"if media coverage, pundit opinion, and insider chatter among Dems is any guide"

What a joke, right? The media coverage (including this site), etc is almost boastfully pro-Obama. So, why is this even a question?

Dumbest question ever.

Good post Greg.
I predict a 40/60 split in the namecalling. (Clintonlover/Obamaite)

Frankly, I think Obama's losing. He's coming across as increasingly whiny.

Or, put another way, I'd guess a lot of men are thinking a lot less of him, now that a woman's kicking his butt around.

Interesting perspective, Greg. Very inside-baseball stuff. We'll see how this pans out.

I am starting to realize that Obama is really the man for me.

I never wanted to cross over.
But I realize that my beligerence is getting in the way of making
a choice that is right for America.
And the more I think about it, I did not like Bill Clinton
wagging his finger in my face.
What he does in his own bedroom is his buisnees (sic)
But even I don't like being lied to.

The first several paragraphs of this post are based on the mistaken premise that Obama's negative attacks should be as troubling as Clinton's. This is a silly trap that the media often falls into.

Candidate A launches a series of dishonest attacks, Candidate B responds sharply by suggesting that Candidate A is demonstrating a pattern of saying anything for political purposes, and you treat them the same. This is not objectivity, this is false neutrality. From a self-proclaimed media critic, no less.

Additionally, you mistakenly believe that both campaigns are pushing the "they're victimizing us" narrative. I don't think that's true. It's an Obama narrative, in part because the facts tend to support it. The Clinton narrative, it seems to me, is that Obama is too weak/inexperienced to engage in these nasty fights with Republicans. This narrative may also be taking hold, and the question is which one will be able to move more votes into the preferred column.

What is "going negative" about lamenting your *opponent's* negative attacks (and then correcting her blatant distortions of your record)?

You can try all you want to create the impression that both sides are throwing mud, and that the best we can do is throw our hands up and say "all's fair." It won't work. The Clintons have crossed the line. And you're right there with them.

Try to maintain some professional dignity, would you?

Right now -- if media coverage, pundit opinion, and insider chatter among Dems is any guide -- it's hard not to conclude that Obama is winning this particular spin war handily.

Here's what I want to know, though. Is that the correct guide to be using? You're trying to determine who's winning a spin war, but to do so you're looking at the spin-- the media. But this is an election, so it isn't the media who decides who wins the spin war-- it's the consumers of that media who matter, because they decide the spin war based on which of the media's transmitted spins they ultimately buy. Normally the assumption would be that media consumers will come to the same conclusions the media itself did. But we've already seen that assumption failing at least once this nomination cycle, with at least one primary having hinged on voters explicitly rejecting the media narrative of that moment.

How do we tell whether the public is in sync with the media narrative now?

And even if we knew who won the spin war, how many normal people are actually going to be basing their votes on which of the two candidates is a bigger "victim"?

It is just such stupidities out of Hillary world and her skirt hangers that leaves me with contempt for her and your shallowness.

You are right about the whiny tone. It is really grating. Republicans are not going to worry about hurting his feelings or seeming unfair. And to make this a rhyme, I will end with: "grow a pair."

Greg you partisan hack! How dare you engage in analysis and give your opinions rather than unabashedly cheering for my favored candidate!

Okay, seriously, that was a very interesting analysis. Not sure I agree with all of it (which, apparently, we're all required to say explicitly now upon penalty of having our complete agreement irrebutably presumed), but interesting.

I do agree, however, with the posters noting that how it looks to the D.C. insiders is irrelevant. The real question is how it plays out with the voters.

What is "going negative" about lamenting your *opponent's* negative attacks (and then correcting her blatant distortions of your record)?

You can try all you want to create the impression that both sides are throwing mud, and that the best we can do is throw our hands up and say "all's fair."

Indeed, Clinton may have won the "spin war" already just by having introduced the question of whether Obama or Clinton is being more of a conventional politician. Even if the equivalence between Clinton's attacks and the Obama camp is absolute nonsense, the Obama camp now has to spend time fighting that equivalence that could have been spent on other things.

I do find it awfully weird that the best argument it seems like the Clinton camp can muster in their favor at this point is "he's just as bad as I am!" ... um, congratulations?

The Clinton's know Obama's winning this one. They trotted out Carville this morning saying "Obama needs to quit his whining!". Pray-tell me Jimmy! Are you advising Obama for his own good or Hillary's?

Ahhhhh yes, now here come the Hillbots saying "The media is sooooooo anti-Clinton and sooooooo pro-Obama" which I guess is why the media favors coverage of the Clintons' attacks so much more than coverage of Obama's defenses (oh, wait, "whining" is apparently what "Democrats" are calling it now when someone responds firmly to false allegations with facts...could have fooled me, I'm pretty sure that kind of bullshit was a Republican backup plan - think Kerry v Bush/Cheney). I guess that must also explain how Hillary has managed to run exclusively on an "experience" argument since the beginning of the campaign, and there has been absolutely ZERO serious discussion in the MSM about what that "experience" really includes, how fluffed it is, and how it compares with the experience of the other candidates. And until recently, there has been no real talk of the lies the Clintons have been spreading about Obama. Obama has been countering these lies since they started, and it probably took him a hundred responses before the media was forced to take a little notice (and it is just a little notice, I doubt there will be any major media exposure of the Clintons' lies and dirty tactics). Anti-Clinton media my ASS. This is just like the goddamn GOP and Fox News people whining about the "liberal media" that doesn't exist. The Clintons owe their entire campaign to the media's willingness to dutifully not ask questions and not report on anything that would really hurt Hillary's chances.

It's not "spin" if it's true. Clinton's have campaigned extremely aggressively (or dirty, depending on your point of view) and Obama has been forced to deal with this. It still helps the Clinton's because any time spent by Obama away from message is good for Clinton since her message gets trounced by his head to head. But there is no doubt by anyone paying attention who is instigating this campaign tone. And I think there are probably a lot of people paying attention lately.

And the more I think about it, I did not like Bill Clinton
wagging his finger in my face.
What he does in his own bedroom is his buisnees (sic)
But even I don't like being lied to.

Tapper, do you think all of your friends tell you the truth about their sex lives?

Way to give equal time, you jerk. Glad to hear all about what Clinton operatives Zimmerman, Carville, (and let's not forget Sargent) think.

None of you get it. This isn't a contest of who can convince voters that they are the real "victim." Indeed, Obama isn't playing "victim" at all. And in some ways, this has NOTHING to do with Obama, except insofar as he and his campaign is finally *directly* confronting these dirty campaign tactics by calling the Clintons out on them. Finally joining the chorus of people who have long been standing up and saying we have had enough of the Clintons and their politics of destruction.

Yes, that strategy is being directed *at* Obama right now, but that's beside the point. To be willing to direct it at *anyone* says a lot about you as a person. That's not my president.

You are dangerously close to out-thinking yourself on this one, Greg.

Try the original Swift Boat ads, they were brutal. They suggested a true war hero was unpatriotic and a coward. They made up heinous lies and trotted out old vets to repeated them over and over.

Oh, I'm sure that Greg and all the other members of media will decry similar Republican attacks on Obama, should he become the Democratic nominee. And when they're finished with that, they'll decry them again.

