Would Clinton handicap Obama going into the General Election?

[Meldread]

Hillary is cranking up her attacks on Obama, some of them getting quite nasty. I don't think they will help her, but at the same time I look for her to fight as hard as she can right until the bitter end. I expect nothing less of her. (That's meant as a compliment.)

However, let us assume that Obama wins New Hampshire (which it looks like he will) and then goes on to win South Carolina (which most believe he will). Then Clinton begins to slip in the national polling, and it looks as if the party is starting to solidify around Obama. How hard is too hard to fight to hold onto a legacy?

I realize Clinton is angry because she felt it was her turn to be President. Likely, if I were Hillary, I'd feel the same way. Hillary likely sees the whole situation as unfair and most likely hates Obama's guts. The Clintons were the ones who ensured that he spoke at the Convention that introduced him to America. The Clintons set the Primary Season up so whoever won Iowa would storm to the finish. They never anticipated on Obama jumping in and likely feel betrayed by him and that he has "stolen" Hillary's shot.

How hard is Hillary and her campaign willing to fight? Her attacks are getting pretty heavy and personal at this point, and they are in no way even veiled anymore. Would she continue battering him until the convention, doing everything in her power until she's spent the last dollar of her campaign, to at the very least try and achieve some type of "revenge"? Could or would she damage us going into the general election? Is she willing to put anger aside for the good of the party?

[TwilightGardener]

1. She'll scorch him to the ground if she thought it would help her win. The

Clintons are for personal power, most of all.

[Colobo]

2. Good post, and Hillary is "in to win"

meaning she will do anything in her power to beat Obama... I'm afraid this will become a brutal battle of egos and aspirations...

[TwilightZone]

3. Funny how no one was really concerned about any of that when Hillary was ahead.

This is politics. Every presidential campaign is very similar to this one. In the end, the candidates usually kiss and make up and campaign for the nominee and for Democrats in other levels of government.

Hell, Bush I and Reagan acted like they detested each other in one campaign, and they ended up as running mates.

[Meldread]

6. Why? Because there were no elections held. They were just polls.

Obama has actually won an election by a large percentile margin. According to polls he may be about to do it again. Keep in mind that the Clinton's ensured that this primary season was set up to do exactly this - to pick a candidate quickly so that the party could rally around that candidate. They also thought that the candidate would be Hillary and that they could simply barrel through the competition. Obama (from their point of view at least) was not supposed to run this time, but Obama's own exploratory committee showed that he really had a serious shot. So he took the chance, even as it put him in conflict with the Clinton's.

I am not saying Hillary will deliberately go out of her way to handicap Obama. However, in her attempt to regain footing in the election the only way to do it is to tear down his momentum. That means going negative. Hard. That is the only way she has a shot, and even then in the end people might resent her for it. It's risky, but it's her only hope because of the way the primary season is lined up.

So in the process of trying to regain the lead is she willing to go far enough that it will handicap Obama if he wins the Primary?

[TwilightZone]

17. He won an election? When?

I must have missed that. All I saw was that he won one caucus in one state.

Let's try this again. What is currently happening is called politics. It happens every single election cycle. What our candidates are doing is certainly no worse than the Dean/Kerry/Edwards/Clark/etc. wars that occurred in '04. Not only did Edwards not "handicap" Kerry, he became his running mate.

[Meldread]

30. You don't seem to be getting what I am saying.

Let's say Obama is the obvious front runner. He's won Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. He's polling ahead double digits in almost every Super Tuesday state. Hillary refuses to drop out. Instead, she increases her negativity.

How bad would it hurt us as a party to have Hillary say stuff like: "I just don't know if we can accept someone who used drugs as our next President, what message does that send to America's children?" (Her husband's own indiscretions with pot aside.)

Imagine things like that day after day. Right up until the convention. Things much worse than that. Then Obama, after he wins, has to go on and face the Republican.

At a point like that in my opinion it no longer becomes campaigning, but it becomes a vindictive Scorched Earth strategy in an attempt to subvert our parties nominee. It has nothing to do with the fact that it is Obama. It could just as easily be Hillary, and Edwards doing the attacking.

