Obama, is not above reproach. Hillary has to go negative (softly on the negative side.) She needs to change the tenor of her campaign if she wants to win.

If Hillary goes negative it will be the end of her national role. The Dems are not interested in attacks this time around. We like both candidates and expect the second-place candidate to keep her/his eye on the ball: winning in November. November is more important than August.

Plus, it's not working this year. There's an argument to be made that Hillary went from 40% African American support to 15% (at best) when Bill began race-coded attacks in South Carolina. It laid the table for Barack's sweep of the south.

Perhaps Hillary is deterred from crude negative attacks by what she knows might emerge in retaliation.

All Things Considered, NPR, February 13, 2008 ·

[....]

"Last year, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton took the unusual step of renting out some of her [mailing] lists. The transaction once again highlights the Clintons' connections to a businessman who now faces questions from the Securities and Exchange Commission...."

In the movie, Hello Dolly, just before Dolly Levi (Barbara Strisand) is to marry Horrace Vandegelder (Walter Matthau), Dolly says, "I will send his money out into the world".

Apparently Barack Obama has the same thought about our money. There is an item in the Congressional Record listing a new Barack authored bill that will, if passed, distribute .7 percent of GDP of US funds in the form of aid to foreign countries.

I am so tired of hearing this nonsense about Obama not having any substance, it's completely ignorant. Senator Obama has a whole website full of substantive (and interesting) policy positions here: http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/. The fact that he doesn't bore people with them when he's on the stump doesn't mean they don't exist.

Reading his Blueprint for Change, it's impressive how much of his agenda is shaped by the desire to put government back in the hands of people, not lobbyists or party insiders. I encourage everyone to read it before taking the media's or some clown on a blog's comments section word for it that Obama is style at the expense of substance, because in reality, he is a damned good mix of both.

Larry Sinclair endorse Barack obama on youtube. Check it out! Obama/Sinclair 08

Anokaflash,

You're thinking exactly backwards about the electability question, in my opinion. Hillary was a known known before she started this new campaign. But because she chose to run an openly negative and dishonest campaign after New Hampshire and before South Carolina, she has reinvigorated the republican complaints against her, e.g., that she's dishonest and will do anything to win, regardless of the costs of her actions to others (e.g., Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones). Now if Hillary's the nominee, the republican attack against her will hit with more of a vengeance than ever, and because we democrats have all seen what she's tried to do to Obama, many of us will be less inspired to rush to her defense like we did in the past, and might even start to seriously distrust her political commitment to women's concerns.

On the other hand, after this long, national primary season, polls show that a lot of democrats, independents and republicans have grown to admire Obama. Americans never had a chance to get to trust John Kerry before he was swift-boated.

So, in my opinion, Obama's the one who's stick-free in the general election, not Hillary.

All best wishes,

Amy

Don't worry - she'll have that youth vote in her pocket in no time with this way-cool music video..
http://wonkette.com/356140/cmon-everybody-do-the-hillary-dance

Hillary gave a speech today in which he attacked Obama for giving speeches. I do not understand her!

One can choose to call it a negative ad,
a soft negative ad or a contrast ad depends
on the effect you are going for. Clearly,
we are down two only two candidates, and
despite, the previous 18 debates, these two, have only debated once. We could ALL
benefit, by seeing them go one on one.
On CNN, Gloria Borger, was addressing the
issue of Obama being more closely scruti-
nized, what she said concerns me. That the
press will wait till the nominee is chosen
and then will examine them more closely.
(paraphrase) Folks, we cannot afford that.
The MSM should VETTING Senator now. Are
we to wait til "after" our nominee is elected, to then have the Republicans turn over "every stone". The voters deserve the
information the MSM should provide so voters can make an informed choice.

HILLARY CLINTON is NOT running scared! The media has refussed to call Obama on ANYTHING he promised in his uplifting speeches. Nothing. He can do a rally and say God is about to decend to Earth and the media says "HAIL OBAMA". Hillary comes up with detailed plans for fixing the country and they bash her! The Clinton are shining light on Obama's flaws because the press refuses.

MANY THANKS to Capt. Denny Keast and to Ejeanbob1 for the February 14, 2008 12:19 PM post.

ds11

----

Methinks you may be a Clinton supporter in McCain's clothing.

I don't know if I'm the only McCain supporter who thinks this, but I think Obama (in spite of the current polls) is a much more beatable candidate than Hillary.

There are a few reasons I think this:

1. Obama-mania:

This guy has been hyper-inflated by the media. His expectations are set way too high. Once people start paying close attention next fall, a lot of the bloom will be off the rose.

2. Obama's appeal to white working class voters

I think Obama will lose these voters big time when it comes to the general. White working class voters tend to love the Clintons, but I don't think this will transfer over to Barack. He's too much of a pretty boy, and when he does fight, he comes off as arrogant and condescending (see the Democratic debates).

Plus, a few key issues can literally sink him with the white working class. Affirmative action hasn't been an important issues in a few election cycles. If Obama's the nominee, I suspect it might become an issue, especially in the South and the Midwest. How difficult do you think it would be for a 527 to run some ads criticizing Obama's support for racial quotas? You think that won't stick in the minds and hearts of white working class voters. Don't count on it.

How about immigration? Obama has already come out in favor of driver's licenses for illegal aliens. Sure, that might help him in California and a few other states that he was probably going to win anyway, but it could fry him in the South and the Midwest.

3. Obama as a credible commander-in-chief?

- This is the biggest killer for Obama. I don't think most voters will view him as a credible leader of the armed forces. Democrats can claim that this election is all about the economy, but many voters are still very concerned about terrorism and the possibility of future attacks. When it comes down to crunch time, will voters put a guy with virtually no experience in charge of the armed forces? I doubt it.

Let me tell you this. I am a public educator. I work almost exclusively with white liberals. Every time politics is even broached or McCain is mentioned, this is what I hear from all of them: "I really like John McCain," or "McCain is the one Republican I might vote for."

Mix in a little doubt about Obama with a very reasonable, admirable Republican alternative and you get...

President McCain.

I really like the sound of that. I can't think of a man better suited to bring the country together and to restore fiscal sanity to Washington.

She is already going negative on every front. Even McCain is helping her. That should tell you Clintonistas something. McCain obviously feels that she is an easier opponent for him. Duh!

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/02/14/mccain-aiding-clinton.aspx

kkarageorge, you asked a question, and I was happy to give an answer. It depends what issues matter to you (economic policy, foreign policy, ethics legislation, etc) -- the Oprah angle is what it is. So is the Vockler endorsement, Bloomberg's statement about Obama's economic policy, Robert Reich statements, Powell's statements. I don't know how closely your friends follow politics, but if they've studied the issues and done their due diligence, I think they would probably have a pretty good answer to the "why" question.

According to the Obama campaign, and most of the fawning press, anything critical of Sen. Obama's short record of accomplishments is 'old politics' (negative).

She should go negative - point out that this is a senator who comes from one of the most corrupt states, and benefited from that corrupt nature by excepting lobbyist contributions to his state and US senate races, as well as the showing poor judgment by letting Rezko (who was under federal investigation at the time, and was widely viewed as soon to be indicted) lend a 'helping' hand by purchasing half of the property of a home Obama couldn't have afforded without his help. Obama did nothing to 'change' Chicago politics, in fact, he used the tired and undemocratic tactics of removing opposition from the ballot with arcane election laws the Chicago way.

