Have Clinton's Personal Attacks...Worked?

[Bullet1987]

All you hear about Iowa is how much they don't like personal attacks and want honest campaigning. Everyone pretty much agrees that Hillary Clinton's campaign went negative weeks ago. The Obama-Muslim emails, Shaheen cocaine comments, etc, etc...they've been going after Obama with everything they've got. And for the most part, Obama has tried to stay above the fray. Not stooping to their lows, which would allow Edwards to sneak up.

For whatever reason though, the most recent Iowa polling doesn't show the impact of Clinton's negative campaigning...if there has been any effect at all! If anything, it's showed Clinton regaining some lost ground in Iowa...not losing. Have we overplayed the anti-negative campaigning angle Iowans are supposed to be renowned for? Or is it just the polling? Do polls not take into account negative campaigning and don't factor it in with their overall percentages?

Going by simply what we have though, as much as I hate to admit it...it appears the Clinton attacks have been paying off ESPECIALLY in Iowa. They've thrown the kitchen sink at Obama, and it looks like it's doing some damage. Though, I still think the state itself is up in the air...I don't believe there is a frontrunner at all there. People on DU like to believe Democrats wouldn't be affected by fearmongering and racial inferences with regards to Obama's drug use...but maybe we give Dems too much benefit of the doubt.

[Yuugal]

1. The only poll that counts is Jan 3

All the corporate polling nonsense isn't to be trusted.

[BluegrassDem]

2. The Clintons like to engage in the politics of personal destruction

And for this reason, I'd never vote for her come hell or high water. Their racist, fear-mongering campaign is utterly despicable and not becoming of a progressive Democrat. She can't beat Obama on the issues, so she has to resort to racist e-mails and calling Obama a drug dealer. I hope it doesn't work, but I wouldn't be surprised.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. oh baloney

"She" didn't send any racist e-mails, nor did "she" call Obama a drug dealer. Two low-level people FORWARDED an email - not to the campaign mailing list, not to the general public. They were fired for doing so.

One guy in New Hampshire indelicately raised Obama's past, and HE was fired for it.

This notion that Clinton is personally responsible for everything any of the thousands of people working on her campaign say or do is ridiculous. Her responsibility was met when she fired them.

I honestly don't understand why the Obama camp wants to keep talking about stuff like this. It's not helping him.

[SoxFan]

12. "one guy in New Hampshire"

You make it sound like he was some 21 year old kid in a Korn t-shirt working in the Derry field office.

Bill Shaheen was a co-chair of the national campaign and the chair of the NH campaign. He's the husband of the former governor, and a guy who often acts as the campaign's spokesman with the local press. He's the designated spin doctor in the local political columns (Landrigan, DiStaso, Magazu, etc).

Billy Shaheen is a top player in Clinton's campaign, and any assertion that his remarks were totally off the cuff just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[JackORoses]

21. how can you still deny that this is a campaign strategy? are you that oblivious?

you are wearing Hillarite Blinders...See No Evil

[oasis]

4. I don't recall reading or hearing about any "racist" e-mails. You've got proof I'm sure.

:eyes:

[TheWraith]

6. You didn't hear about one of Clinton's Iowa county coordinators circulating the Obama muslim smear?

Really, really nasty version of the "Obama madrassa" story, which literally came right out and said that Obama was a Muslim Manchurian candidate to destroy America, all Muslims are sworn to destroy the US, etc, all the sort of stuff that you'd expect to hear coming out of the Freepers or the like. Other Clinton campaign staff knew that this person was recirculating this email, but didn't do anything about it for weeks, not until after they got caught doing it. It was all over the blogs first week of December. This touches on it a little, but doesn't get far into the knowledge of the Clinton camp or the incredibly racist content of the email itself.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=257119

[oasis]

7. It's saying he's part of a whacky religion. How is that racist?

[rAVES]

16. He's not a muslim.

[oasis]

18. The poster claims that calling Obama a muslim, is racist. (eom)

[rAVES]

19. Its ignorant.

[Forkboy]

26. Oasis, the racist crowd is exactly the kind of people that are being played to.

Why do you think they would want to compare anyone to a Muslim except to play into the fears and prejudices of a certain segment of our population? It IS racist, and that's the whole reason it's being used by many. Not all, I'm sure, but more than enough that it should trouble all Democrats, not just Obama's supporters. :shrug:

[quickesst]

11. So..

According to Obama supporters, "Their racist, fear-mongering campaign is utterly despicable and not becoming of a progressive Democrat."

If you support Clinton, you are a racist, because you didn't vote for Obama because he is an African-American. Obama supporter logic is amusing at best, and emphasises that their support is based primarily on the fact that Obams is African-American first, and a good presidential prospect second, rather than a good presidential prospect who happens to be Afican-American. Racism, in this case, is a weak, thinly veiled failsafe for Obama supporters. Can't win on the issues? Shut them up in a heartbeat with the race card. May not be true, but it works to play on peoples guilt, and the fear of being cast, although unfairly, as a racist, in the eyes of their fellow progressives. Transparency is not always a flattering trait. Thanks.
quickesst

[JohnnyLib2]

5. Not sure, but she HAS stopped beating her husband.

:evilgrin: :hi:

[Perry Logan]

8. Since the "attacks" are completely imaginary, something else must be burying poor Obama.

[Bitwit1234]

9. Since the lies flies

please list the personal attacks JUST ONCE...JUST ONE DAMN TIME BACK UP THE LIES PLEASE.

[indimuse]

10. NO! HIllary ATTACKS NOT WORKING!Obama has been quietly running a dirty...attacktimeline.com

Obama has been quietly running a dirty...negative.. and hypocritical campaign for months,, from (D-Punjab) to the oppo smears against Edwards.
SO IF YOU think Obama has run a positive campaign.Remember.. Hillary maintained the high road for -months- before finally answering some of the mud.


attacktimeline.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Act_of_2006


Infact he took a direct swipe at John edwards aa few days ago. This swipe was rather unsolicitated personal attack.



I wonder what these Obama supporters might have been thinking when Obama was attacking and disparaging Hillary for months?

[BenDavid]

13. The implication the obama folks would have others believe is

HRC is running a racist campaign against obama. I was wondering how long it would be before that charge was made against HRC. Seems like it is alive and well here in teh DU from most obama supporters. So if you think HRC is a racist then I too must be a racist, and most HRC supporters are as well.

So are any of you obama folks gonna come on out and call me a racist because I do not support obama?

shalom,
Benjamin David

[MethuenProgressive]

14. When will Diva Obama's surrogates stop blaming Clinton for *everything*?

It's gonna be DARK the night of Iowa's caucus - blame Clinton!

[Beacool]

15. Ohhhh, it's now poor little Obama time???

Please, won't you the same people who laughed at Hillary's campaign for saying that the "boys" ganged up on her back in October? Weren't some of you the same people who stated that if she couldn't take it she should get out of the kitchen?

Well, ditto for Obama. The smears that you allege were inflicted on Obama are NOTHING compared to what the Repug machine will do to him in the unlikely event that he becomes our nominee.

[Adelante]

17. Under the radar

Chris Matthews changed the subject, unfortunately. I would have liked to have heard more on this. If this is what Clinton's Iowa canvassers are doing, I hope it backfires strongly. I would feel the same way if a sexist argument were being used by canvassers against Clinton's electability, but that's probably what we can expect if this is where we are. Edwards' "Only I can campaign anywhere in the country" message is both racist and sexist, but it's been put out there all year long and met with little objection.

SHUSTER: Chris, there‘s a lot of stuff that‘s going on under the radar, whether it‘s flyers, whether it‘s push phone calls, whether it‘s radio messages, whether it‘s canvassing operations; there‘s a lot of stuff going on under the radar. I think over the last two weeks—As you know, in tight races, especially with national implications, there is a lot of dirty pool that is played. Whether or not you can trace that back directly to the Clintons or simply their supporters, to say OK, now it‘s crunch time. Now it‘s time to raise the issue of Obama‘s electability because of his race; now it‘s time to raise the question beyond his experience.

