Notice how Team Clinton has switched bogeymen?

[Armstead]

Not too many weeks ago, John Edwards was as the "angry" negative mudslinging candidate, who uses GOP style tactics against his opponents.

Now Obama is the "angry" negative mudslinging candidate, who uses GOP style tactics against his opponents.

This from the campaign that promised to stay above it all, and concentrate on "Turning Up the Heat" on the GOP.

Sorry but it seems to me like the GOP Playbook is in the hands of Team Clinton.

[natrat]

1. the clinton campaign should hire KKarl-he would fit in nicely with that sleazy crew

[SaveElmer]

12. Looks like Obama already has him locked up...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/dee0a6e8-a109-11dc-9f34-0000779fd2ac,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fdee0a6e8-a109-11dc-9f34-0000779fd2ac.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hillaryhub.com%2F&nclick_check=1

[Cha]

31. Nah, they got the dino sleaze,

mark penn, the joker.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

67. the joker, heh heh. good one.

yeah, a barrel of laughs. he is a piece of work.

[msongs]

2. links? proof this is happening and planned? oooops nt

[havocmom]

4. Links?

:rofl:

Common observations do not come with links. Nice attempt to silence dissent though.

[superkia]

66. Beautifully said and it worked. Poof...their gone!

[Armstead]

19. Listen to Sunday's Face the Nation

During a panel discussion with an Obama campaign leader, the Hillary "bad cop" surrogate Howard Wolfson suddenly dragged out this charge about Obama's leadership fund. It was a deliberate, and needless, beanball.

Just one example.

[maddiejoan]

3. What?

The problem with your premise is it assumes Hillary is on the offensive.

Hillary is just throwing punches back after initial attacks.

Edwards hit her --she hit back harder.

Obama hit her --she hit back harder.

This has ALWAYS been how both Clintons have fought.

[Armstead]

7. My problem is the personalization of it

I don't mind a good tussle over principles and values and messages. That's what politics is about.

My problem is that when other candidates have gone after her on that basis, the Clinton campaign brings out the personal mudbucket, rather than responding on the level of ideas and approach.

[maddiejoan]

10. Then you may wish to tell that to Edwama.

[Cha]

33. They don't have anything..

no levels no approach. Zip. Oh, and we're "hillary haters".

[havocmom]

5. Hope you started your stop watch when you hit Post Message

;)

[Donnachaidh]

9. ...

:rofl: Was thinking the very same thing.

[Armstead]

23. I've got my popcorn out too

[cuke]

6. Notice how Team Obama and Team Edwards have switched their beliefs

Edwards used to be Mr Positive, but when he saw he is losing, he let the hounds out

Obama makes a big deal of Unity and New Politics while practicing the repuke politics that have divided the nation

[Apollo11]

11. Notice how Hillary's supporters here on DU are getting more negative every single day

Thanks for informing me that Barack Obama is "practicing the repuke politics that have divided the nation".

Until I read your post I was under the impression that he was putting forward some positive positions in line with Democratic and progressive principles. I don't know where I got this idea. From his speeches, interviews and public statements maybe?

Your overboard negativity is exactly the kind of level-headed approach that is going to convince a non-committed person like me to seriously consider supporting your candidate. NOT.

[cuke]

29. Notice how Apollo11 is feeling the heat

"I was under the impression that he was putting forward some positive positions in line with Democratic and progressive principles."

Let's see

1) His talk of a SS crisis is right out of the repuke playbook. Why you thnk a SS crisis is a "positive position" is beyond reason

2) His talk of how mandates FORCE people to buy insurance is right out of the repuke playbook. Why you thnk this is a "positive position" is beyond reason

3) He claims the Clinton has been planning to run for pres for many years which comes right out of the repuke playbook. Why you thnk this is a "positive position" is beyond logic

4) He supports merit pay for teachers. This is right out of the repuke playbook. Why you thnk a SS crisis is a "positive position" is beyond logic

5) He has attacked other candidates for being corrupt. Why think this is a "positive position" is beyond logic

6) He sponsored a tour of homophobes. How this is a postive thing is beyond compassion.

