Hillary's Talking Points For Surrogates On Obama Attack Ad

Comments (81)

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

weak

Angry Vet wrote on January 24, 2008 1:01 PM:

These are pretty much the same points put out after that debate in Philly last fall, no? I see nothing new here.

Also, nothing convincing.By HRC's logic, BO cannot run a negative campaign, and when he attempts to counter HRC's negative campaign, it reflects poorly on BO, not the instigator of the negativity (HRC).

What a total bunch of BS. That kind of logic is all to reminiscent of the last 8 years of executive governance in this country.

Mike wrote on January 24, 2008 1:02 PM:

I think these talking points prove Obama's point: They will say anything to get elected.

Passing Shot wrote on January 24, 2008 1:02 PM:

Project much, Hillary?

wwjb wrote on January 24, 2008 1:03 PM:

So, let me get this straight. Hillary and Bill lie their asses off and accuse Obama of everything from Reagan loving to raising taxes on the middle class, and when Obama responds, with verifiable facts, and points out that the Clintons have been lying, all of the sudden he is launching "the most negative personal attack of this cycle". Hmm. I guess she isn't counting any of her own ads or comments? Oh, and I love that all the Clintons ever have to respond with is "well what happened to the politics of hope??" every time Obama tries to defend himself.

So, to wrap up, Clintons lie and attack nonstop, Obama has to defend his comments with facts, and Clintons pounce and go "where are the politics of hope?!"

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense..

And wait, they have talking points for all of their surrogates now? I thought their surrogates were just going on autopilot...that is what all the Hillbots said when their surrogates were dropping racially charged comments, drug innuendos and the like. Weird, now it turns out that they are coached on everything to say. No way!

dajafi wrote on January 24, 2008 1:03 PM:

Whatever happened to "whatever happened to the politics of hope?"

Obama's "attack" is well-nigh hard to dismiss on the merits; even the Clintons' admirers generally concede that in "playing to win," they will pretty much say anything, and do almost anything, to win. Some even view that as a selling point.

This could stick, and it certainly should.

Audacious_One wrote on January 24, 2008 1:04 PM:

When told that his new radio ad is basically accusing Clinton of lying, he responded:

"Look, this is very straight forward. This is in direct response to an ad by the Cinton campaign that has been discredited directly. When you run an ad making assertions that everybody who looks at it says it is wrong, you know it is wrong and you still make it, it means you are not concerned about accuracy or the truth. If people are making false assertions about my record, we will answer them."

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 1:04 PM:

Clinton ad criticized for attack on Obama

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

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

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

Kefa wrote on January 24, 2008 1:05 PM:

So Greg...you act as if Obama's side has no talking points. It does seems you have taken sides and ARE not being a FAIR reporter. If that is so please do just say so. Don't act like this is something new.

Dan wrote on January 24, 2008 1:05 PM:

Obama's challenge was always that the idealist vs. a cynic will fail. But Hillary's attacks on him would seem more effective if it weren't so clear that she's been pounding on him with this bullshit "Republican" thing.

Stirling McLaughlin wrote on January 24, 2008 1:06 PM:

"Project much, Hillary?"

LOL. Totally.

La Wanda wrote on January 24, 2008 1:07 PM:

Talking Points Memobama.

AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on January 24, 2008 1:09 PM:

Okay. I have finally been pushed over the edge by these RRBS! (Race Baiting Bs*) It's times to unleash the dogs of hell. New Talking Points for sane democrats who want to take back the White House. If we don't ask these questions now, you bet McCain will!

1. Will Clinton2 push for and then sign the legislation she introduced in the Senate to imprison Flag Burners.

2. Will Clinton2 allow her brothers to peddle presidential pardons as Clinton1 did?

3. Will Clinton2 be capable of enforcing a policy of no sexual harassment in the White House -- She certainly couldn't the last time she lived there, depite Clinton1 saying they decided everything together since 1971.

malarson2 wrote on January 24, 2008 1:10 PM:

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

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

AWESOME! These are so terrible! Bill and Hillary were counting on Obama not fighting back, and they are doing a terrible job of countering. All Obama's campaign has to say is that they were tired of hearing Bill and Hillary lie about Obama's record, and all of these talking points are rebutted.

It's "whatever happened to the politics of hope" all over again, and that was completely pathetic and didn't work either!

Hillary will say anything and change nothing.

frankly0 wrote on January 24, 2008 1:12 PM:

Ever heard of the word, "Duh"?

As if anybody with a brain couldn't see this response coming from a million miles away...

to wrote on January 24, 2008 1:13 PM:

Obama strategy:

As long as they keep lying about us, we will keep telling the truth about them.

Sounds good to me.

jbentley wrote on January 24, 2008 1:13 PM:

So I guess the rules of the game are that Hillary and Bill can spew whatever b.s. they want and Obama has no right to respond.

frankly0 wrote on January 24, 2008 1:14 PM:

Next stop: an obviously personal attack against Obama from the Hillary campaign, with Obama's negative ad as all the cover they need.

Anna b wrote on January 24, 2008 1:14 PM:

The Clintons are disgusting ... they lie and lie about Obama and are running an incredibly negative campaign, and then they go after him for getting negative!?!!! What crap!!
The Clintons are taking this campaign to an awful place, but Obama has to respond or he will be run out like John Kerry was. I will be so happy when I never see the name Clinton in politics again. I'm a progressive liberal 42 year old white female and I will never vote for Hillary after this crap. If she had run a decent campaign, I would have been okay with supporting her, but I'm sick of this Carl Rove style politics - Obama has tried to take the higher grounds at least and give us something different.

Angry Vet wrote on January 24, 2008 1:15 PM:

Frankly0- Holy shit, we agree.

justin wrote on January 24, 2008 1:17 PM:

Greg Sargent shame on you! you're not a reporter you're a partisan!

Slynn wrote on January 24, 2008 1:17 PM:

Obama has been the most negative person in this campaign, not Clinton.

Obama's wife has been making negative remarks about Clinton from the get go. Tough if Bill happens to be a more important person.

It was Obama and Edwards who said they were going to attack Clinton in the debates, and a different candidate who said it was getting way too personal.

It was Obama, who twisted Hillary Clinton's point..that Actions speak louder than words, into a racist statement.

He complains that Hillary twists facts, and points out little things, when in fact he does the same things, and did them first. (Such as the Iraq vote, which Obama didn't even get to actually vote for. And Hillary saying she regretted voting for an act, and was happy that it didn't pass. Somehow, in Obama's words turned into Hillary saying that she voted for something, but hoped it didn't pass.

And it's Obama who is now saying that Hillary will "say anything to get elected"

So keep thinking that Obama is the image of perfection, and Hillary's the big bad woman, just because the media tells you so.

I guess we found our answer of whether the country is more racist or sexist.

Anna b wrote on January 24, 2008 1:17 PM:

and malarson2 ... well said! thanks for the link to the dnc ... I will email ... I'm really scared that we are getting set up for a republican administration again, and I can't, in good conscience, vote for Hillary myself ... I actually think it would kind of be a wash in terms of what Hillary vs a moderate REpug would accomplish anyway.

Darrell wrote on January 24, 2008 1:18 PM:

Back in early Jan. Obama had a 15 to 25 percent lead over hillary according to most polls.

Not any more...

He only has a 3 to 19 percent lead over hillary according to the lastest polls.

One poll has him dropping by 4 percent within 24 hours.

Hillary and Bill will be campaigning hard today in south carolina all the way up to saturday.

I think between the white votes and the black votes its hard to say at this point who will win but i would put my money on hillary.

frankly0 wrote on January 24, 2008 1:20 PM:

Frankly0- Holy shit, we agree.

Enjoy it while it lasts!

Angry Vet wrote on January 24, 2008 1:23 PM:

Hmm, just did a google search of "real solutions for America." Guess what I came up with?

Oodles and oodles of JRE quotes and sites.

Darrell, care to give us prove of your assertions? I don't recall any poll having Obama up 25 anywhere.

BTW, if you think Greg Sargent is partisan, please do not tell us, ok? If anything, he just likes to throw us wolves the red meat. In fact, I kind of think of Greg as the character Milton did of God in the last part of "The Devil's Advocate."

Kefa wrote on January 24, 2008 1:24 PM:

Glen Beck/ Rush L/ S. Hannity all rooting for your Obama. All want your guy to win all day long. Talking him up. All day long talking down the Clintons. Just like in here. We in the Dem party don't need them and we don't need you. You all sound the same. You guys should take a listen it would blow your mind. It's funny. You all have sooooo much in common. The hate for the Clintons. lol

Georgia P wrote on January 24, 2008 1:26 PM:

Here is the difference. Obama tells the truth while Hilliary distorts the truth. Plain and simple.

wj wrote on January 24, 2008 1:28 PM:

Slynn,

Please inform me as to the contents of your alternate universe:

1. Where and when has "Obama's wife" made comments about Hillary that are anything like the comments--nay, lies--that Bill has repeatedly perpetuated about Obama?

2. In your universe, does an ex-president and default national leader of a major political party have more influence than the spouse of a little known senator from Illinois?

3. Where has Obama misrepresented Clinton's record? Show me one instance.

Michael A wrote on January 24, 2008 1:29 PM:

Here is a good summary of the fact comparison between rezko and whitewater, from of course one of those clinton-haters. However, it makes for a good read and puts clinton's attacks in perspective. The hypocrisy of the clintons is truly legendary.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-russell/whitewater-v-rezko-the-_b_83040.html

NCSteve wrote on January 24, 2008 1:29 PM:

So do tell, does Obama's campaign put out "talking points for surrogates" like this? Does Edwards?

Back before Iowa, I was surprised to find out (via Tim Grieve at Salon) that Hillary's campaign would send out little emails to reporters linking them to unfavorable stories, or even rumors, about Edwards and Obama but that Edwards and Obama did not. Similarly, there was a lot of talk about how "everyone" used planted questions at town halls, but no actual evidence that anyone in this campaign had done it except Hillary.

So, c'mon guys, dish. What about the "talking points for surrogates"? Everyone or just her?

wwjb wrote on January 24, 2008 1:30 PM:

Kefa, you really have no idea what you are talking about, as usual. There is absolutely no logical reason the GOP would prefer to go against Obama rather than Hillary, they don't know how to attack Obama, and that was clear at the GOP debate when they were asked about Obama. On the other hand they have a lot of experience trashing Hillary, and they obviously have no hesitation in doing so. Hillary would be going into the general with HALF of Americans disliking her, so the GOP has nothing to lose by attacking her. Obama on the other hand has much higher positives and lower negatives, so attacking him is much harder. The GOP are trying to be more like Obama, trying to talk about "change" after Obama's big win in Iowa, they have no idea how to deal with Obama, and that is obvious from all indications. Not to mention, almost every poll has consistently shown that McCain beats the crap out of Hillary in the general, and Obama can beat McCain. Many people have pointed this out, and the multiple reasons why Hillary will not be able to beat McCain, as have I, so I won't repeat them here. I'll just say that once again, you are trying to pass off what you want to be true as fact, but that doesn't make it any more true, nor does it make you look all that intelligent to people who can see this train wreck of a general election starting to form.

Bupalos wrote on January 24, 2008 1:36 PM:

Obama supporters, fire it up. Look at the big picture. This thing isn't going to end any time soon. The Clintons are going to have to campaign for at least another month. Now look at trendlines anywhere that the campaign is joined. Look at trendlines in the nationals. The longer people look at Obama, the more they like. The longer they look at the Clintons, the more reservations they have. It's a straight line march. This is why the "inevitable" strategy was deployed. They haven't got staying power for a long fight. And we have a little resurgance of "inevitability" lately, on the basis of two very weak wins for Clinton. But her margins against everyone, all the Republicans, and all the Democrats, move in one direction.

Remember the bottom line. The longer we keep this going, the more the springs on the Clintons' jalopy squeek. Clinton fatigue and credibility issues means they take on more water every day. Above the waterline, they still look good, but that ship is ready to sink. Hopefully it will happen before the nomination rather than after.

Yes they will try to drag us down with them, in negativity, in "scandals," in identity politics...so that their primary message, that everything is relative, everyone is dirty, so you might as well just go back to the devil you know.

Don't take the bait. Ignor them and let them collapse under their own weight.

Georgia P wrote on January 24, 2008 1:38 PM:

To,
As long as they keep lying about us, we will keep telling the truth about them.

You should copyright that! Brilliant. This is exactly what is happening, Hilliary keeps lying which exposes everyone to the truth about her.

John McCutchen wrote on January 24, 2008 1:38 PM:

A source forwarded them to us:

Translation: Greg's on a Clintons' Flak listserv

p_lukasiak wrote on January 24, 2008 1:40 PM:

smart move on the Clinton campaign's part. Rather than address the accusation ('she'll say anything') they're aiming at the very heart of the Obama campaign, and sending the message that his claim to be "a different kind of candidate" is total bunk.

Its a brilliant piece of political ju-jitsu...use the opponents own attacking momentum to your advantage. Nor should the "rovian" aspect be ignored; it targets Obama's strength -- the idea that he's a "different kind of candidate".

