The quantity of oppo research done on the Clintons by the GOP must be staggering. They've assumed she'd be the nominee for months. The stuff on Obama is but a tiny fraction, and I'd say we've seen most of it. It didn't stick.

I think Plouffe's point is that the trustworthiness bone is the only or the best bone that Obama (or McCain) could pick with Hillary, it's that it's the only one they've touched so far. They could've gone much harder on NAFTA, could've been repeating the "screw 'em" remarks from the rooftops, could've brought up Hill's hard-right-then-hard-left youth the way she's inject his upbringing into the campaign, but they haven't. Ditto for problems with fundraising in the Clinton White House, questionable pardons begetting money down the road, etc. All stuff McCain will raise and do so with some success. The only way Obama's brought these issues up is quietly, to the press, to make contrasts against some contemporary attack coming his way from Clinton... to point out hypocrisy.

Attack me on Ayers? Isn't this worse?
Attack on Goolsbee/NAFTA? Uh, what about Hill until like last year and Penn shooting the shit with Colombia?
Elite? Here's Bill saying the same thing multiple times and Hillary saying it once or twice, too.

The irony in the Clinton campaign's remarks that Obama's repeatedly called her dishonest is that he rarely does so outside of pointing to hypocrisy in her criticisms of him.

"It's hard, however, to see that as being quite in the same league with the hits on Wright, and now, Ayers."

(Hello, Bill Clinton pardoned two folks from Weather Underground....What is this, the Clinton website?)

"Either way, one thing that's interesting about Plouffe's latest argument...their harsh criticism of Obama is fair game in that it will air out Obama in advance of the general, should he be the nominee."

(Hahhaha...very thoughtful of them. As an Obama supporter I have no problem with Clinton attacking on substantive issues, even personal is okay if its relevant, but come on, she has done some dirty stuff that has hurt the Dems in general, scraping the barrel and lowest-common denominator stuff: Bitter Flap, Ferraro, South Carolina, McCain over Obama etc)

Atleast now she went back on choosing McCain over Obama. Joy, way to be a leader Hillary.

Funny to see that the bitter thing is coming back to her, as is the Weather Underground (so nice of ABC to bring that up and not bring up Mark Penn and Colombia, ahhh well what can you expect, her husband's former staff member was the MODERATOR!!!And by the way, this is all over mainstream newspapers, LA TIMES to be exact.

Thank You! for forumlating arguments (inverses and negatives etc. mumbo jumbo) on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

One other thing. Thanks, Greg, for listening to these conference calls. I think my head would have exploded by now.

Leaving aside the reruns about Teh Clenis that we'd've been subjected to if Clinton had won the nomination, does anyone think Hugh and Tony Rodham wouldn't have become issues? These guys are Roger Clinton with better clothes and more expensive tastes (and fees).
The Clinton camp has tried to spin their fortune as the result of their book sales. Ron Burkle alone has contributed more to the Clintons' wealth than both of their books.
Her foreign policy is McCain-lite. Her husband has called him a moderate. She has made "toughness" and "Commanderinchiefiness" an issue. Is she really so stupid as to think people who vote on image and personality are going to pick her over McCain? Hillary Clinton could have beaten Giuliani or Romney, she would've lost thirty state to McCain.
We've dodged a bullet.

To step away from the post-debate judgements for a moment....

I've spent the day reading the posts here and at ABC and many other sites where comments are allowed.

It strikes me as obvious that the sense of outrage over one little (monumentally bad) debate is nothing to that which would overwhelm the Democratic Party if superdelegates were to overturn the votes of all of us ordinary people out here.

I had heard this argued before, but we have some evidence of how big and bad and nuclear the reaction will be against the Supers.

It's not an exaggeration to see it as the match that light the funeral pyre of the party.

Is that what you want, Hillary supporters? Really? Time to get serious about this.

"Indeed, Plouffe did so on the very same call, saying: 'The American people are not going to elect a president that they do not trust.'"

Um, that's based on actual polling, not just some out-of-left-field attack. 6 out of 10 people said she's untrustworthy.

"The American people are not going to elect a president that they do not trust." It's hard, however, to see that as being quite in the same league with the hits on Wright, and now, Ayers.

Greg --

Isn't the point that with negatives as high as Hillary's there's almost no need for the GOP slime machine to ratchet itself to full-throttle? They'd come across, dare I say it, like Hillary herself: overplaying an easy-win hand.

If Hillary's the nominee, the GOP slimemongers can almost take the election off. Their base will be soap-bubbling at their collective mouth just at the sight of her name on the ballot.

How come, on one of these so-called conference calls, no one asks her campaign: 'Hey, what's your plan for overcoming the fact that nearly 60% of ALL Americans say they can't trust you?'

The irony here may be that not only is Hillary doing the GOP's work for them during the Dem. primary, but she may actually be doing their work for them during the GE as well in the unlikely case she's the nominee.

jamestown made the same comment I had planned to make. The untrustworthy label is based on polling, not on an attack by the Obama campaign.

Barry-O meltdown #1 watched debate.

Top Ratings for Penn. Debate

By Brian Stelter

More than 10 million viewers tuned into Wednesday’s Democratic debate on ABC, making it the most-watched debate of the primary election season.

The debate, the first to air on a weeknight on a broadcast network, attracted an average of 10.7 million viewers between 8 and 10 p.m., according to Nielsen Media Research.

Viewership of the debate peaked between 8:30 and 9 p.m. with 11.8 million viewers, topping the “reality” fare of “Deal or No Deal” on NBC and “Big Brother” on CBS. The broadcast faced stiffer competition at 9 p.m. when “American Idol” appeared on Fox and netted 22.7 million viewers. Still, ABC averaged over 10 million viewers in the second hour of the debate.

The presidential candidate debates have repeatedly broken viewership records during the hotly contested primary season. The bar was previously set in January when a Saturday night debate shown on ABC averaged 9.4 million viewers. CNN attracted almost as many viewers (8.3 million) for another Democratic debate in January.

There's an AP by article Nedra Pickler linked on the front page of TPM. It sort of gets to the heart of what this type of bullshit is all about:

"While Clinton brought up the problems Obama could face in a general election if he's nominated, Obama used a two-hour debate Wednesday night to remind Americans what they don't like about his opponent and her husband, Bill, the former president."

Anyone who saw the debate knows what Pickler is trying to do here. How frikking stupid do these people think we are? THE DEBATE WAS ON TELEVISION, NEDRA!

Jeez, these people are contemptible.

It's a given that the Republicans will attack ANY Democrat with Rovian slimeball tactics. They have painted decorated veterans who lost limbs in the service of their country as unpatriotic. That's how Republicans roll.

So the question is, how do Democrats respond as a party?

Do they respond out of a place of fear and weakness? Do they engage in the same sorts of tactics? Do they move to the right in the hopes of defusing criticism? Do they pander, pretending to care about hunting to try to please gun owners, for example?

Or do they respond from a place of conviction and strength? Do they respond by framing the issues on their own terms and not buying into the Republican spin on every issue? Do they respond by appealing to people's better instincts, by maintaining the high ground, by actually listening to and responding to people's needs?

These are our choices. The former is what we've done the last eight years, and we saw how well it worked for Kerry. That's the Clinton option.

The latter is the Obama model. It's never been tried in a general election, but in the primary, we have seen it generate unprecedented levels of enthusiasm and political participation. In the process, it managed to kick machine politics and inevitability in the teeth.

The latter is what I want for the Democratic party.

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

I've been thinking about just this topic lately. There is a vast wealth of ammo against Clinton that Obama has refused to touch. For the past few months the Republicans have largely ignored her and trained all their fire on Obama. On top of all that all this information from the Clinton past has never really been used when it was Hillary Clinton that is accountable to voters. I really think this idea that she is more vetted is a total fallacy.

Obama Nation seems unconcerned that their hero was completely unprepared to answer a few tough questions. A little political sniper fire and the guy freezes. The questions aren't going away. He'll eventually have to come up with some answers that make sense. (Obama is beginning to look like Bush--too arrogant for his own good. But at least Bush knew he needed to be scripted and handled. Obama thinks he can just wing it. He can't.)

Haha, awesome! This is logician humour.

If p > q, then ~[~p > q].

If Clinton's Republican attacks against Obama make Obama stronger in the general election, then Obama's lack of Republican attacks against Clinton makes her weaker in the general election.