Hillary Campaign Won't Air Ads Attacking Obama

Comments (62)

john mccutchen wrote on January 5, 2008 9:37 AM:

NASHUA, N.H. – If Hillary Clinton had done something terribly wrong in Iowa, she would be better off in New Hampshire.

Hillary should be running scared
By: ROGER SIMON
HRC had all the right tools for caucus success in Iowa, yet was brutally defeated by Obama. What went wrong?

A: Mrs. Bill herself

john mccutchen wrote on January 5, 2008 9:43 AM:

I could go negative but I won't use this ad...

Where did I hear that one before

The Clinton Campaign, a campaign in trouble

Ni Daye wrote on January 5, 2008 9:43 AM:

I'm just about having enough with the stupid staffers of Hillary's compaign. why do they talk so much about their strategies? Do they realy think they will get a fair hearing from the media? What's wrong with running "negative" contrasting ads? By saying you may run and then pull back, this is like Huckbee, so stupid.

Have they totally lost their mind or their confidence! cannot be a good thing...

john mccutchen wrote on January 5, 2008 9:44 AM:

Simon: Mrs. Bill is the Clinton Campaign's problem

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7739.html

Tom wrote on January 5, 2008 9:45 AM:

Clinton is running scared. She better watch behind her. John Edwards is about to pass her in New Hampshire.

john mccutchen wrote on January 5, 2008 9:48 AM:

Thanks Ni..Huckabee stunt was what I was trying to remember.

You are right. This campaign that during the bums rush period had the punditocracy cooing about "brutal efficiency" "unflappable" "on message" has since Nov 1 or so, come totally apart.

The problem isn't the campaign. The campaign is the product that Penn is trying to sell

paDem wrote on January 5, 2008 9:49 AM:

Not enough time to drive Obama down, or just enough time to drive up her own negatives some more?

A lot of things can go wrong -- it's really early in the process, and every primary has it's own challenges -- but the Obama-Mo is starting to have the feeling of a freight train bearing down on SC and the big day in February. I think that if some notable Democrats *coughAlSharptoncough* don't get on board pretty damned quick, they're going to look sad and silly standing on the train platform as the train thunders past.

As Bob Herbert says in this morning's NYT column (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/opinion/05herbert.html?th&emc=th ), we're witnessing something new.

Lizzy wrote on January 5, 2008 9:54 AM:

OT: Can the Poll Tracker be fixed, it is indicating that the recent Zogby Poll NH-Pres (D) was done on Dec. 5 shouldn't it read Jan. 5?

MIchael A wrote on January 5, 2008 9:56 AM:

This is a smart move on her part, for once. However, one has wonder whether they really have anything anyway. I'm willing to bet they don't. If they had anything good, they would have used it already. But, maybe they are holding that interview with his first grade teacher where he said he changed his mind and wasn't sure about being president for the knock out blow.

Anonymous wrote on January 5, 2008 10:11 AM:

AP: Billary Clinton Leans on "Relic" Bill

Jeremy wrote on January 5, 2008 10:35 AM:

The Politico article on Penn is interesting. I think that not firing Penn, who is a liability for more reasons (Blackwater, union-busting) than just his incompetence, is one of the biggest mistakes Hillary has made. I wonder if she keeps him around out of loyalty or something else. I've read that when Reich was Sec of Labor in Bill's admin he was frustrated because union-busting lobbyists like Penn got more say in ultimate policy.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/berman

AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on January 5, 2008 10:50 AM:

Clinton's embrace of Penn (The man in the $3000 suit with the $500 combover) was the first sign to me that Obama was the man for me. Ten days in a country very different from the USA has me more than ever convinced that we need change. Obama will rock New Hampshire!

Helter wrote on January 5, 2008 11:53 AM:

At this point, they have to stick with the whole "experience" and "ready to lead" angle despite the fact that a vast majority of Iowan voters didn't find it persuasive. Not enough time to switch to something new or retool. Maybe they'll have better luck with it in NH.

Dan wrote on January 5, 2008 11:54 AM:

This is not presidential news but it's important nonetheless: Musgrove has announced he will run in Mississippi's Senate race, which is great news for Democrats as a recent poll shows him up double-digits.

Ernie wrote on January 5, 2008 12:00 PM:

The flip-flopping on going negative and not going negative in the Clinton campaign is a clear sign of major dissension among the staff, divided along the negative/no-negative fissure. This does not bode well for NH, even if they survive the first true primary. It will dog them for the rest of the campaign. All their energies will be used up with internal fighting, as opposed to running a successful campaign.

Ironically, this is an ideal test for Hillary to show if she is capable of real leadership. Her biggest problem -- her albatross in fact -- is Elvis himself. This is an aspect that I see seldom played out in the MSM, that Bill is her biggest problem in getting nominated. And I think the reason is that the MSM just does not want to go after Bill.

Anonymous wrote on January 5, 2008 12:00 PM:

Everyone's on the Obama "change bandwagon" now. The latest -Mitt- "he's been a change agent all his life" says his CM to MSNBC

Michael A wrote on January 5, 2008 12:06 PM:

Uh oh, clinton people. It may be time to turn out the lights, because the party might be over. Obama has a ten point lead in New Hampshire in the latest rasmussen poll. 37 to 27. Edwards is at 19. Here's the link:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2008_new_hampshire_democratic_primary

Obama in 08, let's get our country back.

underwhelm wrote on January 5, 2008 12:12 PM:

Mitt better watch that "change agent" talk. He's leaving the barn door wide open for someone to say "yeah: he changes from liberal to conservative!"

I'll take my million dollar consulting fee now.

WhyCompromise wrote on January 5, 2008 12:23 PM:

Great. Obama can win the nomination and then be astounded when the Republicans still smear and deride him despite his "centrist" message. Why do you have to support a bipartisan, unifying message when a majority of the country supports elements of the progressive agenda (e.g. Health Care: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml)? If one side of an argument is fundamentally wrong (say because they follow an ideology and don't look at the reality of a situation) then why must we incorporate their views into a solution? At a certain point you need to say "Hey, guess what. Your views have been, are, and will continue to be completey and utterly wrong. You no longer get an input into governing this country." Instead of pushing this country steadily into the direction it needs to head, Obama will half-ass every progressive idea and end up accomplishing nothing.

Jalmari wrote on January 5, 2008 12:28 PM:

Good. Attack ads increase the target's negative ratings. Instead of driving up our own nominee's negatives, attack the Republicans instead. Let the primary be a contest to drive up the Republicans' negatives.

New Hampshire has two Republican senators and John Sununu's term will be up. So the NH attack ads and stump speeches should call him out. "I believe in this, that and the other thing. Republican Senator John Sununu voted against this in 1992, filibustered that in 2003 and pays lip service to the other thing but has never done a damn thing about it.

We all want this that and the other thing, but there are just too many Republicans. I appreciate your vote, but it's not enough. If we're going to make this happen, we also need to get rid of Republicans like John Sununu."

And then the SC attack ads should call out the SC Republican delegation on all the good ideas they're preventing. Rinse. Repeat.

DemBlueStates wrote on January 5, 2008 12:30 PM:

Excellent move, Hillary.

DOn;t get pushed by the idiot punidts who love nothing better than a good, down-and-dirty catfight.

NO ONE covered the story that, among true Dem registereed voters, Hillary and Obama were in a virtual tie, 32-31, before the Caucuses and ended 31-32 after the caucuses.

You go, girl. Don;t lose your nerve, and keep it keepin' on.

If things turn her way in NH, and I'm sure they will, all the pundits will be going to Obama's campaign "Why don't you, you've GOT TO go negative on Hillary??"

john mccutchen wrote on January 5, 2008 12:30 PM:

Are the S-hills running for the Hills?

Chuck Todd, Natl journal political correspondent has been until today a shameless Hill Shill ...he just ran out of spin on the "Saturday Russert"

"Old so and so used to have a 14 year test. No one with more than 14 years experience can win. Too much baggage. So are the voters seeing Hillary as someone who is new to public office or....."