Talk about yet another politician who is claiming he is going to 'Change' Washington because he was able to work across party lines in the statehouse, is not tide to special interest in Washington, and has no foreign policy credentials ala Bush.

Her best line is "All hat, and No Bull" - it is hard to criticize a record that doesn't exist.

She has to do something - Obama is so clearly unqualified to President and Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces.

But the press will spin any criticism of him as racist, never mind that if he weren't Black no one would take his candidacy seriously. There is nothing there - no record of accomplishments - to merit his candidacy.

McCain is not Bush - and most certainly is not Alan Keyes. Obama will have his clock cleaned in a general election. Most working 'Reagan Democrats' are going to take a second look at Obama in a general election - and McCain will breeze into the Whitehouse.

The Democrats are about to do what no one thought they could do - loose the Whitehouse after such an unpopular 8 years of divisive and incompetent Republican rule. Unbelievable.

Celebrities as Politicians and Pawns

Another made-for-tv repeat? Mixing politics with Entertainment Tonight is a recipe for disaster. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jesse Ventura, and Ronald Reagan are examples of people who are good entertainers, but incompetent leaders of government. They are singularly long winded, short on ideas, and come with unknown consultants running the show behind closed doors.

Barack Obama is a celebrity turned politician lifted from the set of the Oprah show. Obama hopes to use his celebrity, charisma, and star power to change the world. In fact, celebrity newcomers to government usually act out of ignorance, don't initiate major reforms, and eventually get labeled as boobs, like former Governor Jesse Ventura of Minnesota ; or as pawns, like former President Ronald Reagan.

Is Obama different? He is already looking a bit like a pawn and a boob. His campaign has spent the most hiring Washington lobbyists and consultants. He has been accused of plagiarizing Hillary's economic plan. He is notoriously vague and unspecific about what he actually plans to do to change government. He makes people feel good, and they like being around him, but he is not wearing any clothes. I guess he fits right in.

Hell yes she should go negative! Her back is against the wall now. If she loses Ohio, Pennsylvania or Texas, she's toast. Barack Obama is nothing but old-school, class warfare, nanny-state extreme liberalism wrapped up in a shiny new package. That's his vulnerability.

Let's face it: When you can be rated as more liberal than the likes of Russ Feingold, Chris Dodd and Ted Kennedy, you've really accomplished something!

The GOP has done the smart thing by nominating John McCain, a war hero who is perceived as being right-of-center but not a raving far right wing ideologue like Rush Limbaugh or Tom DeLay. His greatest drawing card is among moderate Republicans and independents. If the Dems nominate Obama and if the GOP can draw him into specifics about his voting record in the U.S. Senate, McCain is ultimately going to come off as the prefered choice for a majority of independents and even some moderate & conservative Democrats, especially in the south.

IMHO, Hillary should aggressively go on the offensive and paint Obama as an old-school liberal who would play directly into the Republican Party's strengths in the general election. The time for caution is past. She needs to pull out all the stops now.

When has Hillary not been negative in this election?

From the start, she has come on like a blast furnace, a machine designed to make bricks from the half-baked mud she slings.

Item: She is the candidate of "35 years of experience" while Obama is a political neophyte (funny how the neophyte seems to be kicking her behind).

Item: Until the strategy backfired, Hillary set loose her husband to define Obama as "the black candidate." Although she denied it at the time, turns out she can muzzle Bill when it serves her purpose.

Item: She maintains that her health care plan would provide "universal coverage" and Obama's would "leave out 15 million people." Except that the facts support neither of those contentions.

Item: While Obama rightly contrasted his community activism on behalf of displaced workers with her years as board member and top attorney for notoriously anti-union Wal-Mart, she cleverly retorted that he was working for a "slum lord." Again, her command of rhetoric exceeds her commitment to facts such as Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing by his one-time donor. And let's not talk about Hillary's own shady donor, Norman Hsu, wanted for 3 YEARS while Hillary took $1 million from him.

Item: Her website feature "The Fact Hub" devotes itself to sliming Obama. His "Know the Facts" feature is employed most often in rebutting her twisted attacks.

Item: While the results of Iowa didn't matter because it was just the first state and S. Carolina didn't matter because it was too black and Super Tuesday and the eight races since didn't matter because they were just small states, Hillary touched touched down in Florida to congratulate herself on winning a race Obama never contested and both candidates agreed to give up.

Item: Both Factcheck.org and Politicheck.org allow you to compare the candidates' devotion to accuracy. His record, while imperfect, is far superior to hers.

Item: In her Texas stump speeches, she alludes to Obama as "all hat and no cattle" while proclaiming tht she is "the candidate of solutions" and he "is the candidate of promises" -- more of her "empty words" attack theme.

Item: Hillary wants more debates to continue attacking Obama in front of a large audience and slow his momentum. Her attack ads in Wisconsin never mention that and are self-serving, as usual.

Will her "new" negative strategy serve her? She must think so. Now that her air of "inevitability" has evaporated, she will rely on an earthier approach -- and an ample supply of red Texas mud.

The most alarming development for HRC has got to be McCain focusing on Obama and ignoring her, and Obama returning serve with friendly moonballs. It looks like Obama and McCain are conspiring to finish her off now by robbing her of airtime and attention. Her way back into this fight is to get in McCain's face, and she needs to do it quick. Otherwise, it won't matter a whit if she rocks Texas, OH and PA, because the Obama-McCain matchup will be the media agenda by next Sunday's talk shows. She lacks funds to drown out Obama on TV, nobody is going to watch a 23rd debate between them, and she is no longer the front runner. Therefore she has no claim on the bullhorn before then, all the while Obama and McCain have begun the general election.

Clinton go negative against Obama? There are so many things wrong with that I don't even know where to begin....

Let me point out the most obvious: Obama used to play poker in friendly games with his colleagues in the Illinois Senate. He knows how to match and raise.

She already is going negative in Ohio. Check on CNN.com and the article with the ridiculous picture of Hillary holding up boxing gloves. For someone who has accepted more lobbyist money than anyone, Republican or Democrat, in the race, she has no room to talk.

Rose,

The answer is fairly straight forward.
Being ridiculed as children who have no idea of the struggles past, without acknowledging the role that the next generation has in moving the debate forward while continuing to consolidate those hard won gains made by their parents lends itself to the backlash of a 20, 30 or 40 something standing up and saying; "I am no longer 5 my dear parent"!
If you refuse to respect our political & social judgment as immature, hollow and thoughtless then expect to be treated as one that has no respect.

Phew! It was tough slogging through all those posts, but didn't want to be (too) repetitive.

OK, so here's the deal. Everything I read and hear tells me that Sen. Clinton has been out-maneuvered, outworked, and out-fundraised -- in other words, beaten -- by the Obama campaign, and has to win some 57% of the remaining delegates to catch him in the pledged-delegate count. So in order to win the nomination, she has to:

1. Pick off enough unelected superdelegates to get to a majority; and/or

2. Find a way to get the delegates not chosen in the Michigan and Florida non-primaries seated at the convention; and/or

3. Start going (more) negative against Obama - kind of like she did in a speech today.

One or all of these strategies risks either blowing up the party, or backfiring in her face, or both.

In my view, if this is how she has to get the nomination, it will be basically worthless. The millions of young people and minorities who were energized by Obama to become involved in the political process will sit on their hands, and Clinton will deliver us into the hands of a Republican president who can keep us in Iraq for 100 years and complete the transformation of the Supreme Court into a rubber stamp for the right-wing crazies (how long can Stevens and Ginsburg last, anyway?).

So I guess we're about to find out if it's true that she'll say and do anything to win, and damn the consequences for the country she says she loves.

The reason the Clinton campaign won't go negative in a big way is because they know Obama has much more dirt on her than she has on him.
In essence he is taunting her.
Daring her.
Go ahead.
Make my day!

Everything Hillary can do now, including doing nothing, is bad for her.

All one can do is wonder how the most powerful political machine of the past 30 years came to this at the hands of a 40 something startup now arguably the most powerful name in American politics. .
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

By all means, Hillary should go negative, so we can see her in her natural habitat, and be reminded how effective Billary's attacks were in South Carolina. It will further illustrate to us all the difference between what has been and what can be. Can't hardly wait.

Thank you to both Rose48809 and Ladyeagle. I couldn't agree more. It is sad that this is how the issues are being addressed, with such nastiness. Passion is wonderful, but you don't need to demonstrate passion with such venom.

It is a well known fact that most of Mr. Obama's support comes from young people. I am a mother of that generation. I have 5 children between the ages of 35 and 23. I'm glad you young people are getting involved. However, it leaves me to think, what did I do wrong as a parent of this generation? What did the other parents do wrong. Yes, we taught you to be independent thinkers. However, I don't remember teaching mine to spew this hate filled venom. Why are you spewing it??? Because someone has an oppinion different from yours. You are spewing hate and don't even know the people you are spewing it about. You haven't met them. You are spewing it because of what??? Because they have a different political view than you??? If I find out one of this hateful, hurtful, rude statement are coming from any one of my 5 children. They will be getting a lecture like they haven't had since they were 17. Is this the "change" - "hope" - "it's our time" - "together we will unite the country" you have been taught? Sure don't sound like uniting to me. If this is what we have coming, I'm voting for the other side.

To JPRS ) I was just asking what Obama did to deserve this as I have heard others stating that he deserves the nomination. That is a legitimate question. No need to get defensive.

kkarageorge, the bottom line is you need to do some research on your own.

You might ask yourself the question too: What makes a successful president?

For those of us who did due diligence on George W. Bush in 2000 there haven't been any real big surprises. He's been pretty much a disaster everywhere he's gone.

On the other hand, a guy like Obama has done a good job of forging coalitions even under difficult circumstances during his political career (going back to Illinois). He's got a first rate intellect -- an ability to prioritize, and on balance good judgment. I'm willing to risk a learning curve in his first year or so, because they guy has a great upside. He's not talking about 100 year wars, or more tax cuts at a time of record deficits; or rolling out a new slogan every week and over-stating his credentials.

So far he's run a smart campaign, and he's surrounded himself with good people -- even in the face of some pretty long odds he's run a good, clean campaign.

To cmsore: These are two distinct quotes from two people of this form:

That way you will be quickly bounced and Obama will get the nomination he deserves... and give the democrats a chance at winning in November!

And, that is why he will will handsomely in the rest of the primaries and earn the democratic nomination by the mandate of the electorate and go on to become the next president of our nation. America needs this change.

Those are just two comments that I happened to see. So yes, indeed people believe he deserves/has earned his way towards a democratic nomination. Mirror mirror on the wall...

She should withdraw from the race after congratulating Obama for doing such a great job of winning the last 5+ contests. She could do it for "the good of the Dem Party." However, since she doesn't have any class, to even acknowledge his wins, she'll happily destroy the Democrat Party before she gives up.

The Mac vs.Obama polls in Key states are favoring Hillary! Just by a little.

Maryland exit polls showed nothing has changed in the dynamic of the race. Obama does will with the young, blacks, and latte drinkers. Maryland was 37 percent black and lots of rich voters. Hillery won women by a wide margin.

The Polls in Ohio and Texas add wight to this statement.

Reporters are not good with numbers so they kind of missed this story. (I am a demographer so I am good with numbers)

Va made me panic but 5 points of that loss was republicans voting for Obama.

Should Hillary go negatve? No. Too late.
The Billary duo went negative between NH and SC. It cost her my vote. I think it cost her the whole campaign.

As CC analyzed it, going negative simply confirms voters' worst impressions of Hillary. There is no up side for her in it.

I am a registered Independent voter. It frightens and disappoints me to see the level of hatred that people think is acceptable to level at another human being. it is one thing to be supportive of one candidate, but it is inexcusable, especially for those wanting a new kind of politics, to spew such venom.

I guess it all these folks would be willing to say these things to the candidates faces, and would not mind if their wives, girlfriends or mothers were attacked in the same manner.

I understand the argument that if Clinton goes negative it will alienate all those who love Obama's message of change, and who want change in Washington. One small problem with all this change talk. Once someone is in the Whitehouse, Obama included, they are going to have to work within that Washington system if they want to get anything accomplished. So either Obama will fail as a President or he will have to become one of those Washington insiders himself. So on that note, who knows best how to work that system? Hillary Clinton!

Hillary wants FREE PRESS. I bet you one thing Obama will not sit down again in any more Debates like Hillary likes to do.

BILL, HILLARY, JOHN McCAIN AND BUSH and their WAR have ruined our Country. As Bill Clinton's Vote for NAFTA has ruined our Economy.

NAFTA signed into law by President Bill Clinton. [12/08/93].

They were Co-Presidents then, of course she supported it. They are trying to revise History because Bill Clinton signing that NAFTA Bill has caused America's economy to be in the horrible condition it is in.

Of Course Hillary now has to distance herself from the truth as always. She never admits she is wrong. Her Vote for the Iraq War was wrong on DAY 1 and she cannot admit she was wrong then.

Her Solutions are too late to fix the MESS she and HER HUSBAND have created.
This is her pattern of their Character.

We have SPENT BILLIONS AND BILLIONS on her WAR Vote, we have lost our young women and men in this War as well as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.

Our Infrastructure is crumbling and we have to borrow from China, but yet her VOTE FOR WAR has nothing to with our poor economy.
Hillary and McCain are one in the same, of course they are BEST FRIENDS BFF.Hillary is like Bush, he cannot admit when he is wrong either.

But yet she has the SOLUTION to the MESS she and her President Husband has created.

What is so amazing they think they can fool the American People

Clintons' Terror Pardons

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120277819085260827.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r1:c0.128055

Obama need to readhttp://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aaad0724-dd13-4ffa-810b-d5d3220ff055

hdimig, cite a source at least. Find a youtube clip or something. You're not credible basing your charges on memory.

It is no question in my mind that Hillary will go negative. It's not a matter of "should" but "when". You have got superdelegate Hillary-supporters like Jim Carville saying that if Hillary loses Ohio or Texas, then its over for her. With those type of statements in the media, Hillary knows she has to stop the Obama "wave" any way she can. I think Bill Clinton will go negative first and then Hillary.

Obama in 08!

"When did Obama "admit" to not liking policy work in a debate?"

He said it. I do not remember which debate it was. It was the same time he said his desk was messy. He said he did not like to immerse himself in the everyday details and that his leadership skills were higher level: setting a vision, inspiring, etc. Hillary of course said the details are important.

Also, for every deed Clinton charges Obama with, Obama has an adequate and true response. That's why negatives hasn't been working against him.

Charges against Clinton? She seems to add further spin.

She won't release her financial information until "after she's nominated".

Her opposition to the Leven Amendment (an amendment that forced the US to get the United Nations permission before going to war with Iraq, but by no means restricts the US's abilities to defend themselves). Her defense was in her belief that it would've crippled the US's abilities to defend. False rebuttal.

The Obama campaign has Clinton's campaign outsmarted and outplayed.

kkarageorge - what type of mirror world are you living in? Who here is saying the he deserves it? People say they think he's doing a great job, he has their support, they think he would make a good president and even that they are feeling he will win. Maybe 'he inspires me', 'he'd make a good president' or 'i think he'll win' are all sentiments of entitlement in twisted logic, but most Obama supporters would probably say that there is no entitlement to the presidency for anyone. More like a strong and refreshing possibility or even probability.

Alternatively, Clinton has acted like she has the nomination at various point, she and her supporters have insinuated that Obama should 'wait his turn' where there is some mythical pre-ordained order where she will be president before him and he's ruining it. Entitlement has much more frequently been a Clinton theme.

toraad

What's there to discuss? This is just a campaign ad that uses fear tactics like Republicans and Bush. It doesn't present a point of view or idea to discuss.

PROUD: You must have been out in the cold and are having a bad hair day. What it is there with the chill factor -40 or so?

I wish someone would point out how ridiculous HRC's plan for fixing the foreclosure crisis really is. By "freezing" foreclosures, she is denying a company of their legal property. This would never hold up in court. The banks are merely exercising their contractual rights to the property. The only legal way to keep a foreclosure from happening is for the holder of the loan to voluntarily renegotiate the terms or give the homeowner more time to catch up. I've heard some legal experts say that her plan would require a constitutional amendment. If she tries to hammer Obama on her plan, she should be prepared for him to point this out.

I've an issue with the argument that Hillary is ready to go negative and is tough and ready for the republican fight against Mccain. She's losing to an Obama campaign. A campaign that is accused of being weak and whimpy and whiny. Hillary is losing this relatively soft fight and dares to argue that she's ready for a tougher one? I'm really at a loss as for how people buy into that.

I donated over $500 to this campaign because I worry about my children's future. Please discuss this if possible.
---------------------
"Community Organizer for President"

He was a community organizer in an inner city Chicago. Then he wrote a book. Then he ran unopposed for the local state senate. Then he ran unopposed for a vacant Illinois state senate. And now he wants to be the president of the United States of America

The country is drifting from its historic path to an uncharted territory. Eight more years of experimentations and ill-conceived judgments even with good intentions could find our beloved United States unrecognizable and hard to correct. He said that he can not manage the nation but will hire good people.

In these times of the whole world is competing for our economy, jobs and livelihood it is very critical to methodically evaluate your choices and have the vision for future consequences. You must have the sound judgment and experience or we will find our selves in the richest third world country. With experience and competence come good judgment not just contents. But he will hire good people around him he said.

In the last few weeks the United States Navy had a close encounters with Russians fighter jets and Iranian navy boats in the Strait of Hormuz. One can restart the cold war with a nuclear nation and the other could stop the flow of most of the world's petroleum that could send the world into an economic recession and ciaos. Do you want a community organizer that can hire good people to navigate this?

The president we elect have to decide between differing consultants. He or she has to make a decision that the future of our nation and our children depends on. We need a president who will make the correct choices and keep this country prosperous and free and great as it always been. Please don't make us choose between an inexperienced community organizer and an opponent who supports the wrong war.

Lets take our country back and keep it the way it has always been, Great, Prosperous, Free, Strong and the beacon for freedom and democracy. I recommend you support Hillary Clinton now to lead the United States of America.

Thank You

I donated over $500 to this campaign because I worry about my children's future. Please discuss this if possible.
---------------------
"Community Organizer for President"

He was a community organizer in an inner city Chicago. Then he wrote a book. Then he ran unopposed for the local state senate. Then he ran unopposed for a vacant Illinois state senate. And now he wants to be the president of the United States of America

The country is drifting from its historic path to an uncharted territory. Eight more years of experimentations and ill-conceived judgments even with good intentions could find our beloved United States unrecognizable and hard to correct. He said that he can not manage the nation but will hire good people.

In these times of the whole world is competing for our economy, jobs and livelihood it is very critical to methodically evaluate your choices and have the vision for future consequences. You must have the sound judgment and experience or we will find our selves in the richest third world country. With experience and competence come good judgment not just contents. But he will hire good people around him he said.

In the last few weeks the United States Navy had a close encounters with Russians fighter jets and Iranian navy boats in the Strait of Hormuz. One can restart the cold war with a nuclear nation and the other could stop the flow of most of the world's petroleum that could send the world into an economic recession and ciaos. Do you want a community organizer that can hire good people to navigate this?

The president we elect have to decide between differing consultants. He or she has to make a decision that the future of our nation and our children depends on. We need a president who will make the correct choices and keep this country prosperous and free and great as it always been. Please don't make us choose between an inexperienced community organizer and an opponent who supports the wrong war.

Lets take our country back and keep it the way it has always been, Great, Prosperous, Free, Strong and the beacon for freedom and democracy. I recommend you support Hillary Clinton now to lead the United States of America.

Thank You

Hillary is both a PC and a Mac. Shie is a computer who her handlers tell her how to oprerate. The campaign has change, but her program has not.

hdimig -

When did Obama "admit" to not liking policy work in a debate? I've never heard him say that. And his speech on economic policy today suggests otherwise.

"We have heard this all before.
Let me see If i get this right.
Clinton "White" as she calls it.
Obama "Black" as she calls it.
Clinton a person that is serious about work.
Obama just a child who not only wishes for things he can never have and should stop expecting the American people to expect better."

Now this is what I mean here. You cannot criticize Obama at all without someone calling you predjudice or questioning your motives. That will wear thin in a hurry. Obama admits in a debate he does not like details or lots of policy (ie; work) and Hillary gets clubbed on the head for using that against him. Hipocrisy, double-standards, media man crushes. Oh boy!

One comment I've heard far too often is that Barack Obama deserves to be president. Please, someone explain to me why he deserves it because I just don't see it. Is it because Oprah loves him? Is is because his Senate record is that extensive and amazing? I guess I'm just not part of the Obama love fest. He certainly seems likeable, but that's about it. To run a country, give me a break.

>>But in contest after contest, from the state legislative level to the presidential level, this type of advertising gets results.

Except for Fred Thompson... and Mitt Romney.

I thought the Clinton "debates" ad was well-executed, but a poorly conceived line of attack.

The Obama response ad hits the Clinton Team where it hurts -- deflating the charges as patently false.

There is no good rebuttal for the Clinton Team in Wisconsin.

Onward to states that "really matter".

Sen. Clinton already has the highest negatives (and hard one) of the 3 candidates. Going negative will increase this; indeps. already break for McCain, and she's risking losing more of the dem. party IF she were to eke out/clutch/grab the nomination. Esp. if she would "win" it with superdelegates over pledged delegates, or for breaking her word in FL or MI - the damage to the party in Nov and LONG after that will be profound. We know she's smart - now we'll see if she cares about anything than herself... I personally have no longer any such illusions - I'll never forget her laughing and clapping when Bob Johnson was "doing his thing"... And I'll never forget she voted for a WAR without reading the 95-page classified NIE (no staffer had access to) - I bet she did read the polls that day......

Just what she needs to alientate the female vote. Attack Billary!

We have heard this all before.
Let me see If i get this right.
Clinton "White" as she calls it.
Obama "Black" as she calls it.
Clinton a person that is serious about work.
Obama just a child who not only wishes for things he can never have and should stop expecting the American people to expect better.

I am sorry, but OBAMA has Clinton pinned to the mat. He has out thought Hillary Clinton. She was so sure about herself she slept on the American people. So who is dreaming now?
Americans do not wan't Hillary Clinton. Does that count for anything?

It's not that she has not don some good work, but she has also left people hanging.
Bill Clinton also left people hanging because instead of admitting he cheated on his wife, he decided it was better to lie to everyone and wast tax payer dollars on a thing that could have been settled with honesty.

Sorry Clinton's but the worst thing about politics is it's not about you. It's about the American people and we don't have time to repeat the same old thing over and over.

Electing Hillary Clinton will bring little to no change. It will also hurt the Democratic party. So who is more important?
Are the American people more important than the Clintons?
Is the Democratic party more important than the Clintons?

We will find out!

A dog's gotta bark and an artist has to paint... and a Clinton has to go negative, all the while insisting he/she is the victim. The Clintons may not have invented the politics of personal destruction, but they sure elevated it to an art form. Turn it on Hillary! You're Bill without the communication skills or charisma!

Hillary Clinton: Old thinking, old politics, old news.

Any attempt at the aforementioned "hip" ads would only underscore this, but would offer must-see irony.

If Hillary goes negative on Obama it will be the coup-de-grace...the absolute end of her campaign. But with that bumbling idiot, Mark Penn around I suppose it's possible.

For a preview of Hillary going negative, you only have to look back a few short weeks to her husband's "So what, Blacks always win South Carolina" remark. That went well, huh?

going negative again? that's why she's in the predicament she's in now due to earlier tactics she and bill imposed.it appears americans are tiring of these negative mean spirited tactics.i've noticed in the past couple of days hillary and mccain has been critical of mr.obama's speeches refering to them as having no substance.what mr.mccain & ms.clinton don't get is that in these bad economic times and times of war mr.obama's speeches gives people something to feel good about,it's a rallying point,people have"hope." mr.obama represents a freshness in which this country is rallying around. the swift boat tactics the republicans have utilized in the past elections will fall on deaf ears come this fall. people need hope and inspiration and these are the messages that are appealing and something the american people can rally around.people are tired of devisive politics.people are tired of white vs black,republican vs democrat,christians vs non-christicans,rich vs poor.we need a government that can bring about change and be effective.we as americans as we go to the polls we need to look at our politicans on both the state and national level to see if they are fit to return to office. changes are needed not only in the presidency but the senate,house of representatives,govenors and your state houses as well as your courthouses.

Hillaryland Schizophrenia is her downfall:

For the first 9 months of the campaign Hillary was doing everything possible to lower her negatives in the PR world. That was the right tactic. But it wasn't followed through. Because of a series of missteps from November to January which included planting questions, snubbing the press and the local people she undercut her charm offensive.

That charm offensive won NH. Then she returned to being the fundamentally flawed, insecure candidate she had been from the start. Essentially she could not get out of her own way.

No Hillary can't go negative and partly becasue the press has been so easy on Obama they make him look untouchable to the Democrats- The Repbulicans won't be as nice to him.

But Hillary can begin to do ads that examine the differences on health care and challenge Obama on his "present" votes and on his lack of a record by comparing his to hers.

Also her ad regarding debates is not a negative ad. It is a factual ad.

The Washington Post Co had a great cartoon today by Lisa- two women on a couch- on with a heart shaped box of chocolates from Obama- the second woman says- but the box is empty- the one with the box says - but it gives me hope-

"Only then will she stop embarrassing her supporters"

Indeed, they embarrass themselves enough as it is...just look at poor lylepink.

I would think Hillary would be happy that Obama has not agreed to the debate, that way she doesn't have to step foot in that state. Oh and she should definately go negative. Run lots of smear campaigns just so if Obama actually does win then when McCain tries it he can just look like Hillary. Ann Coulter would love it.

to Hdimig re:
Rock Star events with adoring fans

(with dissenting opinions and real questions)

Emphasis on character instead of issues
(PuhLeeeze, I don't drink...anymore)

Tons o' spin
(Pretty Puhleeeze! even McCain's 'Fired Up)

Moral outrage when questioned or attacked
(If the Democrat party wins the mid-term elections, the terrorists will share the victory and America loses)

This is better than skeet shooting! Keep 'em coming and I'll keep shooting them down. (insert derisive term here)

"According to Donald, Lincoln was also fortunately unburdened by convention"

Obama is like: Lincoln, JFK, MLK, Ghandi, and Mother Theresa. Phew! 4 years of that will be excruciating.

Mark,

I had missed your comment. Thanks.

"Why is someone who knows what to do on 'Day 1' having so much trouble figuring out what to do right now?"

CONGRATULATIONS! WE HAVE A WINNER! Well said, ComfortablyDumb

She cannot benefit from going negative. Remember the last time she went negative, right before South Carolina (mostly through surrogates - Bill and that other dude I don't feel like looking it up right now) and WOW what a delicious backlash. She needs to decide on a platform (it's about time) and then highlight contrasts in policy from Obama (real ones, not made-up ones). Only then will she stop embarrassing her supporters.

svreader:

Great to see that you've stopped trying to spread lies and slander against Obama and are now concentrating on meaningful argument. Doesn't it feel better?

I agree that we should be looking at ideas, but I still think that doesn't help Hillary. The problem is that either Democratic nominee will: provide better health care; reform the economy; repeal the Bush tax cuts; and shift our Iraq policy. Moreover, whatever proposals they are floating now will not resemble the final product if their elected.

If I'm right about the end goals being the same for either Democratic candidate, then we need to focus on (1) who can win in November and (2) who can best accomplish the mutually shared Democratic legislative goals. All the polls I've seen and McCain's adherence to Bush's war policy suggest to me that Barack is a better candidate to beat McCain. Moreover, look at the very real contrast he presents against McCain - he didn't vote for the Iraq war; he is young; he knows more about economics. Also, he lacks Clinton's baggage. For better or worse, people have made up their minds about Hillary, and she will have stiff opposition for whatever legislation she proposes. With Barack, at least we have a chance to get a few good bills signed before the GOP starts to really dig in their heels.

The Media will portray anything Hillary does in a negative way, just as they have been doing all along. I have said many times, I have never saw anything that can even come close to the Anti-Hillary bias shown by The Media from the start of the 2008 campaign. I have tried to think of everything I know about politics and simply cannot understand why or how all this hatred exists.

Obama is a Mac and Clinton is a Commodore 64.

She has to win 60% of every remaining primary to catch Obama. Game's over, be nice or be hated.

The "Capt. Denny Keast story" is a hoax:

http://www.ericbrooks.com/whuzzup/denny-keast-speaks

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/secretservice.asp

Romney is doing nothing but building his case for 2012. Mittens stands for nothing but Mittens.

Clinton can't afford to go negative.

1. its plays into Obama's theme of breaking politics as usual.

2. Obama would turn around his theme of hope and use this as Hillary's theme of negativity

3. Hillary would look like a shrill and desperate person.

4. the Democratic establishment wil put huge amounts of pressure on her to NOT go negative. They can't afford to have Obama damaged coming out of the primary in the event that he wins.

