home

Obama's "Throw The Kitchen Sink" Tactics: The Strategy Of A Shoo In?

By Big Tent Democrat

While we are being told by the usual suspects that Obama is a shoo in for the nomination, this article tells a different story:

Sen. Barack Obama is trying to air his dirty laundry -- even some items that might appear just a little wrinkled -- as he prepares a full assault on Sen. Hillary Clinton over ethics and transparency.

Hardly the approach of someone who has wrapped up the nomination. Perhaps this explains it?

In such a long primary battle, Obama said being dynamic is essential. "You have to constantly renew yourself and what you're saying and what you're doing," he said, adding that he partially blames recent losses in Texas and Ohio on his message getting "stale."

No doubt going overtly negative and acknowledging that you are doing so would be a new message for Obama. I do not object to it myself but I wonder how all those railing about Hillary going negative are going to take it.

< D.C. Handgun Case to Be Heard This Week | The Wrong Defense >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:05:32 PM EST
    You are right, of course, that it would make no sense for a candidate who has wrapped up the primary to voluntarily air a bunch of stuff that could hurt him in the general.

    Lynn Sweet ably documents the game here: Obama, after refusing to release certain information for months or years, is suddenly releasing it so that, a week or two from now, he can blast Hillary for being so secretive.  Secretive about the matters he himself withheld.

    The question is, aside from Sweet, will the media do its job and expose the game being played?  Gosh, take a guess.

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:12:27 PM EST
    I am shocked! Shocked! To Discover Obama is a pol:

    [S]ince I have some reporting history here, I am noting a pattern that has emerged: This is Obama's third ethical conversion of convenience -- taking on a higher standard, but only when it appears to be politically expedient. Obama is making government transparency and ethics a centerpiece of his presidential campaign.

    I think that is smart politics. What is more interesting to me is that Obama feels the need to do it.

    Parent

    Could be partially (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:15:45 PM EST
    In preparation for GE. I am not convinced he will be the nominee, and I also think the Obama campaign has everything to be nervous about (I mean they could have wrapped up the nomination and failed, so the only outcomes are the same or worse). But releasing this stuff now, positioning himself for GE could be a smart move if he does get the nomination.

    Parent
    Transparency (none / 0) (#95)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:31:53 PM EST
    He kept his earmarks secret for a long time.  McCain has had no earmarks.  This positions him against Clinton but not against McCain.

    He is missing info from his time in state Senate.  If (If) Clinton release 20 years of data as she has stated, he's lost his positioning on this.

    Parent

    Obama sez he has NO Illinois senate records (none / 0) (#101)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:42:40 PM EST
    but attacks Hillary for not disclosing WH records.
    The epitome of hypocrisy.

    Parent
    It's slowmentum time before PA (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ellie on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:21:00 PM EST
    The excitement of revival tent to revival tent rewarded his fans with the dizzy rush of the hype leading into their area, and feasting on the adoring reviews afterwards.

    Now that the ride has slowed down, the cracks in the bandwagon are more apparent. More and more often, the excuses and defenses are that (bwaaaaaaaaaah!) Hillary does it too.

    But she never promised Nu teh Cuddly Politics but experience in standing up to the brutal system in place and being gamed by ...

    :: drumroll ::

    ... those swell Republicans who are only mean because HRC ia "divisive" by her very presence in DC.

    Does Team-O really think they won't come after their guy for Reszko in the GE or, should he win, go on an impeachment drive? We're looking at the classic reptile-brained node of the body politic here, that has but few tricks which it simply keeps repeating.

    Here's some Shirley Bassey with the Propellerheads with an important social, cultural and philosophical message.

    PS: Remember how nice the Dems were at Positivity Con in '04, where nary a negative divisiv breath was uttered after the Pugs spent a few weeks in full whine mode that the Dems were the party of pessimism and anger? (Which depressed the troops, the puppies, and the very war, which is kind of a puppy if you think about it?)

    That worked out well for Kerry and the Dems, even starting from GOoPerCon '04, didn't it?

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:17:36 PM EST
    it is smart politics ONLY because the media will not pull back the curtain.

    If Hillary tried the exact same thing it would not be smart politics, because it would be reported as yet another unfair attack by Hillary.

    Obama is running a very good campaign.  But it's not entirely his doing that most of what he touches turns to gold.

    Parent

    Remember (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by OxyCon on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:25:48 PM EST
    Hillary is the cold and calculating one.
    Obama is pure as honey.

    Parent
    Everytime (none / 0) (#194)
    by sas on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:37:19 PM EST
    Obama faces some kind of difficulty (the Jeremiah Wright thing of late), he decides it's time for he and Hillary to play nice.

    Sometimes I think he is as slick as oil.

    I ask myself over and over - just who is this guy?

    Parent

    And there in a nutshell (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:19:55 PM EST
    is why I support Obama over Clinton.

    Parent
    Obama is not Duncan McCloud (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by herb the verb on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:46:18 PM EST
    I've thought quite a bit about your stance on this. It does have merit, especially if you believe there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the presidencies each would pursue (and I think that is a minority opinion which I also do not personally hold). I greatly admire your intellectual courage on this blog, plus your sense of humor so I don't want to criticize (and also don't expect to change your mind).

    But...

    We both know there can be only one Media Darling. It is true that Hillary is media kryptonite (to mix pop culture metaphors); she has 0.00000% chance to be the media darling against McCain. Especially so after this bruising (for her) primary. But that by extension doesn't mean that Obama is the preferred Media Darling. That is also a faith-based argument, and I think that Obama's newest tactics (which you describe here) are going to further erode his Media Darling GE probability. Right now I would put it around 35-40%, which is admittedly better than 0.00000%, but other than Media Darling, I haven't seen what kind of chops he has compared to Clinton. Luckily I don't think Media Darling is the primary factor to victory in November and I think Clinton has the better demographics, which I think we both believe ARE the primary factor.

    So, in the end, there can be only ONE Media Darling, and I am pessimistic that it will EVER be a Democrat.

    Thank you for all your hard work making this blog a place to discuss Dem politics in a civil manner!

    Parent

    No Dem Will Be A Media Darling (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by pluege on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:07:48 PM EST
    BTD is terrific, but the media darling theory is detached reality dreaming - NO Democrat will EVER be a MSM darling.

    Starting with the reality that any and all dems would/will be trashed, Clinton's media position is far better than Obama's. The media slime machine has done its worst against Clinton - its only up from here for her. She has already neutered NBC, particularly Mathews and Schuster, and the others, as well as mccain are on notice that most of the nation is not in the mood for the election to be a misogynistic pile-on.

    Obama on the other hand is fertile ground; free game for endless lying smearing and innuendo. His media position is at best no backsliding, but that is unlikely once the slime machine gets cranking. And do not underestimate that there is 4 years of pent-up dem-sliming demand where the MSM has not been able to trash a national dem figure.
    .


    Parent

    Yes. I completely agree. (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:17:50 PM EST
    Her negatives are only 3 points above Obama's and Obama has his own TV network, plus the "progressive blogs." They've  thrown everything at her that they can possibly throw and she's still standing.  They haven't even really started on Obama.

    Parent
    Its also probably worth noting (none / 0) (#121)
    by tree on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:57:14 PM EST
    that McCain' negatives are 6 points lower than Obama's right now.

    Parent
    Might as well just admit it then (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:58:18 PM EST
    Your support for Obama is because it's been established that he'll get less friction from the media.

    I'm still worried about who will be a better president.


    Parent

    This makes me feel better (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by ricosuave on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:54:44 PM EST
    I consider BTD to be a smart guy, and I had assumed that he saw something in Obama that I can't find.  But if that is the reason he likes BO over HRC, then I feel much more secure that my continued support for Hillary is both rational and reasonable, and I am not missing something important!

    I remember when Bill Clinton was a media darling in 1992.  He played the sax on Arsenio.  He went on MTV and they asked about his underwear (and we had all of the requisite stories about the fresh young candidate bringing in young people through new media).  He was smart and charismatic and practiced a new kind of "third way" politics that was not rabidly partisan.

    Can someone remind me: how did that media-darling relationship work out?  The press let him slide on everything, right?

    Parent

    Well. he was elected (none / 0) (#138)
    by independent voter on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:16:50 PM EST
    2 times to the Presidency. I am willing to settle for that

    Parent
    Don't you think that (none / 0) (#24)
    by themomcat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:24:37 PM EST
    this will be turned around by the MSM in the GE?

    Parent
    I think not (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:31:04 PM EST
    the coverage of this Wright story has been revealing. Obama has been coddled by the Media on it.

    The Right Wing won't let it go so we will have to see, but this experiment has been quite encouraging for my Media Darling theory.

    Parent

    BTD, can't you picture in your head (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:43:04 PM EST
    the wonderful ads that the Republicans will be able to put together over the events of the past few days? They just write themselves. They will be real. And they will be spectacluar.

    Even if the media stays in the tank for Obama, the ads will hurt him big time.

    Parent

    The basics of propaganda.... (none / 0) (#177)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:35:26 PM EST
    TV, radio, mailings, email...and the unpredictable and everychanging news...

    Parent
    Fox has hammerd him (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:20:42 PM EST
    on the Wright issue all day long.  Even Juan Williams saying that what Obama says is beyond belief.  Media darling?


    Parent
    Likewise... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:23:09 PM EST
    ...his only quasi-defender on "This Week" was Donna Brazile who tried to claim Wright was more 'moderate' than some preachers she's heard...

    All the credible panelists seem to acknowledge this isn't going to dry up and blow away.

    Parent

    Is that the main reason (none / 0) (#42)
    by themomcat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:39:47 PM EST
    you are supporting Sen. Obama? Because he is the "media darling"?

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:50:55 PM EST
    LMAO (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by themomcat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:03:12 PM EST
    He might be the media darling to the MSM now (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:53:48 PM EST
    But they LOVE McCain and in the GE I believe, and let's face it, I am just a regular Democratic voter, will still love McCain more. Remember, if not for the showing of the Swift Boat ad on the MSM and a lot on Tweey's Hardball, most people would have never seen the ad. My brother said in California he had no idea what the whole hype was until he saw it on Hardball finally. So that and the People would prefer to have a beer with George, pointing to Kerry's stiffer personality, had a lot of people thinking that Kerry was a fraud. Throw in the Gay Marriage Act, the continuous elevated alerts and the fate was sealed. All this happened AFTER Kerry was the final candidate.

    Parent
    Add in Republican effort to get (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:03:06 PM EST
    Ward Connally's "no affirmative action" initiative on the ballot this Nov. in swing states.  

    Parent
    There's only so much (none / 0) (#115)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:54:07 PM EST
    the media will be able to do for McCain. He's tired and boring. Against Obama he'll look even more so no matter how they try to prop him up. In visual media at least there'll be no contest, though they can help him in print.

    Parent
    Have you ever seen him on Jon Stewart? (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:06:44 PM EST
    They play off each other well. Jon will ask the tough question once in a while but John always skates by it with a joke. He gets good applauds. I think this will happen everywhere in the MSM. They seem to show such respect and awe to him and especially because of his VietNam captivity and survival. Remember when they thought his campaign was over? He came back as that same survivor. Why, because people knew who he was and they were not sure of the other guys. This should be noted.

    Parent
    How about when McCain and Obama (none / 0) (#151)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:27:34 PM EST
    are in direct visual comparison speaking, e.g., in debate? Seated in an interchange with someone like Jon Stewart who works to make sure most of his guests actually come off well is one thing. In debates McCain comes off as feeble, mentally and physically. Although it's true appearing mentally feeble didn't hurt GWB... Ah, anti-intellectual America.

    Parent
    yes (none / 0) (#167)
    by Rainsong on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:08:24 PM EST
    methinx you are right, he will continue being the media darling.

    But 2 things, one I am still concerned whether he would be the better president, and secondly, by association, the media darling has republican corporate backing.  Either way we have a republican president.

    Parent

    That is nonsense (none / 0) (#172)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:25:45 PM EST
    I have no doubt that he's personally a progressive. You've evidently been reading too much Taylor Marsh and TalkLeft. His political strategy is to gain a mandate to govern as a centrist, and I think that's what he'll do. But I believe that in the process he'll be much more effective at moving the more progressive elements of his program than Sen Clinton will be, she who only seems to know how to fight ferociously head-on, and not win by the sorts of judo Sen Obama is proving to be a killer at.

    Parent
    If you have ANY example of (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by tree on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:47:56 PM EST
    Senator Obama winning anything progressive by using his "judo" tactics, I'd love to see it laid out. The only one that I saw mentioned, the videotaped interrogations in Illinois, is a total sham of an example, showing instead his ability to take full credit for something that someone else started, and that a rough consensus across party lines had already been agreed upon. Not impressive.

    Please, if you've got another example, bring it on. I have yet to see one stand up to the light of day. He's got a good packager. I'm more interested in someone who can really deliver, rather than someone who knows how to steal the credit from others.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#189)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:15:14 PM EST
    I said I believe he WILL be more effective at moving a progressive agenda than she would be, or at least key parts of one. That is based on what I see of how he deals with obstacles and with the strategies of his opponents.

    There's not too much scope for a senator in his first term to apply his approach to, though you might want to have a look at his record. It's not too shabby.

    As for judo, look at how he's managed to deal with the kind, gentle, and forthright tactics of the Clinton machinery since Iowa to leave Ms Inevitable in the dust.

    Parent

    As I thought, (none / 0) (#190)
    by tree on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:43:40 PM EST
    an example from the past of a progressive outcome borne of Obama's alleged "judo" abilities can't be produced, because there is none. Its a faith-based argument.

    As for his "judo" in the primary, he's had the press as his enabler through much of this, and sadly way too many people willing to settle for faith in a few platitudes. None of that is judo, merely brute force . Progressive ideals haven't been pushed forward one iota so far. And, although he is certainly the front-runner now, he has not been able to put the nomination away yet, and if and when he does, it won't be because of any transformational or even "judo" moves, it will be because of simple old-fashioned down and dirty politics enabled by the MSM.

    Parent

    Progressive as compared to what? (none / 0) (#197)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:09:40 PM EST
    Hillary, Queen of the DLC? Don't make me larf.

    I was extrapolating what I think his approach as executive would be based on his strategic political abilities. You pretend I offered something else. I'm no credulous Obama fan. I've been following his career closely - he's my senator - and have been very critical of him in the past. It's this campaign that's erased my doubts about who he is, what he'll fight for, and how he'll do it. Try putting aside your Clinton prejudice for a few moments and listen to what he's saying in his speeches, debates, and position papers. Progressive ideals are core in them.

    Parent

    Changing the subject now, eh? (none / 0) (#201)
    by tree on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:36:59 AM EST
    You were the one who claimed he would be able to push progressive legislation. Now, your point is what? Hillary isn't progressive either? Obama's just as much a DLC candidate as Clinton is. Personally I find them roughly equivalent, she's more progressive on some things, he's more so on others. But I find no indication that he'll fight for anything progressive if it won't help him politically. Count me unimpressed

    You admit that there's nothing in his record that supports the idea that he has any political "judo" skills when it comes to promoting progressive policies. You are judging his skills on his ability to be a front-runner in the Democratic primary. We'll see if he's so effective when he's not a media darling. He's shown that he mostly whines and if the media isn't willing to take a candidate's whine and run with it, they'll turn on  him  and his whine with a malevolent fury. So far  the media's been willing to run with it.

     I started as an Edwards supporter. I looked seriously at both Clinton and Obama before deciding that Obama is not for me. Their positions are not that different but I trust her fight and her ability to stand up when the going gets rough.  
    I still could have gone for Obama, despite my misgivings, if he'd shown any inclination not to cave to conventional wisdom on some of his foreign policy stands. But he's caved completely.

    Parent

    No, maybe you just have trouble reading :) (none / 0) (#202)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:37:28 AM EST
    Well, we'll see just how good his political skills really are if he can survive the revelation that he attends a scary Afrocentric church that preaches scary black liberation theology, a story being pushed with great delight by the likes of right-wing hate sites and...others.

    What do you mean "he's caved completely to conventional wisdom on his foreign policy stands"? When did he present himself as anything but a centrist, internationalist, and realist in terms of FP?

    Parent

    Yeah, the way he watered down (none / 0) (#182)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:51:10 PM EST
    the nuclear legislation on behalf of his fourth largest contributor -- Exelon Corporation -- that sure was some masterful Judo.

    I feel so much better now, knowing that reporting of toxic leaks into our groundwater will be voluntary, not mandatory.

    Parent

    likewise there is only so much the media (none / 0) (#183)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:57:12 PM EST
    can and will do for obama. when their bosses give the word, the media will change course for the republicans. count on it!

    Parent
    Yep. "October Surprise(s)" (none / 0) (#186)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:04:06 PM EST
    Look for them this fall.

    Parent
    I know. It's amazing isn't it? (none / 0) (#75)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:11:56 PM EST
    Since the Wright story (none / 0) (#43)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:40:44 PM EST
    broke the mostest on Friday afternoon, are you really very confident about this thing about the Media coddling?  Things really do get swallowed up on weekends--I saw it with a lot of nasty Bush administration stories.

    Parent
    When/if Obama goes up against (none / 0) (#79)
    by Joelarama on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:18:25 PM EST
    McCain it will be the MSM Darling v. Darling deathmatch.

    I don't think Obama comes out ahead with that.  But we'll see.

    Parent

    I think the media environment (none / 0) (#90)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:29:05 PM EST
    will change when it is John McCain v. Obama.  McCain has a carefully cultivated very good relationship with the media that shouldn't be underestimated in terms of what may happen in the general.  

    I'd like to believe that Obama will continue to hold onto his media darling status, but I don't think that the primary - against Clinton in particular - is a good gauge of what we may see come the general.  The only way to gauge Obama's potential here is to pay close attention to those rare moments where McCain and Obama go head to head and so far I haven't seen any clear "wins" in Obama's column.  I've seen a couple of draws and close calls, but no wins that I can think of.

    Parent

    Then again, (none / 0) (#110)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:51:47 PM EST
    Obama could apparently hold a wing bowl, or a hot dog eating contest, and win a lot of the media over.  For muckrakers are apparently a hungry bunch.

    Parent
    LOL That's the thing. (none / 0) (#126)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:06:07 PM EST
    McCain has fed them literally and figuratively for a lot longer than Obama has.  In this area McCain definitely is more "experienced".  I'm hoping the Obama camp has an aide dedicated to media menu planning.

    Parent
    Can the right-wing cook? (none / 0) (#134)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:11:50 PM EST
    Oh! But the Repubs (none / 0) (#97)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:37:46 PM EST
    will do anything to win...including "hold their nose" and elect John McCain as their nominee.

    Parent
    Could be why they win elections :-) (none / 0) (#109)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:51:05 PM EST
    Coddled, heh (none / 0) (#105)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:47:02 PM EST
    He's managing the bad by not being defensive but by using whatever's thrown at him to go back to his message and incorporate it, and learn from it. He's a media darling because he works that with sincerity, artificial or otherwise, and disarms the sting. He's not being given some kind of pass, he's earning it with his skill as a communicator and pol. Sheesh - give credit where credit is due, willya?

    If he can throw off this hideous pastor cr*p he can manage anything media-wise I think.

    Parent

    Media Darling holds for primary (none / 0) (#112)
    by catfish on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:53:12 PM EST
    but not for the GE. No matter how well the MSM treats Obama, voters will see Fox News and silently vote for McCain.

    Parent
    Actually, it makes perfect sense (none / 0) (#46)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:44:10 PM EST
    Until now, Obama has been running against Clinton, not McCain. Clinton, meanwhile, has been running against Obama while positioning herself for the general election. This has put her at a disadvantage. For example, her saying that she has as much experience as McCain, while Obama does not, has angered many, but it served a dual purpose - reinforcing Obama's inexperience while also gently inserting the idea that she is as experienced as McCain into the conversation. I think that Obama's people are recognizing that they will probably win this thing and preparing him for the general. That means that they have to get the dirty laundry out to wash, because sure as heck the right wing will do it later. Obama knows that if he wins the primary and loses the general, he won't get another shot. If this stuff is enough to lose him the primary at this point, then he can always run again later.

    Parent
    I don't agree (none / 0) (#82)
    by Korha on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:19:58 PM EST
    You are right, of course, that it would make no sense for a candidate who has wrapped up the primary to voluntarily air a bunch of stuff that could hurt him in the general.

    McCain could blast him (or Clinton) in the general if he didn't release his stuff, right? McCain has requested $0 in earmarks, you can't get on higher ground than that. So it's better politically speaking for Obama to release them now so he can at least attack Clinton over it.

    The question is, aside from Sweet, will the media do its job and expose the game being played?  Gosh, take a guess.

    Here's where I strongly disagree, and I think that would be the exactly wrong way for the media to cover it. Precisely what the media does too much of is to try to divine "authenticity" or purity of motive or whatever other crap they love to psychologize about in our politicians (Exhibit A of this problem: John McCain). What they ought to be focused on is the substance and the result of political actions within a constrained political environment. So the relevant issue here is that Obama has released his earmark requests, and that Clinton has not. It doesn't really matter why. It's politically motivated and politically expedient, sure, but so what, isn't everything? What matters is the end result--hopefully both of them releasing their earmarks--and I think is an unquestionably good thing, and the media should be pushing for transparency and accountability.

    I would say exactly the same thing if Clinton had released her earmarks and Obama had not, or if Clinton had released her tax returns and Obama had  not. Accountability is important, but it also carries a political cost. We need to make it more politically costly for politicians to hide their earmarks/finances than for them to reveal it.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:24:59 PM EST
    If Obama refuses to release info for a year despite repeated requests, and then releases it and immediately starts attacking Clinton for not releasing her own, I think the fact that Obama refused all those requests is important context to report.

    I do not believe this is about "divining authenticity."  I believe it is about reporting the relevant facts.  Otherwise, they're just stenographers for whatever the attack du jour might be.

    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#94)
    by Korha on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:31:34 PM EST
    Well they should report that, too. Some are.

    I guess the implication here is that the media would be less tolerant of Clinton's politically expedient reversal if the situation was reversed. That may be true.

    Parent

    you could say (none / 0) (#98)
    by myed2x on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:38:50 PM EST
    he is just replying in kind and he never would have gone negative at all if not forced to by Clinton and the non-stop media coverage of it*.

    *I happened to be working at home yesterday and gad CNN on in the main room where I could see and hear it, it was on for around 4-6 hours and I lost count of how many times I saw the preacher video and continuous analysis of it, very rarely were any of Hilary's similar dirty laundry mentioned....and even rarer (which brassed me off) was Hagee or McCain's many dirty little secrets.

    This is the cycle the media is stuck in right now, his message of hope and oratory skills are stale right now, he has to change his game and be more dynamic.

    Parent

    He might as well (none / 0) (#106)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:49:05 PM EST
    put it out in what's already a week from hell. Get the answers out of the way long before the GE and hope it's boring news by then.

    Parent
    Transparency? That's a little rich coming (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:10:03 PM EST
    from Obama. The little secrets he's kept pretty much spell doom for us.

    it's simple (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Turkana on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:11:48 PM EST
    as i keep saying- when she goes negative, she's dirty and sleazy; when he goes negative, he's just telling the truth.

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Alvord on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:17:38 PM EST
    There are the Clinton Rules and then there are the Obama rules.

    Parent
    I'm confused here (none / 0) (#76)
    by ItsGreg on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:12:28 PM EST
    I've read the article in the Chicago Tribune (which, by the way, is a rather conservative newspaper). In the article it says Obama sat down with reporters from Chicago's two major daily newspapers and answered their questions about Rezko. He also released a bunch of documents.

    Explain to me how that can be interpreted as "going negative."


    Parent

    Yeah with more non-credible statements (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Foxx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:40:49 PM EST
    The Tribune gave him a pass, but all he did was say for 90 minutes, I associated with the guy for 17 years,he was my friend, and I never had a hint about his sleazy side. Even though his tenements were rotting all around me. And while he and Rezko and the governor were visiting each other frequently.

    If you believe that, I've got . . .

    Parent

    It isn't (none / 0) (#92)
    by badger on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:30:02 PM EST
    It's the setup to going negative. You do X so you can attack your candidate for not doing X, even though you've refused to do X for months.

    Parent
    So (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:15:06 PM EST
    He's going to damage himself, so that he can turn around and damage the last 2-term Democratic presidency.

    Are you sure he's a Democrat?

    I just saw Bill Clinton on CNN (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by herb the verb on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:58:10 PM EST
    in NOLA, discussing what the Clinton Global Initiative is doing down there and what the government can do to rebuild.

    I cannot believe that so-called Democrats want to smear Bill Clinton's fund-raising for these causes in order to elect Barak Obama. Is that really the only way to win? Don't they see that those contributors they want to expose are the Democrats bread and butter supporters?

    Parent

    They've already trashed Bill Clinton (5.00 / 8) (#74)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:11:38 PM EST
    The strategists who decided to spin Bill Clinton as a racist have a lot of answer for. They have divided the Democratic Party along racial lines, which will hurt us in elections for a generation. Bill Clinton used to be a reliable campaigner who reached across racial divides, but now he and others are tainted and thus useless to the party.

    The Global Initiative is a wonderful program and a credit to Democratic ideals, but Obama's people are treating it like it's one of the right-wing's phony charities that they use to finance campaign party's with tax-deductible donations. They are acting as if Clinton is doing something sleazy, which tarnishes not only one of the Democratic Party's most valuable assets, but the party itself, and a program that is doing a lot of good for a lot of people. How many donors have pulled out because they don't want to face implications that they only contributed in order to politically influence Hillary Clinton? How many people won't get AIDS drugs as a result of this?

    Parent

    Indeed... (5.00 / 6) (#77)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:15:49 PM EST
    Hounding him for being 'secret' about contributions to his charitable foundation is a mindless exercise that is worthy of being called out as "Ken Starr tactics".  And isn't it between the IRS and the donor as to one's choice of charitable causes anyway?

    It's worth noting that many millions of Clinton's own personal fortune has gone into the Foundation as well.

    Clinton Foundation Donors

    Parent

    Kudos to Chris Rock (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by ricosuave on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:59:48 PM EST
    And kudos to Chris Rock.  He supposedly makes robocalls for Obama in Mississippi, but still appears at the Clinton affair a few days later.  Shows us all that it is possible for people to support Obama without crapping all over both Clintons and everything they have done.  It highlights for me how lousy most of Obama's supporters have been and how ridiculous it is to attach the Clintons in the way they have.

    Parent
    no, it isn't. the so called dem leadership (none / 0) (#184)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:00:53 PM EST
    is a dismal failure. they are so full of themselves and out of touch with the average american, it just amazes me.

    Parent
    Tax returns (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by themomcat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:20:17 PM EST
    and records of her time in the WH as First Lady, have been demanded of Sen. Clinton. We have been told that the information about taxes is forth coming and there are some snags with the archives at the Clinton Center (which truthfully, I have not been following all that closely). Conversely, has anyone asked for or have Sen. Obama's tax returns been released for public scrutiny? I do know that records of his tenure in the State Senate have been requested and there was a vague response about them not being available due to poor record keeping. How acceptable would that response be from Sen. Clinton about her tenure in the WH? A lot of double standards being applied here IMO

    It was just Friday (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:21:55 PM EST
    that Sen Obama and Sen Clinton reined in supporters

    I guess Sen Obama excluded himself.

    Incidentally, that article is poorly sourced (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by AdrianLesher on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:23:49 PM EST
    Nowhere in the article does it state the basis for the contention that Obama is about to launch "a full assault on Sen. Hillary Clinton over ethics and transparency."

    That is a fair point (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:28:42 PM EST
    The article needed more transparency in it sourcing.

    Parent
    The way the left (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by wiredick on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:45:49 PM EST
    has taken up rabid right ing attacks on Pres Clinton, I find unforgivable.  If its barack, ill stay home.
    Will you find right wingers using liberal talking points to attack  the legacy of ole prune face?


    I laughed out loud (none / 0) (#107)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:49:35 PM EST
    when I saw over at MyDD that the right wing smear machine works for Hillary.

    LOL! Now there's some irony.

    Parent

    That's (none / 0) (#117)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:55:38 PM EST
    beautiful.

    Parent
    Good News (none / 0) (#123)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:58:54 PM EST
    Well, that's good news.  I'm looking forward to watching Obama benefit.  I was worried. ???

    Parent
    bipartisanship in action . . . (none / 0) (#130)
    by pukemoana on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:08:05 PM EST
    Obama is competely destroying the (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by athyrio on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:57:05 PM EST
    Democratic party and by recent votes it is showing up in the fact that most registered Democrats are voting for Clinton....which is why she is winning the bigger traditionally democratic states....It is scary that he is willing to do this and I think he and his backers are deluded if they think he can win a GE....

    One possible reason that Obama is (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:08:34 PM EST
    going negative at this point could be that there are still a number of hold outs within the party elite who are concerned about whether Obama has the ability to pick a fight.

    I think Bradley on MTP signalled what's coming, (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by jawbone on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:09:35 PM EST
    as well. Along with "rules are rules" and FL's voters don't count, he was heavy on the need for transparency and a tell all from Hillary. With Timmeh's help in questioning of course.

    Bradley was especially concerned about the effect of large donations to Bill Clinton's libary and to his AIDS foundation. Bcz the big donors might demand favors and clemency and who knows what all! But, when asked, he said he had no evidence, but there was a need to know...about possibilities.

    The MCM has begun to retill the grounds for saying Clinton is "untrustworthy," a line which they used to great effect against Al Gore. And they luuuuuuv to use it against any Dem nominee, so Sen. Obama ought to pay attention.

    Notice the "digging" into whether or not her claims about foreign policy experience were "true." Somehow Andrea Mitchell only heard about Trimble's dismissive comment on Hillary and the Northern Ireland peace process.  There were other comments by people who were there who supported Hillary, but none were "found" or reported by NBC. Even though Jamie Rubin read one from John Hume on Tucker's program!

    Can't recall who they dug up to deny her diplomatic work in Macedonia (oh, yeah, Sinbad?)), but there was a comment from a Macedonian (?) diplomat supporting her on NPR. But this did not show up on the MCM broadcast news.

    Then they found Orrin Hatch and unnamed senate aides to say she was lying about her work on SCHIP. Hatchet Man Hatch! Just ask Anita Hill about his willingness to slime women.

    So, the MCM is laying out the case for calling Hillary "untrustworthy," a serial exaggerator, a liar. It undermined Al Gore and it's certainly good enought for a second go round. It's what they do!

    so who cares what bradley thinks? i don't. (none / 0) (#185)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:03:22 PM EST
    sure i know this is supposed to signal some big dem push. yeah right! like telecom and getting the best of bush? no thanks, i'll go back to my trashy novel now.

    Parent
    Bradley on MTM (none / 0) (#191)
    by JerseyBeth on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:51:52 PM EST
    To me Bradley looked more tired and wooden than usual.  Not like a guy excited about his candidate and his chances.

    Parent
    Jane Hamsher has (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by AdrianLesher on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:22:56 PM EST
    a good piece on the identity politics in this election:

    70s Nostalgia? Hmmm....Maybe Not

    I've been struggling with how to write about the Geraldine Ferraro and Reverend Wright incidents. They both involve difficult and complex issues that aren't always going to be fairly explored by people viewing race and gender solely through a lens of candidate advocacy, and that makes the climate for discussing them difficult.

    I was very impressed with what Obama had to say on that front:

        Obama: I do think there is an overlap in the sense that there is a generational shift that is taking place and has constantly taken pace in our society. And Rev. Wright is somebody who came of age in the 60s. And so like a lot of African-American men of fierce intelligence coming up in the '60s he has a lot of the language and the memories and the baggage of those times. And I represent a different generation with just a different set of life experiences, and so see race relations in just a different set of terms than he does, as does Otis Moss, who is slightly younger than me. And so the question then for me becomes what's my relationship to that past?

        You know, I can completely just disown it and say I don't understand it, but I do understand it. I understand the context with which he developed his views but also can still reject unequivocally. . .

        Tribune: You reject his views, you won't reject the man. Is that it?

        Obama: Yeah, exactly. And this is where the connection comes in. I mean, I do think that Geraldine Ferraro, the lens through which she looks at race, is different. . . . She's grown up in different times. The Queens that she grew up in is, I'm sure, a different place than it was then. Just as Chicago is a different place than it was then.

    Obama casts Wright and Ferraro as people whose evolution and politics have root in a different time. He shows both vision and leadership in this analysis. And those who would rather take the discussion into "candidate surrogate gotcha" are, I think, doing so at all our peril.

    I watch the TV these days and I see that the image of the Democratic party is quickly morphing from the party of economic justice or the party that will get us out of Iraq into the party that wants to return to the identity politics wars of the 70s. Because the Democrats have largely sat back and been content to watch the Republicans self-destruct rather than step out in a leadership position on issues that could have positively defined them, they're vulnerable to being cast thusly. It's a big turn-off to most Americans that shrewd GOP political operatives and cooperative media have been quick to seize upon.

    Talking about race and gender is important. Finding a way to do so responsibly, with appropriate context -- and not simply as a way to tear each other down -- is equally important. A failure to do so may find us looking at a resurgent GOP this fall no matter who the Democratic nominee is.

    And at that point, we all lose.



    Adrian (none / 0) (#161)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:41:45 PM EST
    Control yourself or you will be suspended. No more accusing the Clinton of race baiting. PERIOD.

    Parent
    OBAMA WILL BE CHEERED OF COURSE (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by BigB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:30:21 PM EST
    BTD,

    The answer to your question is simple. The media and the Obama-loving blogs would cheer him on. We know the 'Obama rules' in the media already, don't we?

    If Clinton attcks, it is negative. If Obama attacks, he is just responding, of course, to a chorus of cheers.

    Your larger point is valid. Is this the strategy of a winning campaign? No!

    This is a campaign that tried to run out the clock in Ohio and Texas and it didn't work.

    Now they think they can attack Hillary to nomination. There is a problem here: (a) Over the last three months people have to come to believe that the media has been very unfair to Hillary and favorable to Obama and (b) people have heard far worse things about Hillary from the media over the last fifteen years and are fairly inured to it.

    Issues like tax returns, library records, travel schedules etc. are things that turn on the media but not working-class voters in places like Scranton and South Philadelphia. Economy is the number one issue on their minds now. On a visceral level the anti-american rhetoric of Obama's apstor matters more.

    Not a productive strategy on the part of Obama. I want them to pursue it.

    Obama's Own Hardball Tactics (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Tacitus Voltaire on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:09:37 PM EST
    ... have not had their Topic-Of-The-Day airing in the media, and they will. I am thinking particularly of what I first heard mentioned in the MSNBC documentary on him - the way he won his state senate seat by hiring a lawyer to challenge everybody else's ballot petitions and get their candidacies thrown out so that he ran virtually unopposed. This included the ballot petition of a very nice woman who had held the seat honorably for a while:

    He was just 35 when in 1996 he won his first bid for political office. Even many of his staunchest supporters, such as Black, still resent the strong-arm tactics Obama employed to win his seat in the Illinois Legislature.

    Obama hired fellow Harvard Law alum and election law expert Thomas Johnson to challenge the nominating petitions of four other candidates, including the popular incumbent, Alice Palmer, a liberal activist who had held the seat for several years, according to an April 2007 Chicago Tribune report.

    Obama found enough flaws in the petition sheets--to appear on the ballot, candidates needed 757 signatures from registered voters living within the district--to knock off all the other Democratic contenders. He won the seat unopposed.

    Now, that's hardball politics! I think it throws the complaints about Hillary's hardball tactics into a new light.

    The fact is we are still very early in this election season, and, it appears, we have a ways to go in the primary season. The "discovery" process for our candidates is not yet finished. I apologize for posting an article by somebody who is clearly angry at Barack, but if you want to know where and how the attacks are going to surface about him, you can get a heads up here:

    http://wweek.com/editorial/3418/10516/

    "Fasten your seatbelts - it's gonna be a bumpy ride!"

    There comes a time (1.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:05:12 PM EST
    when it becomes obvious that supporters of candidates are simply talking to themselves to reassure themselves.

    Would that be you and me? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:10:25 PM EST
    I think Obama will be the nominee. I am prepared to wait for the votes. How about you?

    Parent
    Is it because you believe that Obama is the better (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:45:39 PM EST
    candidate to win the GE? Or is it because you believe that he will make the best President? I see a weakness in him that says he is a follower and not a leader mostly by his past actions. I think he could possibly win the GE because he is younger and newer. But he could possibly lose because he is starting to carry baggage. I think the women's vote could carry Hillary. I was for Edwards but like Hillary now. In fact, I use to think of her in those MSM defined sound bites as being cold and too mean. I have changed my mind and started warming up to her a few months ago. Then I could see the attributes. I know others who feel the same way. I always liked Obama but now see that maybe all his warmth and niceness might not be all that we see. I don't see him as much a flip flopper as much as I see him taking the road most taken.

    Parent
    I've written on this often (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:51:40 PM EST
    Not to be rude, but could you refer back to my posts on this?

    Parent
    You are so right and written well below too. (none / 0) (#63)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:59:10 PM EST
    I was not trying to be rude, but I think it was more to the fact that I don't think the media will hold true to Obama. They are fickled and do love McCain. Without the media, a candidate have better have a lot to offer other than hope and change. You have been more than fair on the candidates with no blog darling on this site.

    Parent
    PA and MI Victoies Give the Nomination to Clinton (none / 0) (#57)
    by pluege on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:53:51 PM EST
    by superdelegate intervention if necessary.

    Parent
    Hillary will be the nominee (none / 0) (#187)
    by JerseyBeth on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:07:34 PM EST
    I think it will be Hillary.  I hope he steps aside maybe even before Pennsylvania.  I expect  Hillary's poll numbers in Pa will climb and his numbers there and nationwide will fall.   Don't underestimate the effect of Hannity's Stop Obama Express and the Reverend's statements are horrifying to the general population.  At some point Obama and his surrogates will realize even if he is given the nomination in August he has no way of winning in the fall.    

    Hillary may not win against McCain in some part because of the division in the democratic party and fatigue of even her strongest supporters.  I  am a strong Hillary supporter and am sick of this campaign.  I have had to contribute much more time and money than I expected just to keep her in the primary race.     I'm sick of the Clinton /Obama campaign but am determined to see it through.  

    McCain is traveling overseas acting presidential and I have to psyche myself up for another Clinton/Obama debate and pray for no more accusations of racism.     I think Hillary will be the nominee, but not until most activist democrats are broke, fatigued and carry  a grudge against the other half of the party.    I am fearful of McCain in November.

    Parent

    Oh brother (none / 0) (#3)
    by Christopher MN Lib on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:05:58 PM EST
    So here is the real politics of hope I guess: Witchhunt smear tactics on the level of Ken Starr. I don't see how this would end up benefiting him in the end. I think he knows if Hillary wins big in PA, by some 15 to 20 points, it could put his frontrunner status in serious jeopardy if she gains serious momentum from it. Going about it this way just makes it more likely that 15 to 20 point win for Hillary will happen.

    I'll tell you that... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:27:04 PM EST
    ...the Clintons are like sirens on the rocks and Obama is hearing the call to 'attack'...

    Did Axelrod watch while Bill's poll numbers shot up the more desperate Republicans pressed on with impeachment?  This may very well backfire with Obama coming off as petty and Clinton coming off as sympathetic.

    Clinton, if nothing else, has shown an ability to avoid being visibly rattled by Obama attacks.  If she stays cool and Obama's campaign appears to go nuclear, I think he's done.  I can't believe his own campaign doesn't recognize that taking the nuclear option (or kitchen sink it's now called) effectively erases his appeal vs. Clinton.

    Parent

    Well, we can only hope you're right. (none / 0) (#87)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:23:53 PM EST
    Obama clearly sees the writing on the PA wall (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by ricosuave on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:17:24 PM EST
    He has told his supporters that he deserves a 10 point spread in PA.  The attack strategy might be bracing for the predicted change in momentum.  He is clearly not going to sway voters with throw-it-up-and-see-if-it-sticks attacks, but it is red meat for his followers to help keep them on the Obama train after the big loss.

    Remember the "ready to announce 50 superdelegates" from before TX-OH-RI losses.  Those guys, if they were real, decided to hang back.  He is probably looking at bleeding superdelegates if he loses big (or just loses) in PA, if Florida is counted (making the voters impossible to exclude from popular vote counts he likes to tout) and if Michigan revotes.

    He is clearly wounded now (personally, I think he is toast in the general after this last week, but that is for comments in another diary).  If the SD's smell blood and start to waver then he will look like that one sad antelope who gets left behind the pack on the animal channel.

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#6)
    by Miss Devore on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:10:30 PM EST
    if Hillary, as she says, is so "proud" about her earmarks, why won't she disclose? Guess she is too modest.After all, her big flaw is caring too much about the american people.

    and asking for transparency in a candidate--how is that "going negative?"

    I think Hillary is putting off disclosure and hoping for a big PA win, and getting her way with FL & MI before disclosure could have an effect.

    I doubt she is all that proud of them (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:13:11 PM EST
    She is dissembling I assume.

    She is a pol. Do you accept that Obama is one too?

    Parent

    yep (none / 0) (#23)
    by Miss Devore on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:24:19 PM EST
    Marisacat had a good link to a Chicago reporter who knew Obama from way back when.



    Parent

    Good for M-Cat (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:29:17 PM EST
    They're out there... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:29:32 PM EST
    Taxpayers for Common Sense

    Has a 4.0MB pivot table with every earmark and its sponsor for the current Congress - including Clinton's.

    Parent

    So what is the problem? (none / 0) (#37)
    by themomcat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:34:40 PM EST
    And I'll bet there is also a table for the previous sessions with every earmark and sponsor.

    Parent
    The issue is (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:38:44 PM EST
    earmarks that did NOT make it into legislation were not publicly disclosed.  In other words, Hillary is being criticized for failing to identify her failed attempts at earmarking.  The successful attempts are public knowledge because they are now law.

    Parent
    And has Obama (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by themomcat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:46:32 PM EST
    disclosed all of his earmarks that never made it into law? I am sure there are ways to find those records if they really wanted them. This is just more smoke and mirrors that will end up backfiring on Obama if he gets the nomination. He is more vulnerable to these types of attacks in the GE than Sen. Clinton.

    Parent
    Really... (none / 0) (#55)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:52:59 PM EST
    ...it's all irrelevant and boils down to political maneuvering.  Obama could choose to release copies of his cable bill and demand that Hillary be more transparent.  Why anyone cares about this, I have no idea.

    Parent
    I don't disagree with you (none / 0) (#67)
    by themomcat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:01:45 PM EST
    there. It seems like a distraction from the debate about the real issues..the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, foreign policy, etc.

    Parent
    No Kidding (none / 0) (#122)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:57:34 PM EST
    The only people who care about this stuff are a small minority. Low information voters (the majority) don't know what earmarks are, much less care about them.

    Parent
    Please (none / 0) (#10)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:14:00 PM EST
    Claiming that "what is Hillary trying to hide???" is not a negative attack because it's just "asking for transparency" would not even pass muster in the spin room.

    Parent
    Obama supporters are promoting (none / 0) (#81)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:19:40 PM EST
    the "Hillary is secretive" meme to bash her character.


    Parent
    They are welcome to (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:29:23 PM EST
    It's politics, after all.

    But please don't insult my intelligence by telling me that rummaging through someone's income tax returns for dirt isn't "going negative"!

    Parent

    It's the politics of hope! (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by ricosuave on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:21:04 PM EST
    The politics of hope is "I hope I find something in your financials--but only after I spent weeks poring over mine to make sure they were clean!"

    Parent
    or said months ago - (none / 0) (#175)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:33:46 PM EST
    "I didn't keep Illinois Senate records" - but you'd better produce your records.

    Parent
    or said months ago - (none / 0) (#176)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:33:47 PM EST
    "I didn't keep Illinois Senate records" - but you'd better produce your records.

    Parent
    Obama Can't Defend Himself? (none / 0) (#11)
    by AdrianLesher on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:15:02 PM EST
    Clinton's team launched the "kitchen sink" strategy in late February and even gave the tactic its name:

    After struggling for months to dent Senator Barack Obama's candidacy, the campaign of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is now unleashing what one Clinton aide called a "kitchen sink" fusillade against Mr. Obama, pursuing five lines of attack since Saturday in hopes of stopping his political momentum.

    So it may be clever to throw the term back at Obama, but a leading candidate can be damaged by smear tactics. As we know from Kerry, a failure to fight back is fatal.

    I take it (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:18:59 PM EST
    you are of the best defense is a good offense school?

    If you read my post, you will see that I have no particular objection to this tactic.

    I question why a "shoo in" sees a need to employ it.

    Parent

    Probablyl for the same reason (none / 0) (#30)
    by AdrianLesher on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:30:07 PM EST
    the one who is really ahead because she won the "important states" uses it.

    Clinton's ethics and ties are certainly fair game after she's beaten the Rezko drum so loudly.

    The corporate ties of Penn (including the fact that he is in a position of authority over McCain's top advisor, Charles Black), the Clinton library funding, and the sources of her income and campaign funds are all fair game.

    On the issue of religious ties, she should be prepared to speak up about her connection to Douglas Coe's "Fellowship."

    Parent

    Nonsequitor (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:33:09 PM EST
    When Clinton was the frontrunner, she never went negative.

    If Obama is a shoo in, he has no need whatsoever to go negative.

    Perhaps he is not a shoo in?

    Parent

    Indeed (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:37:12 PM EST
    People completely forget the period when Hillary was all magnanimous and "the important thing is to beat the Republicans" and agreeing to dozens of debates even though she had a huge lead.  Meanwhile the other campaigns were replete with attacks on her honesty and integrity.

    This was simply smart politics all around, of course, but this period has been forgotten because it fits the narrative of Clinton's "gutter campaign" and Obama's "relentless attempts to stay positive"  not a whit.

    Parent

    OF course (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:49:34 PM EST
    That is what makes this development interesting to me, Obama is ahead. Why do this?

    Parent
    I do not know (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:57:55 PM EST
    This relates back to my comment that the Midas Touch does not derive from any particular genius at running a campaign, but is merely a byproduct of favorable media treatment.  I can't explain the thinking either.

    Frankly, I thought the "Ken Starr" remark was rather on point, although obviously harsh.  And I thought the subtext was that Hillary will not take this stuff lying down, she will not allow herself to be raked over the coals for secrecy while Obama just stands there innocently.  They didn't take the warning to back off; I guess that means we get to see if they know what they're doing.

    Parent

    My thought... (none / 0) (#64)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:59:34 PM EST
    ...for the Obama campaign this race is personal and it's not enough to win but they've got to be viewed as having the moral high ground.

    As I said before, that's the siren call of the Clintons.  Come bash us some more and make yourself look petty.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:04:09 PM EST
    speaking for myself only, I would be 110% okay with Obama as the nominee if he had simply gone ahead and won the nomination, without feeling the need to portray the Clintons as racists along the way.  It makes it really hard for me.

    Parent
    Same here (none / 0) (#73)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:08:15 PM EST
    He's no longer electable from that standpoint.


    Parent
    Me too (none / 0) (#196)
    by Rainsong on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:56:34 PM EST
    I had no problem with him until he played the race card against Clinton. Was the first deal-breaker for me, but not the last, he keeps piling up negatives.

    Parent
    Is it possible (none / 0) (#153)
    by independent voter on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:30:49 PM EST
    That he wants all his dirt out now (long before the GE gets going) and really has no plans to go negative on Clinton?
    It doesn't seem to me that there is any evidence he is going after Clinton, it is just an assumption by the author.

    Parent
    Makes no sense... (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:44:02 PM EST
    ...dirt doesn't necessarily go away just because the news cycle has passed.  He runs the risk of irreparably damaging his reputation and image.

    I think there's a tendency to view all of this as a day-to-day strategy rather than realize - at least for Obama - his political identity is being formed at this very moment.

    Parent

    So you don't believe the (none / 0) (#166)
    by independent voter on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:01:05 PM EST
    republicans would be able to come up with all of these things. I find Obama to be extremely intelligent....what if he wants to control the conversation rather than reacting to it?

    Parent
    I'm not following... (none / 0) (#181)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:49:57 PM EST
    ...of course Republicans could come up with it - where did I say they wouldn't?

    Certainly there's some advantage to getting out in front of the news and having first mover advantage... but, as I said, simply putting it out there now doesn't mean it has no impact on voters 6 months from now.

    Parent

    When was that? (none / 0) (#83)
    by AdrianLesher on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:20:04 PM EST
    Before the primaries when she was so far ahead in the polls that Obama appeared to be no threat at all?

    The Martin Luther King remarks, the "Fairy Tale" remarks, and "false hope" remarks all hit the ground in mid-January, right after the New Hampshire primary. Bob Johnson's drug dealer remarks arose at about the same time. It was also on January 21 in the South Carolina debate where Clinton made her remarks about Obama representing "slumlord" Rezko.

    Parent

    You know, Rezko was a slum lord. (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:23:22 PM EST
    And the King remarks and fairy tale remarks were absolutley correct.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:27:43 PM EST
    Before New Hampshire, before Iowa, during the period when she was taking the high ground and all the others were attacking her as a dishonest, disingenuous politician who plants questions at her rallies and tries to occupy both sides of every issue.

    Rather amazing, btw, that you classify the MLK flap as a negative attack BY Clinton.

    Parent

    This has been gone over so many times that (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by derridog on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:35:16 PM EST
    it hardly bears repeating, but speaking as a person who was alive then and somewhat of a sentient being, Hillary's statement that it took Lyndon Johnson (in a position of political power) to realize King's dream was absolutely true and not the slightest bit racist.  Clinton said that it was a "fairy tale" that Obama voted against anything having to do with the war in Iraq once he became a senator and, that, in fact, he had voted identically to Hillary.  This is also a statement of fact.   Rezko IS a slumlord and is currently on trial for money-laundering, fraud and bribery.  Obama acknowledges that he took 250,000 from this guy, who also helped him buy his house after he was being investigated by the Feds.  Obama claims he did nothing wrong, but we only have his word for it. Read some of the testimony of the trial that is going on right now and see if you find this possibility convincing.  Chicago politics is notoriously corrupt and many people  that Obama associated with, including the Governor, are implicated in this.

    Before you parrot the conventional wisdom and slogans that you hear on MSNBC, do a little research, for heaven's sake.

    Parent

    If Obama (none / 0) (#31)
    by digdugboy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:30:55 PM EST
    can close the gap in PA or, though odds are long, take the state, it's over. It makes sense to try to end this as soon as possible.

    Parent
    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:32:17 PM EST
    Why invite more negative campaigning?

    As you say, it is unlikely that Obama can finish this in PA, so why open the door to the negative campaigning?

    Parent

    The door is already opened (none / 0) (#44)
    by digdugboy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:41:39 PM EST
    with Clinton's kitchen sink strategy. Clinton doesn't seem to need any invitation. She's desperate.

    Let's say that Obama manages to pull within a few points of Clinton in PA, close enough so that the delegate apportionment is nearly equal, as is the popular vote. What victory narrative is left for Clinton after that? I don't see one. I think the pressure will mount from all sides for her to concede.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:48:36 PM EST
    Clinton went negative, as you say, because she is behind.

    When she was the frontrunner, she did not.

    Indeed, I feel confident that of she was in Obama's position she would not be going negative.

    As I think it through, I think this is a mistake by Obama.

    Parent

    I now think it is a conscious effort by Obama (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by herb the verb on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:04:58 PM EST
    to completely marginalize the Clinton's and their entire faction within the Dem party.

    The more I think about this the more I realize this is basically him feeding Hillary a poison pill for VP consideration. Plus in the GE he can run against the Clinton presidency to try to win his beloved independent and Republican vote, working into McCain's "reasonable" base.

    I don't think it will work and believe it will backfire.

    Parent

    I Would Prefer Clinton Not To Be The (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:10:36 PM EST
    VP candidate if Obama is the nominee.

    Anything that goes wrong will be blamed on her. Let him sink or swim on his own.

    Parent

    yup, after he loses, she can come (none / 0) (#188)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 05:10:58 PM EST
    back in 4 years.

    Parent
    That's what I was looking for! (none / 0) (#199)
    by Melchizedek on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:23:01 PM EST
    Adieu, fellow travelers. I wanted to see how many threads I would have to read (3) before this sentiment revealed itself.

    Have fun cheering for McCain and planning for 2012. You've been a lot of fun to read. And very enlightening.

    Parent

    yeah, well! cheers to you too. (none / 0) (#200)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:59:15 PM EST
    the road is waiting for the weary traveler.

    Parent
    Bingo (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:23:24 PM EST
    As I think it through, I think this is a mistake by Obama.

    This is my answer to the question BTD doesn't quite seem to be getting addressed here:  The Obama campaign is in a bubble--coddled by the American media, empowered by the tens of thousands of supporters who come to their rallies, celebrated as the second coming.  In the narrow, incestuous world in which they live, Obama is king and Clinton is "monster."  She has taken on a sort of evil, ethereal form that they must not just defeat, but destroy.  She is the direct challenge to Obama taking the rightful crown, and by staying in the race, by continuing to deny him his rightful victory, she is the literal thorn in the savior's side.

    All campaigns, to some degree, travel in these bubbles.  I think every misstep Clinton has made has been because she's been too "handled" by her people, or gone against her instinct because her groupthink has impeded the process.  But, now I think that Obama's folks are so out of touch (and one only need to check Kos or HuffPo to see that it's catching) that they cannot see a clear path to the nomination without vanquishing Clinton.

    It's easy for people outside the bubble to see this, but from inside, there is only us against them.

    Parent

    Looks more like some frat boys (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:43:53 PM EST
    playing Dumgeons and Dragons than a real presidential campaign.  At least it looks that way to me, for supporters at least.  If this winds up winning a nomination, let alone a general election, I may have to give up on democracy in America.

    Time to retire in Latin America.

    Parent

    It is a mistake (4.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Coral on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:20:45 PM EST
    I don't think it helps him in the primaries...or hurts that much.

    Where it really hurts, is in the GE. He seems intent upon alienating Clinton supporters, which will backfire in November. I will vote for him, because he's the Democrat, but I won't campaign for him, and if he's attacked, I won't feel obliged to rise to his defense.

    I don't know why he wants to alienate so many core Democrats.

    Parent

    Time will tell if it's a mistake (none / 0) (#58)
    by digdugboy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:54:23 PM EST
    But I really am curious. Can you imagine a victory narrative for Clinton if PA is a wash or close to it? Don't you think that the walls close in on her in that case?

    Parent
    I don't see a Penna victory (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:19:05 PM EST
    I see a Clinton victory bigger than Ohio. But what do I know, I just live here. And if by some chance I had my eyes closed and he does win, then he will show that he can take a big blue state which is necessary in the GE. Otherwise, winning primaries in red states will get you squat in the GE. IMHO of course.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#100)
    by smott on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:41:56 PM EST
    ...I'm from Pittsburgh and I think she wins just about every part of the state except Philly. Not sure it will be huge ie 19% but I think double digits. BO has to spin that a 10% loss or better is a victory for him.

    I'd really hate to be a super, honestly.  We're likely to arrive in August with BO ahead in delegates but HRC very close in popular, having handed him his -ss in every swing. He can win the GE by flipping some red states, but probably not by holding the swings. She can win the GE by holding tranditional dem strongholds plus swings. Her negs are high but somewhat stable. His negs apparently are still unknown....

    I'd really hate to have to make the decision.


    Parent

    I grew up in Grove City (none / 0) (#103)
    by JJE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:45:09 PM EST
    and I think she'll win by 8-10.

    Parent
    Folks should realize (none / 0) (#108)
    by JJE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:50:44 PM EST
    that primary success in a particular state has little bearing on GE success in that state.

    Parent
    Winning North Dakota does? (none / 0) (#114)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:53:54 PM EST
    It sure doesn't. Thank you (none / 0) (#125)
    by JJE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:03:13 PM EST
    For illustrating my point.  I'm glad you see the logic here and won't be touting wins by either Obama or Clinton in particular primary states as evidence of their ability to win them in the general against a different opponent.

    Parent
    Count on it (none / 0) (#135)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:12:03 PM EST
    Feel free.

    Parent
    I think here it would (none / 0) (#157)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:37:45 PM EST
    Penna people are anti Iraq. They want us to get out of there. I hear that from Republicans all the time too. So if the base comes out with Hillary, it stays blue. And I think the base will come out and the Republican women who are anti war also in the GE. From what I have heard in discussions with other Democrats, they would not vote for McCain, but they would just not bother voting if the candidate is not Hillary. They might change their mind by November, but as of now, that is the general feeling. Thus, your base would be eroded somewhat.

    Parent
    That's impossible (none / 0) (#111)
    by zzyzx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:51:54 PM EST
    WI, MN, IA, CO, MO and VA are swings this year.  Obama has won those.  NV and NM are also swings and Obama lost them narrowly.  It's only if you want to spend the entire election focused on 3 states (OH, PA, FL), that you could say she, "handed him his -ss in every swing."

    Parent
    Umm, no... (none / 0) (#133)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:09:56 PM EST
    The Repubs took MO and VA by 10% in 2004 ...

    Not a chance the Dems will take these this year.

    But the real trouble will be if he can't take OH or MI or PA.

    Fact is, he hasn't demonstrated the ability to win with the DEM base which make up the voters in these latter states.

    (FYI, he is losing handily in the popular vote among "the base," i.e., self-identified DEMs)

    Parent

    There's a chance with Virginia (none / 0) (#163)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:46:18 PM EST
    A small chance perhaps, but a chance. The governor is a Democrat (like Mark Warner before him) Webb is the newest Democratic senator and John Warner is retiring.  Also, the state legislature -- while still Republican-controlled -- has been turning more blue in the last ten years or so.

    The Democratic nominee should not ignore VA in November.

    Parent

    Rev. Wright Will Definitely Not Be (none / 0) (#170)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:15:16 PM EST
    considered an award winning performance in MO. Except for a few Democratic strongholds, MO is a relatively conservative state.

    Parent
    If she doesn't win PA... (none / 0) (#66)
    by DudeE on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:01:43 PM EST
    ...she's done for...

    But that doesn't make Obama any better of a candidate in the general.  He is showing his achilles heel(s) recently...

    Parent

    She'll win Penna (none / 0) (#160)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:40:50 PM EST
    I would put my Golden Retriever up on that bet.

    Parent
    Obama's message(?) is getting stale? (none / 0) (#14)
    by OxyCon on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:17:33 PM EST
    Is that we he stole Robert F. Kennedy's message yesterday?
    And since when has Obama's message been his own?
    He's never had an original idea or speech in his entire life.
    Such "Audacity" of "Hope".

    What is the relationship of (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:21:52 PM EST
    this "new" Obama strategy to McCain's recent comment he fears El Quaida in Iraq may stir up trouble before the GE to try and tip the GE to the Dem.?  (I don't believe McCain has this fear; any uptick in violence in Iraq will benefit McCain big time.)

    Maybe not (none / 0) (#59)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:55:29 PM EST
    I think it brings back the debate on:

     Iraq- big debacle or biggest debacle?

    (to steal from Stephen Colbert)

    Parent

    there's still the argument (none / 0) (#118)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:56:28 PM EST
    that we can't leave because the surge is working and we can't leave because the surge isn't working kind of logic that the main stream media simply parrots.

    So there's absolutely no way to calculate whether an uptick of violence works for McCain.

    For what it's worth, McCain has tied himself to Petreus and it was Petreus' comments this week that were interesting...that nothing has improved within the government in Iraq this past year. That hurts McCain more than anything.

    Parent

    Oxycon (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:34:07 PM EST
    Do not bring disputes from other blogs to our site.

    Your comment has been deleted.

    :( sorry for the trouble (none / 0) (#39)
    by OxyCon on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:38:33 PM EST
    This makes sense (none / 0) (#41)
    by magster on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:39:42 PM EST
    Try to end it instead of waiting for split decision after 15 rounds.

    If he spins it right, he attacks by saying "here's all my stuff, as you can see, I've got to nothing to hide."  Not a word of that is negative, but it implies all it needs to.

    End it where? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:47:20 PM EST
    Pennsylvania? Surely you jest.

    Parent
    With the supers (none / 0) (#65)
    by magster on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:59:43 PM EST
    heh (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:40:07 PM EST
    Maybe an attempt to move the focus off Wright?

    Parent
    Obama doesn't want Clinton as VP (none / 0) (#93)
    by herb the verb on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:30:22 PM EST
    My bet is this is a conscious attempt to damage her so badly he can feel justified in refusing to offer her the VP spot.

    Nancy Pelosi's comments this week tipped the play.

    Try and damage her (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 02:53:14 PM EST
    and risk ticking people off so badly that they'll stay home for all downstream elections (not just the presidency) too!

    The Clintons are NOT unpopular. They've been through the mill and are still standing.  I'm guessing Democrats -- CORE DEMOCRATS, not just Dems for a Day, "progressives," etc. are used to ignoring Clinton smears.

    Parent

    The biggest underestimation (none / 0) (#193)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:25:57 PM EST
    in this whole race has been that very thing: people still love the Clintons.  People like Hillary.  Powers' views reflect it best-remember, she didn't just call Clinton a monster in that interview; she trashed the "duped" Ohio voters for falling for Clinton's ploys.

    Parent
    So what is this (none / 0) (#129)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:07:26 PM EST
    a competition to see who's dirtier?  If the Democratic party is going to win against McCain, who is dirty as a pig in the mud, to basically no one's alarm, we will have to highlight the issues that are of importance to us.  The economy comes to mind.  Being smart enough on Iraq to tell the American people that the surge is NOT working comes to mind.  I think Obama should take that tack.  It might be wiser at this point to try to smear Hillary a little so that her character eclipses his as the Wright issue gets sorted out, but Obama could also show a little focus on the issues.  Fewer rallies, more attention to smaller organizations (teacher's unions, hospitals?), more of that campaign talk - "When I'm president, you'll get what you need to do x, because x is what we need in America."  Old fashioned Dem politics?  
    Obama claims for himself the moral authority to change America, Wright challenges that authority through these statements we are only hearing now.  Obama needs to reclaim his high horse by getting out there and perhaps being less of a 'rock star.'  IMO.

    And who says that (none / 0) (#141)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:18:54 PM EST
    "a full assault on Sen. Hillary Clinton over ethics and transparency" is necessarily going to involve negative campaigning? Where's the "overtly negative" campaign element coming in from in what that story said? What could possibly be negative about calling on your opponent to do the right thing? :)

    Hmm (none / 0) (#158)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:37:47 PM EST
    sounds pretty negative to me. Perhaps you can twist it so it won't be but I find it hard to believe it could not be negative.

    But you march to your own drummer so . . .

    Parent

    As does Obama (none / 0) (#164)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:47:49 PM EST
    in many ways even though he is a pol. But we'll see.

    There's twisting, and then there's simply saying what you have to say, no matter what other people tell you is possible or the way things must be.

    Parent

    It depends on how it's done. (none / 0) (#165)
    by Maggie on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:58:22 PM EST
    Clinton has touted the fact that she's been vetted, so we have nothing to fear in the future.  But her resolute refusal to disclose various documents really calls that into question.  I mean, it's quite peculiar.  Either there's nothing there, in which case reveal it already.  Or there is something there.  Let's give her the benefit of the doubt and say there's nothing there. It still raises the question in my mind of whether she has really learned the lesson of the Clinton years, which was that the refusal to be forthcoming fueled all those fires.  So this issue really does have to come out.

    That said, if Obama does go there, he needs to explain very carefully why this is relevant.  And he needs to then stand back and let Clinton answer however she answers.  What he can't do is start hollering charges from the stump in a let's try this tack and that and that until something sticks.  That was Clinton's kitchen sink strategy -- and if Obama drops to that level he's lost the raison d'etre for his candidacy.  (Of course, I'd be quite surprised if he did.)  

    We'll see what's going on.  I'd like to think that his moves toward transparancey are a response to the fact that people worry about whether he's been sufficiently vetted.  It sets him up to say quite simply that he's disclosed everything, and then gives him an opportunity to remind the questioner that his opponent has not done the same.

    Parent

    Conventional wisdom is wrong (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by tree on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:38:13 PM EST
    It still raises the question in my mind of whether she has really learned the lesson of the Clinton years, which was that the refusal to be forthcoming fueled all those fires.

    I understand this is conventional wisdom, but it appears to me that it was really just another way to blame Clinton for the irresponsibility of the press-a meme manufactured by the press itself.

     No President has been less forthcoming and less transparent than Bush and he has suffered not a whit from the MSM for his refusal. What has been the MSM reaction to this? No firestorm, no interest at all. Boredom, in fact. Snarky opinion pieces about how we really don't care, or have a reason to care about all this stuff.

    But when it comes to the Clintons, no mountain of paper has ever been high enough to keep the MSM from wondering "What are they hiding?"

      I agree with BTD. If the Obama campaign had this in the bag they'd be mending relations with the Dem base now, not looking to find more ways to fracture it. And mending does not involve negative attacks.

    Parent

    Why? For the general. (none / 0) (#149)
    by zzyzx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 03:25:15 PM EST
    Obama has been sitting back since Wisconsin.  What's been happening since then is that he's been deflecting attack after attack after attack.  While it's almost definitely too late for this to change the dynamics for the primary, another 5 weeks (at least) of constant attacks could wound him in the general.

    By attacking, it gives the press something else to talk about.  Instead of the latest scandal that's guaranteed to destroy his candidacy for real this time, they'll discuss Clinton.  If no one is going to talk about the issues, you have to do something.

    Feh (none / 0) (#171)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:24:50 PM EST
    Doesn't show anything. Shows nothing at all. Even a shoo-in has to take the focus off of negative attacks on himself--especially baseless ones like those made by Clinton--and also has to please his supporters who want to see him be assertive.

    These observations seem pretty simple ... (none / 0) (#173)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:28:34 PM EST
    ... so why do I have to make them? I'm smarter than others but not by that much. :)))) I suspect that the prior presumption that Obama is not yet a shoo-in is coloring the interpretation of events. Something to watch out for, that new observations should be evaluated from scratch, uncolored by previous conclusions.

    I personally will believe Obama is a shoo-in when the superdels move en masse to him.

    Parent

    The vapors, the vapors! (none / 0) (#179)
    by Melchizedek on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 04:45:37 PM EST
    Anyone who sits home because of a difference between Obama and Clinton either doesn't understand the politics both support or doesn't actually support those politics. Anyone who thinks either Howard Wolfson or David Axelrod is pure, and the other not, should be forced to do the running man with Karl Rove at McCain's inaugural ball.

    I think of Clinton and Obama in light of Alinsky and Niebuhr-- I see them as politicians whose service should never be taken on faith but forced through effective popular organization. They will both get "stale" unless we hold a flame to their asses. But there is no way I'm going to sit home and pout because the winning campaign has made one comment or another. "Can we get Candidate X to do better things than Candidate Y?" is the real question, and there is no scenario under which I can conceive McCain being Candidate X to either of their Candidate Y's.