Why is Clinton All Negative, All the Time?

It makes no sense when you think about it...unless Hillary thinks she's about to lose Pennsylvania.

I've been in Pennsylvania a great deal lately. Out on the door steps, it feels really good for Obama. I wonder if the arrival of Spring and the turning of the page it symbolizes is causing people to subconsciously view the election in a different way.

Hillary Clinton has turned into grumpy Old Man Winter. She is running a tremendously negative and deceptive campaign. She is sending out fliers (I almost typed liars--Freudian slip I suppose) which say that Obama's health care plan would "leave 15 million people out." It's absurd. She's running ads accusing Obama of being in the pocket of the oil industry--despite the fact that she's the candidate--Democrat or Republican--who has taken the most money from the oil industry. And she's blasting the Pennsylvania with misleading robocalls.

Pennsylvanians and especially Pennsylvania Democrats are getting sick of the nastiness.

All of this leaves me wondering, as the clueless chattering class of Washington predicts a Hillary blow out, why on earth is Hillary going negative? Candidates who are far ahead never go negative. Going negative with a large lead is a recipe to lose support and lose the election. But time and again, Hillary Clinton has shown she has very, very poor political judgment. I wonder if this mistake will be the straw which (finally) ends this campaign.

•  Tip Jar nt

  by The Bagof Health and Politics on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:02:20 AM PDT

•  Same reason my knee jerks when I whap it with

  one of them little rubber hammers.

  by insects8mybrain on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:04:25 AM PDT

•  She has to be

  Everyone has an opinion on her, and unfortunately for her, most have an unfavorable opinion.  Her only chance is to push up Obama's negatives and hope that people will go to her as the lesser of two imperfect choices.  

  by Joefdb on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:04:43 AM PDT

  •  It's stupid though

    We've seen it starting to create a backlash up there. It's bizarre. Who knows what will happen. Obama's run the better campaign in PA...he deserves to win.

    by The Bagof Health and Politics on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:07:16 AM PDT

  •  Hillary was in the 1960's and still is..

    part counter culture firebrand and part exhibitionist. If people don't buy her philosophical bombast she at least gets her jollies from being contraversial in the public forum.

    by Barry Leonardini on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:11:51 AM PDT

•  re

  I just opened up a box of Bitter Cereal this morning and a Hillary action figure popped out.

  by cookiesandmilk on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:04:50 AM PDT

•  In 1992 Bush Sr went negative against Bill

  and we saw what happened with that. Its seems to be the typical choice for the candidate who is losing ground. It happened in 04 with Dean as well. Everyone else went negative on him when he was the frontrunner.

  by pd1969 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:08:38 AM PDT

•  I'm not sure if she thinks she'll lose so much

  as she feels she needs a really strong win.

  Unfortunately as you note, her political judgement is screwy. Going negative for a 'strong' win isn't the way to do it.

  The way to do it is to get people energized about your vision. But Hillary has all the charisma of yippy little terrier and all the political nuance of a sledge hammer.

  She also has shitty judgement. No one with an ounce of brains would keep Mark Penn around--hell, no one with an ounce of brains --especially no progressive--would hire the jerk in the first place. But he's still back there at her campaign, giving her the gift of his infinitely silly insight and divisive 'strategy' --a gift that just keeps on giving--to Obama.

  That's why people are walking away from her campaign. It's dark, negative, divisive and deeply Republican, ultimately. It smells like Karl Rove.

  by DelicateMonster on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:09:39 AM PDT

  •  we're in bizarro world

    Karl Rove and George Bush aren't going away, they've just morphed into Mark Penn and Hillary Clinton.  

    And Bill Clinton seems to be channeling the spirit of Billy Carter.  

    by ROh70 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:30:49 AM PDT

•  Why

  She has no choice...she can not get enough traction from the real issues..
  They [clintons] are killing the DNC and splitting the party--causing those of us who support the Dem party to withhold donations till we see the insiders do the right thing..This has left the DNC in the hole to the tune of about 4.3 milliom dollars. Dean was never a great fund raiser but this is bad.

  by docb on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:17:02 AM PDT

•  More action

  ABC News has a self-serving article up, with an open comments thread on the debate at http://abcnews.go.com/...  

  It claims that "Blogosphere Buzzes With Both Criticism and Praise for Line of Questions".

  Let's prove them WRONG on the praise point.

  by monitor on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:18:38 AM PDT

•  She's in her element

  That's her authentic self: Hillary "Tonya Harding" Clinton.

  by elmo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:20:09 AM PDT

•  nice video, thanks n/t

  by ozarkspark on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:20:45 AM PDT

•  Anything that

  damages Obama is intepreted as "Good for Hillary".  If she hurts him enough to win the nomination, good.  If she loses the nomination but can damage him enough to make sure he loses in the general, that's good for her.  She can run again in 2012.

  by KibbutzAmiad on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:21:33 AM PDT

  •  In that scenario, she won't get any support in

    2012. She's nuts if she thinks she can run again.

    by The Bagof Health and Politics on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:32:51 AM PDT

•  I doubt it

  but you have to keep in mind that Clinton needs to win by 10 to be considered a "win" of any kind.  Under that standard, she is losing, and thus going negative.

  There is a possibility that her negative campaign is backfiring, which could result her in winning by less than 5.  But that's a chance she has to take, because a win by 6 or an outright loss really is the same thing for Clinton, it effectively ends her nomination chances.

  by IhateBush on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:25:56 AM PDT

  •  It is backfiring

    The undecideds are breaking to Obama in Central PA...If Obama can carry even three counties west of York, he's won.

    by The Bagof Health and Politics on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:33:47 AM PDT

    •  The only one he has a chance

      is Franklin. He likely won't win Allegheny, and I'm not sure if Centre is west of York.  Obama may win Cumberland and has a shot at Adams, Dauphin, and York as well.  He should win Lancaster.

      Even if it backfires, Clinton has to try it.  She is not "winning" right now, as she isn't up by the 10 she needs.

      by IhateBush on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:58:54 AM PDT

      •  Wrong on Allegheny

        Local situations there make it a narrow Obama win. Jack Wagner is a key, key endorsement.

        by The Bagof Health and Politics on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:06:09 AM PDT

        •  Couple things

          Obama is closing the gap there according to Q, but trailed there by 5.  Wagner was an expected endorsment, after Casey endorsed, I heard that it was a matter of time before Wagner did too.  Rooney and the Post Gazette endorsement should help, but the machine is still behind Clinton, and Pitt is still a machine city.

          By the way has the undisclosed person you said a month ago was the key to winning Allegheny endorsed?

          by IhateBush on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:23:22 AM PDT

          •  Part of the machine is behind Clinton

            Not all. SEIU, Rooney, Casey, and Wagner are all part of the machine too. The machine is divided on this one. And there are local situations which mean that the segments of the machine for Hillary are not going all out, as they're preoccupied.

            by The Bagof Health and Politics on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:48:44 AM PDT

      •  Also, he'll win Franklin County

        That I am convinced of.

        by The Bagof Health and Politics on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:08:04 AM PDT

        •  What about Cumberland

          York and Dauphin?

          by IhateBush on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:24:08 AM PDT

          •  Haven't been there, heard that York and Lancaster

            are cleaning up. Harrisburg is more 50/50, or so I've heard.

            by The Bagof Health and Politics on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:49:44 AM PDT

•  She's bitter?

  And so she clings to negatives?

  What I don't understand is her sudden Cheneyesque declaration during the debate about zapping Iran with "massive retaliation" if they [sic] attack Israel.  What superdelegate (unless Lieberman is one) does she hope to convince now that she's declared she still prefers Cheney/Hadley's intel over the NIE's and would not hesitate to act as Imperial Presidential as Bush has in light of a scenario she evidently thinks possible?  

  Forget her spurious "and Louis Farrakhan--one of your closest advisors--I think this should be examined."  That's, unfortunately, the kind of scurrilous tactics I've come to expect from her, but "massive retaliation"?  What was that tactic supposed to win her?

  by planetclaire4 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:26:53 AM PDT

  •  She said that about Farrakhan?

    What a liar. That should be exposed. She needs to be ruined, personally and professionally.

    by The Bagof Health and Politics on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:34:51 AM PDT

    •  Actually she didn't. Read the transcript. n/t

      by bfitzinAR on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:33:54 AM PDT

    •  She ALL but said that.