[Armstead]

39. Distortions

1)Social Security is an issue. Democrats have often agreed that it needs to be dealt with for its long-term viability. Clinton gave a non-answer to the question that "I'll appoint a commission" and then used a GOP style attack on Obama as a "tsax raiser" merely because he mentioned a minor step of raising the cap somewhat as one possibility.

2)Mandates that force people to buy private insurance do suck. The only way they could work is if they are part of a true not-for-profit system of universal care. Opposition to mandates that force people into private insurance is actually a progressive position.

3)he made an offhand remark that is common knowledge. Do you think it is only Republicans who have noticed that Hillary has long eyed the presidency?

4)Opposition to merit pay is not necessarily a GOP position. There are legitimate concerns from a liberal/progressive point of view about how you determine "merit" and what affect that would have on education.

I can't defend his use of a homophobe on a campaign tour. But IMO any candidate who refuses to support same-sex marriage can be accused of homophobia. They're all equally guilty on that one.

[cuke]

42. Absurd

1) Dems do not often say that there is "SS crisis". Try again.

2) This isn't about YOUR opinion. It's about Obama's position.

If Obama thinks mandates are wrong, then why does Obama's plan have a mandate?

3) Obama lied and you have no defense besides denial. If it's common knowledge, then I'm sure you can provide proof of Obama's claim.

4) Obama SUPPORTS merit pay which is a repuke position.

5) You just called Obama a homophobe. I disagree, but you just said it. And you call that a defense?

"They're all equally guilty on that one."

Umm, no. Only one candidate sponsored a tour of homophobes. Only one candidate paid for the mic that a bunch of homophobes used to spread their hate. No other dem candidate has EVER done such a thing.

Saying "Obama is just as much a homophobe as the others" is NOT a "defense". It's just weak and childish (ie "They did it too"

[Armstead]

50. I was wrong on merit pay

My bad. I confused his position about merit pay with someone else.

(Personally I don't support merit pay. I do support paying all teachers well enough to attract good people, and to have built-in seniority raises to reward their service over time. Rather than merit pay -- which forces them to conform to a mold contrary to the nature of teaching -- I think schools should handle the quality of a teacher on an individual basis, and work with or fire those who are obviously shitty.)

As far as health care mandates go-- frankly I live in Massachusetts and I see how devestating it is to the very people who need help the most, and how it is seen as a needless intrusion by those who already have health coverage.

I agree with Obama's stated position that mandates should not be an initial step in health care reform. The first priority should be to make sure that everyone has access to quality care on a basis that they can afford. Once that's accomplished, if there are gaping holes, it should be addressed as reform advances.

That debate is an example of team Hillary distorting the debate.

Despite what you want to think I am not a blind partisan of any of the candidates yet. am a partisan for a set of beliefs.. I have some problems with Obama and some problems with Edwards. But I do believe both of them represent a necessary change from the entrenched form of politics we've had for over three decades now.

[cuke]

69. You were wrong on all the points

"I agree with Obama's stated position that mandates should not be an initial step in health care reform. "

Since it didn't sink in the first time, I will repeat:

OBAMA'S PLAN HAS A MANDATE!!!

If Obama doesn't like mandates, then why does his plan use a mandate?
If you oppose mandates, how can you support Obama's plan when it includes a mandate?

[hedgehog]

63. What do you think mandates are, suggestions? nt

[cuke]

70. Mandates are something Obama's plan uses while Obama criticizes mandates

He is a hypocrit.

[Armstead]

13. And Hillary is different how?

Edwards campaign has always been based on running against business-as-usual. His basic message is going after the systemic problem of entrenched interests in power.

Hillary could have fought back on a meaningful level. However she chose to label such criticism as "mudslingong out of the GOP playbook." Which, of course, escalates it and takes the basic issue off track.

Likewise with Obama. Obama used very mild critiques and his proposals are hardly radical. But when he says he raising the Social Security cap is one possibility, maybe, that he might consider, Team Clinton immediately jumps in and accuses him of planning a multi-billion tax hike....And then she takes an innocuous remark by Obama about her hardly-hidden longtime presidential aspirations and goes back to his kindergarten days to smear him.

