Obama Winning Spin War Over Who's Victim In Campaign

Comments (233)

Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 3:59 PM:

I'm a Rudy fan, always been one.
but more to the point,
only democrats really cared about bill's sex life.
it worked, how I think it will work now?
Understand Obama's campaign is starting to really compete,
even for my sorry ass.
sooooo progressive of you guys....
and to the cynics,
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.

as one biographer has noted
"anonymous is a lame ass Romney supporter more interested in swiftboating Rudy than the good of his nation."

The American people were clear: Bill's lies did concern them.
It was only Mormon cult personalities like you who tried to make an issue of it.
And where is Warren Jeffs now, hmmmm?

BRockNYLA wrote on January 24, 2008 4:02 PM:

"if media coverage, pundit opinion, and insider chatter among Dems is any guide"

What a joke, right? The media coverage (including this site), etc is almost boastfully pro-Obama. So, why is this even a question?

Dumbest question ever.

frankly0 wrote on January 24, 2008 4:04 PM:

Obama is winning the spin war with the media. That is no surprise -- the media has always been mindless and relentless in its pursuit of the Clintons.

But who is winning in the minds of the voters?

That's where the Clintons always seem to score. Some of us remember how editors and reporters across the nation decried Bill Clinton's behavior and talk after Monica.

And what happened to his polls? They went up, of course.

Tony wrote on January 24, 2008 4:04 PM:

Good post Greg.
I predict a 40/60 split in the namecalling. (Clintonlover/Obamaite)

Michael A wrote on January 24, 2008 4:04 PM:

Your post may be right gregg, but I would call it as obama is winning the "victim" battle, but if the poll trends are any indication he is losing the media "war" big time. I hate to sound negative, but it is what it is. He has to start playing the media like the clintons are or this "war" may sadly be over sooner than we think.

K wrote on January 24, 2008 4:04 PM:

Frankly, I think Obama's losing. He's coming across as increasingly whiny.

Or, put another way, I'd guess a lot of men are thinking a lot less of him, now that a woman's kicking his butt around.

Southpaw wrote on January 24, 2008 4:05 PM:

Greg, you are insufferable. A disgrace. Only a Hillary supporter would describe what's going on as a "Spin War." Obama is the one trying to run on the issues. That he's finally responding to Hillary's attacks -- predominantly not by attacking back, mind you, but rather by calling her out on her own negative campaign tactics -- is not "spinning" or "framing," as you say. It's just telling the truth.

You disgust me.

Angry Vet wrote on January 24, 2008 4:05 PM:

Interesting perspective, Greg. Very inside-baseball stuff. We'll see how this pans out.

Jeremy wrote on January 24, 2008 4:06 PM:

The backlash from Hillary lying about Obama's record on choice in order to win NH is just beginning. They call it "whining" when they get called on their lies. They call it "abandoning the politics of hope" when Obama draws contrasts, like discussing his superior track record of good judgment.

Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 4:06 PM:

I am starting to realize that Obama is really the man for me.

I never wanted to cross over.
But I realize that my beligerence is getting in the way of making
a choice that is right for America.
And the more I think about it, I did not like Bill Clinton
wagging his finger in my face.
What he does in his own bedroom is his buisnees (sic)
But even I don't like being lied to.

Jeremy wrote on January 24, 2008 4:08 PM:

Southpaw wrote factual statements on January 24, 2008 4:05 PM:

RS wrote on January 24, 2008 4:08 PM:

The first several paragraphs of this post are based on the mistaken premise that Obama's negative attacks should be as troubling as Clinton's. This is a silly trap that the media often falls into.

Candidate A launches a series of dishonest attacks, Candidate B responds sharply by suggesting that Candidate A is demonstrating a pattern of saying anything for political purposes, and you treat them the same. This is not objectivity, this is false neutrality. From a self-proclaimed media critic, no less.

Additionally, you mistakenly believe that both campaigns are pushing the "they're victimizing us" narrative. I don't think that's true. It's an Obama narrative, in part because the facts tend to support it. The Clinton narrative, it seems to me, is that Obama is too weak/inexperienced to engage in these nasty fights with Republicans. This narrative may also be taking hold, and the question is which one will be able to move more votes into the preferred column.

Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 4:09 PM:

well i'm off to campaign for Obama here in South Carolina.
but i do want to thank Mark F and all his fellow Mitt-Idiots for making my morning.
I haven't laughed so hard since when? oh yeah, yesterday!
now get back to kissing Billy's ass you naughty naughty boys!

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 4:09 PM:

What is "going negative" about lamenting your *opponent's* negative attacks (and then correcting her blatant distortions of your record)?

You can try all you want to create the impression that both sides are throwing mud, and that the best we can do is throw our hands up and say "all's fair." It won't work. The Clintons have crossed the line. And you're right there with them.

Try to maintain some professional dignity, would you?

grover_rover wrote on January 24, 2008 4:09 PM:

I don't think it is really a matter of spin, it is whether or not the media is taking note of reality, and perhaps they are starting to. The Clintons can whine all they want about Obama's negative attacks and it not being the politics of hope, but rebutting false negative attacks doesn't constitute a negative attack in itself. The Clinton campaign is forced to whine about "what happened to the politics of hope" every time Obama is forced to respond, because honestly what else are they going to say? He calls them on their lies, and they have nothing to come back with. I think their latest talking points hint at the fact that they are noticing that the media is starting (finally) to talk about the fact that the Clintons are indeed lying to the public about what Obama has said or done. They have already dug a huge hole for themselves by putting so much weight behind their false claims, all Obama has to do is step to the side and let them trip over the inertia of their own lies. In order to do this, however, Obama needs the media to finally start listening to his responses, because up until now, the media has focused about 90% on the Clinton attacks, and maybe 10% on Obama's rebuttals (and those are even usually clipped so the important parts are left out). I guess a blatantly false attack is a much easier soundbite than a rational and honest rebuttal, and unfortunately the public doesn't usually take the time to consume the latter. Anyway, I hope their dirty campaign bites them in the ass hard in the end.

mcc wrote on January 24, 2008 4:10 PM:

Right now -- if media coverage, pundit opinion, and insider chatter among Dems is any guide -- it's hard not to conclude that Obama is winning this particular spin war handily.

Here's what I want to know, though. Is that the correct guide to be using? You're trying to determine who's winning a spin war, but to do so you're looking at the spin-- the media. But this is an election, so it isn't the media who decides who wins the spin war-- it's the consumers of that media who matter, because they decide the spin war based on which of the media's transmitted spins they ultimately buy. Normally the assumption would be that media consumers will come to the same conclusions the media itself did. But we've already seen that assumption failing at least once this nomination cycle, with at least one primary having hinged on voters explicitly rejecting the media narrative of that moment.

How do we tell whether the public is in sync with the media narrative now?

And even if we knew who won the spin war, how many normal people are actually going to be basing their votes on which of the two candidates is a bigger "victim"?

Mike wrote on January 24, 2008 4:11 PM:

He's winning this war because there's no way any fair and competent observer could see it any differently.

However, when it comes to the war over expectations, Obama has consistently lost. This is because his case has not been as clear and it gave the media the freedom to side with the Clintons.

Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 4:12 PM:

It is just such stupidities out of Hillary world and her skirt hangers that leaves me with contempt for her and your shallowness.

AJ wrote on January 24, 2008 4:12 PM:

However, being a 'victim' is hardly Presidential. Phase II of this narrative is "Is Obama tough enough?' The press will be bored with the current narrative on Monday, book it.

Kathy Sammons wrote on January 24, 2008 4:14 PM:

You are right about the whiny tone. It is really grating. Republicans are not going to worry about hurting his feelings or seeming unfair. And to make this a rhyme, I will end with: "grow a pair."

john mccutchen wrote on January 24, 2008 4:15 PM:

NY DAILY NEWS
Hillary goes negative

Employing innuendo and half-truths against Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton and her husband, the former President, have introduced the politics of personal destruction to the Democratic presidential campaign. They bear responsibility for cheapening the tone of the contest.

Sen. Clinton began distorting Obama's record in Monday night's debate and yesterday began airing a television attack that twists a recent Obama statement about former President Ronald Reagan to the point of clear inaccuracy. Bill Clinton, meanwhile, has wrongly accused Obama both of injecting race into the debate and of running a negative campaign against his wife.

They have gone well beyond engaging in tough political jousting while steering the campaign far from the substantive issues. Their tactics are reminiscent of the unproductive, distasteful mudslinging that started with Bill Clinton's election and continued through George W. Bush's reelection.

Sen. Clinton has an obligation to restore her competition with Obama to the level of fairness that has generally prevailed for the past year. And Bill Clinton should heed the counsel of Democratic elders, including Sen. Ted Kennedy, Rep. Rahm Emanuel and former Sen. Tom Daschle, who have called on him to cease fire.

This is not to say that Obama deserves a pass from scrutiny and criticism. Nor is it to endorse him as the better of the two candidates. It is only to express distress that the Clintons have crossed the line into attacks that raise questions about how she might campaign were she the Democratic nominee and how she might govern were she elected to the Oval Office.

She is indulging in the partisan-style politics that Americans are desperate to leave behind and certainly don't want in a President. And she is either giving free rein to, or failing to control, her husband. Neither possibility bodes well.

In one attack in the debate, Sen. Clinton accused Obama of helping a corrupt Chicago businessman with his "slum landlord business." The truth is that Obama had put in five hours of work as a junior law firm associate helping to represent a community organization that had partnered with the businessman. The truth is also that Obama fought slumlords as a community organizer.

In the debate, Sen. Clinton also charged that Obama had said that he "really liked the ideas of the Republicans," and she amplified the allegation in her TV ad, suggesting that Obama might support "special tax breaks for Wall Street" and refuse to raise the minimum wage.

NCSteve wrote on January 24, 2008 4:16 PM:

Greg you partisan hack! How dare you engage in analysis and give your opinions rather than unabashedly cheering for my favored candidate!