      (I'm convinced had Wolfson been there, HE'd have said it for her--remember Tweetie having to yank Wolfson with "Why do you keep referring to David Geffen as Obama's campaign manager when you know he isn't?")

      No--sorry to be misleading about her exact words.  Stephanapoulous was drilling about Wright and just when it looked he could drill no more, THEN Clinton piled on with her take on Wright and oh, by the way, Wright's connection with Rev. Farrakhan and the bulletin from the church sent to Al-Quaeda--the dog whistle stuff that had nothing to do with OBAMA, but Clinton wanted to put it in everyone's minds that Obama> Wright> Farrakhan.  Joe McCarthy would be proud.

      I'm not even particularly for Obama (grieving Edwards diehard), but I was so outraged watching Tuesday night, outraged that such sleaze even be offered as a candidate for this party, that I was frothing like you:

      She needs to be ruined, personally and professionally.

      After watching Colbert gently dispose of her last night, however, I am somewhat reassured.  I wouldn't have done it gently, but if gentleness accomplishes getting rid of her, it will do.

      by planetclaire4 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:43:00 AM PDT

      •  I'm also a "grieving Edwards" person -

        and I don't watch the debates (partly because I got rid of my TV in Dec 2000) - but I go read the transcripts.  I've said elsewhere and I'll say again - the Rs and their media want us to react like this.  The candidates know they are running against each other and as both of them have said at one point or another, they were friends before the election and they'll be friends after it.  They've cosponsored more of each other's bills since Obama's been in the Senate than probably any other two Senators.  The problem is us - the progressive and rank-and-file Dems.  The Rs are watching us react to frames they create for our candidates and are smirking behind their hands.  As long as we take what either of our candidates say about each other in a "debate" as anything more than pie fight, we get that "righteous indignation" that can harm our party - and our chances at the White House.  The Rs love it.  Getting the few progressive news (or whatever Colbert is) people to take sides is just gravy for them.

        I went from Edwards to Hillary because I looked at both Hillary and Obama's plans, and hers are closest to John's (and even better on a few points).  I really don't care who puts those plans into effect, but she's the one pushing them, so I'll be with her as long as she wants to put herself through being trashed by both sides and hang in there.  And, as Hillary said in the "debate" that nobody on this site seems to have noticed, should Obama win the nomination, she and her people will be out there working to get him elected.

        by bfitzinAR on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:59:04 AM PDT

        •  SIGH. Well, if you think

          some of Clinton's plans are even better than Edwards', there's nothing I can say.  (I don't agree, but whatever.)  However, Clinton has trashed herself by her behavior and even if she had the best plans in the world, I find myself unable to believe a word out of her mouth about what she'd do as president.  (Remember she dropped "healthcare" for 14 years to lick her scars and only got galvanized to produce a new plan when Edwards did her homework for her.)  Plus, her gnashing her teeth at Iran I found unnecessary, disasterously ill-informed.  Not to mention her ties to such as Monsanto.  Without Edwards, it's not about issues anymore, but if pressed to the wall, I'll vote for the person who operates demonstrating fair-mindedness.  HRC has done nothing but embarrass me since her reaction to the Geffen Defection.

          by planetclaire4 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:43:52 AM PDT

          •  Overall plans, no - how to implement

            some of them, yes.  She never dropped healthcare.  She worked with Kennedy on SCHIP while she was first lady (which he acknowledged at the time, even if he wants to back off of it now), has worked in the Senate to get better healthcare for vets, healthcare for Reservists and Guards, single mothers, etc - because she was shot down on universal healthcare, she's spent the last 14 years going at it piecemeal.