Those are things that are being talked about now by some of the canvassers. And whether or not it‘s because they are trained improperly or whether they‘re just doing this on their own, it‘s still an issue and it‘s only going get worse.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342862/

[dailykoff]

20. Well, that's if you believe the ARG polls

flogged on CNN and elsewhere. But what exactly IS the American Research Group? They don't provide much information about themselves:

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

[CyberPieHole]

22. Obama took the "gloves off" first...

October 28 to be precise. Since he was consistently running behind he decided to jab at her and "jab at her some more". And when he did it, it worked too. She dropped in the polls because he went negative. Of course, you would prefer it if only he were allowed to do it, but the game is not played that way. Obama's (patently) obvious negatives are what would make it impossible for him to win in the GE. It is imperative that whatever info is to be found out be done so now, while there is still time to elect a viable candidate. Obama is NOT viable. Not now anyway.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1677121,00.html

[dailykoff]

23. Oh please.

Obama mildly hints that Hillary doesn't have a platform, and Hillary sends out her stooges to accuse him of everything but practicing Santeria. Not the same thing at all.

From your link:

Alluding to Clinton's "Ready to Lead" slogan, he told an audience of about 75 people, "On issues as fundamental as how to protect Social Security, a candidate for President owes it to the American people to tell us where they stand. Because you're not ready to lead if you can't tell us where you're going."

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1677121,00.html

[Evergreen Emerald]

24. no, actually he called her a liar and that she had character issues

he was all out attacking her.

[dailykoff]

25. I missed that.

Wouldn't have a link would you?

[Evergreen Emerald]

27. Here are a couple:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432 /

MR. RUSSERT: You had an exchange with The New York Times. It says here, “In an interview, Obama said Hillary Clinton was deliberately obscuring her positions for political gain. Asked if she had been fully truthful with voters about what she should do as president, Mr. Obama replied, ‘No.’” On which issues has Hillary Clinton not been truthful?

This is one of the times he was questioned about his recent attacks. I cannot find the others.

http://www.attacktimeline.com/ Here is a time line, showing the start of the negative campaigning. Remember that Obama and Edwards were negative and when Clinton complained, they suggested she was not tough enough to be President and playing the gender card. It culminated at the Debate when Edwards and Obama were given Clinton on a sliver platter by Russert whose plan was to bring Clinton down. That was the beginning of the slide in her poll numbers.

[dailykoff]

28. "Mr. Obama replied, ‘No.’” That's it?

That's the best you can do? "No"?

[Evergreen Emerald]

29. No. The part where he called her a liar. That is the part to which I referred.

[dailykoff]

31. You didn't provide any support for that claim. (n/t)

[dailykoff]

30. Where does he call her a liar?

I don't see it.

[Evergreen Emerald]

32. I am sorry, I don't understand your question...

He had an interview with the NY Times. Now, I don't have that article. My guess is that you could find it. But in the article he says that she has been deliberately obscuring her positions for political gain and that she has not been truthful with voters about what she would really do.

I have provided you with proof that he said that: when he was again asked about his statement on MTP. Now, he did not deny that he said that. Indeed he responded, if you are willing to go to the website and read it.

Further, I can't believe you don't remember? It was only a few months ago.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432 /

MR. RUSSERT: You had an exchange with The New York Times. It says here, “In an interview, Obama said Hillary Clinton was deliberately obscuring her positions for political gain. Asked if she had been fully truthful with voters about what she should do as president, Mr. Obama replied, ‘No.’” On which issues has Hillary Clinton not been truthful?

I unfortunately do not have the NY times article, but certainly his words are there.

[IndianaJones]

33. lol. nt.

[musicblind]

34. simple

If you are asked if someone has been truthful and you say "no" then you have said that they are a liar. Plain and simple.