A Method to Clinton's Negative Madness?

[sniffa]

David Corn, Jay Cost, and others have posted recent analyses questioning the ferocity of Hillary Clinton's negative campaigning against Barack Obama. They may all be right, with the caveat that there may be method to the Clinton madness. It's hard to believe that a campaign which seems to poll for everything (Barbara Streisand's endorsement?) and plots so strategically would suddenly just fly off the handle in panic or hatred because the polls, as expected, have tightened a bit.

So why go negative? There are two possible reasons. The first is that Clinton would much rather face John Edwards in the later primaries than Obama. It's true that in a three-way race, attacks usually hurt both the attacker and attackee, benefiting a third candidate. Yet that may be perfectly acceptable to the Clinton campaign on the theory that if Edwards does well in Iowa, he still ultimately doesn't have the resources or the support to run a true national campaign on February 5th.

The second possible reason is that Hillary is a woman. We're in untested waters here in presidential politics, but it may be that when a woman attacks a man, voters don't see it in quite the same way as when one man attacks another.

It's always been assumed that the biggest hurdle any woman would face in seeking the presidency would be to overcome the presumption that a woman can't be commander-in-chief because she isn't tough enough. Yes, these attacks are strong and could backfire, but no one is raising the lack of toughness charge against Hillary. In fact, they're saying much the opposite. The Clinton people may have decided that becoming a bit "Thatcheresque" at this point in the campaign isn't such a bad thing in the long run.

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/12/a_method_to_clintons_negative.html

if she really wants to woo voters, she could also show up in an apron carrying a tray of cookies. that'll make it even more harder for nasty attacks from penis holders to not backfire.. or something.

[Buzz Clik]

1. She needs to back off. She's doing lots of damage.

[Pirate Smile]

2. Who do you think she is damaging - herself or Obama?

[Buzz Clik]

6. I think she's damaging the entire cause.

Her harsh approach with multiple misfires (the kindergarten thing, for example) does not help her.

Her direct attacks and veiled threats ("we have some REALLY bad stuff that we're not turning loose") on Obama and others are simply repulsive and damage her targets.

I find it amazing that her camp is under the impression that they can say whatever they please against fellow Dems because we'll forgive her after the convention. Although I'd rather vote for Hillary than any of the GOP candidates, I'd like to be able to support her with enthusiasm if she wins the nomination. At this rate, I'm inclined to simply hold my nose and cast the ballot.

[MADem]

3. Penis Holders?????

Well, really now...that could be ANYONE, I suppose....

:rofl:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Where Did That Come From?

DSB

[MADem]

12. The last sentence of the OP. Plain as day. NT

[BeyondGeography]

5. Obama's not playing

The thinking on his side is that Clinton is trying to lure them into a murder-suicide game a la Dean-Gephardt. She doesn't care as much about losing a close race on Iowa as she does preventing Obama from winning. The OP's point about Clinton preferring to face (a financially weak) Edwards is true.

Obama's campaign is being run by David Axelrod, who won't sanction a mud wrestling event in Iowa; from this morning's Sun-Times:

==The criticisms by presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton of her main rival Barack Obama -- including suggestions he has been disingenuous about his White House ambitions -- won't sit well with Iowans who temperamentally don't like "negative or gratuitous attacks," says Obama's media strategist, David Axelrod.

Clinton's e-mails say the presidency was a long-term ambition of Obama's, right from kindergarten, not something he just recently considered.

The Clinton campaign culled an AP story revealing that in kindergarten, Obama wrote an essay titled "I Want to Become President." It also quoted his third-grade teacher and his law school colleagues saying the same thing.

Axelrod shrugged it off as silliness. "We have a lot of faith in the common sense of Iowa voters," he said Tuesday...==

http://www.suntimes.com/news/hunter/681624,CST-NWS-obama05.article

[madrchsod]

7. going negative is a valid strategy

but the problem is one has to back it up with their positives which her guru has failed at. the real pitfall is continuing the negatives when it`s clear the other party is not going to respond or responds like obama has.

it`s a battle between axlerod and penn and so far the guy from chicago is winning. one should ask oneself why did gore fire penn?. firing penn did`t hurt gore because he won the presidency.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. I Predict She Will Stop

She can afford losses in IA, NH, and even SC... She can't afford to drive up her own negatives... I would tell her to "compare and contrast" but lay off the ad hominem stuff...

[msongs]

9. love that rumour and innuendo, maybe Oprah INCORPORATED should do a show about it nt

[geek tragedy]

10. She's always been a mean-spirited, vindictive person, so this makes sense. n/t

[BenDavid]

11. Could it be these polls have more republicans and right leaning

independents who would not vote for HRC no matter what. Gallup had a poll in October that showed HRC with 51% favorable and 39% un-favorable. That is about right in my estimation.

Just remember when you look at polls look at the breakdown of who voted. the number of dems, repubs, and independents. It will make sense once you see how many of these are top heavy leaning right...

Ben David