A fellow talking head followed

"I looked at Clinton's stage Thursday night and I thought I was looking at a yellowing photograph from the 90's"

john mccutchen wrote on January 5, 2008 12:33 PM:

Do-over Special next week

Next week there will be 3 days of Newsom inaugural events in SF where I plan to offer our Hillary endorsing Mayor a "do-over"

Half price to Sgt Kleefeld

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 5, 2008 12:35 PM:

Well, I guess that I am impressed that the Clinton campaign has in fact learned the lesson here. I was expecting them to shoot themselves in the foot again, but I guess that we will have to work a bit harder on my side because the Clinton folks are not going to do the work for us (as they did in IA).

moondancer wrote on January 5, 2008 12:35 PM:

This is a bad cycle to be perceived as establishment. Penns work for HRC has buried her. I dont think anyone in her campaign picked up on the overwhelming dissatisfaction with the village status quo, and now it's probably too late to re-message.
Obama will be smeared by the GOP and its 527s', but I think the disgust with the GOP makes it hard for them to define him and harder to get anyone elected.
This is going to be a very bad year for the GOP.

DRinOH wrote on January 5, 2008 12:39 PM:

John McCutchen,

If you've been reading posts on this site for the last couple months you know that I'm a big Obama supporter, as are you. As a fellow Obama supporter I'm asking you to tone down your rhetoric and be a little more tolerant. Our candidate is doing well and you/we should feel good about that, but the way you refer to Hillary and her supporters, combined with the venomous way you attack her on an hourly basis serves only to undermine your credibility. More important to me, it makes me guilty by association.

Congratulations to Obama, and lets keep fighting the good fight. But lets make it just that, the good fight, and remember that we're (hopefully) going to need these Hillary, not to mention Edwards, supporters in just a few short months.

Thank You

Dave wrote on January 5, 2008 12:42 PM:

Great. Obama can win the nomination and then be astounded when the Republicans still smear and deride him despite his "centrist" message. Why do you have to support a bipartisan, unifying message when a majority of the country supports elements of the progressive agenda

Catch up, man! Obama's one of those dirty liberals now.

hello_world wrote on January 5, 2008 12:48 PM:

WC

That point that you and people like you refuse to see is that Obama is redefining the fight. He's rebuilding a Democratic coalition in a way that Hillary couldn't even begin to dream of.

Basically, he's begun the process of marginalizing the smear and hate mongers, by appealing to the sort of people that are not bitter partisans. Of course the far right will still try to be as divisive as they possibly can. But Obama's argument is that the majority of people in this county are tired of the direction that this country is going in, and want to change.

Obama is offering good people who aren't happy with the direction that our country is headed an opportunity to join up with him as Democrats. As hard as it is for some to believe, Braack Obama is expanding the progressive coalition. In order to be a leader, you need to lead all the people, not just cater to a small base. This is how Bush tried to govern, and this is what some people are suggesting. Obama has a strong history of progressive causes. He is also showing that he's able to bring a broader coalition to these causes. We have the greatest opportunity right now to elect a leader with broad vision, able to reverse the trends that Regan began almost 30 years ago now. This is special.

DRinOH wrote on January 5, 2008 12:53 PM:

I'm not sure which is a better sign for Obama - the fact that he's up ten in that new Rasmussen poll, or the fact that the Rasmussen site went down from all the traffic minutes after they posted it.

NotFeelingObamaSoMuch wrote on January 5, 2008 12:58 PM:

so the republican party is going to rollover for the "politics of hope"? should Obama win in November, i can really see the entrenched powers in washington and the republicans gathering together and holding hands for multiple verses of Kumbaya!

i can see Edwards fighting them in hand-to-hand combat and actually winning a few rounds; i can see Hillary outmanuevering them in fierce negotiations and actually making some progress... but the one thing that i cannot see is Obama calling for a new day and working for a higher good and getting anything done at all unless the dems control at least 60 seats in the Senate (which if that happens, then Edwards, Clinton, or Obama can pretty much do whatever they want)...

Dan wrote on January 5, 2008 12:59 PM:

When did Hillary become the "status quo"? Republicans have been attacking her, and demonizing her to raise money for 16 years because she wanted to keep everything the same? I think not.

wes2 wrote on January 5, 2008 1:06 PM:

I think it's an (uncharacteristic) good decision chez Hillaryland, but I do wonder about their reasoning. My own guess would be that they thought there was no way to do enough damage in the three days before the primary. If they used their best shots now and Obama STILL swept NH, they'd have nothing left AND would look bad to boot. I can't imagine they don't plan to go negative soon, however. Graceful recognition of reality isn't a trait I associate with the Clintons.

DRinOH wrote on January 5, 2008 1:07 PM:

Dan,

If you want 60 seats, nominate a candidate with broad cross-partisan appeal, like the one who won Iowa by turning out over 100,000 new voters, including independents and republicans, doubling the 2004 numbers for Kerry, and won nearly every single crosstab there is to measure.

That's the kind of nominee with coattails that can really create waves that reverberate all the way down the ballot.

DRinOH wrote on January 5, 2008 1:09 PM:

Oops, sorry Dan, that one was meant for the person before you.

Frog Leg wrote on January 5, 2008 1:14 PM:

The newest Rasmussen poll has now taken into account the likelihood that 40% of the voters on the Dem side will be independents. This poll retooling is likely the reason for the huge swing for Obama. It looks like the pollsters are learning from their mistakes in Iowa and from the Des Moines Register's accuracy.

TomK wrote on January 5, 2008 1:17 PM:

Clinton really fucked up with that union busting Penn. That shit doesn't fly. She never should of hired him. Huge mistake. Then going after the pearl clutching fraidy pants vote with this crap about Obama being against mandatory minimums. Hello, the Jim Crow drug war sucks and mandatory minimums are a horrible injustice. She really has her finger on the pulse of all these game changing young voters Obama is bringing to the table.

That said, it's really too bad that a strong liberal woman is going to lose because of all the irrational vile hatred for her. Booing Hilary. Comparing her to republicans or Lieberman. What the Fuck is that? She is on the side of good. She isn't the best choice to be president but she doesn't deserve the hatred.

bvd wrote on January 5, 2008 1:18 PM:

"WHYCOMPROMISE" - I think you're wrong about Obama. But let me ask you this: what major "Progressive" accomplishments have there been since Reagan was president? I mean, how many "Progressive" issues did Clinton push through? Not a whole lot. The Left was as ticked off at Clinton as the right. He was a major dissapointment.

Besides, even if you're right, I'd rather have half of something we need than none of it. The idea that the Left is going to force through what "we" want is, frankly, delusional.

hello_world wrote on January 5, 2008 1:25 PM:

i can see Edwards fighting them in hand-to-hand combat and actually winning a few rounds

I don't. I lived in N. Carolina when he was a Senator. Edwards is an opportunist, not a fighter.

i can see Hillary outmanuevering them in fierce negotiations and actually making some progress...

Like she's outmaneuvered Obama on the campaign trail?

Admit it, Obama is much better at this political stuff than you've given him credit for. At this point, if you don't see that Obama is a fighter, and a very smooth and intelligent one at that, then you're looking at a different campaign than I am.

mike wrote on January 5, 2008 1:31 PM:

OF COURSE she wasn't going to go negative.

I'm sorry, anyone who 'speculated that' is an idiot.

There's no percentage in her going negative now, none. Her ONLY chance (and it's a longshot) is to hang around as a 'calm and experienced' presence and hope she picks up big states on Feb. 5.

Going negative against a guy as positive and popular as Obama would be suicide.

CalD wrote on January 5, 2008 1:36 PM:

Obama started attacking Clinton in NH a week ago. I heard that same attack ad from Iowa that TPM posted begin running on WBZ AM 1030 in Boston a day or two before the Iowa caucuses. Only difference I noticed was the quote at the end from the Daily Iowan, or whatever that college paper was, had been replaced with one from the Concord Monitor (who I believe endorsed Hillary Clinton). So I think Clinton would be within her rights to go after him if she wanted. Of course if John Edwards does it, maybe she doesn't think she need to.

In other news, I noticed ARG was hatin' on the Des Moines Register poll today. Pointed out that if you re-weight the Seltzer's final poll based on entrance poll proportions for subgroups (40% Independent my ass) it would have come out to a tie for first between Clinton and Obama with Edwards trailing by 6%. That's probably true I guess.

They made some other assertions that may be more arguable. And of course since they were so far off themselves it comes off sounding like sour grapes, whether it is or not. Even if it's all gospel truth, it would better coming from Zogby, say.

goaty wrote on January 5, 2008 1:37 PM:

HRC's showing in Iowa proves that, as good as the good old days may have been, America just doesn't want to go backwards any more.

That's not going to change in NH or anywhere else.

brm wrote on January 5, 2008 1:38 PM:

Get ready to celebrate the end of the Bush-Clinton era next Tuesday.
Obama is surging in NH and will likely get 40% + of the votes.
Clinton and Edwards are both dropping rapidly.
Only question is where the Edwards voters will go.

DTM wrote on January 5, 2008 1:39 PM:

This is just a guess, but I suspect the calculation is that going negative could drive them down to third again, which could be the de facto end of the campaign.

So, the new plan may be to try to hold onto second ahead of Edwards, and then subsequently declare Hillary the "Comeback Kid" ala Bill.

That said--it would not be surprising if this comment simply applied to television ads, and not to things like mailers, phone calls, "unauthorized" comments by campaign surrogates, and so on.

DTM wrote on January 5, 2008 1:41 PM:

Blumenthal at pollster addressed the party comp issue with the DMR poll. And the bottomline is that reweighting the results in somebody else's poll to "prove" they actually got it wrong is not about to convince anyone.

john mccutchen wrote on January 5, 2008 1:43 PM:

How come David Kurtz at TPM publishes the Rasmussen poll results and TPMElectHillaryCentral doesn't?

Sgt. Kleefeld USED to dissect that one endlessly back in the days of the Bums' Rush

DO OVER SPECIAL!

Sargent 50% off
Eric FREE

NotFeelingObamaSoMuch wrote on January 5, 2008 1:45 PM:

hello world: outmaneuvering other democrats on the campaign trail (while not a small or insignificant thing) is hardly a reason to believe that will work when you are fighting the big money lobbyists in washington or a desperate (and they will be desperate) republican party that is fighting for its political life. also, labelling any politician an opportunist is like calling a basketball player an athlete. please show me a politician who is not an opportunist (and don't tell me that obama isn't opportunistic. how is he running for prez in such a short time since his great convention speech in 2004?)

CranialRectalLoopback wrote on January 5, 2008 1:46 PM:

Funny how the Republicans have managed to convince the Democratics that their best president since Roosevelt is an albatross.

dajafi wrote on January 5, 2008 1:47 PM:

brm--given the whole thrust of Edwards's campaign, the unconcealed loathing Joe Trippi has for the Clintonites in general and the slimebag Penn in particular, and the fact that Edwards presumably will be looking for a job in the next Dem administration (one I hope he gets, by the way; he'd be a great attorney general and an even better Secretary of Labor)... I don't think there's a whole lot of question where the bulk of the Edwards voters will go. At least if they listen to their standard-bearer.

I am beginning to see a shift among Clinton supporters toward blaming Penn for the candidate's troubles. This is valid in a sense--the guy hasn't looked good on his assessments--but it overlooks the fact that there's no daylight to speak of between Penn, in his emphasis on and belief in small-bore tactics, microtargeting and focus-group tested platitudes, and the Clintons themselves.

Since 1995, that's who they've been--which is sad considering that Bill's 1992 campaign really was fresh, different, ambitious, principled and effective. It might or might not have been the best approach for that time... but it's not today.

Dan wrote on January 5, 2008 1:49 PM:

Rasmussen has a new NH poll with Obama up... TEN!

DTM wrote on January 5, 2008 1:54 PM:

The basic problem for any progressive President will be that states like Georgia, Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Texas, and so on all still get two Senators. That doesn't mean those Senators can't be Democrats or at least Republicans willing to play ball. But a progressive President will basically have to have enough support in those states among independents and disaffected Republicans to bring about the necessary supramajority coalition for change in the Senate.

Anonymous wrote on January 5, 2008 1:59 PM:

Drop the award-winning student journalists at the Daily Iowan after all the support they got here at TPM as bona fide health care experts? I'm shocked, shocked.

hello_world wrote on January 5, 2008 2:00 PM:

NotFeelingObamaSoMuch

My point was that Edwards doesn't have the support or the political will for a real fight and that Hillary doesn't have anywhere near the political acumen that you give her credit for. Yet, supporters from both camps constantly suggest that Obama is some starry-eyed, naive political waif when it's become increasingly obvious that he very well knows how to accomplish the goals that he sets out to accomplish.

CalD wrote on January 5, 2008 2:23 PM:

Dan,

That looks to be another one of Rasmussen's 1-day polls. I don't know why he does that.

NotFeelingObamaSoMuch wrote on January 5, 2008 2:23 PM:

hello world: i hope you are right about obama, since he is now the front-runner. i'm just saying that giving inspiring speeches work great during election campaigns, but it takes more than idealism to succeed with an agenda once you are elected. edwards has beaten big money corporate interests in court (no small feat) and is realistic about having to fight them; hillary has been attacked constantly since her first days of bill clinton's nomination in 1992, so i feel that she is realistic about the ferocity of the opposition. i don't know about obama's bonafides in fighting republicans.

sure, i would love 8 years of soaring feel-good rhetoric from Obama. he's an amazing orator. but what i really want is some serious progress on issues that matter to democrats (and most of the country) and safeguards installed so that future presidents cannot operate with such disregard for the constitution as GWB.

i will enthusiastically support any nominee from the democratic party. i just want to be sure that he/she is realistic about the entrenched power that is going to oppose them in 2009.

esmense wrote on January 5, 2008 2:48 PM:

Obama won't get my vote until he stands up to his boorish supporters and the media. Substituting "generational war" for "culture war" doesn't get us anywhere toward "unity" or a better America. Especially when that "generational" war appears to just be a new name for the same old thing; hostility toward the liberal women who, bearing the brunt of much of the massive social change over the last 40 years, stepped up to the plate, accepted new responsibilities, and worked to create new and better conditions and opportunities for their sons and daughters. Obama would not be where he is today without 40 years of commitment from the liberal women, black and white, of Hillary's generation. That unique "biography" that pundits like Andrew Sullivan claim as Obama's advantage isn't Obama's alone -- it is his mother's, too, and perhaps most of all.

Hillary isn't entitled to anyone's vote -- but she is entitled to basic respect. And the childish booing by Obama supporters, and some of their comments in forums like this, show they are no better than, and not much different than, the ugly culture warriors of the Right.

If you guys really want to "transend" the ugly politics of the past, you have to start acting better than that.

There is no way to transend the politics of the past without first expressing appreciation for what women like Hillary have achieved, and acknowleging the price they've paid in doing so.

Anonymous wrote on January 5, 2008 2:53 PM:

My only question to those who allow Obama his oratory props but diss his ability to achieve "serious progress on issues" is this: why is this an either/or proposition? Everyone talks a good game about one of the great inherent powers of the President is the bully pulpit. Just because we've had a widely acknowledge inarticulate mediocrity in office for the last 7 years doesn't mean this isn't a useful tool. In Obama we have a guy who can actually use the bully pulpit effectively to indirectly influence the Congress in a positive way, not to mention effectively lobby Congress the old-fashioned way. Not to mention the long coattails factor that Obama will have compared to any of the other major Dem candidates (whether it can get us veto proof majorities, however, remains to be seen), as well as the dreaded notions of compromise and negotiation. I think in areas where the GOPers are the 28% idiots that they usually are, they can lose to an Obama outright. In other areas where the support is stronger, there may be legitimate areas of compromise.

Desider wrote on January 5, 2008 2:54 PM:

I'm happy to see the Obama fans brimming with overconfidence. Like one of those young marathon runners amazed to find himself leading the pack after 2 miles.

Hillary should pack it in? Well, right now she's raised $120 million, has a nationwide lead in polls, has much more Hispanic support than Obama, has the advantage on older women nationwide (who tend to be represented more in elections than Iowa's caucus would show), and she's leading in delegates 175 to 75. Wait till Super Tuesday, folks, i.e. Heartbreak Hill. Then we'll see who needs to tuck tail and head home. Only a month away, don't wet yourselves yet.

Fire Mark Penn? The biggest damage to Hillary was the nonsense over drivers' licenses for immigrants, and the Obama-essay-inspired nonsense over his Kindergarten. A year ago it was assumed Hillary's negatives were too high to be elected, then when that got turned around, it was the Obama-penned bit about Hillary being like a worn-out incumbent which Ben Smith turned into the damaging "inevitable" tag. Maybe Penn's made some mistakes, but I'll easily wait until Feb 5 to judge how badly he's done. In the meantime, keep gloating, folks. Oh and while you're at it, please call a few people in New Hampshire and tell them they have to vote for Obama because that's how Iowa voted and everyone's doing it and it's the real new path to change.

NCSteve wrote on January 5, 2008 3:03 PM:

Man, Rasmussen is still locked up tighter than Dick Cheney's giant office safe. That's got to mean something (other than just Rasmussen needing to add some more Bandwidth before Supercalafragilisticexpialidocious Tuesday). And they still haven't posted the national primary dailies that were due at 11:00 EST. I've noticed that that usually only happens when there's really bad news for Hillary. (No, not spinning a pollster conspiracy theory. I just suspect that when they see something that doesn't jibe with their CW-locked outlook on the world, they take greater pains to double check the data.)

Don't overanalyze the decision by Hillary to not go negative in New Hampshire. The fact is that there simply isn't time. Campaign pro CW says that it takes a certain amount of flinging before the mud sticks to the target and an additional amount of time after that for the stink to wear off of the person who flung it. With only five days, starting the negativity in New Hampshire would do more harm than good. Instead, I'm expecting them surrender completely to the Dark Side in California and New York about fifteen minutes after they lose New Hampshire.

I read in the NYT this morning that Hill and Big Dawg are going all Nixony over the press, saying they'll be to blame if Obama gets nominated and then beat by the Republicans. They're also once again hinting over the last two days that they've got some big secret stash of negative oppo on Obama they are getting ready to unleash. So, hey, don't blame them if they have to go negative. The press forced them to do it by not doing it for them and they're only doing what they think is best for the country and the party.

NotFeelingObamaSoMuch wrote on January 5, 2008 3:25 PM:

from Paul Rosenberg at Open Left (he says it better than i do):

Democrats have been trying to make nice-nice with Republicans in order to put an end to polarization and divisiveness at least since the days of Jimmy Carter. The results have been quite satisfactory... for the Republicans. Barack Obama says that this time it will be different. If he means to inspire us, that's one thing. But if that's really his game plan, then he is reading from speeches given by Lucy to Charlie Brown: this time, for sure, she won't pull that football away at the last moment.

Michael A wrote on January 5, 2008 4:26 PM:

I agree on nothing being decided until feb 5 and it might not be over then. The good thing for obama is momentum, historic excitement for his campaign, and his broad appeal.

Now on the over confidence thing, clinton supporters have been pathetic. According to her supporters obama should wait until 2016 and annoint clinton the nominee. She was madam president before one vote was cast and she was inevitable so accept it. Well, that to me is over confidence.

Bottom line its fun to watch and exciting what is happening. Especially the particpation of so many young people in politics for the first time. That's incredible. Anyway it all comes down to february 5. If obama keeps doing what he is doing and the excitement keeps growing and people get out and vote to get their country back. February 6 will be a great day for america.

Peggy McGilligan wrote on January 5, 2008 5:49 PM:

OBAMA! OBAMA! Hasta La Vista, Hillary: http://theseedsof9-11.com

DTM wrote on January 6, 2008 12:20 AM:

Given the mailer discussed in a subsequent post, it does indeed look like to the extent this was true at all, it was in reference to broadcast ads.

Post a comment

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