            Hillary's comment about public funding explains much about her connections to any particular body - she said (when ask about pushing public funding as president) she'd support public funding, but she has to get elected first.  John fought the corporations for so long that sometimes I think he got hung up in the "they're evil" mindset.  Hillary wants them regulated - no more tail wagging the dog - but believes, as do I, that they can be the driving engine of the economy.  We've got to get them back in harness for the good of the country instead of eating us out of house and home (get rid of those immoral CEO salaries for putting people out of work, trashing the environment, etc), but destroying them isn't going to help us.  She has never voted against her conscience, whether or not she's received donations from any particular group - although some of those bills have had troubling riders (most bills are hundreds of pages long and have all kinds of crap in them - you have to decide what's more important to you, getting X passed or stopping Y - and of course I haven't always agreed with her choice).   She has a VERY good voting record - I was surprised at how good when I looked her up, after John dropped out.  I'd been believing the "corporatist" meme that's been painted on her, and that certainly hasn't shown up in her overall record.

            by bfitzinAR on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:30:40 PM PDT

  •  It's supposed to win her revenge by watching

    Obama lose the general election to those who think Obama wont be hawkish enough in the middle east. She knows this plays to Obama's weakness in a general election (people question whether he's pro-American enough or pro-Israel enough because of his middle name etc)and she wants to give such paranoi bipartisan legitimacy so that when republicans attack Obama in the general, it wont look like right-wing smears but legitimate concerns.

    She's obviously willing to sacrifice her own party for the chance to run again in 2012, or for good old fashion revenge.  The Clintons are nothing if not not extremely manipulative and self-serving.

    by greenboy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:38:52 AM PDT

  •  I have to admit when I heard her say that

    "massive retaliation" all I could think of was one song-"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran..."

    by meatwad420 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:46:02 AM PDT

    •  HELLO! nt

      by planetclaire4 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:59:40 AM PDT

  •  Please read the transcript - the retaliation

    issue was not just if Iran attacked Israel, but anybody in the Middle East - that dealing with Iran had to be a major diplomatic effort involving the U.S., the U.N., and all the Middle Eastern countries, and if Iran disregarded all diplomatic efforts and actually nuked anybody, there would be a "massive retaliation".  Lots of carrots, but a big stick if carrots don't work.

    She also didn't say Farrakhan was one of Obama's "closest" advisors - again, read the transcript.  She did mention Farrakhan, remember one of the supposed issues between the two is judgment, but it's just more pie fight.  And Obama mentioned that Bill pardoned two members of the Weathermen.  Pie fight.  That's what ABC wanted the debate about, so that's the way the questions were framed, and that's the way it played.

    Considering Hillary and Obama are 100% agreed on what needs to be done and 97% in agreement on how to do it, that 3% technicality difference is sort of "boring" to the talking heads.  Too much koolaid I guess - they need to hit the gents too often to really pay attention to anything substantive.

    by bfitzinAR on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:45:32 AM PDT

    •  Just bringing Farrakhan into it at all

      and by not rejecting the Iran question as something Cheney/Hadley dreamed up and outside reality was enough.  (And, uh, I think maybe congress should have something to say about "massive retaliation"--THIS time.  One hopes more of congress will have actually read the NIE's THIS time.)  Sure, ABC wanted pie fights, and I think HRC would have relished it.  I'm not, as I said, an Obama supporter, but I do prefer his rational style of politics and am happy to see he mostly stuck to it.

      by planetclaire4 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:50:57 AM PDT

      •  Of course Congress should - and

        will - have something to say about "massive retaliation" - part of the problem right now is we are interpreting "normal" political utterances in light of our current president.  Neither Hillary or Obama are "unitary executive-ists".  On the other hand, just how do you think it would have been spun if they (Obama and Hillary both) hadn't answered the question?  They both said they'd defend Israel in case of an attack.  Hillary had to be more forceful about it, because she's known to have support from various arabian organizations.

        by bfitzinAR on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:11:28 PM PDT

        •  Just my opinion, but HRC has always

          worried me (as soon as she declared) about her not rolling back the unity executive bs.  I worry that she's festered as much about the obstructions President WJC encountered as Cheney did about the obstructions President Nixon brought on himself.  Sorry I don't remember exactly what she's said, but she's dropped some hints I felt it wise to pay attention to.

          And re the coming aggression of Iran, it was an incredibly stupid question, proving Stephanapoulos also buys into Cheney/Hadley intel, and HRC had no problem dismissing a "hypothetical question" in earlier debates, and Obama had no problem (in fact incurred my respect) by calling Russert out on some goofball question, from which Russert retracted--I can't remember what the specific question was.  Stephanopoulos had already shown himself  to be on an idiot roll earlier, both or one could have scoffed at the question as fallacious and graciously suggested that a better question would be [some more realistic reframe] and used the NIE to do so.  These people, however, apparently sail on the belief that Ahmedinejad has any foreign policy say, a fallacy Cheney/Hadley insists on and the press hasn't questioned.  I guess we always need a bogeyman, but come on, don't any of these people in the press or running campaigns have any Iranian friends (outside Chalabi) who will sit down and explain Iran's governmental structure to them?

          Besides, as precise as HRC can be, this time she did NOT specify that she would consult with congress before unleasing "massive retaliation."

          by planetclaire4 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:01:41 PM PDT

•  Its to suppress voter turnout

  Obama has been hitting low 40's in all polls and his only hope is to get a high turnout among new voters. Her plan is to keep them home by crushing new voter enthusiasm.

  by KingGeorgetheTurd on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:26:59 AM PDT

•  It makes perfect sense

  She's going to win PA, but she''s not going to win the nomination so her goal now seems to be twofold:

  1. REVENGE.  She's been planning to be president all her life. She was supposed to be the first woman president. It was her turn , she as wife of the first black president was supposed to get the black vote in droves instead an unknown African American junior senator has the nerve to challenge her (the most admired woman in America!), She was supposed to be the hero to solve all the problems of the Bush years but instead she's been blamed for them.  I think her attitude is that the goal she spent her whole life working towards is now in ruins, as is her husband's legacy, so if she's going down, she's taking Obama down with her, along with the Democratic party that she probably feels stabbed her in the back by voting for him.

  2. COMEBACK IN 2012: She can damage Obama so badly that he loses to McCain. She can then spend the next 4 years winning back the support of democrats so she can run in 4 years.

  by greenboy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:27:56 AM PDT

  •  There's no way in hell she can run in '12

    If Obama loses, people will blame her. They won't forget. Good luck winning the Democratic nomination with 5% of the black vote.

    by The Bagof Health and Politics on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:35:40 AM PDT

    •  People always forgive & forget

      She has 4 years to reinvent herself. That's an eternity in politics.  She'll make a few token gestures of support towards Obama when it's too little too late, and then she'll spend the next 4 years telling blacks that the republicans robbed them and how sorry she was that Obama didn't get elected on how she did everything in her power to get him elected. She'll spin it, just like she spinned her war vote in the senate, and it will probably work unless a really formidable opponent emerges in 2012.

      by greenboy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:44:55 AM PDT

      •  They'll never forgive this one

        I mean never. She's toast.

        by The Bagof Health and Politics on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:47:35 AM PDT

      •  Doesn't matter if people forget

        The INTERTUBES doesn't.

        The 2012 cycle starts in Jan 2011 (or earlier; remember that this current roller coaster started in Jan 2007), well under three years from now which gives that much less time for the memory to fade.

        Oh, she may think it's possible. But with clip after clip of her praising (then current) president McCain and dissing the Democratic nominee Obama, I just don't see it happening.

        This is her ONLY chance (which is why she'll stay in until she's dragged out) and her only hope is to keep tossing junk hoping for some miraculous occurrence.

        by jacortina on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:03:49 AM PDT

        •  Well the Clintons mastered politics before the

          days of youtube so they've seen the forgive & forget strategy work quite well.  Their strategy has always been to play out the clock until the people move on the the next outrage.

          by greenboy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:09:00 AM PDT

          •  True

            But while individual outrages may have even shorter 'cycle times', they have much, much longer shelf-lives.

            As I said, she may think it's possible. But four years of McCain (or even two with the stretched out primary run) will not make her style of politics any 'newer' or 'fresher' or make her more of an agent of change. And a McCain administration on top of what we've just been through will make the craving for change that much stronger.

            Plus, we have a collection of up-and-coming 'next generation' Democrats (including women with direct Executive branch experience at the state level).

            Finally, Democrats don't tend to pick the losers of prior cycle nomination runs. Sure, AL Gore got the nod, but he was running from the sitting VP spot when he got it. Besides him, I believe you have to go back to McGovern.

            by jacortina on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:50:03 AM PDT

•  It isn't about PA

  It's about damaging Obama to the point that supers will vote for her.