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 1:40 PM:

wwjb...I love it here. I had no idea when I said HRC would win NH either. When you all crowed that the bitch was dead. I will have no idea when she gets Super Tuesday no matter what you crybabies say or do here. When she takes it all. When the dirt on your boy gets out I will be here too. I'm having a great time here watching you all have a pissy fit as the Gregs and the Erics shade all they want to make you all happy giving you the hope you need bevieving in this guy who is just like the rest of them.
I will post and watch and every once in a while have a say, like now just to let you know that HRC has support. We will win, you will lose. We have the better policies, machine, and minds. Case closed. Have a nice day.

HateTheGame wrote on January 24, 2008 1:40 PM:

Bill Clinton on Rove:

"Hey, you did a marvelous job, it was just marvelous what you did," Clinton told Rove, according to the book "The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008," by John F. Harris and Mark Halperin. "I want to get you down to the library. I want to talk politics with you. You just did an incredible job, and I'd like to really get together with you and I think we could have a great conversation."

Agents of change eh?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401722.html

Kristi wrote on January 24, 2008 1:42 PM:

Ambinder posted the following - not much info yet:

"Clinton Campaign Pulls The Misleading South Carolina Ad....
24 Jan 2008 12:44 pm

First described here.

Working to figure out why...."

roo_P wrote on January 24, 2008 1:42 PM:

So, uh, which is it? Obama too weak for not calling out lies or Obama too forceful for calling out lies?

Kefa wrote on January 24, 2008 1:43 PM:

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 1:40 PM:

wwjb...I love it here. I had no idea when I said HRC would win NH either. When you all crowed that the bitch was dead. I will have no idea when she gets Super Tuesday no matter what you crybabies say or do here. When she takes it all. When the dirt on your boy gets out I will be here too. I'm having a great time here watching you all have a pissy fit as the Gregs and the Erics shade all they want to make you all happy giving you the hope you need bevieving in this guy who is just like the rest of them.
I will post and watch and every once in a while have a say, like now just to let you know that HRC has support. We will win, you will lose. We have the better policies, machine, and minds. Case closed. Have a nice day.

Kristi wrote on January 24, 2008 1:48 PM:

I forgot to include the link but there has already been an update:

"(Updated) Clinton Campaign Pulls The Misleading South Carolina Ad....
24 Jan 2008 12:44 pm

First described here.

Working to figure out why....

Update:

A Clinton aide said the ad was not intended to air for long, had finished its rotation, and had yielded its space to a "closer" ad that focuses on policy."

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/clinton_campaign_pulls_the_mis.php

SLKRR wrote on January 24, 2008 1:51 PM:

@Georgia P:

"As long as they keep lying about us, we will keep telling the truth about them.

You should copyright that! Brilliant. This is exactly what is happening, Hilliary keeps lying which exposes everyone to the truth about her."

Kind of hard to copyright that, since it's almost a verbatim quote from Harry Truman. Still, it would be a great line for Obama to borrow for the next debate.

Angry Vet wrote on January 24, 2008 1:51 PM:

Kefa,

Your analysis and response to WWJB leaves alot to be desired. Shall I just give you my address so you can come out and kill me?

The vitriol in your comments speaks volumes. If this is the heart and soul of an HRC candidacy, you can count me out.

And, as an aside, Jm's comments for Obama aren't much better. But at least I do not fear for my life if I were to vote against Obama. Jm would just dismiss me as a fool.

Kefa, on the other hand, seems like he would kill me (or himself) were HRC to lose.....

You people are all fools, regardless of who you listen to. It is people like these, mindless followers, that allowed for [deleted due to the un-pc analysis of history].

I let you guys parse out want I meant by that last sentence.

dajafi wrote on January 24, 2008 1:51 PM:

Bupalos: right on. The longer this lasts, the more likely it is that voters will look at the Clinton psychodrama and decide they'd rather go forward than back. The Machine dies hard, but it can be had.

Elizabeth wrote on January 24, 2008 1:53 PM:

To SLynn:
Your statements are very interesting and I, for one, would like to know more.

>>>Obama's wife has been making negative remarks about Clinton from the get go. Tough if Bill happens to be a more important person.

Please provide citations and links to comments Michell Obama made that were negative about HRC. I'm simply not aware of any - not saying they weren't made.

>>It was Obama and Edwards who said they were going to attack Clinton in the debates

Please provide citations and links to such statement - Same thing. I'll acknowledge that Edwards did attack her in a debate, and at an earlier debate Obama answered a question asking what his problems were with her candidacy, but I can't recall Obama and/or Edwards sayint that he/they were "planning" to attack her in the debates.

>>>, and a different candidate who said it was getting way too personal.

I'm assuming this is referring to Bill Richardson, and I agree that's what he said. Twice, I think.