No, Hillary needs to stay as far from negative as possible. For all the up to date talk on endorsements, polls and such though, you should visit my blog at www.electioninspection.wordpress.com

Spec, Yes, Romney will be joining fellow former-competitor Giuliani in endorsing John McCain for president this afternoon.

Too bad nobody on the left is able to secure that most-coveted endorsement from the Goracle. Even Edwards is not throwing his nod toward either one.

Looks like the Dems are in quite a bit of disarray, what with MI and FL voters being disenfranchised and the spectre of having to use the Supers to overcome a stalemate. the Ds are the stale idea party after all, it is fitting.

WHAT! GO NEGATIVE AGAINST HIS HOLINESS OBAMA?? By definition that would make you a racist! No, let's just keep giggling like 14 year olds and sighing at his speeches. After 8 years of Bush, we obviously don't care about substance.

colin, as I wrote on the previous thread, I am flabbergasted.

Why is someone who knows what to do on "Day 1" having so much trouble figuring out what to do right now?

Go negative now, what has she been doing? Oh well I guess her husband doing it is not her. It's coming and Barack will be prepared for it with the line "there they go again." She just doesn't get it. While everyone wants a return to the peace and prosperity of the 90's, we also want to do it without scandal and together a whole country, democrats, republicans, and independents. Barack appeals to what it the best in us, which it that we have more in common than apart. The Clinton's will never understand that!

Speaking of Willard Mittens Romney, he's going to endorse McCain.

"I was against McCain before I was for him."

I want to second the observation made earlier by "jameswhanger" that "The problem with this strategy is, Hillary is more similar to the PC guy and Obama to the Mac guy. It may unintentionally highlight this."

Nonetheless, she has to go negative in some way. She needs to drag Obama down into the muck and make voters view him as akin to her. Then her "experience" pitch might resonate a bit better.

That said, she's in the position of the basketball team that has been trying to play the clock out but has lost the lead midway through the fourth quarter. Teams in that situation often get beat.

JacksonLanders writes:
"Go negative. Attack, attack, attack. When the other guy is the front runner late in the race, this means that most people have decided that they are ok with him winning. He becomes the default and you are only going to cut into him by convincing voters that there is something wrong with him."

I agree. It is possible to go negative in a positive way, though. If she incorporates humor and uses Obama's own soundbites she could come up with a great ad.

Look at the "Tale of Two Mitts" ad by the McCain campaign (available on Youtube). It was an extremely effective ad becasue it was light and funny, but used Romney contradicting himself over and over. IMO, it was the best ad so far of the campaign season.

If team Hillary can come up with some old clips of Obama, and use them to show any waffling or uncertainty in answering questions or any thing that shows his wife as the loose cannon she is, and do it in a funny way, that would be the most effective.

Hillary should calmly focus on the issues.

Her policy plans are infinitely better than Obama's.

She should encourage everyone to read the policy proposals on both web sites, especially the health care proposals, and make up their own minds.

If people take time to examine the issues they'll vote for Hillary.

She doesn't need to go negative.

Her ideas are the most positive thing the country has seen in years.

NHillary should go honest.

The last time we saw the real Hillary was when she made the remark about tea and cookies in 1992. After that, she created an alter-ego because she was afraid to ruin Bill's chances.

If and only if she drops this persona she created 16 years ago will she ever have a chance at becoming President.

She is at heart an intense feminist and should embrace it...Americans prize honesty above all else. This warm and fuzzy Hillary is all bull.

Be real or lose it.

Capt. Denny Keast - thank you.

It is just ashame that Pres. Bush can't treat the rest of the American people as well as he treats those who protect him & his family.

No, there's no salvation; for better or worse, Ms. Clinton's campaign is over, and the sooner she gracefully bows out the better.

I generally concur with your commentary about negative advertising. This campaign has, however, proven an anomaly in many ways. One has been the impact of 'going negative.' Mitt Romney and Bill Clinton have been the most high profile examples of negative attacks. Both have backfired and not seemed to substantially impact the target of the attack. Huckabee won Iowa. McCain won New Hampshire. Obama won South Carolina.

Maybe the dynamics of negative advertising have changed, at least for a time.

This wouldn't be considered negative would it?

Seems more like the truth...considering the evidence.

A group of citizens walk into Senator Barack's office.
They say: We believe the Excelon Nuclear plant is leaking tritium into our drinking water.
Barack says: How dare they! Let's have a meeting. I am going to write a bill that supports mandatory reporting of leaks at the lowest of levels.
Citizens say: YEAH!
Barack says: Here's my bill Excelon.
Excelon says: Excuse me Senator, could we speak to you for a moment in private?
Barack says: I am a uniter, of course you can.
DOORS CLOSE
DOORS OPEN
Barack says: Hey, I just got myself two new fundraisers and 214 new donors from Excelon. Thank you citizens for introducing me.
http://politicalamnesia.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-and-exelon.html#links

If Hillary Clinton plans to use Bill again as the vessel for her negative attacks (remember the racial coding?), she should think again.

Bill's frequently angry outbursts, seemingly symbolic of his wife's campaign gone awry, seem eerily like the scene from the old movie "King Kong"(1933), where the beast holds a terrified Fay Wray aloft while he roars "Love Me! Love Me!"

Actually the metaphor appears to address several levels of the Clintonian reality, no?

Wonder how they are spending their Valentine's Day.

There's not even a sentence or thought in this blog post raising the question of whether negative attacks are an appropriate strategy to win the presidency. There's nothing that considers the consequences of what happens when a candidate for president appeals to the public's fears or dislikes about another candidate, and whether that is good for the country. In recent years we've seen how the country suffers when a president wins only by attacking other candidates, instead of making an argument on the candidate's own merit. This is a political blog, but one sentence or thought about what is in the national interest could have been useful. It's important to look at the context of how politics fits into the bigger picture.

Mark & Jim -- If you happen to read this, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on McCain's decision to vote AGAINST the Feinstein amendment that would prohibit waterboarding. I know you are both big fans of Senator McCain, but this strikes me as exactly the kind of pandering that he's engaged in over the last several years which, for me at least, really undermines his so-called "straight talk" reputation. And, obviously, this is not a trivial issue at all.

I've long thought that a GE matchup between Obama and McCain would be great for the country. With some of McCain's recent conversions, and his disingenuous twising of Mitt Romney's record leading up to Florida, I'm starting to think that he may run the GE campaign that the advisers he hired away from GWB want him to run. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm not.

some newbie moron wrote: "Ridiculously irrelevant and vapid. Contribute something intelligent or don't contribute at all."

You freaking idiot, have you read some of the posts on here? Lighten up or find a board for humorless drones like yourself.

Odds are that it won't work but I suppose that she ought to do it anyway. There are no really good choices for Clinton at this point. She's losing and has zero momentum. Any course of action carries a high risk of failure.

She's the underdog now. And without a movement behind you, there is a very short list of classic underdog tactics that someone in her position has to reach for.

1. Demand lots of debates. It's free media and there's always a chance that your opponent will stumble or otherwise create a new opening for you, live and on camera.

2. Go negative. Attack, attack, attack. When the other guy is the front runner late in the race, this means that most people have decided that they are ok with him winning. He becomes the default and you are only going to cut into him by convincing voters that there is something wrong with him.

3. Pitch big ideas. Have some timely, major idea that can be a policy centerpiece which distinguishes you from the opponent. Never, ever shut up about it.

