Obama Memo: Hillary "Pulling Out All The Stops" To Win South Carolina

Comments (117)

katie wrote on January 24, 2008 11:42 AM:

Sounds like Obama is getting desperate cause his lead is slipping in SC, and he HAS to win there.

The contradictions between 'Shes given up on SC" and "Shes pulling out all the stops" is hilarious.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 11:43 AM:

So what is the "fib"? That the Clintons do not care about SC? Have the Clintons actually said that they do not care about SC? I do not remember hearing any such claim and would be somewhat bewildered if it were actually made. I am sort of lost as to how "my opponent wishes to win" constitutes something worthy of being written up and published.

Dan wrote on January 24, 2008 11:43 AM:

Good meme - I like this "she'll say anything" meme his campaign is on, because it's true and it frames the discussion. Gets Obama off the "frustrated" meme and Hillary onto the "will she say anything?" meme.

wwjb wrote on January 24, 2008 11:45 AM:

Basically he is calling bullshit on the Hillary campaign's attempt to diminish the importance of state's she is most likely going to lose in, as soon as it looks like she is in for a rough ride. He makes good points, I've always thought it was ridiculous for candidates to say they were going to "skip" a state right before an unfavored election, as if somehow saying you are skipping it, and not showing up to the state for as many days before the election, is going to make it look like you weren't trying period, despite all of the obvious (and cited) evidence to the contrary. The Obama team is wise to their strategy.

Mike wrote on January 24, 2008 11:47 AM:

Hillary was obviously trying to lower expectations by not campaigning these past couple days in South Carolina, but the fact is that she's invested quite a bit in that race and was winning the polls there until very recently. She's spending heavily on ads and Bill has been living there campaigning on her behalf. So I think anything less than a win would be a disappointment for her.

Bupalos wrote on January 24, 2008 11:47 AM:

Good for them for working the expectations game. This is where Hillary has really won. She has a 2% state win and a 5% state win, Obama has a 7% state win and if he can secure SC at the current levels probably a 8-10% win.

Yet the Clintons have played expectations well enough (after Iowa) that you have the feeling the spin after SC is going Hillary's way, despite obama having received more votes and won more delegates. It's the race thing, of course. But they need to work on this. It's a tad transparent for my taste, but when you're up against the Clintons you have to get a little stupid.

wg wrote on January 24, 2008 11:48 AM:

Citing "one of Clinton's rules of politics", [Bill Clinton] declared: "If one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other's trying to get you to think; if one is appealing to your fears, and the other is appealing to your hopes - it seems to me you ought to vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." -- Bill Clinton 10/26/2004

I think I'll take that advice, Bill. I'm voting for Obama.

wwjb wrote on January 24, 2008 11:49 AM:

No, the point is, the word coming out of her campaign previously was that she wasn't going to campaign there as much, that it wasn't something she was all that concerned about, that she'd send Bill there and then show up eventually, and between the lines the connotation of this all is that her loss will be a "black thing" and thus meaningless in the scheme of things (artfully set up by the subtle and not so subtle race baiting of the last few weeks). However, despite all that public diminishing of the importance of SC, the Obama campaign is showing that they are indeed try and trying hard. The goal for the Clintons is to play down the expectations game to cushion against a big loss, yet try as hard as they can to make sure it isn't that big of a loss so they can spin it as a narrow win for Obama.

C'mon people, this isn't that hard to follow. It is all about expectations and between the lines strategy.

John McCutchen wrote on January 24, 2008 11:49 AM:

Gail Collins, NyT

now Bill is all over the place — campaign guru, surrogate candidate, one-man first response team. By next week, he’ll be designing the bumper stickers.... in the process, they’re ruining the central selling point of her campaign, the story that explains why she’s the one a dispirited country should trust to make things better

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/opinion/24collins.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

frankly0 wrote on January 24, 2008 11:50 AM:

It should be noted that the other day Obama criticized Hillary for not spending time in the state and hence not taking it seriously.

So you're saying that Obama and his campaign just can't keep their story straight when it's convenient for them to do otherwise?

I'm shocked down to my littlest toes.

PFedd wrote on January 24, 2008 11:51 AM:

If Bill looks like he is running for president, and talks like he is running for president, then why dont we just be honest that this is a third term and the 22nd ammendment is out the window.

Hilary isnt in SC, but Bill is.

We may all hate Chris Matthews, but he had a point. She is nothing without Bill.

frankly0 wrote on January 24, 2008 11:54 AM:

Gail Collins, NyT

Yeah, we know that she hates Hillary, like everybody else at that smug, self-righteous institution, the NY Times.

Oh and who went after the Clintons leather and tong over Whitewater, only to come up with zippo?

Why, that same august institution.

If only their competence matched their arrogance.

Bupalos wrote on January 24, 2008 11:54 AM:

Reading the polls today, it occurred to me that if Obama could somehow convince 10% of his black support to go to Edwards, it might totally rewrite this campaign and put him in the driver's seat. Why? Hillary would come in 3rd, Obama would win, and the race based script the Clintons are working would be trashed.

Add to that fact that you'd be throwing more delegates to Edwards, and setting him up to take more of the lily white vote and even hispanic vote in the upcoming contests.

This is only if you feel strongly that Edwards can't win, that he can be kingmaker, and that he won't be queenmaker.

Something to ponder.

katie wrote on January 24, 2008 11:56 AM:

John-

I get it...I'm just saying he looks like an idiot for saying "She's never coming back to SC" one day and "Shes pulling out all the stops" the next.

It's almost as if this guy will say anything to win SC.

John McCutchen wrote on January 24, 2008 11:56 AM:

In Bill's world the Little Woman just goes along for the ride eh Greg!

Sisters Are Doin It For Themselves

So we're comin' out of the kitchen
'Cause there's somethin' we forgot
to say to you (we say)
Sisters are doin' it for themselves.
Standin' on their own two feet.
And ringin' on their own bells.
Sisters are doin' it for themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQE4UMVhEQ

Keith wrote on January 24, 2008 11:58 AM:

Greg D:

It's about the expectations game. Recall New Hampshire. Everyone was writing NH off as an Obama win. Meanwhile, the Clintons were working hard at getting the victory. When it came, it was overplayed in the media.

Fast forward to South Carolina. Obama's expected to win because of his support in the African-American community. HRC goes off to campaign in Feb 5th states, giving the impression that she's not campaigning hard in South Carolina (look at the media accounts over the last few days), leaving only Bill to campaign there. The Clintons campaign has been downplaying South Carolina, but reality on the ground is QUITE different.

So they are trying to correct the narrative going into Saturday. At least that's my take.

Bupalos wrote on January 24, 2008 11:59 AM:

>>>It's almost as if this guy will say anything to win SC.

Wrong. He won't say anything to win SC. His organization will say anything to counter the racial script the Clintons are setting up. And they should.

katie wrote on January 24, 2008 11:59 AM:

Thanks John-

Your sexism only helps her cause.

I'm eagerly awaiting another disappearing 13% lead for Obama on Saturday...and then an easy road to the nomination.

John McCutchen wrote on January 24, 2008 11:59 AM:

I am sure you have plenty of Obama friends there Sister Kate, but you won't if you keep calling him an idiot.

Besides, why complain? You wouldn't want him to stop saying she ran from the Plantation, left it to the First Black President, Marse Bill.