And Obama will collapse in a heap, having been assisted on media crutches to the Democratic nomination on the idea that no Democrat should dare attack such a noble man.

Greg,

I am an Obama supporter, and welcome the view here. But there's too much spin, even some unintended. How would you characterize your own preferences?

Second, what's up with SurveyUSA? They always seem at odds with any other set polls?

Angry Vet and NCSteve you have both completely lost all creditibility. How can you in any way defend this nonsense Greg is spewing?

Folks. You can help push back against the Clinton lies by forwarding these youtube clips, especially the first two:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILVLzbBcs8A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJK3x66gaww
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os-j-zLqYp8

Oh, I'm sure that Greg and all the other members of media will decry similar Republican attacks on Obama, should he become the Democratic nominee. And when they're finished with that, they'll decry them again.

And Obama will collapse in a heap, having been assisted on media crutches to the Democratic nomination on the idea that no Democrat should dare attack such a noble man.

I don't follow your logic. If the media is inclined to help Obama refute dishonest attacks, isn't that going to help in the general election? If they're inclined to portray the Clintons as dishonest hacks, isn't that going to hurt them in the general election?

"if media coverage, pundit opinion, and insider chatter among Dems is any guide"

Seriously?

Seriously?

REALLY?

Is your memory shorter than NH?

But who is winning in the minds of the voters?

For this voter, Bill's heavy involvement in this race raises troubling questions about what, precisely, will be his role in the White House? I don't really want a return to the late 90s, and I don't want a constant spotlight on what Bill is doing.

And it also raises the question of who will be Hillary's running mate? Who's going to want to sign on as Veep in what will probably be a co-presidency? For everyone about to flame me for that question, if it's not going to be a co-presidency, then why the tag team behavior during the primary season?

Finally, for everyone predicting that poor little Obama will just faint away, how will Hillary answer questions about Bill? And Bill's lying? Whatever the Republicans do to Obama, they'll be able to (with media complicity) to absolutely shred Hillary. It's not even close.

frankly0,

yeah, the media is always so highly accurate and impartial about assessing the Clintons. We'll see what the voters think...

Oh look, Clinton's lead is growing in FL:
Mason-Dixon Poll Jan. 21-23,
Clinton 47 percent
Obama 25 percent
Edwards 16 percent
Kucinich 2 percent
Others 11 percent
Undecided 10 percent

and Obama has lost some tracking poll ground to Edwards in SC, while Clinton's has stayed the same:

Candidate 1/21-23 1/20-22 RCP 6-poll Ave.
Obama 39 43 41.8
Clinton 24 24 30.0
Edwards 19 15 15.4

I'm not sure if a spin war can be said to be 'won' if it costs you votes.

So uh what is it about the statement "Hillary Clinton will do and say anything to win" that is so negative, and for that matter not true?

I mean we're talking about a couple (and with Clinton in the whitehouse you get both, not just one) that passed NAFTA, DADT, DOMA and welfare reform as well as being responsible, in a large part, for the republicans taking over congress. They did that to win the next election.

Seriously, those two will do and say anything to advance themselves and THEIR power. It's not about the Dems and what WE want

Greg,

Why is any of this surprising? Obama has always been the darling of the main stream media and most liberal blogs including the TPM. Of course you would all spin everything in favor of Obama. Fortunately, very few Democratic primary voters are falling for this. Don't overestimate the importance of MSM and these blogs to affect the opinions of real voters. If that were true Obama would have won New Hampshire by 15 points, no?

re: Obama losing ground (dropping four points) while Clinton's has stayed the same...true, but she's dropped by six points from time 1, while Obama has dropped by 2 points. She has stayed the same. Firmly in second place...although Edwards appears to be creeping up.

No one's winning this spin war.

But the Democratic party is losing. Typical.

We have about 24 hours until the next scripted pre-primary Clinton meltdown.

Alert the Charleston EMS.

That's fine. But if the Obama campaign is winning the spin war, why is their lead in SC diminishing?

This comment would have a lot more resonance if it weren't immediately to the left of that Pollster.com weighted poll average showing Obama's SC lead continuing to increase...

I don't follow your logic. If the media is inclined to help Obama refute dishonest attacks, isn't that going to help in the general election? If they're inclined to portray the Clintons as dishonest hacks, isn't that going to hurt them in the general election?

Look, it's possible, but not likely I think, that the media could come down so hard on the Clintons over their relatively tame attacks that it will help Obama win the Democratic nomination. In this way, they will have served as a temporary crutch for Obama's campaign.

But the media will, I predict, be absolutely helpess in protecting Obama from truly damaging attacks from the right - as it has proved to be in the past. The right doesn't care about the media, and gets out its own very effective message in its own way. (Now I actually think Obama would win anyway, given how much any Democrat has the wind at his back. But his Presidency itself may well have been dealt a fatal blow in the process, with his negatives going sky high).

But if Hillary wins the nomination, it will be one well organized, hard hitting campaign up against another. The media will decry and decry and decry, but will have to do so against both sides, effectively removing themselves from the equation. But the Clintons will likely prevail in the contest, knowing how to fight fire with fire. And their clout, I predict, will remain intact, because they have been through this before.

frustrating some Clinton advisers who insist that Obama has managed to go negative on Hillary -- such as in yesterday's ad -- without being tagged in the same way.

I love this elision, in which telling a lie (which is what Hillary has done) is morally equated with saying "you lied" (which is what Obama has done).

Um. They're different.

Duh.

Who will cry this time?
Hillary or Bill
Or Both
Sure Penn is polling

Greg, the Obama ad came out today! So how was WaPo supposed to cover it in today's story?!

As a state senator, Barack Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting my successful bid to get more than $14 million from taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens.

I think Obama is winning the propaganda war, and it's often astonishing how he gets away with it. But, then I see Jack Cafferty opining with his Hillary Hate and Chris Matthews spewing his venomous diarrhea, and the overall media coverage of Hillary v. Obama is clearly negative towards Hillary Clinton. Yes. Hillary Clinton has a political machine. But, that's because she and Bill Clinton have been working for several decades with Democrats in government. Barack Obama is on the record using so many right-wing talking points, I'm not even certain that he's a Democrat:

He thinks Reagan was more "transformational" than Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon. (Note. It's not the Reagan comment that galls; it's the lumping of Clinton and Nixon, and the dismissal of the first 2-term Democratic President since FDR that galls)

He goes on Christian Broadcast Network and implies that HIS supporters won't vote for Hillary Clinton. Well, his supporters aren't DEMOCRATS; They're REPUBLICANS.

He says Social Security is in "Crisis" a clear right-wing talking point.

He says he doesn't take money from Lobbyists; but he has 9 lobbyists bundling money for him, listed at Public Citizen.

He has maligned Hillary Clinton's National Security credentials (posted at Politico.com.)

He's taking PAC Money, says he doesn't take PAC Money.

He's using 527s to run ads in Nevada, right after he attacks John Edwards for the same thing.

He's run "Democrat for a Day" campaigns so far in Florida, Nevada and California, imploring Republicans to register as Democrats for a day to vote for him in the primaries.

Barack Obama is not a Democrat from what I've seen; he's a Republican. The question is, why are Democrats supporting a Republican for President?

Hey tony, do you have clinton's senate voting record? No, well why don't you go play at hillaryis44.org. You'll like it there.

"bob wrote on January 24, 2008 4:55 PM:
Greg,

I think you are getting too meta here. This is an odd way to cover this issue.

A better way would be to first decide whether the Clintons' attacks are true or false.

If the Clintons' attacks are not true, then it's not a spin war."

Hey bob that's a great idea. I think this one might even be better: first decide whether the obama attacks are true or false.

If obama's attacks are not true, then it's not a spin war.

Heard a Clintom supporter (White House Counsel 97-2000) on talk radio this morning. When he was asked if Obama was going to win South Carolina he said (paraphrase),

"Yes, the african American community is very proud of him and they are 50% of the vote."

That is going to be the Clinton spin machine next week - Obama won South Carolina cause blacks voted for one of their own. Funny enough, Dick Morris wrote an op-ed earlier this week saying that this will be the Clinton camp line. Now, Dick Morris is about as objective on his former bosses as Newt Gingrich, but he knows those folks better than anyone.

>>>But the media will, I predict, be absolutely helpess in protecting Obama from truly damaging attacks from the right - as it has proved to be in the past. The right doesn't care about the media, and gets out its own very effective message in its own way>>>

Apologies from a mild Edwards supporter that probably will tend to Obama if he drops-- but I hear this line all the time and it is so chickenhearted I can't stand it. It sounds like the ramblings of an abuse victim. The "right wing machine" is just so devastatingly effective that no one can escape it's omnipotent grasp. So let's nominate their pre-damaged goods for them, at least they can't beat us anymore without us just dying.

This is your rationale. I can't believe fighting John can't pull more numbers than he does, but when I see the mentality, I get it.

Sheeesh. Grow a pair. The insane right are abusive losers who's lease just ran out.

I reread this post, and it's still just very odd. I don't get what you are trying to say or do here.

Is Obama supposed to not admit that the Clintons seek to mislead people on his record? Both in statements they make, especially Bill but also Hillary at the debate, and in the mailers?

What happened to the outfit that pioneered the idea that if you report on a claim, meta style, you also report on whether the claim was true or false in the first place?

Flat out, in each of these meta narratives, the Clintons have started the tit for tat with a LIE. So report it. Hillary's claim that Obama said Reagan had "good" ideas, and her ad based on that, is a LIE. Obama's rejoinder that this is a llie is the truth. If you want to go meta, and obviously you do, start there.

Spoke with my barber today. She's a Hillary supporter, and she thinks Bill should back off (or, to put it in her words, "Go back to the kitchen and bake some cookies.")

And what did we learn from the media prior to New Hampshire? They don't like the Clintons.
They know that Bill is pretty effective and they want to sideline him. So, if I were the Clintons, I'd ignore the media.

FWIW, there are a lot of people in the left blogosphere that are zealous Obama supporters. They are here in overwhelming numbers. but just because they are overrepresented in the blogosphere does not mean that they represent the same proportions of voters in real life. What they see as the media winning the war is seen by many of us as Obama being a candy-ass who can't take the heat.

I love Wal-Mart! I kiss the behind of corporate America. I love the big pharmaceutical companies and bow to the health care industry, in fact I'm the biggest recipient of their payola! (cackle, cackle, yuk, yuk, yuk.) After they smashed my health care drive when I tried to be president in Bill's first administration, I decided that if you can't beat 'em, join them-and join them I did.

But most of all I love the U.S. War in Iraq. I followed Dick Cheney because he and Donald Rumsfeld had the most experience to lead America...like me! My good friend Joe Lieberman has that experience too, so I voted for his resolution to give George Bush and Dick Cheney permission to do to Iran what they did to Iraq.

George Bush had executive experience as governor of Texas like Bill did in Arkansas and seven years in the Oval Office like me...I mean, Bill.

The public is used to 7 years of bush lies. They are more sophisticated about being subjected to propaganda. People can see with their own eyes and make up their own mind. Irrespective of spin or talking heads.

You see that on both sides. The repub party regulars don't like McCain or Huckabee, but who do the voters go for?

On the Dem side people have an inherent sense of fair play. They are used to opponents squaring off against each other. Two against one goes against the grain. And most voters, while willing to see a certain amount of conflict, want fair play. When one side is double-teaming, and that side has a former president, then it's bound to affect how they view the race. If it's bill in the race, then it's not really "the first woman." But Obama is definitely the "first black" - regardless of how the clintons want to spin it.

I honestly think voters are given too little credit here. Let the public speak! And don't assume they are a bunch of chickens to be herded by talking heads or even bill clinton!

Speaking of media bias, Greg Sargent is really getting obnoxious with the headlines and overall shilling for Hillary.

Hmm.... could it possibly be that this isn't about David and Golliath so much as it's about fact versus fiction.

The Clinton camp has continued to push - hard - blatant falsehoods and mischaracterizations about Sen. Obama and his voting record. Even after contradicted by the record, the media, other Democrats, and Obama himself, they continued to push the nonsense.

Maybe it's just caught up to them?

As for those who think that there is "blatant Obama support" on TPM, I need only refer you to the way TPM defended Sen. Clinton (and Bill) during the period of all their racially-charged attacks on Sen. Obama. In fact, arguing that the Obama campaign is playing the victim by trying to defend their campaign from these falsehoods is anything but "supportive." (To many, I'm sure, it's more than a little insulting).

Yup, Obama's winning the spin war to cast himself as a victim.

... and that's supposed to make me want to vote for you why?

It's no victory to be seen as the "victim" when you're running for President.

Victim=defenseless loser.

What an absurd angle.

Sargent writes:
Whatever the media's role in this, the fact that this narrative is taking hold can be chalked up to two other factors. The first is that the Obama campaign's very conscious efforts to frame the race this way are working. The second is that this Obama effort has gotten a big assist from the strategic downside of having Bill play such a prominent role. In short, Big Dog's entry, whatever its upsides, has made it far easier for Obama to carve out the role of victim for himself.

What about the fact that - just sometimes - one side is actually saying something that is, you know, closer to the truth?

Obama winning the war to be painted as a victim? Then he's losing the election.

Anonymous at 4:28:

Ordinarily, I'm not terribly interested in defending my "cred" with people who hide behind the "Anonymous" nym, but, given my increasing tendency to post anonymously by accident (accident, negligence, whatever), and the way you addressed me and Angry Vet personally, as if we should know you, I'll respond.

What part of "Not sure I agree with all of it" did you not understand? The part where I said I wasn't sure I agreed with all of it? Or was it the fact that I thought it was "interesting" that you found it so objectionable?

Well, dammit, it was intersting. Greg had a take on what the campaigns have been up to over the last several days that I hadn't considered. He's absolutely right that Obama's people have adjusted their strategy and I think he's right that the press is currently adhering to Obama's preferred narrative by focusing on her biggest polling weakness.

On furhther refelection, I do fault Greg's analysis for not commenting on the extent to which the Clintons are losing this media battle because they are, in fact, acting like lying assholes, the worst possible thing Clintons could be seen to be doing by the MSM if they wanted to win a media fight.