Okay, seriously, that was a very interesting analysis. Not sure I agree with all of it (which, apparently, we're all required to say explicitly now upon penalty of having our complete agreement irrebutably presumed), but interesting.

I do agree, however, with the posters noting that how it looks to the D.C. insiders is irrelevant. The real question is how it plays out with the voters.

Publicus wrote on January 24, 2008 4:16 PM:

Here's all you need to know: the Clintons pulled the ad. They'll try to pivot (as their talking points suggest) to say that Obama has gone negative, but the nature of the ad itself demonstrates that it is a RESPONSE to Clinton's ad. So every time that bring it up, we'll just be referred back to the original dishonest ad. Buttress that with the truthful and accurate nature of the Obama ad and well, I suspect the Clintons will drop this line of attack soon--probably in favor of the Rezko-ish type stuff.

mcc wrote on January 24, 2008 4:16 PM:

What is "going negative" about lamenting your *opponent's* negative attacks (and then correcting her blatant distortions of your record)?

You can try all you want to create the impression that both sides are throwing mud, and that the best we can do is throw our hands up and say "all's fair."

Indeed, Clinton may have won the "spin war" already just by having introduced the question of whether Obama or Clinton is being more of a conventional politician. Even if the equivalence between Clinton's attacks and the Obama camp is absolute nonsense, the Obama camp now has to spend time fighting that equivalence that could have been spent on other things.

I do find it awfully weird that the best argument it seems like the Clinton camp can muster in their favor at this point is "he's just as bad as I am!" ... um, congratulations?

freaktown wrote on January 24, 2008 4:16 PM:

"Whatever Obama is facing from Bill and Hillary Clinton does not begin to compare to what the Democratic nominee will face from Republican swift-boat attacks."

I'm sooo tired of hearing Billary-bots repeat this as justification for their dirty tactics. We EXPECT republicans to fight dirty. We expect better from democrats.

Just because the republicans are going to do it, doesn't mean its ok for Democrats to do. That's like saying, "well al qaeda kills innocent people, so in order to defeat al qaeda we need to kill innocent people too" (and no, i'm not comparing Billary to al qaeda i'm using an extreme example to illustrate a point).

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 4:16 PM:

The Clinton's know Obama's winning this one. They trotted out Carville this morning saying "Obama needs to quit his whining!". Pray-tell me Jimmy! Are you advising Obama for his own good or Hillary's?

Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 4:19 PM:

RS

That's just the bait and switch you dems always use.
IT WAS ABOUT BILL GETTING AWAY WITH LIEING ABOUT HIS SEXCAPADE!
and it was a losing strategy against America then.
it will be again.
you dems just don't get it:
americans want you out of our newsrooms!
period!
and to you dear anonymous,
neither you nor any other dem has any business in my head.
period.
but hey, glad to see your true dem colors coming out:

vote Mitt, he'll spice up your sex life!
five women to every man

wwjb wrote on January 24, 2008 4:19 PM:

Ahhhhh yes, now here come the Hillbots saying "The media is sooooooo anti-Clinton and sooooooo pro-Obama" which I guess is why the media favors coverage of the Clintons' attacks so much more than coverage of Obama's defenses (oh, wait, "whining" is apparently what "Democrats" are calling it now when someone responds firmly to false allegations with facts...could have fooled me, I'm pretty sure that kind of bullshit was a Republican backup plan - think Kerry v Bush/Cheney). I guess that must also explain how Hillary has managed to run exclusively on an "experience" argument since the beginning of the campaign, and there has been absolutely ZERO serious discussion in the MSM about what that "experience" really includes, how fluffed it is, and how it compares with the experience of the other candidates. And until recently, there has been no real talk of the lies the Clintons have been spreading about Obama. Obama has been countering these lies since they started, and it probably took him a hundred responses before the media was forced to take a little notice (and it is just a little notice, I doubt there will be any major media exposure of the Clintons' lies and dirty tactics). Anti-Clinton media my ASS. This is just like the goddamn GOP and Fox News people whining about the "liberal media" that doesn't exist. The Clintons owe their entire campaign to the media's willingness to dutifully not ask questions and not report on anything that would really hurt Hillary's chances.

frankly0 wrote on January 24, 2008 4:19 PM:

Oh, remember how the media just couldn't get over the sheer inappropriateness of Bill Clinton's "diatribes" against Obama during both the NH and Nevada primaries?

Obama's campaign sure won the spin on that!

Too bad he lost the primaries, though. Awful luck, that.

To me it's always amusing to see how the media can't stop itself from getting its panties in a twist whenever a Clinton enters the stage. The moralizing! The hectoring sermons about how things have gone to hell in a handbasket!

And then the Clintons pull out a win with actual people.

hello_world wrote on January 24, 2008 4:19 PM:

It's not "spin" if it's true. Clinton's have campaigned extremely aggressively (or dirty, depending on your point of view) and Obama has been forced to deal with this. It still helps the Clinton's because any time spent by Obama away from message is good for Clinton since her message gets trounced by his head to head. But there is no doubt by anyone paying attention who is instigating this campaign tone. And I think there are probably a lot of people paying attention lately.

loki wrote on January 24, 2008 4:20 PM:

Greg Sargent,

Bill Clinton's criticism has been "brutally harsh"?

You want brutal?

Try the original Swift Boat ads, they were brutal. They suggested a true war hero was unpatriotic and a coward. They made up heinous lies and trotted out old vets to repeated them over and over.

What has been happening thus far in this campaign doesn't even rise to the level of a school yard spat by comparison. Brutally harsh? Please.

dml wrote on January 24, 2008 4:20 PM:

And the more I think about it, I did not like Bill Clinton
wagging his finger in my face.
What he does in his own bedroom is his buisnees (sic)
But even I don't like being lied to.

Tapper, do you think all of your friends tell you the truth about their sex lives?

RS wrote on January 24, 2008 4:20 PM:

You are right about the whiny tone. It is really grating. Republicans are not going to worry about hurting his feelings or seeming unfair. And to make this a rhyme, I will end with: "grow a pair."

You seem not to understand that the point of hitting back is to convince voters that the attacks are untrue and unfair.

Perhaps you believe that you show toughness by not exposing dishonest attacks for what they are. Maybe Kerry should've let the Swiftboating go on for a few more weeks before responding. Most of us, I think, would disagree.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 4:22 PM:

Way to give equal time, you jerk. Glad to hear all about what Clinton operatives Zimmerman, Carville, (and let's not forget Sargent) think.

None of you get it. This isn't a contest of who can convince voters that they are the real "victim." Indeed, Obama isn't playing "victim" at all. And in some ways, this has NOTHING to do with Obama, except insofar as he and his campaign is finally *directly* confronting these dirty campaign tactics by calling the Clintons out on them. Finally joining the chorus of people who have long been standing up and saying we have had enough of the Clintons and their politics of destruction.

Yes, that strategy is being directed *at* Obama right now, but that's beside the point. To be willing to direct it at *anyone* says a lot about you as a person. That's not my president.

AlwaysTipThgeWaitress wrote on January 24, 2008 4:22 PM:

The Clintonistas started this with the bald face lies incorprated in the NH "Obama is anti-choice Mailer." What is wonderful is that the Obaminites are pushing back against the lies. Keep up the sharp elbows, big guys.

to wrote on January 24, 2008 4:22 PM:

You are dangerously close to out-thinking yourself on this one, Greg.

john mccutchen wrote on January 24, 2008 4:23 PM:

"Obama's weak..can't take a punch"

While Greg and the Clintons Claque parties like it is 1999

Papa Don't Take No Mess
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCB4NJnGhsM

frankly0 wrote on January 24, 2008 4:25 PM:

Try the original Swift Boat ads, they were brutal. They suggested a true war hero was unpatriotic and a coward. They made up heinous lies and trotted out old vets to repeated them over and over.

Oh, I'm sure that Greg and all the other members of media will decry similar Republican attacks on Obama, should he become the Democratic nominee. And when they're finished with that, they'll decry them again.

And Obama will collapse in a heap, having been assisted on media crutches to the Democratic nomination on the idea that no Democrat should dare attack such a noble man.

Jay wrote on January 24, 2008 4:26 PM:

Greg Sargent: Your analysis is faulty because it is premised on the opinions and views expressed by pundits and the media as well as democratic party insiders. Everyone knows, especially after New Hampshire, that the opinions that really matter are those of voters.

Stephen wrote on January 24, 2008 4:27 PM:

Greg,

I am an Obama supporter, and welcome the view here. But there's too much spin, even some unintended. How would you characterize your own preferences?

Second, what's up with SurveyUSA? They always seem at odds with any other set polls?

Elizabeth Sheetz wrote on January 24, 2008 4:27 PM:

In the Clinton/Obama war there is an issue that is most important to me. LIES! I am the mother of a young serviceman serving his 3rd tour in Iraq.
I have had enough of being lied to. We will be electing a commander of the military. Honesty and integrity must be the most important character assests of the next President. The Clinton's have shown everything but. Bill & Hillary are liers! My son deserves better!

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 4:28 PM:

Angry Vet and NCSteve you have both completely lost all creditibility. How can you in any way defend this nonsense Greg is spewing?

steve wrote on January 24, 2008 4:28 PM:

Is it really news that the chattering pundits prefer Obama? Really? C'mon, Greg. If Tim Rissert decided who wins primaries, this thing would be over by now. He doesn't. Yes, Hillary will lose South Carolina (because of the Obama camp's race-baiting), but she is far stronger for the long run, both in the primary and the general. Let's not concoct "narratives" based on the "pundits" and forget that there are actual "voters" who will decide. And they'll decide based on policy and principle.

Jeremy wrote on January 24, 2008 4:29 PM:

Folks. You can help push back against the Clinton lies by forwarding these youtube clips, especially the first two:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILVLzbBcs8A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJK3x66gaww
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os-j-zLqYp8

Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 4:31 PM:

Duel Personality

did you mean "intimidation"?
of you?
please oh please tell me how i did that, i'd like to be able to deploy it in my neighborhood.
thanks.

Obama will get to the republicans in due course, first things is first.

We all absolutely know Clinton "is is"
a liar. Once Obama dispatches Bill and his skirt, he will "take care" of the next step.

RS wrote on January 24, 2008 4:31 PM:

Oh, I'm sure that Greg and all the other members of media will decry similar Republican attacks on Obama, should he become the Democratic nominee. And when they're finished with that, they'll decry them again.

And Obama will collapse in a heap, having been assisted on media crutches to the Democratic nomination on the idea that no Democrat should dare attack such a noble man.

I don't follow your logic. If the media is inclined to help Obama refute dishonest attacks, isn't that going to help in the general election? If they're inclined to portray the Clintons as dishonest hacks, isn't that going to hurt them in the general election?

hadenough wrote on January 24, 2008 4:32 PM:

"But I'd argue that a more complex dynamic is at play. Whatever the media's role in this, the fact that this narrative is taking hold can be chalked up to two other factors. The first is that the obama campaign's very conscious efforts to frame the race this way are working."

That's like saying rove is brilliant. I could sit here all day and crank out lie filled hate email about any of the candidates. That’s pretty much what rove does. The difference is the "liberal media" is not gonna run with my emails like they will with rove's. They like rove. Point being the "liberal media" decides what the narrative will be. Not Hillary and not obama. And like you typed above they decided they like obama's story. And as we have seen for the last 15 years the "liberal media" never met a lie about the Clinton's they wouldn't push.

obama's problem is that even though he gets george bush style media treatment he lost 2 out of 3 contests and set to lose big on the 5th. That's gotta be frustrating to someone like obama.

And greg, the “liberal media” has been writing the Clinton’s political obit for more than 15 years and look where we are.

Realpolitiker wrote on January 24, 2008 4:33 PM:

"if media coverage, pundit opinion, and insider chatter among Dems is any guide"

Seriously?

Seriously?

REALLY?

Is your memory shorter than NH?

wnw wrote on January 24, 2008 4:33 PM:

Today, even Robert Reich says it's a "smear campaign against Obama that employs some of the worst aspects of the old politics."

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/01/bill-clintons-old-politics.html

CT Voter wrote on January 24, 2008 4:35 PM:

But who is winning in the minds of the voters?

For this voter, Bill's heavy involvement in this race raises troubling questions about what, precisely, will be his role in the White House? I don't really want a return to the late 90s, and I don't want a constant spotlight on what Bill is doing.

And it also raises the question of who will be Hillary's running mate? Who's going to want to sign on as Veep in what will probably be a co-presidency? For everyone about to flame me for that question, if it's not going to be a co-presidency, then why the tag team behavior during the primary season?

Finally, for everyone predicting that poor little Obama will just faint away, how will Hillary answer questions about Bill? And Bill's lying? Whatever the Republicans do to Obama, they'll be able to (with media complicity) to absolutely shred Hillary. It's not even close.

WWNPHD wrote on January 24, 2008 4:35 PM:

When you say "the Obama campaign's chosen narrative", do you mean: the truth? Because the Clinton's are playing gutter politics.

Dawn wrote on January 24, 2008 4:35 PM:

frankly0,

yeah, the media is always so highly accurate and impartial about assessing the Clintons. We'll see what the voters think...

Oh look, Clinton's lead is growing in FL:
Mason-Dixon Poll Jan. 21-23,
Clinton 47 percent
Obama 25 percent
Edwards 16 percent
Kucinich 2 percent
Others 11 percent
Undecided 10 percent

and Obama has lost some tracking poll ground to Edwards in SC, while Clinton's has stayed the same:

Candidate 1/21-23 1/20-22 RCP 6-poll Ave.
Obama 39 43 41.8
Clinton 24 24 30.0
Edwards 19 15 15.4

I'm not sure if a spin war can be said to be 'won' if it costs you votes.

Bupalos wrote on January 24, 2008 4:36 PM:

I think we can all agree that Hillary successfully seized the mantle of victimhood with her broken-hearted tears about how she was just so upset for the country that she was losing and being bullied and it was hard to come out and campaign and keep her hair nice and all.

The Clintons will not give this coveted mantle away, and to ensure it, they are now freezing the game by turning from tears to the bully line that anyone who complains about lies is "whining."

These people are ruthless. I can't deny they are great, talented campaigners. But people are already sick of them, and it takes more and more of their campaign tricks just to keep Hillary trending down slowly rather than plumetting. When one trick goes wrong, all the fatigue is going to come rushing in on them like an ocean. This team is fragile. I predict it cracks at some point in the primary.

Dreggas wrote on January 24, 2008 4:37 PM:

So uh what is it about the statement "Hillary Clinton will do and say anything to win" that is so negative, and for that matter not true?

I mean we're talking about a couple (and with Clinton in the whitehouse you get both, not just one) that passed NAFTA, DADT, DOMA and welfare reform as well as being responsible, in a large part, for the republicans taking over congress. They did that to win the next election.

Seriously, those two will do and say anything to advance themselves and THEIR power. It's not about the Dems and what WE want

Jeff S wrote on January 24, 2008 4:38 PM:

That's fine. But if the Obama campaign is winning the spin war, why is their lead in SC diminishing?

LTD wrote on January 24, 2008 4:39 PM:

Greg,

Why is any of this surprising? Obama has always been the darling of the main stream media and most liberal blogs including the TPM. Of course you would all spin everything in favor of Obama. Fortunately, very few Democratic primary voters are falling for this. Don't overestimate the importance of MSM and these blogs to affect the opinions of real voters. If that were true Obama would have won New Hampshire by 15 points, no?

lestatdelc wrote on January 24, 2008 4:39 PM:

Pushing back against the negative attacks by team Clinton is not "going negative". Has anyone even considered that the reason Obama is winning the "spin" is because it isn't spin, but based on what has transpired so far?

Nope, it couldn't be that team Clinton is actually attacking Obama and has been since Iowa, it has to be just "spin".

CT Voter wrote on January 24, 2008 4:41 PM:

re: Obama losing ground (dropping four points) while Clinton's has stayed the same...true, but she's dropped by six points from time 1, while Obama has dropped by 2 points. She has stayed the same. Firmly in second place...although Edwards appears to be creeping up.

No one's winning this spin war.

But the Democratic party is losing. Typical.

eatbees wrote on January 24, 2008 4:42 PM:

Southpaw wrote on January 24, 2008 4:05 PM:

Greg, you are insufferable. A disgrace. Only a Hillary supporter would describe what's going on as a "Spin War."

=====

I knew someone would try this. Apparently Southpaw's robot-like mind automatically puts Clinton statements in the "lies" box and Obama statements in the "truth" box. Of course, giving moral equivalency to lies and truth is disgraceful. But some of us see it differently.

Didn't anyone notice when Edwards turned to Obama in the last debate and said something along the lines of, "What you're criticizing her for doing, you've done to both of us"? Every politician tries to leverage the weak spots in an opponent's record to gain an advantage. That's how the game is played. Obama's "say anything...do nothing" spot against Hillary is, objectively, a lie. She doesn't say "anything" to win, and she's had measurable accomplishments in her career. Implying otherwise is a low blow, just as some of hers have been.

Obama is like the kid who provokes a bully, then plays the righteous victim when the teacher turns to see what is happening. The bully gets a whack on the head and the provocateur keeps his hands clean. Would Obama still provoke the bully if he knew the teacher wasn't there to protect him? I wish he would show the same sort of brio Hillary does once a knife fight begins. Connect with your inner warrior, Barack! This holier-than-thou act may wear a little thin by November.

My point here isn't that the Clintons are right and Obama wrong, but that no one has a monopoly on truth in this campaign. So yes, Virginia, this is a spin war.

Stephen wrote on January 24, 2008 4:42 PM:

We have about 24 hours until the next scripted pre-primary Clinton meltdown.

Alert the Charleston EMS.

La Wanda wrote on January 24, 2008 4:43 PM:

Goodness gracious....why do working people, blue collar voters upport the Hillary and don't care if Bill speaks out, because unlike blogs and media, our lives are not a video game...... Get out of the heated or air conditioned offfice once in a while and break a sweat...

mcc wrote on January 24, 2008 4:44 PM:

That's fine. But if the Obama campaign is winning the spin war, why is their lead in SC diminishing?

This comment would have a lot more resonance if it weren't immediately to the left of that Pollster.com weighted poll average showing Obama's SC lead continuing to increase...

Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 4:45 PM:

RS

I just saw the video of the 5 year old today asking your boy Bill Clinton at a campaign rally what marriage means to him.

To see him squirm like he did on national tv when he wagged his finger -

"I did not have sex with that woman"
was priceless.

frankly0 wrote on January 24, 2008 4:48 PM:

I don't follow your logic. If the media is inclined to help Obama refute dishonest attacks, isn't that going to help in the general election? If they're inclined to portray the Clintons as dishonest hacks, isn't that going to hurt them in the general election?

Look, it's possible, but not likely I think, that the media could come down so hard on the Clintons over their relatively tame attacks that it will help Obama win the Democratic nomination. In this way, they will have served as a temporary crutch for Obama's campaign.

But the media will, I predict, be absolutely helpess in protecting Obama from truly damaging attacks from the right - as it has proved to be in the past. The right doesn't care about the media, and gets out its own very effective message in its own way. (Now I actually think Obama would win anyway, given how much any Democrat has the wind at his back. But his Presidency itself may well have been dealt a fatal blow in the process, with his negatives going sky high).

But if Hillary wins the nomination, it will be one well organized, hard hitting campaign up against another. The media will decry and decry and decry, but will have to do so against both sides, effectively removing themselves from the equation. But the Clintons will likely prevail in the contest, knowing how to fight fire with fire. And their clout, I predict, will remain intact, because they have been through this before.

Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 4:51 PM:

What's ironic is that Hillary is hiding
behind Bills skirt this time.

Gee wrote on January 24, 2008 4:53 PM:

frustrating some Clinton advisers who insist that Obama has managed to go negative on Hillary -- such as in yesterday's ad -- without being tagged in the same way.

I love this elision, in which telling a lie (which is what Hillary has done) is morally equated with saying "you lied" (which is what Obama has done).

Um. They're different.

Duh.

lee wrote on January 24, 2008 4:54 PM:

Of course Saint Obama is winning the spin war.

All the second-most able win the press war, while the most promising Democrat becomes a figure of ridicule and loathing.

tym wrote on January 24, 2008 4:54 PM:

Who will cry this time?
Hillary or Bill
Or Both
Sure Penn is polling

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

Greg,

I think you are getting too meta here. This is an odd way to cover this issue.

A better way would be to first decide whether the Clintons' attacks are true or false.

If the Clintons' attacks are not true, then it's not a spin war.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 4:56 PM:

Greg, the Obama ad came out today! So how was WaPo supposed to cover it in today's story?!

Erik wrote on January 24, 2008 4:58 PM:

Did Greg or anyone else stop to consider that the Clintons actually are, in reality, without spin, running a more negative, distortion filled campaign? If you look at it, they are.

Tony Rezko wrote on January 24, 2008 4:58 PM:

As a state senator, Barack Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting my successful bid to get more than $14 million from taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens.

ed verdolyak wrote on January 24, 2008 5:00 PM:

Hey, Zimmerman, I got yer Chicago politician, right here! Ya jag off.

Brighid wrote on January 24, 2008 5:01 PM:

I think Obama is winning the propaganda war, and it's often astonishing how he gets away with it. But, then I see Jack Cafferty opining with his Hillary Hate and Chris Matthews spewing his venomous diarrhea, and the overall media coverage of Hillary v. Obama is clearly negative towards Hillary Clinton. Yes. Hillary Clinton has a political machine. But, that's because she and Bill Clinton have been working for several decades with Democrats in government. Barack Obama is on the record using so many right-wing talking points, I'm not even certain that he's a Democrat:

He thinks Reagan was more "transformational" than Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon. (Note. It's not the Reagan comment that galls; it's the lumping of Clinton and Nixon, and the dismissal of the first 2-term Democratic President since FDR that galls)

He goes on Christian Broadcast Network and implies that HIS supporters won't vote for Hillary Clinton. Well, his supporters aren't DEMOCRATS; They're REPUBLICANS.

He says Social Security is in "Crisis" a clear right-wing talking point.

He says he doesn't take money from Lobbyists; but he has 9 lobbyists bundling money for him, listed at Public Citizen.

He has maligned Hillary Clinton's National Security credentials (posted at Politico.com.)

He's taking PAC Money, says he doesn't take PAC Money.

He's using 527s to run ads in Nevada, right after he attacks John Edwards for the same thing.

He's run "Democrat for a Day" campaigns so far in Florida, Nevada and California, imploring Republicans to register as Democrats for a day to vote for him in the primaries.

Barack Obama is not a Democrat from what I've seen; he's a Republican. The question is, why are Democrats supporting a Republican for President?

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 5:02 PM:

Excuse me, Greg.

How about the objective facts of the matter? Might that not have some important bearing? Can't see that you've been consistently helpful in raising the level of discourse.

From my perspective in New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina the Clintons have proven themselves untrustworthy. Doing so, they also they have brought to the foreground their own culpability for the 90s psychodrama.

Michael A wrote on January 24, 2008 5:02 PM:

Hey tony, do you have clinton's senate voting record? No, well why don't you go play at hillaryis44.org. You'll like it there.

Jeremy wrote on January 24, 2008 5:02 PM:

Unbelievable. Obama's opponents are drawing an equivalence between Hillary's lies about his record on choice and other women's issues, including a bill that he actually sponsored the original version of on victims rights, with legitimate contrasts on votes like the bankruptcy bill and the authorization for war with Iraq. Notice that Obama called bullshit on the phony "present vote" attack. When Hillary brought up the %30 cap vote on credit cards he just explained his vote. We still haven't gotten an explanation of voting for authorization to invade Iraq then hoping Bush wouldn't use it (talk about your "false hopes") or voting for a bankruptcy bill then hoping it won't pass.

hadenough wrote on January 24, 2008 5:03 PM:

"bob wrote on January 24, 2008 4:55 PM:
Greg,

I think you are getting too meta here. This is an odd way to cover this issue.

A better way would be to first decide whether the Clintons' attacks are true or false.

If the Clintons' attacks are not true, then it's not a spin war."

Hey bob that's a great idea. I think this one might even be better: first decide whether the obama attacks are true or false.

If obama's attacks are not true, then it's not a spin war.

Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 5:03 PM:

lee

I wonder if Bill can really take the heat
or will start whining again -

not fair Monica is a tattle tale -
why did she tell Hillashrill about "is is"

And now Hillaschrill is hiding behind
Bills skirt.

Ya gotta love it.

Jorge wrote on January 24, 2008 5:04 PM:

Heard a Clintom supporter (White House Counsel 97-2000) on talk radio this morning. When he was asked if Obama was going to win South Carolina he said (paraphrase),

"Yes, the african American community is very proud of him and they are 50% of the vote."

That is going to be the Clinton spin machine next week - Obama won South Carolina cause blacks voted for one of their own. Funny enough, Dick Morris wrote an op-ed earlier this week saying that this will be the Clinton camp line. Now, Dick Morris is about as objective on his former bosses as Newt Gingrich, but he knows those folks better than anyone.

tym wrote on January 24, 2008 5:04 PM:

I dont care about all the inside politics
Only one thing matters to me.

It is time
To end the Bush-Clinton era of politics.

I hope Obama crushes them
The slimy lying corrupt Clintons

EduDoc wrote on January 24, 2008 5:04 PM:

>>>But the media will, I predict, be absolutely helpess in protecting Obama from truly damaging attacks from the right - as it has proved to be in the past. The right doesn't care about the media, and gets out its own very effective message in its own way>>>

Apologies from a mild Edwards supporter that probably will tend to Obama if he drops-- but I hear this line all the time and it is so chickenhearted I can't stand it. It sounds like the ramblings of an abuse victim. The "right wing machine" is just so devastatingly effective that no one can escape it's omnipotent grasp. So let's nominate their pre-damaged goods for them, at least they can't beat us anymore without us just dying.

This is your rationale. I can't believe fighting John can't pull more numbers than he does, but when I see the mentality, I get it.

Sheeesh. Grow a pair. The insane right are abusive losers who's lease just ran out.

Joe wrote on January 24, 2008 5:06 PM:

To hear Robert Zimmerman say, "This primary competition is civil compared to what a general election is going to be", makes it sound as though it's brought to you by the same people, which is why Hillary Clinton can't shake her dynastic and hawkish vibe. There is an implied threat in her candidacy. And in this context, she and her husband knowingly misconstrue (a.k.a. lie about) Obama's thoughts on Reagan. That's such an ugly vandalism. Followed by "How do you like me now?" And then, "You think this is bad? Huh?" Here's Bush in a flight suit, etc. It's either Lieberman or Dick Cheney. The DLC is obviously the soft, fleshy part of the Republican party.

bob wrote on January 24, 2008 5:07 PM:

I reread this post, and it's still just very odd. I don't get what you are trying to say or do here.

Is Obama supposed to not admit that the Clintons seek to mislead people on his record? Both in statements they make, especially Bill but also Hillary at the debate, and in the mailers?

Greg wrote on January 24, 2008 5:08 PM:

As of today, TPM is no longer a resource for me.

I've been reading TPM almost since its inception. The blatant Obama support by the staff of TPM is too significant to ignore.

TPM has lost its way. What a shame.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 5:09 PM:

What happened to the outfit that pioneered the idea that if you report on a claim, meta style, you also report on whether the claim was true or false in the first place?

Flat out, in each of these meta narratives, the Clintons have started the tit for tat with a LIE. So report it. Hillary's claim that Obama said Reagan had "good" ideas, and her ad based on that, is a LIE. Obama's rejoinder that this is a llie is the truth. If you want to go meta, and obviously you do, start there.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 5:09 PM:

the dismissal of the first 2-term Democratic President since FDR...

Er, as a brief aside, we Missourians are rather proud of the actual first two term Democratic president to follow FDR - Harry S Truman.

jeffs wrote on January 24, 2008 5:10 PM:

Spoke with my barber today. She's a Hillary supporter, and she thinks Bill should back off (or, to put it in her words, "Go back to the kitchen and bake some cookies.")

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 5:10 PM:

In the interest of honesty, we need to start doing Bill's poll numbers too.

goldberry wrote on January 24, 2008 5:11 PM:

And what did we learn from the media prior to New Hampshire? They don't like the Clintons.
They know that Bill is pretty effective and they want to sideline him. So, if I were the Clintons, I'd ignore the media.

FWIW, there are a lot of people in the left blogosphere that are zealous Obama supporters. They are here in overwhelming numbers. but just because they are overrepresented in the blogosphere does not mean that they represent the same proportions of voters in real life. What they see as the media winning the war is seen by many of us as Obama being a candy-ass who can't take the heat.

Jjcoop wrote on January 24, 2008 5:11 PM:

Would anyone agree that maybe Clintons are being out- politicked? The danger for them is that by and large they are a known quantity (maybe thats a pro and a con) and politicos are hip to their stratagems. They had the ball for a week or so, but it's seeming that the Obama campaign is still able to get larger points across by shifting the narrative, ie. turning Bill into a liability, getting media to reconsider the 90's (or the Clintons to call back to the 90's), and so on. In the larger sense, isn't it a political victory to have made it this far against them at all? They should have been able to mop the floor with the junior senator from Illinois, but it's looking like he'll have two good clean wins going into feb. 5, and clintons will have two weaker looking victories (and maybe two third place finishes too).

HIllary Clinton wrote on January 24, 2008 5:15 PM:

I love Wal-Mart! I kiss the behind of corporate America. I love the big pharmaceutical companies and bow to the health care industry, in fact I'm the biggest recipient of their payola! (cackle, cackle, yuk, yuk, yuk.) After they smashed my health care drive when I tried to be president in Bill's first administration, I decided that if you can't beat 'em, join them-and join them I did.

But most of all I love the U.S. War in Iraq. I followed Dick Cheney because he and Donald Rumsfeld had the most experience to lead America...like me! My good friend Joe Lieberman has that experience too, so I voted for his resolution to give George Bush and Dick Cheney permission to do to Iran what they did to Iraq.

George Bush had executive experience as governor of Texas like Bill did in Arkansas and seven years in the Oval Office like me...I mean, Bill.

joe wrote on January 24, 2008 5:16 PM:

The premise that Americans and Democrats favor David to Goliath is relatively quaint. First, it buys into the idea that victimhood earns votes from Americans (is that demonstrable from any of the past 6-8 presidential elections?). Really, this analysis just conforms to media and Obama supporters contention that Hillary is not winning on her merits, but by a performance of victimization.

I think this is an error in political analysis of the New Hampshire primary vote, and even greater error if the Obama campaign views victimhood as a path to the presidency.

Second, without inferring a conscious intent by Obama, it is evident that Obama's strategy fits the sexist discourse that conflates Bill and Hillary into one opponent (at the cost of Hillary's autonomy and personhood). The point is to silence Bill Clinton, as he has been silenced the past two general elections. No doubt Republicans will also squeal when Bill confronts the Republican nominee and claim that Bill is a detriment to her campaign.

Personally, the polls seem to indicate that Obama's chances are waning. Obama and his supporters, in the media and otherwise, are seemingly threatening the stability of the party if Obama fails to earn the nomination. To me, this affirms a comment by Rachel Maddow (via digby) that Obama's campaign is about personality over party. It is not surprising that Obama's supporters cannot discern the difference between the failure of the personality (Obama) and the failure of the party (Democratic).

To my mind, Hillary needed to establish the presence of Bill in her campaign long before the general election. For this reason, I applaud our latter day Goliath(s) for protecting their forehead(s)!

TheraP wrote on January 24, 2008 5:17 PM:

The public is used to 7 years of bush lies. They are more sophisticated about being subjected to propaganda. People can see with their own eyes and make up their own mind. Irrespective of spin or talking heads.

You see that on both sides. The repub party regulars don't like McCain or Huckabee, but who do the voters go for?

On the Dem side people have an inherent sense of fair play. They are used to opponents squaring off against each other. Two against one goes against the grain. And most voters, while willing to see a certain amount of conflict, want fair play. When one side is double-teaming, and that side has a former president, then it's bound to affect how they view the race. If it's bill in the race, then it's not really "the first woman." But Obama is definitely the "first black" - regardless of how the clintons want to spin it.

I honestly think voters are given too little credit here. Let the public speak! And don't assume they are a bunch of chickens to be herded by talking heads or even bill clinton!

Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 5:18 PM:

Greg

So Greg, too bad your not reading this,
hee hee,
get on board the love boat baby,
and I don't mean the oval office desk from the 90's,
I'm talking about the Obama
USS INTEGRITY and HONESTY speed boat baby

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 5:20 PM:

Speaking of media bias, Greg Sargent is really getting obnoxious with the headlines and overall shilling for Hillary.

Bruce Frigeri wrote on January 24, 2008 5:21 PM:

Gregg;
You fail to mention the gist of the Alter article; ie that the Clinton's are banking on enough Dems being stupid enough to believe their unfounded smears against Obama. He makes the point that Bill banked on surviving his impeachment because of the intelligence of the American People. Now he's counting on the opposite. For you to miss that point makes me wonder. Obama is a strong counter-puncher. He and his campaign were a little hesitant to attack the titular head of the Party, but they are over that now and you can see that once again, Empress Hillary has no clothes.

Amanda wrote on January 24, 2008 5:22 PM:

Hmm.... could it possibly be that this isn't about David and Golliath so much as it's about fact versus fiction.

The Clinton camp has continued to push - hard - blatant falsehoods and mischaracterizations about Sen. Obama and his voting record. Even after contradicted by the record, the media, other Democrats, and Obama himself, they continued to push the nonsense.

Maybe it's just caught up to them?

As for those who think that there is "blatant Obama support" on TPM, I need only refer you to the way TPM defended Sen. Clinton (and Bill) during the period of all their racially-charged attacks on Sen. Obama. In fact, arguing that the Obama campaign is playing the victim by trying to defend their campaign from these falsehoods is anything but "supportive." (To many, I'm sure, it's more than a little insulting).

Luther wrote on January 24, 2008 5:23 PM:

I voted for President Clinton twice. At the time, I thought he was the best candidate.

I wish they would now just go away. They are nothing more than part of the establishment...or Bush lite.

Please go away.

DemUnity08 wrote on January 24, 2008 5:24 PM:

Yup, Obama's winning the spin war to cast himself as a victim.

... and that's supposed to make me want to vote for you why?

amberglow wrote on January 24, 2008 5:24 PM:

It's no victory to be seen as the "victim" when you're running for President.

Victim=defenseless loser.

Duckman GR wrote on January 24, 2008 5:24 PM:

If the media is involved, there is no truth.

Amber wrote on January 24, 2008 5:28 PM:

The Anonymous note complaining about "media bias" is boulderdash. It's a lot more pro-Hillary here and in the media in general. That's why she was the so-called front runner for a year before Obama squashed her in Iowa, and it's also why it was such a huge story.

Presidents have they glow of the media and all eyes on the, and that goes doubly for the Clinton two-headed beast.

Despite Bill's whining about all of the media bias, there is none despite what he and James carville say. The only reason Hillary is where she is is because of her media fame. If she was perhaps in the same position as Barbara Boxer with a no-name husband, she would be out of the race by now.

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

What an absurd angle.

Sargent writes:
Whatever the media's role in this, the fact that this narrative is taking hold can be chalked up to two other factors. The first is that the Obama campaign's very conscious efforts to frame the race this way are working. The second is that this Obama effort has gotten a big assist from the strategic downside of having Bill play such a prominent role. In short, Big Dog's entry, whatever its upsides, has made it far easier for Obama to carve out the role of victim for himself.

What about the fact that - just sometimes - one side is actually saying something that is, you know, closer to the truth?

SarCanz wrote on January 24, 2008 5:35 PM:

Greg & others,

Two articles, one by George Packer in this week's New Yorker, and one in the Politico, seem to me to focus on what is really important in the Clinton-Obama conflict, what it portends for the general election and on what kind of president each would be.

Here are the URLs: and

I also feel that many democrats in discussing which candidate -- Hillary or Obama -- would be best able to compete
in the general election have not yet taken into account the fact that John McCain is likely to be the Republican candidate. Hillary may be well prepared to run against a Carl Rove-George W. Bush style of campaign, but the tactics the Clintons are now using on Obama could easily backfire when used against McCain, who has far more experience than Hillary, a reputation for "straight talk" and a talent for connecting with voters that she lacks. (See the Packer article on that.)

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 5:35 PM:

Obama winning the war to be painted as a victim? Then he's losing the election.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 5:39 PM:

Talking Points Memobama

NCSteve wrote on January 24, 2008 5:42 PM:

Anonymous at 4:28:

Ordinarily, I'm not terribly interested in defending my "cred" with people who hide behind the "Anonymous" nym, but, given my increasing tendency to post anonymously by accident (accident, negligence, whatever), and the way you addressed me and Angry Vet personally, as if we should know you, I'll respond.

What part of "Not sure I agree with all of it" did you not understand? The part where I said I wasn't sure I agreed with all of it? Or was it the fact that I thought it was "interesting" that you found it so objectionable?

Well, dammit, it was intersting. Greg had a take on what the campaigns have been up to over the last several days that I hadn't considered. He's absolutely right that Obama's people have adjusted their strategy and I think he's right that the press is currently adhering to Obama's preferred narrative by focusing on her biggest polling weakness.

On furhther refelection, I do fault Greg's analysis for not commenting on the extent to which the Clintons are losing this media battle because they are, in fact, acting like lying assholes, the worst possible thing Clintons could be seen to be doing by the MSM if they wanted to win a media fight.

But his reporting on the reaction of the Clinton camp was fascinating. On one hand, they seem to be reacting to changing circumstances more adroitly than they did back before Bubba knocked Penn off the stool. On the other, the complete lack of any awareness that they themselves may bear some responsibility for the negative reaction is revealing. With them, its always "oh, woe is us, the media hates us, the media's against us, what, oh what have we done to deserve this?, poor, poor, pitiful us, they love that phoney Obama and hate us for no good reason at all." The possibility that they bear any responsibility themselves doesn't even occur to them. They sneer about "St. Barack" but, in their minds, they truly think of themselves as being pure as Ivory Soap and lament that anyone could question them for doing whatever is necessary to secure their noble ends.

So, yeah, in trying to be neutral and purely analytical, Greg's necessarily missing (or choosing not to comment upon) the role that the Clintons actually being more in the wrong than Obama is playing in the dynamic.

But Greg's analysis was, in fact, interesting because he made me focus on the extent to which Obama's campaign is consciously driving and directing that coverage. That's something no one else in the MSM seems to have picked up on yet. Out in the MSMosphere, they all seem blissfully unaware of the extent to which he's driving their narrative. They really seem think he's just a hapless innocent who's been hit by the Clinton Lie truck and they're all tut-tutting sadly over his innocent ineptitude, all the while focusing on Hillary's lack of trustworthiness, which is exactly where Obama wants the focus to be.

To my mind, that's the best possible response to the constant refrain of "ooohh, just wait til those big, bad, scary Republicans get their hands on him, then it'll be all over for him" we keep hearing from the Peronists, er, I mean Clintonists here.

Calvin wrote on January 24, 2008 5:43 PM:

This must be the saddest commentary I've ever seen on TPM, and I'm doubly sad that it comes from Sargent. Since when did the MSM pov matter to TPM? I come to TPM to escape the usual drivel, but here's an article elevating drivel to news.

Here's what I want to know, what exactly did Clinton (Bill or Hillary) say that was untrue or misleading? Obama should be ashamed about what he said re: Reagan (a blatant pander to a right-wing newspaper, why doesn't that bother more people). What he said was absolutely fair game for criticism, even if it stings.

This all reminds me very much of the media's love of Bill Bradley back in 2000, and it's parallel loathing of Gore. The MSM apparently cannot help itself as it goes after Hillary, TPM should try to resist the temptation to follow.

RS wrote on January 24, 2008 5:46 PM:

Look, it's possible, but not likely I think, that the media could come down so hard on the Clintons over their relatively tame attacks that it will help Obama win the Democratic nomination. In this way, they will have served as a temporary crutch for Obama's campaign.

But the media will, I predict, be absolutely helpess in protecting Obama from truly damaging attacks from the right - as it has proved to be in the past. The right doesn't care about the media, and gets out its own very effective message in its own way. (Now I actually think Obama would win anyway, given how much any Democrat has the wind at his back. But his Presidency itself may well have been dealt a fatal blow in the process, with his negatives going sky high).

But if Hillary wins the nomination, it will be one well organized, hard hitting campaign up against another. The media will decry and decry and decry, but will have to do so against both sides, effectively removing themselves from the equation. But the Clintons will likely prevail in the contest, knowing how to fight fire with fire. And their clout, I predict, will remain intact, because they have been through this before.

No one in the whole of human history has successfully fought fire with fire. You fight fire with water.

The rest of your post is pure speculation and counterintuitive speculation at that. Clinton didn't win in 1992 or 1996 because he dishonestly attacked his opponents. And Kerry didn't lose because he didn't dishonestly attack Bush, but because he dithered instead of forcefully rebutting Bush's dishonest attacks. Obama, of course, is engaging in that forceful rebuttal right now.

Margaret wrote on January 24, 2008 5:46 PM:

Obama keeps whining - proving he won't be able to handle GOP attacks.
Go Edwards!

We are very aware of Obama's dirty tricks against Edwards in Iowa - running a negative radio ad against "trial lawyers."

Obama's entire "bringing us all together" mantra is a con.

frankly0 wrote on January 24, 2008 5:49 PM:

No one in the whole of human history has successfully fought fire with fire. You fight fire with water.

Deep.

little ole jim wrote on January 24, 2008 5:50 PM:

I'm not sure there's anything wrong with Greg's analysis. The question is how this will play out over time.

Obama's attacks are personal, more so than Clinton's. His campaign claims she will do anything to get elected, that she lies and distorts his positions, and that Bill Clinton is doing all the same things.

Over time, we will see what the public judgement is.

arouet wrote on January 24, 2008 5:51 PM:

Of course he's winning the media war as to who is the victim. But guess what- I think Democrats want someone aggressive like the Clintons- it's like- "Thank Goodness- we finally found a candidate (Hillary)who actually wants to win the Presidency instead of one who will go cry in defeat but will claim some sort of "high road" when they lose- we want to WIN this time, and the Clintons know how to WIN. STOP WITH THE LOSER MENTALITY. Get on the A-train, vote CLINTON!

Jay wrote on January 24, 2008 5:52 PM:

"Obama keeps whining - proving he won't be able to handle GOP attacks."

..what a load crap.

fougasseu wrote on January 24, 2008 5:52 PM:

Obama's winning the spin war because his "spin" has more truth to it. Proof: His framing of the situation is supported by many more journalists, blogs and pundits, while the Clinton's framing is almost universally derided.
A lot has changed since Lee Atwater devised the Southern Strategy, not least the blogosphere, which functions as a "War Room" the size of the Mall of America. Every press release, viral video, and comment by a second cousin twice removed zips through the internet, and the good stuff sticks.
Obama may lose because the great unwashed may still succumb to these 20th century tactics, but regardless, he's still the first real national candidate of the digital age.

bob dylan wrote on January 24, 2008 5:53 PM:

this headline is ridiculous and false. does greg ever write anything negative of the hillary campaign? then how in the heck does this kind of story have any credibility? i don't get it!

barry lyndon wrote on January 24, 2008 5:56 PM:

blah blah blah blah blah.

HRC is going to easily carry the vast majority of states come 2/5. The question will then be whether the dogmatic/rabid/uncompromising supporters of Obama be willing to get over themselves and work toward a dem controlled congress and white house. Sure hope so.

Whatever wrote on January 24, 2008 5:56 PM:

or are the Clintons winning the spin cycle by getting the press to report on them against their wills?

People, this is the same press who fed the American People George Bush and the Iraq War. They are not your friends. Luckily the average American voter doesn't believe anything they say, especially not about the Clintons.

Bambi isn't even close to being able to compete in this context.

RS wrote on January 24, 2008 5:57 PM:

Here's what I want to know, what exactly did Clinton (Bill or Hillary) say that was untrue or misleading?

I can't believe that anyone has to ask at this point, but here's a non-exhaustive list:

(1) Arguing that Obama's "present" votes on certain abortion-related legislation in Illinois showed his unwillingness to stand up for choice. It's well-known that this was part of a strategy developed by pro-choice forces to diffuse Republican efforts to use abortion as a wedge issue. Certain pro-choice Clinton supporters in New Hampshire have expressed their regrets about this (too little, too late) and the President of Chicago NOW has switched her support because of the dishonest attack.

(2) Claiming that Obama said Republicans have had better ideas or good ideas for the past 10-15 years when he said no such thing.

(3) Claiming that Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq is a "fairytale." To her credit, Hillary seemed to withdraw this claim during the Monday night debate.

(4) Claiming that Obama's Social Security plan would be a trillion dollar tax hike on the middle class. This is doubly misleading. It is based on the false premise that Obama is proposing lifting the cap entirely, and it suggests that the top 6% (less, in fact, because Obama supports a donut) constitutes the middle class.

Bupalos wrote on January 24, 2008 6:00 PM:

>>>whether the dogmatic/rabid/uncompromising supporters of Obama be willing to get over themselvesand work toward a dem controlled congress and white house. Sure hope so.>>>

Gee, there's that famous Clinton unity and reconciliation. Can't wait for 4 years of that. Really gets me fired up, let me tell you.

Guess what, we'd be delighted to work towards a Dem white house, and dem comgress. Now a Clinton DLC white house, and an electoral romp for Republicans on the downticket...that we have some reservations about.

kickbass wrote on January 24, 2008 6:03 PM:

Winning in the Media Spin War, eh? Great!
Just like Bush in '99-'00, Bush in '04. The media loves John McCain and Ronnie too, and they loooove the idea of getting along with everybody, even if they have done nothing but ruthlessly, and shamelessly subvert what you believe in.

This means "victory" mens nothing other than the shills are with you in bringing Hillary down. Obama would be their next victim, if only he could win the nomination.

I'm embarassed for y'all.

Michael's Mom wrote on January 24, 2008 6:03 PM:

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 5:35 PM:
Obama winning the war to be painted as a victim? Then he's losing the election.

Really? It didn't seem to hurt Hillary in NH as she whined and teared up across the state. It didn't seem to matter that they were complaining about the caucus process after Iowa and again in Nevada. Are you saying only white people get to play the victim and win because of it?

mschu wrote on January 24, 2008 6:05 PM:

Great. Running for President as the Biggest Victim. Is anyone foolish enough to think this kind of passive-aggressive campaigning will be a winner in the general election?

For all of those who think it is so "unfair" that the ex-president is campaigning for Hillary, remember, Obama knew that this would be the case when he decided to run.

Obviously, Obama calculated that it was a reality that he could handle and one he could even take advantage of. If he hadn't, he wouldn't have run. So when his campaign plays the victim of Bill, it is just one more example of the passive aggressive calculations of the campaign. Because running against Bill, and the supposed "divisiveness" of the Clintons, is the most basic calculation, the most basic position, OF his campaign. It is the contradictory knife at the heart of his message of "unity." When he speaks of seeking unity he means seeking unity with those (mostly outside the party) who hate and distrust the Clintons, at the expense of unity within the party.

The truth is, an ambitious young politician with a resume as short as Obama's probably would have waited awhile longer to run for the Presidency -- if he didn't see unique opportunities in this race; 1) a race in which his strongest, most well-known competition would be a woman (who a sizeable constituency would be reluctant to vote for, for that reason alone), 2) the possibility of using distrust of and animosity toward the Clintons to gather votes from Bush-disillusioned, but Clinton-hating, independents and Republicans.

If the brand name in this race had been a strong, more traditional male candidate -- one with the executive and foreign policy resume of a Bill Richardson, for instance, but much better known to the media and the public and a better campaigner -- Obama would probably not have run this time around.

It was a ballsy calculation -- running a campaign based on undermining the voting public's perception of the only successful 2-term Democratic Presidential administration in the last half a century. But one with an unfortunate downside -- its ugly potential to tear the Democratic party apart. And, of course, the fact that, in the general election, he will not be able to acknowledge the Democrat's most notable modern successes or make an historical argument for Democratic leadership.

Dooley wrote on January 24, 2008 6:08 PM:

Oh please. Spare me.

If you can't stand the heat, GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN!!!

I think that to most of the non-politics-obsessed public, Obama comes across as a sissy for pushing this line.

True, the Obama-fawning media are essentially a wing of the Obama campaign, and are pushing his narrative to the hilt.

But the public -- especially the 60% of them who liked Bill just fine even through the impeachment debacle -- doesn't care, or even really pay attention to what the media think. What the public responds to is the impression made (90% non-verbally and 10% verbally) by the candidates themselves. And the impression here is of a sissy who can't stand up for himself.

blackstar wrote on January 24, 2008 6:08 PM:

is there any real dispute as to whether or not Greg Sargent is a Hillary supporter?

i thought we had all just accepted this as obvious, and hardly worth mentioning anymore?

:edit: and it looks increasingly likely, though increasingly disappointing, that Josh Marshall is going the same way. i suppose we can partially excuse this for his submersion in us-against-them partisan politics for so long, but i don't know if that justifies suspending his rational and moral reasoning.