Or would you?

wwjb wrote on January 24, 2008 11:59 AM:

frankly0, are you purposely playing dumb or are you really that stupid? The Obama campaign's story hasn't budged an inch, they are pointing out that the Clinton campaign is saying one thing, and then doing another, it is a slight of hand trick, watch the one hand while the other hand is pulling off the trick. Seriously, you embarrass yourself by saying ignorant crap like "So you're saying that Obama and his campaign just can't keep their story straight when it's convenient for them to do otherwise?"

Please...stop it...you are still a Democrat I'm assuming, you are making us all look like frickin' idiots.

Bupalos wrote on January 24, 2008 12:00 PM:

>>>leaving only Bill to campaign there.>>>

In other words, leaving their best campaigner to campaign there. Point taken.

katie wrote on January 24, 2008 12:01 PM:

Woohoo...a racist and a sexist.

Maybe you should be voting republican...itll be like returning home...when you refuse to vote for Hillary when shes the nominee!

Mike wrote on January 24, 2008 12:01 PM:

Looks like Hillary supporters need some help with their reading comprehension in addition to help with basic logic.

The fact is that while it looked like Clinton was going to skip South Carolina, she's since changed her plans.

Here's the key part: "the Clinton campaign will bring Hillary herself back to the state earlier than they previously planned"

Perhaps this is because of the criticism she was getting or maybe she thinks she has a shot at winning. Either way, it's clear she's changing her strategy and "pulling out all the stops"

bob wrote on January 24, 2008 12:02 PM:

Sending Hatchet Man and Liar-in-Chief bill clinton to sit in South Carolina all week and spread more lies, not to mention the lying radio ad and undoubtedly numerous lying mailers, is proof that the Clinton campaign is "pulling out all the stops to win South Carolina."

Gail Collins is new to the NYT, moron.

katie wrote on January 24, 2008 12:03 PM:

She's returning because the polls are getting closer (despite the Obama race card extravaganza), and anything other than a double digit Obama victory, is a win for her.

Ian Tepoot wrote on January 24, 2008 12:03 PM:

Or maybe it's as simple as, after a day or two of Bill so intensely glad-handing and keeping the media on him, Obama is (a) concluding that they hadn't conceded SC as easily as Hillary's spin is letting on and (b) he needs to tamp-down Obama inevitability stories in the media, because you saw what that did to him in NH.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 12:03 PM:

katie is a supporter of McCain for President. that's what a vote for Hillary gives us.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 12:05 PM:

So they are trying to correct the narrative going into Saturday. At least that's my take.

Fair enough. I am sure that this memo will do no harm, although I am not sure that it will help much either. Maybe my internal political barometer is not working, but I guess that I never picked up on the idea that the Clintons were lowering expectations. I knew that Clinton was coming back to SC before Saturday, so I guess that I thought everyone realized that the Clintons were not writing SC off.

John McCutchen wrote on January 24, 2008 12:05 PM:

Katie's Cause?

What exactly is that!

I should think you'd be mighty disappointed that Bill's taken Hill along as a prop in his Legacy Cause.

Is she not a bona fide candidate in her own right?

Guess not

Michael A wrote on January 24, 2008 12:06 PM:

Too funny gail collins is a hillary-hater also. Every single person who won't vote for clinton or who doesn't like the nasty, lying politics that she is employing is a hater. It's a sad statement about america when 51% of the population are just blind haters. They just hate, hate, hate. There obviously cannot be any thought or analysis or logic. They just hate, hate, hate, because they aren't in love with and in awe of clinton.

Gotta love those clinton resortation party talking points. If she gets the nomination, I vote for changing the democratic party name to the clinton restoration party. It sure isn't the democratic party.

BrickTamland wrote on January 24, 2008 12:07 PM:

Loud noises!

katie wrote on January 24, 2008 12:08 PM:

Ha--except that argument is losing steam...FAST...now that people are learning more about Obama.

From Kevin Drum...
"LA Times poll have now been posted, and they show that Hillary is indeed the tougher candidate: she does at least as well as Obama against every leading Republican, and in a hypothetical matchup with McCain she wins by 4 points while Obama loses by a point."

"How can this be? Well, it turns out that the vaunted independent voters split right down the middle in both matchups. But Republican voters are more likely to jump ship if Hillary is the Democratic nominee and Democratic voters are more likely to stay on board. And that makes the difference."

Angry Vet wrote on January 24, 2008 12:08 PM:

I think I am going to change sides, just for arguments sake. You see, I just haven't been impressed with the level of discourse coming from HRC backers, and I think they need a little help. In that regard, I am only going to point out this:

In this election, you have a real choice for the nomination. You can go with a 1-term senator who never really gave a damn about issues having to do with poorer people while he was a senator, but now claims it is the purpose of his life, or something like that.

You can also choose another 1-term US senator, who pretty much began running for President the moment he took his seat.

Or, you can go with the former First Lady, who has spent 8 years in and around the Oval Office, AND has served a full term in the senator, one herself a second term, and really has used most of her adult life fighting for national change in some form or another.

Does Hillary fight a dirty campaign? Yes, but so does everyone else, in their own way. And especially so, the GOP.

Hillary has the capability and the connections to have 527 support across the country, in a way the Democratic Party has never seen, and in a way that can compete for airtime with the 527 hit machines we can expect of the GOP.

Senator Obama's "message of hope, of change" are little more than emotional appeals that feel REALLY GOOD, but will have little effect on the way he governs.

So, the question is, then, who can raise more support from the people who have the money? The issues are essentially the same between the two.

I say HRC is still the strongest candidate in the Dem field (and I really agree with this, though she does have a lower "ceiling" than BO) as it stands right now. We should, therefore, support the strongest candidate.

Right? Taking questions/comments now.

Abby Normal wrote on January 24, 2008 12:10 PM:

so Hillary is pulling out all the stops to win South Carolina? And you're not, Senator Obama? Let's be honest with each other before we start lying. Oopsie! Too late.

facemn wrote on January 24, 2008 12:10 PM:

Anyone who denies the Clinton's will not say or do anything to win an election needs to look at the facts.

http://factcheck.barackobama.com/
http://barackforpresident08.blogspot.com/

John McCutchen wrote on January 24, 2008 12:11 PM:

Hill When She Did It For Herself
Pres '08 (D)
Oct 24 LAT/Bloomberg
Clinton 48%, Obama 17%, Edwards 13% ...

After Bill Took Over
Pres '08 (D)
Jan 23 LAT/Bloomberg
Clinton 42%, Obama 33%, Edwards 11% ...

So how is your "cause" Sister Katie?
Not doin too well

Standin on their own two feet.
And ringin on their own bells

Not in Bill's World you aren't

jbentley wrote on January 24, 2008 12:13 PM:

The Clintons have done a masterful job of playing the expectations game. They played up the results in New Hampshire and Nevada as though they were some massive underdog comeback even though Clinton held huge leads for months and enjoyed the support of the party establishment from the very beginning. The truth is, the fact that Obama, a freshman African-American senator with a funny name, is able to compete at all with the Clintons, is a testament to his message and his leadership, and is a clear sign that Democrats, and Americans in general, are ready for change and fresh leadership.

goldberry wrote on January 24, 2008 12:15 PM:

I think Obama's been had by the Clintons who very cleverly set a different plan in motion. Here's what I think it was:
1.) Obama has huge lead in SC. The Clintons needed to make it look like he didn't win in a blowout. How do they take votes away from Obama to reduce his bang for the buck? Answer: have Edwards do it.
2.) The debate is set up to pit Obama against Clinton and make them look like they're squabbling. This accomplishes two things: it makes Hillary look like a fighter, putting her gender on low heat, and it also makes Edwards look positively presidential by contrast. That takes some of the shine off of Obama.
3.) SC primary happens on Saturday and Edwards picks up some votes. I don't know if they come at Clinton's or Obama's expense but Obama doesn't get the blowout he needs.
Neener-neener-neeeeeeeener. :-P

hadenough wrote on January 24, 2008 12:17 PM:

"facemn wrote on January 24, 2008 12:10 PM:
Anyone who denies the Clinton's will not say or do anything to win an election needs to look at the facts."