But his reporting on the reaction of the Clinton camp was fascinating. On one hand, they seem to be reacting to changing circumstances more adroitly than they did back before Bubba knocked Penn off the stool. On the other, the complete lack of any awareness that they themselves may bear some responsibility for the negative reaction is revealing. With them, its always "oh, woe is us, the media hates us, the media's against us, what, oh what have we done to deserve this?, poor, poor, pitiful us, they love that phoney Obama and hate us for no good reason at all." The possibility that they bear any responsibility themselves doesn't even occur to them. They sneer about "St. Barack" but, in their minds, they truly think of themselves as being pure as Ivory Soap and lament that anyone could question them for doing whatever is necessary to secure their noble ends.

So, yeah, in trying to be neutral and purely analytical, Greg's necessarily missing (or choosing not to comment upon) the role that the Clintons actually being more in the wrong than Obama is playing in the dynamic.

But Greg's analysis was, in fact, interesting because he made me focus on the extent to which Obama's campaign is consciously driving and directing that coverage. That's something no one else in the MSM seems to have picked up on yet. Out in the MSMosphere, they all seem blissfully unaware of the extent to which he's driving their narrative. They really seem think he's just a hapless innocent who's been hit by the Clinton Lie truck and they're all tut-tutting sadly over his innocent ineptitude, all the while focusing on Hillary's lack of trustworthiness, which is exactly where Obama wants the focus to be.

To my mind, that's the best possible response to the constant refrain of "ooohh, just wait til those big, bad, scary Republicans get their hands on him, then it'll be all over for him" we keep hearing from the Peronists, er, I mean Clintonists here.

Obama keeps whining - proving he won't be able to handle GOP attacks.
Go Edwards!

We are very aware of Obama's dirty tricks against Edwards in Iowa - running a negative radio ad against "trial lawyers."

Obama's entire "bringing us all together" mantra is a con.

No one in the whole of human history has successfully fought fire with fire. You fight fire with water.

Deep.

Of course he's winning the media war as to who is the victim. But guess what- I think Democrats want someone aggressive like the Clintons- it's like- "Thank Goodness- we finally found a candidate (Hillary)who actually wants to win the Presidency instead of one who will go cry in defeat but will claim some sort of "high road" when they lose- we want to WIN this time, and the Clintons know how to WIN. STOP WITH THE LOSER MENTALITY. Get on the A-train, vote CLINTON!

Obama's winning the spin war because his "spin" has more truth to it. Proof: His framing of the situation is supported by many more journalists, blogs and pundits, while the Clinton's framing is almost universally derided.
A lot has changed since Lee Atwater devised the Southern Strategy, not least the blogosphere, which functions as a "War Room" the size of the Mall of America. Every press release, viral video, and comment by a second cousin twice removed zips through the internet, and the good stuff sticks.
Obama may lose because the great unwashed may still succumb to these 20th century tactics, but regardless, he's still the first real national candidate of the digital age.

blah blah blah blah blah.

HRC is going to easily carry the vast majority of states come 2/5. The question will then be whether the dogmatic/rabid/uncompromising supporters of Obama be willing to get over themselves and work toward a dem controlled congress and white house. Sure hope so.

Here's what I want to know, what exactly did Clinton (Bill or Hillary) say that was untrue or misleading?

I can't believe that anyone has to ask at this point, but here's a non-exhaustive list:

(1) Arguing that Obama's "present" votes on certain abortion-related legislation in Illinois showed his unwillingness to stand up for choice. It's well-known that this was part of a strategy developed by pro-choice forces to diffuse Republican efforts to use abortion as a wedge issue. Certain pro-choice Clinton supporters in New Hampshire have expressed their regrets about this (too little, too late) and the President of Chicago NOW has switched her support because of the dishonest attack.

(2) Claiming that Obama said Republicans have had better ideas or good ideas for the past 10-15 years when he said no such thing.

(3) Claiming that Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq is a "fairytale." To her credit, Hillary seemed to withdraw this claim during the Monday night debate.

(4) Claiming that Obama's Social Security plan would be a trillion dollar tax hike on the middle class. This is doubly misleading. It is based on the false premise that Obama is proposing lifting the cap entirely, and it suggests that the top 6% (less, in fact, because Obama supports a donut) constitutes the middle class.

Winning in the Media Spin War, eh? Great!
Just like Bush in '99-'00, Bush in '04. The media loves John McCain and Ronnie too, and they loooove the idea of getting along with everybody, even if they have done nothing but ruthlessly, and shamelessly subvert what you believe in.

This means "victory" mens nothing other than the shills are with you in bringing Hillary down. Obama would be their next victim, if only he could win the nomination.

I'm embarassed for y'all.

Great. Running for President as the Biggest Victim. Is anyone foolish enough to think this kind of passive-aggressive campaigning will be a winner in the general election?

For all of those who think it is so "unfair" that the ex-president is campaigning for Hillary, remember, Obama knew that this would be the case when he decided to run.

Obviously, Obama calculated that it was a reality that he could handle and one he could even take advantage of. If he hadn't, he wouldn't have run. So when his campaign plays the victim of Bill, it is just one more example of the passive aggressive calculations of the campaign. Because running against Bill, and the supposed "divisiveness" of the Clintons, is the most basic calculation, the most basic position, OF his campaign. It is the contradictory knife at the heart of his message of "unity." When he speaks of seeking unity he means seeking unity with those (mostly outside the party) who hate and distrust the Clintons, at the expense of unity within the party.

The truth is, an ambitious young politician with a resume as short as Obama's probably would have waited awhile longer to run for the Presidency -- if he didn't see unique opportunities in this race; 1) a race in which his strongest, most well-known competition would be a woman (who a sizeable constituency would be reluctant to vote for, for that reason alone), 2) the possibility of using distrust of and animosity toward the Clintons to gather votes from Bush-disillusioned, but Clinton-hating, independents and Republicans.

If the brand name in this race had been a strong, more traditional male candidate -- one with the executive and foreign policy resume of a Bill Richardson, for instance, but much better known to the media and the public and a better campaigner -- Obama would probably not have run this time around.

It was a ballsy calculation -- running a campaign based on undermining the voting public's perception of the only successful 2-term Democratic Presidential administration in the last half a century. But one with an unfortunate downside -- its ugly potential to tear the Democratic party apart. And, of course, the fact that, in the general election, he will not be able to acknowledge the Democrat's most notable modern successes or make an historical argument for Democratic leadership.

Oh please. Spare me.

If you can't stand the heat, GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN!!!

I think that to most of the non-politics-obsessed public, Obama comes across as a sissy for pushing this line.

True, the Obama-fawning media are essentially a wing of the Obama campaign, and are pushing his narrative to the hilt.

But the public -- especially the 60% of them who liked Bill just fine even through the impeachment debacle -- doesn't care, or even really pay attention to what the media think. What the public responds to is the impression made (90% non-verbally and 10% verbally) by the candidates themselves. And the impression here is of a sissy who can't stand up for himself.

"Guess what, we'd be delighted to work towards a Dem white house, and dem comgress. Now a Clinton DLC white house, and an electoral romp for Republicans on the downticket...that we have some reservations about".

I'm no campaign insider, just a regular guy from Minnesota who is closely watching this election cycle. I think this election is going to be about pragmatism as well as the Bush record. I don't see how there is any chance of a downticket romp regardless of the candidate that winds up with the democratic endorsement. I will enthusiastically support Obama if he becomes the nominee but am very concerned that there are ideologues that will poison the waters for HRC regardless of the outcome.

fougasseu wrote on January 24, 2008 6:10 PM: RS - You asked "what exactly did Bill or Hillary say that was untrue"? There are many examples, so let's just take the last 24 hrs., the revelation that Hillary, personally, not through the usual channels - using a surrogate, or the services of a media plant like Richard Cohen - pesonally lied about Obama's pro-choice stance. She...personally...lied. That was the latest revelation. How much time do you have? Oddly, Clinton's True Believers know they lie and don't care, somehow being a Clintonite trumps being a Democrat. Democrats should move on without the Clintonites.

I agree with a commenter above the Greg is showing false neutrality: in other words, "balanced" but not "fair."

Hillary hits Obama by lying. Obama hits back by saying she's willing to lie to win, as evidenced by the lies she's selling about him at this very moment. And Obama is going negative? I don't think so.

Like the rest of the media, you're too caught up in blow-by-blow accounting of he-said-she-said to step back and look at who's telling the truth and who's not. It's time to start.

Objectivity and neutrality do not always go hand in hand.

I'm going to collect Tapper's posts on this board and publish them as modern poetry.

The irony. Obama hammers back at the Clintons and Bill whines about how Obama is whining. This is all out of the playbook that includes 1) the Rove-ian tactic of trying to diminish one of your opponent's greatest strengths (Obama's opposition to the war), 2) Atwater's penchant for greatly distorting the opponent's positions ("Obama just LOVES Republican ideas") and, of course, the old if-the-media-doesn't-lionize-me-then-it-must-be-out-to-get-me canard.

Carville's right. The Clintons will lose this media battle. But not because the media is out to slime them. It's because the Clintons are out to slime everyone else.

NPR doesn't broadcast on my local PBS station between 9 and 3, so sometimes when I am on the road, I'll listen to AM talkradio just to see what's up. However the MSM has been spinning this is playing out very differently on rightwing radio. Obama is uniformly being cast as a whiny wimp who can't cut it in the big leagues. Doesn't bode well for overcoming the partisan divide. Fact is there is a large segment of this country who will never be won over by his style of politics and manner of delivery. Pretty much all republicans and many Hillary supporters. So don't delude yourselves about hope. He's hopeless.

Yes, who is winning in the minds of the voters:
http://www.pollster.com/08-US2-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

The Clintons have intentionally chosen a strategy that is going to be unfortunate for them. The slash and burn style is fine, but, to coin a phrase, live by the lie, die by the lie...

Lee Atwater
Bill Clinton
Karl Rove

What do these three have in common?

They tear apart democrats for sport!

"Obama Winning Spin War Over Who's Victim In Campaign'

But losing the election.

Yes, he is winning the "who's the biggest victim" war.

Meanwhile, Hillary is convincing the voters that we need a fighter to kick Republican butt in November, not a whiner. He is becoming very unattractive in his petulant moaning about fairness.

La Wanda wrote on January 24, 2008 4:43 PM:
Goodness gracious....why do working people, blue collar voters upport the Hillary and don't care if Bill speaks out, because unlike blogs and media, our lives are not a video game...... Get out of the heated or air conditioned offfice once in a while and break a sweat...

I dont know if this is an insult or not but the reason why working class support the clintons is because all this holier than thou crap does nothing for us. However the clintons have done something for us. My children have Health Insurance because of HILLARY. I am getting a bigger tax return because of a larger earned income credit because of Clinton, I was able to return to college and complete my degree because of increses in the pell grant, Child care funding, My dead beat cousin had to get off her but and get a job when Clinton sign the welfare reform bill. THe reason we support the CLintons. WE DONT HAVE TO BELIEVE IN CHANGE---WE SEEN IT ALREADY

Can't go call the other candidate a whiner then turn bright red and whine about the media.

Maybe Obama is winning what the story characterizes as a spin war because his "chosen narrative" is in fact correct, and voters are realizing it.

Because the candidate that seems like the biggest victim wins??? This is the kind of loser mentality that keeps us out of the White House

Greg Sargent says "Obama Winning Spin War Over Who's Victim In Campaign"

Such shameless spin from Greg Sargent.

For most thinking people , Obama is winning because he is telling the TRUTH.

Greg's post wrongly assumes that Obama and Hillary are starting from the same place, so if Obama seems to be coming out slightly more sympathetically in the combat, he must be coming out ahead. Wrong. The whole "trajectory" of Obama's campaign was about him being a non-politician -- above such pedestrian labels as "liberal" or "conservative" -- a transformative figure. But in his squabbling with Hillary, he has proven the old adage, "never wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig likes it." Obama couldn't afford to come across as just another politician, but that's exactly what's been happening as he gets in the mud with the Clintons. If he's just another politician, he loses all that made him special. And then you're left with comparing him as a politician against Hillary as a politician. Suddenly she looks better if that's the criterion. As proof, Obama's negatives are going way up in South Carolina. They will go up further as more people pick up on his petulantly narcissistic statement he made yesterday about how he knows Hillary's supporters will vote for him if he's the nominee, but suggests ominously that his supporters may not support Hillary if she's the nominee.

As another example, Obama is criticizing Hillary for Bill's involvement, but simultaneously Michelle is becoming more outspoken and active on the stump everyday (she attacked Hillary directly today). That's a tactical error by Axelrod. Obama will lose any high ground on this issue will raise Michelle's negatives before anyone knows her. You never let a politician go negative before you define them on your own terms to voters -- huge mistake. I might add, the notion that Bill should stand down does not hold water -- he's not obligated to stay quiet. He's not a secretary of state running a state election. He's a popular former president and the candidate's husband. It would be bizarre if he said nothing as she was criticized. He stumped for Gore (when reluctantly permitted by Gore) and Kerry and now he's stumping for Hillary. Voters are not shocked. What is more shocking is to hear a relatively unknown Democratic candidate criticize a popular two term Democratic president -- another very dangerous tactic by Axelrod.

BTW, the WaPo article was a hit piece on Hillary. Remember the media wants to keep the battle alive for as long as possible. What are they going to do for the next 8 months if Hillary wraps up the nomination on Feb 5th? Not suggesting it's a conspiracy, but the media loves to target the front runner. Notice how the MSM investigatory stories on Giuliani disappeared once he dropped in the polls and lost the primaries?

Clean your own house, Hillary!
Slumlords for Obama! '08

First, Barack Obama has never claimed to be a victim. It is possible that there is a backlash toward the Clintons among some media but I would argue that this is based upon years of covering them and recognizing when Bill is lying. I think there is a split to some extent that is age based. Ironically, I think younger journalists who did not cover Bill in the 90's are more likely to give him a pass and label his behavior as hardball politics. Among alot of the more experienced journalists like Jonathan Alter, Joe Klein, AB Stoddard etc. who have covered them for years, they recognize Bill's special version of lying and have burned by it in the past have less patience the second time around. Notice that a number of elder statesmen in the department have also expressed their objections to Bill's behavior. They've been down this road with Bill before and are painfully aware of his narcissism and fear that he will put self ahead of party.