"Do we really need someone in the White House who is so tied to corporate interest groups that they would pimp our nations children out like a cheap trick on the corner of Pennsylvania Avenue?"

[TwilightZone]

34. Honestly, I don't think it matters.

Studies have shown that most people don't pick a candidate until weeks or even days before the election. I think very little of what happens in the primaries is going to matter to Joe or Joan Average Voter.

I also don't think that your scenario is realistic. If Hillary loses big on Super Tuesday, it's over. There's no reason to believe that she's going to continue on after that simply for spite. Contrary to DU belief, she's a Democrat, and it's in her best interest to get a Democrat elected to the presidency and increase Democratic strength in Congress. It's a lot easier being influential in a Democratic administration than a Republican one.

Lastly, if you're worried about stuff like this from Hillary, you might want to hide out during the general election. Everything you mentioned is already a matter of public record, thanks in part to Obama himself, and the Republicans will use it regardless of how it is addressed during the primaries.

In an offhanded way, it may be better for him to be vetted now rather than later, because most people aren't even paying attention at the moment.

[Meldread]

36. I understand what you are saying.

I am just trying to put myself in Hillary's shoes. She's been preparing to run for President of the United States at least from the mid to early 90's - likely sooner - it's been a hope of hers for a long time. She's worked toward it, planning carefully for years and years. Finally, there is this opportunity. Everything seems perfect an almost guaranteed shot.

Then Obama appears. He begins to (in her mind) "steal" her chance - maybe her only chance - at being President. A decade or more of work going up in smoke because one man could not wait eight years for "his turn" behind her.

After campaigns candidates more often than not dislike each other greatly. It's not uncommon despite their public displays. I can only imagine how Hillary must be thinking and feeling, because despite all the public masks she's still a human being with feelings. She's watching a dream go up in flames and there does not seem like there is much she can do aside from going negative.

---

As an aside, it's no accident that Obama himself put out most of the real dirt. If it gets out early (such as in the Primary) it becomes less of an issue down the road. It's harder to use against you, and that's one of the reasons a lot of the things used against him bounce off. He's already admitted to it and moved on, which encourages everyone else to do the same. It is hard to create a real scandal when you've emptied your closet of skeletons.

I don't think Hillary would intentionally damage Obama, but I am concerned about what could happen if things get too ugly. What type of quotes might be dug up by Republican's against Obama in the general to say, "This is what your own party thinks of you! I didn't say it! She said it!"

I think we have a very good shot at winning the White House this time around. So I am hoping that we can enter into the general with tons of momentum and negativity sometimes counters that.

[TwilightZone]

37. She's known since his convention speech that he'd make a good candidate.

A lot of people around here seem to assume that she's always been running under the assumption that she was going to win, regardless of who else was running. I seriously doubt that's the case. She knows that Obama is a rising star, and she knew he'd be a serious challenge to her candidacy from very, very early on.

In addition, I think you're assigning more vindictiveness to her than is warranted. There would simply be no point in doing what you seem to think she's going to do.

[Pirate Smile]

4. John Kerry, not the Clintons, gave Obama the Convention speech slot.

I do agree though that they did maneuver the Primary schedule because they thought they would be in the driver's seat.

"Isn't it ironic, don't ya think" - that song just started playing in my head.

[Meldread]

7. I know, but I was under the impression that...

...it was the Clinton's that put his name up for suggestion. I remember when Obama was going to give his speech and that it was mentioned that he was suggested to Kerry by Bill Clinton as a good potential key note speaker.

Even back then there were people talking about a potential Presidential run by Obama, and I think the Party (that is to say Kerry, the Clintons and others) wanted to float him to a national audience to see how they responded to him. It was overwhelmingly positive as we remember well, and one thing led to another until we find ourselves here today.

[Pirate Smile]

9. I don't know. I never heard anything about the Clintons being connected to that.

:shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

5. One of her supporters here at DU said if she doesn't win she intends to f*ck up Barack.

That's some sportsmanship. Not.