Anyone who denies obama will not say or do anything to win an election needs to look at the facts:
http://facts.hillaryhub.com/

wwjb wrote on January 24, 2008 12:18 PM:

The LA Times poll is an outlier, it doesn't fit with any of the other polls on general election matchups. The majority of the polls, and common sense say that Hillary will still get killed against McCain.

You also overlook the fact that elections are in large part a get out the vote contest, and NOTHING will get out the Republican vote more than shooting down Hillary (and in turn shooting down every Democratic candidate down the ballot), and Independents are still much more likely to go to McCain than to Hillary. That alone pretty much spells doom for Hillary, but every fallacious negative attack and every lie and dirty tactic that comes from the Clinton campaign further divides the party, and increases the number of Democrats who will either a) refuse to vote for her on principle, or b) won't refuse, but just won't be moved enough to take the time to go vote.

Hillary vs McCain is a losing battle, and if we give her the nomination, I'll be back here to tell you "I told you so". It is on your head.

Bupalos wrote on January 24, 2008 12:20 PM:

John, I'd say that's misleading. Bill was in the background through Iowa and she got crushed there. He took over right after that, and she hasn't lost since. I think the Clinton camp is right on this one, Bill is a "liability" only if you think winning NH and NV were liabilities.

The polls you are going back to are basically pre-campaign polls, where it was simply name recognition. And I could note that her name recognition (and her name) actually belong to her husband too.

Bill is Hillary's biggest asset.

Genghis wrote on January 24, 2008 12:20 PM:

John McCutchen wrote on January 24, 2008 12:11 PM:

Hill When She Did It For Herself
Pres '08 (D)
Oct 24 LAT/Bloomberg
Clinton 48%, Obama 17%, Edwards 13% ...

After Bill Took Over
Pres '08 (D)
Jan 23 LAT/Bloomberg
Clinton 42%, Obama 33%, Edwards 11% ...

Uh John, you're conflating correlation and causation there.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 12:20 PM:

Dear Angry Vet,

I think that you will make a fine lawyer (said in all sincerity, no snark intended). That was a very good, very convincing pitch for Sen Clinton. If I were not so far gone for Sen Obama already, you might have even won me over with it.

katie wrote on January 24, 2008 12:20 PM:

Ha..so Obama-like. To just deny the facts presented to you.

Hillary will be McCain, because she has the gravitas to go toe to toe on National Security, and you know..she doesn't fall apart and stutter during debates.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 12:21 PM:

People on the left who would give us the Clintons again are left's moral and intellectual counterparts to the people on the right who delivered us Bush.

They're not paying sufficient attention to sort out blatant dishonesty from swiftwater-style charges, so they align themselves with dynastic familiarity and simplistic rationalizations.

bob wrote on January 24, 2008 12:23 PM:

BIG NEWS: Zogby is showing Hillary in third behind John Edwards in South Carolina!!

That's the real reason she's back in the state!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/24/53711/6490/195/442194

Jay wrote on January 24, 2008 12:24 PM:

"because she has the gravitas to go toe to toe on National Security, and you know..she doesn't fall apart and stutter during debates."

No, she just votes to authorize one of the biggest historical clusterfucks in American History. That's all.

to wrote on January 24, 2008 12:25 PM:

Don't trust the polls in SC any more than the polls in NH. Part of the bogus expectations game.

If Obama wins by a narrower margin than predicted, it looks like a defeat for him.

If Clinton wins, it looks like an upset and a killing blow to Obama.

Poll numbers, particularly filtered through the media, cannot be trusted.

Bruce wrote on January 24, 2008 12:25 PM:

Just a point of information for "bob" at 12:02 pm, who told us that "Gail Collins is new to the NYT, moron." In fact Gail Collins was the editorial page editor of the NY Times from 2001 until the end of 2006, and before that was a member of the editorial board and an op-ed columnist. She took some time off in early 2007 to write a book before returning with her current column last July. She is very far from being "new to the NYT" and though not quite at the Maureen Dowd level (who is?) has long been an important figure in the Times' depiction of the Clintons.

I'm not sure if "bob" is a moron, but he is at least badly misinformed about Gail Collins and the NYT.

katie wrote on January 24, 2008 12:27 PM:

jay-
She's perfectly set up for a general election run against John McCain.

What appear to be detriments in the primary, are assets (that Obama doesnt have) in the general.

Thanks for proving my point for me though.

malarson2 wrote on January 24, 2008 12:27 PM:

It’s the electability, stupid. Democrats, please pay attention: Hillary cannot win the general and that is the ONLY point worth putting out at this crucial moment of the primaries. Don't get distracted or side-tracked: put every other piece of info, scrappy fight, comment by surrogates, squabble, newspaper article, blog, story and propaganda-filled speech aside. Its not about race or gender or policies or change or experience. You only need to know ONE piece of information to make your decision: no candidate can win a general election that is not supported by half of her own party. Keep your eye on the 11/08 ball before it’s too late. She is the only thing that will rally the struggling Republican Party. Tell every Democrat and Independent you know: a vote for Hillary is a vote for John McCain, HIS war in Iraq and an economy that will not recover for a very long time. Why does the DNC not recognize this? We are running out of time to put an end to the eight, and I now fear 12, years of negative and never-endingly bad mojo and the moment to do something about it is right now. So stop talking and go out and do something. One simple first step? Email The DNC and tell them how you feel about the way The Clintons are leading our party and running their campaign. http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues . Pass it on.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 12:28 PM:

The truth is, the fact that Obama, a freshman African-American senator with a funny name, is able to compete at all with the Clintons, is a testament to his message and his leadership, and is a clear sign that Democrats, and Americans in general, are ready for change and fresh leadership.

I almost agree with you there. I think that what has become clear over the past few weeks is that 1) the Clintons are formidable contenders and 2) Obama is a worthy opponent to them. The derisions that Sen Obama is "whiny" or "not ready for prime time" seem glaringly at odds with the evident reality of the extent to which he has put the Clintons on their marks. It was not long ago that this race was supposed to be little more than a cake walk to the coronation, so the fact that Obama has created this much of a challenge to Clinton's candidacy stands as a testament to his enormous political talent. He will likely make a very strong candidate for us sometime down the line if (as seems not unlikely) he does not take the nomination this time.

That said, I cannot say that his performance "is a clear sign that Democrats... are ready for change and fresh leadership." If it were, he would be winning outright, not running a close second. We may have to resign ourselves to the prospect of Clinton as our standard bearer (unwise a choice though she might be) and if so, I hope that folks will dispense with this nonsense of never-vote-for-Clinton. Our country cannot bear another four years of war-mongering and budget deficits. We need a democratic president, even if not the precise one we had originally wanted.

katie wrote on January 24, 2008 12:31 PM:

Wow--those Obama guys are real uniters eh?

"A Vote for Hillary is a vote for John McCain." "Tell every democrat you know"

Is that because you threaten to vote for McCain if she wins?

