Ron Fournier:
Never count the Clintons out. They are brilliant politicians who defied conventional wisdom countless times in Arkansas and Washington. But time is running out.
Two senior Clinton advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the race candidly, said the campaign feels the New York senator needs to quickly change the dynamic by forcing Obama into a poor debate performance, going negative or encouraging the media to attack Obama. They’re grasping at straws, but the advisers said they can’t see any other way that her campaign will be sustainable after losing 10 in a row.
Poor debate performances or going negative. Why not both:
Sen. Hillary Clinton launched her first negative ad today in Wisconsin against rival Sen. Barack Obama, taking him to task for not signaling whether he will participate in a debate at Marquette University prior to the state’s Feb. 19 primary.
Obama is in Wisconsin on a campaign swing while Clinton is traveling through Texas. “With serious challenges facing the next president of the U.S., Wisconsin voters deserve to hear both candidates debate the issues that matter,” the Clinton campaign said in a statement. “Hillary Clinton has accepted an invitation to debate at Marquette University in advance of Tuesday’s primary, and is prepared to show she has real solutions for the problems facing residents of the Badger State.”
I am sure that is just a coincidence.
eric
I’m not gonna invoke the “Clinton Rules” necessarily, but what exactly was negative about that ad??
chopper
wow, that’s a real hard-hitting ad. sheesh, if this is the best she has left then stick a fork in ‘er.
John Cole
A negative ad is simply any ad that attacks the opponent. Whether it is a legitimate attack or not is irrelevant. Same with the degree of the attack.
A negative ad is a lot like being pregnant, you either is or you isn’t. This may be a mild attack, but it is still a negative ad.
NonyNony
Is that really a negative ad?
Jeez – I must be jaded. That didn’t look very negative at all.
Where are the wolves? Where are the claims that a vote for Obama is a vote for the terrarists? Or even a sleazy misrepresentation of Obama’s voting record? Not even one mention in the whole ad about how he was a phoney soldier in Vietnam!
I mean, it’s kind of a laughable ad (you can just picture the target voter who’s thinking “Oh noes! I wuz gonna vote for Obama, but if he won’t do yet another debate, why, I guess I should vote for Clinton!” – or not). But negative? Really? It seems to barely qualify as “trash talk” to me. I may need to get my outrage barometer checked – it’s probably just blown out from the last 8 years…
Daniel Munz
Uh, Hil? You’ve already had more debates with Obama than occurred on both sides, combined, in the last two presidential cycles, combined.
The Moar You Know
Her advisers are idiots. It’s very arguable that Bill going negative on Obama in South Carolina started the Unity Pony March To Inevitability.
Attacking Obama is suicide.
D-Chance.
You know why Obama is doing so well? It’s all thanks to Rush Limbaugh (Yes, it’s a K. Lo Special).
“A proper understanding (which you have) of Limbaugh and others is that neither McCain nor Huckabee are conservative. This realization coupled with the fact that the race is already strongly leaning to McCain, pushed me in the direction of voting in the democratic primary for Barack Obama to stop Hillary. There were others like me who I talked to.”
So, when Obama wins, he will freaking OWE the conservatives for putting him in office…
you just have to read, then laugh.
Jake
Apparently you didn’t get the memo. Thanks to Karl “The Math” Rove, a negative ad must include at least one hint of sexual impropriety and/or willingness to grab ankles for Osama Bin Laden.
That ain’t a negative ad.
Yeah, good luck with that.
Yay! Practice for absorbing the crap the GOP will fling!
TheFountainHead
Actually, I think the ad may be effective with her base demographic of white women, but outside of that it may fall short. I also think Hillary is going to suffer from the fact that way more people are paying attention to this primary than probably ever have before. Your average guy on the street by now has seen one of these debates and probably could tell you how many of them there have been, and at the very least could tell you they are boring. The more people pay attention the more they see the tactics of the Clinton campaign that I think remind them of the tactics of the Bush administration: Deny deny deny, distort distort distort, attack attack attack.
ken
That is not a negative ad. It does make the point that Obama would rather give a speech to his followers than be held accountable in a debate, but there is nothing wrong with pointing that out.