Those are the fundamental tactics of a potentially successful underdog campaign. If Clinton's campaign strategists have faced up to the fact that they are truly losing, then we will see the campaign employ all 3 of these major tactics in the next 3 weeks.

Barack and company should not be bullied into debates that they do not need. She is desperate for attention after ignoring the smaller states because they did not have enough delagates to be important to her. Barack, do not change your game play now, it is not broke so please do not let her bully you into trying to fix it.

miraclestudies | February 14, 2008 01:15 PM

Great comment, incomplete spelling.

QUANDARY!

It's sad but I think that the Clinton campaign is going to resort to negative ads that will turn off the electorate so that there will be lower turn out. A lower turn out favors Hillary, because she has connections with the party and labor union turn out the vote machines.

HRC would like to taint Obama, so that even if Obama prone voters don't like her and will not vote for her, they will, hopefully stay home and not vote at all. The ads will try to place doubt in the minds of potential Obama voters and/or turn them off to the whole election process.

Burn the village, Hillary. It's the only way to save it.

Barack Obama's questioning of the relevance of Hillary Clinton's type of "experience" in confronting the new challenges the United States faces remains supremely relevant and receives validation from an interesting case in American history.

It also points to why Obama's outsider status might actually be just what is needed to successfully restore the U.S. to international political creditworthiness.

Lincoln biographer David Herbert Donald showed how what might have been perceived as the Great Emancipator's serious shortcomings as a war president and commander in chief actually turned out to be some of his greatest assets.

Remember, Lincoln came to the presidency having only meager experience--much less than Sen. Obama's--in public office, let alone experience in the Executive Branch.(Lincoln's experience in the military was limited to little more than two months service during the Black Hawk War.)

According to Donald, Lincoln was also fortunately unburdened by convention, precedent, and standard operating procedures in facing war's challenge.(The parallels with Obama kind of leap from the page, no?)

However, Lincoln was also a quick study who grew into greatness through trial and error in pursuing the most significant of his goals.

Lincoln also knew democracy's ancient lessons. When Cicero finished speaking, the people said, "My, how well he spoke." But when Demosthenes finished speaking the people said, "Let us march!"

"Public sentiment is everything," Lincoln noted. "With it, nothing can fail, against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions. He makes possible the enforcement of these, else impossible."

Martin Edwin Andersen
Churchton, Maryland

First, abutterbutt, don't post in all-caps. Nobody reads those comments anyway.

Second, bobbywc, not having any scheduled stops in south Texas yet is not writing off Texas. The next primary on the schedule is Wisconsin, and the campaign probably does not have events planned much beyond the day or two after next Tuesday at this point. Campaigns in the height of primary season avoid scheduling too far in advance because plans necessarily change. Were you to look at Clinton's schedule, you won't find many events scheduled more than a week ahead of time either. Even if they were, the campaign would not want to release this information.

Clinton is the one who is shockingly writing off states at the moment, and I imagine that Obama will be in Ohio and Texas, including south Texas, in force starting Tuesday. On the other hand, why Clinton is avoiding Wisconsin is beyond me. It's as if she wants to rack up another embarrassing loss at this point.

Let her go negative, it will just be another sign of her desperation and will hurt her more then it helps. Bring it on!!

Blarg writes
"On the ads in particular, or on Windows vs. Macs in general? I use Windows; I'll admit it. And I'm sure a bearded hippie like yourself uses a Mac. "

Bearded hippies use Linux, which is what I run on an ancient PC that doesn't have the horsepower to run any recent version of Windows. I'm too cheap to buy new these days. I did get my wife a mini Mac. I can see your point on the ads, though I don't think they're quite as meanspirited as you seem to.

abutterbutt, your criticism of the lame job the media does explaining the issues, a criticism I share, would be enhanced by learning about lower case letters.

Though an Obama supporter, I do think he mesmerizes some parts of the media. But that raises the question: given that fact, why would we want to run someone that the media LOVES (see how much more effective capitalization can be when you limit it to one word rather than your entire rant?) to hate? I have no doubt, if Clinton "wins" the nomination, the media will go into overdrive to take her down. It ain't fair, but it seems to be reality. For once we have a candidate the media tip toes around and can't figure out how to destroy. I say we run with him.

The problem with this strategy is, Hillary is more similar to the PC guy and Obama to the Mac guy. It may unintentionally highlight this.

McCain and Clinton like to call Obama light on details. You cite her Wisconsin ad as detailing how she would fix the economy and the health care system in one ad. I live in Wisconsin and I have not seen any 72+ hour ads detailing how she would fix the economy AND health care. Could you detail that size of a fix in even 72 hours? I can give you an overview of how to replace your car's alternator in 30 seconds, but details on how to fix the economy AND health care? None of them have details, they all have broad platitudes they like to call details.

I think you answered your own question on why HRC going negative wouldn't help. But you forgot to mention the two reasons she's behind right now 1) she did not build an organization in every state months ago and Obama did and 2) after she regained momentum in NH she went negative with a southern strategy. She could have put out the message, we'll try in SC but we'll lose, taken a discounted lump and secured a 5-10 pt victory in all or most of the Feb 5 primary states. Instead she went neo-dixiecrat, infuriated many democrats and let Obama tie her on Feb 5. They tried negative once and it blew up. But she did do a favor for Republicans, she showed them what could happen if they go negative incorrectly.

On the other hand, what does she have to lose? Ohio is not a sure thing and she could easily win Texas the same way she won Nevada.

Spectator2 wrote:

I just thought of something:

Barack Obama and Tim Meadows: separated at birth?

----

Ridiculously irrelevant and vapid. Contribute something intelligent or don't contribute at all.

Well, the only person that that I heard Hillary go negative about last night during her appearance at St. Mary's University in San Antonio was President George W. Bush, her comment working the crowd into a frenzy.

She did point out last night the policy differences between her and Obama--one smart operator, that Hillary.

The majority of American voters tend to vote for political candidates for two basic reasons: they like the candidate personally, or to a lessor degree, admire them philosophically. Clinton and Obama share the same political philosophy, but differ in personality and style. For better or worse, the "likeability" factor seems to carry more weight.

If Clinton goes negative, her "likeability" factor will go down. It doesn't make any sense to possibly alienate any undecided voters at this stage of the campaign. As was the case in South Carolina, when Bill Clinton was seen as going negative, and in the debate where both Obama and Clinton went after each other, the public was turned off.

Democrats are tired of feeling bad about their politicians and their government. They are looking for a leader to offer hope for a better tomorrow. They seem to have found one.

Besides, the Mac vs. PC ad analogy doesn't fit here because Obama is the Mac.

"They joke that comparing Laura Bush with Hillary Clinton is like comparing 'Mother Teresa' with the 'Wicked Witch of the North."

I'm not really up on Wizard of Oz trivia (not that there's anything wrong with that), but wasn't the witch of the North a good witch?

Where is Obama today by the way? Anyone else think he's meeting with Edwards?

Should Hillary go negative?

well i would have to agree with everyone in here,considering she already went negative on her. to go any futher, and go back to the slash and burn politics could just doom her even if she does win the nominatinon.

besides i thought the rule was that the first person who goes negative loses?

One Mr. Srivastava, has wild and woolly Machiavellian plans for triumph:

39. February 13th, 3:26 pm

"Hillary, in order to win her "firewall states", namely Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, has to do the following:

1. She has to forget political correctness and start attacking Obama vigorously, albeit, without using the race card. She has over-learned her lesson from the South Carolina primary. Why can't she talk like McCain? Refer to the following:

"To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope," McCain said. "It is a platitude."

