clinton will be unleashing her claws (1 Viewer)

[LSSpam]

Oh no I'm not discounting momentum, especially in this case where there's only three or four notable policy differences between the two candidates. However, that momentum was accomplished through a combination of good campaigning and poor choices by his opponents.

Where I take issue is the effort to paint all his supporters as mindless sexist cult members who are merely enthralled by the pied piper. The desire by people to want to invalidate any opinion or decision that isn't the one they would make is clearly on display in this race. Everyone is looking for some excuse for Hillary when the reality is maybe, just maybe, Obama has just run a better campaign. :dunno:

I wouldn't say "all", but there's a "rockstar" quality to his campaign that's pulling in a lot of people who aren't particularly concerned with the political process itself. Obama is teetering close to the line of being an "event" as opposed to a "campaign".

I think it's a far rebuttal to say "that's a good thing", I mean politicians all the time talk about getting people involved who normally wouldn't be. Don't we want a President who can reach more of the nation then anyone else?

That said, there's still a credibility risk. "Obama girl", people fainting at rallies, the Youtube tributes, there's a lot of people attached to the campaign that don't appear to really care about politics or government. While Obama doesn't want to necessarily lose that excitement being generated, he can't afford pandering/playing to that crowd too hard or he risks making himself appear irrelevant as a serious politician.

If that makes any sense

 

[Saint by the Bay]

But during that time the media took it as their job to pierce the air of invincibility that the Clinton campaign was trying to project. The candidates did as well (at least Edwards, and to some extent Obama).
At the time I remember thinking that that is just what goes along with being a front runner. But at some point - maybe after Iowa, certainly after South Carolina, there should have been a change in tone from the media, but I didn't see it.

Of course I don;t think the media is really to blame for anything, but I don;t think there is any denial that there has been a big difference between how the media has treated both campaigns.

The difference has to do with the candidates backgrounds and public persona IMO. Hillary Clinton was under the microscope before she even had an opponent. She was under the microscope during the 2004 election and she wasn't even running. It's a unique situation in American politics. You have the wife of one of the most scandal prone Presidents in history. In many cases she was directly implicated in the scandals. Her husband is known for political theatrics and that moniker has been attached, fairly or not, to her as well.

Nothing the media has done with Hillary is new. They have treated her the same as they always have.

The only story the media had on Obama is the tired substance argument that they have ran so far in the ground some guy in China dug it up yesterday. However, overall you have a guy with a reputation for honesty and forthrightness who's life story is extremely inspirational. How were you going to treat him the same when he had none of the same baggage? Obama's fresh face has been an advantage for him because he had nothing to attack unlike Hillary. However, as I've stated previously, I think the media has been light on her. They have acted like all the scandals she was involved in never happened. Not one other candidate could get away with having her kind of background and having it be a complete media non issue. Especially considering she's touting her husbands career as her "experience". Heck Al Gore took more heat for the Clinton scandals than Hillary is!

In the end the media has treated them different because they are different people IMO.

 

[DMaestro]

That said, there's still a credibility risk. "Obama girl", people fainting at rallies, the Youtube tributes, there's a lot of people attached to the campaign that don't appear to really care about politics or government. While Obama doesn't want to necessarily lose that excitement being generated, he can't afford pandering/playing to that crowd too hard or he risks making himself appear irrelevant as a serious politician.

If that makes any sense

He doesn't need to pander to them. Just keep smiling and throw in an occasional rah-rah line between the more substantive parts of your speeches. The only good thing about that crowd is that it's easy to please....

 

[SaintsFan11]

The funny thing about people fainting is that this has been happening for everyone. In Lafayette people fainted when Clinton came to town. I would bet that in all cases of fainting that it has less to do with "getting the vapors" and more to do with being crunched into a mass of people and waiting for hours on your feet for candidates/surrogates who are always late.

As for Hillary going negative, it might work to stem the momentum but it also reeks of desparation. She should have gone negative early and often to drive up Obama's negatives. She always had a strong base of support that would have allowed her to win regardless. Further complicating things for the new negative strategy, if it materializes, is that once again she will be forced to begin a new narrative and it won't be about what she brings to the table. That's a losing strategy.

If I was Clinton, I'd hope for a debate gaffe and then if that doesn't work and I lost Texas or Ohio (or both) I'd bow out gracefully and wait for 2012 in the hopes that Obama loses. A concession speech about getting out of the way of a candidate who has been so inspiring would save face and be conciliatory, allowing Democrats to support her next time around. Then if Obama loses to McCain, she would have a great narrative of how rhetoric and hope failed and she would have proof. Of course, if Obama wins then she would have no chance to run for President, but she would be well positioned to lead the Senate at least, becoming the first female majority leader.

In short, Hillary shouldn't put all of her eggs into the 2008 basket because her chances are slim and her prospects wouldn't be shot if things don't materialize this year. Her prospects will be ruined, however, if she goes down in a blaze of glory.