According to a new Bloomberg poll:

Clinton leads Obama, 42 percent to 33 percent, down from the 24-point advantage she held in early December. Three out of five supporters of each candidate say they would like Clinton or Obama, if nominated, to choose the other as a running mate... The survey finds that 62 percent of Democrats would like Clinton to pick Obama as her running mate if she is the nominee; 60 percent say they would want Obama to pick Clinton.

For all the talk on Internet discussion boards of Obama supporters who say adamantly that they will not support Hillary Clinton if she's the party's nominee, there seems to be little evidence of this in the national poll: 60 percent of Obama supporters want Clinton as vice president. That's only 2 percent less than the number of Clinton supporters who want Obama as veep. There's a lot more party unity out there than one would imagine based on the TPM rants.

RS -- thanks for taking a stab at listing the Clinton "lies" everyone is fretting about. But I don't think your list proves very much. Here's a response:

"(1) Arguing that Obama's "present" votes on certain abortion-related legislation in Illinois showed his unwillingness to stand up for choice. It's well-known that this was part of a strategy developed by pro-choice forces to diffuse Republican efforts to use abortion as a wedge issue. Certain pro-choice Clinton supporters in New Hampshire have expressed their regrets about this (too little, too late) and the President of Chicago NOW has switched her support because of the dishonest attack."

Sorry, but you're confusing opinion and facts. It is literally true that Obama voted "present" on the votes at issue. Obama claims there was a pro-choice strategy behind it, Hillary claims that his "present" votes show a lack of commitment to the cause (obviously not all the legislators voted "present" like Obama did, some of them had to actually cast votes that counted). This is politics, it's not lying about facts. BTW, Edwards agreed with Hillary's criticisms, does that make Edwards a "liar" too? (For what it's worth, I don't think Obama's "present" votes are a problem, but I understand Hillary's use of them in a political battle).

"(2) Claiming that Obama said Republicans have had better ideas or good ideas for the past 10-15 years when he said no such thing."

Yes he did say such a thing -- he said the Republicans were "the party of ideas" for the past 10-15 years. To call one party the "party of ideas" over another party is tantamount to crediting one party's ideas over another. There was absolutely no lie here from the Clinton's part. Obama should be ashamed of himself for what he said -- he was clearly criticizing the Clinton years, when he should be praising them (no unnecessary wars, low unemployment, low inflation, balanced budgets, lower poverty-rates, etc.).

(3) Claiming that Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq is a "fairytale." To her credit, Hillary seemed to withdraw this claim during the Monday night debate.

Bill Clinton did not claim that Obama's opposition to the war was a fairytale, nor did Hillary (who very clearly said in the last debate that Obama did oppose the war). Bill said that the free-ride the press has given regarding Obama's Iraq positions over the years had been a "fairytale" -- both a much different allegation, and an opinion that is neither true nor false. It is simply not a lie. (Again for what it's worth, I think Obama deserves great credit for having the wisdon to oppose the war from the beginning. Clinton (Bill or Hillary) does have the right to note Obama's positions since his initial opposition, however).

"(4) Claiming that Obama's Social Security plan would be a trillion dollar tax hike on the middle class. This is doubly misleading. It is based on the false premise that Obama is proposing lifting the cap entirely, and it suggests that the top 6% (less, in fact, because Obama supports a donut) constitutes the middle class."

RS, I'll go half-way on this one -- I do think that Hillary has overplayed her criticism of Obama's (and Edward's) proposition to lift the cap. On the other hand, I'm not sure she's lying (determining what constitutes the "middle-class" is subjective), and her "trillion" dollar figure is, I believe, actually based on the figures extrapolated from Obama's proposed lift on the cap.

That said, I think it's very unfortunate that Obama plays into the right-wing game of arguing that there's a Social Security "crisis" that needs urgent fixing (if subjective exaggerations are lies, then that is a lie). Bill Clinton showed that SS can be made viable for a long, long time simply by acting fiscally responsible such that it's not necessary to drain SS funds like we are in these Bush years.

So, sorry RS, but the "lies" you list don't cut it in my view. It appears that those who are pre-disposed to dislike the Clintons are going to see lies and prevarication where they don't exist.

Here's an Obama supporter who will not support Clinton if she is the nominee. I used to respect the Clintons and a part of me wished she would win. Now, all I feel is anger and betrayel about how they are running her campaign. As someone said earlier, we expect the Republicans to act this way, not Democrats.

dolphingirl: Same here. I just wrote to Howard Dean to let him know that Hillary has lost my support. There's NO CHANCE I'll vote for her. Let the DNC know how you feel. They're already concerned about what the Clintons are doing to our party's reputation.

Greg Sargent's just going to have to spin longer, harder, faster

Cause Papa Don't Take No Mess
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCB4NJnGhsM

Isn't the whole Hillary campaign based on victimhood - "I stood by my cheating husband and I am owed the presidency for suufering through the humiliations?"

john mccutchen:

I am continually amazed that Greg Sargent is still working for this blog. I don't know how Josh tolerates his form of biased, sloppy reporting. I've gotta guess he brings the coffee and donuts every day or something...

dottie --

Thank you for pointing out what the youngsters don't understand -- history.

As a small business owner who started my business in the 90s, during the Clinton years, I know the emphasis and support the Clinton administration gave to "entreprenuership," and the programs Clinton initiated to supported it -- programs aimed not just at helping the affluent and ipper middle class, as Republican programs do, but intended to provide to help people who normally wouldn't have any access to the resources need to start a business. When Obama faulted Clinton in this area and praised the Republicans! he was either intentionally telling lies to his audience, or revealing his ignorance of what happened in the 90s. Whichever it was, it was a shameful performance. Both because he was telling untruths, and because he was undermining his own party, and accomplishments that as Democrats we should be proud of, in order to serve his own self-interest.

Greg, thank you for a relatively unbiased column, which is rare here or on the other liberal blogs.

Hillary may have Bill but Obama has the entire white male media. The level of sexism and derision directed at Clinton is mind boggling. The bias, distortion and one-sidedness Greg is noticing now have been going on for a long time, forever. Even Bill Moyers said the NYT should apologize. Jon Stewart was pretty good too.

Obama supporters seem to have surrendered their reason, objectivity and common sense. If someone can look at red and say it is green, there is no point in talking to them. I'm saying what I think, and then like another poster, I'm out of here.

Hillary and Bill Clinton have said and done nothing that warrants the rage expressed at them here.

One of the REAL lies, the BIG lies, is that Clinton is running a smear campaign of lies and corruption. I have been reading this over and over, and it isn't true. Even in the rare cases where the lies (very few I might add) are listed, they turn out not to be lies at all. They are facts people are painting in different ways. The rhetoric is way out of proportion to the reality.

I do suspect this lie is the Obama talking point people have been told to repeat. Throw some mud and it will stick. It is a formula. I supported Bill Clinton for years, but because Hillary said X yesterday I have had it with their lying, smearing ways and I will never vote for her, I will vote for McCain.

The other BIG lie is that Obama is running a clean campaign, the St. Obama myth. In fact he is running a sleazy campaign: Circulating dishonest talking points about the Clintons' non-existent racism,raising the race issue but saying Clinton is, Jesse Jackson's racist sexist remarks, the Culinary union's racist and ugly remarks, implying that Clinton is responsible for the robo-calls, attacking her for flip flopping and will say anything, praising Reagan as more effective than Clinton, and a lot more. Not to mention the dem for a day strategy.