Klosterheim wrote on January 24, 2008 6:08 PM:

Billary? LOL.

If you are an Obama supporter, I think it would be helpful to start referring to Obama's chief challenger as "The Clintons" instead of "Senator Clinton" because 1) it's true and 2) it strikes at the heart of The Clintons' alleged strength (experience in the oval office) and probable weakness (both are polarizing figures prone to nastiness).

Also, man, I am now beginning to remember why I never liked the Clintons in the first place. They are just nasty people. If they win the nomination, I am not 100% sure I will vote for them, honestly.

I know people say, "well, this is just politics," to which I say, "well, maybe I'll just not even bother, then." I mean, honestly. Are we basically just saying that America is incapable of producing anything other than snakes and reptiles as leaders? Wow, that is some statement.

I'm not a crazy whacko. I like to think of myself as a reasonably informed and tempered person, but I am no longer sure the Dems will win in '08. I am no longer sure they should.

Barry Lyndon wrote on January 24, 2008 6:10 PM:

"Guess what, we'd be delighted to work towards a Dem white house, and dem comgress. Now a Clinton DLC white house, and an electoral romp for Republicans on the downticket...that we have some reservations about".

I'm no campaign insider, just a regular guy from Minnesota who is closely watching this election cycle. I think this election is going to be about pragmatism as well as the Bush record. I don't see how there is any chance of a downticket romp regardless of the candidate that winds up with the democratic endorsement. I will enthusiastically support Obama if he becomes the nominee but am very concerned that there are ideologues that will poison the waters for HRC regardless of the outcome.

fougasseu wrote on January 24, 2008 6:10 PM:

RS - You asked "what exactly did Bill or Hillary say that was untrue"?
There are many examples, so let's just take the last 24 hrs., the revelation that Hillary, personally, not through the usual channels - using a surrogate, or the services of a media plant like Richard Cohen - pesonally lied about Obama's pro-choice stance.
She...personally...lied. That was the latest revelation. How much time do you have?
Oddly, Clinton's True Believers know they lie and don't care, somehow being a Clintonite trumps being a Democrat. Democrats should move on without the Clintonites.

RS wrote on January 24, 2008 6:16 PM:

fougasseu wrote on January 24, 2008 6:10 PM: RS - You asked "what exactly did Bill or Hillary say that was untrue"? There are many examples, so let's just take the last 24 hrs., the revelation that Hillary, personally, not through the usual channels - using a surrogate, or the services of a media plant like Richard Cohen - pesonally lied about Obama's pro-choice stance. She...personally...lied. That was the latest revelation. How much time do you have? Oddly, Clinton's True Believers know they lie and don't care, somehow being a Clintonite trumps being a Democrat. Democrats should move on without the Clintonites.

Actually, it wasn't me who asked. I was quoting someone else and then proceeded to list some of the many untrue statements that the Clintons have made. Becca wrote on January 24, 2008 6:20 PM:

There's Stepford quality to many BHO supporters.

Just an observation.

Jason wrote on January 24, 2008 6:23 PM:

I agree with a commenter above the Greg is showing false neutrality: in other words, "balanced" but not "fair."

Hillary hits Obama by lying. Obama hits back by saying she's willing to lie to win, as evidenced by the lies she's selling about him at this very moment. And Obama is going negative? I don't think so.

Like the rest of the media, you're too caught up in blow-by-blow accounting of he-said-she-said to step back and look at who's telling the truth and who's not. It's time to start.

Objectivity and neutrality do not always go hand in hand.

blackstar wrote on January 24, 2008 6:24 PM:

having just read this entire piece, it really is pretty disgusting. not in its partisanship, but in its inanity. are you capable of assessing facts rationally, Greg?

if the Obama campaign is doing anything with this issue, its not to make him out to be a victim, but to emphasize Bill's divisive and intrusive role in Hillary's campaign. this simultaneously reminds people of the worst parts of the 90's (the Clinton White House internal dramas) and casts doubts about Hillary's ability to do things without her husband's help.

playing the "victim" would be counterproductive to the Obama campaign, as many supporters of his opponents already see him as "weak" or "indirect", and this "victim" narrative would only serve to make this meme a bigger issue in the minds of voters.

not only that, but you don't seem to anywhere recognize the simple FACT that Bill Clinton HAS increasingly been playing a larger and larger role in his wife's campaign, and easily making the more objectionable statements of the two. so Obama's claim that "i'm fighting 2 Clintons" is TRUE, and the spin on it isn't towards victimhood, but towards Hillary's seeming inability to accomplish things on her own merits.

i wish there was space to go through and address this tripe line by line, but the comments section isn't equipped to handle the forum-type response necessary to do this.

allsburg wrote on January 24, 2008 6:24 PM:

I'm going to collect Tapper's posts on this board and publish them as modern poetry.

Liam wrote on January 24, 2008 6:25 PM:

Becca wrote on January 24, 2008 6:20 PM:

There's Stepford quality to many BHO supporters.

Just an observation.

..........................

Isn't a woman who stays married to the Bimbo Eruptions King an actual Stepford Wife!

greenpaz wrote on January 24, 2008 6:26 PM:

The irony. Obama hammers back at the Clintons and Bill whines about how Obama is whining. This is all out of the playbook that includes 1) the Rove-ian tactic of trying to diminish one of your opponent's greatest strengths (Obama's opposition to the war), 2) Atwater's penchant for greatly distorting the opponent's positions ("Obama just LOVES Republican ideas") and, of course, the old if-the-media-doesn't-lionize-me-then-it-must-be-out-to-get-me canard.

Carville's right. The Clintons will lose this media battle. But not because the media is out to slime them. It's because the Clintons are out to slime everyone else.

Jack Frost wrote on January 24, 2008 6:26 PM:

YAY!! Obama is winning the spin war! (as if we didn't already know this considering that this blog and others are filled with double standards, lies, and silence in defending the Clintons against being unfairly trashed)

so Obama is winning the spin war.. hmmm
thats like saying: "Breaking: People walk on two legs"

heretic wrote on January 24, 2008 6:37 PM:

NPR doesn't broadcast on my local PBS station between 9 and 3, so sometimes when I am on the road, I'll listen to AM talkradio just to see what's up. However the MSM has been spinning this is playing out very differently on rightwing radio. Obama is uniformly being cast as a whiny wimp who can't cut it in the big leagues. Doesn't bode well for overcoming the partisan divide. Fact is there is a large segment of this country who will never be won over by his style of politics and manner of delivery. Pretty much all republicans and many Hillary supporters. So don't delude yourselves about hope. He's hopeless.

mschu wrote on January 24, 2008 6:37 PM:

Well, fougassen, Democrats aren't going to be able to win in November "without the Clintonites."

Obama's unfinished one term in the Senate and state legislature experience are going to be slim reeds on which to base a campaign against the executive experience of a Romney or the long years of public service of a McCain.

Given his limited experience and short resume, he is going to have to make an argument not just for himself, but for his party. And, as our economy becomes ever more dire, if he can't pr won't point back to the 90s and make the case that Americans were better off with a Democrat in office than they have been with Bush, then he won't be left with much of a case to argue beyond his supposedly superior ability to make a speech. Which isn't much of a case at all.

To quote Ben Franklin, "He that lives upon hope, dies farting."

In other words, the times call for a lot more than high minded gas. Most especially they calls for genuine unity within the party, rather than fake calls for unity from a campaign that has in fact made divisiveness its true strategy.

DBH wrote on January 24, 2008 6:37 PM:

Yes, who is winning in the minds of the voters:
http://www.pollster.com/08-US2-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

The Clintons have intentionally chosen a strategy that is going to be unfortunate for them. The slash and burn style is fine, but, to coin a phrase, live by the lie, die by the lie...

al75 wrote on January 24, 2008 6:39 PM:

I don't get it.

How is it "spin" to say that HRC's charges against Obama are untrue when they ARE untrue?

HRC said Obama praised Reagan, when he didn't. He said that Reagan was an effective transformational president, which is (unfortunately) true.

But HRC says over, over, over again that Obama spoke in favor of Reagan.

etc.

I have supported HRC in the past, and may again. But what she and Big Bill are doing is dishonest, calculated, and morally -- well, let's just call it unpleasant.

That's not "spin".

It's just true.

Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 6:39 PM:

Lee Atwater
Bill Clinton
Karl Rove

What do these three have in common?

They tear apart democrats for sport!

onceler wrote on January 24, 2008 6:40 PM:

well, I don't think Obama is "trying to carve out a strategy of being a victim" or whatever, he just didn't expect the Clintons to go so far into the gutter. the person who comes off as whiney and falsely victimized here is of course Bill Clinton. for shame, yelling at local reporters with bogus charges of voter intimidation, talking about how "nobody thought Hillary could win" and proclaiming that Obama is inconsistent while he in his infinite wisdom was "against this war from the beginning". please.

people say Obama's lofty rhetoric and constant talk of hope, set in a conciliatory tone are a problem for him. ha! yes, it's true, he's getting better media coverage than the Clintons in this exchange, as he should since he is in the right on most counts. want to know why? because of Obama's lofty rhetoric and constant talk of hope, set in a conciliatory tone. do people have any idea how totally in love with him the press fell after his Iowa victory? that speech! pretty words aren't worthless, believe me. the press loves him at this point specifically because he isn't out there demonizing people, focusing on who to blame for what, and being confrontational as a rhetorical device. they love his approach, and are rewarding it in the main way they know how, by conveying that they like and understand him and his motives, whereas they don't like the Clintons and do not understand their motives.

part of why I see Obama as so electable is exactly that thing that people use to call him fluffy, inexperience, lazy, what the hell ever it is on any given day. he can talk this country into voting for him.

john wrote on January 24, 2008 6:42 PM:

"Obama Winning Spin War Over Who's Victim In Campaign'

But losing the election.

heretic wrote on January 24, 2008 6:45 PM:

Sure seems like Obama's lead in the polls has been shrinking to the point where Hillary is in striking distance.