2. Use Bill Clinton and other surrogates to serve as attack dogs and let Obama act defensive! You will be surprised how fast he forgets his message of hope and starts defending himself ineffectually, embarrassingly and stammeringly.

3. Crush Obama in the 02/21/08 CNN debate! Obama is a great orator , but not a very good debater!

4. Have negative ads against Obama. Everybody hates negative ads, but time and again, they have proved to be effective!

5. Point out as many times as possible that Obama's campaign is a bubble of rhetoric that needs to be punctured with the pin of reality! He is an "emperor with no clothes on!" and somebody has to point that out!" -- Posted by Pradeep Srivastava

My humble reply to his audacity of wishful thinking:

#39:
Sen. Obama, as we speak, is on a whole new level.

Mrs. Clinton has already tried your little scheme in S.C. but maybe now that you are all fired up and ready you can lead the path and make it work, AGAIN!

Go tell Mrs. Rodham Clinton your reactive little plan.-- Posted by piktor

Oh please please please Ms. Clinton go negative... go on the attack and let that mud fly! That way you will be quickly bounced and Obama will get the nomination he deserves... and give the democrats a chance at winning in November!

Cillizza: "The ad then goes on to detail Clinton's plan to fix the economy and the health care system."

I'd hardly call the one-liners about health care and foreclosures "details". C'mon.....

PLEASE TELL ME WHY IT IS OK FOR OBAMA TO MAKE ALL KINDS OF NEGATIVE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS FOR EXAMPLE, OBAMA STATING OVER AND OVER THAT HILLARY WOULD GARNISH WAGES FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE, STATING THAT IT WAS HILLARYS FAULT ON NAFTA, THAT HAS BEEN STATED OVER AND OVER THAT THE IDEA OF THE NAFTA WAS GOOD BUT JUST WAS NOT EXECUTED CORRECTLY, LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE. I AM SICK AND TIRED OF ALL PUNDITS PUTTING OBAMA ON THIS PEDSTAL PUNDITS, PLEASE STOP AND REPORT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HILLARY AND OBAMA INSTEAD OF PROMOTING HIM TO ELVIS PRESELY STATUS WHICH HE DOES NOT COME CLOSE OR MLK, OR JFK GET REAL AND COME BACK DOWN TO EARTH PEOPLE OF AMERICA

Fair question, Chris, but incomplete.

The real quandry for Hillary Clinton is that in going negative she will also come across as more AUTHENTIC.

Which will actually end up highlighting her own biggest negative, i.e., that the public arena "nice Hillary" is just so clearly INauthentic.

It's a classic Catch-22.

As a woman, I don't support Hillary precisely because I feel she is the wrong woman to represent me. She has already gone negative many times with Obama and so I see her as ruthless. If she goes negative with her ads that will only compound this attitude in myself. How do I support a ruthless woman? I can't. That is not the type of role model I want for my daughter. Be ruthless. Be Lady Macbeth. Win at all costs. That just doesn't sit well with me. And plenty of women feel this way. We want the right woman, not the wrong one.

Only a foaming wingnut would attack Laura, she's about as non-conterversial person as you can get.

As much as I don't like McCain, I have to recognise reality that he will be our next President. Why, because I have no doubt, that hook or crook, the Clintons will rob this nomination from Obama.

"Will it work?" !!!

The question really is: why do you want it to work?!? The sooner this country is done with Hillary, the sooner it can begin to heal itself from her brand of bloodsucking polarization politics!

I just thought of something:

Barack Obama and Tim Meadows: separated at birth?

I certainly agree that Senator Clinton shouldn't go negative in the personal and vituperative way the Obama supporters on this list go after her.
However, I think ads that calmly lay out the differences between their positions and approaches and suggest that her's might be better for the country could be appropriate and effective.
Finally, I hope Senator Clinton's margins in Wisconsin, Ohio and Texas reflect the number of PC users in this country and that Senator Obama's reflect the number of Mac users. :-)

Let's be honest, the real impediment to Hillary going negative is that she has accumulated several lifetimes of scandals and may still be going strong. (When are we going to see her tax returns? Donors to the Clinton presidential library? Her records as First Lady?) Obama is a master at delivering a put down in a sort of apologetic "sorry to bring this up but I have to" kind of way. If Hillary goes negative expect to hear a lot more about her tax returns. That is an issue that Obama can HAMMER her on because she really has no principled defense since she's already said she'll release them after the primary. What sense does that make?

To reinforce my argument, this from the horse's mouth:

Mr. Plouffe said by his count, Mr. Obama had won 14 states by a margin of over 20 percentage points or more; Mrs. Clinton has won two states by that margin.

Another Democratic insider,Mr. Wilhelm, does not fancy the Billary fast sinking jalopy:

"He has out-worked her, out-organized her and out-raised her," Mr. Wilhelm said. "I know organizational excellence when I see it, and the Obama campaign, win or lose, will serve as a model" of execution of strategy, message discipline, application of new technology and small-donor fund raising. -David Wilhelm

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/bill-clinton-campaign-chair-goes-for-obama/

I hate to say it, but I think Hillary is done, no matter what she does. She is playing the game the old way. She sounds like ever other Democrat that has run for the last 30 years (my memory). Obama does not. She is constitutionally unable to reshape her message given her age and her life experience. What is interesting is that even the old time Democrats are abandoning her for Obama. My parents, in their 70's, have already voted for Obama by absentee ballot. I am taking my son, aged 12, tomorrow to see Obama at UW Oshkosh. I decided that no matter how much I would love to see a woman as President, I can't take any more of the cynical approach to politics as usual. If she goes negative, it will simply underscore that. And since she cannot re-invent herself as a person and a politican at this late date, she is done. Who would have thought Wisconsin would ever be relevant in picking the candidate? It has never happened before.

Ejeanbob1, take your lying, '90's era, Clinton paranoia back under your bridge. I'm an Obama supporter, but this image of Hillary Clinton as a cold hearted, bossy you-know-what has more to do with your inability to adapt to a world in which men are not god-like beings lording it over women. Frankly her ALLEGED brusqueness with her security detail is the least of my worries. And the Bushes, those friends of the workingman (!), stay home for the holidays, huh? That's funny, because Shrub spends a lot of time in Crawford, including every holiday I can remember, so I call BS on that.

And don't EVEN start in on Al Gore. Let's see: veteran, Senator, Vice-President, Nobel Laureate, Statesman. When you move out of your parents' basement, let me know.

I'm looking for Obama to beat Clinton for the right reasons, and I don't want any help from you, slime peddler.

"We've had 8 years of a president elected primarily on the basis of his character and our country is in ruins."

Get ready for 4 more years because that is what Obama is running on. Look at the parallels with GWB:

Rock Star events with adoring fans

Emphasis on character instead of issues

Tons o' spin

Moral outrage when questioned or attacked

The difference is the spin is coming from a smiling semi-hippy looking dude instead of a creep like Karl Rove.

Gotta agree. Hillary's only shot now is to go hard negative against McCain. Make him respond to her. Keep her in the news as being attacked by him. This may or may not work. But it won't leave a bad taste in the mouth of most democrats the way the going negative against O'bama would.

'I don't know about the rest of you, but I wou