Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
After getting stomped in Iowa, Hillary plans to go negative
Posted by: McQ on Friday, January 04, 2008

Is it about to get nasty in Hillary land? Well, after a 3rd place finish in Iowa, it seems so:
Things could get nasty with some pretty sharp media contrasts made in coming days, it would seem. "This has been very much a referendum on her,'' said [Mark]Penn [chief political strategist for the Clinton campaign]. "And people will take a harder look at the choice and the kind of president who will be needed in these times.''

Penn hinted that the Clinton campaign may be poised to mount a more aggressive campaign in New Hampshire than in Iowa. "Time and again in the Democratic primaries," he said,...."you've seen people latch onto the new, seemingly fresh candidate only to then take a sobering look at the choice they have when it comes down to the end of it. I think you're going to see that again.''

He claimed that Obama's record is comparatively unexplored and he suggested the news media should ask itself about taking a closer look at Obama's history. "Does everyone know everything they need to know about Barack Obama?'' Penn asked. "That's a decision you're going to have to make. I think at this point his record is not very well known. And she is really well-known. She's fully vetted, fully tested. And I don't think that process has occurred with Barack Obama.''
One of the reasons she's doing so poorly is she is "fully vetted" and most people don't like what they see. But she's behind now, a position I don't think she or her campaign anticipated. So the decision is being made to go negative, or so it seems. With Hillary's high negatives, that could be a fatal mistake.
For weeks now Clinton aides have been threatening on and off the record to use some bad stuff against their chief opponent. First, two of them told conservative columnist Robert Novak the Clintons had very damaging information on Obama, but they weren't going to use it. Then her New Hampshire co-chair, Billy Shaheen, said, not that any Democrat would use Obama's admitted youthful drug use against him, but boy, would the Republicans have a field day with that later this year.
Look for it.

BTW, like the new buzz-word for attack ads?

"Contrast ads."

Yup ... fooled me [/sarcasm]
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Apparently, Campaign Hiliary have figured out that anything that comes out about Obama (or Edwards) that is bad, whether or not it has their fingerpints on it, will be considered to come from Campaign Hiliary, whether they admit it or not.
Yesterday there was a stir about 2 possible "scandals" that are to arrive around Monday. One sounded like McCain, but the other .. I’m not sure.
If Campaign Hiliary thinks they will get blamed no matter, there thinking must wrap around the idea .. why not make sure it’s a good one.

On the other side, if there is an Obama "scandal" out there to be had, this is about the best time for it to occur. I mean .. first, Campaign Hiliary gets the blame for going negative deflecting some (or all plus some) of it’s power, and second, it’s out now instead of in the general election campaign.

Frankly, this looks like a lose-lose situation for Campaign Hiliary, but this stems from the reputation that the Clintons have made for themselves.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
What was that? Did I hear it correctly? Oh My. Yes I did...

"I’m melting! I’m melting!"
 
Written By: Borax Johnson
URL: http://
Hillary’s ads could accuse Obama of being a socialist. Oh, wait . . .
 
Written By: Bilwick
URL: http://
Interestingly, if Edwards and Obama continue to split the so-called "anti-Hillary vote," then the convention might actually end up with none of the three having the delegates to win outright. Edwards now actually has a real shot at the nomination. If Hillary focuses negative ads on Obama, people might start questioning Obama, but they don’t have Hillary as their only alternative. She’ll be seen in a negative light for going negative, and Edwards would benefit.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Penn hinted that the Clinton campaign may be poised to mount a more aggressive campaign in New Hampshire than in Iowa. "Time and again in the Democratic primaries," he said,...."you’ve seen people latch onto the new, seemingly fresh candidate" Like Bill Clinton?

I will give him credit for telling the truth Hillary is neither new or fresh.
 
Written By: coater
URL: http://
BTW, like the new buzz-word for attack ads?

"Contrast ads."
I think that comes from the latest ads, called attack ads, doing a run down comparison of politician’s records.

I think "attack ads" get a bad rap. I no longer trust the media to bring me the dirt on a politician they want to see win. So if another candidate wants to be critical of some of the competition, go for it.

However, there’s a difference between being critical and being dirty. But because people can’t tell the difference (or are too lazy to verify a negative claim for themselves) they indict all "attack ads" as bad.