If the campaign were about really heated arguments about the most appropriate role and approach to government, then Hillary's fire would be appropriate. But instead, Team Clinton always returns it to personality battles.

[cuke]

34. Yes, Edwards campaigns on changing the system, while his PAC tries to swiftboat Hillary

but there's no switching positions there, huh. Edwards can use the same disreputable tactics the Swiftboaters used, but that's no problem. But if Hillary attacks, that's a problem

And when Obama implies that Clinton has been planning on running for a long time, he definitely is "mudslinging out of the GOP playbook" The repukes have been complaining about Hillary's presidential ambitions since 1991 and you seem happy that Obama has joined them

" Obama used very mild critiques and his proposals are hardly radical. "

Obama's critiques are the ones repukes have used. "SS crisis", "Hillary's ambitious", "merit pay", "mandates force people to buy insurance they don't want" are all repuke memes.

[cuke]

47. And you just contradicted yourself

You started out criticizing Hillary for focusing on petty issues as if she were different than the others. Now, you're saying she is doing the same thing as Edwards

It's only wrong when Hillary does it

[Armstead]

51. No, you're distotring my point

She can defend herself, or attack claims that she is part of the status quo, on the merits without having to accompany them with bits of mud like claiming that anyone who contends the system is not working is automatically engaging in GOP-style "mudslinging."

She can simply say "John Edwards is wrong in his claims that I am part of the status quo...etc."

But no she has to try to bury him in claims that he is "attacking" her because he is raising a valid concern that many people have.

I realize it's subjective, but characterizing an opponent who is critical of the whole system of corporate dominance as being "right out of the GOP playbook" is way over the line (in my subjective opinion, of course).

[cuke]

76. Well, it's a good thing no one is "attacking" her

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3799735

[ChairmanAgnostic]

68. sorry. must have missed that. The tidal wave from hillary's sinking ship

must have obscured it all.

[Adelante]

8. She barely tapped Edwards

It's not the same at all. She's gone easy on Edwards the whole year, in fact. She needs Edwards stronger than weaker in an effort to keep Obama in place.

[Armstead]

16. "mudslinging right out of the GOP playbook" is what she hurled at Edwards

That's when it really hit home to me. In the debate when she piulled that one out in response to a general criticism by Edwards.

Instead of countering Edwards' characterization in a positive way that actuially addressed his criticism -- such as I'll be happy to compared records about standing up for the average American anyday" -- she chose to lower it to a personal attack against Edwards in a very condescending way by referring to it as "mudslinging out of the GOP Playbook."

[Adelante]

21. Edwards attacked her for months before that, though

She gave him a smackdown that one time that I've noticed. She's coddled Edwards.

[Armstead]

22. She was in her former "above it all mode"

Your use of the word "coddling" reflects the condescending attitude of Hillary.

Frankly, I would have rather seen her actually engage Edwards on a substance basis, and respond to the concerns about her own corporate ties and her centrist philosophy.

But instead, she chose to duck any issues while she was following the "I'm the inevitable nominee so I am not going to engage with my little Democratic opponents."

[Adelante]

26. My word usage reflects my own observation

I am not a Clinton supporter, in case you've misperceived something about me. Merely observing the contest and giving my conclusions. While they may differ from yours, they are my own conclusions.

[Armstead]

28. I realize that

I was not trying to imply that you are. My apologies if I seemed to imply that.

However the word does reflect an attitude stemming from the notion that Hillary is somehow larger than the other candidates.

[Adelante]

45. I think it's been the strategy

She has presented herself as larger up to very recently. For most of the year she ran an incumbent's campaign without being an incumbent. In some ways, she was treated that way by both Edwards and Obama, as well. They were targeting a frontrunner, but it reinforced the image she wanted for herself as an incumbent. I started seeing this during the summer or sensing that Obama and Edwards needed to realize they are opponents running against each other and not just Hillary. But I do believe that Hillary has been very, very soft on Edwards in comparison to Obama, and this is because she sees Obama as the challenge. A stable Edwards in Iowa has been a necessity for Obama moving up less than he otherwise would have, I believe, and is what works best for Clinton, so she hasn't wanted to weaken Edwards.

[Armstead]

52. Okay when ou put it that way I can see your point

[glowing]

14. And all the while one more person loses a job, a house, healthcare, or

a child to a shitty healthcare plan.. another soldier dies another is burned into an unrecognizable human being... When all this starts about who said she said and politics, sometimes I want to puke. I love politics and plan to run someday.. but I hate the value it loses... the real context of the reason they are supposed to be there.

[Evergreen Emerald]

15. It was Dodd who said Edwards was angry...and he got the message

he stopped the attacks after the Nevada debate.

Love the way you continually re-write history.

[Armstead]

17. It was Hillary who said he was a GOP style mudslinger in the debate

That's not rewriting history.

[SaveElmer]

18. In your effort to trash Hillary you have inadvertently exposed a truth...

That the Clinton campaign and Clinton supporters have been making...

That is, Hillary is simply responding to attacks made on her...

First it was Edwards, and now Obama...

Thanks for reconfirming for everyone what we know to be true...Obama and Edwards have decided they cannot catch Hillary on the issues, on their record, or by elevating themselves...so they have decided to use the tried and true methods of the right wing media and the Republicans - try and drag her down....

Looks like that memo to Obama from Karl Rove was unnecessary as he had adopted Rovian tactics already...

[Armstead]

20. No she is not responding to the "attacks"

She could have answered Edwards in many pro-active and constructive ways, by actually talking about her positions regarding corporate power, and addressing the (widespread) concerns about her own ties to Wall St.

Edwards raised a legitimate issue in that, which ties into his overall message that we need to shake up the entrenched interests that have taken over the government for 30 years.

But instead of actually dealing with the substance of Edwards criticism, Hillary immediately chose to characterize it as a "personal attack."

Same with Obama. Her campaign has chosen to accelerate the personal aspects of it rather than actually addressing the issues in any substantial way.

What's the common denominator between Edwards and Obama? Both are being characterized by Hillary as engaging in "negative personal attacks" simply for being her opponents and making contrasts with her.

That is truly Rovian.

[SaveElmer]

24. Ridiculous...

Edwards and Obama lie about her record, call her dishonest, say she does not have the interests of the country at heart, imply a Clinton Presidency would be no better then Bush, and in one case refuse for two days to even say whether they will support her or not if she was the nominee...but you want her to respond like she is reading from a policy white paper...

I know that is how you would like her to respond, so the Rovian attacks from Edwards and Obama can continue without response...

But that ain't gonna happen...

[Armstead]

30. No I would perfer her to respond on the same basis

I would find it much less obnoxious if she were to challenge her opponents on the same basis they challenged her. She doesn't have to pull out a 'white paper' to respond forcefully and actually address the larger concerns her opponents raise.

[cuke]

35. She did respond on the same basis

Obama claimed that she had been planning to run for President for many more years than he has. Hillary responded an pointed out that Obama has been planning the same thing for just as long.

And you think it was OK for Obama to raise the issue, but petty when Clinton does it. She didn't put out a "white paper". It was a statement, something campaigns issue several times a day, but a recognition of the facts is too much to expect when someone is as obsessed with Clinton

[Armstead]

41. I'm not talking about that one -- which was a silly flap over nothing

When I say respond in kind, I mean on the real criticisms that actually have something to do with public policy.

If, for example, she believes Edwards was being unfair in his characterization of her as a status quo corporate candidate, she could respond with her own views of the appropriate relationship between politicians and big money and Wall St.

Frankly, that question is of much more concern to people than Hillary's personality or whether she has always wanted to be president.

[cuke]

46. Hypocritical post

You just gave Obama a pass for his petty attack while complaining that Clinton responds to petty attacks

"When I say respond in kind, I mean on the real criticisms that actually have something to do with public policy."

And of course you ignore how Clinton has criticized Obama for having a health plan that is not universal


"If, for example, she believes Edwards was being unfair in his characterization of her as a status quo corporate candidate, she could respond with her own views of the appropriate relationship between politicians and big money and Wall St. "

Edwards said more than "she is a status quo corporate candidate". He made some of the petty attacks you claim you don't like, but you give Edwards a pass on it just as you gave Obama a pass. Did you know that Edwards has now jumped into the "Kindergarten" issue. But don't worry, I won't expect you to criticize Edwards for focusing on a petty issue

"Frankly, that question is of much more concern to people than Hillary's personality or whether she has always wanted to be president."

And so you'll criticize her for talking about the kindergarten issue, while giving both Edwards and Obama when they talk about it.

[Armstead]

54. If Edwards truly jumped on that I won;t like it either

You seem to deliberatly miss my point.

I do not claim that Edwards or Obama are flawless. I have on other threads criticized Edwards and Obama, when I thought it was warranted. For example, I posted a thread criticizing Edwards' use of mandates in his health plan.

In a world of humans, I fully realize that you have to take the bad baggage along with the good. On balance, I prefer either Edwards or Obama over Clinton. I actually like Hillary in a lot of ways, and if she were to concentrate on becoming a really strong Senator, I'd be a lot more supportive of her.

But Hillary and the people behind her are too locked into a way of doing politics and a SYSTEM that is screwing us all over. One part of that is avoiding difficult issues and substituting the politics of substance with a shallow form of celebrity politics and spin.

I believe that if the Democratic Party is to become a truly vital and effective oppositio to the GOP, we have to move away from the type of politics she represents.

[cuke]

71. And again you change your tune

First, the problem was that Hillary was spending time responding about petty issues. Now it's "Hillary and the people behind her are too locked into a way of doing politics and a SYSTEM that is screwing us all over"

And with no evidence to support this claim.

Obama and Edwards have been attacking Clinton over all sorts of petty issues (how long she's been planning to run, etc) but that's not a sign of their being locked into old politics. But if Clinton responsds, you hold it against her.

Obama and Edwards are doing the same things Hillary is doing. They are raising money, getting endorsements, running ads, giving speeches, etc. Both Edwards and Obama have records. Neither one has distinguished themselves on these important issues you see to be so enamored of. From the Iraq War to health care, their records are nearly identical.

[Armstead]

72. You fail to get the point

"Hillary and the people behind her are too locked into a way of doing politics and a SYSTEM that is screwing us all over"

I stand by that statement. And it is not "changing my tune" at all.

Yes, that is my OPINION. It is an opinion formed over many many years of seeing the underlying role and purpose of the Democratic Party changed by the so-called "centrist" strategy of downplaying the differences between liberal and conservative and currying favor and support of Wall St and the interests of corporate America that are directly contrary to those of the majority of the population and the nature of democracy.

Again, that is my OPINION. I have had many reasons for coming to that conclusion. You or anyone else is obviously entitled to disagree. But the point you seem to miss repeatedly is that my criticisms of the Clinton campaign are based on that belief, and are consistent.

But I am not blind to the faults of the other candidates. None of them is perfect, and I have posted criticisms of other candidates, including those I tend to like. I haven't chosen a horse in this race yet.

[cuke]

73. Did you read your own OP? You wrote it

It says nothing about being "locked into a way of doing politics and a SYSTEM that is screwing us"

Please show me where you OP even mentions this. Your OP was about how Clinton "switched" from attacking repukes to attacking her dem opponents.

"But the point you seem to miss repeatedly is that my criticisms of the Clinton campaign are based on that belief, and are consistent. "

Umm, no. Your OP has nothing to do with that belief.

[Armstead]

74. One can't explain one's philosophy of life in every post

You're right, I didn't explain the details in my original post. I was making (an admittedly biased) observation about her campaigns tactics.

The comment you cited above was in response to subsequent posts. It's called a discussion.

[cuke]

75. Your OP has nothing to do with this

You didn't even make any reference to this. Your OP was clear. You're not being very clear here. You're jumping from one thing to another because I have shown how the other candidates have made the SAME EXACT SWITCH

Obama went from his New Politics to the Old Politics. He went from mandates are bad, to mandates are good, using right wing talking point. He's gone from talking about Unity to practicing the division of repeating rightwing talking points and using homophobic bigots to appeal to conservatives

Edwards has switched from Mr Sunshine to Mr Angry. He went from refusing public funding to accepting it, but only because he couldn't raise much money. Edwards has apologized for almost everything he did in the Senate. His positions as a candidate are the opposite of his record.

But Hillary responds to attacks, and you think she is wrong. So you start a thread, and when your slanted view is made clear, you move the goalposts to some nebulous claim about how Clinton is campaigning that is nowhere to be found in the OP you wrote

[Armstead]

79. Whatever

I don't have the time to get into a "last word" argument with you.

[Lucinda]

58. Did you watch the last election?

These kinds of attacks must be responded to. Directly and firmly. No matter who does it. Kerry let them slide last cycle. It was a mistake.

This is nothing compared with what our nominee is going to be hit with.

[SaveElmer]

57. She did...

Challenged their lies and distortions...

[R_M]

25. True. The "memo" from Rove to Obama makes Obama...

look unattractive.

[Cameron27]

27. She didn't start the attacks,

but she's fighting back hard. Good for her.

[Armstead]

32. No, but she misrepresented them

Criticism and a message for calling for fundamental change is not automatically an "attack."

[Cameron27]

36. Calling her bush-lite is an attack,

calling her part of the corruption in Washington is an attack.

[cuke]

38. There is nothing Obama could do to change the OP's opinion

When one is consumed with a Hillary obsession, it's hard to recognize the truth. Hate does that to people.

Undoubtely, the OP will find a reason that explains why it was OK for Obama to say that

[Armstead]

43. Rather than being a Hillary obsession, I am worried about our country's future

My "obsession" about Hillary is a lot less personal than you want to make it.

My opinion is that Hillary epitomizes an approach to politics and governance that has ruined this country.

That is we fiddle while Rome burns. We ignore and allow fundamental and destructive restructuring of policy and the economy to occur to the determent of the majority, and instead we focus on the inane politics of personality.

I think Hillary believes she means well. I would much prefer to be able to like someone like Hillary and enthusiastically support her. But she is too locked into the same matrix of wealth and power that created this mess. She is in bed with the very interest groups that are screwing us.

[cuke]

48. Danger Will Robinson! Danger! Danger!

Object all you want, but there is no doubt that you have given both Edwards and Obama a pass when they bring up petty issues, and blame Hillary when she does it. It's only wrong when Clinton does it.

Both Obama and Edwards have attacked Clinton for planning on the presidency for many years and you have no problem with it. But when CLinton does it "The nation is is danger!!" Just fear mongering, like the repukes who think Hillary is a danger to the nation.

I think you mean well. I would much prefer you weren't blinded to the pettiness that ALL candidates indulge in. But you are too locked into the repuke mindset that she is a part of a vast conspiracy. Even your claim about her being beholden to "interest groups" is straight out of the repuke handbook

[Armstead]

55. Please see my otehr posts in this thread

Since we're both "talking" in a scattershot method in different spots here, some of my otehr replies address the points you raise in this post.

But you just hit a nail on the head that I wish you could get beyond.

>>>But you are too locked into the repuke mindset that she is a part of a vast conspiracy. Even your claim about her being beholden to "interest groups" is straight out of the repuke handbook<<<

That characterization is one fo the fundamantal problems with the "message" represented by Hillary and the DLC and supposed "centrists."

It is not a matter of a "vast conspiracy straight out of the republican playbook."

Nothing could be further from the truth, for many, many reasons.

It is not some vast conspiracy. It is simply a matter of being stuck in a mess that the approach that Clinton represents helped to create and perpetuate. The GOP created it. But instead of offering a vital opposition, the Clinton/DLC/Centrist approach has made it worse over the years.

If you want a more thorough explanation of that, I'll be happy to explain in more detail. It's worth threads on its own.

[Stephanie]

60. Well said. That's exactly right.

It's not personal. I don't like her DLC affiliation, her equivocation, her trangulation. This election is between the Democratic populists, and the DLC corporatists, and it's key to our future.

[cuke]

37. No, but you have misrepresented Clinton

You said she put out a "white paper" on the issue. You said that she wasn't responding to attacks from others.

And you haven't acknowledged how wrong you have been on the facts. Opinions are one thing, but you can't have your own facts

[CyberPieHole]

40. Obama gave us "Politics Of HOPE". Well, at least he said he would. n/t

[cuke]

49. And the OP has nothing to say about that switcheroo

and I'm sure the OP thinks that empty political rhetoric something more than "petty". I'm guessing the OP doesn't realize that Clinton was elected on a campaign that emphasized a New Democrat who was going to pursue the "new politics" of a Third Way

[Armstead]

53. The OP remembers that

The OP also remembers that Clinton combined that with a surface of liberal populist rhetoric that made it sound palatable.

The OP also remembers how the Third Way basically failed to deliver and made the fundamental system problems that existed the early 90's much worse.

Bush 2 could not have wrecked the country so thoroughly if the "third way" had not prepared for him by allowing and encouraging further corporate dominance and consolidation of wealth and power and by taking all the teeth out of the notion of the Democratic Party as a liberal opposition to GOP Corporate policies and message.

[blm]

44. This is what TeamClinton was saving that dry powder for all these years they wouldn't attack Bush

and the WH - guess they thought Bush didn't do anything as egregious as Edwards getting a haircut and Obama writing an essay about being president when he was a child.

[Hieronymus]

56. You're so right, and her popularity is suffering because of the silly

behavior.
52% believe Hillary to be ego driven. 9% think that about Edwards.

[applegrove]

59. I think the GOP has been causing dissent between Obama and Clinton.

I would guess the dirty trick calls of today were done by some GOP source..not Obama's camp. How hard is it to call up a Hillary supporter and say "I'm calling from Obama's camp don't vote for Hillary". It could be anyone.

[Adelante]

62. That's right, applegrove

It makes far more sense.

[Occam Bandage]

61. Could we stop pretending that the notion of attacking your opponent is

somehow Republican in nature? They didn't invent the dirty campaign. They may have raised it to new highs recently, but we've not seen anything to approach SBVT or Max Cleland. Neither Obama nor Edwards nor Clinton have engaged in "GOP-style" tactics. When Obama or Clinton or Edwards start railing against "illegals" and claiming their opponents are "traitors" and "weak on terror," then yeah, I'll say they're using GOP tactics.

Now, Obama and Clinton and Edwards are all using negative tactics, and are all fighting dirty. They're going into the most brutal stretch of the primary campaign. I'd be shocked if anyone wasn't using negative tactics, to tell the truth. Those that don't draw sharp distinctions between themselves and their opponents end up losing. It's unfortunate, but voters keep responding to it.

Clinton attacked Edwards a few weeks back because Edwards was bashing Clinton, and she thought his attacks might resonate with Iowa voters. She's been attacking Obama recently because she's worried Obama is going to win. While it's a sign of weakness in her campaign, I don't think that's despicable.

[hedgehog]

64. I think we also need to seperate attacks on policy from attacks

on the person. Also, the attack should have some basis in fact or it should be labelled opinion.


For example: Obama's plan leaves 15 million people without coverage.

Not exactly true in that it implies that somehow 15 million people are outside the brackets (people are too rich to qualify but still in need)

What if the statement had been:
I believe that Obama's plan would allow 15 million people to opt out and go uninsured.

That's a fair statement and opens the door for the explanation of the need for mandates.


I happen to think Obama has a better plan, but I wanted to illustrate the difference between a fair fight and one that is at least a little muddy.

[Occam Bandage]

65. True as well. This recent business about "who wanted to be President when"

is the kind of personal attack that doesn't serve us in the long term. OTOH, an attack stating "My opponent's health care plan would leave XX million in the cold," or "My opponent's health care plan is a giveaway to big business," helps us, I think.

[Kucinich4America]

77. Hmmm... this seems like a good thread to just pull up a chair and watch

....the media-approved candidates supporters cage match

:popcorn: :beer:

[antigop]

78. Yes, Armstead. I noticed that. n/t