Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

Whether to Go Negative

by BooMan
Wed Apr 23rd, 2008 at 05:45:05 PM EST

Whether it's Tom Hayden's wife or the editorial board of the New York Times, Hillary Clinton has managed to seriously get under the skin of the intellectual wing of the Democratic Party. But that doesn't mean that Obama is getting consistent advice for how to respond to Clinton's low road. Even in ripping Clinton's slimy campaign, Gail Collins couldn't resist the urge to poke Obama.

Mr. Obama is not blameless when it comes to the negative and vapid nature of this campaign. He is increasingly rising to Mrs. Clinton’s bait, undercutting his own claims that he is offering a higher more inclusive form of politics. When she criticized his comments about “bitter” voters, Mr. Obama mocked her as an Annie Oakley wannabe. All that does is remind Americans who are on the fence about his relative youth and inexperience.

If Obama is not supposed to 'rise to the bait' what is he supposed to do? His campaign is already issuing some threats.

In the two weeks leading up to the Indiana primary, a Democratic strategist familiar with the Obama campaign said aides are likely to turn to the controversies of Bill Clinton's White House years -- Hillary Clinton's trading cattle futures, Whitewater and possibly impeachment.
"Everyone knows the history of the Clintons," the strategist said.
Plouffe would not say the campaign planned to address that period, but seemed open to the possibility in the future: "The Republicans certainly are going to look at those issues, the Clinton finances, the record issues. We have chosen not to go there."

It's a little bit ironic because winning Pennsylvania allows the Clinton campaign to go on, but the results last night actually freed Obama up to take some risks. Clinton now needs approximately 69% of the remaining pledged delegates to pull even with Obama, and her chances of overtaking his popular vote lead are now exceedingly poor.

Moreover, the country now knows Obama and he can go negative without it ruining his brand. Even so, I don't think it's a fantastic idea for Obama to revisit the scandals of the 1990's, except to subtly remind people that Clinton has her own electability issues. That is the kind of job best left to surrogates.

I will say that as this contest is moving into Kentucky, West Virginia, and North Carolina, Obama needs to expand his appeal among white working class voters. And the voters in those states like to see some fight in their candidates. I'm not sure that's true for the nice, well-mannered voters of Indiana and Oregon, however.

Whether to Go Negative | 21 comments (21 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Whether to Go Negative (4.00 / 2)

I want him to ignore her completely. When asked, I hope he says "I'm running to be the president of the United States. I understand that Senator Clinton's still running to be a nominee."

by Tehanu on Wed Apr 23rd, 2008 at 06:50:17 PM EST

Re: Whether to Go Negative (none / 0)

I think he should go positive, and only go negative against John McCain - ignore HRC, and maybe she'll go away. I miss his speeches from a few months ago...

by eeblet (bethbudwig at g mail) on Wed Apr 23rd, 2008 at 05:51:29 PM EST

Re: Whether to Go Negative (none / 1)

I like his tone over the past few weeks, really counterpunching well. I think this is enough fight for those working class whites. But dammit, that bitter comment didn't help. You can't poll it, but you have to wonder whether a full week of talking head nonsense on it cost him a couple of points. Anyone wanting a fuller explanation of how that plays here let me know.

by RollaMO on Wed Apr 23rd, 2008 at 06:02:22 PM EST

Re: Whether to Go Negative (none / 0)

If he agrees to any more debates he should point out that Bill Clinton agreed with him.

He should use this:

Bill Clinton comments published in the Sunday Los Angeles Times in 1991:

"You know, he [Bush] wants to divide us over race. I'm from the South. I understand this. This quota deal they're gonna pull in the next election is the same old scam they've been pulling on us for decade after decade after decade. When their economic policies fail, when the country's coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them. They know if they can keep us looking at each other across a racial divide, if I can look at Bobby Rush and think, Bobby wants my job, my promotion, then neither of us can look at George Bush and say, `What happened to everybody's job? What happened to everybody's income? What ... have ... you ... done ... to ... our ... country?'"

He should then turn to Hillary and ask if she said SCREW 'EM!

by Cee on Thu Apr 24th, 2008 at 08:23:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whether to Go Negative (none / 0)

In Oregon we would love to see some fight. My SO, several of my friends and I have all switched party affiliation from none to (D) over the past several weeks in order to be able to vote for Obama in the primary. (At least I think I have -- I did it at an Obama reg table at Portland State University, but haven't gotten a card from the county elections office yet. Hopefully this is due to slowness rather than somebody's spoofing and/or chicanery at the reg table.)

by pdxprog on Wed Apr 23rd, 2008 at 06:04:52 PM EST

Re: Whether to Go Negative (none / 0)

As a result of the two major speeches that the O man has given, he displayed his philosophy for all to examine. He showed the way he would approach his role as the President of the USA.
And what has happened as a result? The true position of the citizenry of this country. A true picture of a frightened, racist group of people. The numbers show it. If the groups as described represent the major voting blocks in this country, the O man can't possibly win. Tragic but true.
And Indiana might just clarify the major issue of race. It may well display for all to see the tragic fact that in reality we ain't come that far! When the blue collar worker, the ethnics, the factory crowd, the guns and prayer folks all chose to support the white lady, there is trouble in river city! Cause, every one of those "Group Lables" is an "Acceptable alternate" for -BLACK"!
As you said in the closing of your post, folks like to see some fight in their candidates- EXCEPT IF HE IS BLACK!
God- I really hope that I am wrong, but........

by billjpa (billjpa@aol.com) on Wed Apr 23rd, 2008 at 06:18:32 PM EST

Re: Whether to Go Negative (none / 1)

That's the key.
How does a black man fight?

Pat Buchanan tells me a black man can't fight like the Rev Wright
Hillary Clinton told me that Martin Luther King didn't have what it takes until a white President gave him a hand
All the MSM tells me that Jessie Jackson can't negotiate his way out of a paper bag
Chris Matthews tells me that Obama can't close the deal

But ya know what?
Obama's right, (to borrow Bill Maher's clip) Make Them Fight All of Us. Obama can't go negative or he gives up the whole argument for his running.

The rotten economy is banging at the door of every home in my neighborhood and whether it's rice shortages, gas prices, medical treatment; it's all very personal. So I'm thinking he's going to have to step up the specificity of his economic plans at his rallies; give his AntiSwiftboaters a little bit more $ and maybe have some Fireside Chats on Saturday CSPAN. Become the guy in your living room that indeed offers to lead you to safety.

Snowing here, blowing about 50, white out, I could use some fireside chatting about now.

by mainsailset on Wed Apr 23rd, 2008 at 07:20:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whether to Go Negative (none / 1)

economic plans? what economic plans?

nobody knows what to do...and if they do, they're keeping it to themselves. somebody's going to have to suffer, whether it's the bankers and hedge fund crooks or the taxpaying public...ie: the little guy...l'll leave to your imagination. but there's always the savings and loan debacle from nearly 20 years ago to act as your guide.

which was, btw, brought you by many of the same players who're running the game now.

so who's he going to alienate? big biz? l think not, and if he's not willing to take an agressive populist stance and let the big dogs who precipated this fail, then he'll lose the masses.

jezeus, the food shortages are even starting to effect consumers in the good ol ussa...per the sam's club, costco "rationing" of rice...the economy's a disaster looking for a place to happen, and everybody, on both sides of the aisle, is praying it stays solvent until the election.

good luck with that.

if l were counseling obama, l'd say what many others have already, ignore hillary, respond as required thru surrogates and the anti-swift boat team...they look to be pretty formidable...and then go on the offensive against mccain, big time...does the keating five ring a bell? not to mention st. john's war mongering and pandering...dangerous territory, but a place he needs to go.

my 2¢ ymmv

the revolution will not be televised...

by dada on Wed Apr 23rd, 2008 at 08:17:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whether to Go Negative (none / 0)

Zander1 had a diary comparing the plans of the candidates up a few weeks back. He's the one who's been doing the daily Global No-Confidence Vote series, so he's not exactly an optimist. And he liked Obama's plan. In fact, it was the only one of the lot he liked.

Kill because somebody was killed. Get killed because he killed. Do you think peace will ever come like that?

by Egarwaen on Wed Apr 23rd, 2008 at 08:34:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whether to Go Negative (none / 0)

...but I don't think you are.

Here is the bottom line. The longer this goes on, the more damage done to Obama, the better chance John McCain has of actually winning this thing.

This is Hillary's strategy, to sabotage Obama and come back as the savior in 2012. The problem is the country can't afford 4 years of Grandpa Angrypants. What havoc Bush wreaked will pale by comparison to the wars McCain will start, and the economic disaster on the way will certainly become a full blown depression under that idiot.

Sure, Hillary will look great by comparison in 2012. So would the reanimated corpse of Pol Pot.

Ergo, Barack Obama has to bury Clinton before she fucks the country over for her own ego.

There are times to hold your bile for the good of the party, and there are times to fight until you cannot lift your hands anymore.

The second applies. It's time to end her.

More at Zandar vs. The Stupid.

by Zandar1 on Wed Apr 23rd, 2008 at 07:22:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whether to Go Negative (none / 0)

I think he needs a hatchet man to go negative. And he should go negative in yet a positive manner. For Example:

I don't want to campaign about, Whitewater, cattle futures, landing in hail of gun fire in Bosnia, or staying home to back cookies. I want to focus on the issues, of the Economy, the Iraq war, relief for the working man and woman.

by americanforliberty on Wed Apr 23rd, 2008 at 06:40:58 PM EST

Re: Whether to Go Negative (none / 0)

I don't want to see him go negative but I sure as hell would love to see him knock her out(figuratively).

Doing My Part For The Left

by refinish69 (refinish69 at gmail dot com) on Wed Apr 23rd, 2008 at 06:57:50 PM EST

Re: Whether to Go Negative (none / 0)

Obama's been going negative since the start of this campaign. I know, I know, nobody wants to think about the recycled 'Harry and Louise' ads he put out against Clinton. And no one wants to allow even mention of his craven attacks on Gore and Kerry, or his praise of Reagan, or anything else negative Obama has said or done in this campaign.

Whether to go negative? Wrong question. The one you want to ask yourself is, how much lower do you want your candidate to stoop?

by Archangel M (boycott_o_reilly at yahoo dot com) on Wed Apr 23rd, 2008 at 07:28:33 PM EST

Re: Whether to Go Negative (none / 0)

Ok, I'll bite. Just looked at the Harry & Louise ad, it's not an Obama ad, not endorsed by him, but made by the Coalition for Healthy Insurance Choices

Kerry endorsed Obama
Haven't heard anything negative in any way against Gore.
Links?

by mainsailset on Wed Apr 23rd, 2008 at 07:38:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whether to Go Negative (none / 1)

Oh, and he didn't praise Reagan, he said that Reagan transformed American politics, which is entirely accurate.

Kill because somebody was killed. Get killed because he killed. Do you think peace will ever come like that?

by Egarwaen on Wed Apr 23rd, 2008 at 07:39:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whether to Go Negative (none / 0)

Um, speaking of lower...

Mrs. Clinton has indicated that she would have no problem "obliterating" Iran. Are you down with that?

In what way is her position different from that of "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran" McCain?

Just wondering.

"Little people are very stuff-intensive."

by CabinGirl on Wed Apr 23rd, 2008 at 09:01:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whether to Go Negative (none / 0)

Ask how much the sheiks have paid Bill for the promise Hillary is making.

by Cee on Thu Apr 24th, 2008 at 08:29:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whether to Go Negative (none / 0)

You don't have to go low. Hit her with the truth and hit her HARD!!

Since she is appealing to women, I want her asked about the donation from this company:

Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show.

The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults," "degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions."

In a 2001 lawsuit full of lurid details, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that 103 women employees at IPA were victimized for years. The civil case is ongoing, and IPA vigorously denies the allegations.

"This is by far, hands down, the worst case I've ever experienced," said Diane Smason, one of the EEOC lawyers handling the lawsuit. "Every woman there experienced sex harassment, they were part of a hostile work environment of sex harassment. And this occurred from the top down."

Sen. Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is "ongoing" and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court. "With regard to the pending harassment suit, as a general matter, the campaign assesses findings of fact in deciding whether to return contributions," Wolfson said.

by Cee on Thu Apr 24th, 2008 at 08:28:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whether to Go Negative (none / 0)

Hubby and I were talking about this subject earlier and he was adamant about Obama hitting on Hillary until she bleeds. I explained the whole "new approach to campaining" box that Obama has put himself in. Hubby said, "Well, why doesn't he just pull a McCain? You know, have some group do a vicious attack ad, Obama condemns them for it and yet, the message is delivered."

by sjct on Thu Apr 24th, 2008 at 12:02:07 AM EST

Re: Whether to Go Negative (none / 0)

I didn't say anything when you first posted this, but the Tom Haydon story really annoyed me. But I didn't feel like getting into it (again) with you about why.

Now I say - what Katha Pollit says.

by maryb2004 on Thu Apr 24th, 2008 at 03:16:15 PM EST

Re: Whether to Go Negative (none / 0)

first of all, I linked to it, I didn't endorse it.

But I happen to live in a home where every appearance by Clinton on teevee is greeted by expletive-laden diatribes from the woman-in-charge.

It shouldn't be impermissable for men to mention the very strong dislike Clinton evokes in the women in their lives. It certainly shouldn't be met with charges of cloaked misogyny.

by BooMan on Thu Apr 24th, 2008 at 03:36:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whether to Go Negative | 21 comments (21 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

. Home
. About
. Contact
. Advertise
. FAQ
. Search

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Gift Cards * New Arrivals

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Senator Edward M. Kennedy tells his extraordinary personal story:

True Compass: A Memoir
by Edward M. Kennedy.

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

Boran2 and maryb2004 recommend:

The Big Over Easy: A Nursery Crime
by Jasper Fforde

Must-have information for all presidents-and citizens-of the twenty-first century?

Physics for Future Presidents: The Science behind the Headlines
Richard A. Muller

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES
Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.

Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")

Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)

Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)

"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen

The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review

BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual
$79.95 * Sale: $59.95

Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)

The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!

The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan

Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----

Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review

Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey

1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus

Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"

Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)

The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids
by Madeline Levine

Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com
:

We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:

Booman Tribune Homepage
admin@boomantribune.com
powered by Scoop

More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.

Technorati Profile