>>>It was Obama, who twisted Hillary Clinton's point..that Actions speak louder than words, into a racist statement.

Please provide citation and link to any statement by Obama that "twisted" those words into a racist statement (BTW, his statement that if JFK had believed that we would never have made it to the moon and if MLK had believed that we would never have achieved civil rights cannot count. Both of those are accepted and universally recognized achievements in Am. history, both beginning with words and hope that, at the time, seemed to set impossible goals.)

>>>the Iraq vote, which Obama didn't even get to actually vote for.

No, but he took a stand at a time when it was unpopular and has been consistent in that stand. I'm not sure I understand your point here?

>>And Hillary saying she regretted voting for an act, and was happy that it didn't pass. Somehow, in Obama's words turned into Hillary saying that she voted for something, but hoped it didn't pass

I think she skipped over a key word that you have included in your statement: "regretted" As I recall it, her statement was "I voted for it" and "I was happy it didn't pass." Granted, that certainly 'implies' she later regretted it but in fact, she has never said that. Be fair -- if she can 'cherry-pick' words that Obama says and lie about them (e.g. partial sentences from his Reagan comments and then saying he called Republican ideas 'better'), then I think he should be entitled to take her complete statements as if she literally meant the exact words that she said.

But you made some clear factual statements that, if proven, might get me to change my views on all this, so I'd greatly appreciate those references. As you recommend, I don't just take "the media's word" for things ... but neither do unsupported factual statements made by an anonymous poster as gospel. Thank you.

John McCutchen wrote on January 24, 2008 1:59 PM:

Those weak ass talking points deserve another listen at what's getting on The Clintons' last raw nerve

Obama called The Clintons out and they thought they'd parried the thrust and perhaps shut him down at the debate

Think again

http://a.media.abcnews.com/podcasts/Tapper.mp3

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 1:59 PM:

Anyone notice the Clemson poll only adds up to 64%? Does this mean 36% undecided?

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

See this article by Ron Fournier:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignplus/20080124/ap_ca/clinton_race_4

One Clinton supporter openly played the race card.

After fielding several questions from a crowd of about 200 in Kingstree, Bill Clinton called on a black man standing off to the side of the small stage."black America is voting for Obama because he's black."

The man also said Democrats are in a "dangerous position" because if Obama wins the nomination, voters will put a Republican in the White House.

"They're not ready to for a black president,"the man said....

The pastor who raised the specter of racism later refused to identify himself to an Associated Press reporter. He was escorted by a security guard who shooed away strangers.

I think Dick Morris has this right. The Clintons have been playing this race card so that if SC voting blacks go heavily to Obama, the perception that race played the role in victory will create general resentment in white voters and lead to a backlash against Obama.

Mark F wrote on January 24, 2008 2:01 PM:

I hope Obama kicks their arrogant, lying asses.

The Clintons must not be allowed to steal any more of the White House furniture.

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

Hillary Clinton won in NH by lying about Obama's record on choice. She ran a dirty, "it's not illegal if they don't tell you" (exact word quote) campaign in NV. Obama has every right to hit back. Playing the victim isn't going to work because everyone knows the tactics the Clintons have adopted have been absolutely Rovian: fear and smear.

phil james wrote on January 24, 2008 2:05 PM:

Hillary jumps Obama, from behind, and succeeds in rolling him into the mud with her. Then she criticizes him for getting dirty. What a complete fraud she is! If she is the Democratic Party's future deal me another hand please.

ihatebeets wrote on January 24, 2008 2:09 PM:

So, in other words, Hillary (and her surrogates) will say anything to get elected.

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

@Elizabeth wrote on January 24, 2008 1:53 PM:

Please provide citation and link to any statement by Obama that "twisted" those words into a racist statement (BTW, his statement that if JFK had believed that we would never have made it to the moon and if MLK had believed that we would never have achieved civil rights cannot count. Both of those are accepted and universally recognized achievements in Am. history, both beginning with words and hope that, at the time, seemed to set impossible goals.)

Far more importantly, Elizabeth is that these remarks were made PRIOR to Hillary's ill-advised comment on LBJ and JFK. Additionally, Obama made those remarks as a follow up to Hillary's assertion in the debate that Obama was peddling 'false hopes' to the nation.

"Granted, that certainly 'implies' she later regretted it but in fact, she has never said that. Be fair -- if she can 'cherry-pick' words that Obama says and lie about them "

Yes, yes, especially given how she rudely interrupted him repeatedly and retorted "I never said Reagan" "I never said Regan' as if there was a stark difference between saying Reagan and saying republican that would have changed the substance of his response. Hillary is horrid like a high school debate with her'technicalities'. She seems to forget all those 'technicalities' when she claims 35 years of experience and touts that she will be ready to lead on day one based on having been First Lady.
Technically, being a First Lady is not experience to be elected President and for sure it is not foreign policy experience even if she did travel to 82 countries, she never had national security clearance to engage in any high level meetings of nationa interest.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 2:15 PM:

* This from a candidate and a campaign who have promised voters a politics of hope and unity, and repeatedly denounced the “slash and burn politics of the past"

this came from the Billary campaign? Are they serious?! I mean, cmon. Really?

i guess for all this talk from them about being everyone being held to the same standard, they don't apply their own sandard to themselves"

PeterB wrote on January 24, 2008 2:17 PM:

Gee, this was hard to figure out. Lets see the political strategy 101

1) Bait your opponent to attack using surrogates
2) Make false claims about his record
3) When he defends his record - call him frustrated and weak
4) When he attacks - come back and point the figure as though he attacked first.

Seriously, this is really simple stuff and the american people buy the same shit every election cycle. Clintons will win because they are masters of this game. The game of distortion and changing the subject so that their opponents message never gets out. I give up, I am crawling back into my depressing apathetic bubble that i have been in for the last 8 years because I just can't handle how lame our political process has become. Not to mention how bad people are continually rewarded year after year. F - THIS!

BernieO wrote on January 24, 2008 2:18 PM:

Obama is engaging in politics as usual, contrary to his phoney above-the-fray stance. What a whiner. Worse,with his "my supporters won't vote for Hillary" statement he shows that HE is the one willing to say anything to win, even if it hurts his party.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 2:20 PM:

So Obama puts out an ad defending himself from a clinton smear, and thats somehow a "personal attack"?

well...if they want to call Obama's ad a personal attack, wouldnt they also have to call their own ad, which implied Obama was for privatization of social securtiy (a bald faced lie in a clinton ad, i'm shocked) a personal attack ad?

I'm confused. When does it stop being a "contrast ad" and become an "attack ad".

It seems that whatever Billary does is ok, and fair game. But when Obama responds, he's "attacking Billary personally".

I'm soooo over the clintons. Seriously. They need to go away.

chuckle wrote on January 24, 2008 2:22 PM:

Hate to tell y'all, but HRC supporters have already been saying all of this even without the anonymous email sent to TPM. But if you want to get excited why not do it the right way - with a nice cup of expresso?

PeterB wrote on January 24, 2008 2:25 PM:

I can't believe the Hillbots can look themselves in the face and not see how dirty a campaign Billary has run. ARe they that naive?

dagman wrote on January 24, 2008 2:25 PM:

Obama may have won the "spin" on discrediting the Reagan add, but the add is largely accurate - regardless of what the MSM says. In the interview in question, he stated the Republican Party has been the party of ideas for the last xx years. This has been the unnoficial Republican party slogan for the past 15 - 20 years. We have heard it time and time again from Limbough, Delay, Gingrich & Fox News. For Obama to claim that he wasn't necessarily talking about good ideas, and for the press to buy that is absolute bullshit. He repeated the far right talking point that the Republican Party is the "party of ideas" when talking to a conservative news organization. His explanation was a parsing of Clintonian proportions. Yes, the Clinton's do this all the time - but they are not running as a "New type of Politician".

PeterB wrote on January 24, 2008 2:34 PM:

The Repubes have been the party of ideas. Hello, they have kicked our ass in every election cycle since 1992 up to 2004. Our problem as a party had been that we compromised our beliefs and were gunshy in presenting our ideas to the voters for fear of them not liking the ideas. We became the party that was against everything rather than the party of ideas. We have taken a drubbing and just now we are awakening from that slumber with a potentially exciting transformative figure ready to lead that party....yet there are those that want to go back to the acrimony of the clinton years....fools!

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

It's pathetic how the Clintons don't understand this whole "hope" thing. Obama is not "hoping" that the Clintons aren't going to try to walk all over him. He has no choice but to call them out when they LIE about HIS record.

Michael A wrote on January 24, 2008 2:42 PM:

PeterB, remember a dem presidential candidate has not won an election with 50.1% or more of the popular vote since Jimmy freaking Carter. That's more than 30 freaking years. Obviously there is a huge problem and the clintons are not the answer. They want to win again with less than 50% of the vote, which isn't going to happen this time. The republicans will take anyone out who might try to ross perot their candidate. Clinton will unite them like there is no tomorrow. McCain in 08.

savvy wrote on January 24, 2008 2:42 PM:

Hillary's surrogates are on TV hitting back at Obama asserting Hill will say anything they say ..his response is a "sweeping personal attack" to say that she will say anything is just such a personal indictment, when the Hill's ad's used his own words.

this type of defense might work really well if folks did not already know what liars the Clintons truly are.

geoff wrote on January 24, 2008 2:53 PM:

After her loss in Iowa it is clear that Bill vigorously inserted his strategy and person into her campaign. Although his direct involvement came with great advantages, it is becoming very clear that the Clintons severly underestimated Obama's political skills and the undying loyalty of his supporters within the party. Their faith in the tactical application of nineties style political campaigning is clearly falling short of its intended effect.

It has been fascinating to see the Obama campaign to quickly adapt its message by drawing upon the knowledge and support of some of its more senior Democratic supporters.

Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 2:54 PM:

Conservatives are the only ones who will get us through this mess the Clintons have made.
I am on the computer all day so I know how it is.
I did not like the thought of the Clinton sex scandle but it's none of my buisness.
If I ever had sex with a person I would not want you to know about it.
I don't want to know about mormon cult sex either, but I like the thought of it in an abstract way.
I wish Fred had stayed in the race,for the good of all Americans

savvy wrote on January 24, 2008 3:11 PM:

The Clintons lies, distortions and misrepresentations are beginning to backfire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILVLzbBcs8A

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 3:31 PM:

http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/politics/obamas_money_machine.php

frankly0 wrote on January 24, 2008 3:32 PM:

p_lukasiak,

I think you're right that the Clinton campaign is succeeding in attacking Obama on his supposed strength by using the momentum of Obama's own thrust against him.

Which, as you point out, is great ju-jitsu. The only thing I'd add is that basically the Clintons basically goaded them into taking exactly this kind of swing against Hillary.

Which is even better ju-jitsu.

It's like they've played this game before, and Obama hasn't.

Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 3:41 PM:

frankly0

dear cynic,
now I know why Bill supports democratic "ministers".
you guys really ARE dem bitches!
but really dudette, your preoccupation with Bill's lies is not healthy.
ever considered professional help?
the beauty of America: you and your dem buds are totally free to vote for another Mitt-ster douche.
just don't call it "progressive"

and by the way, if Rudy is bullying america into voting for him how come it's not working with you?
no rubber ducky for Bill to threaten?

Geez, the MittIdiots are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
and yeah Mark F, "the definition of is is" is SUCH a strident slur.
Pathetic.

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

Obama went negative on Clinton last summer (D-Punjab) and last fall (Jeff Gerth and see attacks in this link). he is hardly pure.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh102907.shtml
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120707.shtml

Also, the name calling from his surrogates is truly gross (Lee Attwater?) and, yes, his campaign sends out talking points to surrogates. They all do. (It would be helpful to the Democratic party if Obama didn't traffic in the same stereotype of Democrats that Republicans also used against Gore and Kerry, but he likes their talking points so c'est la vie. See first link above for the reference.)

But for a moment, let me channel some Obama supporters and use their style of rhetoric:

"I haaaaate Barack Obama. He is such a Village pandering, Republican loving stooge. He backs away from liberal positions (Social Security and universal health care) to appeal to Republicans. And that's during a Democratic Primary! What do you think Lieberman-lite will do in the White House?

"If he is the nominee, I won't vote for him. Because it's all about meeee. Me and my crush on Hillary. If she doesn't win, to heck with the country, I'm taking my ball and going home."

That logic is stupid. It must be a bummer that your candidate is behind. You could try to actually convince people to vote your way. Or I guess you could throw a temper tantrum. I see which option most Obama supporters here are taking.

I will vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever that is. Because it's. not. all. about. me. It's about our country and I'll take 80% over 2% of what I want. And I'm not so thin-skinned that I can't see my candidate take a little heat.

(Hey Josh - if i whine some more, can i get front paged too?)

(Please also read Daily Howler to see how Obama is criticizing Clinton for a position on Social Security that he held ... in 2006.)

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh111607.shtml

TexModDem wrote on January 24, 2008 5:27 PM:

Angry Vet: "That kind of logic is all to reminiscent of the last 8 years of executive governance in this country."

An Obama supporter opining on logic is like President Bush opining on "nucular" physics.

Obama promised an above-board, postive campaign, without personal attacks, yet not only has he employed negative attacks directly, his surrogates on the blogs have consistently and viciously engaged in name-calling ("Hitlery", "Goldwater Girl", "GOP-lite") and SwiftBoat Vet-like tactics smearing her record.