  That's not working either.

  by Oothoon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:30:02 AM PDT

  •  Absolutely correct

    it is not about Florida or Michigan, Illinois or Oregon, NC or Puerto Rico.

    It is about the superdelegates, she has said this before.  If the superdelegates, all 700+ of them, would come to Hillary's side today then she would pressure for the race to be over by the end of the afternoon.

    by meatwad420 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:49:02 AM PDT

    •  Assuming she performs unexpectedly well in all

      the remaining races, I think something like 500 would have to come to her. I don't remember the math, but kos did a pretty good sum-up about a week ago.

      Meanwhile, Obama would need less than half of them to hit the 2024 mark by May, given even mediocre performances.

      by fearwig on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:52:37 AM PDT

•  BC she's an ass to put it simply

  She's become the thing she once hated.

  At this point, I'd rather have Obama/Hagel then Obama/Clinton.

  Hagel isn't spouting crap about being an imperial president.  Clinton is.

  by Shhs on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:41:33 AM PDT

•  Conventional wisdom says that the frontrunner

  gets to choose the high ground, and the underdog has to play it rough. Hillary is in a worse position than "underdog", so she's taking that reasoning to its logical extreme. Episodes like "Bittergate" and Wright are all she has going for her at this point, and she's going to try to make this look like death by a thousand paper cuts for Obama. It's all she can do.

  I'm not saying she's uncomfortable with this inevitability, don't get me wrong--this seems to be just up her campaign's ally, stylistically.

  by fearwig on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:51:00 AM PDT

•  Clinton is waaay behind

  Clinton needs a 20% victory in Pennsylvania to maintain any kind of credibility. Anything less as her delegate problem just gets worse. As far as she is concerned it is the 10th round and she has been on the ropes a long time and her only hope is a knockout.

  Obama on the other hand is playing nice as he doesn't want to alienate her supporters since he will need them in November.

  by sam storm on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:53:28 AM PDT

•  Because that's the only role she is allowed.

  If she doesn't attack, people say things like she "just admitted she should drop out of the race".  And that's from folks on our side.  She started out very positive.  She got clobbered for it.  At this point she's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't - but she's dropped down a media black hole if she doesn't, so she does.

  Be nice if Hillary and Obama supporters could say, as Hillary said the other night, that the next president is going to be a Dem, either Hillary or Obama, and we will work our tails off making that happen.  Funny that the blogs spent mucho time on the "yes, yes, yes" answer to a question of Obama's electibility and totally ignored her answer to the previous time that question was posed (immediately previously - the moderator ignored her original answer because he was basically framing it that she hadn't answered and he was "hounding" it out of her).

  What's really going on right now is a pie fight - it only becomes more if Dems insist those pies are actually grenades and start throwing REAL grenades in the name of their chosen nominee.  The MSM assigned the roles early on.  Hillary's was "bitch" - Obama's was "messiah" - McCain is "war hero/maverick".  That framing sets our side up for the GE attacks - "do you want a bitch in the White House" attacks if it's her - and heaven knows how easy it is to smear a "messiah" image.  The progressive blogs have done absolutely nothing to break up that framing and in fact have reenforced it.

  This is probably the most important election in half a century (yes, I know, we've said that every election for years), but the only way we are going to win it is if we quit buying their frames - and quit attacking each other.  I don't mean Hillary and Obama - they have to, they are competing for the nomination and neither has enough "hard" delegates to win.  I mean us, the progressive and rank-and-file Dems.  We need to be treating the primaries lightly - like a ballgame among friends.  Sure you want your candidate to win and I want my candidate to win, but we're all going out for beer and pizza together when the game's over.  I'm not going to ask your candidate to not play his best just because I want mine to win and I really wish you'd quit asking my candidate to not play her best because you want yours to win - but be that as it may, should Obama win (and I'm not arguing - he probably will) Hillary will be out there campaigning for him and Hillary's people will be out there with her.  But we'd work together a whole lot better if Obama's people haven't majorly trashed our girl - and us.  (The reverse is true - I hope - should something totally unexpected happen and Hillary wins the nomination.)

  by bfitzinAR on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:30:49 AM PDT

•  For the same reason Obama was all negative

  all the time back in Fall of '07, because she's behind.  Welcome to politics.

  by dhonig on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:34:13 AM PDT

  •  looks like

    you suffer from Bushism memory. Obama went weeks without ever mentioning her name because all he did was build himself up. And if memory serves, the first "attack ad" of the primaries was Hillary's debate ad in Wisc.

    I know your hurting because yo backed a bad candidate, but try letting some reality in, it will make the pain easier to deal with later on.

    by KingGeorgetheTurd on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:51:15 AM PDT

    •  Wrong

      June, 2007

      On Thursday, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign circulated a memo criticizing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "(D-Punjab)" for having financial ties to India and encouraging the outsourcing of jobs.

      The Obama campaign defended the memo as legitimate research. "The intent of the document was to discuss the issue of outsourcing, but we regret the tone that parts of the document took," said David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager.

      August 16, 2007

      "There is — not just with Senator Clinton, but a lot of my opponents — a premium on reciting the conventional wisdom in Washington," he said at a news conference before speaking here in southwestern Iowa. "And that’s what passes for experience."

      and of course his lovely wife, the same day:

      "Our view is that if you can’t run your own house, you certainly can’t run the White House," Mrs. Obama said.

      [This was a different time she said this than the one on YouTube, and the more she says it the harder it is to pretend it was about her children, rather than about the Clintons]

      November 18, 2007

      Barack Obama took sharp aim Saturday at Democratic frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton, saying the party nominee should lead "not with calculation but with conviction."
      December 27, 2007

      Though Edwards -- who campaigned in New Hampshire on Wednesday -- is as much a threat to Obama as Clinton -- also stumping in Iowa -- Clinton was in Obama's scope:

      "If they've been secretive in the past, they'll be secretive as president. If they haven't been all that strong on lobbyists in the past, doesn't matter what they say in the campaign, they won't be that strong about it when they are president."
      Obama really did go negative first, and this is without even going into Jesse Jackson Jr or any of the gross misrepresentations of what she said about LBJ, or what Bill said about "fairy tales."

      The links are HERE.

      by dhonig on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:02:46 AM PDT

      •  which one is an attack ad?

        all I see is statements and facts???

        reality much?

        by KingGeorgetheTurd on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:09:40 AM PDT

        •  You're contradicting yourself

          first you said Obama did not mention her.  When I showed you he did, you changed your position.  Is it now your position that anything that constitutes "statements and facts" is, by definition, not negative?  Please, based upon that brand new definition, show me where Clinton was negative.

          by dhonig on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:17:37 AM PDT

          •  No

            the contradiction is in your own distorted views. The key word is AD as in advertisements. Talking about your opponent is not a negative attack, especially when defending yourself from a comment or stating a fact about your opposition.

            To say they never mentioned her would be ludicrous. It was his camp speeches, rallies, tv ads and such. I could sit here all day and show you quotes of what negative comments were exchanged by both sides. But when you advertise something that is a lie or a distortion about someone's character or associations, that is a negative. Like if Obama ran an ad with snipers shooting at him, that would be effective but it would also be considered negative. But to run an ad on her policies is called politics. The first "attack ad" of the season was Hillary's ad in Wisc.

            by KingGeorgetheTurd on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:27:18 AM PDT

            •  That's YOUR key word

              as in your desperate attempt to create a distinction instead of back down. I simply answered the question - why is Hillary going negative.  You said something stupid, got it shoved up your rear end, and have been trying to change the conversation ever since.

              by dhonig on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:30:57 AM PDT

              •  sure, I know its hurting you

                to be losing so badly. But look at my first post

                the first "attack ad"

                so like I said before, reality much?

                by KingGeorgetheTurd on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:36:56 AM PDT

                •  maybe this will help ease the pain

                  by KingGeorgetheTurd on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:47:51 AM PDT

                •  Except, of course

                  this all started in my own comment to which you responded, which precisely SQUAT to do with ads, but was in response to the question why is Hillary going negative.  I, for one, am done with this.  You have managed to be insulting, condescending, and wrong in each and every one of your responses.  You seem intent, not on conversing or exchanging information, but simply being a prick. No thank you.

                  by dhonig on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:50:43 AM PDT

      •  to attack a policy is legitimate

        to attack character is to go negative....define your terms

        by vmm918 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:12:22 AM PDT