[Joe the Revelator]

12. Who said that??

[AtomicKitten]

15. check your PM

[salin]

16. Haters - that is the type of motivations that Limbaugh ascribes to dems - esp

democrats.

I think that she will campaign hard and brutal - as long as there is a chance. But there is nothing to indicate that once that chance is over that she would work to handicap another candidate and thus the dems chance at winning the presidency. That would be suicidal for her own political career.

I am not in her camp - but try to speak out when I see things that are ridiculous - and clearly intended to spread vitriol to infect others and spur even more infighting between the camps here at du that at one point will have to come together behind one of the candidates (that is likely but not neccesarily one of these two candidates.

IMO, the content of the OP is bileous and baseless. Sounds to reminiscent of RW prop in how they describe "how the Clintons work". Worthy of Rush. Not worthy of DU.

and note: supporters here at DU do not represent the actual candidates.

[AtomicKitten]

19. I would tend to believe good intentions ....

except for the garbage emanating from her camp, i.e., Muslim heritage, cocaine, etc. That's bullshit, that's below the belt, and that is happening as we speak. I'm sorry but the evidence shows her campaign will stop at nothing and I do mean nothing to win.

[salin]

24. I have seen ugly from campaigns over the years...and in the end

when they come together behind a single candidate - they generally come behind that candidate without intents of killing that candidate (and party's) chance of winning the GE.

There was some really ugly play between the dem camps last time around - but in the end... they were united. One who was attacked - and attacked back - all of the camps playing ugly enough to revolt - came to head the national party, with the blessing of those with whom those attacks had been exchanged.

And if that emanated from a DU supporter? There are some here now - playing nice others still playing brutal - who were awful in 04 and said ridiculously harsh things about what there candidate/campaign could/would do in retaliation to others. Never happened. This is overly empassioned folks going over the bend. When one responds in kind (starting such a thread that is patently ridiculous or over the top) than one has succumbed to the sirens son of the other over the top outrageous antics to become (at least one-line) the mirror of what one abhors in the other.

Just the other day - I read a big supporter suggesting that Huckabee would be more qualified as president than one of the major candidates. When called on this rhetoric (that this would imply that the person was indeed supporting Huckabee were their candidate not in the race, and the one just maligned were to win the nomination - there was angry statements - but no validation that they would actually support said attacked candidate over Huckabee - that is how hot the contempt and over the top ridiculousness had roiled. I learned last go round (04) to NOT begin to think that the crazy rhetoric of the supporters here (esp the "warrior supporters") as being representative of the candidate that they supported was foolish. I also learned that if you identify the "warrior supporters" in your own camp, you can more quickly reaize when not to jump on the bandwagon of a far over the top theme/meme or rw article attacking the opponent (don't know ifthat shows up yet- but it will - the right plants crap that the anti's of one supporter will post and then others will post (regardless of the ridiculousness of the charges0 over and over again. Learn whose antics to take with a grain of salt and you will do better moving into the general, as you will not have discredited yourself (via your behavior towards others) such that it is hard to work together to elect the next president going into and through the GE.

[AtomicKitten]

28. here's where I'm coming from:

1) I wasn't here in 2004 so I don't have the perspective of knowing how it was here at DU then.

2) I am a victim of the Westley-Angelides nasty smack-down primary that delivered Schwarzenegger as governor of my state.

Perhaps I'm a bit queasy about the poo flying, but I think that's an instinct I'm not too sure I want to stray from.

I will continue to grind my teeth til we pick a nominee.

[salin]

38. it will be teeth grindingly stressful until the nominee is settled upon,

no question, particularly for all of you who are passionately behind a candidate.

While it is confusing to be unaligned at this point, it is a lot more stressfree.

Peace.

[TwilightZone]

18. If we believed everything that our candidates' supporters said on DU...

we could just as well disqualify them all immediately and stay home.

[AtomicKitten]

20. Agreed.

This place is brutal.

[TwilightZone]

22. That would be true.

I'm an undecided and I'm really not that emotionally invested in any of our candidates at the moment. It's kind of an interesting perspective, as it allows me to somewhat objectively see just how widespread that kind of garbage is, and it ain't pretty.