If any good comes out of this perhaps Obama will be pressured into facing the voters in a face to face debate with Clinton. Who can be against that?
crw
Gotta love the latest spin from the Clinton campaign. Apparently, now, none of Obama’s wins count because Clinton didn’t seriously contest him in those states. i.e. the new spin is Obama won a bunch of ‘uncontested’ fake victories but he’ll die in the face of real opposition. Wonder what they’ll pull out when that one fails?
Source
Hat Tip: Donklephant
Zifnab
I’m not seeing the tell-tale baby bump here. If that’s a negative ad, she brought a palm slapper to a gun fight. “Obama is too busy catering to special interests to attend a Democratic Debate of Democracy” would be one thing. “Hillary Clinton has the balls to stand up for freedom of speech and fair representation! Barack Obama is a chicken-shit coward!” would be another. This sounds more like begging than negging.
All that said, I’m still super pissed they scheduled the Texas Debate in Austin rather than Houston. I mean, come on! Where was the Dean/Kerry debate four years ago when I was actually at UT? WTF, dude!
No Houston debate means I can’t score tickets. No tickets means I can’t invite this cute girl along. No cute girl means no hot date. No hot date means I’m never gonna get laid.
Cock blocked by the MUP!
Conservatively Liberal
As an Obama supporter, I have to say that this ad is a pretty lame one (for negativity). If he does accept, I would probably watch this one because I think it would be different. Hillary has to be careful because if she does poorly the MSM will be all over her like flies on a turd. But I have the feeling that things are reaching a point where Clinton has nothing to lose.
If she is true to form and all in it for herself, she will not care about collateral damage to the party. She will do whatever is necessary to win this. Desperation makes one do stupid things at times, and if it is going to get stupid then we are fast approaching the time for it to happen.
Stock up on popcorn, I think this is going to get messy.
TheFountainHead
Okay, okay, so sometimes for a laugh I go over to hillaryis44.com, and CL brought some gems over this morning in another thread so I put on my Hazmat suit and went over there, and right off the bat I find this gem from “Ann”:
The Grand Panjandrum
We are down to live boy or dead girl time.
Steve Clemons, in a post at TPM Cafe pointed out that Obama just came out for the national infrastructure bank — similar to the one that Senators Chris Dodd and Chuck Hagel have been pushing for in Congress.
He’s been scheduling more town hall style meetings, for the past couple of weeks, where he talks more policy. Listen to an Obama policy talk and compare it to an HRC policy talk. She doesn’t hold a candle to him. The “all rhetoric” meme itself has no substance. John Kerry and Al Gore were very detailed, and boring to tears, when it came to policy. A half-bright, mush mouthed Frat Boy beat them.
He has outflanked her at every turn. HRC ain’t Bill when it comes to campaigning. She’s out shortly after March 4th.
empty
This ad is negative?? Wow!
ThymeZone
What the Clintoons don’t get is that the voters who get revved up by Obama are turned off by politics as usual.
Any attempt she makes to employ PAU tactics will backfire. As if the trend lines in the last month wouldn’t show it to them, but apparently, they are from the old school.
And when the GOP tries its PAU tactics in September, those will backfire too. They are trying to hold back a tsunami. Look at the numbers.
p.lukasiak
Lets see now. John posts an AP quote citing “anonymous” clinton advisors saying that Clinton needs to go negative and get the media to attack Obama. Then, John quotes a BLOG from the notoriously right wingers at WSJ using the word “negative” to describe an ad that simply challenges Obama to debate…. John finishes up with a snide comment.
John Cole=”Master of the Clinton Rules”
John Cole
Yeah. It is all a coincidence and a big fat media CONspiracy.
crw
I have to agree that ad isn’t really much, as far as negative campaigning goes. Just wait until the slime machine really starts revving up. Before you blink Obama will be painted as a Defeatocrat secret Muslim 5th Column Comuniss Drug Dealer. And our oh so skeptical media will be repeating the claims without comment, criticism or basic fact checking.
Just wait.
4tehlulz
Obligatory “Karl Rove is behind the Obama surge” post.
Punchy
what happens when Bush declares Obama a enemy combatant in early October 2008 and McCane wins this thing by default?
4tehlulz
I must have imagined Obama in all those televised debates then.
Dennis - SGMM
Stellar! Even if you assume for one hallucinatory moment that “Ann” is correct, then you have to wonder why the old guard of the democratic party never liked the Clintons.
TheFountainHead
I start expressing my 2nd Amendment rights on the front lawn of the White House with several thousand of my friends.
AkaDad
Obama is clearly scared. He’s only done 17 debates.
gypsy howell
For my daily dose of Malkin-Level-Defcon 5-Unhinged-Obama-Bashing, I like to swing by No Quarter and see what Larry and Susan have cooked up for the day. Those two have completely gone off the deep end.
Did that guy really used to be counter-terrorism at CIA? No wonder we’re so fucked. He’s connecting dots that would make John Nash look sane.
Zifnab
If Clinton doesn’t go all in and try to shipwreck the party to win the nomination, does that mean we can tell you to cram your CDS bullshit and STFU?
Ed Drone
“Just wait.”
Hmmm… why wait? Let’s start the ball rolling, making some outlandish charges such as those, just so he can meet the “charges” head-on. Then when the RWM* starts up, Obama’s campaign can say, “Oh, those charges were disproved months ago.”
Ed
* (Right-Wing Media, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the MSM)
JWeidner
I’ll say, it’s not much as far as negativity goes, but John is right, there is an undertone to it that suggests Obama is somehow in the wrong for not accepting Hillary’s debate schedule proposal.
An ad doesn’t have to be completely toxic in order for it to be considered negative.
That said, I hardly think this is going to have Obama shaking in his boots.
Conservatively Liberal
TFH, I was browsing through Hillaryis44.com and found that some there believe that after Obama won the senate seat, he was invited to the White House where he made secret plans to ‘be their guy’ in this election. Barack is a Cheney puppet, a Manchurian candidate. The crap there is pure gold!
4tehlulz, I must have smoked too much pot because I thought they have debated many times too. Hey, here is a freebie for Hillary; I support Obama and I smoke pot, so it logically follows that drug users are for Obama!
Toss that is with the fact that Obama has a couple of black kids and this race is soooooo over.
;)
Conservatively Liberal
“Toss that in…” would be better.
Need more coffee…
Conservatively Liberal
Naah, why wait? I won’t listen in any case. ;)
p.lukasiak
you don’t have to wait. McCain has attacked Obama because of his lack of substance and experience. The media is already picking up this theme — especially, but not exclusively, the right wing media (see Rush), one that they consistently ignored when Clinton was the only person raising the same points.
crw
Obama is black.
Louis Farrakhan is black.
Obama and Farrakhan have never seen in the same place at the same time*.
Therefor Obama is Louis Farrakhan.
QED
*Statement not vetted for accuracy, but that’s okay because the MSM wont check.
LarryB
No, it’s Clinton rules You just can’t help yourself. All your link does is prove that you are not alone.
Dennis - SGMM
If it’s one thing that blogging has accomplished it’s to give us a view of some of the [Cutaway to the shot of the monkey banging on a drum inside Homer Simpson’s head] thinking that precludes each election.
SamFromUtah
“With serious challenges facing the next president of the U.S., Wisconsin voters deserve to hear both candidates debate the issues that matter,” the Clinton campaign said in a statement.
Does she really want to play it like this after skipping the FISA vote?
jcricket
Or if Hillary pulls the improbable lead out of her hat and Obama accepts the VP nomination will people start claiming the Clinton’s “conned him into it”?
Really, the vitriol and power to which people ascribe the Clinton’s beyond that of normal politicians of their stature (who are all quite powerful) is astonishing.
gypsy howell
from hillaryis44:
What a sneak that Obama is!
Have these people lost their minds?
chopper
yeah, that site is a real treat. it’s like the freerepublic of hillary nuts.
TheFountainHead
Yeah, Hillaryis44.com really is a trip….I’ve lost hours of my life staring at it, wide-eyed at the ridiculousness of it all. This morning they are all quoting Hillary’s delegate lead based on a NYT’s delegate count that doesn’t even have half of last nights delegates on it….