LOL at your "logic."

Obama: the same old type of politician as usual, but with a "I'm not that kind of politician" shtick.

Obama: the Centerpiece Without a Table, Nader-lite, Ganja Guy, Kumbayah Candidate who, like Bush, wants to whine his way into the White House.

TexModDem wrote on January 24, 2008 5:34 PM:

BTW, the type of black-and-white political orthodoxy and everyone-else-is-evil loyalty to Obama is more like the Bush White House than anything the Clintons have ever done.

Also, btw, seeing "Senate Votes Down Anti-Immunity Bill" in TPM's headlines, I gotta ask, what happened to Obama's legendary ability to build bipartisan consensus for principled legislation that will serve progressive values?

Ooops! Failed again.

Is he gonna be as effective at ending the war in Iraq as he has been in derailing Telecom immunity?

Ooops! Gotta elect him president first, the Obamaites say, even though they insist that Clinton should be able to ram through such legislation all by herself.

Different standard for Obama.

Just like Republicans have different standards for Bush than for Democratic presidents.

We know who's more like who, even if Obama supporters don't or won't admit it.

Laura wrote on January 24, 2008 5:36 PM:

Savvy,

I'm thinking the same thing you are.

The Clintons ENTERED this thing with a credibility problem, even among people who are friendly or at least sympathetic to them.

I think the American public (including me, at one time) has been willing to give Hillary a shot because she's undeniably smart, shrewd, and savvy. She has an incredibly strong case to make on that alone. I guess I'm kind of shocked...is it possible the Clintons, their supporters, strategists, etc. are tone deaf or in a Bush-like bubble? Maybe they really don't understand how they're broadly perceived?

I can't help thinking that if they understood the broad public perception of them better, they might not have pursued this strategy.

Who knows? Maybe the Clintons will be able to change strategy again and make it work. I will say this for them: they're doggedly persistent and seem to have a preternatural energy that keeps 'em up and fighting no matter what.

TexModDem wrote on January 24, 2008 5:40 PM:

Hmmmmm.

Claire McCaskill (D-MO), voted to table Telecom immunity.

Didn't she endorse Obama and isn't he against Telecom immunity?

Wasn't Kerry for the Iraq war and didn't Obama not only support his presidential bid, but accepted his endorsement?

Seems like Obama, and his supporters, loves everyone who opposes his positions and votes anti-"progressive" except Clinton.

Now, why would that be?

Clinton would get a rousing round of applause and gushing compliments if she were endorsing Obama, regardless of her votes, because there is nothing principled about Obama's campaign - it's all about him and winning, not progressive values.

TexModDem wrote on January 24, 2008 5:45 PM:

Colombia: "Obama went negative on Clinton last summer (D-Punjab) and last fall . . ."

Long, long before Clinton went negative, but Obama supporters live in a bubble and either can't see the perception their candidate has outside their narrow circle of orthodoxy or don't care.

savvy: "The Clintons lies, distortions and misrepresentations are beginning to backfire."

Yeah, I guess that's proven in your Peter Pan world by Clinton's national poll lead over Obama increasing from 4% to 12% in the last week.

LOL (I can't write these letters big enough to convey how utterly hilarious Obama supporters are!)

Columbia wrote on January 24, 2008 5:50 PM:

TexModDem: we can cut them some slack because the media totally ignores attacks on Clinton and basically manufactures "attacks" on Obama. But really, the wah-bulance is getting a little ridiculous. Apparently, no criticism of Obama is allowed but people can make the vilest accusations against Clinton.

And if they don't think the tables will turn if Obama is the nom against St. McCain .... god help them.

TexModDem wrote on January 24, 2008 5:50 PM:

Michael A: "They want to win again with less than 50% of the vote . . ."

Are you so delusional that you think Clinton wants to win with less than 50% of the vote, that she would be utterly crushed if she got 55% or 60%?!

And you think Obama will turn down the presidency if he wins with less than 50% of the vote?!

Now you know why everyone but Obama koolaid drinkers think Obama koolaid drinkers live in a Peter Pan world.

LOL^10

TexModDem wrote on January 24, 2008 5:53 PM:

Anonymous: "So Obama puts out an ad defending himself from a clinton smear, and thats somehow a "personal attack"?"

Since it wasn't a "smear," yes.

Hmmmmm "clinton" vs "Obama."

Yeah, I see where you are comin' from.

Nothing "personal" in belittling "GOP-lite Goldwater Girl Hitlery."

Post a comment

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