clinton will be unleashing her claws (1 Viewer)

Her campaign already went negative (herself, surrogates, mailers, TV ads) and it hurt her more than Obama. Polls are tied in Texas and her lead in Ohio is shrinking. She has lost the race for pledged delegates and superdelegates are flocking to Obama.

Yeah - she is not quite there yet, but she is treading very close to being the Democrat's Huckabee. Someone who is hanging around and hurting the party's ability to switch to general election mode.
If the momentum continues for Obama - and there is no reason to think it will not - then she should bow out after she loses Texas and wins Ohio narrowly. She may even lose Ohio - in which case I think major pressure will be applied to her to get out and avoid not only more primary struggles, but also a possible war at the convention.
 
I don't understand how her starting yet another negative portion of her campaign is news worthy. She's been "playing dirty" since day 1, all the while claiming things like "I'm not going to be the first to sling mud, but oh by the way...*insert negative here*"
 
It about to get really interesting.....I'm surprised it took this long for Billary's political machine to go on the attack. But after a sizable backlash when they (through back channels) suggested Obama was a drug dealer and brought up some of Obama's shady campaign contributors (wow the Clinton's have some sizable equipment to bring up shady campaign contributors) the Clintons were obviously gunshy. Now Billary is facing a candidate with momentum akin to her husband in '92 they have to go for the kill shot. Look for Obama dirt to start showing up as the Billary politmachine contnues to throw stuff at the wall waiting for something to stick.......
 
Look for Obama dirt to start showing up as the Billary politmachine contnues to throw stuff at the wall waiting for something to stick.......

Dirt? Or do you mean the random made up stuff that she's been tossing out there so far?
 
Dirt? Or do you mean the random made up stuff that she's been tossing out there so far?

I don't think we've seen anything yet.....so far Billary's "played nice" as possible for the Clintons. Now desperation is setting in. Billary will start calling in their markers with the media. It's going to get ugly and in the end after the dust clears we'll all be saying one of the following - "I can't believe Obama got this far with such and such skeleton in his closet" or the just as likely "Boy the Clintons turned into real d ___chebags when they started losing". But that's what's it's come down to......
 
When all else fails, blame the media!

US News & World Report
Clinton Strategists: Media Give Obama a Free Ride
February 20, 2008 01:26 PM ET


Hillary Clinton's senior strategists are increasingly resentful of the news media for what they say is a failure to investigate Barack Obama's past and for giving him a "free ride" in news coverage of the presidential campaign so far.

"The media have abdicated their responsibility," a top Clinton adviser told U.S. News in the wake of Clinton's big loss in the Wisconsin primary yesterday.

READ MORE
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-de...strategists-media-give-obama-a-free-ride.html
 
Her campaign already went negative (herself, surrogates, mailers, TV ads) and it hurt her more than Obama. Polls are tied in Texas and her lead in Ohio is shrinking. She has lost the race for pledged delegates and superdelegates are flocking to Obama.

I always wonder how much of the "shift" is due to negativity/any other glitch in a campaign, and how much is simply the lemming mentality of people wanting to back whoever appears to be the likely winner...:dunno: I've honestly heard of people who will vote for Obama/McCain because "they're going to get the nomination anyway". Yeesh.
 
Whats funny is that Clinton was basing almost everything on a Texas win... She figured since it's a primary (where she performs better than caucuses) with a large latino population, she would do very well...

Well, turns out, the Clinton campaign didnt read the Texas Primary Rules.

Delegates are awarded based proportionally on loyalty to the democratic party. So the more an area voted for Kerry in 04, for example, the more delegates they get.

So, what areas in Texas have the most delegates? Areas with a large black population, areas with a well-educated population, and urban areas. Gee, those are the three areas Obama has ALWAYS been good at winning. Also, on top of a primary, a large number of delegates are based on an additional caucus... which, in caucuses, Obama has historically walked all over HIllary.

So even if Hillary wins the popular vote in Texas, Obama may actually get MORE delegates than her.

I bet Hillary wishes she could go back in time and rethink her "Only 3 states matter" strategy. I mean, it worked so well for Guliani.
 
When all else fails, blame the media!

US News & World Report
Clinton Strategists: Media Give Obama a Free Ride
February 20, 2008 01:26 PM ET


Hillary Clinton's senior strategists are increasingly resentful of the news media for what they say is a failure to investigate Barack Obama's past and for giving him a "free ride" in news coverage of the presidential campaign so far.

"The media have abdicated their responsibility," a top Clinton adviser told U.S. News in the wake of Clinton's big loss in the Wisconsin primary yesterday.

READ MORE
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-de...strategists-media-give-obama-a-free-ride.html

Wow the irony.....the same exact thing was said by opponents of her husband in '92.
 
I always wonder how much of the "shift" is due to negativity/any other glitch in a campaign, and how much is simply the lemming mentality of people wanting to back whoever appears to be the likely winner...:dunno: I've honestly heard of people who will vote for Obama/McCain because "they're going to get the nomination anyway". Yeesh.

If this was the case Hillary would have maintained her lead when she was nearly 20 points ahead in the polls and the media was already talking about how she'd do against the possible Republican nominees as if she had already won. Hillary was the annointed for a far longer period than Obama. Everyone seems to forget that when tagging Hillary's apparent loss on the media and the stupidity or sexism of those voting for Obama.
 
If this was the case Hillary would have maintained her lead when she was nearly 20 points ahead in the polls and the media was already talking about how she'd do against the possible Republican nominees as if she had already won. Hillary was the annointed for a far longer period than Obama. Everyone seems to forget that when tagging Hillary's apparent loss on the media and the stupidity or sexism of those voting for Obama.

You can't totally dismiss "momentum" however. It's one thing to maintain a "20 point lead" when everyone is on the fence and people are just starting to pay attention, quite another entirely when the "other side"(McCain) is already gearing up for battle, the media is putting pressure on you to pick a horse, and the wave of enthusiasm is clearly riding in one direction.
 
You can't totally dismiss "momentum" however. It's one thing to maintain a "20 point lead" when everyone is on the fence and people are just starting to pay attention, quite another entirely when the "other side"(McCain) is already gearing up for battle, the media is putting pressure on you to pick a horse, and the wave of enthusiasm is clearly riding in one direction.

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:
 
If this was the case Hillary would have maintained her lead when she was nearly 20 points ahead in the polls and the media was already talking about how she'd do against the possible Republican nominees as if she had already won. Hillary was the annointed for a far longer period than Obama. Everyone seems to forget that when tagging Hillary's apparent loss on the media and the stupidity or sexism of those voting for Obama.

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.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom