From Cheryl Flores of Wyoming, a caucus goer in that state yesterday as to why she supports Obama rather than Clinton:
“[B]ecause his campaign was more organized, he didn’t have as many negative attacks and he wants to get the troops out of Iraq as soon as possible.”
I think it was very telling that out West, at least (and as a former long time resident of Colorado I know a little bit of the mindset of the people who live out there) it seems that the negative “3:00 am” ads didn’t impress very many voters yesterday. As for negative attacks, well here is a classic one from Rep. Steve King of Iowa, who apparently believes Obama ultimately will be the nominee (either that or he’s a secret Clinton supporter), otherwise why would he say the following regarding the effect of an Obama electoral victory this November:
“The radical Islamists, the al-Qaida … would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they would declare victory in this war on terror,” King said in an interview with the Daily Reporter in Spencer. […]
“His middle name does matter,” King said. “It matters because they read a meaning into that.”
Gotta love those Republicans. No matter how dirty the Democratic primary campaign has seemed to partisans for both Clinton and Obama, rest assured it will be nothing like the relentless fear-mongering and smears the vaunted GOP message machine will roll out (and already is rolling out). How much you want to bet Rep. King was given those talking points about Obama by someone at the RNC?