Three polls released today:

SC-Pres (D)
Jan 24 Mason-Dixon
Obama 38%, Clinton 30%, Edwards 19% ...

SC-Pres (D)
Jan 24 Clemson
Obama 27%, Clinton 20%, Edwards 17%

SC-Pres (D)
Jan 24 ARG
Obama 45%, Clinton 36%, Edwards 12% ...

So who winning the spin war?

SallySA wrote on January 24, 2008 6:47 PM:

Yes, he is winning the "who's the biggest victim" war.

Meanwhile, Hillary is convincing the voters that we need a fighter to kick Republican butt in November, not a whiner. He is becoming very unattractive in his petulant moaning about fairness.

JTinSoCal wrote on January 24, 2008 6:48 PM:

Bill's antics overshadow Hillary, which makes look like a weak woman, and Hillary gleefully fighting in the debates further indicates that 4 more years of Clinton's will mostly be about settling old scores..

dottie wrote on January 24, 2008 6:55 PM:

La Wanda wrote on January 24, 2008 4:43 PM:
Goodness gracious....why do working people, blue collar voters upport the Hillary and don't care if Bill speaks out, because unlike blogs and media, our lives are not a video game...... Get out of the heated or air conditioned offfice once in a while and break a sweat...

I dont know if this is an insult or not but the reason why working class support the clintons is because all this holier than thou crap does nothing for us. However the clintons have done something for us. My children have Health Insurance because of HILLARY. I am getting a bigger tax return because of a larger earned income credit because of Clinton, I was able to return to college and complete my degree because of increses in the pell grant, Child care funding, My dead beat cousin had to get off her but and get a job when Clinton sign the welfare reform bill. THe reason we support the CLintons. WE DONT HAVE TO BELIEVE IN CHANGE---WE SEEN IT ALREADY

Trebby wrote on January 24, 2008 6:56 PM:

I've heard almost nothing about Hillary and everything about Bill the past couple weeks. What the Hillary Campaign initially feared - that she would be regarded as merely a surrogate of her husband - has seemed to come to pass to a certain extent, and I think she will have reason to regret it, even if (especially if) she gets the nomination.

It makes her seem weaker and less competent by comparison, as if she'll always need to be rescued by Bill; while Bill seems to have crossed a line and is hurting the image of an ex-president, something that most Americans take very seriously. One reason we have such an easy transition of power in this country every few years is because our ex-presidents do NOT get directly involved in heavy partisan bickering after letting go of power. It's fine to help out his wife, but not to the extent of doing all the campaigning in S Carolina while she stays home baking cookies - I mean raising contributions. Part of it, certainly, has been media distortion and overkill over some of the things he's said and the way he's said it, but Bill is the one giving them that opening, just like he did once before.

There are so many potential down sides to doing what the Clinton campaign is doing right now that it makes you wonder exactly why they're doing it. Are they that desperate, or is Bill such a ham that, in the end, he saw an opening and just can't help hogging the spotlight? In either case, if Hillary doesn't take charge and reverse some of what Bill is doing (maybe send him on another tour of Africa), she could still lose a nomination that I believe is hers to lose.

JTinSoCal wrote on January 24, 2008 7:03 PM:

Can't go call the other candidate a whiner then turn bright red and whine about the media.

JTinSoCal wrote on January 24, 2008 7:07 PM:

And this is the "victim" campaign. It's the wag of the finger "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman" campaign aka Slick Willy campaign.

Josh wrote on January 24, 2008 7:12 PM:

Maybe Obama is winning what the story characterizes as a spin war because his "chosen narrative" is in fact correct, and voters are realizing it.

Mark F wrote on January 24, 2008 7:18 PM:

"At risk of overgeneralizing, much media coverage and commentary right now appears to be hewing closer to the Obama campaign's chosen narrative, which is roughly that the Clinton machine is using every gutter tactic at its disposal to halt the triumph of new politics and the making of history."

Jesus fucking Christ, Greg. Even when you're telling the truth you're trying to spin it in Hillary's favor. This isn't a "chosen narrative". It's the fucking truth. Deal with it, you disingenuous loser.

Herndon wrote on January 24, 2008 7:19 PM:

Because the candidate that seems like the biggest victim wins??? This is the kind of loser mentality that keeps us out of the White House

shelter Jack wrote on January 24, 2008 7:20 PM:

Have you seen this quote? - a recent quote Hillary made in Tom Brokaw's new book "BOOM" p404 - [u]"Reagan was a child of the depression so he understood the economic pressures on the working and middle class. When he had those big tax cuts and then he went to far, he oversaw the largest tax increase. He could call the Soviet Union the evil empire and then negotiate arms-control agreements. He played the balance and the music beautifully". Don't you think Hillary is more than a bit disingenuous to attack Obama for saying Reagan had transformative ideas and then praising Reagan somewhere else for being sympathetic to the middle class and being very sensitive to budget deficits by increasing taxes? She also praises him for his foriegn policy accumen as well as being a master politician. In fact she is far more effusive in her admiration of Reagan than Barack ever has been. Maybe he offended Bill for saying he wasn't transformative or maybe this is just cynical political innuendo slime.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 7:27 PM:

Greg Sargent says "Obama Winning Spin War Over Who's Victim In Campaign"

Such shameless spin from Greg Sargent.

For most thinking people , Obama is winning because he is telling the TRUTH.

Becca wrote on January 24, 2008 7:36 PM:

I find it hard to believe many of these so-called Obama supporters are who they say they are. The venom is straight out J Emmett Tyrell's American Spectator magazine, circa 1992-1998. This kind of talk only tarnishes the image BHO has been trying to cultivate.

roadkillrefugee wrote on January 24, 2008 7:39 PM:

Greg's post wrongly assumes that Obama and Hillary are starting from the same place, so if Obama seems to be coming out slightly more sympathetically in the combat, he must be coming out ahead. Wrong. The whole "trajectory" of Obama's campaign was about him being a non-politician -- above such pedestrian labels as "liberal" or "conservative" -- a transformative figure. But in his squabbling with Hillary, he has proven the old adage, "never wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig likes it." Obama couldn't afford to come across as just another politician, but that's exactly what's been happening as he gets in the mud with the Clintons. If he's just another politician, he loses all that made him special. And then you're left with comparing him as a politician against Hillary as a politician. Suddenly she looks better if that's the criterion. As proof, Obama's negatives are going way up in South Carolina. They will go up further as more people pick up on his petulantly narcissistic statement he made yesterday about how he knows Hillary's supporters will vote for him if he's the nominee, but suggests ominously that his supporters may not support Hillary if she's the nominee.

As another example, Obama is criticizing Hillary for Bill's involvement, but simultaneously Michelle is becoming more outspoken and active on the stump everyday (she attacked Hillary directly today). That's a tactical error by Axelrod. Obama will lose any high ground on this issue will raise Michelle's negatives before anyone knows her. You never let a politician go negative before you define them on your own terms to voters -- huge mistake. I might add, the notion that Bill should stand down does not hold water -- he's not obligated to stay quiet. He's not a secretary of state running a state election. He's a popular former president and the candidate's husband. It would be bizarre if he said nothing as she was criticized. He stumped for Gore (when reluctantly permitted by Gore) and Kerry and now he's stumping for Hillary. Voters are not shocked. What is more shocking is to hear a relatively unknown Democratic candidate criticize a popular two term Democratic president -- another very dangerous tactic by Axelrod.

BTW, the WaPo article was a hit piece on Hillary. Remember the media wants to keep the battle alive for as long as possible. What are they going to do for the next 8 months if Hillary wraps up the nomination on Feb 5th? Not suggesting it's a conspiracy, but the media loves to target the front runner. Notice how the MSM investigatory stories on Giuliani disappeared once he dropped in the polls and lost the primaries?

Michael wrote on January 24, 2008 7:53 PM:

Call me crazy, but maybe it's not "spin" and maybe he's not winning.

Maybe Hillary and Bill are playing a low down, dirt dog game and the press (I know the operative conceit is MSM, but really, that's silly; Grieder weighs in with a very strong column on the Nation site--has he been "spun"?).

As for Obama winning this game, you're seeing a different world than I am. The latest numbers out of South Carolina are flat out depressing for Democrats of any ilk. The election now appears split along racial lines, with only ten percent of whites saying they could vote for what has to be the most palaptable black politician (palatable for white palates, that is) ever in the presidential lists.

As well, Obama looked pretty terrible on the morning shows the other day, as if all that "hope" had been drained out of him.

So if the result of this very intentional feud is that Obama has been turned---very improbably---into a race man, tell me again how he precisely he's winning this tussle?

He's emerged in much worse shape than he was three weeks ago, and that's no accident.

Michael

durendal wrote on January 24, 2008 7:55 PM:

Clean your own house, Hillary!
Slumlords for Obama! '08

Mark F. wrote on January 24, 2008 7:55 PM:

"As another example, Obama is criticizing Hillary for Bill's involvement, but simultaneously Michelle is becoming more outspoken and active on the stump everyday (she attacked Hillary directly today)."

roadkillrefugee: There is NO equivalency there. None whatsoever. Michelle Obama is virtually unknown and Bill Clinton is a former president who, until this week, was nearly universally popular among Democrats. To suggest, as Hillary coyly and dishonestly suggested during the last debate, that Bill is merely her "spouse" is the biggest fairy tale I've ever heard. She's a liar, her husband is a liar and they're both willing to risk tearing the party apart in order to get what they want. The Clintons disgust me.

mg wrote on January 24, 2008 8:01 PM:

First, Barack Obama has never claimed to be a victim. It is possible that there is a backlash toward the Clintons among some media but I would argue that this is based upon years of covering them and recognizing when Bill is lying. I think there is a split to some extent that is age based. Ironically, I think younger journalists who did not cover Bill in the 90's are more likely to give him a pass and label his behavior as hardball politics. Among alot of the more experienced journalists like Jonathan Alter, Joe Klein, AB Stoddard etc. who have covered them for years, they recognize Bill's special version of lying and have burned by it in the past have less patience the second time around. Notice tha