I fully expect Hillary to be dirty, though.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
"Edwards now actually has a real shot at the nomination."
That’s hilarious.

You just keep thinking about tomorrow, Professorboy.

Before this thing is over, Edwards is going to throw his support to Obama.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
I love it.

Let Hillary go negative, drag both her and Obama down.

She goes negative, the chances of them weakening each other explodes upward....just in time for the general election.

Go (negative) Hillary! Go!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"Does everyone know everything they need to know about Barack Obama?’’
Do we know everything about Hillary? Jeez, she’s never asked a question unless it has been vetted.
And she is really well-known. She’s fully vetted, fully tested.
She is well known.

She has NOT been vetted.

She has been tested - and been found wanting.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
OBAMA SHOULD BE FOREWARNED AND FULLY ARMED AGAINST THE COMING ONSLOUGHT.
I HOPE HE KNOWS WHAT THE PIMP AND HIS BRIDE ARE CAPAPABLE OF !!!
 
Written By: d
URL: http://
You just keep thinking about tomorrow, Professorboy.

Before this thing is over, Edwards is going to throw his support to Obama.
That is the most likely outcome. But while I know you like to see the world in stark black and white terms, politics is fluid and strategic. Edwards has kept himself alive by a strong showing and is in a position to benefit from Hillary and Obama tearing each other down. Not likely, but possible. It’s sort of like following sports. I also disagree with those who say Fred Thompson is out completely. If Romney implodes and it turns into McCain vs. Huckabee, Thompson might be in a position to capture a significant portion of the vote and stay alive as well. It’s strategically interesting at this point.

By the way, back in January 2007 I predicted the most likely Presidential candidates would be ’Obama or Edwards vs. Huckabee.’ I made that prediction based only on my sense of the mood of the country. It is clear that this is a year where people want a change, there is overall dissatisfaction with politics and government in general. It’s a year that will reward populists and those who can appear genuine. Huckabee and Obama pull that off best. Edwards is populist, but does not seem genuine. Hillary is a machine, and I can’t believe she’ll pull this off — this is not the year for a candidate like her. I think Mitt may be all but gone; again, it’s not the year for someone like him. Guiliani’s probably following the best strategy he can at this time, but it’s extremely risky. The next few weeks will be interesting.

(I’m not supporting anyone in either party, so I’m looking at it from purely a horse race perspective here).
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I would hate to ever agree with anything anyone working (or, in this case, shilling) for Hillary Clinton has to say, but they are right about one thing: Obama’s record (or lack thereof) has not been explored.

Now that Iraq has turned around, how will the country treat an anti-war candidate out of touch? Will they do another McGovern on him?

And what about Obama’s ties to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s burgeoning campaign finance and other scandals about to explode in Obama’s home state? Or his ties to Tony Rezko, the millionaire real estate thief, who has extensive ties to Obama, and who helped Obama get his first home in exchange for legislative and other favors?

I won’t hold my breath that the MSM will investigate just how crooked Obama is. But hopefully someone, somewhere, will do it.
 
Written By: James Marsden
URL: http://
Let’s not forget to mention that there will most likely be an outbreak, sonewhere along the line, of CMFS (Chronic Media Fatigue Syndrome).
Iowans are just now getting over the lesser form know as CPFS, but expect it to go national before November with full blown CMFS.

I noticed this personally in 2006, when the overdose of media spots by candidates was more likely to turn you against those running the ad.

Yes Virginia, there is a limit to how much money will do you any good (without actually handing out dollar bills).
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
The Iowa caucuses are going to be old news, checking my watch, by about 5:00 p.m. this evening.

And in a day or two, Barack Obama will be old news.

In this Bataan death march of a presidential cycle, who do you think the Clintons are?

Why, they’re the Japanese, and Barack Obama will be taken to the side of the road, beaten bloody, and then thrown into the political ravine.

Edwards will take one look at that and keep his eyes straight for the rest of the march.

This is not about "American democracy." It’s about power, in the world, and who really has it from inside the Democratic Party, and how and why they got it, and the "who" in that is the Clintons.

They’re going to destroy Obama, sooner, now, than later.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
I think there’s a possibility that Edwards can take it, but one thing I’ve not heard and think is significant is the sheer number of people who seem to want to vote for Obama to boost their own I’m-not-racist cred. Seriously, I think people like the idea that, win or lose, the fact they voted for a black man for President is an honor badge that says "See, I’m not one of the racist rabble". That’s the impression I get from the devotees. What’s he stand for? Change. OK, what kind of change? Don’t know. Don’t care. They need to be seen as progressive and he’s the most progressive candidate out there. I think he’ll take a large number of independents across the country for precisely this reason.
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
It wouldnt surprise me if Obama, after some negative information came out, was found in say a park, apparantly a victim of "suicide".

 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
Now that Iraq has turned around, how will the country treat an anti-war candidate out of touch?
I think you’re being tremendously optimistic if you think Iraq has "turned around," but very few people think that even if stability does manage to remain through 2008 that this means the decision of 2003 was right. Most people still see the war as a huge, unnecessary mess, and while they’ll welcome stability, they won’t turn pro-war. The war ultimately hurts the Republicans even if Iraq stays stable. That’s why the GOP isn’t talking much about it either.

Will they do another McGovern on him?
McGovern was a very weak candidate running against a relatively popular incumbent. The Democrats actually have strong candidates running, and none of them has an even remote possibility of going the McGovern route.
I think there’s a possibility that Edwards can take it, but one thing I’ve not heard and think is significant is the sheer number of people who seem to want to vote for Obama to boost their own I’m-not-racist cred. Seriously, I think people like the idea that, win or lose, the fact they voted for a black man for President is an honor badge that says "See, I’m not one of the racist rabble". That’s the impression I get from the devotees. What’s he stand for? Change. OK, what kind of change? Don’t know. Don’t care. They need to be seen as progressive and he’s the most progressive candidate out there. I think he’ll take a large number of independents across the country for precisely this reason.
I’ve not heard much of that. I think basically Obama and Huckabee are more inspirational and genuine in the eyes of voters.

I think Huckabee still is being vastly underestimated by both parties. Democrats seem to think that his religion will just drive people away, or that he’ll be easy to paint as a homophobe or something. Perhaps, but he’s got a lot of time to make positive moves to the center once the primaries are over. Clinton has been vastly overestimated by especially political junkies, who have turned her into some mythical power creature who devours enemies whole, with the Clintons as running some kind of national supermachine.

I think Clinton, like Romney, will be talked about in the future as examples of people who looked so strong before the voting started, but then faded quickly.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
retired military writes:
It wouldnt surprise me if Obama, after some negative information came out, was found in say a park, apparantly a victim of "suicide".
Such crude methods are a thing of the past. In my crystal ball, I’m seeing more of a Larry Craiging than a Vince Fostering. I’m not sure we’re talking about a "wide stance" here, but I’m sure that the honey trapping season was extended last year, and maybe the year before, because "be prepared" is big with the Clintons.

And you know what, I think Obama probably knows exactly what’s coming, but is not prepared for it, because he doesn’t have the resources that the Clintons have (i.e., goon squads to threaten bimbos, witnesses, etc.).

And no one in the Democratic Party, or almost no one outside of Obama’s smallish circle of advisers, will come to his defense when the big shoe drops. No one will be talking about how this is a smear or part of a vast right-wing conspiracy, with a hoard of s**theel apologists ready for Hardball and Keith Olbermann to bring the Obama defense.

After Obama is finished, done, however, the Clintons will start attacking the "racists" behind his demise. And everyone will forget what actually went down, other than the sig. line, because Americans don’t even really remember what happened yesterday.

"Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow!"
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Boris Erb writes:
I think Huckabee still is being vastly underestimated by both parties.
I feel safer from a Huckabee candidacy already.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Boris Erb lessens the weight of worldly insight:
McGovern was a very weak candidate running against a relatively popular incumbent. The Democrats actually have strong candidates running, and none of them has an even remote possibility of going the McGovern route.
Obama is a near exact replica of McGovern, such that he can reasonably be called a McGovernite. The wing of the Democrats to which Obama belongs is the one of direct descent from Henry Wallace via McGovern. Until Obama arrived on the scene, the candle for that pure thread of the Party was being held by the congenital bellhop Kucinich.

I’d call you a Henry Wallace type, yourself, Boris, but you’ve accumulated too many attending postmodern pathologies. You’re a Henry Wallace type by way of San Francisco, Ann Arbor, and Berlin. More a Clintonist, actually. Though your Soviet in-laws inspire further curiosity in that regard.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Erb, your thoughts on Obama are pretty much in line with mine, but I think you’re overestimating Huckabee and (as much as I wish) Thompson.

Iowa is won by Huckabee, with Romney in second and Thompson/McCain tied for third. Lets say Romney loses NH (which is likely), and you have McCain pulling off NH and Huckabee either placing third or fourth (maybe in fifth, when you consider NH is a high libertarian state and fertile ground for both Thompson and Paul). What happens then?

Nevada will be up in the air, but I think it’ll be unimportant overall. So will Michigan. It’ll come down to South Carolina, which is Thompson/Huckabee land. If he looses NH, I can’t see Huckabee pull off a win there (lacking funds and organization: SC is not Iowa). So if Romney loses Iowa AND NH, this puts SC in play for Thompson and McCain.

Then comes Florida. If the makeup of the earlier primaries is that wacky, that means Giuliani played his cards right and he’ll win in Florida (without a clear winner coming in from any of the states). Which means he gets a bigger bounce going into ’Tsunami’ Tuesday for California, New York and New Jersey.

Again, I don’t see how Huckabee can pull this off: he’s going to be a one hit wonder. McCain is acting the spoiler for Romney and, to a lesser degree, Thompson is spoiling McCain AND Romney. Giuliani stands to gain big from this if this trend continues.

As for the Dems...I don’t see how Obama can lose. The only way he can lose now is if he loses NH and SC (it’ll be a setback if he loses one, it will be devastating if he loses both). That’s the only way Edwards can come into this (I don’t see Hilary breaking in again, she’s pretty screwed).

But if Edwards Can pull off a win in NH and SC...that puts the race against those two, though I think Tsunami Tuesday will be more a boost to Obama than Edwards.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens there. But if Obama comes out on top from Iowa....i don’t see how the Republicans can stop him.
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Joel, I agree with much of what you say you for a change. I think Huckabee can pull it off, but he’s hurt by how stacked the primaries are. If it was still a long primary season, he’d have a better shot. If he gets a bounce to a higher than expected finish in NH and wins SC (he leads in polls there currently) he’ll have a shot. If I had to bet, I guess I’d put my money on McCain, but Huckabee reminds me a bit of Reagan in that people are assuming him weaker than he is. I also detect what could be a coat of teflon on him.

I am really uncertain about Guiliani. It could play out the way you describe, but his Florida lead is small, and if the media spotlight ignores him, will that ultimately make him appear a has been, unable to really motivate people for the big states? The mode seems to be for change and Guiliani’s strong card — his post 9-11 leadership — doesn’t seem to count for much (that could change if there is another major terror attack).

I suspect you’re right about Obama. Iowa, however, is often remembered in hindsight as having produced results very different than the ultimate outcome. So things could change quickly depending on New Hampshire. And, not having anyone I really like in either party at this point, I’ll just enjoy watching it as a horse race for now! (To be sure, there are a few I don’t like...)
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Boris:
I think Huckabee can pull it off,
Well, Boris, if he pulls it off as frequently as you pull it off, he’s likely to collapse on the sidewalk somewhere between Manchester and Concord.

 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
I believe Hillary going negative will blow up in her face....she’ll just be reinforcing the deserved stereotype..."Nice" didn’t work...now they’ll find the opposite doesn’t work either...IT’S A QUAGMIRE!!!

What I really love is that Hildabeast thought she was going tohave this huge warchest for the GE, but now finds she’s in a fight for her life. Spend, spend, spend Hillary...it’s didn’t work for Kerry or Romney...spend way you battle axe!
 
Written By: Khepri
URL: http://
it’s didn’t work for Kerry or Romney
Romney actual improved in the polls with his "attack" ads. So I don’t see how it didn’t work. It worked, just not enough.

And do you really think the religion issue which Huckabee managed to get out there repeatedly, "oops did I just say that?", wasn’t negative campaigning? It worked and brought Romney way down.

To say "attack ads don’t work" is a nice cliche like "crime doesn’t pay" and isn’t always true.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider