Kos asks why the Clinton campaign continues to reinforce the ‘win-at-any-cost’ stereotype.
From my experience, the most common reason Democrats have for supporting Clinton is that she is a fighter, she’s tough, she won’t get swiftboated. People still wonder if Obama has the requisite backbone to go all the way.
It may be a negative stereotype for Clinton, but it’s the only thing I’ve seen work for her.
She’ll still get swiftboated, and become even more shrill than she already is in her own defense.
I think we’ve already seen how positive campaigning trumps negative campaigning.
Btw – did you see what Larry Johnson is spewing? Obama has a “terrorist tie” because one of his $200 dollar donors (I’m not joking) was a former Weatherman? As if Obama personally vets every donation check? Sheesh. I know he’s promoting Clinton, but this is so desperate it’s embarassing. I wish Larry would go back to the Republican party where he belongs.
See for yourself: Obama’s Terrorist Ties
Just ridiculous.
IMO Mr. Johnson’s recent efforts have become more than shrill. While it is still up at No Quarter, go take a look at “F k kos”. I really don’t understand why he is doing this.
Larry Johnson and Paul Krugman are two people I used to respect, but over the past few months I’ve stopped reading them completely. It’s one thing to disagree with another Dem candidate, it’s quite another to lose your objectivity and become a blatant partisan.
I wonder what Mr. Johnson’s ties to unsavory characters are? I wonder if anyone HE knows has set a bomb to coerce anyone’s policies?
A lot of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters must be freaking out (does any use that expression any more?). The meltdown seems irrevocable. Even if she recovers, no matter how, she has lost her poise and her man Bill his veneer of boyish amicability. I remember that once he went to Russia and had a good drinking bout with Jeltsin and the boys. Oh, those were the days! And now we’re where we are today.
Freaking out. Yes. That’s still in-bounds. At least if I’m refereeing early 21st century American colloquialisms.
It’s a toss up which is worse, the Hillary bashing or the Hillary bashors, which is what Larry has become. What is it about Hillary that those who want to smote her and those that want to promote her share the same brand of hate?
If nothing else, it’s her ability to bring hate out in normally interesting, probably socially acceptable people that has me backing away.
HRC has represented my state in the Senate for a number of years now. I fail to see exactly where this myth about her being a fighter has its basis. It’s not like she’s known for taking on upopular causes. That role has been occupied by Senators Feingold and Dodd. Perhaps it’s like the old story about alligators in the NYC sewers, repeat it often enough and it sticks.
well, ever since she had Vince Foster whacked people have been saying mean things about her. You can’t deny that.
waaaaaah!! blow me over with a feather.
She won’t be swift- boated
So there are no new scandals post White House years? OMG. here they come plus the ones we thought were long buried – the made ups and the real ones. And there’ll be plenty from their record to lay at their feet. The VRWC has not gone away. Count on it. Rush, Hannity et al are ready.
Obama addressed this perceived weakness. He’s skinny, and he’s polite but he’ll not accept any swift-boating.
The Rezko connection may be resurrected, again; but Rezko, we now know spread his money to many camps. Also McCain has the Keating 5 skeletons that ended up costing taxxpayers billions – far more detrimental than the so-called Obama-Rezko afair.
Don’t deceive yourself by looking around for something factual that they will try to use against Obama. The comfort you might gain will be illusory.
If Obama is the nominee there will be no less of an effort to obliterate him than if Hillary was the nominee. They will just have to expend a little more effort to get the momentum building. With Hillary, the narrative is built-in. But you can bet they are working feverishly right now in the smoke filled back rooms of wing-nut-land trying to get something to grow in their Swift-Boat petri dishes.
did not say they won’t try. Try they will, I’ve read some.
point is Clinton’s baggage is a wall of hurt not many will want to revisit. With what’s ahead on the economic front – the financial meltdown, failing banks, insurers, mortgage companies etc….blame can be laid at the Clintons’ feet, a record that is vulnerable.
For Hillary it is both defense and attack to say she is a good fighter. The voting public knows what kind of campaign to expect if Hillary is nominated and she wants to show people she can withstand it. The ‘fighter’ image also mitigates her cemented negatives by explaining that these negative aspects of her personality have a necessary function and usefullness. At the same time it creates a potential contrast with an Obama they are trying to paint as not combative enough.
But her message and tactics may make it more difficult for her to address the scandal/charges everyone expects to erupt if she is nominated than it will be for Obama to address whatever is thrown up at him, his family and his campaign.
This is because Obama’s core message is also his primary defense to all the smears that will come his way. The first thing he will say is ‘this is exactly the kind of politics we need to get rid of; this is exactly the kind of beltway garbage we need to change’. Then, if necessary, he addresses the specific issue. The defense requires no long-winded explanation. That gold standard remains unaltered in political campaign communications.
All good points. The moment that Hillary is the nominee you will literally be able to feel the seismic shift as the elusive independents run like hell to the neutral ground, away from the Democratic Party, and the media kick into gear in preparation for their long wished for opportunity to drag out their musty Clinton files, full of all manner of detritus from the glorious bygone days of Clintonism.
The travails of John Kerry will seem tame in comparison.
obama just landed the endorsement of SEIU, which is very likely to have an impact in the upcoming contests in wisconsin, ohio, pennsylvania, rhode island (plus former sen lincoln chafee), and texas:
via bloomberg:
he could wrap this up with a bit of luck.
if it goes all the way to the convention, and a fight over pledged and unpledged delegates, l’m sure this…superdelegates get campaign cash…is going to come into play, and not pleasantly.
The Republicans I work with say they’re going to vote for her because “she’s tough, she won’t take any crap.” (I was shocked.)
So maybe the thing that makes Democrats crazy will play for her in the long run.
They would rather see a white woman in the WH than a black man.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Wow.
I thought it was dumb when I heard women say that people who won’t vote for Clinton because they’re sexist. It’s still dumb on the other side of that coin.
Where were either of them on the recent FISA vote? Absent I do believe. Is avoiding a vote an example of being a good fighter? Obama didn’t win any points from me on that either.
Obama was there, Hillary skipped
Has Hillary ever been considered a positive person? Divide and conquer, win at all costs and take no prisoners..Hillary doesn’t sound like a uniter but a divider..