Ron
Go read Taylor Marsh for proof in the affirmative. That fucking place is going down like a cyberspace Jonestown in about a month.
MBunge
The political genius of the Clinton’s has always been exaggerated, just like Rove’s. It’s like people only remember their successes and not their crushing failures, like Clinton leading the Democrats to their worst electoral defeat in generations in 94 or the utter disasters that were Social Security and Immigration “reform” with Rove.
The two things you have to remember about Bill Clinton, Super-Political-Genius are…
1. The only reason he won in 1992 is that every major Democratic contender was scared out of the race by Bush the Elders huge approval ratings after the Gulf War.
2. Running as a “Peace and Prosperity” incumbent in 1996 and facing the worst GOP Presidential candidate in modern history and the almost entirely discredited Ross Perot, he still couldn’t get 50% of the people to vote for him.
Mike
TheFountainHead
I’m sorry, but I just can’t help myself. There’s something about this comment from hillaryis44.com that just sums up so much:
wingnuts to iraq
Cynicism is a false wisdom. That’s what I say to you folks who make fun of the Magical Unity Pony.
Your cynicism is nothing more then false wisdom.
srv
If Obama was half the man y’all rave about, he wouldn’t be afraid of some badgers.
The Other Steve
I’m so done with Hillary. Time to move on.
Conservatively Liberal
Hillaryis44 member “Idunn” has a story they want to get out via the right. Someone suggested a place, and “Idunn” responds:
Then “Idunn” joined some neo-con site and posted links to a blog story that states that Obama is being funded by the Republican party. My head is spinning.
I never thought I would live to see the day when leeches could latch onto each other and thrive. ;)
Zifnab
~wikiwiki
Sorry, but you can talk about popular votes till you are blue in the face. Clinton took 49.2% in ’96 while Gore only score 48.4% to Bush’s 47.9% in ’00. That America was growing increasingly polarized doesn’t rest on Clinton’s shoulders nearly as much as the shoulders of the country at large.
Clinton won re-election in the face of landslide support for conservative-style government in ’96. I’d count that as a feather in his cap long before I’d mark it as a black eye.
What’s more, Bush Sr didn’t exactly benefit from the Iraq Invasion, especially in the face of Perot-backing fiscal conservatives who considered the war a giant drain on the budget. Presiding over a minor recession in ’91 and ’92, Bush Sr’s poll numbers were weak. Clinton ran as a Third Way candidate in ’92 and ecked out a win, its true, but he was a nobody Governor from fly-over country. He did amazingly well given where he was coming from.
gypsy howell
Your cones are made of stronger stuff than mine. You’ll have to report the best stuff back to me because I can’t stare at all that pinkness for too long, or all I’ll be seeing is light green for the rest of the day.
Incertus (Brian)
I call bullshit on that being an attack ad as well. How far have we slipped that we’ll call that going negative on an opponent?
gypsy howell
Y’know, the crazy thing is, although I am not a huge Hillary fan, and I’m only now just putting my feet in the stirrups of the Unity Pony saddle, eventually I’ll vote for whichever dem is the nominee in November. But I gotta say, the complete conspiracy-theory and wingnutty-like frothing that people like Taylor Marsh, SusanUnPC and hillaryis44 are spewing out there is enough to give me pause about Hillary. I’m trying to tell myself not to judge her by her wackiest fans, but really… get a grip people!
Nim, ham hock of liberty
Can we just fast forward to November already?
Let’s just stipulate to a few things for the GOP:
1. Obama is the most liberal member of the Congress, ever, in the history of all Congresses of the world.
2. Obama is to the left of…TED KENNEDY omg.
3. Obama is untested! and soft! on national defense. He would rather hug dictators than bomb their people.
4. Obama will raise your taxes to 1000%
5. Obama is a flip-flopper who says anything.
6. Yes, we haven’t forgotten, he’s more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Karl Marx, and the notorious liberal Hitler.
What’s missing from the script? Can we just skip to the election so we don’t have to hear it read every 2 minutes, every day, for months?
Jay B.
Here’s something: Hillary is a perfectly good candidate. Obama may be better. Hillary hasn’t given up, so she’s running a “campaign”. Campaigns often feature candidates — especially those who are now trailing — wanting more debates and challenging “front runners” for “ducking” them.
This isn’t particularly “Clintonian” or exceptional in any way. If this is as negative as she gets, it’s a win for the Democratic Party. If she goes more negative, this too, is part of nearly ANY campaign and shouldn’t be considered particuarly Hillary-specific.
The Naif army of Obama will go to their fainting couches, of course. And Hillary will get slimed as some kind of blend between George Wallace, a serial killer and the presiding head of the Illuminati by the media, some in the Obama campaign and those who understand politics not in the least.
I really, really like Obama. I have zero problem with him challenging Clinton’s statements or issues (and vice versa), but holyjeebering FUCK I can’t take this “OMG, POLITICS!” gasping everytime a political candidate opens his or her mouth.
Dennis - SGMM
Emails from the woman who claims that she bore Obama’s white love child?
Waterboarded Gitmo detainee declares that Obama is working for Al Qaeda?
Brachiator
oops. This just fresh from the wires:
John Cole
If you can point us to the freak-out, it would be much appreciated.
crw
Nim, ham hock of liberty
7. Obama is not really a brilliant orator. He just has good writers and a teleprompter.
8. Obama is a divider, not a uniter because he didn’t kowtow to John McCain once.
Jay B.
I’m speaking generally John. Not in this case. Truth be told, I’m not really sure what you’re teasing out here, but connecting these dots doesn’t really amount to much.
But, like the hyper nut job pro-Hillary sites referenced above, there’s a large number of pro-Obama sites that unearth all the same tired tropes as the American Spectator regarding Hillary and the Clintons. This is not a small number (hell, check out nearly any pro-Obama diary on Daily Kos).
There really ARE Clinton Rules. I think it benefits everyone if we challenge lazy media narratives of Democratic Candidates.
And one of the laziest ones in history is Hillary as an Unhinged She-Bitch.
Tony J
So you’re saying she might be a skrull?
Ok, tired comics-geek go sleepy-time now.
Dreggas
I spent all of 5 minutes on Hillaryis44 before I just closed my browser and cleared any trace of it from my browser history. The people there are basically the wingnutosphere only in pink.
They sound more and more like wingers every day. Just proves to me that the Clintons are a party unto themselves. All the attacks and meme’s Dems have had to fight off are now being used by the Clintonistas against a Dem for crying out loud.
p.lukasiak
9) Obama is in deep with the crooked Rezko. He got a favorable land deal from Rezko…and did him favors.
10) The pastor of Obama’s church is a Afro-centrist radical. This is what Obama believes too.
11) He interfered with the Kenya elections in favor of his marxist, al-Qaeda connected cousin.
12) His name is Barack Hussein Obama.
OxyCon
Martin Luther King: “I have a dream”.
Barack Hussein Obama: “I have a speech”.
Takes alot more than a speech to get my vote.
Bush was the guy “you wanted to have a beer with”.
Barack is the guy “you want to sing Kumbaya with”.
I’m not ready to sing Kumbaya with the Repubs. I don’t think they deserve hugs and kisses. Call me crazy. Or better yet, If you’re an Obama nut, just call me a racist because I don’t like him. Par for the course.
TheFountainHead
Grand Moff Texan has a recc’d diary over at the Great Orange Satan that’s worth two reads. I’m looking at you myiq2xu.
myiq2xu
Yes, it is very disturbing to see right-wing meme’s being used by alleged liberals and progressives against a Democrat.
Sometimes practically word-for-word.
It makes me wonder if some of them aren’t wolves in sheep’s clothing. Karl Rove got his start as ratfucker for Nixon whose job it was to sabotage Democratic campaigns.
TheFountainHead
You’re not a racist, you’re just looking to live in a fantasy world where the Democrats save the day and the Republicans are forced to admit all their faults publicly and George Bush lives behind bars. I have those dreams too. Then I wake up.
Dreggas
Last night’s speech was laden with “substance” as have been a lot of Obama’s speeches. Just because he doesn’t go on stage and rattle off a bunch of wonkish talk that puts people to sleep doesn’t mean he doesn’t have substance.
I have to just laugh when I hear that now. His speeches are loaded with specifics, he has laid out all of his policies on his site, and has spoken of them regularly.
myiq2xu
Good, cuz I’m mooning you
Dreggas
If you mean with regard to attacks on Clinton, there are plenty of liberals and progressives who disliked Clinton for the lack of honesty and his tactics of beat republicans by acting like republicans, the DLC bullshit.
Others are realizing the 90’s weren’t pie in the sky halcyon days and the reality is most of the legislation signed by Clinton was Republican legislation with no fights whatsoever to push any kind of liberal/progressive agenda with the exception of Healthcare which was a disaster that Hillary seems to be ready to try and repeat, that is shoving it down everyone’s throat whether they want it or not.
Hillary wants to run on “35 years” fine, the shitty part for a lot is admitting that maybe there’s something to some of the attacks on the clinton’s after all.
myiq2xu
Did you read my whole comment before jumping to conclusions?
Dreggas
Actually I did, Perhaps I should have phrased the first sentence as “Did you mean the attacks on Clinton”.
MBunge
“Sorry, but you can talk about popular votes till you are blue in the face. Clinton took 49.2% in ‘96 while Gore only score 48.4% to Bush’s 47.9% in ‘00. That America was growing increasingly polarized doesn’t rest on Clinton’s shoulders nearly as much as the shoulders of the country at large.
Clinton won re-election in the face of landslide support for conservative-style government in ‘96. I’d count that as a feather in his cap long before I’d mark it as a black eye.”
In 96, Bill Clinton had peace and prosperity and the opposition of Bob Dole and Ross Perot. In 2004, George W. Bush had prosperity, a war the country was quickly souring on and the opposition of John Kerry. Bush vaulted over the 50% barrier with no problem, yet it’s Clinton who’s supposed to be the political genius? I don’t criticize Clinton for the low vote percentage in 92, but the fact he still couldn’t get 50% running for re-election is significant.
And by the way, Clinton didn’t win re-election “in the face” of support for conservative governance. He won by selling himself as part of conservative governance.
Mike
myiq2xu
Do you mean that all attacks on Clinton and her supporters are legitimate?
Dreggas
Never said they all were legitimate, what I did say is that since Clinton is running as a 2 for 1 similar to what Bill did in 92 and since she claims 8 years in the whitehouse as part of her vaunted “experience” then she opens herself up to the same attacks. What I’ve seen coming from the liberals/progressives for attacks have been attacking Clinton’s policies such as NAFTA, DOMA, DADT, Welfare Reform and other policies that were Republican-lite.
The Other Steve
That’s because Democrats are supposed to be BORING! God damnit, don’t you remember Dukakis and Kerry?
myiq2xu
Go back and read the rest of my original comment. I was talking about attacks on both Obama and Clinton, as well as both of their respective supporters.
Then go look up “ratfucking”
Dreggas
I do, which is why I could not get excited about the last election. Even Gore came off pretty wooden a lot of the time. Clinton had the soft southern drawl and charisma, Obama is pure electricity.
The Other Steve
I was hanging out in some areas of the internetosphere which are Ron Paul provinces. And no, not Stormfront. These are sites related to financial stuff, real estate market and so forth. People who go on and on about fiat currency and gold standard and stuff.
The hard core RP supporters over there are leaning Obama. They like what they are hearing. They don’t like old guy McCain.
Just an interesting point.
The Other Steve
I just like the fact that Obama is a Yank. I’m tired of southerners dominating our politics. They’ve fucked things up so bad.
myiq2xu
First of all, it’s one of those CW myths that people find policy boring. The Nattering Nabobs of Negativism keep saying that, but it’s not true.
They said people didn’t care about the US attorney scandal either.
Secondly, what you are seeing is the beginning of the official meme on Obama – “He is vague and doesn’t give specifics.” It won’t matter how much wonky specificity he puts into his speeches, they’ll just keep repeating that he doesn’t give specifics.
Back in 2006 the GOP kept saying that the Democrats didn’t have a plan to get out of Iraq. The Democrats had several detailed proposals, all of which the media ignored while repeating the “no plan” meme.
You can laugh at how ridiculous and obviously untrue the meme is, but you’re going to keep hearing it.
Zifnab
Bush was coming off a 90% approval rating. The man was a Saint in the weeks following 9/11. This compared to Clinton who was vilified as a drug-dealing, best-friend murdering, rapist since the day his feet touched the campaign trail. You can’t begin to compare the two.
lectric lady
Jeebus, you think THIS is negative?
Wait until the Republican Machine lowers its sights on Obama.
Barak “Joel Osteen” Obama is gonna be in a world of hurt/
Zifnab
Hop on the saddle. There’s always room to ride the Unity Pony.
MBunge
“Bush was coming off a 90% approval rating. The man was a Saint in the weeks following 9/11. This compared to Clinton who was vilified as a drug-dealing, best-friend murdering, rapist since the day his feet touched the campaign trail. You can’t begin to compare the two.”
George Bush the Elder was coming off a 90% approval rating that was, I believe, even more recent than his son’s when he lost in 1992.
Mike
myiq2xu
Not to mention that the GOP was ascendant and had the money, organization and propaganda operation working in perfect sync.
rawshark
Well they couldn’t win on the battlefield way back when so they found a different way.
myiq2xu
Careful – if you talk sense they’ll use you as a pinata.
They got pissed a Cassandra too.
Jason Eckelman
Hey y’all: Never commented here before, but like the site. So, just for shits & giggles, I went to Taylor Marsh’s page to see if commenters there were truly as out of control as some of the excerpts posted above, and I’ll be damned if it wasn’t WORSE. There were several posts about having decided NOW that they can’t vote for Obama in November becuase he’s “too arrogant”. Or how they’ll have to listen to “Michelle” for 4 years. Or how it’s all just sexism in the media and ignorance and/or idiocy on the part of “Obamabots” (which is a real cute little insult) that explains his current standing. What the fuck is wrong with these people? I’m really starting to worry that she is going to wind up throwing the election to the Republicans. What a fucking nightmare.
The Other Steve
Yes, but as you noted Kerry suffered the same thing and he was a policy wonk. This appears to be a Democratic specific thing, so it’s pretty clear Hillary would suffer the same problem.
So how do you think you fight this particular meme? It’s certainly not by offering more detail in speeches, as you noted.
The Other Steve
Joel Osteen is going to attack Obama? Isn’t that kid still seeing dead people?
TheFountainHead
Indeed. And people say the MUP is too nice for politics.
wobbly
She’s fighting for Wisconsin, she issues a straight up challenge…debate me in Marquette!
Excuse me if I don’t find this SINISTER? RACIST? DEVIOUS?
Good move, Senator Clinton.
sraigh
wobbly
I don’t know how that “sraigh” got in.
Delete it, and my post stands.
tomjones
I would suggest you follow through on your impulse and just delete the rest of your post, as well.
jcricket
I can see the Fox News “crawl” now:
Just a couple of typos, of course.
myiq2xu
They have contingency plans for each major Democratic candidate as well as standard meme’s for all Democrats.
The will smear and slime every Democrat, there is no escaping it. If they can’t beat the candidate they want to weaken them.
The only thing to do is not participate in it by repeating it just because we like another candidate better.
And don’t let them win by giving up.
jcricket
Marquette is the location where a black man was once denied entrance to a bar. She’s a racist alright!
/jest
jcricket
We do give up quite easily. Like this FISA thing. I’m as disappointed as another other overly informed Internet policy wonk on the leftish side of the political spectrum that the Senators caved and gave the Preznit and Telcos what they wanted.
But that doesn’t mean I think electing Jim Webb was a horrible idea.
We need to take a page from the fundies, demand promises from candidates, and then slowly nudge them towards our side by chastising them each time they fail to live up to those promises. We won’t get everything we want, but we will get a lot over time.
This whole “shoot the moon” strategy Dems always seem to think is the only thing that works is just asinine.
libarbarian
Make that:
Hypatia
Agreed. You folks are calling for your smelling salts over THIS?
lectric lady
Here is an image for you.
Republican Machine vs Barak Obama.
libarbarian
Dreggas
Sorry, have to call bullshit on that one. Most people find policy wonkery boring, that’s not true here on the intertrons because we’re obviously on a political board talking politics and policies.
If people were all about the policies and wanted to hear nothing but then they’d pack the house to see HRC speak, instead they are packing the house to hear Obama speak because he wraps policy into a narrative and a narrative into a call to action.
Dreggas
Oddly enough Obama managed to show up and vote against telco immunity yesterday…Hillary was in Texas.
myiq2xu
The Village Idiots said that about Gore, but polls of real people who watched his speeches and debates found that most of the people found what he said interesting. Not everyone, of course, and he wasn’t discussing all the nit-picky details, just the outlines of his proposals.
BTW – I don’t think we should decide who to vote for (or against) because of what the media is going to do. They will slime everyone of our candidates, and some of it will stick.
Vote for whoever you think will do the best job, and whose policies and ideas you like best.
If Obama is the nominee they will slime him, and it will be nasty. Stand by him, stick-up for him, and don’t ever give up on him. Vote for Congressmen and Senators that will do the same.
That’s how we win.
myiq2xu
Here’s another meme that’s starting – McCain is a lousy speechifier, but Obama is a great one. It’s true, but it’s a set up for the eventual debates.
Just like when Gore debated Bush, the media set expectations so low for Bush that if he didn’t shit on himself he was the winner.
You’ll hear something like this:
“Of course Obama performed better, he was supposed to. But McCain held his own which was the most you could expect from him, so he’s the winner.”
After watching 8 or 9 Presidential elections you can see the moves ahead of time. But the Lap Dog Media will act like this is something new and they’ll say it with sincerity.
There will be a bunch of GOP media whores repeating variations of that meme on every network, and no one will laugh at them (on the air anyway.) The other talking heads will just nod sagely.
ThymeZone
Hmpth. I think we win because we have the winning party this year, because progressive wins over conservative right now, and most of all, because we have the better candidate, no matter which of ours is nominated.
McCain is a loser this year. Wrong guy, wrong message, wrong party. I don’t think he could win if we nominated Pee Wee Herman.
jcricket
Sad, but true. We could run a steaming turd and it would still appear more palatable than another course of Republican President :-)
Plus if you’ve heard McCain, he’s all over the map. And I don’t mean in a canvassing sort of way. He just stumbles and bumbles. Which is fine if you’re Mr. “Affable” (GW Bush), but if you’re supposed to be Mr. “Experience” (McCain), you better have your shit together. And he doesn’t, because his world view is coherent. It’s not just flip-flopping, it’s that he doesn’t know how to rally the different parts of the GOP base without sounding like an idiot (b/c you can’t, imho).
That’s gonna kill him in an election where people want some damn answers (false hope better than no hope). They’re not gonna like “It’s gonna be tough. There’s gonna be more wars. Bomb, bomb bomb Iran”.
Tractarian
Obama/McCain will be nothing like Gore/Bush. Rightly or wrongly, the mass media picked a favorite in 2000 – they were unfair to Gore from the start, and gave Bush a free ride.
This year, yes, the media loves McCain, but guess who they love even more – the MUP.
Besides, I don’t know which debates you’ve been watching – Obama has been winning despite his debate performances, not because of them.
The Other Steve
We’ll see. I agree with you that I don’t think it is a good idea for Democrats to attack fellow Democrats using Republican talking points. But it’s certainly fair to point out their accomplishments, or rather lack thereof in some cases.
McCain, really is a lousy candidate. There’s just no way around it. I think Cole is right in that he’s just the next old guy in line, and they’re throwing him out as a sacrificial lamb to get beat. Then they’ll blame him for everything wrong, and nominate Newt Gingrich next time around and lose again.
The Other Steve
Funniest comment from redstate for the day.
Tom in Texas
That video isn’t going negative.
This is going negative.
The Other Steve
1999 called, and they want Steve the magazine salesman back.
STEVE
MONOTONOUSLY) HELLO SIR. MY NAME IS STEVE. I CAME FROM A ROUGH AREA. I
USED TO BE ADDICTED TO CRACK BUT NOW I’M OFF AND TRYING TO STAY CLEAN.
PETER
Ok.
STEVE
That is why I am selling magazine subscriptions.
PETER
No –
STEVE
I was hoping you would help me out.