How can anyone who understands what is at stake in this country say they will vote for McCain, or sit out the election? Perhaps your legal personhood is not in jeopardy, perhaps you are a millionaire. Perhaps you don't care about people not as fortunate as you. How can any democrat support a candidate who tries to win primaries by recruiting the votes of republicans who will vote against him in the general election?

Another poster got it right, Obama is running a divisive not a unifying campaign. And so are his supporters. Even if you don't want to nominate Hillary, she is a person of immense intelligence, talent, skill, knowledge and commitment who has spent her life in public service. Your disrespect for her says a lot about you, and nothinig about her.

I was naive I guess, I expected reasonable conversation here.

I just checked to see if anyonebuthillary.com is registered. It is, but it's for sale. So are anyonebuthillary.org and .net. Anyone wanna go halvies with me? If Hillary gets the nomination, I'm writing in Al Gore.

Think about it: if Edwards and Obama lose to Hillary and all the people who have been turned off by the Clintons' filthy tactics wrote Al Gore's name in... I'm just sayin'.

Thanks for your concern over women voters who might be hurt by Hillary Clinton losing. What a crock.

I am Clinton's favorite "all sewn-up" demographic: female, middle aged, Caucasian, well educated, a 30-year Democrat and a feminist. And I would not vote for her if you paid me to. Plenty of intelligent women agree with me.

My vote is going to Edwards or Obama--both if they get smart and run on the same ticket. I will never vote for Clinton. She and her squeaky hubby personify what's wrong in Washington today. They are ambitious, care nothing about poor Americans, and will, indeed, do or say anything to win.

Even if Clinton won the nomination I would not vote for her.

It's overly cynical to suggest that Obama is winning the spin war by portraying himself as victim. What he's saying is that the Clintons' perpetual willingness to bend the truth undermines the public's trust in them, and that is why Bill failed to build a 'working mandate' and why Hillary might fail as well. He has grafted a claim to trustworthiness onto his early pitch that he can unite people, build a mandate for major reform, and thus be a 'transformational' president.

Too believe that "any" politician does not or has not or will not lie, is a level of ignorance that would require the space shuttle to fly over. Jeeze people, doesnt anybody wonder about the prestine image of Obama? I know Obama speaks like Dr.King, but dont be misled, even Dr.King, who I respect for what he did, was not without issues, i.e. plagerism and infedility. I find this re
ally amusing. I am listening to Edwards talk about SC with such love. REALLY, where was all that LOVE when your state was going under? Why are now concerned with the state? You couldve enacted all the things you are promising now, long ago. Dang people, wake up and smell the coffee! And for those who might question my comments, I am Black. I just recognize the truth
no matter who.

I wonder if the posters deriding Obama for being "whiny" and "playing the victim" would feel the same if here were responding to GOP attacks?

She's a liar, her husband is a liar and they're both willing to risk tearing the party apart in order to get what they want. The Clintons disgust me.

Mark F. - when your guy is left along the roadside delivering soaring hope rhetoric regarding issues he has no clue how to turn into action, maybe you can swing on over to the Ron Paul personality cult worshippers. It seems that personality worship is your thing and I'm sure you would make the transition seamlessly.

You can't slip a single piece of notebook paper between the policy positions of Obama and Clinton. Strategies, yes. Policies, no. I support the policy positions that THEY BOTH support and will vote for either should they get the nomination in spite of you whiny punks spouting how you won't vote for Hillary if she's the nominee. You guys make me sick because you elect republicans.

Bon mot...Obama is a liar. There is more Rezko stuff to come but it won't be during the primaries. Who do you think runs DOJ currently?

Yippee....!! oops who wants a victim to run the country?

Obama has got to be the whiniest wussy I've ever seen at the highest levels of US politics. Victim? Oh yeah, whiny baby go cry to Mama.

Jeez this clown is pathetic.

I don't think it is a big mystery why Obama is seen as the good guy here. He has a long way to go before he has brought himself to their depths of manipulation and dishonesty... I find it frustrating that people think the Clintons are being targeted by the media on this issue or that Obama's "spin' has been effective when the Clintons are employing these unscrupulous tactics with such ease and frequency.

If the stories were written more honestly, they'd be about how Obama is acting like a wimp and crybaby. Seriously, you want to be president. Grow a pair!

Mark Kraft, how would I obtain a copy of the police report of their cutting locks off caucus doors? I find this hard to believe that all of the media missed photo ops of this action.

My victim is better than your victim. Neener neener neener!!

So, if you support the "morer victim" does that make you a betterer person than the other person?

Lauren,

Obama, like Hillary, is a politician. He walked a fine line in that interview trying to persuade a fairly conservative editorial board to endorse him, which it did.

It should be patently obvious to you though, as it is to anyone with a 6th grade reading comprehension, that saying the republican's were the "party of ideas" is not the same as admiring those ideas, or advocating those ideas. As you pointed out, he clearly said those ideas had pretty much run their course.

There aren't any journalists who have reviewed Obama's tape and words who think that he was saying anything remotely like what Hillary is claiming he's saying. Factcheck.org, Robert Reich, Jonathan Alter, etc., all think she has stepped in it on this one. She was lying for political gain. Which goes back to my original point, she's a politician. Dissembling is mother's milk.

Hillary made a mistake in going after Obama on these innocuous comments. It now has shifted the debate away from experience, which is her strong suit (God knows why, she has so little of it)to trustworthiness, which is Obama's strong suit. She has made a monumental strategic error. If I were a Hillbot, I would seriously be concerned at this point. To make such a foolish play, when she really has the name recognition and establishment support to eke out the nomination, is beyond me. Since I'm an Obama supporter, that's okay by me.

"Obama is trying to have it both ways. . . He tried to both give Republicans a compliment by saying that they were "the party of ideas" for the last "10-15 years or so."

Are you even aware of where that video came from? It wasn't for broadcast. It was an internal video used during a pre-endorsement discussion with Obama by people over at the Las Vegas Review Journal.

It was for internal use only, as evidenced by the generally non-professional quality of the video... so why would Obama be trying to pander to Republicans, if he had good reasons to believe Republicans wouldn't even see the video?

BTW, the Review Journal staff confirmed that Obama was only talking about transformative politics and politicians, and that he clearly did not intend to imply any kind of support for the Republican Party's policies.

Watch the whole video. Don't take anyone's word. It's the Reno Gazette journal. You go to videos, recent. On that same site is the 1 hour with Hillary interview. Watch them both, side by side, then make up your mind. Transcripts miss the tone and what was said before and after what I think was not a significant moment. For me it was the whole interview that I had problems with.

I don't understand why more people have not seen both interviews and rely on interpertation from others. I looked at them as a job interview.
I wish there were more videos about the other candidates.

I'm a bit surprised at TPM since Josh is generally a little less easily impressed and more discerning than some of the other bloggers--like Kos!

We've been through this before--McCarthy, Hart, Bradley--and now Obama is the progressive du jour. Which is interesting since I don't find him very progressive. (He said nice things about Reagan in his book too--page 31.)