I can't wait till she wins and you guys do just go away.

Jay wrote on January 24, 2008 12:31 PM:

"She's perfectly set up for a general election run against John McCain."

Actually she's not, since many of the Independents supporting Obama most likely will gravitate towards McCain.

"Thanks for proving my point for me though. "

Whatever makes you sleep better at night, scooter.

dcshungu wrote on January 24, 2008 12:32 PM:

Michael A wrote on January 24, 2008 12:06 PM:

Too funny gail collins is a hillary-hater also. Every single person who won't vote for clinton or who doesn't like the nasty, lying politics that she is employing is a hater. It's a sad statement about america when 51% of the population are just blind haters. They just hate, hate, hate. There obviously cannot be any thought or analysis or logic. They just hate, hate, hate, because they aren't in love with and in awe of clinton.

Gotta love those clinton resortation party talking points. If she gets the nomination, I vote for changing the democratic party name to the clinton restoration party. It sure isn't the democratic party.

This election is going to leave you in a sadder mental shape than you were in when the campaign kicked off (if that is even possible), especially if Hillary wins; the psychotrauma might send you over the edge. Should you maybe take a few days off from all of this...?

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 12:37 PM:

According to the new polls that came out yesterday and today show that obama is slipping and hillary and edwards are gaining ground.....

I think Hillary just might pull it off and win south carolina too:) pull off a new hamsphire victory again this time in south carolina:)

Go Hillary!!!

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 12:37 PM:

She's perfectly set up for a general election run against John McCain.

From your lips to God's ears. From my vantage point in MO the reality seems entirely the opposite, but hopefully this just indicate the myopia of my viewpoint. I would much rather be wrong about this than have the dim consolation of saying "I told you so..." at Pres McCain's innauguration.

ShutupNvote wrote on January 24, 2008 12:38 PM:

Senator Obama on his voting button problem wlefare funding "I was not aware that I had voted no," he said that day in June 2002, asking that the record be changed to reflect that he "intended to vote yes." of course it dose not change the actual vote just the say anyhting both ways possibilty.

A noun a verb and an anti Hillary slur and thats it no there there. It is Obama who has the oops I pushed the wrong button I really meant to vote the other way, voting present instead of yeah or nay many times as the only Representative doing so and the famous I would have voted against it had I shown up for that Iran vote, I believe you are confused on the candidate willing to do and say anything to get elected or buy the home of his choice.

Yes yes I am sure his voting record is all Bill Clintons fault…My suggestion for Senator Obama is start talking about his own record the noun a verb and anti Clinton slur crying victim routine isn’t playing well in voter land maybe on cable pundit land but we think they are BAFOONS

Angry Vet wrote on January 24, 2008 12:39 PM:

Greg D-

Scary, huh?

Too bad we don't get HRC backers like that around here.

In the meantime, What I see Obama doing is a "desparate" push to regain control of the media, if only to put a seed of doubt into the on-going media narrative.

Do I think HRC is trying some sort of under-current race baiting by describing this primary fight as an "African-American primary?" I don't know. But the media sure likes it.

I think in that regard, we should blame the media (huzzah) instead of the Clintons. The MSM are the ones eating campaign memos up as if they were the truth. The campaigns are merely doing their job, trying to play a game of chess in order to secure the nomination.

Elections are real-world applications of Game Theory, folks. If they weren't in it to win it, they wouldn't be campaigning.

And, my guess is, as long as neither BO or HRC has reached the 2025 threshold (or whatever it is) to secure the nomination, you can bet your bottom dollar that JRE will stay in it. Why? He still has a chance to win, or put a little more accurately, still has a chance to win "something" out of the process.

The question going forward then, for everyone (and not a continued argument about which campaign is better, etc.) is how many delegates are actually going to be secured by all of the candidates.

This is impossible to figure, because, if I am not misinformed, every democratic primary/caucus apportions delegates on a proportionate basis. So, were Obama to cut HRC's leads in CA and NY to something within 5 points, with a still viable Edwards around 15%, he can still secure the nomination.

The delegate battle continues. Does anyone have numbers on where the candidates stand right now with cash-on-hand?

dcshungu wrote on January 24, 2008 12:42 PM:

Obama camp after SC debate: "Hillary is ignoring South Carolina." Obama camp now: "No, cancel that"..."Hillary "Pulling Out All The Stops" To Win South Carolina." How amateurish...

Obama had better win this thing on Saturday by at least 10% or it will be perceived as a loss. Moreover, he will need to attract a large percentage of white voters or else the ensuing narrative will emphasize how SC blacks put him over the top so much that going forward, the contest will become racially polarized, as white/Latino voters line up behind Hillary to "balance" the black vote for Obama. Obama will become the "black candidate and the result would, of course, be the beginning of the end for him.

Michael A wrote on January 24, 2008 12:42 PM:

You are too funny dc. I can't figure out if you are projecting or in denial. Too funny.

Greg D, you are correct, she will not win any swing states against mccain. If she gets the nomination, we could be looking at a mccain landslide and senate seat losses. Clinton people are in completely in denial, but they sure like to keep repeating ad nauseum the clinton party talking points.

Genghis wrote on January 24, 2008 12:42 PM:

OK, Angry Vet. I'll bite. Funny that none of the Clinton supporters on this thread could muster a cogent argument themselves.

Senator Obama's "message of hope, of change" are little more than emotional appeals that feel REALLY GOOD, but will have little effect on the way he governs.

Yes, it's an emotional appeal, but that's not a bad thing. The most inspirational presidents (FDR, JFK, and yes, Ronald Reagan) have been used emotional appeals very effectively to push policy. HRC doesn't do emotional appeals, and that would hinder her ability to sell her policies.

That said, emotional appeal isn't sufficient and can be used in very negative ways (the most extreme example being Hitler), so I agree that Obama should do more to communicate his goals as president, other than "unity". On the other hand, what are Clinton's goals? Her policy goals that I know about are virtually identical to Obama's policy goals that I know about. Obama at least has the outlines of a vision.

Hillary has the capability and the connections to have 527 support across the country, in a way the Democratic Party has never seen, and in a way that can compete for airtime with the 527 hit machines we can expect of the GOP.

I think that Obama has amply demonstrated his fundraising abilities, and his accomplishments are even more impressive since he had no prior national political machine.

Does Hillary fight a dirty campaign? Yes, but so does everyone else, in their own way. And especially so, the GOP.

I think that Rovian tactics helped the GOP in the short term but hurt the country and has ultimately bitten them in the ass. Obama is correct that such tactics breed cynicism. He does get dirty in his own way but not to the same degree as Clinton. I do agree that Clinton's willingness to fight dirty would help to get her elected, but her unpopularity among independents and moderate Republicans would overwhelm any electability advantage this might provide versus Obama.

And personally, the recent stuff she's been pulling has disgusted me to the point that I've moved from a tepid Obama supporter to a strong advocate. I'm really hoping for an Obama - McCain battle, which I believe would be the cleanest, most issue-oriented election in recent history. In contrast with a Clinton - Romney battle, which would be a ugly mudfight and deepen the already profound political cynicism of the country.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 12:45 PM:

Too bad we don't get HRC backers like that around here.

Indeed. Come to that, too bad we do not (by and large) get Obama backers like yourself. The overwhelming majority of the partisans on both sides are simply making cheap-shots at each other. I find more and more that I can hit the "page down" button two or three times before I find a comment worth reading.