 

[Shawn]

The difference has to do with the candidates backgrounds and public persona IMO. Hillary Clinton was under the microscope before she even had an opponent. She was under the microscope during the 2004 election and she wasn't even running. It's a unique situation in American politics. You have the wife of one of the most scandal prone Presidents in history. In many cases she was directly implicated in the scandals. Her husband is known for political theatrics and that moniker has been attached, fairly or not, to her as well.

Nothing the media has done with Hillary is new. They have treated her the same as they always have.

The only story the media had on Obama is the tired substance argument that they have ran so far in the ground some guy in China dug it up yesterday. However, overall you have a guy with a reputation for honesty and forthrightness who's life story is extremely inspirational. How were you going to treat him the same when he had none of the same baggage? Obama's fresh face has been an advantage for him because he had nothing to attack unlike Hillary. However, as I've stated previously, I think the media has been light on her. They have acted like all the scandals she was involved in never happened. Not one other candidate could get away with having her kind of background and having it be a complete media non issue. Especially considering she's touting her husbands career as her "experience". Heck Al Gore took more heat for the Clinton scandals than Hillary is!

In the end the media has treated them different because they are different people IMO.

I agree with that.

It may not be a matter of substance, but Obama has also managed to be masterful about not letting garbage stick to him. He's been a dangerous guy to attack, because sometimes his rebuttal's do more damage to his opponents than the initial attack.

For me, the suggestions of sexism were a huge turn off from Clinton. I admit I wasn't a huge fan of hers, but it was an ugly, manipulative turn--really pathetic actually. And Obama again, managed to adress that attack without getting ugly himself. I think there have been a few events like that that pursuaded voters to re-evaluate the candidates.

Obama just hasn't left much out there to attack. He's a clean candidate, and what dirt he has (drugs) was put out in the open so long ago, that it's meaningless. I always thought that George Bush would have done well to come clean on his drinking and cocaine usage, given that he claimed to have found Christ. All of that garbage would have lost legs very quickly.

I think the media takes the path of least resistance, and Obama just doesn't leave a lot of room to attack him.

 

[LSSpam]

I think there's a huge difference in having a strong mainstream core and also attracting a fringe, then just attracting a fringe, which is what Paul did. In that sense, I don't think the atmosphere of support surrounding Obama need be prone to the mitigating notion that it's cultish -- or in sum, framed by the kookier aspects.

It's a weird dynamic though with the Obama campaign. The "mainstream" are not your typical politically active voters and his "fringe" are his actual serious voters.

He doesn't need to pander to them. Just keep smiling and throw in an occasional rah-rah line between the more substantive parts of your speeches. The only good thing about that crowd is that it's easy to please....

Easy to please and easy to lose. The problem is "excitement" only works in two directions. Up or down. If he isn't building excitement up, he's losing it. And then all you're left with are your normal election voters, middle class whites, working class whites/blacks, and old people. The under 30 crowd...they just don't win elections.

So you wonder, well I wonder, if Obama might not be "peaking" a little too soon. I just don't see this level of excitement, and therefore participation, carrying on indefinitely for the bulk of his campaign without it "flying off the handle" so to speak.

I could be completely misplaced in my thinking but i'm expecting things to get "kookier" for Obama in the short-term, which will cause a backlash at a variety of levels, followed by things calming down and settling into a normal general election grind.

And if that happens I don't think Obama will win.

But I could be way off on this, so let's see.

 

[TPS]

>>...the media is putting pressure on you to pick a horse, and the wave of enthusiasm is clearly riding in one direction.

This is way off. The media wants, no NEEDS a race to keep the interest up. Several of them (seen on all major networks) get glassy eyed when hypothecating about a brokered convention. A few weeks ago, with the possibility of the GOP in a similar situation, they were giddy with enthusiasm. MO

>>You have the wife of one of the most scandal prone Presidents in history.

This isn't even close to accurate. Had you been talking about pre-presidential, yeah, there are a lot of unresolved issues. Many of the so-called scandals of the Clinton years never resulted in any charges or convictions - just lots of investigations. While it's true that Mike Espy took that 'favor' from Tyson and there were maybe one or two other appointees who got taken down, that's pretty par for the course. Even things like file gate never amounted to much (outside of the court of public opinion). You want scandals? Look at the Reagan years. They wrote the book on them. :17:

TPS

 

[Shawn]

The funny thing about people fainting is that this has been happening for everyone. In Lafayette people fainted when Clinton came to town. I would bet that in all cases of fainting that it has less to do with "getting the vapors" and more to do with being crunched into a mass of people and waiting for hours on your feet for candidates/surrogates who are always late.

As for Hillary going negative, it might work to stem the momentum but it also reeks of desparation. She should have gone negative early and often to drive up Obama's negatives. She always had a strong base of support that would have allowed her to win regardless. Further complicating things for the new negative strategy, if it materializes, is that once again she will be forced to begin a new narrative and it won't be about what she brings to the table. That's a losing strategy.

If I was Clinton, I'd hope for a debate gaffe and then if that doesn't work and I lost Texas or Ohio (or both) I'd bow out gracefully and wait for 2012 in the hopes that Obama loses. A concession speech about getting out of the way of a candidate who has been so inspiring would save face and be conciliatory, allowing Democrats to support her next time around. Then if Obama loses to McCain, she would have a great narrative of how rhetoric and hope failed and she would have proof. Of course, if Obama wins then she would have no chance to run for President, but she would be well positioned to lead the Senate at least, becoming the first female majority leader.

In short, Hillary shouldn't put all of her eggs into the 2008 basket because her chances are slim and her prospects wouldn't be shot if things don't materialize this year.

That's actually a really great post.

 

[JimEverett]

I agree with that.

It may not be a matter of substance, but Obama has also managed to be masterful about not letting garbage stick to him. He's been a dangerous guy to attack, because sometimes his rebuttal's do more damage to his opponents than the initial attack.

For me, the suggestions of sexism were a huge turn off from Clinton. I admit I wasn't a huge fan of hers, but it was an ugly, manipulative turn--really pathetic actually. And Obama again, managed to adress that attack without getting ugly himself. I think there have been a few events like that that pursuaded voters to re-evaluate the candidates.

Obama just hasn't left much out there to attack. He's a clean candidate, and what dirt he has (drugs) was put out in the open so long ago, that it's meaningless. I always thought that George Bush would have done well to come clean on his drinking and cocaine usage, given that he claimed to have found Christ. All of that garbage would have lost legs very quickly.

I think the media takes the path of least resistance, and Obama just doesn't leave a lot of room to attack him.

Maybe he is the left's answer to Ronald Reagan. He does seem to have a good sense of humor. Maybe a little more self-deprecating humor is in order to seal the deal.

 

[LSSpam]

This is way off. The media wants, no NEEDS a race to keep the interest up. Several of them (seen on all major networks) get glassy eyed when hypothecating about a brokered convention. A few weeks ago, with the possibility of the GOP in a similar situation, they were giddy with enthusiasm.

And yet, it's doing very little to create that. Which kind of kills the whole "bias in the media" or "media creates stories" deal doesn't it?

Turn on TV. All of the stories are about how Hillary has little chance to win, Obama is the presumptive front-runner, will Hillary drop out after Texas/Ohio, etc. And that's been the angle really since the Potomac primaries.

The media hops on bandwagons just like the public. They're not trying to create a race to keep things interesting, they're following the crowd.

 

[TPS]

I agree with your points there. They really want something to talk about into the spring and early summer. They want that badly. But it may not work out. Hillary has just played the game entirely wrong. Her campaign blew a golden opportunity. She was annoited the nomination by media elements from both the right and left easily since last summer.

TPS

 

[SaintsFan11]

That's actually a really great post.

This suprises you?

 

[LSSpam]

I agree with your points there. They really want something to talk about into the spring and early summer. They want that badly. But it may not work out. Hillary has just played the game entirely wrong. Her campaign blew a golden opportunity. She was annoited the nomination by both the right and left easily since last summer.

TPS

I think someone else posted it somewhere else on this board today, "the media takes the path of least resistance", which is basically true. They do the "easy" story. I don't think they're willing to swim against the grain to try and generate a real horse race when all the momentum is shifting to Obama.

It's up to Hillary to blunt that momentum and give the media something else to latch onto, but she hasn't been able to generate any "meat" for them to chew on, just this piddling stuff like borrowing a line in a speech that disappears in a day.

 

[Shawn]

Maybe he is the left's answer to Ronald Reagan. He does seem to have a good sense of humor. Maybe a little more self-deprecating humor is in order to seal the deal.

I make no bones about the fact that over the past 8 years, I was praying for McCain to make a strong run. So I'm not sure what I think about this election.

And there's nothing to say that Obama might not win the election, and all that energy and leadership would just dry up and amount to nothing.

But given all the negativity and divisiveness of the past 12 years, and frankly, after having to endure probably the most inarticulate President ever--the youth, energy and positive enthusiasm of Obama sure does seem appealing.

I don't think Hillary has run as bad a campaign as she's been accused of. I just think she's gotten hit by a buzzsaw, that's probably more about the mood of the nation than it is about policy or anything like that.

Obama has run a great campaign, and surrounded himself with some great people. How much of that is trickle down from him? How much of the unity and effectiveness of his campaign comes from him? I have to admit, when I look at some of the typical naysaying wonks around HIllary, it makes Obama more appealing.

If he gets the nomination, I really look forward to seeing how he handles hiimself under the pressure of the run for President. The same is true for John McCain.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

This isn't even close to accurate. Had you been talking about pre-presidential, yeah, there are a lot of unresolved issues. Many of the so-called scandals of the Clinton years never resulted in any charges or convictions - just lots of investigations. While it's true that Mike Espy took that 'favor' from Tyson and there were maybe one or two other appointees who got taken down, that's pretty par for the course. Even things like file gate never amounted to much (outside of the court of public opinion). You want scandals? Look at the Reagan years. They wrote the book on them. :17:

TPS

I said scandal prone not conviction prone. A key difference between the Clinton's and Reagan as relates to my post is Reagan's scandals were his administrations. The Clinton's were about them on personal and professional levels.

As individuals I can't think of any politician in modern history with as many scandals attached directly to them personally. Generally one or two ends your political career. The Clinton's are the political equivalent of teflon.