[AtomicKitten]

23. It indeed isn't pretty and I will grind my teeth til we choose the nominee.

May I interest you in Barack Obama who opposed the war from the start? The other two voted for it.
Just sayin' ;)

Best of luck in your deliberations!

[TwilightZone]

25. Hehe....

My primary isn't until March and by then it probably won't be all that influential, so my focus will probably be more on Congressional and local races. When the Democratic president takes office in January, he or she will definitely need a like-minded Congress if we're going to pursue a more progressive agenda.

In the end, that's the important thing, and I think any of our candidates would do that with the support of a strongly-Democratic Congress. A filibuster-proof Senate would be great....

[AtomicKitten]

27. "A filibuster-proof Senate would be great...."

The Republicans won't know what hit them! I can hear them sniveling already.

Cheers.

[Quixote1818]

8. Losing this time around will likely mean the end of any chance for Hillary to become president

Being so far ahead and now losing it at the last minute must be tough.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Hillary Will Be Of Zero Consequence If She Does Not Win The Nomination

She has *everything* going for her - her husband and their political machine and lots of cash - if she can't win, it's curtains for the Clintons.

On another note, even if she tries to handicap Obama it seems to only help him. Her husband was good on offense, but Hillary is awful, just awful, on offense. Most of her mistakes so far have been on offense.

[annie1]

11. In what way are her attacks getting personal? and what do you know about her anger?

you guys making this shit up are the ones who are brutal, not her.

[Joe the Revelator]

13. Pooor wittle Hiwerwe

:eyes:

[emilyg]

35. But it's OK for Obama to call her Bush.

[zulchzulu]

14. She threw Kerry under the bus for the so-called "botched joke"

I put nothing beneath the Clintons and their pals to fuck up Obama's run for the Presidency. Obama already knows that.

Look at what Carville did to Kerry on Election night when he whispered Kerry's Ohio plans to his skanky Repug wife.

Keep them away.

[Bullet1987]

21. How do you know the Clinton's set up the primary schedule?

From what I've read, the schedule was packed in 2004 too.

[zulchzulu]

32. Um...

Did I say that the Clintons set up the primary schedule? I don't think so...but the DLC must have something to do with it. It sure sucks how it is set up.

[Clanfear]

26. They are coming to the stark reality that she has lost.

She will probably bow out fairly soon. She does not want to stand in the way.

[BenDavid]

29. Lets not get the violins and the death march music out just yet

obama and edwards people. With all the positive reporting on obama I would say HRC has about held her own. Hell, even after one state why would HRC even have "quit" in her vocabulary. It's obama 16.....hrc 15......and edwards 14 in delegates. I'm going way out here but lets say obama does take nh and sc and hrc takes michigan, nevada and florida. If delegates are counted you have hrc with 353 and obama with 84.....Now the real deal will hit the fans on 2/5/08 and say HRC defeats obama bad in florida. Guess who then has the mo going into 2/5 uh huh HRC and out of all the states I would concede illinois to obama and hrc takes the rest. Now, if this happens I still say that by the 19 of feb the earliest and march 4 the latest hrc has a majority of the delegates and becomes......drum roll please......OUR NOMINEE....

Unless something changes I will still believe it and believe it till the last dog dies....

Ben David

[Meldread]

33. No one is campaigning in Florida. It has no delegates.

Additionally, the primaries are set up so that whoever wins the initial primaries has enough momentum to steam roll through the others. So it is unlikely that if Obama wins Iowa, NH and SC that anything is going to stop him outside a horrible gaffe (we are talking something along the lines of a Howard Howler) or relentless negative attacks.

[Kermit77]

31. Kerry had Obama speak, not the Clintons

It wasn't the Clintons who invited Obama to speak at the Democratic Convention in 2004. It wasn't their convention. John Kerry was the "decider" of who spoke at the convention and he invited Obama. He deserves the credit.

And if I remember correctly, there was great consternation around that time because the Kerrys DIDN'T want Hillary to speak at the convention but they got "strong-armed" into it.

[Perry Logan]

39. "Clinton is angry because she felt it was her turn to be President." How's that for bullshit?