Why the, I hear you ask, do I continue to follow this blog? Well, I have an NIH grant deadline coming up, and thus I need something with which to occupy my procrastination window until the deadline looms so near that I am forced to compose something worth reading. That is to say, I am a glutton for punishment.

Darrell wrote on January 24, 2008 12:45 PM:

A MUST READ....

Zogby Poll had obama at 43%, clinton at 25% and edwards at 15%

Today: the same poll has obama at 39%, clinton at 24% and edwards at 19%

obama drop 4% between yesterday and today, were edwards has gain 4% and clinton has lost 1%... so it seems that edward's is stealing votes from obama and might help hillary out because the arg poll know has obama only winning south carolina by 9%..... 9% ain't much.
so edwards could help hillary win south carolina by stealing obama's supporters.

frankly0 wrote on January 24, 2008 12:46 PM:

Anybody who doubts just how much the editorial board of the NY Times has its knives out for Hillary should read the editorial it spat out after Hillary won in NH.

I've never seen a more graceless trashing of a winner in a primary from a major national editorial board, with the possible exception of that pillar of sober judgment, the WSJ editorial board.

These people are filled to their waxy ears with bile; they just can't contain it or themselves. The editorial is simply remarkable for finding something that absolutely no one in the entirety of the commentariat could locate: the supposed fact that Hillary won because she ran an "angry" campaign. (Even the cretin Maureen Dowd had the good sense to credit Hillary's "moment" as being a key, though Dowd found other ways to release her ugliness).

And the Clinton hatred at the Times goes way, way back -- at least as far as their fully discredited and shameless stories about Whitewater.

What arrogant, vindictive, incompetent pieces of work these people are.

dcshungu wrote on January 24, 2008 12:48 PM:

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 12:37 PM:

From your lips to God's ears. From my vantage point in MO the reality seems entirely the opposite, but hopefully this just indicate the myopia of my viewpoint. I would much rather be wrong about this than have the dim consolation of saying "I told you so..." at Pres McCain's innauguration.

The only chance the Dems have to take over the White House is for us to nominate Hillary. Obama, for all the hype, would lose, and lose by a landslide...really. Hillary would win nearly all the state that Kerry won and then AR, and she is POTUS. I do not see a trajectory that takes Obama to the WH against ANY Repub candidate...again, really.

Joyce wrote on January 24, 2008 12:48 PM:

Katie,

As a woman who is the same age as Hillary, my question to you is:

Why would a woman who is claiming to be looking out for "women's rights" and claiming to be so strong be so dependent on he husband to win an election? Why can't she do this on her own?

It appears to me this woman wants it both ways. If she is the "independent" woman she claims to be, then she should be able to stand alone and win.

Real Deal wrote on January 24, 2008 12:49 PM:

Greg,

I think it was JOHN EDWARDS who criticized Hillary for not spending time in SC to campaign, not the Obama campaign...I saw it reported on CNN yesterday...He was at a rally or town hall meeting and he pointedly asked the audience..."If she is not in the state now, do you think that she will be coming back to the SC after the primary..?
Implying that if she's abandoned the state now..she certainly won't be returning to campaign for the general election...

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 12:49 PM:

Gail Collins gets it ...Bill never will

Now, Bill’s role as Chief Attack Dog undermines all that. If he’s all over her campaign, he’s going to be all over her administration. Instead of the original promise of the thoroughly educated Hillary, we’re being offered the worst-case scenario — that the pair of them are going to return to Pennsylvania Avenue and recreate the old Clinton chaos.
A lot of people are O.K. with that. (After all, we’ve lived for seven years with a disciplined Oval Office that runs like clockwork while it spreads chaos everywhere else.) Only it’s not change, it’s not a breakthrough moment in American history. It’s just a nervous decision that we’d rather go back than risk going forward.
It’s a story, all right, with Bill at the center. If Hillary expects anybody to get misty-eyed about the first woman president at the inauguration, she’s got to send him home and go back to the original plotline.

to wrote on January 24, 2008 12:51 PM:

dcshungu -

Where'd you get your crystal ball? WalMart?

Genghis wrote on January 24, 2008 12:52 PM:

This is impossible to figure, because, if I am not misinformed, every democratic primary/caucus apportions delegates on a proportionate basis. So, were Obama to cut HRC's leads in CA and NY to something within 5 points, with a still viable Edwards around 15%, he can still secure the nomination.

AngryVet, I've been predicting an Edwards kingmaker role for a long time, I still think that it could happen, but the other thing to consider is that there is a 15% threshold, where a candidate who doesn't hit 15% in a district gets nothin'. This is going to knock out a lot of potential delegates for Edwards. Someone on another thread pointed out that because of this, his best strategy is to focus on a few Feb 5 states where he's most popular, and get whatever candidates he can.

I think that he'll have more leverage if he drops out sometime and endorses someone (presumably Obama) after Feb 5 while the race is still open. His endorsement would also give a media bounce for Obama.

And I'm really hoping that SC results serve to propel Obama upward in NY in CA. He's moving up in both places, but he's still way behind. He's got to get some gains soon if he's going to pull this off, even with Edward's endorsement.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 12:56 PM:

I think that Rovian tactics helped the GOP in the short term but hurt the country and has ultimately bitten them in the ass. Obama is correct that such tactics breed cynicism. He does get dirty in his own way but not to the same degree as Clinton. I do agree that Clinton's willingness to fight dirty would help to get her elected, but her unpopularity among independents and moderate Republicans would overwhelm any electability advantage this might provide versus Obama.

I agree with this but I would also like to expand on it a bit. The Rovian approach has not proven to work in the long-term interests of the GOP, but it cannot work even in the short term interests of the Democrats. To be brief, Air America was never as successful as FOX or Limbaugh. The Republicans endorse an agenda which can be made into an us-vs-them frame and sold in 10 second sound bites. Our own goals and vision for the country cannot. They seek the narrow advantage of a particular establishment status quo; we seek the commonweal.

As such, the attempt to give beat the Republicans at their own game will never work. It concedes home-field advantage to them, and thus while we might win a match or two in that scenario, we will always end up with a losing season (witness Bill Clinton's eight years of ceding ground to Republican goals).

Our best hope at achieving our ends is to force the terms of debate back into a frame of cooperation. This cannot be done at the level of the government itself, but must be accomplished at the level of the voters. We must convince the electorate that narrow partisanship is not desirable, and one does not make that pitch by campaign as the more capable partisan. Obama is positioned to set our party up for a longer-term advantage. Clinton is simply playing to win the next match, not the whole season. It will be regrettable indeed if we miss the opportunity presented to us in this choice.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 12:56 PM:

THE ONLY WAY OBAMA CAN FILL SURE THAT HE IS GOING TO WIN SOUTH CAROLINA IS HE HAS TO REACH ATLEAST 50% OR MORE IN THE POLLS.

i think he might lose because new poll data has him slipping in the polls with only 3 to 15 % leads and south carolina is round around the corner.

Alison wrote on January 24, 2008 12:57 PM:

Obama has slipped a few points but still maintains at least a 13 point lead.

Clinton has DROPPED one point.

The one who has the mini-momentum is John Edwards, who may very well overtake Clinton for second place. Boy would I like to see that !

BluePuppy wrote on January 24, 2008 12:57 PM:

katie, please keep posting. The Hillary Derangement Syndrome here is out of control. We need sane voices like yours.

Angry Vet wrote on January 24, 2008 12:58 PM:

Greg D-

I hear you on procrastinating. That's exactly why I write on these blogs as well. Speaking of which, good luck on your grant. I heard NIH's are a major pain in the ass.

