Wright.

    2. They want to demonstrate their toughness (to themselves, to the Republicans, and to those watchful superdelegates).

    3. They want Clinton to feel there is a cost for staying in the race.

    4. They want to remind superdelegates that Clinton would carry substantial baggage into the general election as the nominee.

    5. They want to improve Obama's standing with white voters by artfully playing the Lewinsky card (as when they talked about the circumstances that led to Bill Clinton being photographed in the White House with Rev. Wright).

    6. They are angry at the Clinton campaign.

    7. They think -- contrary to the media conventional wisdom -- that Clinton can still beat them.

    8. Because they can: the media continues to highlight the Clinton campaign's negative tactics in a disapproving way, but only rarely points out the intensified negative tone and rhetoric Obama's campaign has been using - even though it conflicts with the candidate's professed desire for a new kind of politics.

    Markos (none / 0) (#245)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:31:23 AM EST
    Markos always has had a way of overwriting.  

    Obama will win! (none / 0) (#246)
    by kberly7568 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:11:40 PM EST
    Check out Obama's speech on race. His speechs only get better and he is just what this country needs to turn itself around!


    The Difference (none / 0) (#247)
    by dmfox on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:46:43 PM EST
    Obama has done nothing to build up John McCain, like Hillary Clinton has with her "Commander-in-Chief threshold."  To me, building up the candidacy of the Republican candidate goes beyond anything Obama has done.  It seems as though she's backed off this line of criticism by starting to attack McCain instead of praise.

    Good to see this.

    The other negative attacks are ugly on both sides, but fair game and to be expected in a primary campaign.

    Given Hillary's position as a highly unlikely nominee, I think her campaign is doing more harm than good right now for the Democratic ticket.  The impact of the negative campaigning against Obama is greater than for Clinton because he's the likely nominee, whereas she is not.

    However, it's her right to stay on and fight if she wants to.  She has enough support to justify it.