I give Obama credit for politics though. He has played the race card with subtlety and aplomb, and somehow pinned the blame on the Clintons. Pretty deft! (Oprah in South Carolina?)

So Greg... who is winning the ACTUAL "truth" war?

Are you incapable of simply observing the facts and reporting on them?

Of course, both camps are spinning, but whose spin is justified?

You are not prohibited from observing - in fact it is your responsibility - to note who is ACTUALLY the target/victim here, versus who is retaliating.

Were the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "victims" of John Kerry's attacks when he - finally - deigned to respond?

You are hurting the truth with disingenuous reporting like this.

Remember the truth?

If Mr Obama can't handle the Clinton's how the hell is he going to be able to handle the Republicans?
The only reason that Mr Obama is saying that the Clinton's will say anything is so he does not have to say anything of substance.
The man is no different than any other pol.
The New York Times is correct to select
Hillary Clinton over Obama and Edwards. Read what they said in the Friday and Sunday paper.

To win with the pundits is to lose with the voters.

Talking with an Obama supporter about Obama is akin to talking to a Huckabee supporter about God.

Thankfully there are 13 closed primaries all of which Clinton will win handily. And once the full scope of the Rezko scandal breaks then he might as well resign from the Senate. He has gone from being the Boy Wonder to being the Joker, only darker and more evil.

I support Edwards but I have to see Obama as evil incarnate. A panderer. A corrupt politician. A whiner. A centrist who thinks he is a progressive. An empty suit. And worse of all, a bully.

Odd, how quickly history is transposed into the flavor of the day. Carville claims no one ever lost a media battle to Bill. What limited frame of reference is he citing? Sad but true: The Scaife family attacks on Bill were tremendously successful as were the ones by the American Spectator. Which, in part, was why the Republicans swept into power for Bill's second term and, thus, Newt Gingrich often had the upper hand, e.g., Personal Responsibility Act..., balanced budget initiative - something Bill didn't believe in at the time, etc.

In order to pursue what's been called the Third Way, Bill turned to Dick Morris, away from Carville, for the sake of handling Focus-Group strategies that would bolster public relations. Had Bill exhibited the kind of mastery Carville says Bill has, incorporating right wing tacticians for the sake of political expediency wouldn't have been neccessary.

Bill was always under the gun, so to speak, and in the end probably gained more political capital from a general sense of sympathy and pity for being unfairly attacked as opposed to exhibiting media expertise against every opponent. But it was mainly his good ole boy, aw shucks act that won him more points than pointed rebuttals via media outlets.

Also, what he's doing today is different in that he's a surrogate politician and therefore doesn't have the same level of legitimacy when he attacks Obama so mercilessly as he had as a candidate himself. He may be, here and there, winning the battle, but for the Democrats he's surely going to lose the war. Last night's Republican debate was remarkably civil despite the contrasts among the group. It was, well, anti-Rovian.

That brand of civility was going to be the hallmark - a feature Richardson strove for - of the Democrats. But flagrant fabrications such as "Obama liking Reagan's policies" hurts not only Obama in terms of voters who may believe it, and Hillary, for those who don't, but it hurts the Democrats because it represents the kind of brutish, deceptive politics Americans now routinely hate.

Up until recent days it's been pleasantly easy for me to consider how happy I would be with virtually any of the Democratic contenders as the party's nominee. It was even easier once it was clear the nominee was going to be Clinton or Obama -- both are great, I said to myself. Suddenly, though, despite having met her and been impressed in the past, I find myself wondering if I really have any idea who Hillary Clinton actually is. Her clever and so far successful efforts to turn Obama into a marginal "Black candidate" are so creepily Carl Rovian that my earlier warm and fuzzy feeling about her is damn near gone. Plus, despite what some seem to think, the type of aggressive, in-your-face behavior she has shown in recent debates does NOT work well as a presidential style when dealing with difficult issues, foreign or domestic. Obama's intelligence, judgement, style, and yes -- morality -- are looking better every day.

I see two explanations for the vitriol on TPM Obama/Clinton comment threads. One, the participation of a lot of trolls, i.e., people misrepresenting who they are for the purpose of stirring up trouble. Two, Clinton and Obama supporters overreacting, behaving as though this is a junior high school basketball game.

I do find the back and forth between RS and Anonymous regarding Clinton "lies" interesting because they attempt to discuss the issues directly. To RS, I say that the Clinton campaign has is guilty of distortion and exaggeration regarding these issues (Obama’s statements regarding Reagan, Social Security, etc.). Hillary has cleverly avoiding outright lying, leaving wiggle room to claim innocence in her use of words. As a Clinton admirer, I wish she hadn’t done this. Her only excuse would be that Obama has not been fair with her either.

And Obama has not been fair with Clinton. Note this quote by John Petty above:

I give Obama credit for politics though. He has played the race card with subtlety and aplomb, and somehow pinned the blame on the Clintons. Pretty deft!

Obama did play the race card. He allowed his campaign Co-Chair (Jesse Jackson Jr.) to make a direct appeal to African American voters in South Carolina by painting Hillary someone who let the down on Hurricane Katrina. Obama himself call Hillary’s choice of words regarding MLK “unfortunate”, a classic insinuation that your opponent has made a “racial” remark.

I could go on with more examples about both candidates. My point is that supporters of both candidates have plenty to get angry about if they go looking. My personal opinion is that the biggest sin to date is that cited by John Petty. I’m sure that made the Clintons hopping mad. But it does not excuse the Clinton distortions of Obama’s words and record.

I think that there is something in all of this that is relevant to the argument that "If Obama can't take the rough stuff from the Clintons, how can he take it in the general election from the GOP." Apparently Obama can take it, and may in fact be tactically skilled at parrying these kind of negative attacks.

Candidate spin is used in corporate media only to the extent that it serves to support that particular media outlet's underlying bias. The further right a particular corporate media outlet is, the more likely they are to portray Clinton as negatively as possible. I feel that corporate interests in general and corporate media in particular favor Obama because his presidency would best buttress the facade of democracy in the US while posing the least threat to their power. One of the reasons Edwards is so far behind in the race is because he has no corporate media supporters.

Briefly, you equate the Clinton Campaign's 'negative' ad (blatantly misrepresenting Obama's statements on Reagan and the Republican Party) with Obama's ad saying Hillary will "say anything" to get elected - they're not co-equal moves; the utter falsity of the Clinton ad provides the warrant for the Obama ad - i.e., Obama's is not just another negative ad as I see it, but serves instead to identify the nature of the Clintons' tactics.

Michael

It doesn't matter if Obama is winning this battle, he's almost certainly going to loss the war - i.e., he won't win the Democratic nomination.

But it won't be (directly) due to the Clinton's so-called dirty tricks. It'll be because he's so busy getting down and dirty in the mud with the Clintons and pandering to Republicans that will never vote for him (You've got to be anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-free trade, pro-business or pro-small government to seriously attract Republicans)that he's neglected large elements of the Democratic base that he needs:
I.e., working class white democrats and Latinos.

Seriously, Obama needs to remove himself from this crap (and get losers like Kerry to STFU) get back on message. This fight isn't just hurting Hillary. It's hurting Obama too. And worst of all, all Democrats.