In the meantime, I noted someone put out a Zogby poll today. It still astounds me that people do not recognize the margin of errors at all in polls. Or between polls. Just ridiculous, really.

Typical Obama supporter: "Your candidate is suckier than my candidate."

Typical HRC supporter: "Your candidate is as sucky as my candidate."

Typical JRE supporter: "My candidate is still viable!"

I guess that explains about 90% of the comments posted on these boards.

One interesting note, as always, to Hillary supporters. Can you explain all of the polls we have seen where Obama has spiked within two weeks of any given contest? Look to the right and explain to me in terms of Iowa, NH, SC, NV, and now, CA and FL.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 12:59 PM:

Clinton ad criticized for attack on Obama

Her commercial juxtaposes his quote with Republican policies Obama has never advocated.

DILLON, S.C. -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign aired a new radio ad in South Carolina on Wednesday that repeated a discredited charge against Sen. Barack Obama in what some Democrats said was part of an increasing pattern of hardball politics by her and former President Clinton.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-clintonad24jan24,1,2955098.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Bo Duke wrote on January 24, 2008 12:59 PM:

katie wrote: katie wrote on January 24, 2008 12:31 PM:
**
Wow--those Obama guys are real uniters eh?

"A Vote for Hillary is a vote for John McCain." "Tell every democrat you know"

Is that because you threaten to vote for McCain if she wins?

I can't wait till she wins and you guys do just go away.
**
What this means Katie is that hillary is not a viable candidate to most Americans.

Your final sentence sounds like something a Bush supporter would have said prior to the last two elections. Pathetic that the cult of hillary rivals the cult of bush.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 1:00 PM:

Hillary would win nearly all the state that Kerry won and then AR, and she is POTUS.

Nearly all? In order for the picture you paint to end in her winning, she needs to win all those states, not nearly all. For my part, I have real doubts about her prospects in MI, WI and PA. Not, mind you, that I know that Obama would win. I am simply not at all convinced by the confidence of Clinton supporters such as yourself on this score (although I would be delighted to be wrong).

Zipcode wrote on January 24, 2008 1:01 PM:

Did not!
Did too!
Did not to infinity!
Did too infinity doubled!
You HillaryHaters and BarakBashers most assuredly deserve your candidates and each other.
Unfortunately the rest of us don't deserve either.
How about you all go running off to a deserted island and spend your time doing shots and voting each other off?

Genghis wrote on January 24, 2008 1:06 PM:

The Rovian approach has not proven to work in the long-term interests of the GOP, but it cannot work even in the short term interests of the Democrats. To be brief, Air America was never as successful as FOX or Limbaugh.

DeLassus, I agree to a point, but I also think that liberals have just not done it as well. I mean, c'mon, Air America?

I think that the best example of dirty progressive stuff is MoveOn.org, which has been pretty effective. It's not of course as dirty as, say, Swiftboat Vets, but it ain't clean either. And we're great when it comes to comedy news.

dcshungu wrote on January 24, 2008 1:08 PM:

Joyce wrote on January 24, 2008 12:48 PM:

Katie,

As a woman who is the same age as Hillary, my question to you is:

Why would a woman who is claiming to be looking out for "women's rights" and claiming to be so strong be so dependent on he husband to win an election? Why can't she do this on her own?

Simple, Joyce: Because of women like yourself who have been conditioned into thinking that it is ok for a woman to stand by her man but it is not ok for a man to stand by his woman. If it is okay for Elizabeth Edwards or Michelle Obama to go on teevee and be vocal in support of her husband, why does become "Hillary is depending on her husband to win the election" when Bill goes on teevee and gets vocal in support his wife? Your conditioned inferiority complex is the "problem"; it has nothing to do with Hillary. When she goes to debate the boys, she is on her own and she has kicked ass, and, surprise!, Bill was not even there!!!

Please do not insult all women by projecting your own shortcomings about what women can or cannot do onto Hillary. She has bigger balls than most guys and she can do it on her own. The inside story, in fact, is that she is the smarter of the two. Bill has an intuitive political mind but is totally undisciplined. Hillary is the girl in your class who always did her homework, was very disciplined, always on time, had all the answers, and, consequently, unnerved all her classmates, boy or girl... That is Hillary, the presidential material par excellence...

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 1:10 PM:

I think that the best example of dirty progressive stuff is MoveOn.org, which has been pretty effective.

Effective in what way? What goals has MoveOn.org achieved? That was not meant rhetorically; it was a serious question. I am trying to weigh the merits of your argument and I am afraid that I do not know enough to decide whether or not they are convincing.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 1:11 PM:

to wrote on January 24, 2008 12:51 PM:

dcshungu -

Where'd you get your crystal ball? WalMart?

Yup, and paid for it with some tainted dough from Antonin "Tony" Rezko, too...

Fe wrote on January 24, 2008 1:14 PM:

This reminds me of what the Clinton campaign did at Yearly KOS in August.

Says she wasn't going to make it to the one-on-one candidate forums after the general session with all the candidates (to much hissing and booing), THEN suddenly changing their minds and showing up, scheduling their one-on-one BEFORE the general session with all the candidates, thus able to scoop all the news media outlets to cover her session, making her look in the MSM like "She's answering to the netroots!".

They like to play to play the expectations game, and are good at it. The Obama campaign is wise to it, thank God. The Clintons play the press, and us, like nobody's business.

td wrote on January 24, 2008 1:15 PM:

He reminds me more and more each day of Larry Birkhead.

John McCutchen wrote on January 24, 2008 1:15 PM:

Uh John, you're conflating correlation and causation there.

On purpose.

Is it a spurious correlation? Are the NH and NV results truly persuasive or did Bill make a difference, if at all, at the margins?

Just saying Bill's an asset without more don't make it so and until someone teases a better inference out of the polls, the correlation stands tall

Michael A wrote on January 24, 2008 1:15 PM:

I actually disagree that moveon.org is effective. In fact, I think that the organization has caused more harm than good in some of its tactics, like that stupid Petraus ad. As opposed to dealing with the lies and distortions of the administration and its lacky, the dems were on their heals dealing with republican attacks about the stupid ad. In some ways, moveon.org is the republican's best friend and rallying cry. In the end, they have accomplished nothing except draw attention to themselves and raise contributions.

roo_P wrote on January 24, 2008 1:19 PM:

Good tactic. What is the Clinton campaign going to say, "No, we do not care about SC?"

Angry Vet wrote on January 24, 2008 1:19 PM:

Genghis-

I was pretty busy so I couldn't answer you earlier. And really, your comments were a pretty effective rebuttal. Also, i have difficulty arguing from a position I don't agree with.

However, as for "dirty progressive acts" by MoveOn.org, what?!?! Are you bringing up the "petraeus ad?"

Personally, they were right. According to my sources in the military, Petraeus is right up there with Schwartzkopf- Not to be trusted unless it is for their self-interest.

Trust me, I had a hand in cleaning up Petraeus's mess he created in 2003 up in Mosul.

So how is MoveOn underhanded?

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 1:21 PM:

Dear Michael A,

That is my impression of MoveOn.org as well, but to be fair I do not pay them much attention except when they are covered in the news. It is possible that they have quietly achieved more. I was hoping that Genghis could expand on that, because I might need an education. If their Petraeus ad is typical of their accomplishments, however, then I am really sticking to my guns about my earlier contention that dirty pool works better for the other guys than for us, and that we are ceding them the advantage in agreeing to play in that muck.

Aaron M wrote on January 24, 2008 1:23 PM:

Angry Vet,

Thanks for your (earlier) willingness play devil's advocate and provide a level-headed argument for Sen. Clinton's candidacy- and for encouraging civilized debate.

Having said that, there are several large holes in your argument. And though I understand how people could (and do) base their decision to support Sen. Clinton on similar types of thinking, the argument you make does not hold up when looked at more closely using both best available evidence and reason. (And I am sorry this post is so long, but there was a great deal to respond to in your post.)

First, in discussing the candidates' political experience, you (understandably) spin Clinton's in the most favorable light, and Obama's (and Edward's) in the least favorable manner(using statements not based in truth). You state that Obama " never really gave a damn about issues having to do with poorer people while he was a senator?" I mean, I understand that you are trying to make Sen. Clinton's record look good in comparison; but this is absurd. Granted, Obama does not have the longest US Senate record, but the one he does have is one of the most progressive in the Senate. And speaking of bills that hurt poor people, it was Sen. Clinton who voted for the Bankrupcy bill, that would have had a very negative impact on the lives of the less fortunate in this country.

For a better idea of what Sen. Obama accomplished while in the U.S. Senate, I'd refer people to this post from Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html

And of course, Obama has more years of experience under his belt as an elected representative/legislator than Sen. Clinton, and has clearly fought for the poorest and least fortunate Americans his entire life- and demonstrated results while doing so.
Please see the following links for more information:

As a community organizer:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/archive/barackobama/

As the leader of a historic voter registration drive: http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-1993/Vote-of-Confidence/

As Illinois State Senator: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

Second, you state that "everybody" is fighting a dirty campaign. It is very easy to engage in a "pox on both houses" argument, but less easy to actually provide evidence to support that claim. And unfortunately, the "pox on both houses" analysis represents the most common narrative adopted by our traditional media- which is too lazy and too obsessed with being "fair" and "objective" to report on campaign’s any other way. This narrative also favors the Clintons, who already have a reputation for engaging in dirty tactics and dishonest attacks. However when Sen. Clinton does it, she is seen (often times) viewed as "tough" and best able to take on the Republicans; however, if Obama hits back- even if accurately (as he did in the last debate, though perhaps not effectively)- he is viewed as abandoning his campaign of change and hope and a better politics.

Looking at the evidence, it is clear that the Clinton campaign, especially since Iowa, has engaged in repeated dishonest attacks.
On Obama's pro-choice record:
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/12/disparagement-o.html

On Obama's record of opposition to the war in Iraq: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/obama_and_iraq.html

On Obama's comments about Reagan and Republican ideas: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/obama-v-clinton.html

These examples do not represent simply political "spin" but blatant and purposeful acts to deceive voters of another candidate's words and record.

To summarize, I do not believe that Sen. Clinton has the better experience (particularly since her experience did not prevent her from making the wrong decision in 2002 to give the President the authority to go to war in Iraq; a decision that has had disasterous consequences for our country and Iraqis).

She does not (at least over the 7 years in Congress) have a stronger commitment to Obama on progressive issues, and again, her foriegn policy in particular, (where an American President tends to have the greatest influence) is decidely hawkish and wrong headed (see again, 2002 Iraq War vote, and 2007 Iran vote).

Both Sen. Clinton and Bill Clinton have repeatedly demonstrated that they have no problem with being dishonest and misleading voters. And if people believe that lying to the American people is acceptable or a preferred characteristic of our leaders, well then that is the politics of cynicism right there in a nutshell.

John McCutchen wrote on January 24, 2008 1:25 PM:

Real or Memorex?
(too young to remember the ad??? days of tape recorders)

NH-Pres (D) Nov 13 NYT/CBS Clinton 37%, Obama 22% ...

NV-Pres (D)
Nov 14 CNNClinton 51%, Obama 23%, Edwards 11%...

The point of the exercise, since so many seem to have missed it is simply this - before Hillary's narrow wins in NV and NH the pundittoheads and indeed from inside the Hillary camp, an endless stream of SHUT BILL UP, then with these two wins suddenly Bill is Hillary's biggest asset?

Bill's role in the campaign suggests that his impact is at best dubious from the objective poll evidence and as Gail Collins points out, intuitively as well, inasmuch as Bill may well have put paid the myth that Hillary is qualified to be president in her own right

p_lukasiak wrote on January 24, 2008 1:26 PM:

The fact is that while it looked like Clinton was going to skip South Carolina, she's since changed her plans.

(from an edwards supporter-- no dog in this fight)

um... the Obama supporters need a reality check. When it was first reported that Hillary would not be campaigning in SC until this Friday, and that she was "abandoning" the state, the Clinton campaign immediately released a statement saying that she was coming back to the state on Thursday, that she was not abandoning it, and that Bill and Chelsea would be there campaigning on her behalf.

In other words, the campaign is doing exactly what it said it would do.

The Obama supporters really need to stop paying so much attention to the media hype about the Clinton campaign, and instead concentrate on what the campaign is actually saying and doing.

Genghis wrote on January 24, 2008 1:32 PM:

I knew the MoveOn comment would get me into trouble. I have no problem with MoveOn criticizing Petraeus, but "General Betray Us"? That's almost Limbaughian.

But I was thinking more of 2004. Here's what factcheck.org has to say about them:

Moveon.org This anti-Bush group ran more than $20 million worth of ads, many of them containing distorted claims. One of them implied that fully automatic assault weapons firing 300 rounds per minute were becoming legal with Bush's blessing, when in fact machine guns have been illegal to own without special federal clearance since 1934, and still are. See "A False Ad About Assault Weapons " from Sept. 14 for just one example of Moveon's distortions.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to muzzle MoveOn.org. I'm glad that Dems have at least one decent attack dog on our side. But they're no paragon of thoughtful, accurate debate.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 1:38 PM:

Dear Genghis,

It seems to me that you have two fights on your hands here vis-a-vis MoveOn.org being dirty but effective. You have pushback from Angry vet about the "dirty" half and pushback from Michael A and myself about the "effective" bit. So far, the only two specifics I see are the "Betray-us" ad (which was hopelessly counterproductive, as it gave the Republicans a distraction with which to change the subject about Bush's staggering incompetance) and a distorted ad about assault weapons which obviously did nothing to get him booted out of office. In other words, whether or not they are comparable to FOX or Limbaugh in terms of "dirty," I still see nothing to convince me that they are any more effective than Air America. Near as I can see, my point still stands - this approach does not work as well for us as it does for the Republicans.

Genghis wrote on January 24, 2008 1:38 PM:

Michael A. wrote

I actually disagree that moveon.org is effective. In fact, I think that the organization has caused more harm than good in some of its tactics, like that stupid Petraus ad.

I agree that the Petraeus ad misfired. Again, I was thinking of 2004, when Rove and the swiftboaters were going after Kerry. I have no evidence to back it up, but it was my impression that the MoveOn ads were clever and aggressive, if often inaccurate. As I've argued, that's harmful to the party in the long term, but helpful in getting your candidate elected. Not that it was enough in Kerry's case.

Genghis wrote on January 24, 2008 1:46 PM:

Yeah, I'm getting double-teamed like Hillary.

I'm actually going to bail out of this b/c I have too much work to do, and I'm really talking out of my ass more than usual when it comes to MoveOn. But in brief answer to Greg D, there's this from a blog by Ari Berman at the Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=131132

But MoveOn has been effective, which is the real reason it is attracting so much scorn from the right. The Free Enterprise Fund admits as much. "Before MoveOn.org's ads [Congresswoman] Thelma Drake in Virginia had a 9% point lead," the fundraising letter states. "This race is now dead even."

Michael A wrote on January 24, 2008 1:53 PM:

I'm with Gregg D on this one. I don't see the effectiveness and it looks to me like moveon.org is more interested in self perpetuation than effectiveness. Also, the claim that it is "effective" because it attracts attention from the right is kind of disingenuous. I submit that it is effective for the right to draw attention for their benefit to moveon's antics.

Again on that stupid Petraeus ad, moveon was estatic because it got a ton of contributions arising from the ad. It didn't care that it torpedoed the dems in congress with the ad, just that it got attention and contributions. That really is pathetic in my book.

TheraP wrote on January 24, 2008 2:01 PM:

Thank you, Joyce - I agree:

"It appears to me this woman wants it both ways. If she is the "independent" woman she claims to be, then she should be able to stand alone and win."

blackstar wrote on January 24, 2008 2:02 PM:

frankly0,

Yeah, we know that she hates Hillary, like everybody else at that smug, self-righteous institution, the NY Times.

--------------------

what was that bit about "right-wing talking points"?

OxyCon wrote on January 24, 2008 2:04 PM:

Is this Obama's idea of "hope" and "a new Washington"?
Because the message Obama is sending me is one of "despair" and dirty attack/win at all costs politics.
So much for Obama's "Hope"
He's nothing but a fraud.

BernieO wrote on January 24, 2008 2:14 PM:

I so impressed that Obama is a above politics as usual.

chuckle wrote on January 24, 2008 2:27 PM:

"will say anything" to win is not an argument, it is a whine.

al75 wrote on January 24, 2008 2:27 PM:

I've long felt that any of the top three Dems running would be great in the white house, but Hillary's substance-free distortion of Obama's remarks on Reagan show an ugly side to her.

This kind of garbage is best for the Republicans. Hillary oughtn't to be picking up their tactics.

Brad wrote on January 24, 2008 2:35 PM:

Ok, not to throw a curve ball and take the long view, but if the Democratic Party implodes during the primary and our badly damaged nominee loses in the general, who will we have to run in 2012? That's something I'm starting to be concerned with since there's not much of a bench out there that I can see.

Michael A wrote on January 24, 2008 2:46 PM:

Jim Webb. We'll still be stuck in iraq and americans and iraqis will be dying on a daily basis. The economy will be in even more turmoil and we won't have healthcare. Webb will be running against mccain or mccain's vp in 2012.

CallMeADreamer wrote on January 24, 2008 2:57 PM:

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 12:56 PM:
"As such, the attempt to beat the Republicans at their own game will never work. It concedes home-field advantage to them, and thus while we might win a match or two in that scenario, we will always end up with a losing season (witness Bill Clinton's eight years of ceding ground to Republican goals).

Our best hope at achieving our ends is to force the terms of debate back into a frame of cooperation. This cannot be done at the level of the government itself, but must be accomplished at the level of the voters. We must convince the electorate that narrow partisanship is not desirable, and one does not make that pitch by campaign as the more capable partisan. Obama is positioned to set our party up for a longer-term advantage. Clinton is simply playing to win the next match, not the whole season. It will be regrettable indeed if we miss the opportunity presented to us in this choice."

Positively brilliant! I wish all Feb. 5th primary voters would get this message.

Greg DeLassus for President wrote on January 24, 2008 2:58 PM:

if the Democratic Party implodes during the primary and our badly damaged nominee loses in the general, who will we have to run in 2012? That's something I'm starting to be concerned with since there's not much of a bench out there that I can see.

Good point. Perhaps I should seize this opportunity.

My fellow Americans, I have heard your call and I will answer. I have called this press conference to announce my candidacy for the office of President of the United States of America in 2012...

Brad wrote on January 24, 2008 2:59 PM:

Not sure that Jim Webb would run since he’s more independent, but I think having a more rugged, salt-of-the-earth candidate would pay dividends in rebranding the party. We desperately need to get away from candidates who are too easily tied to 60s era activism.

Michael A wrote on January 24, 2008 3:05 PM:

Well, I'll vote for you Gregg D.

You're right Brad. I really like webb and he'll be running against mccain the way things are looking. Webb is a verifiable un-swiftboatable war hero. Also, he was against this horrible war from the start and his economic policies are very populist. Webb in 2012, of course if Gregg D doesn't make the cut.

DeLassus for President 2012 wrote on January 24, 2008 3:28 PM:

... while I may not be old enough to meet the constitutional requirements right now, I promise to be over 35 years of age by 2012. As such, I promise to meet all of the requirements set by the constitution for the office of the President. Moreover, as the only declared candidate, I can confidently assert that I am by far the best qualified candidate in the race, on either side!

I promise, if elected, to withdraw our troops from Pres McCain's ill-considered invasions of Iran, North Korea, Libya and Venezuela. I further promise to smile with good-natured indulgence when the news-media mispronounce my name, and also to change the national anthem from the totally unsingable "Star Spangled Banner" to the much more melodious and overtly patriotic "America the Beautiful." Finally, a vote for me is a vote against George P Bush, Pierce Bush and Chelsea Clinton.

With your support, my fellow Americans, I promise to lead this nation into a warmer, brighter, more francophilic future!

Wendy wrote on January 24, 2008 3:28 PM:

Thanks Clintons for making Democrats look like the party of dirt. You just had to drag everyone down with you.

Michael A wrote on January 24, 2008 3:57 PM:

You have my vote Gregg D. I just hope that your post isn't a premonition.

amber wrote on January 24, 2008 4:55 PM:

The Clintons truly are the two-headed beast with Obama as St. George. Or, as a TPM analysis put it Obama is the David to the two-headed Goliath that is the Clintons.

td wrote on January 24, 2008 7:13 PM:

This has got to be the funniest campaign I have ever witnessed! Obama cries foul and runs to the media
with his complaints. Clinton cries foul and runs to the media with her complaints. Obama cries I was misquoted!!! Imagine that, misquoted in an election, by an opponent, not only that but in the media too!! Who knew!! We are now on, what, our 3rd or is it 4th Reagan quote clarification? Our 20th or 40th 'fairy tale' story, clarification? He said, she said, they said, we said, yada yada yada.

Now we get a 'memo' on Hillary 'pulling out all the stops to win South Carolina'! Wow this is really 'breaking news'! It's called campaigning! Did anyone at TPM read this memo? I'm getting tired of all the 'memo's', please stop the memo's!!

As if the candidates and the media aren't behaving silly enough, one can always turn to their supporters for more comic relief. Best I can figure is if Obama gets the nomination the good democrats on Hillary's side 'Will NEVER vote for him" and if Hillary wins, the good, lifelong democratic (l just love that one-lifelong!) Obama supporters 'Would NEVER vote for her I'll vote McCain". When in fact a real lifelong democrat would NEVER vote for a republican EVER.

As Edwards said, we need a grown up!! TPM should be that grown up and stop this before this whole election implodes. We should all take the advice given to Bill clinton....CHILL!!!

Doug in Virginia wrote on January 25, 2008 1:18 PM:

katie said:

"I can't wait till she wins and you guys do just go away"

Well, there's a real classy Clinton supporter.

You damn well better hope the Obama supporters don't just "go away" or you'll be eating crow and mourning the election of President McCain.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)